DescentBB

Seems Valerie Jarret, head adviser Obama, has a father who was a communist, a father-in-law who is a communist and by the FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch:

"It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file."
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015 ... ts-family/

Does any of this bother anyone or do you think POTUS should surround himself with people of any political persuasion not matter how extreme?

woodchip wrote:Seems Valerie Jarret, head adviser Obama, has a father who was a communist, a father-in-law who is a communist and by the FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch:

who cares? Most of us realized that creeping out over 'commies' was stupid a generation ago.

Does any of this bother anyone or do you think POTUS should surround himself with people of any political persuasion not matter how extreme?

all it speaks to his the hate, demonization and exaggeration we decried on here a couple weeks back. Read through that again, and it is all opinion, insinuation and exaggeration. No facts regarding the actual policy forwarded, no proof that people called 'extreme' actually are. Intellectually empty garbage, pure and simple. And, seemingly a blatant troll by Woody.

woodchip wrote:Seems Valerie Jarret, head adviser Obama, has a father who was a communist, a father-in-law who is a communist and by the FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch:

"It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist who wields tremendous power in the White House. Faithful to her roots, she still has connections to many Communist and extremist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood. Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file."
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015 ... ts-family/

Does any of this bother anyone or do you think POTUS should surround himself with people of any political persuasion not matter how extreme?

Of course not. Don't you know that 'progressive' = communist? (It's just a more 'hip' pseudonym.)

'Progressives' think communism is still a viable economic/social system. It just hasn't been 'done right' yet. Capitalism- for all of it's nasty flaws and inequalities- is still a more realistic system for the human condition. It takes human nature into account whereas communism is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking doomed to failure- or worse; just a cheap plastic cover for tyranny.

Every SINGLE 'communist' regime has been a de facto tyranny. Every SINGLE communist regime has spilled the blood of untold numbers of human beings to protect their hold on absolute power (millions in some cases.)

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Seems Valerie Jarret, head adviser Obama, has a father who was a communist, a father-in-law who is a communist and by the FBI files obtained by Judicial Watch:

who cares? Most of us realized that creeping out over 'commies' was stupid a generation ago.

Maybe you didn't but certainly not "most"

callmeslick wrote:
all it speaks to his the hate, demonization and exaggeration we decried on here a couple weeks back. Read through that again, and it is all opinion, insinuation and exaggeration. No facts regarding the actual policy forwarded, no proof that people called 'extreme' actually are. Intellectually empty garbage, pure and simple. And, seemingly a blatant troll by Woody.

So it won't bother you if someone like Cruz gets elected and surrounds himself with Neo-Nazis and KKK'ers for advisers?

woodchip wrote:Maybe you didn't but certainly not "most"

yes, most. The vast majority of us realize that the witch hunt over communists yielded NOTHING of value for our nation whatsoever. Frther, we have no desire, as a nation, to ever return to that era.

So it won't bother you if someone like Cruz gets elected and surrounds himself with Neo-Nazis and KKK'ers for advisers?

[/quote][/quote]
if they are actively so, it would. But I wouldn't equate an American communist(who weren't collectivists really at all) with a Nazi or KKK member, nor would I be so utterly stupid as to base my opinion of someone on what their parents believed, nor would I ever rely on 'news' that comes from inflamed accusations and hysteria. You seem to have no problem with that.

ThunderBunny wrote:Of course not. Don't you know that 'progressive' = communist? (It's just a more 'hip' pseudonym.)

'Progressives' think communism is still a viable economic/social system. It just hasn't been 'done right' yet. Capitalism- for all of it's nasty flaws and inequalities- is still a more realistic system for the human condition. It takes human nature into account whereas communism is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking doomed to failure- or worse; just a cheap plastic cover for tyranny.

don't you just love hearing a person with no clue what they're talking about try to define people they don't understand?

Every SINGLE 'communist' regime has been a de facto tyranny. Every SINGLE communist regime has spilled the blood of untold numbers of human beings to protect their hold on absolute power (millions in some cases.)

yet, many nations learned from those failures, adopted PARTS of communist theory, and moved forward in very positive ways. Look at the Democratic Socialism of Scandanavia, which yields the most positive outcomes for the largest percentage of citizens of any nations on earth. Black and white thinking is the death of intelligence, and that sort of thinking is exactly what you and Woody are trying to do here. I'll pass, thanks, and I suspect most Americans are smart enough to do likewise.

pertinent:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... -to-idiots

you know, explaining stuff like how Judicial Watch is a partisan organization, with ties to extremist right wing thinkers? When you all can prove capable of finding actual credible sources and reasoned explanations of why this sort of 'news' is important in the least, get back to us.

It’s been well documented that Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and longtime Obama confidant, is a liberal extremist

Extremist! Is that like a liberal doing a knack knack while drinking mountain dew?

Woodchip's freakout just told me that a whole segment of our population STILL hasn't grown out of the commie psychosis of the 1950's. That's why we'll never see Bernie Sanders as president. Too many on the right equate socialism with communism and would never consider him a viable candidate.

Woodchip is also forgetting that the Progressive Movement in the early 1900's helped workers and laborers receive wages that they could survive on and women the right to vote. Getting the right to vote is not a commie ideal either. It's a sign of democracy at work.

I think that segment is a LOT smaller than Woody would like. I still don't think Sanders beats Hillary, when his main source of ground troops goes back to college in the fall, but we'll see. I am also holding back from my original prediction about Biden. Originally, I was sure he wouldn't run because of wishing to return for his son's end-of-life process, but with Beau going quicker than expected(at least by me), he just might run. He could beat Hillary in a primary, I'll bet, on authenticity alone.

If I had my druthers, I'd rather vote for Bernie. He'd really stir things up for a change. Hillary is just another entrenched power broker who will get in there, sit on the throne like she owns it, wave her scepter around and have her ring kissed by all her sycophants.

Sure, socialism seems to work for smaller homogeneous groups, where everyone agrees on the system, and feels like they are benefiting just like the next guy. And if someone isn’t pulling their weight and contributing like everyone else, well it’s ok because they are sort of family.

And in a country like that, you can actually tell someone what you think without getting called some kind of name, and avoid ending up with a system full of "enabled" slackers, because “everyone” will tell you to get your ★■◆● together.

But in a large diverse country like this one, socialism is going to be a very complicated thing to implement, where all people feel like they are benefiting, instead of seeming like there is nothing more going on than shifting wealth from one demographic to another.

Note I said in the first part “everyone agrees on the system” so you can’t just tell people it’s for their own good, when a vast number of people just don’t believe it. And yes, psychology is important.

I’m one of those who believes that socialism is unsuited for large diverse populations, because there is always the equal distribution of benefits problem, and you will always have people bickering about this group or that area gets more than their fair share, or some such group is not pulling their weight…etc. Not to mention how damn complicated it would be to implement such a system, that works as true socialism is supposed to. (oh yea I already did) Unfortunately most people in this country think socialism is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth, and nothing could be further from the truth. I wonder how people would handle the limited amount of consumer products that would come from true socialism. (production based strictly on need)

Go ahead and explain true socialism to the average American, and see if they like it. (not the idealized version)

Personally I prefer a properly regulated capitalist system with as much freedom as possible, and using limited socialism to ensure everyone gets a fair shake, and level the playing field as much as is practical, like public education, one of the basic tenets of socialism, I happen to support.

Spidey wrote:Personally I prefer a properly regulated capitalist system with as much freedom as possible, and using limited socialism to ensure everyone gets a fair shake, and level the playing field as much as is practical, like public education, one of the basic tenets of socialism, I happen to support.

Oh, I agree. It's the best system when it works for all and is well regulated. But we don't have that here and now, do we? You ask any capitalist today and they'd tell you that there are still too many regulations and that if we'd just let them do their thing, unfettered by those pesky government regulations, that we'd all be happy middle class campers with lots of well paying jobs. That lie is getting old and worn out. The apparent newfound popularity of Bernie Sanders shows me that his message is starting to resonate with a frustrated electorate, for better or worse. People are getting fed up with the inequality, greed and the status quo.

Medicare for all. Expand Social Security. Nickel/share tax on stock trades. Double capital gains tax. Constitutional amendment for money != speech. $200 tax credit for political donations. Apollo-esque program to migrate from carbon energy.

Vander 2016

Spidey wrote:
Go ahead and explain true socialism to the average American, and see if they like it. (not the idealized version)

Insurance. In all its forms.