Sen. Barak Obama:
By on Dec 11th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
Sen. Barak Obama:
“It’s called the ‘Ownership society’ in Washington. This isn’t the first time this philosophy has appeared. It used to be called Social Darwinism.” (Via HuffPost)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill
December 11th, 2005 at 6:15 pmFrom American Conservative magazine, July 2005
… [L]ibertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
Robert Locke, Marxism of the Right
December 11th, 2005 at 6:29 pmHe always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my way of thinking means “I want the liberty to grow rich and you can have the liberty to starve”. It’s easy to believe that no one should depend on society for help when you yourself happen not to need such help.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:33 pmIsaac Asimov, “I. Asimov” pg. 308.
Thank you, #1. And Barack? Too bad you didn’t have this insight when you were selling out the common man yourself during the debt peonage bill vote.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:42 pmIt is spelled Barack. If allies can’t take the time to make sure to spell the name right, why should people listen to them when they talk about other issues?
December 11th, 2005 at 6:43 pminsite?
OBAMA you are ONE of THEM, YOU ASSHAT, Greedy SOB.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I was very surprised by the president’s slow response in New Orleans,” political commentator Bill Kristol said. “The president told me that he was praying every day in his office, but had received no reply. I had no idea what he meant, but of course, it all makes sense now.”
At the time of Katrina, Cheney was on a fly-fishing trip, from which he returned on Sept. 1.
According to highly placed White House sources, Bush’s senior advisers are trying to shield the president from the news. Aides are concerned that too harsh an awakening might shake Bush’s faith, which has been a central part of his life for nearly 20 years.
“It’s hard to tell the leader of the free world that he has been the butt of an elaborate and long-term ruse,” a former staffer said. “Maybe it would be easier to take if it came from Cheney’s God voice.”
December 11th, 2005 at 6:45 pmIt is an “ownership” society. And make no mistake these guys own Iraq, Katrina, and all the uninsured and sick. They’re only as strong as the weakest link.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:45 pmI agree with the bankruptcy bill. Problem is it was one of many plans implemented without an offset.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:48 pmYOU POLITICIANS are A BUNCH OF INCESTUAL INTELLECTUAL MIDGETS, MORONS, AND SYCOPHANTS,, I have SAT here and KICKED your ASS LEFT and RIGHT, AND NOW OBAMA COMES FORTH WITH SOCIAL DARWININSM??
ITS B-SCHOOL WIN WIN ROMAN GRECO INCESTUAL FAMILIES, LOOK AT KARL ROVE, LOOK AT MARK CHAPMAN.
Wonkette has a Nice Pic..of the TWO..LOL -Aj
~~~~
#
It is spelled Barack. If allies can’t take the time to make sure to spell the name right, why should people listen to them when they talk about other issues?
Comment by ltsply2 — December 11, 2005 @ 6:43 pm
~~~
First off, PEOPLE dont SPEAK with Letters FOOL,
Lookie HEER DIPSTIK AHH WELL SPELL ANNNYWAY AHH WANT TOOO, YEW NOW WHY?
December 11th, 2005 at 6:56 pmCAUSE YERS TWO STOOPID TO REALIZE THAT SPELLLINGGGG HAS NUTTIN TO DO WITHHHH INTELLLIGENCE,,
IT SHOWS that YOU A RE A Guud PARROTT.
~~~~~
Federal domestic spending has gone up dramatically in the last 5 years. Calling that social darwinism is plain loony.
In other words, Obama is either completely nuts or a pathological liar.
December 11th, 2005 at 7:09 pmObama did not vote in favor of the passage of the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.”
Senate roll call
December 11th, 2005 at 8:13 pmTo the Honorable Senator Obama,
Keep it up Senator and you have my support. Please continue with your similies and metaphor. There are still a few intellectuals around that can make the connection, get the point, and respond with something other than an offensive platitude.
As far as spelling your front name I will just use “Sir” if you don’t mind.
December 11th, 2005 at 8:18 pm#10
Wally Baby, you did it again. You mispelled a word. You should have said “federal DEFICITE spending has gone up dramatically…”
Come on now and be nice. It is almost your Beddy Bye Time.
Give Daddy Mike a big kiss for all of us. (Wrong thread but you can figure it out)
December 11th, 2005 at 8:24 pmObama did not vote in favor of the passage of the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.â€
Senate roll call
Comment by Viktor — December 11, 2005 @ 8:13 pm
Thank you for pointing that out, Viktor.
As I said on another thread, all the wingnuts come here to spread disinformation and propaganda to wreak havoc and confusion because this site is a fast becoming quite popular and it scares the hell out of the trolls.
December 11th, 2005 at 8:58 pmThe question whether the state should or should not “act” or “interfere” poses an altogether false alternative, and the term “laissez faire” is a highly ambiguous and misleading description of the principles on which a liberal policy is based. Of course, every state must act and every action of the state interferes with something or other. [...] The state controlling weights and measures (or preventing fraud and deception in any other way) is certainly acting, while the state permitting the use of violence, for example by strike pickets, is inactive. Yet it is in the first case that the state observes liberal principles and in the second that it does not.
December 11th, 2005 at 8:59 pmHayek, “The Road to Serfdom” pp 80-81 U of Chicago Press 1972
The most ardent antigovernment libertarian tacitly accepts his own dependency on govenment, even while rhetorically denouncing signs of dependency in others. This double-think is the core of the American libertarian stance.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:00 pmHolmes and Sunstein, “The Cost of Rights”, p 63.
Tax the rich, and feed the poor,
until you have no rich, no more.
Bush did increase social spending. Perhaps you missed the prescriptions for seniors mess.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:13 pm#6, AJ, Did you read the full story that you quoted? It’s from the Onion. It’s so incredible — is it for real? Or is it a spoof?
December 11th, 2005 at 9:18 pmCheney used the conference/speaker button on Bush’s phone and spoke to him in a deep and booming “voice of God.”
Tell me, if you know. I know the Onion does these things sometimes, but given Bush’s lack of intellect and his blind faith, I think I believe this may be true.
While most progressives know what Obama is talking about it’s good that he’s preaching and teaching the truth to the Democratic Party and anyone who will listen.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:20 pmIt is a fact domestic spending not related to the war has gone up in the last five years. In the upside down world of some, stating this fact is “loonie”.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:49 pmObama is talking nonsense, Jason. What’s “progressive” about that?
December 11th, 2005 at 9:51 pmDon’t show your stupidity. Obama does not talk nonsense. You are free to disagree with him, but he does not talk nonsense.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:01 pmThe Reuters story used for this thread spelled Obama’s name wrong. If one reads what he is referring to when he says Social Darwinism, he is perfectly clear and unfortunately accurate.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:03 pmMarie, his statement is nonsense, as I’ve already explained.
December 11th, 2005 at 10:24 pmThe Republican Party seeks to privatize social services like education, health care, and retirement, while rewarding Americans for withdrawing their support from their country, their government, their communities, their schools – and each other.
For the details, see:
“The Opt Out Society: The GOP Threat to National Unity and the American Social Contract.”
December 11th, 2005 at 10:26 pm#25
December 11th, 2005 at 11:00 pmActually, you didn’t explain anything, Wally.
#27, yes I did, in #10.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:04 pm#28
Wally in #10: “Federal domestic spending has gone up dramatically in the last 5 years. Calling that social darwinism is plain loony.”
What spending? Support your opinion w/ some facts.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:08 pmDuchamp, the federal budget is readily available on line. I’m not here to spoon feed you. LOL
December 11th, 2005 at 11:11 pm#30
December 11th, 2005 at 11:15 pmI’m asking you to back up what you say with facts. If you know what you’re talking about, that is not asking too much. Making a broad sweeping statement that is devoid of factual support is not an explanation.
Duchamp, it takes a few minutes to find the federal budget online. Your ignorance of basic facts is not my problem.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
December 11th, 2005 at 11:18 pm#33
December 11th, 2005 at 11:24 pmAgain, if you’ve read the budget and understand what you’ve read, then you should have no problem backing up what you’ve said. I still don’t see any quotes or excerpts that prove your opinion. Hmmmmm.
Duchamp, again, you were provided a link to the data. If you are unable to read it, that’s your problem.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:40 pm#33
Mr/Ms/Mrs Duchamp,
While we all appreciate your efforts to elicit a meaningful dialog from Wally, we know from experience that your efforts are futile. Wally will not respond. Wally cannot respond. Wally has no logical response mechanism. Wally has exceeded his allotted battery charge for the day and must retire. If you want a meaningful discussion the two of us should move out of the metaphorical Bushco gutter and converse between ourselves with an open invitation to the other comrades-(let the trolls mess their pants)-in-arms that reside here.
December 11th, 2005 at 11:50 pm#34
December 11th, 2005 at 11:54 pmSilly Wally, why is it my responsibility to prove your opinions for you? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one. Your inability to support your own “example” with facts speaks volumes. ‘Nuff said, I done w/ this thread.
#34 wallace- A reduction is an increase that is not as much as lefties want, therefore, a decrease in the increase is a cut in spending. YEP, that makes sense to my wife, who says “I saved $500 on a $2000 purchase!” The planet Venus is in control of the budget! RUN! RUN!
December 11th, 2005 at 11:58 pm#35
“Mr/Ms/Mrs” are you implying I’m an hermaphrodite, Clyde? :0
I didn’t see your post before my final response to Wally. You’re absolutely right: Wally talks out of the least fragrant of human orifices. My apolgogies for consuming bandwidth, fine citizens.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:11 am#38
Dear Citizen M. Duchamp,
I was implying nothing, my salutation was meant to be in the most accurate form I know not to cause offense. My apologies if I offended you, Sir/Ma’am/Miss (I just couldn’t resist). I have been engaging Wally for some time and have won the troll “put-down-of the day/week/month/year award” several times, all to no avail. He/she/it (now Friend that is an implication re Wally’s sexual proclivities) does not have the mental capability or programming, as the case may be, to enter into a meaningful dialog. Don’t waste your time trying.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:36 am#12 Obama did not vote in favor of the passage of the “Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.â€
Thanks for posting the facts. If your looking for an alternative to bankruptcy check out my forum by clicking on my site.
I love when wwwwwwallace hates one of the good guys. Leads me to believe that wwwwwallace is afraid of the power Obama has.
Yep, Obama could be prez in 08 if he so chooses.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:45 amRead his (excellent) commencement address at Knox College, where he first unveiled this rhetoric: http://www.knox.edu/x9803.xml This isn’t anything new.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:34 amDuchamp, it takes a few minutes to find the federal budget online. Your ignorance of basic facts is not my problem.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
Comment by wwallace — December 11, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
LMAO! That’s funny. You don’t mind if we laugh. It doesn’t matter if you do. You are an incredible idiot. Walk to work today. Get hit by a bus. That would be funny, too. Not as funny as if a piano fell on your head, but you are already as much of a cartoon as we can stand.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:25 amFederal domestic spending has gone up dramatically in the last 5 years. Calling that social darwinism is plain loony.
The point is not how much is spent, love. The point is where that money goes.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:10 amWho cares about the troll fringes, Obama rocks! Intelligent politicians always scare the neocons. The bigger the smear, the bigger the fear.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:44 amI provided a link with the evidence I mentioned, as anyonereadingthe thread can see. Apparently Duchamp wants me to read it aloud to him or something. ROFL
December 12th, 2005 at 10:10 amIn fact, Clinton projected no surpluses in his first two budget proposals.
We only got surpluses after Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to a majority in the House in 1994.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:14 amIgnore the jibberish from trolls. I find it much more productive to just skip over the idiocy.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:03 amOoh and before that it was called “sharecropping”
December 12th, 2005 at 11:39 amThere’s an intersting article over at Salon entitled ‘Rise of the New Black Leaders.’ While not wholly about Obama (he is mentioned towards the end), it speaks of the growing black middle class and the influence this has had on politics over the last couple of decades, and how this will effect the Dems in the future.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:48 amIf the republican congress is responsible for surpluses under Clinton, they are equally responsible for debt under Bush, which proves that republicans are irresponsible, hypocritical and fiscally inept.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:51 pm“If the republican congress is responsible for surpluses under Clinton, they are equally responsible for debt under Bush”
No doubt. Which proves politicians of all parties like to spend money. The problem is, the Democrats want to spend even more.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:32 pmwwallace- Under Clinton, the federal deficit was going down.
Under Bush, the deficit, thanks to 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Hurricanes, etc, has gone so high, it may take more than a decade to get it back down. And we still have three more years before he takes it to two decades or more.
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
December 12th, 2005 at 11:40 pmJimbo, first, the deficit under Clinton went down after Newt Gingrich led the Republicans to a majority in teh House. Clinton’s first two budget proposals contained no projected surpluses through 2002.
Second, the deficit as a % of GDP is not historically high.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:09 am