The chart below tells you about all the creeps that Obama has put on the payroll. These people are so far out it's ridiculous.... Keep this going so others will
have a clue who OB has put in charge of this country without any kind of background checks or confirmation by anyone but him and we have to pay for them.
Stunning......
There are very few of us who know just what all the CZARs do up in D.C.................Here is their names and job descriptions.......should be educational to ALL AMERICANS......
no matter what your political agenda.......if you resent this list, then get angry at the one who put these characters on the payroll. And not at the one who mailed it......
OBAMA'S "CZARS"-- Read who they are and realize what they want to do.
CZAR
Czar Position
Summary
Richard Holbrooke
AfghanistanCzar
Ultra liberal anti gun former Gov. Of New Mexico. Pro Abortion and legal drug use. Dissolve the 2nd Amendment
Ed Montgomery
Auto recovery Czar
Black radical anti business activist. Affirmative Action and Job Preference for blacks. Univ of Maryland Business School Dean teaches US business has caused
world poverty. ACORN board member. Communist DuBois Club member.
Jeffrey Crowley
AIDS Czar
Radical Homosexual.. A Gay Rights activist. Believes in Gay Marriage and especially, a Special Status for homosexuals only, including complete free health care
for gays.
Alan Bersin
Border Czar
The former failed superintendent of San Diego . Ultra Liberal friend of Hilary Clinton. Served as Border Czar under Janet Reno - to keep borders open to
illegal’s without interference from US
David J. Hayes
California Water Czar
Sr. Fellow of radical environmentalist group, "Progress Policy". No training or experience in water management whatsoever.
Ron Bloom
Car Czar
Auto Union worker. Anti business & anti nuclear. Has worked hard to force US auto makers out of business. Sits on the Board of Chrysler which is now Auto
Union owned. How did this happen?
Dennis Ross
Central Region Czar
Believes US policy has caused Mid East wars. Obama apologist to the world. Anti gun and completely pro abortion.
Lynn Rosenthal
Domestic Violence Czar
Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. Vicious anti male feminist. Supported male castration. Imagine?
Gil Kerlikowske
Drug Czar
Devoted lobbyist for every restrictive gun law proposal, Former Chief of Police in Liberal Seattle. Believes no American should own a firearm. Supports
legalization of all drugs
Paul Volcker
E conomicCzar
Head of Fed Reserve under Jimmy Carter when US economy nearly failed. Obama appointed head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board which
engineered the Obama economic disaster to US economy. Member of anti business "Progressive Policy" organization
Carol Brower
Energy and Environment Czar
Political Radical Former head of EPA - known for anti-business activism. Strong anti-gun ownership.
Joshua DuBois
Faith Based Czar
Political Black activist-Degree in Black Nationalism. Anti gun ownership lobbyist.
Cameron Davis
Great LakesCzar
Chicago radical anti business environmentalist. Blames George Bush for "Poisoning the water that minorities have to drink." No experience or training
in water management. Former ACORN Board member (what does that tell us?)
Van Jones
Green Jobs Czar
(since resigned).. Black activist Member of American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party who said Geo Bush caused the 911 attack
and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Black activist with strong anti-white views.
Daniel Fried
Guantanamo Closure Czar
Human Rights activist for Foreign Terrorists. Believes America has caused the war on terrorism. Believes terrorists have rights above and beyond Americans.
Nancy-Ann DeParle.
Health Czar
Former head of Medicare / Medicaid. Strong Health Care Rationing proponent. She is married to a reporter for The New York Times.
Vivek Kundra
Information Czar
Born in New Delhi , India . Controls all public information, including labels and news releases. Monitors all private Internet emails. (hello?)
Todd Stern
International Climate Czar
Anti business former White House chief of Staff- Strong supportrer of the Kyoto Accord. Pushing hard for Cap and Trade. Blames US business for Global
warming. Anti- US business prosperity.
Dennis Blair
Intelligence Czar
Ret. Navy. Stopped US guided missile program as "provocative". Chair of ultra liberal "Council on Foreign Relations" which blames American organizations
for regional wars.
George Mitchell
Mideast Peace Czar
Fmr. Sen from Maine Left wing radical. Has said Israel should be split up into "2 or 3 " smaller more manageable plots". (God forbid) A true Anti-nuclear
anti-gun & pro homosexual "special rights" advocate
Kenneth Feinberg
Pay Czar
Chief of Staff to TED KENNEDY. Lawyer who got rich off the 911 victims payoffs. (horribly true)
Cass Sunstein
Regulatory Czar
Liberal activist judge believes free speech needs to be limited for the "common good". Essentially against 1st amendment. Rules against personal freedoms
many times -like private gun ownership and right to free speech.
JohnHoldren
Science Czar
Fierce ideological environmentalist, Sierra Club, Anti business activist. Claims US business has caused world poverty. No Science training.
Earl Devaney
Stimulus Accountability Czar
Spent career trying to take guns away from American citizens. Believes in Open Borders to Mexico . Author of statement blaming US gun stores for drug
war in Mexico ..
J. Scott Gration
Sudan Czar
Native of Democratic Republic of Congo . Believes US does little to help Third World countries. Council of foreign relations, asking for higher US taxes to
support United Nations
Herb Allison
TARP Czar
Fannie Mae CEO responsible for the US recession by using real estate mortgages to back up the US stock market. Caused millions of people to lose their
life savings.
JohnBrennan
Terrorism Czar
Anti CIA activist. No training in diplomatic or gov. affairs. Believes Open Borders to Mexico and a dialog with terrorists and has suggested Obama
disband US military
Aneesh Chopra
Technology Czar
No Technology training. Worked for the Advisory Board Company, a health care think tank for hospitals. Anti doctor activist. Supports Obama Health
care Rationing and salaried doctors working exclusively for the Gov. health care plan
Adolfo Carrion Jr..
Urban Affairs Czar
Puerto Rican born Anti American activist and leftist group member in Latin America . Millionaire "slum lord" of the Bronx , NY. Owns many lavish homes
and condos which he got from "sweetheart" deals with labor unions. Wants higher taxes on middle class to pay for minority housing and health care
Ashton Carter
Weapons Czar
Leftist. Wants all private weapons in US destroyed. Supports UN ban on firearms ownership in America .. No Other "policy"
Gary Samore
WMD Policy Czar
Former US Communist. Wants US to destroy all WMD unilaterally as a show of good faith. Has no other "policy".
How lucky are we that these are the people who are helping President Obama in the RUNNING of our country
and the White House? Please pass this on and EDUCATE your family, friends and neighbors!
ian-snazz
07-18-2010, 09:57 PM
Wow, when I opened this up I was totally ready to jump on the anti-Obama wagon with you, which I already was well before he was elected. However, your categorization of the organizations these people have been affiliated with is waaaaaaayyy off, not to say that their opposite is true. Come on, Council on Foreign Relations- "ultra liberal", that's freaking hilarious- if only it were true..... I think that you, unfortunately, represent a huge number of people in this country who actually think that things like abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage, and imigration are the main issues of our time. Really they're just diversions from much more important issues like foreign policy, banking regulations, money in politics, empirialism, and the non-existence of true democracy brought on by media control, election control, public relations and the like.......If only our country was being taken over by liberals. Suggestions: turn off Fox, unload and set down you guns, get over your xenophobia and homophobia, and take a deeeeep breath. Next, check out some sources not owned by huge corporporations, learn the tools of logic- including logical falacies, eat a whole bunch of mushrooms, and close your eyes...............................................................Welcome to reality brother. It ain't much prettier, but at least we can begin to all work together for real change.
PS: Obama still sucks.............
The chart below tells you about all the creeps that Obama has put on the payroll. These people are so far out it's ridiculous.... Keep this going so others will
have a clue who OB has put in charge of this country without any kind of background checks or confirmation by anyone but him and we have to pay for them.
"Mad" Miles
07-19-2010, 11:52 AM
First of all, the formatting of this list sucks. Making it really hard to read.
Given the content and the lack of editing, I only got through the first half and then read the last few. All the loony ultra-right hyperventilating got tiresome, fast.
Finally, there is no source provided for who compiled this, and what they base their claims on. It just comes off as a cranky diatribe against shadowy enemies out to, "Git Us!"
The characterizations of the individuals that I know about, based on years of being a news junkie, are so off base they're risible.
I may disagree with policies they were responsible for, but from a very different and, I believe, a less paranoid and non-absolutist perspective.
Who wrote the list? Where do they get their information from? What are their politics? (Not that the language in the individual smear claims doesn't give a strong indication as to the latter.)
Without knowing the answer to these questions, this information is meaningless.
Hello fellow waccos. Firstly, I want to apologize to busyb555 for attacking his perspective and demanding that he change it. I had a sort of revelation today, something that I already knew, but today it crystalized. The sort of attacking and tearing apart of people's opinions and perspectives that I see here and occasionally take part in myself, will have NO effect on these people or anyone- even if the criticisms are correct. This is the real problem we face here. How do you make a real positive influence on people? I don't know. I suppose constructive criticism would be more useful. Yes, it can be fun to rail on ignorant folks sometimes, but I feel childish for doing so. I feel guilty today for doing that and I will try to abstain from now on. It seems like many here feel the same frustrations with our society and government that I do but we need to find more productive ways to improve things. Personally, someone like busyb555 does represent what I consider a huge problem with our society and its easy to take out my frustrations on him/her- really easy in this case, but I will try to have more compassion. Honestly, I think that it's unlikely that anyone is going to improve this type of person's outlook. How can we alleviate this person's fear and closed-mindedness? I think that it's probably out of our control. What do you all think?
"Mad" Miles
07-19-2010, 07:04 PM
...The sort of attacking and tearing apart of people's opinions and perspectives that I see here and occasionally take part in myself, will have NO effect on these people or anyone- even if the criticisms are correct. ... How do you make a real positive influence on people? I don't know. I suppose constructive criticism would be more useful. ... What do you all think?
Ian-Snazz,
Very good questions and a touching, heart-warming apology.
I think about this stuff a lot. In spite of appearances, given my active role here.
I'm not going to say anything more about it at this time, since I worry that I'm dominating this board too much, and that I'm shutting down communication by being so verbose. That's another issue I really think about, in spite of appearances.
So, I'll leave it for now.
I'm also interested in what others have to say about the issues you raise.
Thanks again,
Hotspring 44
07-19-2010, 07:40 PM
How can we alleviate this person's fear and closed-mindedness? I think that it's probably out of our control. What do you all think?
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink.
jbox
07-21-2010, 08:10 AM
I think iansnazz' response to busyb555 was a politeness veneered further attack and not a heart warming apology. I'm always amazed by the shrill defensive tone of the so called progressive or "conscious" wing of this forum. I think political correctness (left OR right) smacks of close mindedness, censorship, groupthink, and ultimately dishonesty. Ardently defending one's view with one's eyes closed is a fools game, don't you think Miles?
podfish
07-21-2010, 08:53 AM
as jbox points out, there's a problem with the apology since you must admit you pretty much rephrase your original "attack" as an epilogue to it. But I disagree that any apology is needed, or that attacks are necessarily futile. Personally, I do respond when I've exposed myself as an idiot (not that it prevents me from doing it again!). But being called an idiot isn't the same as being exposed as one. I'm sure most of us who post here think we have pretty strong reasons to believe as we do. It's not going to be all that easy to change anyone's beliefs. But when those beliefs are attacked and you can't find a way to defend them intelligently, there's a chance for change. When you post a convincing argument but it's failing to sway others, eventually it may sink in that your arguments suck. It's pretty easy to dismiss "ignorant folks" and "this type of person" but even they may some day see an argument that shows them something new.
And don't dismiss the entertainment value of these interchanges. Including the insults. There's a reason why "Jane, you ignorant slut.." still is amusing after 30 (35?) years. And constructing a post is more interesting than working a crossword puzzle.
... The sort of attacking and tearing apart of people's opinions and perspectives that I see here and occasionally take part in myself, will have NO effect on these people or anyone- ... constructive criticism would be more useful. Yes, it can be fun to rail on ignorant folks sometimes ... I think that it's unlikely that anyone is going to improve this type of person's outlook. ...
ian-snazz
07-21-2010, 09:41 AM
Podfish, I wish that it were as easy as making good logical arguments, but do you really think that even a significant amount of people understand logic and fallacies? I addition to understanding logic, one would have to be very humble, open-minded, and fearless of truth. I, personally, don't see these characteristics as describing mainstream americans. My question was how to have a postitive influence on people who don't have these qualities. What I see is the vast majority of people taking refuge in fear, closed-mindedness, and religion. Mainstream religion, especially, is directly at odds with critical thinking and rationality. I believe that critical thinking and logic are ignored in our society- it's not taught in high school, it's not required in college. Media, advertising, and PR work in spite of rationality, encouraging us to make decisions based on momentary emotions. mainstream journalists make NO use of this tool- though I think that it is their responsibility to. NO, what we're missing, goes far beyond logic, and that is passion for learning and self-improvement. Good luck.
Jbox, uhhhhhh.........I don't really know what to say to you. I'm sorry that you took my apology as a dishonest attack. What I found most interesting about your post is this defensiveness you were talking about.......How defensive do you have to be to take an apology and invitation for real dialogue as an attack? You obviously perceive yourself as being on the other side of the political fence as me- whatever that means- I'm really only interested in truth, not with who is with me or against me......Are you not interested in truth? I certainly did not apologize out of political correctness, that makes me laugh to even consider. Mostly, I found your comment incoherent....Please open my eyes.
"Mad" Miles
07-21-2010, 10:36 AM
I'm still holding back on weighing in here on Ian-Snazz's questions. Some people have already said what I might have offered, and I've written about my goals and motivations for how I discuss politics here in other recent "political debate" threads. Particularly in my go around with busyb555 last Friday.
What I really want to point out in this post is, I hope everyone knows, from Sylph's "Czar Search" link, that the originating post in this thread is made up of claims by Glen Beck. A poorly bowdlerized and badly formatted version, yes, but that appears to be the source.
I think I have been very clear about how much credence I give to Mr. Beck's accusations...
podfish
07-21-2010, 11:09 AM
a couple of things. First, I didn't explicitly say logic was appropriate. Without going into the etomology of "argument" too far, it's clear that most people who argue do it without much reliance on logic. If there's any chance that minds will be changed by these discussions, it'll be because someone found a way to express opposing ideas convincingly. And we both agree that logic isn't the way most people are convinced. I'd say if anything changes people's minds, it's when they see their own cognitive dissonance.
Once in a while I refer to Antonio Damasio here, and it's been long enough ago that it's time again. His ideas on where people's beliefs come from are totally convincing to me, and they're not based on logic. Logic is a tool to explain, justify or (sometimes) change your ideas, but people don't really use logic as much as they claim to. And as an aside, so many charlatans claim that they operate according to logic that I tend to dismiss any self-identified "logical thinkers" as probably fooling themselves. As much as I try to be logical all the time myself, and as much as I respect it when people present their ideas logically, it's hard for me to see it as truly as big a factor as people think it is.
Podfish, I wish that it were as easy as making good logical arguments, but do you really think that even a significant amount of people understand logic and fallacies? I addition to understanding logic, one would have to be very humble, open-minded, and fearless of truth. I, personally, don't see these characteristics as describing mainstream americans. ...
here you've missed jbox and my observation: neither of us said you were dishonest. Note that you try to reflect jbox's comment about defensiveness back to him. That's not logic, either :wink:
but your apology is pretty much "I'm sorry I called you an idiot. But it's tough to argue with idiots..."
I'm sorry that you took my apology as a dishonest attack. What I found most interesting about your post is this defensiveness you were talking about.......How defensive do you have to be to take an apology and invitation for real dialogue as an attack? You obviously perceive yourself as being on the other side of the political fence as me- whatever that means- I'm really only interested in truth, not with who is with me or against me......Are you not interested in truth? I certainly did not apologize out of political correctness, that makes me laugh to even consider. Mostly, I found your comment incoherent....Please open my eyes.
ian-snazz
07-21-2010, 12:07 PM
Podfish, I think that you are misunderstanding me and the point here. You are correct that I don't think that logic IS what guides people's views, but I do believe that logic SHOULD at least be used as a foundation in forming our views. How can people see their "cognitive dissonance" without reasoning? You seem to be saying that you are suspect of people who claim to use logic- this is very strange to me. No doubt, people are not perfect and even folks who use logic and reason make mistakes, but their mistakes come from fallacies which break the rules of logic. I think that we only have our reason, emotions, and physical perceptions to help us make out this world. What sort of data should people be using to suss things out and communicate? Yes, language is imperfect, but we are talking about communication. Let's not sink to the level of semantics please. Anyone truly interested in truth should be willing to observe and accept their illogic and adapt their ideas- these charlatans that you speak of are probably not interested in getting closer to truth and are probably only pushing their agenda through sophism/ rhetoric- this says nothing of the true worth of logic, only that some use it to trick the less skillful.
"politeness veneered further attack" - The use of the term veneer is suggesting dishonesty. Jbox did suggest that I was being dishonest. Secondly, I did not reflect Jbox's comment back onto them. The assertion that I am being defensive is neither provable or disprovable- it's a motivation and only I can know what that is. What I did do was point out my observation that Jbox, SEEMED to be reacting defensively- this is not a fallacy of any kind- only irony. Lastly, "your apology is pretty much I'm sorry I called you an idiot. But it's tough to argue with idiots..." - Dude, why the F### did you put quotation marks on that passage when I never said that? I never called anyone an idiot. Idiot denotes stupidity and unability. Ignorance, is a verifiable non-offensive word merely meaning lack of knowledge. We are all ignorant about many things. The only adjectives I used in that note were: ignorant, fear[ful], and closed-minded. Get your facts right. The real point of what I was saying is that attacking people will help noone. Your mistakes seem to all be leaning in one direction- asserting possibly negligent assertions in my statements that are not there. You dislike of logic is more than apparent. Why are you acting like this? What am I really saying that you don't like? The biggest problem I see with all this stupid bickering is that it only helps those who wish to divide and conquer. I'm only trying to find common ground and ask how we can help each other suss out this complicated world and communicate about it in hopes of informing each other. What are your motivations and intentions here? seriously, I'm curious.
"First, I didn't explicitly say logic was appropriate. Without going into the etomology of "argument" too far, it's clear that most people who argue do it without much reliance on logic. If there's any chance that minds will be changed by these discussions, it'll be because someone found a way to express opposing ideas convincingly. And we both agree that logic isn't the way most people are convinced. I'd say if anything changes people's minds, it's when they see their own cognitive dissonance.
Once in a while I refer to Antonio Damasio here, and it's been long enough ago that it's time again. His ideas on where people's beliefs come from are totally convincing to me, and they're not based on logic. Logic is a tool to explain, justify or (sometimes) change your ideas, but people don't really use logic as much as they claim to. And as an aside, so many charlatans claim that they operate according to logic that I tend to dismiss any self-identified "logical thinkers" as probably fooling themselves. As much as I try to be logical all the time myself, and as much as I respect it when people present their ideas logically, it's hard for me to see it as truly as big a factor as people think it is."
"here you've missed jbox and my observation: neither of us said you were dishonest. Note that you try to reflect jbox's comment about defensiveness back to him. That's not logic, either
but your apology is pretty much "I'm sorry I called you an idiot. But it's tough to argue with idiots..."
Thad
07-21-2010, 12:34 PM
Logic is organic and illlogic is just that ill-logic. The question really should be asked, " What is Logic?"
One doesn't need to be a scholar in order to participate. In my opinion there are two methods of approach, one is linear the other is radial, they each attempt the same thing one is more appropriate to the particular mind exercising it.
I think it would be a grand tool to have ideas modeled with the treatment of Logic just for an example of what it looked like.
"Mad" Miles
07-21-2010, 03:15 PM
"Boys, boys! Simma dawn nah..." As if I should talk!
Ian-Snazz and Podfish, I've not found your politics to be that far apart. Based on my fuzzy memory of the incredible amount of stuff I read here everyday.
Ian-Snazz, using quotation marks can mean you're repeating what someone said, verbatum. It can also mean you are being facetious. It can also mean you're summarizing and paraphrasing your interpretation of what someone else said. I think Podfish was doing the latter in the phrase that caused you so much consternation. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Podfish.
Podfish said that opinions and beliefs (a discussion of the difference I'll leave aside, it's actually an interesting distinction) are not primarily arrived at through logical processes.
They are defended by logical arguments, but not decided upon by the person thinking them, through logic.
"The Dream Of Reason, Leads To Monsters"
Goethe, as quoted by Goya in one of his best woodblock prints.
Logic per se is tricky. It was not my favorite branch of Philosophy, because it quickly gets technical and seemed too much like Math, not my favorite subject in High School.
Rhetoric is given a bad name. It just means the art of persuasion. What's wrong with that?
Semantics. I don't see a problem. Often arguments arise from unstated differences in the definition of the terms at play. Semantics can help to resolve such confusion.
A logical argument, isn't the standard of Truth. A sound argument is.
In a logical argument, the conclusion follows from the premises, logically.
A sound argument is a logical one, in which the premises are true.
In a logical argument, the truth of the premises is not the issue. The only issue is, does the form of the argument follow one of several accepted syllogistic patterns.
Remember ninth or tenth grade geometry? The proofs are logical arguments, whose propositions are demonstrably true, based on previous sound arguments, and those derived proofs are also sound arguments. Geometry was one form of math that I thoroughly enjoyed. Probably because it was about visual shapes, and used clear, to me accessible, logic, to forward the arguments/proofs required.
But the syllogistic patterns of say, Western Positivism, are not the same as the patterns of German Romanticism, i.e. Hegelian logic.
Matters of History, Politics, Sociology, etc. are not as amenable to logical proof. Interest, Interpretation, Values, Goals, aren't reducible to: If A then B, If B then C, Therefore If A then C.
These are matters for trained philosophers. (And before you accuse me of elitism, anyone can become a trained philosopher, you just have to do the work.)
These terms do have accepted definitions, that have been arrived at by centuries of debate between philosophers. They get thrown around by laymen, who may or may not actually understand them, and may or may not know their history and the array of issues that surround them.
Logic, Facts, Truth, Argument, these are all historically contested issues, which have been resolved to a great extent, but are still debated among competing schools of thought, by philosophers.
Thad, I've never heard of the distinction between linear and radiating logic. You'll have to unpack that claim for me if I'm going to understand what you're getting at.
The terms I've mentioned above (Logic, Rhetoric, Semantics, Truth, Reason, etc.) require agreement on their meaning between the participants in a discussion, before meaningful discussion and agreement is possible. Note I do not say, probable!
Apologies to anyone who finds this pedantic. But that's my purpose here, if you understand the meaning of the word, pedantic.
"I mean what I said, and I said what I mean." Horton the Elephant from Horton Hears A Who by Theodor Geisle, aka Dr. Seuss
Play on!
ian-snazz
07-21-2010, 04:04 PM
Mad Miles, Thanks for your last post. I completely agree with you. You're right about the quotation marks. I do realize that they can mean different things and after I commented about that I realized that was probably an over-reaction. However, I do take podfish's remark as a purposeful bending of my intended meaning. Calling someone an idiot is rude and mean, calling someone ignorant is an observation. I apologize to podfish if he/she did not understand the definitions of these words. I do understand the meanings of semantics and rhetoric,etc... and no, there is nothing wrong with these things at all. They are necessary parts of argument. I have much respect for logical debate as a tool, but if we forget the goal, it is worthless. The goal, in my opinion, is to gain better understanding, learning, and communication. For sophists, the goal is merely to beat your opponent or convince the audience. This has got to sound really boring for most people, me included. What are we talking about now......???? Oh yeah, I was wondering in what ways could we use a forum like this to work together for improvement of ourselves and society and how to best communicate with those who have very different political and social ideas without attacks. As I am seeing now, and stated a while ago, logical argument doesn't seem to be all that helpful either, as usually it just disintegrates into infinite analyzations of its lesser important parts, that is, if people first understand logic. Anyway, this is getting more boring as the focus is being drawn from the important questions.
Speak2Truth
07-21-2010, 04:41 PM
The sort of attacking and tearing apart of people's opinions and perspectives that I see here and occasionally take part in myself, will have NO effect on these people or anyone- even if the criticisms are correct. This is the real problem we face here. How do you make a real positive influence on people?
The answer, I believe, is simple.
Provide them with factual information, if you feel that the information they have presented is incorrect, on the presumption that they truly are free thinkers seeking truth.
I find this approach works well with those of liberal intellectualism who believe in following the facts where the facts lead.
Then there are other sorts, who respond with sneers, personal attacks, ridicule and other techniques used by the closed-minded to insulate themselves from actual cogitation.
You will know the difference by their responses.
Let's take this opportunity to praise the free-thinkers who dwell in the world of information and cogitation rather than sass, emotion and attitude.
Speak2Truth
07-21-2010, 04:52 PM
Here's a simple exercise in logic:
When a President whose entire upbringing was by Marxists appoints Czars who are Marxists and forms close associations with Marxists...
The "fundamental change" to our government is hostile to American principles. It is change in the direction that has brought ruin to so many other nations, leading progressively to the mass murders, by government, of tens of millions of innocent civilians in the past century. Why is this logical? Because adherents to that ideology have consistently been the masterminds of those murderous regimes.
Logic is easy.
What is illogical is to expect the same ideology to produce the opposite results in our case.
Let's not forget - that ideology is devoted to the financial ruin of the United States, the destruction of private-sector control of the economy, the destruction of freedom to pursue our own interests on our own terms, the destruction of free speech (hence insistence on the "fairness doctrine" and punishment for "hate speech" in a nation that allegedly protects speech against government punishment or meddling). In standard Marxist practice they play favorites with corporations, seizing assets from some to reward those (the most crooked) who are "in bed" with them. They favor unions to seize control of the private sector and public sector economy (just like they did in the USSR and other Marxist-run nations). They enforce their will on an unwilling populace and are only "democratic" when it suits them, as has been their practice for over a century.
The logic holds up when scrutinized in relationship to their actions. They are what they appear to be. They are doing what they can be expected to do.
If instead they were doing the opposite of what Marxists do, then the logic might not be supportable.