Is Obama a Marxist?

So he is related to the Dunhams, like Jeff Dunham, my bet is he is not the ventriloquist but the DUMMY

Looks like you missed this when you googled.

Funny how there are many credible sources that refute you and no really credible sources that back you up. They all reference books by corsi. And all of corsi's books have inaccuracies.

It doesn't bother you at all to regurgitate someone else's shit, does it?

FactCheck described the book as "a mishmash of unsupported conjecture, half-truths, logical fallacies and outright falsehoods." FactCheck's review also stated that, "A comprehensive review of all the false claims in Corsi's book would itself be a book."

Corsi's book has been criticized for inaccuracies by news organizations such as The New York Times,[1] the Los Angeles Times,[3] U.S. News and World Report,[47] the Associated Press,[4] Time magazine,[48] Newsweek,[49] The Daily Telegraph,[5] Editor & Publisher,[6] The Guardian,[7] CNN,[8] The Independent,[9] Politifact.com,[50] and The Boston Globe.[35] According to The New York Times, "several of the book's accusations, in fact, are unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate."[1] Peter Wehner of Commentary wrote: "conservatives should not hitch their hopes to" Corsi's book because "it seems to be riddled with factual errors — some relatively minor (like asserting that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, in Dreams from My Father; Obama does mention her), and some significant (suggesting that Obama favors withdrawing troops from Afghanistan; he wants to do the opposite)."[51]
The Washington Post called it an "innuendo-filled, mistake-riddled biography" in its online election diary The Trail.[52] Kate Linthicum of the Los Angeles Times wrote "being No. 1 [on the best seller list] doesn't necessarily mean being accurate" in regard to Corsi's claims about Obama's religious faith.[3] The Politico reported that Corsi's book "left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility."[53] The British newspaper The Independent called Corsi's book "a hatchet job on Obama".[9] According to Slate, "neither Corsi nor Matalin responded to e-mails from me asking whether they intended to correct any errors in The Obama Nation – it would be a miracle if there were none" [emphasis in original].

At least jerome corsi got paid to be a douche bag.

My take on your post is that you are full of shit. Look at yourself.

You became a douche bag for free.

I'm sure in real life your integrity matches your hooker board level. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Can you site any SPECIFIC innacuracy in my post? You say my facts are refuted, but you don't mention anything in particular. It's a little hard to provide a defence to such a generalized accusation. Is it your contention that everything I'm saying is untrue? Try to be specific.

Factcheck.org is liberally biased and not a credible source. They're funded by the Annenberg Foundation which is being run by leftist partisans. That's the same foundation that funded The Chicago Annenberg Challange which was run by Obama. The funding for the Annenberg Challenge was granted based partly on Bill Ayer's request to the foundation.

PS
You really should try to calm down. Your posts are angry and hatefull and full of personal attacks. Do you really think insulting me makes your arguments more convincing? The bile you spew only makes you seem unstable. Your posts remind me of a line from WB Yeat's poem "The Second Coming". "The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity"

Four words: President Joe Biden. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That would be 3 words

Also, for impeachment to occur, you would need 67 Senate votes. Currently, the GOP holds only 48 Senate seats-- 2 of which are held be notorious RINOs such as Lindsay Graham and John McCain neither of whom would vote to convict in the Senate. Sure, the House of Reps could pass articles of impeachment until the cows come home, it would still be of little to no value.

As for the original question, I don't think Obama is a Marxist in the sense of Lenin, Mao, Stalin, etc. (at least for now). Those individuals relied on fear and terror to maintain order. Obama, though, is a true-believer in Euro-Centric Socialism that swept that continent in the post WWII years. Obama believes the central state (i.e. federal government) can force change in wide areas of issues for the lives of all Americans. Personally, I find this a bit naive. You can't force a people to do things they don't want to do-- i.e. healthcare. You also can't run roughshod over the Constitution while using lame excuses or legal arguments. The one thing Obama and 99% of all politicians (of all parties) seem to underestimate is the free will of the individual to solve problems. Elected officials believe they can solve our problems for us. That is not only naive, but arrogant. We see it everyday through the stupid laws on the books. Why does the government need to tell a motorcycle rider to where a helmet? Why does the government set a speed limit? Why does the government outlaw certain drugs but allow the encouraged the use of other drugs? Why is what we do in the hobby a crime? After all, we are just consenting adults trying to have a little fun. No the problem isn't if Obama is a Marxist. I could care less. He's just another idiotic politician who thinks he's above the people he's suppose to serve. This country needs to return to the roots upon which it was founded-- limited government, few laws, and the utmost faith in the American citizen to use their God-given free will to make life better for all.

GM and Chrylser have "paid back" government loans by using TARP money the federal government gave them illegally. It's a shell game. GM and Chrylser are zombie companies. They weren't allowed to renegotiate unsustainable union contracts because of Obama's illegal interference in bankruptsy proceedings. Obama did not have legal authority to intervene in GM and Chrysler's bankruptcies; federal bankruptsy laws applied. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Why don't you haters do some research. President Bush first loaned GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion in late 2008. It was Bush who started the bail out and NOT Obama, he just continued what Bush had started.

This is Bush's comments on the auto bailouts he started.

Bush Defends Bailouts, Says he Did the Right Thing

Criticism from his party and the public has not swayed former President Bush's conviction that he made the right choice. In a Q&A at an auto dealer convention in Las Vegas, President Bush is quoted as saying, "I'd do it again. I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment."

As to the free market proponents that say that the companies should have been allowed to go through the traditional process of bankruptcy and liquidation, Mr. Bush disagrees. He says that he would traditionally support that -- but that the cumulative impact of the recession required a more intimate approach. He comments, "If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay. [But] sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy."

He says he "had to" break with his rigid conservative roots and craft the bailout, in order to "safeguard American workers and families." He takes credit for crafting the financial tools that President Obama would later use to slow the recession and set the nation back on more stable financial ground. He comments, "[I expected to] kind of ride out to the sunset [in my last year of presidency]. [But] I didn't want to saddle my successor with an additional economic crisis."

Oh, and BigTurd, Obama IS a Marxist. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Oh, and COG, the fact that you or any other Far-Right poster from this forum initiate an (erroneous) claim that "Obama IS a Marxist," does not necessarily mean your claims are factual. Oftentimes, you and the rest of your lunatic fringe buddies make crazy statements from Far, Far, Far-Right field! A "small" percentage of what you and the rest of your Far Right Wing-Nuts Buddies write on these pages might actually be factual. Special emphasis on the word "small!"

For accuracy purposes, we probably should change the "small" to "extremely small!"

On the other hand, I could make a claim that you and the rest of your Far Right Wing-Nut Buds are "StupidOldFarts." That does not necessarily mean my allegation is 100% accurate. However, if a sane individual took the time to read a few of the Anti-Obama posts from you and others in this forum, it would be difficult for that person to make a case that COG and the Far Right Wing-Nuts are not "StupidOldFarts!"

Congratulations, your reputations precede you!

Why don't you haters do some research. President Bush first loaned GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion in late 2008. It was Bush who started the bail out and NOT Obama, he just continued what Bush had started.

This is Bush's comments on the auto bailouts he started.

Bush Defends Bailouts, Says he Did the Right Thing

Criticism from his party and the public has not swayed former President Bush's conviction that he made the right choice. In a Q&A at an auto dealer convention in Las Vegas, President Bush is quoted as saying, "I'd do it again. I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment."

As to the free market proponents that say that the companies should have been allowed to go through the traditional process of bankruptcy and liquidation, Mr. Bush disagrees. He says that he would traditionally support that -- but that the cumulative impact of the recession required a more intimate approach. He comments, "If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay. [But] sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy."

He says he "had to" break with his rigid conservative roots and craft the bailout, in order to "safeguard American workers and families." He takes credit for crafting the financial tools that President Obama would later use to slow the recession and set the nation back on more stable financial ground. He comments, "[I expected to] kind of ride out to the sunset [in my last year of presidency]. [But] I didn't want to saddle my successor with an additional economic crisis." Originally Posted by BigLouie

I think what is most damning evidence of Obama being a marxist was when he fired the President of GM. I really started paying attention to this administration. That is fascism, too.

Anybody and everybody who gets hypnotized by Obummer's smooth talking ALWAYS pulls out the race card, so there are no surprises there.

Bush couldnt loan anyone shit, congress loaned the money and who was in control of congress in 2008.

Bush couldnt loan anyone shit, congress loaned the money and who was in control of congress in 2008. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

He could have vetoed it. Bush was a RINO. He was for amnesty for illegals. He created the largest expansion of social welfare since the nineteen sixties by changing Medicare to include prescription drug coverage. Bush certainly isn't a Marxist like Obama, but I think he may have been a usefull idiot in terms of going along with the expansion of the federal government beyond its constitutional limits.

Why don't you haters do some research. President Bush first loaned GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion in late 2008. It was Bush who started the bail out and NOT Obama, he just continued what Bush had started.

This is Bush's comments on the auto bailouts he started.

Bush Defends Bailouts, Says he Did the Right Thing

Criticism from his party and the public has not swayed former President Bush's conviction that he made the right choice. In a Q&A at an auto dealer convention in Las Vegas, President Bush is quoted as saying, "I'd do it again. I didn't want there to be 21 percent unemployment."

As to the free market proponents that say that the companies should have been allowed to go through the traditional process of bankruptcy and liquidation, Mr. Bush disagrees. He says that he would traditionally support that -- but that the cumulative impact of the recession required a more intimate approach. He comments, "If you make a bad decision, you ought to pay. [But] sometimes circumstances get in the way of philosophy."

He says he "had to" break with his rigid conservative roots and craft the bailout, in order to "safeguard American workers and families." He takes credit for crafting the financial tools that President Obama would later use to slow the recession and set the nation back on more stable financial ground. He comments, "[I expected to] kind of ride out to the sunset [in my last year of presidency]. [But] I didn't want to saddle my successor with an additional economic crisis." Originally Posted by BigLouie

It does look like Bush bought into the idea of subsidizing companies to provide jobs. When the government props up companies that can't make it on their own, it's just kicking the can down the road. That's the kind of nonsense Europe has been practicing for a long time with companies like Airbus. Now we see, not just companies failing in Europe, but whole countries. Capitalism is the best system partly because it does allow badly run companies to fail. When the government subsidizes companies that are headed towards bankruptsy it creates a moral hazard.

I'm convinced a big part of the subprime collapse was driven by the private sector's belief that the government would bail them out when the Ponzi scheme finally collapsed. That's the moral hazard. The government's willingness to bailout badly run companies actually encourages the unsound business policies that drive them to bankruptsy. It becomes a viscous cycle.

If GM and Chrysler aren't forced to renegotiate their union contracts and become truly profitable without subsidies, sooner or later the government won't be able to prop them up. Real wealth can only be created in the private sector by selling goods and services that don't require government subsidies.

I'm convinced a big part of the subprime collapse was driven by the private sector's belief that the government would bail them out when the Ponzi scheme finally collapsed. That's the moral hazard. The government's willingness to bailout badly run companies actually encourages the unsound business policies that drive them to bankruptsy. It becomes a viscous cycle.

If GM and Chrysler aren't forced to renegotiate their union contracts and become truly profitable without subsidies, sooner or later the government won't be able to prop them up. Real wealth can only be created in the private sector by selling goods and services that don't require government subsidies. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The Kool Aid served by FAUX News must be especially potent this time of year!

The Kool Aid served by FAUX News must be especially potent this time of year! Originally Posted by bigtex

It's ironic you should use the Kool Aid metaphor. The origin of this metaphor is the Jim Jones mass suicide in Jonestown Guyana. Jones' followers voluntarily, for the most part, drank cyanide laced Kool Aid (909 people died). Jim Jones was a communist like Obama. Here's a link to a video of Jones and his followers singing the Soviet national anthem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMt3nKd-QZY

Jim Jones was a communist like Obama. Originally Posted by joe bloe

You guys are entertaining as hell! You never let the facts stand in the way of the bull shit story you want to tell.

Check your dictionary big guy. In the middle of vehemently assuring everyone that they are morons, you use a word you think makes you sound smart. Might have worked if only someone had not happened along who is actually well read, not just a wind bag.

Just kidding, I am sure you totally misused the word dearth just to see if anyone would notice....not because you are a pompous, ignorant ass. Originally Posted by tracer

You don't play here often so before calling you the hair-trigger idiot I suspect you are, I'll just say it was used exactly how I intended it. Practically every post I make about the individuals that make up the 1% is met by the dumb asses (who subscribe to the conspiracy theories on the right) is met by protests telling me that George Soros, Warren Buffet and the Hollywood elite equal all the rich righties combined.

Of course, you can think what you want but calling their perceived tiny number of righty billionaires "exposed" from their trusted sources like Hannity and Rush Bimbo is indeed a dearth of billionaires, especially if you appreciate the sarcasm and irony of accepting the scorecard embellished by those hate radio morons.

Perhaps I should use quotes to clear things up for you but I think most of the TeaPublicans wouldn't get it either way.

As for your other comments - LMAO!

And to the other "free marketeers" here, the idea that we can cease most regulation and allow a totally free market to self-regulate through demand is ludicrous. America in the late 1800's through the 1920's and to a certain degree, the Indias and Chinas of today have proven that merely hoping giant corporations will "play nice" is the stuff fairy tales are made of.

Melamine in infant formula and dog food, lead paint on toys for children and even the continuation of deep water offshore drilling without development of a provably safe blowout preventer for high pressure situations and deep water should be ringing all sorts of alarm bells for business but they still play the dishonest game of trying to skirt regulations to swell profits.

I'll remind you of Hallibutrton and KBR providing contaminated drinking water to our troops in Iraq and their callous electrocution of 11 of our nation's brave soldiers in addition to sickness from those water supplies and even more injuries from the non-fatal electrical shock incidents.

I don't turn into a pompous ass until someone gives me reason to do so.

I don't turn into a pompous ass until someone gives me reason to do so. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Another lie. You've never been anything but a pompous ass.

You don't play here often so before calling you the hair-trigger idiot I suspect you are, I'll just say it was used exactly how I intended it. Practically every post I make about the individuals that make up the 1% is met by the dumb asses (who subscribe to the conspiracy theories on the right) is met by protests telling me that George Soros, Warren Buffet and the Hollywood elite equal all the rich righties combined.

Of course, you can think what you want but calling their perceived tiny number of righty billionaires "exposed" from their trusted sources like Hannity and Rush Bimbo is indeed a dearth of billionaires, especially if you appreciate the sarcasm and irony of accepting the scorecard embellished by those hate radio morons.

Perhaps I should use quotes to clear things up for you but I think most of the TeaPublicans wouldn't get it either way.

As for your other comments - LMAO!

And to the other "free marketeers" here, the idea that we can cease most regulation and allow a totally free market to self-regulate through demand is ludicrous. America in the late 1800's through the 1920's and to a certain degree, the Indias and Chinas of today have proven that merely hoping giant corporations will "play nice" is the stuff fairy tales are made of.

Melamine in infant formula and dog food, lead paint on toys for children and even the continuation of deep water offshore drilling without development of a provably safe blowout preventer for high pressure situations and deep water should be ringing all sorts of alarm bells for business but they still play the dishonest game of trying to skirt regulations to swell profits.

I'll remind you of Hallibutrton and KBR providing contaminated drinking water to our troops in Iraq and their callous electrocution of 11 of our nation's brave soldiers in addition to sickness from those water supplies and even more injuries from the non-fatal electrical shock incidents.

I don't turn into a pompous ass until someone gives me reason to do so. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Nonsense. You obviously misused the word. Dearth means a shortage, something in scarce supply. There's no way the word makes any sense in the context you used it. It's meaning is contrary to the point you were trying to make. Don't give me some sort of tortured, convoluted pretzel logic explanation of how it makes sense.

You also misspelled created. I'm pretty sure it's not spelled "creatd" or was that intentional too?

You make yourself vulnerable to nitpicking because you are the world's worst nitpicker.