President Obama and President Monson to meet in DC.

[_Sethbag]

You tell the black guy his status is basically the same as a woman in the church.

So, we're using women as a putdown nowadays? I know what you meant, I think, which is that women are crapped on in the church, and the blacks were crapped on in the same way. But it did come across as using women as a putdown.

And, in fact, blacks' status was lower than the status of (white) women in the church. White women could go to the temple and receive endowments, something neither black men nor black women could do. And that's really strange - one can understand why a black guy can't be endowed if he can't hold the priesthood, but why couldn't a black woman be endowed?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Yeah, that's really bizarre that they couldn't get endowed, especially considering that most people think of black guys as exceptionally well-endowed.

(Totally tasteless, I know, but it had to be done.)

[_Some Schmo]

Never ever underestimate the inanity one might encounter in this forum.

Never.

I don't. I had a feeling you'd be back.

(Why do some people complain about the things of which they're most guilty? It never ceases to amaze me.)

[_Droopy]

Well think about it. Obama is just continuing Bush's policies, Bush was continuing Reagan's.

this is precisely the kind of deeply and carefully cultivated stupidity that only either the Democratic party base could seriously consider, or someone who quite simply has no concern for the life of the mind or the importance of education and the seeking of knowledge.

Pretty pathetic, but typical for the trailer park.

[_Droopy]

rofl. Maybe Droopy can point out which of Obama's policies are "Marxist".

Here's what I said:

Now, Obama is a Progressive, which, in his case, and given his present policies, means that he presents a kind of synthesis of Marxist and fascist (many aspects of the bailout, obviously) ideas and concepts in his approach to governance (the present condition of GM with respect to the government could only be termed neo-syndicalist)

Obama is what I would term a cultural Marxist, or transformational socialist. He seeks, and has been very clear since the beginning, a thorough remaking and restructuring of American society, especially economically.

He is also a black "cultural nationalist" steeped deeply in the ideology of the black power movement.

There is no evidence in his past, in his closest associations, stated beliefs, or professional work to imply otherwise.

I did not say, as is evident, that Obama was a traditional purist Marxist of any kind. What I said, and what is evident from everything we know about Obama from his past associations and community organizing work, as well as statements he has made in radio interviews and on the campaign trail, is that he is a late 20the century radical leftist, or progressive, who synthesizes elements from different schools of thought of the historic Left.

The bailout is Obama's Marxist plan? It must be, because only a dastardly Marxist would be able to effect the bailout before he was sworn into office, and while the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush, was still handling economic affairs.

Bush supported a bailout, but the present form and extent (12 trillion dollars over the next decade) is the creature of Obama and the Democratic congress.

The bailout itself is not so much Marxist as fascist and sydicalist, very similar to the kinds of ideas and policies supported by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in the early part of the last century. Obama's intellectual patrimony, however, leading as it does from Frank Marshal Davis, to Jeremiah Wright, to Bill Ayers, is even more disturbing, as are his NPR radio interviews in which he makes clear his belief that the Constitution is a deeply flawed document because it limits government power.

Fascism, in any case, is a phenomena of the Left, and grew out of the same philosophical soil as Marxian socialism and German National Socialism. All are siblings in a larger family with similar intellectual roots.

Obama is a product of the New Left of the sixties and early seventies as well as black power ideology, with especial emphasis on James Cone's black liberation theology that is at the center of Wright's teachings. The way he manifests this will in some cases be more Marxian (spread the wealth around, nationalize and universalize major aspects of economic life (expropriate private property and destroy free market mechanisms in entire industries, or parts of them), and sometimes fascistic, as in the government's present relationship with GM.

Obama is a unabashed left wing statist who is, at present, in the middle of a conerted and determined attempt to destroy the economy and cripple free market capitalism in the United States. Each and every single policy or initiative he has supported is precisely and exactly the wrong approcah, economically. All have been tried before (most specifically during the New Deal), and all are known to be miserable failures. He has resurrected the discredited Lord Kenynes and is attempting to move us toward a western European social democratic model, equally failed, and equally Marxian in aspects of its intellectual genealogy. What aspects of are this are Marxian in nature should be fairly obvious, if not lucidly so (socialized medicine, cap and trade, the new EPA CO2 regulatory regime, massive new taxes on the "rich" and middle classes, the pervasive class warfare rhetoric etc.).

[_karl61]

what is the history of a theocracy.

[_JohnStuartMill]

rofl. Maybe Droopy can point out which of Obama's policies are "Marxist".

Here's what I said:

Now, Obama is a Progressive, which, in his case, and given his present policies, means that he presents a kind of synthesis of Marxist and fascist (many aspects of the bailout, obviously) ideas and concepts in his approach to governance (the present condition of GM with respect to the government could only be termed neo-syndicalist)

Obama is what I would term a cultural Marxist, or transformational socialist. He seeks, and has been very clear since the beginning, a thorough remaking and restructuring of American society, especially economically.

He is also a black "cultural nationalist" steeped deeply in the ideology of the black power movement.

There is no evidence in his past, in his closest associations, stated beliefs, or professional work to imply otherwise.

I did not say, as is evident, that Obama was a traditional purist Marxist of any kind. What I said, and what is evident from everything we know about Obama from his past associations and community organizing work, as well as statements he has made in radio interviews and on the campaign trail, is that he is a late 20the century radical leftist, or progressive, who synthesizes elements from different schools of thought of the historic Left.

Well, okay, whatever. If all it takes for Obama to be a cultural Marxist is the fuzziest of connections to Marxist thought, then I can say that Bush was a cultural Nazi with the greatest of ease. But that wouldn't be a serious critique of him.

The bailout is Obama's Marxist plan? It must be, because only a dastardly Marxist would be able to effect the bailout before he was sworn into office, and while the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush, was still handling economic affairs.

Bush supported a bailout, but the present form and extent (12 trillion dollars over the next decade) is the creature of Obama and the Democratic congress.

LOL. Keep dancing, Droopy.

The bailout itself is not so much Marxist as fascist and sydicalist, very similar to the kinds of ideas and policies supported by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in the early part of the last century. Obama's intellectual patrimony, however, leading as it does from Frank Marshal Davis, to Jeremiah Wright, to Bill Ayers, is even more disturbing, as are his NPR radio interviews in which he makes clear his belief that the Constitution is a deeply flawed document because it limits government power.

Where do you get the idea that Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are influencing economic policy? (Besides the acid trip, I mean.) Last time I checked, Obama's most influential economic advisers were economic centrists: Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Austan Goolsbee, Valerie Jarrett, etc.

Fascism, in any case, is a phenomena of the Left, and grew out of the same philosophical soil as Marxian socialism and German National Socialism. All are siblings in a larger family with similar intellectual roots.

Where's the fascism, Droopy? There's an enormous difference between temporarily taking over companies and banks because the consequences of their failure are too big a risk to take, and nationalizing industries because that's how you think an economy should be structured. Obama's a product of the University of Chicago; he understands the unattractiveness of government control in perpetuity. His actions in response to the economic crisis were intended to stem panic, and not to be so heavy-handed as to change in fundamental ways the nature of our free-market economy.

Obama is a product of the New Left of the sixties and early seventies as well as black power ideology, with especial emphasis on James Cone's black liberation theology that is at the center of Wright's teachings. The way he manifests this will in some cases be more Marxian (spread the wealth around, nationalize and universalize major aspects of economic life (expropriate private property and destroy free market mechanisms in entire industries, or parts of them), and sometimes fascistic, as in the government's present relationship with GM.

"Ooh, scary black people!" Get a grip, Droopy.

Also, "spreading the wealth" around is not necessarily Marxist -- unless Milton Friedman, who advocated a negative income tax, was also a Marxist.

Obama is a unabashed left wing statist who is, at present, in the middle of a conerted and determined attempt to destroy the economy and cripple free market capitalism in the United States. Each and every single policy or initiative he has supported is precisely and exactly the wrong approcah, economically. All have been tried before (most specifically during the New Deal), and all are known to be miserable failures. He has resurrected the discredited Lord Kenynes and is attempting to move us toward a western European social democratic model, equally failed, and equally Marxian in aspects of its intellectual genealogy. What aspects of are this are Marxian in nature should be fairly obvious, if not lucidly so (socialized medicine, cap and trade, the new EPA CO2 regulatory regime, massive new taxes on the "rich" and middle classes, the pervasive class warfare rhetoric etc.).

What about the social democratic model has failed? What's so bad about Belgium, exactly?

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Well think about it. Obama is just continuing Bush's policies, Bush was continuing Reagan's.

this is precisely the kind of deeply and carefully cultivated stupidity that only either the Democratic party base could seriously consider, or someone who quite simply has no concern for the life of the mind or the importance of education and the seeking of knowledge.

Pretty pathetic, but typical for the trailer park.

I am not a democrat, or a liberal. I am well educated. I am a student of history. I deeply respect the "importance of education and the seeking of knowledge."

[_Droopy]

Well, okay, whatever. If all it takes for Obama to be a cultural Marxist is the fuzziest of connections to Marxist thought, then I can say that Bush was a cultural Nazi with the greatest of ease. But that wouldn't be a serious critique of him.

Translation: "I'm utterly ignorant regarding much of this subject matter, but I like Obama because he's black and it makes me feel morally superior and assuages my liberal guilt to like a black president, and Obama wants to redistribute wealth, and it makes me feel morally superior and assuages my liberal guilt to support the redistribution of wealth, and Obama means change we can believe in, and what we need is change, because change means that we are changing, and..."

Droopy:
Bush supported a bailout, but the present form and extent (12 trillion dollars over the next decade) is the creature of Obama and the Democratic congress.

LOL. Keep dancing, Droopy.

Bush, at best, is a marginal conservative, and governed at home as a Nixonian big government Republican interventionist, abet tempered by some serious tax cutting. Bush set the stage for the bailout, but the bailout itself, in extent and structure, is the baby and bathwater of the Democrats in congress and Obama.

And yet again, another liberal apologist for gross government incompetence equates conservative with the Republican party, and crosses the center line into oncoming traffic.

Where do you get the idea that Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright are influencing economic policy? (Besides the acid trip, I mean.) Last time I checked, Obama's most influential economic advisers were economic centrists: Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Austan Goolsbee, Valerie Jarrett, etc.

Where did I claim they were influencing policy in any direct way? Both Ayers and Wright have similar views on economics, however, and Wright, especially, according to Obama's own account, was an important and pivotal influence on him (a "mentor", and , after all, he attended his church for two decades).

All one needs to do, for heaven's sake, to see the influence here, is look at what Obama's been doing his entire life: "community organizing" (exactly what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other professional rabble rousers have been doing for decades: stirring up members of the welfare class to further government rent seeking) and politics, within which venue he has been among the most liberal members of the senate)

His policies thus far: expropriate entire industries, raise taxes, target the "rich" for especially severe taxation (making clear that government has some right to their fruits of their labor that they do not, as well as the recipients of the booty), seek the destruction of entire industries (coal in particular, his stated goal in one of his NPR inteviews), and involve the state in every aspect of our lives imaginable.

Yes, Obama is a socialist, as anyone who understands what the full range and implications of that term mean.

Where's the fascism, Droopy? There's an enormous difference between temporarily taking over companies and banks because the consequences of their failure are too big a risk to take, and nationalizing industries because that's how you think an economy should be structured.

I'm just about done with you, as your well past the stage of facile pop media ignorance and into the intelligence insulting area. I'm not sure how much of your own verbiage you really believe, but the present relationship with GM is, for all intents and purposes, syndicalist, with shareholders told to take whatever crumbs the state wishes to throw to them, while the bulk of the company is given to the union and the government, neither of which had any part in its creation or who know a thing about running such an enterprise, as their booty (and the union, by the way, is one of the primary causes for GMs failure, in cahoots with its management).

Obama's a product of the University of Chicago; he understands the unattractiveness of government control in perpetuity. His actions in response to the economic crisis were intended to stem panic, and not to be so heavy-handed as to change in fundamental ways the nature of our free-market economy.

If you actually believe any of this child-like wish fantasy, you are a far sadder case than I suspected. You are, at heart, a serf, and you may have the kind of government you deserve. Unfortunately, I'm going to lose my liberty along with you.

Well, at least we'll be equal.

"Ooh, scary black people!" Get a grip, Droopy.

I knew you'd probably turn and flee the arena of ideas soon enough in the typical liberal manner, so bye.

[_Droopy]

I am not a democrat, or a liberal. I am well educated. I am a student of history. I deeply respect the "importance of education and the seeking of knowledge."

Then makes statements that would lead one to believe that, without you having to expressly claim it for yourself.

Bush continued Reagan's policies?

Right, well, move along...