Was Nixon a Socialist?

[Kevin]

No other sitting President, not even Bush 2, has had to endure so much outright hostility, disrespect, and thinly-veiled hatred.

Well, I would counter that I can't recall a sitting President using some of the language as I have heard from Obama.

--- "I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to argue with them and get in their face."--- "Punish your enemies".--- "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."----

I think the office of the Presidency deserves respect wether or not you dislike the politics of the person behind the office. I also would be like to believe that a President wouldn't use this sort of language directed at myself and other private citizens just because we have different political positions. To say that my neighbor should come over and get in my face isn't really that respectful, is it? Am I really an enemy because I believe that people should enter into the United States in a legal manner as opposed to sneaking across the border? I have plenty of Latino friends as well as clients, none of them have ever refered to me as being their enemy. I have guns, I can assure you that I don't "cling" to them because I'm bitter or frustrated. I'm not really religious, but my friends that are have never shown any signs of being so due to frustrations that I can detect.

So I respect the President, but what respect does he have for me?? He sure doesn't show it. I want to feel warm and fuzzy. Where's my Oprah moment?

 

[repman]

So I respect the President, but what respect does he have for me?? He sure doesn't show it. I want to feel warm and fuzzy. Where's my Oprah moment?

He just said in his what would you do different question in a recent interview,

"When I think about what we've done well and what we haven't done well," the president told CBS television in an interview, "the mistake of my first term - couple of years - was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right."

"And that's important. But the nature of this office is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times," Obama said in an excerpt of the exchange with Charlie Rose.

I can think of a few other things he could have done better!!!

 

[Rich]

For starters I'll list three names...................

Eric Holder.....Justice Kagan ........Justice Sotomayor

Alright, Dave. I'll give you the Supreme Court Justice thing, since obviously that can have an impact on how the laws are interpreted. But Holder? As far as I can tell, he is pro-gun. Heck, he is practically arming Mexico all by himself! (a little humor to lighten things up)

You have to admit, though, after the NRA's trashing of Obama, that the fact that he has expanded rights to carry beyond what the Bush administration did is pretty funny.

 

[Rich]

Well, I would counter that I can't recall a sitting President using some of the language as I have heard from Obama.

Nice duck and weave, Kevin. We were discussing whether some or most of the vitriol directed against this President is racially motivated, I provide some concrete examples of why I think that is the case, and you ignore all of it and move on to . . . "Well, he hasn't been very nice to me either."

Please, in the future, try to provide an accurate source when you are quoting someone, so that people can read it in its entirety and understand the context. You know, instead of putting a bunch of different quotes from different speeches together and providing no other context.

The first quote you gave was of Obama trying to pump up his base at a rally, and asking them to vociferously defend his positions. What he said was:

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

"And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case." Source

The last quote you gave had a lot more context too:

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing. Source

Wow, that doesn't sound near so disrespectful when you read it in context. More importantly, both of these quotes were made at campaign rallies before Obama became President. So your statement that: "I can't recall a sitting President using some of the language as I have heard from Obama" is patently false.

Regarding the other quote, he was saying "punish your enemies" by voting against them:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.” Source

While enemies is a harsh word, it still doesn't sound near so disrespectful when you understand he was just telling them to vote against those who haven't represented their best interests.

CONTEXT, what a wonderful thing.

 

[Rich]

I can think of a few other things he could have done better!!!

I can think of a few things the republican-controlled House of Representatives could have done better. Let's see now, they have wasted time holding thirty-three separate votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, none of which had a chance of clearing the Senate, but the President's Jobs bill (you know, jobs, that part of the economy they are blaming him for not doing anything about) sits languishing in a dozen different committees without a vote. What have the house republicans done for our economy in the last few years? Well, they did threaten to default on our debt, almost sending us back into recession.

 

[Kevin]

No other sitting President, not even Bush 2, has had to endure so much outright hostility, disrespect, and thinly-veiled hatred. So, as I said, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I don't think I duck and weaved. I was basically replying back towards your above quoted comment. I think the President has used some words of hostility, disrespect, and perhaps thinly-veiled hatred. You say you provided context. I don't think so. Usually when someone says you need to provide context, it is usually because provided with the rest of the quote, the words or statement mean something totally different. In this case, I don't see where the statements he made before or after changed the meaning of the parts I clipped. They just weren't as bad. In my opinion, I don't see where you provided as much context for his, as you said, harsh word(s), as much as you just provided excuses for those words or statements.

Sorry, but I didn't mean to make any "patently false" statements. Yes, you're correct, Obama was a nominee when he made those very disrespectful comments. Didn't he also say something about bringing guns to a knife fight while campaigning? I think he also mentioned wanting to kick some ass during the BP oil spill. This guy is really violent, must have spent way too much time in Chicago.

George Bush was very audibly booed and hissed by some democrats at one of his addresses to the nation. He was cartooned as a monkey and was pictured with a Hitler like mustache and swastikas. Harry Reid called him a loser and a liar. I could go on and on, but what would be the point? If Bush had been black, would all of this had been a sign of blatant racism? Obviously, somethings that have been said and done are racist. I'll tell you that I most adamantly condemn those acts. But shouting "you lie" or wagging a finger are just stupid things to do, not signs of racism.

If you think the vitriol has ratcheted up with Obama, I'll give you that. How much do want to bet that should Romney become President we'll be hearing that much more? What I don't think, is that you will hear as much bellyaching about it.

Always fun to have discussions with you Rich, if you heard me say this stuff instead of reading it on the computer, you would tell that I'm light hearted about this stuff and have fun with it, while also trying to make some points here and there. Hope you have a good weekend.

 

[Rich]

If you think the vitriol has ratcheted up with Obama, I'll give you that. How much do want to bet that should Romney become President we'll be hearing that much more?

Actually, I think the vitriol would be much lower with Romney than it was with Bush. After all, Romney is a moderate. Heck, he is practically a closet-liberal.

Always fun to have discussions with you Rich, if you heard me say this stuff instead of reading it on the computer, you would tell that I'm light hearted about this stuff and have fun with it, while also trying to make some points here and there. Hope you have a good weekend.

Thanks, Kevin. I appreciate your willingness to engage in the debate. Ultimately, politics isn't about right vs. wrong. It is all just different points of view due to varying backgrounds and perspectives. The more we understand each others' perspectives, the better. Enjoy the weekend.

 

[jmschnur]

Country turned around.

1. Last quarter 2008 GDP negative - 6.8 % , job loss ~ 524000 per month. , now GDP + ~ 1.7 % , job gain at least 80,000 per month or more.

That's a turn around.

Lots of reasons to not like Obama ( health care based on Romney's Mass plan,, gay rights, pro choice etc) but lack of an economic turnaround is not one of them.

Good to check facts .


J

 

[Rich]

Congratulations, Cocobob. That is the most ignorant, ill-informed, fact-less, and false diatribe I have ever read. I particularly like this part:

But most blacks' hispanics' ect are so uneducated they just hear a black man saying the rich are evil and they just go along.
That is why they will always be poor and Dumb.

Thank you for making my "racist" argument for me. Nice to know where you stand on these important issues. 'nuff said.

If you are going to respond in this thread, please try to state facts (supported with a source if possible) and conclusions drawn from reasonable analysis, rather than just spouting a bunch of hateful demagoguery. We are trying to have an intelligent debate here, not hurl a bunch of inflammatory rhetoric back and forth. If you can't engage thoughtfully, then don't engage at all. Thank you.

If you think Obama is a socialist, or the worst president ever, then state actual facts to support that conclusion. What, exactly, in your opinion has he done, or failed to do, that would warrant that harsh assessment?

As for rebutting some of the specifics of what you said:

He should be charge with Treason for what he has done.

And exactly what, pray tell, has he done that he should be charged with treason?

If he does not fix things throw him out.

Surely you realize that the president cannot just "fix things" all by himself. Congress is, after all, in charge of legislation. What concrete steps would you suggest he take in order to "fix" things. Need I remind you that it isn't just the U.S. that is in bad economic straights right now. We are in the middle of a global recession. How can this President just "fix" that all by himself? Perhaps if we had not spent trillions of dollars on two unnecessary wars, we would be in a better position to weather this storm. But I guess all that is just water under the bridge for you.

He's had 4 years of blaming everyone and everything for his lack of turning the country around,Same old spill' Tax the rich Tax the rich.Class warfare.

Since you provided no source for your IRS stats, I'm not even going to address that. I will simply say that we have had some of the greatest economic growth in this country during the Clinton years when taxes on the rich were much higher. Since the Bush tax cuts for the rich, we have had anemic economic growth and two recessions, the second of which was closer to a depression. So the idea that Bush sold those tax cuts on, that they would provide economic growth, was obviously false. The "job creators" are storing their money in swiss bank accounts, not investing it in America. There is strong bipartisan support for, and many if not most economists agree that raising taxes is a necessary part of fixing our budget issues. But you are going to oppose it because you think the rich pay enough already.

This president'I hate even using the word 'deseves no respect'

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that the office of the President deserves no inherent respect at all, whenever it is occupied by a person of a political persuasion or, perhaps, a race or religion, that you disagree with? That is a dangerous road to go down.

This president' And I used that word loosely.Is the worst fool ever elected.He makes Carter look like a genius.

Do you think maybe your views on this president are just a little slanted by your own admitted racial biases, considering that you consider most blacks and hispanics to be poor and dumb? I guess his Harvard education doesn't account for much, since he is black and all.

Finally, the original post in this thread was started in reaction to another thoughtless diatribe you posted in a different thread. Please read the first post in this thread and respond to it, if you can do so in a thoughtful and rational manner, without just spouting a bunch of hateful rhetoric.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Coco,

Please provide evidence to support your following statements.

They just let him slide though. I assume you meant to use the word "through".

The guy is dumb as they come. What standards do you use to determine if someone is dumb.

And he might be your president but he is not mine. I assume you are an American citizen. If that's the case, he is your president.

GG

PS: You want to tell us what you really think?

 

[twich54]

'coco', I've deleted your two previous posts in hopes we can get this discussion (socialist comparo Nixon vs Obama) back on track. I know full well it's easy for all of us to get emotional but remember this.......on the MLO forum we do allow these discussion so long as they can remain 'somewhat' civil !

Rich started this thread with good intent and as any good lawyer would do he presented his 'evidence' ! if you agree with him or not that's fine but Rich does compell one to think and ask's only that our replys are 'backed up' up with facts and not JUST emotion.

Ok boys and girls......the sand box is re-opened !

 

[Len44]

I find it interesting that while the citizens of Massachusettes did and still do support their state law, they actually voted Scott Brown into office who was running as the one person who could stop the national health law from passing.

I would not be so quick to select opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act as the reason for Brown's election. He can thank the Supremes and their ridiculous, precedent-shattering, "Corporation are People" (Citizen's United) decision.

If in doubt, you might want to google: "Scott Brown campaign money in 2010"

It was the unprecedented, 11th hour infusion of $$$$$$$$ funding super-negative ads that put him over the top. Oh, and the Democrat candidate was just a tad over-confident...

 

[Rich]

Ok boys and girls......the sand box is re-opened !

Thanks for getting us back on track, Dave.

I would not be so quick to select opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act as the reason for Brown's election.

I was kind of thinking the same thing, Len. But I wasn't familiar enough with that race to really comment. What will really be interesting is to see whether Brown can survive the election against Elizabeth Warren. I guess if Scott was running as the one person who could stop the national health law from passing, it will be pretty clear to voters that he failed at his primary campaign promise.

 

[Rich]

Is Romney a Closet Socialist?

Now that we are back on track to the original topic (which in my mind is about the labels being thrown about in this election and what they really mean and how they apply in the real world), I have another brain teaser for you: Is Romney a closet Socialist?

I read an interesting article today that got me thinking (I know, a dangerous thing). Here is the link: How the Mormons Make Money

Now, let me start by saying that I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article or the tone or tenor of it, which seems critical of mormonism. But it does provide some interesting insight into the Mormon Church. Apparently, to be a member of the Mormon church you are required to tithe 10% of your income to the church every year. This is not optional. It is required. The church takes this money, and some of it they invest in businesses, which make a profit. The church then takes those profits (which they actually pay taxes on, because these are for-profit businesses) along with the money from tithes, and uses the money for the needs of the community and its members, including giving quite a bit of financial assistance to those members of the church less fortunate. This may include money for food, rent, clothing, and so on. As the church puts it:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attends to the total needs of its members. We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually."

Ok, so think about that for a moment. If you take the religious aspect out of it and just look at the system on its face. The church is a community of people. The community lays a mandatory income tax on all its members. The church uses that money for the good of the community and in furtherance of the community's goals. It also specifically uses that money to provide assistance to the less fortunate members of the community to help them thrive in the world. So basically it is a scheme of redistribution of wealth. They take a certain percentage of income from everybody, so the rich end up paying a lot more into the coffers than the poor. And then that money is redistributed toward overall community goals, as well as helping the poor advance their station.

If that is not the epitome of a socialist economic/governmental system, I don't know what is! Mitt Romney was a bishop in this church. He has been in this church his whole life. He was raised in it. He is a devout believer.

It is my belief that most people in public office tend to govern according to their ingrained moral beliefs and lessons they learned throughout life. Romney has been a member of a very socialist institution his whole life. Is it a stretch to suggest that Romney may very well have a more socialist tendency toward governing than he is letting on to his republican constituency? Is this why he was on board with the Health Care Plan in Massachusetts that Obama's plan was modeled after? Could Romney in fact be a closet socialist?

Chew on that for awhile and let me know what you think. But before you criticize me for this comment, please understand that I am not criticizing this system (I actually think it is pretty neat that they do this) or the Mormon Church, and I am not criticizing Romney for his religion (I really don't care that much about his religious beliefs as long as he doesn't make them his political platform). I am simply trying to look into the labels and draw some parallels between different systems. I do find it interesting that conservatives are using "Obama is a Socialist!" as a rallying cry, while ignoring the fact that their own candidate comes from a community with a very strong socialist system in place. Kind of ironic, no? What do you guys think?

 

[Len44]

I think you're a genius, Rich. That is certainly an interesting twist on things. And you're spot-on regarding the irony.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi Rich,

Good insight.

However, there are many people (including politicians) that for better or worse, leave their religious morals / beliefs "at the door" when it comes to interacting with the "real world".

Ironic indeed but not surprising in my view.

Gordon

 

[twich54]

did you ever consider Nixon to be a Socialist?

couldn't be.........for he was a 'sock it to me' baby on Rowen and Martin's 'Laugh In' !

Rich, I actualy saw one of the old reruns the other night on PBS with Tricky Dick in the sock it to me skit....made me think of this thread

 

[Rich]

couldn't be.........for he was a 'sock it to me' baby on Rowen and Martin's 'Laugh In' !

Rich, I actualy saw one of the old reruns the other night on PBS with Tricky Dick in the sock it to me skit....made me think of this thread

Dave, you know you can't post a comment like that without providing a link to your source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFEhmF-cSi8

 

[Kevin]

I would not be so quick to select opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act as the reason for Brown's election. He can thank the Supremes and their ridiculous, precedent-shattering, "Corporation are People" (Citizen's United) decision.

If in doubt, you might want to google: "Scott Brown campaign money in 2010"

It was the unprecedented, 11th hour infusion of $$$$$$$$ funding super-negative ads that put him over the top. Oh, and the Democrat candidate was just a tad over-confident...

Len, I'm for certain that I remember correctly that the exit polling at the time showed that health care was the largest single issue in wether someone did or did not vote for Scott Brown. Almost his entire campaign was premised around the fact that he would be the deciding vote, and that he would vote to stop it. Certainly other factors might have been at play for a few votes, but I think he actually ended up winning by a fairly comfortable margin, particularily running as a republican in a very liberal state. If you think that increased spending is what got Scott Brown elected, then would that be the reason why Obama beat McCain? I think he outspent him by over 2-1, but I think McCain could have outspent Obama 5-1 and he would have still lost.

 

[Kevin]

Rich- I think I there are a couple of differences between what the Mormon church does in its 'socialistic strategy', for lack of a better term, and a socialistic type of government such as Cuba. For one, a person gets to chose wether or not to become a member of the Mormon church. One only escapes Cuba by dinghy.

Secondly, while they may not go about it in the same manner as the Mormon church, many other churches and other organizations collect dues and volunteer time and give funding to those in need. In that sense, I can say that I run my family in a somewhat 'socialist' manner. My wife and myself work, we pay for what we need and some of what we want, and we volunteer some of our spare time and funds to the local schools and charities.

It sounds as though you're trying to equate private charity with government welfare. If what the Mormon church does is seen as good, then why isn't government welfare seen in the same light? I don't have time to look up the statistics, but I would imagine that for every dollar the church or other private organizations takes in for charity, more of that original dollar actually gets into the hands of those in need. Also, and I'm not sure if this occurs or not, but I would also think that in the case of private charity, organizations may do a better job at watching how that money is actually spent. Does it actually go towards feeding the kids as intended or does it go towards someones next fix or into a slot machine?

What I have against government welfare isn't the principle of the government providing assistance to those in need. It has more to do with wether or not that aid has lifted more people out of poverty than it has managed to create people who are locked into financial dependence for government aid. When kids see the parents not attempting to work, but rather, waiting for the monthly check to come in, what does this do to the thinking of successive generations? I personally have a distant relative that won't marry her long time partner, because if she does, she won't get the funding that she currently receives as a single mother. Is it good that government, even if unitionally, sets forth policies that encourages people to do the wrong things?

I'm not against government helping those in need of a helping hand, but I have personally seen way too much abuse of the system and it's only getting worse with time, and that is what really concerns me. I worked today, but some of my clients with 'disabilities' were probably in the river fishing, as least they will sometimes tell me they do. I wish I were there to join them, but someone has to work, right?