More Proof that Obama is a SOCIALIST!

Via Buzzfeed:  Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Socialist Group.

The whole of the post is a paragraph that notes that this is “a reminder that the President presented himself as much more progressive during his time in Chicago” and the following flyer:

 

 

Seriously, it is just so very suspicious that a Democratic candidate for State Senate might, you know, go places where voters might be.  This is straight out of the Communist Manifesto!  Plus, their were two political science professors (you know how they can be) in attendance.  Plus, one of them was named Joseph which was the first name of one of the most notorious communist mass-murderers of all time.  Who would name their child after such a person?

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Quick Takes, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. al-Ameda says:

    sponsored by the University of Chicago Democrats too ….

    I’ve always thought that the University of Chicago, especially their Economics Department, was a hot bed of radicalism and subversive activity.

  2. John Peabody says:

    Notice how he did NOT use his middle name!!?? What was he trying to hide? When did it come “convienent” to bring it out? Will this post be mentioned at one of my future performance reviews!

  3. JKB says:

    Obama is a socialist because he distrusts individual initiative and enterprise; believes in the utility of the assumption, by the State, of functions which have hitherto been left to personal choices and personal aims; and, in fact, supports and advocates many and large schemes of this character.

    Accept it, deal with it, move on.

    The question is do we want surrender more initiative and enterprise, more personal choice, aims and functions, to a government overrun by people whose only qualification is that they live in the delusion that they know better and aren’t afraid to destroy natural rights and freedoms to prove it.

  4. B. Objective says:

    Regardless of your political stances, and your light hearted sarcasm on the matter, Obama’s rhetoric has historically been “socialist” in nature. Wether or not that is a bad thing can be debated. However, simply shrugging off the company a man keeps, events he has attended, policies he proposes, or even his own words shows a reckless “Party Line” lack of reasoning.

    On your light handed dismissal of the “Political science professors (Joseph Schwartz) (you know how they can be)”: He is in fact a die hard socialist. From his own Bio Page:
    “Schwartz serves as a Vice-Chair of the Democratic Socialists of America and is a member of its National Political Committee. (DSA, founded by the late social critic Michael Harrington, is the largest socialist organization in the United States…)”

    http://www.temple.edu/polsci/schwartz/index.htm

    Yes, this matters, and yes it is valid information in the ‘vetting’ of the leader of the ‘Free World.’ That is unless you are also a socialist, in which case this is good news. Which leads to the aforementioned note: A debate can be had about the merits of socialism. (Although history is not kind to that particular political/economic ideology- your mentioning of the mass murderer (with bullets, starvation, and economic deprivation) Joey Stalin. I take it your stance is in general- “So what he is a socialist? Socialism is good.” Or so your hyperbole on the topic suggests.

  5. anjin-san says:

    @JKB

    Obama is a socialist because he distrusts individual initiative and enterprise

    Hmmm. Obama is a self-made millionaire. What have you done lately?

  6. B. Objective says:

    @anjin-san: @anjin-san:

    Elizabeth Warren: “No one in America became wealthy on their own”- context to the post. This is the statist’s ideology of individualism. Obama’s rhetoric is often divorced form reality (Demean private capital… rely on big bank and private capital donations for donations)… His regulatory micro managing approach to the economy is enough to logically argue his distaste and distrust of individual liberty and enterprise. Facts not in your favor here either…

    Is this blog just a forum for statist rhetoric and back slapping? Is it the same J’accuse methodology recently abhorred by this very author… Oh the Irony.

    My previous post still awaits Author’s comments.

  7. jd says:

    “Who would name their child after such a person?”
    Mr & Mrs D’Plumber?

  8. anjin-san says:

    Is this blog just a forum for statist rhetoric

    Oh my. You’ve read Atlas Shrugged. How very special.

  9. G.A. says:

    Is this blog just a forum for statist rhetoric and back slapping?

    Haha,,,well..

  10. Jenos Idanian says:

    “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off […] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    What he meant was, the government takes the wealth of private citizens around. Redistribution. Taking from those according to ability, giving to those according to need.

  11. Jenos Idanian says:

    @anjin-san: Hmmm. Obama is a self-made millionaire.

    Based mostly on writing two books about himself.

    And prior to the presidency, his record on creating jobs was best exemplified by Michelle Obama’s job as Vice President for Community and External Affairs for the University of Chicago Hospitals. Then-Senator Obama steered a seven-figure earmark for the hospitals — and then, shortly thereafter, she received a very generous raise. And her role there was so critical, so essential, so irreplaceable, that when she resigned to move to DC, they didn’t bother to replace her.

    “It’s the Chicago way.”

  12. @B. Objective: My sarcasm was pointed at the fact that it is impossible to infer anything from a poster. Indeed, the only thing that one can likely know for certain from said poster is that candidate Obama was campaigning.

    Beyond that, a couple of responses:

    , simply shrugging off the company a man keeps, events he has attended, policies he proposes, or even his own words shows a reckless “Party Line” lack of reasoning.

    The notion that he associated with socialists should be a major point of concern strikes me as McCarthyistic, to be honest.

    Is it is really that out of the question for a Democratic candidate for office to attend an event wherein progressive-oriented politics would be discussed?

    Yes, this matters, and yes it is valid information in the ‘vetting’ of the leader of the ‘Free World.’

    So, if one is going to be president, one cannot never be in the presence of self-professed socialists?

    (Although history is not kind to that particular political/economic ideology- your mentioning of the mass murderer (with bullets, starvation, and economic deprivation) Joey Stalin. I take it your stance is in general- “So what he is a socialist? Socialism is good.” Or so your hyperbole on the topic suggests.

    This is, really, where you kind of go off the rails entirely and really gets to my sarcastic tone in the first place: The reason I made the Stalin reference is that people who get upset about “socialism!” tend to have no real working definition of the term and make crazy leaps from to the most extreme example possible (and, really, you have done the same thing here),

    First, to call Stalin simply a “socialist” is correct only in the most vague and general of senses.

    Second, socialism can mean a range of things. Certainly the professors in question were hardly Stalin wannabes.

    Third, political and policy concern over tax levels, wealth concentration, or social policy is hardly the same thing as state ownership of the means of production.

    Put another way: if Obama is a “socialist” because he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate to the pre-Bush tax cut levels and worked to pass a universal health care package based almost entirely on private insurance what does that make actual socialists, let alone Stalin?

    My gripe is fundamentally about understanding the words that we are using (as well as, in this particular case, annoyance with simplistic reasoning and a distaste for guilt-by-association arguments–not that guilt is really the right word).

  13. Hey Norm says:

    “…Taking from those according to ability, giving to those according to need…”
    As in trillions spent, directly and indirecly, to support the fossil fuel industry for instance.
    It’s really hard to take the re-distribution meme seriously in one of the lowest taxed nations on the planet, where even it’s taxes are at historic lows.
    Of course it’s really hard to take Jenos seriously…has anyone been proven to lie quite as much? Doubtful.

  14. @B. Objective: BTW, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but you seem to be operating from an extremely simplified dichotomy between “statism” and “individualism.”

    I would note that the level of state involvement in a given society is very much on a continuum.

    A truly and totally individualist society would be rather unpleasant, as would be a fully statist one. The real trick is getting the balance right.

    But, of course, it depends on what you mean.

  15. B. Objective says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    But of course, this is not relevant to the vetting process either I am sure.

    It is clear there is no place for reason in this particular forum. If there were the individuals here would discuss the issues rather than resort to attacking individuals… but thats what the statist does when he is ideology is challenged.

    Still no one has been direct enough to state: “Yes I believe socialism is a great thing.” Although the innuendo here is that is the consensus.

  16. bk says:

    @B. Objective: Still no one has been direct enough to state: “Yes I believe socialism is a great thing.” Although the innuendo here is that is the consensus.

    I’m either reading a different blog than you are, or doing the wrong drugs.

  17. @B. Objective: Your emphasis on “vetting” is telling because that indicates that you really aren’t interested in the actual political/philosophical issues, but rather are focusing on the meme that the president wasn’t properly vetted and that he’s some kind of crypto-something. I would submit that: a) it was quite clear who he was in 2008 (i.e., there was no failure of “vetting”) and b) even if there was, we now have almost 4 years in office by which to judge. On that latter point, you are free to use whatever labels you like, but “socialist” is a poor choice based on empirical observation and a knowledge of what the word means in various contexts.

    Still no one has been direct enough to state: “Yes I believe socialism is a great thing.” Although the innuendo here is that is the consensus.

    The thing is, this post (and this thread) have never been about the defense of a particular philosophy (even though you have inferred such).

  18. Hey Norm says:

    B. Objective…

    “…no one has been direct enough to state: “Yes I believe socialism is a great thing.” Although the innuendo here is that is the consensus…”

    First…To the extent that the police and fire departments and public education are socialistic…yeah socialism is a great thing. No absolutely free market has ever existed. Never. Ever. There have been socialistic elements to our nation since the very beginning. This nation would not exist without them. Not then. Not today. To think otherwise is to believe in a very childish dicotomy.
    Second…Corporate profits are at all time highs.
    The Dow is hovering above 12,000.
    We are an extremely low tax nation.
    The idea that this is a socialistic nation or that the President…who’s signature domestic achievement is free-market health care reform…is a socialist just has no basis in fact.
    At least not if you are being objective.

  19. @Jenos Idanian:

    Based mostly on writing two books about himself.

    Wouldn’t that be the height of individual enterprise? To make millions doing perhaps the most solitary of activities: writing books about oneself?

    This is the kind of thing that I really find vexing, because regardless of other factors, Obama’s bio ought to fit the alleged conservative narrative extremely well: i.e, the notion that anyone can make it in the Land of Opportunity. And yet, it becomes a point of ridicule. This is why it seems that the real issues for many (yourself included) really isn’t the issue of consistent philosophy, but rather team sports.

  20. Hey Norm says:

    @ SLT…

    “…Obama’s bio ought to fit the alleged conservative narrative extremely well…”

    His bio?
    What about his entire Presidency?
    He stopped the death spiral into a depression.
    He rescued the banking industry without nationalizing as many called for.
    He rescued the auto industry without nationalizing it.
    He cut taxes for 99% of tax payers.
    He has flattened the spending curve.
    He passed free-market health care reform that requires individual responsibility…and it is working.
    He brought justice to OBL, and got rid of Quadafi and al-Awaki, and has decimated al Queda.
    If a Republican had accomplished all of these things in their first term they would already be carving his face on Mt. Rushmore.

  21. B. Objective says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    “The notion that he associated with socialists should be a major point of concern strikes me as McCarthyistic, to be honest.”

    Steven, really? It is a valid point of critique, just as his church associations are, after all he will be representing 100% of the American people not just the socialist lean.
    It also speaks to “Who is Barrack Obama”? Which the American people are entitled to. It is a far cry form McCarthyism and to make that association seems an attempt to vilify the rational attempt at asking “Who is our president and what does he stand for?”. As if his history is now off limits.

    “So, if one is going to be president, one cannot never be in the presence of self-professed socialists?”- Really? That is what you gathered from my comment? Sad. The point is, this and all other associations, whether it be Ayers (tenuous at best) or Wright (stronger associations to be made here) are game for scrutiny when you intend on representing 100% of the American people.

  22. B. Objective says:

    @Hey Norm:
    “The idea that this is a socialistic nation or that the President…who’s signature domestic achievement is free-market health care reform…is a socialist just has no basis in fact.”

    Holy shit! Are you kidding me? Free-Market Healthcare reform? lol. I am interested to see your definition of “free market.” 1) Are you insinuating there is was a free market in healthcare before the AHA was signed? lol. Or 2) are you saying that the statist Health Care policy, in which individuals are required to buy insurance or face fines is of free market nature…

    Looks like we need some free market education reform to go along with your free market healthcare reform… lol. I literally don’t know whether to laugh in your face, or cry.

  23. @B. Objective: I would actually agree that I would not call the PPACA a “free market” system (but, neither was the pre-PPACA system).

    However, it is one of private insurance and a private health care system.

  24. DMan says:

    when you intend on representing 100% of the American people.

    Is that a realistic expectation of a president? Should Obama dabble in birtherism to represent them as well?

  25. @B. Objective:

    Really? That is what you gathered from my comment? Sad.

    Yes, it is what I gather from your comments. Your comments are focused almost exclusively on the notion that there is some mystery about who Obama is and you are the one concerned about the implication of associations.

    You are the one who is focused on the vetting meme.

    You are also the one making a host of insinuations without providing a working definition of what you think socialism is.

  26. Hey Norm says:

    @ B. Objective….
    I am saying that health care reform requires individuals to take responsibility for themselves rather than go to an emergency room when they get sick with the knowledge that the rest of will pay for it. Free-riders add almost a thousand dollars a year to the cost of health care for the rest of us. If you are suggesting we stop treating whoever shows up at an emergency room…say that.
    And those people will be/are purchasing insurance from private sector companies…to the tune of millions of new customers in the market place.
    I get that nothing is ever going to satisfy you.
    But at least you could pretend to be objective.

  27. mantis says:

    @B. Objective:

    It is a valid point of critique, just as his church associations are, after all he will be representing 100% of the American people not just the socialist lean.

    So, you’re implying that because he spoke at a panel discussion at the University of Chicago, where he taught, sponsored in part by the school’s student Democrats and also by the Democratic Socialists student group, talking about employment in urban America, he cannot represent the American people? Why not?

    It also speaks to “Who is Barrack Obama”?

    I don’t know, who is Barrack Obama. I know who Barack Obama is. He is the President of the United States of America. You must be from some other place. Welcome!

    It is a far cry form McCarthyism

    Ahem.

    “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?”

    – Sen. Joseph McCarthy, October 1947

  28. Rob in CT says:

    You guys are arguing with an “Objectivist.”

    Bear in mind that to such a person, progressive income taxation is socialism (and, thus, every President we’ve had who supported our progressive income tax system, was a socialist or at least capitulating to a socialist paradigm). Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if “B. Objective’s” position was that income taxation of any kind is socialism.

    When he brought out the “statist” it was already time to pack it in. If you favor any sort of collective action beyond national defense (and maybe police/fire), you are a statist monster who carries water for Stalin.

    Thus, discussion is pointless.

  29. Rob in CT says:

    Note JKB’s reaction to Obama’s (perfectly solid, IMO) answer to Joe (Sam) the (not a) Plumber.

    There’s an old Thatcher quote that seems appropriate: “There is no such thing as ‘Society.'”

    Large portions of our population reject, in whole or in part, the idea of “The Commons.”

  30. Hey Norm says:

    @ Rob…
    And the most important thing to remember about the Queen of Objectivism is that the minute she got sick she jumped on Medicare…socialized medicine.
    Almost as ironic as the name B. Objective.

  31. B. Objective says:

    @mantis:

    “So, you’re implying that because he spoke at a panel discussion at the University of Chicago, where he taught, sponsored in part by the school’s student Democrats and also by the Democratic Socialists student group, talking about employment in urban America, he cannot represent the American people? Why not?”

    When did I suggest such things? Actually I believe I opened the floor for debate on the merit of “socialism.” He is more than capable of representing the American people, thus the election. However he should be held accountable on his positions. If he is a socialist, FINE, lets direct the dialogue around what that means for this country. Instead, we get a man who’s history has been of devout socialism and following the “Marxist Proffesors” (Referring to Obama’s quote from “Dreams of My Father” that he associated with Marxist professors, Drew says, “What he’s not saying is that he was in 100 percent total agreement with those Marxist professors. When you understand that, Obama’s later associations and policies make more sense, including why he was taken in by Rev. Wright’s ideology.”), whose policies reflect such (so far as he thinks the American electorate will allow), but yet he is constantly attempting to mitigate his being labeled a “socialist” by the majority of people? Why would that be? Unless, of course, he thought that would be a bad thing for an election.

    I feel as if I am in a room with a bunch of W. Bush defenders in 06′-07′: In which that blind “party line” mentality has consumed you and you have become incapable of rationally discussing, much less thinking about how the character, and personal history of a man/women elected President may impact this country.

    Continue on… “These are not the drones your looking for.”

  32. mantis says:

    When did I suggest such things?

    I asked if you were implying that. It certainly seems like you are with this statement:

    It is a valid point of critique, just as his church associations are, after all he will be representing 100% of the American people not just the socialist lean.

    Actually I believe I opened the floor for debate on the merit of “socialism.”

    The floor was already open for debate. You did something different.

    However he should be held accountable on his positions.

    Even if you just make them up for him?

    Instead, we get a man who’s history has been of devout socialism

    Facts not in evidence. He’s held elected office for fifteen years now. His record is decidedly not “devoutly socialist,” unless you believe everyone to the left of Mussolini is a socialist.

  33. anjin-san says:

    Taking from those according to ability, giving to those according to need.

    Yes, I suppose Michelle Bachmann needs those government subsidy checks she gets. And conservative businessman and “small government” advocate Curt Schilling needed that 75 million dollar government loan (still ran the business into the ground, everyone got laid off yesterday 300 jobs lost – Schilling earned over 100 million in his baseball career) and the 200 million in public money that billionaire Joe Ricketts wants for Wrigley Field. Why should he have to reach into his wallet, after all?

    It’s clearly un-American that Democrats think people who are poor, people who are disabled, and people who are mentally ill should get a little help in the richest society in the history of the world, when the folks mentioned above, who are SO much more deserving, want to feed exclusively at the public trough.

  34. Rob in CT says:

    We’re not drones, you silly person. We simply reject your ridiculous black/white framing of socialism/individualism. As Steven said earlier, these things exist on a spectrum. Obama’s a pretty run of the mill liberal, with the temperament of a moderate. If you look at him and see Stalin, that’s your own projection, pal.

    And this:

    Instead, we get a man who’s history has been of devout socialism

    Hahahahahahaha! Be sure to let the (handful of) socialists in the US know that. They’ll be surprised (not really. They’ll laugh at you). The progressive wing of the Democratic party is not at all happy with the man, for reasons that are fairly obvious. Hint: a distinct lack of what you would call socialism. Not just results, but attempted actions (e.g. “he never fought for the public option”). There are chunks of the Left that routine refer to him as a Wall St. stooge.

    I know better than to argue with a Randoid, but yet here I am doing it. So I guess the joke’s on me.

  35. anjin-san says:

    Obama’s bio ought to fit the alleged conservative narrative extremely well

    Yes it should. As I said on another tread recently, if he was white, he would be a Norman Rockwell painting come to life.

  36. B. Objective says:
  37. Hey Norm says:

    @ B. Objective…
    Seriously?
    You link to an op-ed by Thiessen…a Bush torture apologist?
    You are what you read I suppose.

  38. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Taking from those according to ability, giving to those according to need.

    Republicans used to understand that taking into account ‘ability to pay’ was a proper way to formulate tax policy. Here are the words of one socialist:

    Many not now taxed are very definitely in a position to make some contribution to the support of Government … They should be asked to do so, taking into consideration ability to pay.

    Ogden Mills was a Republican aristocrat who served as Secretary of the Treasury under Hoover. And here are the words of another socialist:

    The principle that a man should pay tax in accordance with his ‘ability to pay‘ is sound

    Andrew Mellon was Secretary of the Treasury from 1921 to 1932, one of the longest tenures of anyone in that office. Do I need to mention that he was a Republican? He was succeeded by Mills.

    Like Reagan and many others, these prominent Republicans from the past would not be welcome in today’s GOP.

  39. Ebenezer Arvigenius says:

    @B. Objective: You seem to have strong feelings about all of this but you need to try for some argumentation if you want to score points hereabouts. Contrary to many other internet boards mere slogans rarely work here.

    The middle part of your last post is complete gibbersih and probably only understandable if one already shares all of your preconceived notions. State your ideas, argue why they are correct and provide proof for your claims. Everything else just brings ridicule.

    (Doing all that will also bring ridicule but from much less serious posters 😉 ).

  40. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Wouldn’t that be the height of individual enterprise? To make millions doing perhaps the most solitary of activities: writing books about oneself?

    The vast majority of biographies and autobiographies I’ve read are about individuals who have achieved something. It was the story of how they did achieve things.

    Obama… not so much.

    @anjin-san: As I said on another tread recently, if he was white, he would be a Norman Rockwell painting come to life.

    I’m a fan of Rockwell’s. His stuff was quintessential Americana. Obama’s life story was hardly classic Americana. Large portions of his youth abroad, drug use, drunk driving, eating dog…

    Oh, I can see it argued as a classic “Only In America” inspirational story, but hardly Rockwell.

  41. @Jenos Idanian: The contents of the books are irrelevant and you are, as you are wont to do, eliding the issue.

    By own description he became wealthy writing books. That is individualism, plain and simple. Indeed, as I noted, it is about as individualist an endeavor one can engage in.

  42. Moosebreath says:

    Steven,

    “Indeed, as I noted, it is about as individualist an endeavor one can engage in.”

    Not if his books were ghostwritten by Bill Ayres. 😉

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    The vast majority of biographies and autobiographies I’ve read are about individuals who have achieved something.

    The books sold because most people, unlike you, realize that becoming the first black president of the Harvard Law Review definitely counts as “achieved something.” It’s bad enough that you can’t grasp this. What’s even more impressive is that you insist on showing off that you can’t grasp this.

  44. Jenos Idanian says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Obama was president of the Law Review from 1990 to 1991. He published his book in 1995, and it ends with him entering Harvard Law School. So it obviously wasn’t about his getting the presidency of the Law Review. And when it was published, he was a lecturer and a “community organizer — he didn’t run for office until 1996.

    And, oddly enough, the year after Obama left Harvard, they hired Elizabeth Warren and used her to boost their “minority faculty” statistics. Funny how it took so long for that fine institution to reach such landmarks in diversity…

  45. jukeboxgrad says:

    So it obviously wasn’t about his getting the presidency of the Law Review.

    I didn’t say it was. One more time, this is what you said:

    The vast majority of biographies and autobiographies I’ve read are about individuals who have achieved something.

    Before he published his book, Obama was “[an] individual[s] who [had] achieved something.” He had become the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. This was newsworthy. On 2/6/90, NYT wrote this:

    First Black Elected to Head Harvard’s Law Review … The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School. The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University …

    This got to be in the newspaper because it counts as “achieved something” (in the eyes of people other than you; i.e., people who have a clue). And this was known before his book was published, and it was part of what made people interested in his book. So his book was in the category of books that “are about individuals who have achieved something,” even though it covered a portion of his life prior to that achievement. What matters is that it was published after, not before, that achievement.

    So the point is that he achieved something important, and then he leveraged that achievement to make a lot of money. Conservatives who aren’t nuts should be able to grasp that this is the kind of activity that conservatives normally applaud.

    It should be noted that Obama got rich the old-fashioned way: by creating, with his own hands, something that a lot of people wanted to buy. In contrast with Mitt, who started out rich and then got richer via financial engineering, which is mostly about screwing people.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Then-Senator Obama steered a seven-figure earmark for the hospitals

    Oops, I almost missed this, buried in all your other baloney.

    You’re regurgitating GOP Talking Point #89923487, that Obama obtained earmarks for his wife’s employer. Trouble is, he didn’t. That earmark was never approved.

    Another important fact you may not know: also on Obama’s list were earmarks for about eight other Chicago hospitals. And most of those other earmarks were larger.

    If he really wanted to help his wife’s career, he wouldn’t be doing so much to support the institutions that compete with her employer. The facts show that he was advocating for health care in general, and not for one hospital.

  47. WR says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Wow, there go those goalposts again.

    Hey, Jenos, why don’t you write your own autobiography, since you have such a clear vision of just which people get to count themselves as American success stories? Let us know when you’ve sold 100,000 copies in hard cover.

    No, wait, let us know when you’ve sold three copies to people not related to you.

    You are right that most autobiographies are written by people who are already famous for something. The fact that Obama wrote a book as an unknown and it sold quite well just shows that he’s such a good writer he didn’t need a presold name. In other words, even more of a success.

    But you are so blinded by hatred that you can’t see you’re making the argument for him. Oh, but wait, he ate dog, so none of it counts…

  48. Racehorse says:

    I attended a university in the ’60’s and some of our professors had us reading “Communist Manifesto”, and Mao’s little red book of course. We didn’t buy their propaganda. Every class discussion, the free enterprise/capitalists won the day: Why did communist countries have to build walls, fences, and have armed soldiers to keep their folks in? Why did they lock up anyone who dared speak a new idea? Name one communist country in which the people were better off. Give one leading statistic in which the US did not out perform the communists every year! If Russia was so great, why did we have to bail them out with our wheat year after year? Name one other country that put a man on the moon? and so on. After a few years, the state board got rid of these subversives and I guess they slunk their way back to Russia, Cuba, or Manchuria. This wasn’t about free speech, the free exchange of ideas and opinions. It was about subversive indoctrination and brainwashing by radicals that were trying to take over. In our state, they were rooted out of the university system. Too bad other states did not take this action, such as California at that bastion of intellectual “freedom” UC-Berkeley.

  49. mantis says:

    @Racehorse:

    Do tell, Smarty Jones. What was the name of this collegiate hotbed of communism you attended?

  50. anjin-san says:

    @ Racehorse

    that bastion of intellectual “freedom” UC-Berkeley

    UC Berkeley, the home of the free speech movement? Home of all those Nobel Prize winners? That UC Berkeley?

    If you don’t like it at the Lair, you can always attend Libery U or Bob Jones U.

    I have no idea how many UC Berkley graduates that I know personally are successful/highly successful professionals, but it is not a small number. And of course, that is only a tiny slice of the whole.

    Why does this school, with it’s long record of stellar achievement so infuriate the right? Oh, yes… does not pass right wing ideological litmus tests. And on the right, that is the only thing that counts.

    http://berkeley.edu/news/features/nobel/