The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
The Obama Tapes
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

want2getlean wrote:

I'm familiar with Dr Bell's work, thanks.


Based on your post, I have no reason to believe that.

Which, whether you agree with it or not, is completely irrelevant to what Obama was openly supporting and celebrating.


Well, not completely irrelevant - he was associating with a radical professor - but that's why the video wasn't a bombshell: Obama wasn't supporting the radical beliefs of Bell per se, he was protesting for faculty diversity. Pretty un-radical.

Of course, the people complaining about this are the same people that complained about Malcom X; bigots born into white privilege who like their minorities as opressed by WASP culture and as Uncle Tom as it gets.


Of course, this is utter rubbish, but thanks for outing yourself as someone I have no reason to take seriously - it'll save me the trouble.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

UtahLama
Level 10

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Utah, USA
Posts: 6756

want2getlean wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Go read the thread. Bell wasn't a "black rights activist".



Of course, the people complaining about this are the same people that complained about Malcom X; bigots born into white privilege who like their minorities as opressed by WASP culture and as Uncle Tom as it gets.



I suppose any black person complaining about a white politician just hates Honkey's then right?

When you are the president people have a right to vet your past....the fact that the MSM has done nothing to look into the presidents past makes people nervous.

You can't really be this dumb....right?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

want2getlean
Level

Join date: Nov 2011
Location:
Posts: 581

UtahLama wrote:

When you are the president people have a right to vet your past....



Sure they do, except there's absolutely NOTHING wrong here.
Only closet racists and people indocrinated by anti-socialist propaganda grasping at straws against a fine man.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

want2getlean
Level

Join date: Nov 2011
Location:
Posts: 581

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Obama wasn't supporting the radical beliefs of Bell per se, he was protesting for faculty diversity


Exactly. Glad we can all agree that Obama was doing fine upstanding activist work and this video is a non-issue.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24737

want2getlean wrote:
UtahLama wrote:

When you are the president people have a right to vet your past....



Sure they do, except there's absolutely NOTHING wrong here.
Only closet racists and people indocrinated by anti-socialist propaganda grasping at straws against a fine man.


Yeah well, the point that the one Breitbart journalist made still stands:

If you have one Jeremy Wright in your past, or one Bill Ayers or one whoever this guy is, oh well.

If you whole past is chock full of them I think it is reasonable to ask why.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24737

want2getlean wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Obama wasn't supporting the radical beliefs of Bell per se, he was protesting for faculty diversity


Exactly. Glad we can all agree that Obama was doing fine upstanding activist work and this video is a non-issue.


What we should all be able to agree on that some that just breezed from a community organizer to president in what surely must be the most corrupt city in the most corrupt state in the US cannot, simply cannot have not gotten his hands dirty.

He did not even have his ass out of his senate seat before his governor tried to sell it to the highest bidder.

2 out of the last 3 Illinois governors in jail does not bode well for the immaculate conception of Obamas presidency.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

pushharder
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2005
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 37493

I think History will (rightfully) expose and harshly judge the rise and fall of Obama via the Chicago Machine.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 24737

pushharder wrote:
I think History will (rightfully) expose and harshly judge the rise and fall of Obama via the Chicago Machine.


I forgot Washington.

Let it be known that I consider Chicago to be the second most corrupt city in the US.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 8162

want2getlean wrote:

Exactly. Glad we can all agree that Obama was doing fine upstanding activist work and this video is a non-issue.


Well, no, dumb diverosty initiatives don't automatically qualify as "upstanding activist work" - you have no idea if the person he was advocating for was worthy of tenure or whether the argument was she was "not white" and that was reason enough.

Moreover, you pay for your associations in life, and while one incident with Bell doesn't amount to much, when you add it to associations that include Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc., it gets more than a passover.

That makes it somewhat interesting.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DrSkeptix
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2004
Location:
Posts: 2249

pushharder wrote:
I think History will (rightfully) expose and harshly judge the rise and fall of Obama via the Chicago Machine.


History loves its hucksters...
http://www.amazon.com/...7807&sr=1-1
It was by filthy tactics that Obama appeared on his first ballots.

But then Chicago, where I had spent my deformative years, has a special panache when it comes to corrupt practices.

Just Google Michelle Obama and the University of Chicago, for example, http://www.factcheck.org/...-obamas-salary/
But let's not miss the point that Michelle's salary for a do-nothing job at UC Med Center was tripled as Senator Obama was earmarking $1 million for a UC hospital extension.

(And, as for Governors of Illinois, I believe it is 4 of the last 7 have passed time in "a government-funded gated community.")

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

silee
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 258

SexMachine wrote:
'Among his other distinctions, Bell is one of the main figures in a school of thought known as "Critical Legal Studies," or CLS, as it's known in legal academic circles. That is, as in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School applied to the law. Bell's particular branch of CLS ? the one dealing with race ? flows from a type of thinking Bell called "racial realism" in an article published in the Connecticut Law Review right around the time that Obama was protesting in favor of his cause.'
http://www.theblaze.com/...-harvard-video/
----------

For those unaware the Frankfurt school was a group of extreme Marxists who fled Nazi Germany and established themselves at Columbia university and elsewhere - Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Max Horkheimer, Jurgen Habermas and Herbert Marcuse - extremists to the last.

This is Obama's ideological origin - you can trace a direct line from the Frankfurt school to the Soviet agitators to Cloward and Piven at Columbia to Ayers and Dohrn to Jeremiah Wright(Nation of Islam offshoot), Derrick Bell, Cornel West, George Soros etc.




you know nothing of the Frankfurt school . first off what the hell is extreme Marxists? . All of them except Habermas were Neo-marxists, Fromm, & Reich combined Freud and Marx. Habermas at best is a liberal. Marcuse for your information worked for a time for the intelligence
service of the USA.
Cornel West is a democratic socialist with Pragmatism guiding his philosophy.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6819

silee wrote:
SexMachine wrote:
'Among his other distinctions, Bell is one of the main figures in a school of thought known as "Critical Legal Studies," or CLS, as it's known in legal academic circles. That is, as in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School applied to the law. Bell's particular branch of CLS ? the one dealing with race ? flows from a type of thinking Bell called "racial realism" in an article published in the Connecticut Law Review right around the time that Obama was protesting in favor of his cause.'
http://www.theblaze.com/...-harvard-video/
----------

For those unaware the Frankfurt school was a group of extreme Marxists who fled Nazi Germany and established themselves at Columbia university and elsewhere - Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm, Wilhelm Reich, Max Horkheimer, Jurgen Habermas and Herbert Marcuse - extremists to the last.

This is Obama's ideological origin - you can trace a direct line from the Frankfurt school to the Soviet agitators to Cloward and Piven at Columbia to Ayers and Dohrn to Jeremiah Wright(Nation of Islam offshoot), Derrick Bell, Cornel West, George Soros etc.




you know nothing of the Frankfurt school . first off what the hell is extreme Marxists? . All of them except Habermas were Neo-marxists, Fromm, & Reich combined Freud and Marx. Habermas at best is a liberal. Marcuse for your information worked for a time for the intelligence
service of the USA.
Cornel West is a democratic socialist with Pragmatism guiding his philosophy.


Are you a troll? Are you being serious?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6819

Breitbart on Marcuse:

[Marcuse] really hit his stride in 1955, however, with the publication of Eros and Civilization. The book essentially made Wilhelm Reich's case that sexual liberation was the best counter to the psychological ills of society. Marcuse preferred a society of "polymorphous perversity,"--which is Just what it sounds like--people having sex every which way, with whatever,
It wasn't so much the freshness of Marcuse's message that made the difference (it wasn't a fresh message) as his timing--the kids brought up with Fromm and Freud and Spock were coming of age. The misplaced guilt of the Greatest Generation brought forth a new generation free to embrace Marcuse. While similar philosophies of sex had failed in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, by the 1950s the men and women who had suffered through the Great Depression and fought in World War II were determined to raise privileged kids who would never have to actually fight for their country or work for their food. The result was a group of kids ready and able to participate in the sexual revolution promised by the Frankfurt School. Marcuse excused sexual promiscuity as the fulfillment of the need for the people to rise up against Western civilization and to free themselves of the sexual repression it created. Not a hard sell for teenagers.
It was no wonder that in a very real sense, his followers believed they were doing something special when they made love, not war (a slogan attributed to Marcuse himself)--they were using their sexual energy to bind the world together rather than destroy it, as sexual repression would do. While Marcuse may not have been the most important intellectual force behind the Frankfurt School, he was its most devious and effective marketer. The advertising adage "Sex sells" was applied to selling a generation on the idea that their parents' values and ideals were repressive and evil. (Where geographically did Marcuse come to this nihilistic understanding? The picturesque cliffs of La Jolla, overlooking the Pacific Ocean.)
Marcuse carried his "critical theory" in another destructive direction as well: while repeating the Marxist trope that the workers of the world would eventually unite--he saw the third world's "anti-colonial" movements as evidence that Marx was right--he recognized that in the United States there would be no such uprising by the working class. He therefore needed a different set of interest groups to tear down capitalism using his critical theory. And he found those groups in the racial, ethnic, and sexual groups that hated the old order. These victimized interest groups rightly opposed all the beauties of Western civilization "with all the defiance, and the hatred, and the joy of [p. 121] rebellious victims, defining their own humanity against the definitions of the masters."19
Marcuse's mission was to dismantle American society by using diversity and "multiculturalism" as crowbars with which to pry the structure apart, piece by piece. He wanted to set blacks in opposition to whites, set all "victim groups" in opposition to the society at large. Marcuse's theory of victim groups as the new proletariat, combined with Horkheimer's critical theory, found an outlet in academia, where it became the basis for the post-structural movement--Gender Studies, LGBT/"Queer" Studies, African-American Studies, Chicano Studies, etc. All of these "Blank Studies" brazenly describe their mission as tearing down traditional Judeo-Christian values and the accepted traditions of Western culture, and placing in their stead a moral relativism that equates all cultures and all philosophies--except for Western civilization, culture, and philosophy, which are "exploitative" and "bad."
Marcuse was widely accepted in the 1960s by the student movement--so much so that students in Paris during the 1968 uprising marched with banners reading "Marx, Mao, and Marcuse."
But he still wasn't winning in America. Marcuse bad a big, big problem: America's founding ideology is still far sexier than that of the Marxists, who insist on a tyrannical state of equality rather than freedom with personal responsibility. Even if Marcuse was promising unending sex, drugs, and rock and roll, most Americans were more interested in living in liberty with their families, in a society that values virtue and hard work rather than promiscuity and decadence.
So Marcuse had to find a way to defy the opposition. He found it in what he termed "repressive tolerance." In 1965, Marcuse wrote an essay by that name in which he argued that tolerance was good only if nondominating ideas were allowed to flourish--and that nondominating ideas could flourish only if dominating ideas were shut down. "[T]he realization of the objective of tolerance," he wrote, "would call for in tolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed." America was experiencing a "repressive tolerance" under which dissenting viewpoints were stifled; what it needed was " partisan tolerance.20 In other words, if you disagreed with Marcuse, you should be forcefully shut up, according to Marcuse. This made political debate very convenient for him and his allies. This totalitarianism is now standard practice on college campuses, in the media, and in Hollywood--the very places that the Frankfurt School sought to control. The First Amendment--the same instrument that allowed the Frankfurt School to land a ll our shores and express their pernicious ideas in freedom--was now curtailed by those who had benefitted from it. Marcuse called for a tyranny [p. 122] of the minority, since the tyranny of the majority could not be overcome without a total shutdown.
There's another name for Marcuse's "partisan tolerance": Political Correctness.
In fact, the term "political correctness" came from one of Marcuse's buddies: Mao Tse-tung. ...

David Horowitz on Marcuse:

Herbert Marcuse, a professor at Brandeis and a veteran of the famed "Frankfurt School" of European Marxism, was another figure whose writings flourished with the new radical presence on university faculties. His famous essay on "Repressive Tolerance," written in 1965, is a justification for the suppression of conservative speech and access to cultural platforms on the grounds that the views of right-wing intellectuals reflect the rule of an oppressive and already dominant social class. Marcuse identified "revolutionary tolerance" as "tolerance that enlarged the range and content of freedom." Revolutionary tolerance [p. xxxvii] could not be neutral towards rival viewpoints. It had to be "partisan" on behalf of a radical cause and "intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive status quo." This was a transparent prescription for not hiring academic candidates with conservative views. In this view, a blacklist was a potential tool of "liberation."

According to Marcuse, normal tolerance "granted to the Right as well as the Left, to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace, to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity ... actually protects the machinery of discrimination." By this logic, repression of conservative viewpoints was a progressive duty. Evaluating conservative academic candidates on their merits, without regard to their political and social opinions, was to support discrimination and oppression in the society at large.

Marcuse's "dialectical argument" exerted a seminal influence in academic circles in the 1970s and provided a powerful justification for blacklisting conservatives in the name of equality and freedom[56] The same argument would also justify the exclusion of conservative texts from academic reading lists, which is an all too common practice on liberal arts campuses.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 9333

boomdat wrote:
pushharder wrote:


Can ANYONE disbelieve that Obama is a committed socialist, a radical leftist?


studies have been released showing that Obama is by the most moderate president since the 60's


Prove it. Link the studies. Or at least link the references to said studies from major journalism and scholarly outlets. That's a dumbass lie. If you're going to lie, the least you can do is make it halfway believable: after all, all the best lies have a kernel of truth.

And may I remind all of you that Southern Democrats supported states rights and were against small government.



Lol...what?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Aragorn
Level 10

Join date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 9333

want2getlean wrote:

people that complained about Malcom X; bigots born into white privilege who like their minorities as opressed by WASP culture and as Uncle Tom as it gets.


Yes, because you know only thing to complain about with Malcolm X was his stance on civil rights (sarcasm). Not, you know, advocation of violence or anything.


Strangely enough many white people are big fans of MLK Jr and really really dislike Malcolm. Weird. They must be closet bigots fighting their white guilt.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6819

Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"

Huh? WTF? I understand the exploiting of a boy's death to whip up some racial tensions, but the imaginary son that would look like Trayvon Martin if he existed? What kind of crap is that?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6819

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help...and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

-----------------------

We need some "soul searching" all right. Remember every piece of shit that used this to foment racial tensions - including Obama and all the organisations behind him.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

SexMachine
Level

Join date: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 6819

Christopher Cervini? Who's that?

http://www.americanthinker.com/...oter_black.html

He didn't look like Obama's imaginary son.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 19363

SexMachine wrote:
Obama: "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"

Huh? WTF? I understand the exploiting of a boy's death to whip up some racial tensions, but the imaginary son that would look like Trayvon Martin if he existed? What kind of crap is that?



It's called trying to raise your poll numbers by exploiting the tragic death of a young man. As I've said many times Obama will do and say ANYTHING to get reelected. No one has yet seen a man so lusting for power as this guy. And that is one reason regardless of the economy why Romney will have an uphill battle. He has no idea what is heading his way.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report