I see, so he called it ‘black’ for no apparent reason. As opposed to its sister Liberation Theology that doesn’t have any ethnic referent.
I’m finding it hard to come over to your point of view.
How can anyone seriously think that? Communism and Islam conflict in too many ways.
Shodan, kaylasdad99 already made most of the points I would have made. But just to be clear, Barack Obama had a close associate who was a communist (I’m assuming Davis is dead by now if he was a friend of Obama’s grandfather). Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and John Wayne also had close associates who were communists. You seem to feel that calling Davis a “childhood mentor” creates some kind of vast distinction that seperates Obama’s association with a communist from these other people’s association with communists. Nobody else but you sees this distinction. So there’s no more evidence that Obama is a communist than there is that Reagan, Goldwater, or Wayne were communists. But as someone once said, no one can force someone to acknowledge the truth if they are determined enough to ignore it.
Because people know next to nothing about either Communism or Islam?
I don’t see anything nationalistic in there. Since when is being opposed to racism nationalistic?
In any case. It represents none of Barack Obama’s views.
I’m sorry that’s a pro-racist view, not an anti-racist view. Black people who believe that God should be for black people and against white people are in fact, racists. You can quibble about the definition of nationalism all you want. I’m not going to argue such an insignificant and unimportant point, so I’ll concede it to you.
At least though you are not arguing that there is no Marxism inherent in Liberation Theology.
Has any Democrat presidential candidate since FDR not been called a socialist by many and a communist by some? It’s part and parcel of Republican negative campaigning; there are certain people who will buy it on its face, so they’d be fools not to take advantage of it.
They’re not against all white people, just against white racism.
I don’t see that either. Are they talking about the government owning the means of production?
I would love it if a Marxist could get elected, but it will never happen. American standards of left and right are really skewed in comparison to the rest of the world. We don’t even have a liberal party. We have a right wing party and a moderate right wing party.
You are selectively reinterpreting it to mean what you want it to mean. That is not what that quote said.
Ah, well, if Obama is a “Marxist” in that sense, so much the better for him and for us. But I ain’t optimistic.
It seems to me that a “socialist” is someone who envisions the economy as a whole and advocates transforming it so as to dedicate it to providing benefits to the public, particularly the lower classes–in order to make it up to them.
But most Democrats take a bottom-up approach with a series of single-issues that are seen to add up. It’s terrible that people who need medical care face bankruptcy, so wouldn’t it be nice if we set up a system to make it affordable for everyone? Meanwhile, isn’t it great that every child is entitled to a free education in the public schools? Let’s try to keep them from falling apart any further. Over there are some folks who want to make sure that benefits to retirees remain intact, and there there’s the social safety net to help people who are on the verge of destitution.
Add to that police, fire, and military, and you’ve got a pretty tall order. But that’s all it is–a tall order. It’s not like Obama and other Dems are motived on every issue by the principle of What Would Karl Marx Do.
I don’t think Obama wants the government to control the means of production. He’s no Marxist. I was just pointing out that it’s not as simple as ‘heh heh heh silly redneck doesn’t know what communist means.’
Oh, yes, it is. Marx’s doctrines have had very wide and varied influences over the past century and a half and it is ignorant to apply the label “Communist” to every school of thought in any way influenced by them.
I think it kind of is that simple. These are not brain surgeons we’re talking about. They think economic liberalism and socialism are synonomous. They’re not.
Of course you do.
Obama’s Women Reveal his Secret
I’m not posting this because I agree with it, in fact I pissed off the author mightily in my disagreement. I’m just pointing out that some people who make arguments about these things do know the difference.
I don’t understand the relevance of this article to the subject. it’s a misogynistic hit piece on Obama, his wife and his mother by a far right wing crank.
A far right wing crank who understands the difference between the two ideas that you presented in the post I was responding to. Someone who actually knows a bit about the debate. But if ‘huh huh huh silly redneck.’ is a high enough level of analysis of the topic for you, far be it from me to try too hard to disabuse the ignorance.
I see nothing in that article to indicate that “Spengler” knows the difference between anything and anything else.
Of course not, you’re locked in the, ‘liberals are smart conservatives are stupid’, paradigm.