Socialist Playbook-this isn't about politics, it's about overthrowing the USA.

[kastein]

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

I'm split on the 'illegal foreclosure process'. On the one hand, the people they are foreclosing are by and large already expecting to be foreclosed because they haven't made payments in months. They aren't paying their side of the obligation, they signed that paper that said they would, maybe they should have understood it better before signing it. Boo XXXXing hoo, pay your bills and this doesn't happen! With a smack/fines to the mortgage companies for their 'means to an end' behavior.

On the other hand, it is an abuse of the courts and foreclosure process and they have screwed up and foreclosed on some people who didn't even meet the requirements - they were either up to date on their payments OR DIDN'T HAVE A MORTGAGE! :flamemad:

I support their 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble.

I'd like to see their detailed solutions for each of their noted issues.

I would really like them to point out exactly where in the US Constitution does it state that citizen have the right to a free college education, and define it as a human right?

Right there with you on that. I don't see it anywhere... just like there is no 'right' to universal healthcare. Perhaps I need to read up on human rights, the Constitution guarantees the government will not trample on our NATURAL rights, i.e. the ones all people have in their natural state with no intervention or support from anyone else. It is not the place of the federal government to provide rights... go ahead and get your state to provide them if you feel it should, and it is in line with your state or commonwealth's Constitution/incorporation.

 

[XJEEPER]

Convicted Weather Underground terrorist bomber of the White House, Pentagon and NYPD has this release posted on his blogsite. http://billayers.wordpress.com/2011...collective-statement-of-the-protesters/#entry

Birds of a feather.....from Ayers book:


"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men ...Deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism."

"Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside."

"The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war."

"Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle."

"Without mass struggle there can be no revolution.
Without armed struggle there can be no victory."

"We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society."

"Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism."

"Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit."

 

[ocean_jet]

I support their 1st Amendment right to peacefully assemble.

I'd like to see their detailed solutions for each of their noted issues.

I would really like them to point out exactly where in the US Constitution does it state that citizen have the right to a free college education, and define it as a human right?

To me... I have no problem with their asssumption that education is a right. I believe NO ONE has the right to tell you what one can and cannot learn.

But that's the extent of the right. A right to edeucate YOURSELF. Go to the library, do research on the internet. That's your RIGHT. No one should be able to interfere with your right to gather that information with your own resources.

But, you don't have a right to free access to the resources at our nation's universities. We have buildings and material and salaries that must be paid for. No, you don't have a right to those resources without paying for them... hence student loans.

 

[XJEEPER]

To me... I have no problem with their asssumption that education is a right. I believe NO ONE has the right to tell you what one can and cannot learn.

But that's the extent of the right. A right to edeucate YOURSELF. Go to the library, do research on the internet. That's your RIGHT. No one should be able to interfere with your right to gather that information with your own resources.

But, you don't have a right to free access to the resources at our nation's universities. We have buildings and material and salaries that must be paid for. No, you don't have a right to those resources without paying for them... hence student loans.

They feel that college should be paid for by the collective.

 

[Darky]

To me... I have no problem with their asssumption that education is a right. I believe NO ONE has the right to tell you what one can and cannot learn.

But that's the extent of the right. A right to edeucate YOURSELF. Go to the library, do research on the internet. That's your RIGHT. No one should be able to interfere with your right to gather that information with your own resources.

But, you don't have a right to free access to the resources at our nation's universities. We have buildings and material and salaries that must be paid for. No, you don't have a right to those resources without paying for them... hence student loans.

So, you don't really agree with their intent behind the statement. The idea that our education is held hostage by student loans would imply that they don't think we should have to take out loans for college. If this is the case, how do we achieve a college education? Either college would be so cheap that anyone could afford to pay out of pocket, it would be totally free, or it would be paid for by taxes like K-12 is.

 

[ocean_jet]

So, you don't really agree with their intent behind the statement.

No. Not at all.

I support one's right to an education just as mucvh as I support one's right to travel freely from coast to coast.

Having the right to do those things does not mean that the government is obligated to provide them to you.

And seriously... if they want free education, why are they blaming the student loans. Blame the universities... go after them.

Student loan programs allow people who don't have the resources now to better themselves a chance to do so. It's the universities themselves, wether public or private, who charge. If you think the price is too high, blame the universities.

What they are doing is like blaming BofA because the Jeep you want to buy requires you to borrow more than you think you should have to pay for it.

 

[kastein]

The way they're using 'right' it means they expect everyone to get it 'for free' from the government, as I understand it.

I agree with ocean_jet's take on this one.

 

[XJEEPER]

The way they're using 'right' it means they expect everyone to get it 'for free' from the government, as I understand it.

What I said.......they want free schooling, paid for by the collective.

They want to fundamentally transform America, replacing capitalism with socialism. These folks voted for Obama because he promised this to them.

 

[Boatwrench]

"They got bailed out...we were sold out."

About sums it up. The banks & investment firms were saved by the working middle class through increasing the national debt. Now because of that national debt the middle class is being squeezed out of existence because the investors are sitting on their wealth rather than investing for growth.

Gratitude.

 

[XJEEPER]

And to expand on why corporations are holding their money right now.........



Deloitte conducted a survey of these firms earlier this year as part of a report titled "Mid-market perspectives: 2011 report on America's economic engine" (.pdf). The mid-market segment consists of firms with annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion.

The segment is responsible for employing tens of millions of people, largely in the U.S. -- 53% have no workforce outside the country and just 18% of theses companies have more than 25% of their employees based abroad.

Here are the result for biggest obstacles to growth for mid-market companies, according to the 527 Deloitte surveyed:

The company that I work for has a workforce of approx. 2100 and is hiring, as well as expanding our network footprint.

 

[Boatwrench]

And to expand on why corporations are holding their money right now.........

and last year we discussed the bailout and I was for it.....live and learn.

 

[XJEEPER]

Obama's Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act.

Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.

There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does.

First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections.

Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.


Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar's rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs.

The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable. "Every day," Farrell notes, "the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House -- all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It's truly Orwellian."

The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama's proposed "license to lie."


http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/foia-obama-wants-license-lie#ixzz1cOGq33Kr

 

[Tom R.]

That's not surprising. Truly, transparency is a hallmark of this administration.

The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable.

I don't get the WH's argument here; they are still part of the federal government. :dunno: I guess they think if they throw something out there that's so absurd, maybe it'll overwhelm the requester to the point of giving up.

 

[XJEEPER]

The Socialists are even trying to disgiuse their agenda any more.........


Last year, President Obama bypassed the U.S. Senate and recess-appointed Craig Becker to head the NLRB’s five-member board. The Becker appointment was made after the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate refused to move forward on his confirmation. An ally of ACORN, Becker had previously worked for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, major financial backers of Obama and the Democratic Party. Controversially, Becker has refused to recuse himself from certain NLRB decisions affecting his former union clients.

“The NLRB is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of labor disputes, not a cheerleader for unions,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents confirm that the Obama NLRB is abusing its power on behalf of a powerful union to attack a major U.S. corporation. No wonder Judicial Watch had to sue the Obama administration to obtain these records.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2...uments-show-national-labor-relations-board-st

Pelosi thinks it's better to have no Boeing plant in SC, than a non-union plant. Odd stance, considering that her family business is a non-union shop.

Pelosi has received the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farm Workers Union. But her $25 million Napa vineyards and winery, she and her husband own is a non-union shop.

Pelosi has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union than any other member of Congress in recent election cycles.

The multi-millionaire investors own a large stake in an exclusive resort hotel in Wine Country, the Napa Valley Auberge Du Soleil Resort. It has more than 250 employees. But none of them are in a union.

Pelosi is also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees. The chain is a non-union shop.

http://news.investors.com/Article/590193/201111011900/Pelosi-Vs-Boeing-and8212-And-Jobs.htm

 

[XJEEPER]

Finally got around to reading Obama's speech in Kansas this week, because I have a life, and I can't stand to listen to his voice. This article pretty much sums it up.

President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas yesterday is yet another socialist, rhetorical campaign device aimed to shift thought away from the real problem: his own economic policies that are failing America.

The speech highlights the fact that the middle class has taken a hard hit in the recession; we have less income, savings, jobs, and hope that the situation will turn around. However, the President is not looking inward to solve the problem at hand—he is continually looking to blame others by making faulty accusations.

“Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they [the Republicans] want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”

This is twisted logic that leftists use to frame supporters of economic freedom in a negative light. This type of rhetoric and ideology is like the house built on sand—the logic falls in the face of history. Let’s take the presidency of Calvin Coolidge for example:

Prior to Coolidge, most of the tax burden fell on the rich: maximum federal income tax rates topped off at 73 percent for those earning over $100,000. This is the type of policy President Obama claims America needs. However, in the early 1920s, unemployment hovered at 6.7 percent, the growth of the economy was stagnant, and tax revenues were low.

Coolidge knew that taxing the rich worked against economic growth—the rich would invest their money overseas, scale back business, and hire fewer workers. “The wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful,” he said—and he did just that.

Coolidge implemented economic policies that brought on the “Roaring Twenties.” Marginal tax rates for high-income workers were slashed from 60 percent or more to 25 percent. This had wonderfully beneficial effects on the economy:

• Gross national product grew at an average of 4.7 percent
• The unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent
• Incentives to work, invest, and save increased
• Income increased across the board
• And as a result, tax revenues soared from that group, more than doubling from $300 million to $700 million

President Obama was wrong when he claimed that “others” want to return to policies that “got us into this mess.” The fact is that the policies of the Obama Administration are oppressive to business and the middle class—they result in less hiring, saving, and investment.

President Obama also propounds a faulty message when he claims that policies such as those of Calvin Coolidge are based on selfish principles. This is simply not true. Free-market principles relieve the burden of the federal government and allow people to freely work together—each achieving their unique needs and not undermining one another.

President Obama’s anti-“rich” rhetoric divides us —different laws and different standards for different people. Economic freedom unites people in one market, with one law, and equal opportunity for all.

The economic principles held by Calvin Coolidge raised the standard of living by raising incomes across all classes, increasing economic growth, and decreasing unemployment.

President Obama should get his facts straight.


http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/cbigelow/coolidge-2012-obamas-speech-filled-with-fallacy

 

[H8PVMT]

I finally got around to reading my high school history books, so far I completely agree with your Coolidge analogy, so far I'm up to the summer of 1929 and his ideas of minimal govt regulations and slashing taxes is working awesome, can't wait to see how how everything goes

On another ironic note in the 20's the top 1% held almost half of the nations wealth, and there were stock market protests

 

[XJEEPER]

Interesting comparison of Social Progressives: Obama and Teddy Roosevelt and how their similar policies have damaged our economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowe...progressives-both-clueless-about-the-economy/

 

[urban yan]

Finally got around to reading Obama's speech in Kansas this week, because I have a life

Liar liar, pants on fire.

 

[XJEEPER]

Can't make stuff like this up.........


The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named "Vorwaerts" (the German word for "Forward").

One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany's SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

Vorwarts! Vorwarts! was a marching song of the Hitler youth.

 

[H8PVMT]

If all this is true and obvious, why haven't you been killed by the CIA yet?