Obama: Limited Gov't That Preserves Free Markets 'Doesn't Work. It Has Never Worked

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by CaDreamer

 

The full text has already been posted. The fact is that the President does not believe in free enterprise except where his own books are concerned, and he has consistently thumbed his nose at the very pillars of American enterprise and is attempting a very nasty Marxist coup takeover of the US.
What is especially disgusting about this is that he has built the whole thing on the lie that he is even eligible as POTUS and that no one has been able to stop him because our hands are tied by the Constitution and his aren't. What's even worse is the people in power don't have any intent on removing him from his seat of power because he serves their purpose for a One World Govt.

sigh...
okay i agree that Obama is a Terrible president, his economic positions are utter insanity. i am not a Keynesian his entire presidency has been an economic nightmare. I am not in any way attempting to support him. nor am i attempting to plead that he does actually believe the opposite of what he said in his speech.

I am merely demonstrating that attributing false statements to a person to frame an argument, is disingenuous, and beneath honest truth seeking individuals.

the thread could have done without the article that twists the speech around on its hind end. without that article i would agree with the entire gist of the thread.

the economic stance of the president has NOTHING to do with my dissatisfaction.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Same communist argument different day.

Same old ignoring what I wrote and calling me a Communist becasue you think that makes you look good to your redneck friends.

Clearly this speech from Obama was a response to the rise of Ron Paul. He is fearful to face off with a true man of peace and integrity because he is such a faker. This speech included details that stick out obviously as directed at the Ron Paul campaign and his massive and growing support base.

Saying in essence that Dr. Paul's prescription for how to fix this mess of broken promises and broken dreams he and both Bush's have created. Clinton too of course with NAFTA and such. They are all globalist lapdogs. Paul would humiliate President Obama in a debate

reply to post by CaDreamer


Please don't get me wrong. Other Presidents have been using Keynesian economic policies and it runs through all the Fed policies I'm sure.
This President has been raised and fed a diet of Marxism. Just look at his own writing.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," Obama wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

After college, Obama states lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

www.city-data.com...


I just don't understand why, with this wealth of data in the information age, people have such a difficult time believing what is right in front of their very own eyes.

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Clearly this speech from Obama was a response to the rise of Ron Paul. He is fearful to face off with a true man of peace and integrity because he is such a faker. This speech included details that stick out obviously as directed at the Ron Paul campaign and his massive and growing support base.

Saying in essence that Dr. Paul's prescription for how to fix this mess of broken promises and broken dreams he and both Bush's have created. Clinton too of course with NAFTA and such. They are all globalist lapdogs. Paul would humiliate President Obama in a debate

I for one would love to see Ron Paul debate Obama without teleprompters!!!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by wayouttheredude
Clearly this speech from Obama was a response to the rise of Ron Paul. He is fearful to face off with a true man of peace and integrity because he is such a faker. This speech included details that stick out obviously as directed at the Ron Paul campaign and his massive and growing support base.

Saying in essence that Dr. Paul's prescription for how to fix this mess of broken promises and broken dreams he and both Bush's have created. Clinton too of course with NAFTA and such. They are all globalist lapdogs. Paul would humiliate President Obama in a debate

I for one would love to see Ron Paul debate Obama without teleprompters!!!

amen
i second that thought!!!

i love Ron Paul but it does have to make you wonder, which one would be doing the most stuttering...

Originally posted by gentledissident

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Same communist argument different day.

Same old ignoring what I wrote and calling me a Communist becasue you think that makes you look good to your redneck friends.

Did I call you a communist? No, but this is a communist argument any one could make if they feel like it. I am not worried about what my "friends" think nor you for that matter, or the Mods here, or lurkers or any body else. Truth is truth no matter the messenger. I hold to my ideals regardless of people's opinions.
It is so easy for seeds of trickery to drop on to the people and to take root while they yet do not even know whence this trickery comes. Marxism and Communism is like that. Once it is embedded, it is like a cancer that just grows and infects.

I am outspoken though and if it upsets your finer sensibilities, I am sorry for that. I have noticed that people have gone from saying communism is dead to what's wrong with socialism to Im proud to be a socialist and think its the best thing since sliced bread. Obama made it vogue I guess.

reply to post by Misoir


It worked so well between 1800-1900 that America became the oasis of wealth and freedom and a desired place for all men. Now we are feared and scorned as our once #1 economy falls.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

American Socalist ROADS which I mentioned first and last really cause you trouble didn't it? Keep arguing wifi with others to avoid it all you want. Hell I said I was not on wifi anyway but I also mentioned the ROADS TWICE, those SOCIALIST AMERICAN ROADS.

Can you see it now?

What you mean is that you are using what techies refer to as "WARDRIVING", that is STEALING bandwidth from private users. You likely have found a nice neighborhood where rich people pay for private lan use. And another technical term for it is UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS

edit on 8-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

What are you on?
What your are talking about is BULLCRAP.

I drive on roads to get from one place to another. I have no clue why you are accusing me of stealing anything that has anything to do with the internet because I drive on roads.

Are you really that desperate to avoid acknowledging socialism works just fine?

While I don't agree with Obama's policies, I do not agree with the rhetoric used by conservatives either. If you want to go around and spout the glory of the Founding Fathers ideologies in the like of your perspective at least first know EXACTLY who the Founding Fathers were and what they stood for.

In the book "Towards an American Revolution," by Jerry Fersia they're perspectives on class are described in detail in how they relate to the common people. I'll list them for you.

Abraham Baldwin of Georgia. He was a wealthy lawyer who possessed a few thousand dollars worth of public securities. He wanted the Senate to be composed of men of property so that they could check the House of Representatives which was apt to be composed of men of less substantial wealth and therefore closer to the common people.

Gunning Bedford of Delaware He was the son of a "substantial land owner," a lawyer, and was eventually elected governor of his state. He was in favor of a more democratic Constitution than the one we have now which he felt checked the "Representatives of the People" more than was necessary.

William Blount of North Carolina He was born into a substantial planting family and was very deeply involved in land speculation. He enslaved human beings.

Pierce Butler of South Carolina He enslaved thirty-one human beings. He also was a stockholder and director of the first United States bank. He felt that no congressional representatives should be directly elected by the people, that the Senate ought to represent property, and that slavery ought to be protected. He was responsible for the Constitution's fugitive slave law and he also "warmly urged the justice and necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of representation."

George Clymer of Pennsylvania He possessed a large fortune, held public securities, and helped create the Bank of Pennsylvania. He believed that "a representative of the people is appointed to think for and not with his constituents." And later as a member of Congress "he showed a total disregard to the opinions of his constituents when opposed to the matured decisions of his own mind."

John Dickinson of Delaware He was a member of one of the established landed families of the South, a lawyer, and he married into one of the wealthiest commercial families in Philadelphia. He wanted a monarchy and refused to sign the Declaration of Independence. He seems to have constantly worried about the "dangerous influence of those multitudes without property & without principle."

Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut He was the most successful lawyer Connecticut had yet known with a fortune "quite uncommonly large." He held public securities and invested in the Hartford Bank and the Hartford Broadcloth Mill. He was also regarded, perhaps more than any other member at the Convention, as someone who feared "levelling democracy." He argued that voting be limited to those who paid taxes. Regarding slavery he said, "As slaves multiply so fast...it is cheaper to raise than import them....[But] let us not intermeddle. As population increases; poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless."

Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania He was a printer, scientist, author, diplomat and land speculator who had accumulated a "considerable" fortune. More than anyone at the convention, he was sympathetic to meaningful self-government. Because of this he was known to have serious doubts about the Constitution but signed it anyway. Charles L. Mee, Jr., in The Genius of the People, states, "Franklin disliked the document, thinking it cheated democracy."

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts He was a Harvard graduate and a merchant with a considerable estate. In reference to the political unrest at the time of the Convention, he complained, "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy." He did not want any members of the new national government to be elected by popular vote, having been taught the "danger of the levelling spirit." Although he was quite active at the Convention, Gerry had numerous objections to the final draft and he refused to sign it. Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts He was a successful merchant who was involved in land speculation on a large scale. He expressed what was then the general attitude about the one chamber that was popularly elected (given the restricted franchise) when he said, "All agree that a check on the legislative branch is necessary." He was sympathetic to monarchy and during the Convention secretly wrote to European royalty in hope of involving someone with royal blood in governing the United States.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Alexander Hamilton of New York He was an eminent lawyer who perhaps more than any other delegate was responsible for organizing the Convention, and later, as Secretary of the Treasury under President Washington, for implementing the Constitution and institutionalizing its relation to the private economy. He greatly admired monarchy and time and again emphasized the need to check "the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit." Hamilton believed that government ought to be an instrument in the hands of creditors, financiers, and bankers. When he later sought to create a national bank, he said that it would help unite "the interest and credit of the rich individuals with those of the state." His statement at the Convention concerning the relationship between government, the rich, and the poor deserves to be quoted at length because it represents what was then a very common attitude among elites: All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the Second.... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy....It is admitted that you cannot have a good executive upon a democratic plan.

William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut He was a wealthy and successful lawyer and graduate of Yale who refused to help in the War of Independence because he could not "conscientiously" take up arms against England.

Clinton Rossiter describes him as "the nearest thing to an aristocrat in mind and manner that Connecticut had managed to produce in its 150 years." He was one of the few northerners at the Convention who simply did not worry about slavery or the slave trade.

Rufus King of Massachusetts He was born into and married into wealthy families, was a Harvard graduate, and had extensive mercantile and other business interests. He was also a large holder of government securities and was later director of the first United States bank. King argued in favor of a strong unimpeachable executive and urged that the judiciary be permitted to check the political tendencies of common people whom he felt would use legislatures to attack the privilege of property owners. He was responsible for the clause, which prevented any state from passing any law "impairing the obligation of contracts." This clause greatly helped the rich, as we shall see.

John Langdon of New Hampshire He was "uniformly prosperous" and a "man of great wealth and pressing commercial interests," the "leading merchant" from Portsmouth. He was a large creditor of the new government (the third largest holder of public securities among all the Framers) and a strong supporter of a national bank.

James Madison of Virginia He was a descendant of one of the old landed families, studied law at Princeton, and at one time enslaved 116 human beings. He has been called the "most active of all the moving spirits of the new government." For this reason he is acknowledged as the "Father" of the Constitution. He greatly feared that the majority of people with little or no property would take away the property of the few who held quite a bit. He very much liked the Constitution because he believed that it would check the majority from establishing "paper money," the "abolition of debts," an "equal division of property," or other "wicked projects." And in general it would prevent the majority from "discovering their own strength" and from acting "in union with each other." His defense of the Constitution in Federalist No. 10, found in the Appendix, is the most concise and clearest example of the political thought that under girds our political institutions. Because his role in the design of the Constitution was so central, I shall quote him frequently; his political thought weighs heavily upon us today.

Luther Martin of Maryland He was a successful lawyer and graduate of Princeton, but his fortune was never large. He enslaved "only" six human beings. He was in sympathy with poor debtors generally and argued that the government ought to protect the debtor against the "wealthy creditor and the moneyed man" in times of crisis. He refused to sign the Constitution, given its protection of creditors, and fought hard against its ratification.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania He was a lawyer who was born into the landed aristocracy of New York. A rich man, he helped establish the Bank of North America. He was "an aristocrat to the core," once stating that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy." He believed that common people were incapable of self-government and that poor people would sell their votes. He argued, "Give the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them." Voting should be restricted to property owners. He shaped the Constitution more than most men at the Convention (he made 173 speeches, more than anyone) and was responsible for the style in which it was written. William Patterson of New Jersey He was a lawyer, graduate of Princeton, and attorney general of New Jersey who was born in Ireland. He resisted the creation of a strong central government and left the Convention early.

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina A successful lawyer, and a considerable landowner, he enslaved fifty-two human beings. Taking the side of the creditor against the debtor, he had been among the Congressmen who were critical of the Articles of Confederation and sought the creation of a centralized national government. At twenty-nine, he was the youngest member of the Convention. He believed that members of government ought to "be possessed of competent property to make them independent & respectable." He wrote to Madison before the Constitution was ratified, "Are you not...abundantly impressed that the theoretical nonsense of an election of Congress by the people in the first instance is clearly and practically wrong, that it will in the end be the means of bringing our councils into contempt?"

General Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina A successful lawyer who worked for the merchants of Charlestown, he was also a large landowner in Charleston, and he enslaved human beings. He felt that the Senate ought to represent the "wealth of the country," that members of the government ought to hold property, and according to Clinton, believed in the need "for stiff measures to restrain the urges of arrant democracy."

Edmund Randolph of Virginia He was a successful lawyer who owned 7,000 acres of land. He enslaved nearly 200 human beings. He held considerable public securities. He believed that the problems confronting the United States at the time were due to the "turbulence and follies of democracy." The new Constitution, therefore, ought to check popular will. He thought that the best way of doing this would be to create a independent Senate composed of relatively few rich men.

George Read of Delaware A successful lawyer who "lived in the style of the colonial gentry," enslaved human beings, and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was in favor of doing away with states and wanted the President to be elected for life and have absolute veto power.

John Rutledge of South Carolina He was a very successful lawyer who also owned five plantations. He enslaved twenty-six human beings. He said that the defects of democracy have been found "arbitrary, severe, and destructive." We see in Rutledge a clear expression of the notion that the general welfare is, in essence, economic development and accumulation. With regard to the issue of objections to slavery, he stated: "Religion & humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern states shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interests they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers."


Roger Herman of Connecticut He was a shoemaker, storekeeper, farmer who rose from poverty to affluence and he also owned public securities. A signer of the Declaration and drafter of the Articles of Confederation, Sherman was not terribly enthusiastic about a strong national government. But nor was he enthusiastic about popular sovereignty. He said, "The people immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled."

Caleb Strong of Massachusetts He was a lawyer and Harvard graduate. He owned public securities and seems to have accumulated considerable wealth. He was in favor of more frequent congressional elections than what the Constitution eventually mandated. He left the Convention early and went home.

reply to post by elfulanozutan0


George Washington of Virginia As we have noted, by several accounts Washington was the richest man in the United States and he enslaved hundreds of human beings. He made only one speech at the Convention and seems to have had no particular theory of government. He distrusted popular democratic tendencies and viewed criticism of the government, as Beard notes, as "akin to sedition." He also feared the growth of urban populations, stating that "The tumultuous populace of large cities are ever to be dreaded. Their indiscriminate violence prostates for the time all public authority."

Hugh Williamson of North Carolina Educated as a medical doctor, he inherited a great trading operation. He also speculated in land and owned public securities. He wrote Madison following the Convention that he thought an "efficient federal government" would in the end contribute to the increase in value of his land. He sided with creditors against debtors in his state. At the Convention he was generally in favor of shifting power away from the states toward the national level.

James Wilson of Pennsylvania Born in Scotland, he was a successful lawyer whose clients were primarily "merchants and men of affairs." He was one of the directors of the Bank of North America. He was involved in the corrupt Georgia Land Company and held shares "to the amount of at least one million acres." He later became a member of the Supreme Court. He was apprehensive, as were most of his colleagues, about the opportunity that common people would have to express themselves politically though legislatures. But he also believed that the judiciary would be a sufficient check on popular will. He, therefore, was in favor of more popular participation in the selection of government officials (popular election of the President and the Senate) than the Constitution permitted.


The Constitution was intended to ensure that only an elite few would be in charge of this government and those same few would also be in charge of the economy. This is as Michael Parenti says, a "democracy for the few." And, it is the founding fathers and their Constitution that ensures that this is so. We do not live in a democracy. This is a system where terror and repression predominates here and abroad. It is due in large part to the concentration of corporate power. The Constitution and glorification thereof, does nothing if not inhibit our objections to this concentration of power.

One of the Founders, John Adams, believed that "Men in general...who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent on other men to have a will of their own." [Eric Foner, Tom Paine and Revolutionary America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976)]

Whenever the "Framers" of the Constitution used the language, "the people" they meant only property owning people. These were the "people" who were to have limited participation in the government through the House of Representatives. These people were not even the richest and thus were considered the "middle classes." And, everyone below this property owning middle class were women, or people of color, indentured servants, and other people with NO property. They were "people in the first instance" as Charles Pinckney called them, or the majority, was simply "nonsense" and "wrong."

Schools arent trying to teach us the right way anymore! Just as well, The Arlington Middle School in Lawrence MA as well as every other school in the DISTRICT is now Level 5 witch is the worst is could ever be. If you ask me their only trying to brainwash us into siding with the idiots in the Big-house who want to make this country a communist's country! We should Repeal them And Celebrate OUR Countrys Achievements! Why do we celebrate Independance day, and Veterans Day, Because those are days we celebrate our Independance And FREEDOM! These schools are siding with the wrong People! Obama is Screwing our country over more than ever. Our country has been through much but as they say " No pain No gain" our country was brought together is our worst times of desperation and need! September 11, 2001....I think we all know what happened taht day...And on that day our country came together and Said all as one That You can destroy our homes, our lives, but never shall you Take away our Freedom and individuality. We all came together as one that day. Many other great threats to not only our country but the very world we walk upon have come to be realized, The Holocaust, WW1, WW2, Civil War.... We survived it all, and how? Becuase we Fought Together as a Country! Just as we did agenst the redcoats. But lets not be distracted from the real problem, THe Schools ACT AS IF THEY ARE OUR PARENTS, AS IF THEY KNOW WHATS BEST, And as if they can do as they please! I think not! The Schools are being Taken over and "Used", USED to brainwash Kids Such as myself, To Brainwash us a an Early stage of Development So taht we will side With People like The ones in the big house who are giving themselves 50% Pay raises, And leaving us the people who really need taht money IN THE DUST! THis is Not a message only to kids but to parents and Adults Everywhere! This is Isaac M. Santiago Saying: Lets hope this message opens your eyes, to the truth.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

But they are correct about a free market

That is a matter of opinion.

WRONG. Either free markets increase poverty, or they don't. Hong Kong is the one and only place in the world that is close to a free market. Singapore tags along in a distant second. And then the rest lag pretty badly. So you tell me how the poor are faring over there in comparison to less economically free places, and come back to report your results. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion.

Hint: the free markets are proven to work and that is a fact.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


No, the truth is that I was simply unaware of how the Obama govt has been working the socialist aspect of wifi, although I was aware of the Net Neutrality business, I was not aware of the strides that Google and other corporate welfare taker giants were making to help Obama socialize and fundamentally transform our great Nation. Thanks for putting me on to this crazy stuff.

That is super super stuff. None of it has anything to do with any thing I wrote anywhere on the internet ever but I am glad you think you told me something.

What about the roads? Did you mean the one you fellow travelers use while taking advantage of private citizens? You apparently do not see your own hypocrisyl.

What the # are you talking about? Who do I take advantage of? Am I not a private citizen? Do you use different roads than I do?

I seriously have no clue what you have just written. None of it. I pointed out socialism that our founders believed in and socialism that helped me read what you wrote. Why are you so confused? Because you cannot admit that there was socialism built into America and it works.

OWS wants to get rid of corporate welfare my derriere!!!! What a bunch of socialist posers!!!!!!

OWS? Who the hell brought up OWS?

As for understanding wifi, it is likely I have a better technical awareness of it than you or your socialist friends. It is likely you just use the services rather than understand how they work.

edit on 8-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I never said anything about wifi so go ahead and know more about than me all you like. The simple fact that you cannot understand a simple word like "roads" leaves me unimpressed.
You brought up wifi and confused roads with internet access. Now try reading my actual on topic post again and let me know if you need it translated.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Now you are calling me names? Because I pointed out American socialism that not only works but helped make America great? Put your ideology down for a moment and let some reality get in. You do not need to call me names though. If you are just upset because ideas that confuse you make you angry, use your words and tell us.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


None of those external quotes or links seem to back up the fact that the founding fathers were also time travelers. Perhaps you will start a thread on that then.

reply to post by Misoir


The times of limited government in America were the most profitable and spurred more inventions than any other civilization in human history.

To say that limited government is bad is anti-human. Just look at what America became in such a short time and look at all the inventions that were born of the free and free minded.

Originally posted by seachange
Hint: the free markets are proven to work and that is a fact.

Indeed. Free markets work just fine. Like a casino. Free exploitation until exhaustion and collapse.



The American Dream: because you have to be asleep to believe it.