Gates and Obama have connection

[CountVolcula]

From the Question and Answer section of the Democratic Socialist of America website:

"Q: Aren't you a party that's in competition with the
Democratic Party for votes and support?
No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious,
and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with
those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all
elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state
to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have
doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative
national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at
winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I was mocking you and your racist brethren.

Brethren? Wright, Obama and Gates? Sotomayor doesn't qualify, being a chick and all, but I assume you're including her too in your collective brethren.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

I found it interesting that our President and Gates have a connection. Gates' attorney, Charles Olgetree, was Obamas mentor at Harvard Law School. What I find more interesting is that Gates is an admitted Socialist and Olgetree has ties to the Black Panther Party and to Angela Davis, ex- BPP member and political candidate for the Communist Party USA. They are also members of the Democratic Black Caucuses along with Obama. Its no wonder that Obama jumped to the rescue of his Socialist friend.

First, I am on record on this board as having said that Obama was in the wrong for having said what he said during his press conference. Second, I am on record as saying that Gates was in the wrong for failing to separate out his antagonism towards the initial report thatm in his view, he was breaking into his own house versus the fact that he went nuts and failed to cooperate with a perfectly legitimate investigation by the officer.

Obama was wrong, Gates was wrong.

But, the observation above -- that Obama knows Ogletree and Gates is a black activist and that therefore Obama is "jumping to the defense" of his fellow socialist, adds absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation. That's why I'm giving him crap about it -- because its an irrelevant claim about "facts" that don't have anything to do with the matter at hand.

 

[CountVolcula]

First, I am on record on this board as having said that Obama was in the wrong for having said what he said during his press conference. Second, I am on record as saying that Gates was in the wrong for failing to separate out his antagonism towards the initial report thatm in his view, he was breaking into his own house versus the fact that he went nuts and failed to cooperate with a perfectly legitimate investigation by the officer.

Obama was wrong, Gates was wrong.

But, the observation above -- that Obama knows Ogletree and Gates is a black activist and that therefore Obama is "jumping to the defense" of his fellow socialist, adds absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation. That's why I'm giving him crap about it -- because its an irrelevant claim about "facts" that don't have anything to do with the matter at hand.

What other reason, LG, would the POTUS make an assumption of the situation, without knowing all the facts, that the officer acted "stupidly" and that it appeared to be a case of "racial profiling"? He made that assumption blindly defending a "friend", who just so happens to be a Socialist and associates with other Socialists, Communists, and other left-wing radical groups. Remember: "Birds of a feather flock together"

Lets be hypothetical for a moment:

Lets say that there is a Senator, a white man, that has a shady past. His closest friends or associates are members or former members of the KKK, skinheads, Aryan Nation, or any other white extremist group. Would 94% of White Americans vote for him or would they see him for what he is, a bigoted white man who doesnt deserve to be the POTUS? Or would they blindly vote for him, without knowing who he is, or what he stands for, just because they would make history, or the color of his skin? Sound fimiliar!!

 

[droski]

But, the observation above -- that Obama knows Ogletree and Gates is a black activist and that therefore Obama is "jumping to the defense" of his fellow socialist, adds absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation.

but is it inaccurate?

 

[lawgator1]

What other reason, LG, would the POTUS make an assumption of the situation, without knowing all the facts, that the officer acted "stupidly" and that it appeared to be a case of "racial profiling"? He made that assumption blindly defending a "friend", who just so happens to be a Socialists and associates with other Socialists, Communists, and other left-wing radical groups. Remember: "Birds of a feather flock together"

Lets be hypothetical for a moment:

Lets say hat there is a Senator, a white man, that has a shady past. His closest friends or associates are members or former members of the KKK, skinheads, Aryan Nation, or any other white extremist group. Would 94% of White Americans vote for him or would they see him for what he is, a bigoted white man who doesnt deserve to be the POTUS? Or would they blindly vote for him, without knowing who he is, or what he stands for, just because they would make history, or the color of his skin? Sound fimiliar!!

First, Obama did not say it was racial profiling, he said the police acted "stupidly." This was based on the fact that in his view the point at which Gates was arrested was after it had been established that he was the homeowner. The "stupidly" part should have been phrased as "unnecessarily," and it would have made a whole lot more sense. It would still be wrong, in my view because Gates was noncooperative during the investigation and hindered it, but it would at least be more logical.

Second, your part about "birds of a feather" is exactly what I'm talking about. You are distracting attention from the really good argument (that Obama did not know the facts and should not have weighed in on the case) by pointing to this loosely defined all black people or Socialists or liberals or what have you, stick together. Its a weak argument because you have to ascribe a motive to Obama that is just based on the relentless "He's a socialist!" mantra that is so overclaimed and exaggerated it makes me want to vomit.

As I say, stick to the argument that Obama did not know the facts and should have kept his trap shut and I'm on board. But try to spin it as "He's just helping out his lunatic fringe socialist black panther black militant buddies" and I think you lose a lot of people to your point.

Your example of the white Senator proves my point. You are trying to make this into "all black people stick together," which is playing on racial tensions. I do not deny that the tensions are there, but exploiting them as you (and Fox and the radio talk show people are) is basically waiving a red flag around in front of the bull that is lingering racism in white America.

Stop it. Say that Obama didn't know what he was talking about and was foolish and unpresidential for experessing opinion and you are 100 % right and very few would disagree. But once you just go off the ledge and make it about how he sided with Gates just because he's black you are relgated to speculation and conjecture that plays on racial attitudes.

And you know you are doing it and you should stop.

but is it inaccurate?

It is irrelevant.

 

[CountVolcula]

I found it interesting that our President and Gates have a connection. Gates' attorney, Charles Olgetree, was Obamas mentor at Harvard Law School. What I find more interesting is that Gates is an admitted Socialist and Olgetree has ties to the Black Panther Party and to Angela Davis, ex- BPP member and political candidate for the Communist Party USA. They are also members of the Democratic Black Caucuses along with Obama. Its no wonder that Obama jumped to the rescue of his Socialist friend.

Where in this post did I mention the color of Obama, Gates, or Olgetree? You are making an assumption, since they are members of the DBC and BPP, that they are balck and thats what I intended. You are WRONG. I am saying that he is friends with them because they have the same political ideals, which happen to be Socialism and Communism. Not that their Black. That is exactly the same tactics used by the Left. Its not that Im questioning his moral and ethical character, its cause I'm judging him based on the color of his skin. Nice try!!

 

[allvol123]

As I say, stick to the argument that Obama did not know the facts and should have kept his trap shut and I'm on board. But try to spin it as "He's just helping out his lunatic fringe socialist black panther black militant buddies" and I think you lose a lot of people to your point.
.

No one really cares if you are "on board." In fact, if you are on board then it is probably time to jump ship. The controlled, insightful, thoughtful Obama did not keep his trap shut and jumped to conclusions on a matter that he did not have the facts because he could not help it. Constantly using race to make excuses or viewing life through a racial lens runs all the way through him. It is what he is, he honestly could not help his verbal gaffe.

 

[droski]

First, Obama did not say it was racial profiling, he said the police acted "stupidly." This was based on the fact that in his view the point at which Gates was arrested was after it had been established that he was the homeowner. The "stupidly" part should have been phrased as "unnecessarily," and it would have made a whole lot more sense. It would still be wrong, in my view because Gates was noncooperative during the investigation and hindered it, but it would at least be more logical.

Second, your part about "birds of a feather" is exactly what I'm talking about. You are distracting attention from the really good argument (that Obama did not know the facts and should not have weighed in on the case) by pointing to this loosely defined all black people or Socialists or liberals or what have you, stick together. Its a weak argument because you have to ascribe a motive to Obama that is just based on the relentless "He's a socialist!" mantra that is so overclaimed and exaggerated it makes me want to vomit.

As I say, stick to the argument that Obama did not know the facts and should have kept his trap shut and I'm on board. But try to spin it as "He's just helping out his lunatic fringe socialist black panther black militant buddies" and I think you lose a lot of people to your point.

Your example of the white Senator proves my point. You are trying to make this into "all black people stick together," which is playing on racial tensions. I do not deny that the tensions are there, but exploiting them as you (and Fox and the radio talk show people are) is basically waiving a red flag around in front of the bull that is lingering racism in white America.

Stop it. Say that Obama didn't know what he was talking about and was foolish and unpresidential for experessing opinion and you are 100 % right and very few would disagree. But once you just go off the ledge and make it about how he sided with Gates just because he's black you are relgated to speculation and conjecture that plays on racial attitudes.

And you know you are doing it and you should stop.






It is irrelevant.

please explain how obama has not acted like a socialist. please give specific examples.

 

[lawgator1]

Where in this post did I mention the color of Obama, Gates, or Olgetree?

You really can't read, can you?

 

[CountVolcula]

You really can't read, can you?

Can you answer my question?

 

[lawgator1]

Can you answer my question?

Black Panthers, black caucus. Don't pretend that you are not tweaking this issue based on race of the parties involved. You aren't fooling anybody.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Black Panthers, black caucus. Don't pretend that you are not tweaking this issue based on race of the parties involved. You aren't fooling anybody.

Interesting, as that's exactly what Obama is doing in this case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CountVolcula]

Black Panthers, black caucus. Don't pretend that you are not tweaking this issue based on race of the parties involved. You aren't fooling anybody.

So you're saying that these organizations, in and of themselves, would not be all-inclusive, and not have white members!!!

 

[KB5252]

Black Panthers, black caucus. Don't pretend that you are not tweaking this issue based on race of the parties involved. You aren't fooling anybody.

I know I have missed much of the discussion here but isn't this entire issue based on race? It appears Gates turned this into a racial issue, the officer may not have needed to arrest him but I would be willing to bet that he would have arrested a white or Hispanic person if they reacted in a similar way.

On a side note I have been very impressed with this officer through this entire process, even we he has been given the opportunities to criticize Gates and Obama he has taken the high road and remained professional when his character has been called into question.

 

[droski]

please explain how obama has not acted like a socialist. please give specific examples.

I guess LG couldn't think of an example. . .

 

[BigPapaVol]

I guess LG couldn't think of an example. . .

Nor can anyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[CountVolcula]

I guess LG couldn't think of an example. . .

He can...its just hard for someone to admit they voted for a Socialist. Isnt that right, Comrade LG?

 

[lawgator1]

please explain how obama has not acted like a socialist. please give specific examples.

I guess LG couldn't think of an example. . .

Nor can anyone else.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

He can...is just hard for someone to admit they voted for a Socialist. Isnt that right, Comrade LG?

The reason I did not answer is that the premise of the question is absurd, the premise being that one can point to an example of anything the U.S. government does (be it Obama or Reagan) as socialist or not socialist.

Your definition of "socialist" is doubltess much too broad. You would define anything that directly or indirectly collects and re-distributes money as "socialist." But, what you do not realize is that every single government expenditure would satisfy that criteria, including such things as spending on the military. At the first moment the U.S. government collected a tax dollar and spent it on something for the public good it was "socialist."

Its all just a matter of degree and whose ox is gored. People like Glen Beck shreik "socialist" without understanding what they are saying. And since you do not like the level of collecting of taxes, from whom they are being collected, and where it is going, you join Glenn Beck and just call it "socialist."

Would government promotion of any program that spurs private industry or growth of the private sector be an example for you? I am sure I could comb the federal regs and find examples of policies that have that effect. But that would not satisfy you because you would retort that such programs are government interference in the private marketplace and/or that they are designed merely to increase the tax base.

By definition, every action by our government that has any effect on the economy could meet someone's technical definiton of socialist, either directly because it involves revenue and spending, or indirectly because it spurs or impedes growth.

Whenever the government is run by a conservative like Reagan, who gives tax custs to the wealthy, it is still technically socialist under the current popular definiton because it takes more money from the middle and lower classes to pay the bills, whereas it takes less from the top. And vice versa when a liberal is in office and cuts or spends in the middle and bottom, while taxing the top.

In other words, I reject the premise of your question because what I perceive to be your definiton of "socialist" is self-serving and circular.

 

[BigPapaVol]

BS and weak. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is exactly what we're talking about. Essential and traditional government provisions are not part of the debate. Free healthcare, extended unemployment and gov't jobs in the name of spending is we're talking about and you know it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[droski]

Would government promotion of any program that spurs private industry or growth of the private sector be an example for you?

name a said program that obama has proposed? cap and trade?

hey i'll make it easy for you. name a single thing he has done that could even remotely be considered free market or pro business. surely if he isn't a socialist you could come up with SOMETHNG.

 

[lawgator1]

BS and weak. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is exactly what we're talking about. Essential and traditional government provisions are not part of the debate. Free healthcare, extended unemployment and gov't jobs in the name of spending is we're talking about and you know it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

name a said program that obama has proposed? cap and trade?

hey i'll make it easy for you. name a single thing he has done that could even remotely be considered free market or pro business. surely if he isn't a socialist you could come up with SOMETHNG.

Thankyou both for proving both the lack of sophistication in your own positions and the correctness of mine.

BPV, the issue is who is Peter and who is Paul? If Reagan is in charge, Peter is the lower and middle classes, and Paul are the top earners and wealthiest. The opposite if Obama is in charge.

By definition, both take (relaitve to each other's systems) more from one for the benefit of the other. You call Obama "socialist" because it is a convenient moniker and one that is gaining traction amongst those without either the time or the intellectual horsepower to see the true relationship between the two approaches we are talking about here.

Systemically -- whcih is what socialism is, a system -- there is no difference. Its just who's on the short end of the taxation and distribution map.

Droski, I'd point to every bit of spending on road or other infrastructure projects, being done with government incentives in the stimulus package.

There was a story in the local paper a few months back regarding employment and how one of the projects was to subsidize local governments in the purchase of those little kiosks you see for bus stops, the shelters with the benches. A local company makes those, and as a result of the spending bill they expected to see a big increase in orders and therefore the need to hire a few dozen people.

Technically speaking, the increased taxation of the wealthiest to provide those incentives is socialist because it is based on taking money from one sector and providing it, albeit indirectly, to another sector.

But, it has the effect of enriching the owners and investors in that company. And of course in resulting spending and increased revenues for state and federal governments, both for the company and the new workers.

When Reagan was president and reduced taxes on the wealthy, but increased them on the middle class, he used some of that money to fund defense contractors (who were his political supporters). Technically speaking, that is just as socialist as the stimulus spending by Obama because it represents taking from one class and giving it, again indirectly, to another sector.

As in the case of the kiosk company, it has the effect of increasing revenues for the defense contractor and its investors. And it results in an increase in tax base for state and federal governments. But it is still, by definition, "socialist."

Its just a question of where you are taking it and where you are putting it.

What pisses me off to no end is that the wealthiest (and those that make a living by serving them, i.e. investment advisers like yourself) scream "socialist" at Obama without comprehending (or worse, intentionally ignoring) what that really means and how its just the shoe now on the other foot.

Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan was or Bush was. You just don't like who is getting the shorter end of the stick this time around.

 

[MG1968]

LG, contrary to your leftist beliefs, the rich do not get rich on the backs of poor and middle class people. Nor is it a static dynamic that requires that for one person to be rich, another must be poor.

We know what socialism is. Your continued, futile efforts to deflect this issue as being one of our ignorance is, like BPV said, weak.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lays out with specificity what the Federal Government is empowered to spend taxpayer dollars on.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Thankyou both for proving both the lack of sophistication in your own positions and the correctness of mine.

BPV, the issue is who is Peter and who is Paul? If Reagan is in charge, Peter is the lower and middle classes, and Paul are the top earners and wealthiest. The opposite if Obama is in charge.

By definition, both take (relaitve to each other's systems) more from one for the benefit of the other. You call Obama "socialist" because it is a convenient moniker and one that is gaining traction amongst those without either the time or the intellectual horsepower to see the true relationship between the two approaches we are talking about here.

Systemically -- whcih is what socialism is, a system -- there is no difference. Its just who's on the short end of the taxation and distribution map.

Droski, I'd point to every bit of spending on road or other infrastructure projects, being done with government incentives in the stimulus package.

There was a story in the local paper a few months back regarding employment and how one of the projects was to subsidize local governments in the purchase of those little kiosks you see for bus stops, the shelters with the benches. A local company makes those, and as a result of the spending bill they expected to see a big increase in orders and therefore the need to hire a few dozen people.

Technically speaking, the increased taxation of the wealthiest to provide those incentives is socialist because it is based on taking money from one sector and providing it, albeit indirectly, to another sector.

But, it has the effect of enriching the owners and investors in that company. And of course in resulting spending and increased revenues for state and federal governments, both for the company and the new workers.

When Reagan was president and reduced taxes on the wealthy, but increased them on the middle class, he used some of that money to fund defense contractors (who were his political supporters). Technically speaking, that is just as socialist as the stimulus spending by Obama because it represents taking from one class and giving it, again indirectly, to another sector.

As in the case of the kiosk company, it has the effect of increasing revenues for the defense contractor and its investors. And it results in an increase in tax base for state and federal governments. But it is still, by definition, "socialist."

Its just a question of where you are taking it and where you are putting it.

What pisses me off to no end is that the wealthiest (and those that make a living by serving them, i.e. investment advisers like yourself) scream "socialist" at Obama without comprehending (or worse, intentionally ignoring) what that really means and how its just the shoe now on the other foot.

Obama is no more a socialist than Reagan was or Bush was. You just don't like who is getting the shorter end of the stick this time around.

What world do you people live in?

Insanity all around!

 

[OrangeEmpire]

LG, contrary to your leftist beliefs, the rich do not get rich on the backs of poor and middle class people. Nor is it a static dynamic that requires that for one person to be rich, another must be poor.

We know what socialism is. Your continued, futile efforts to deflect this issue as being one of our ignorance is, like BPV said, weak.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lays out with specificity what the Federal Government is empowered to spend taxpayer dollars on.

LG hates the constitution!

k: