An Open Letter To Obama

[Solar]

Sorry if this has been posted, but the man makes total sense.
Lou Pritchet is a leading executive of Procter and Gamble.

Being new and not knowing the etiquette of the forum, I cut part of the letter.
You can see it in it's entirety here.

http://thebsreport.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/chilling-letter-to-obama-from-procter-gamble-executive/
AN OPEN LETTER TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘
crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly
capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics
against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett

This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.

[jimnyc]

Just more reich-wing propaganda meant to scare the masses into foaming at the mouth chickenhawks.

Ooops, nevermind, for a minute there I thought I was Bullypulpit. :laugh2:

This guy nails it dead on. And they aren't claims that can be laughed at or dismissed by the left, they are serious issues, and issues Obama will have to face if he has a chance in hell of being re-elected. IMO, the above letter will serve as a perfect explanation as to why Obama will only serve one term and how the Dems will show the world the quickest way to go from having "the power" in every arena to losing it all.

[Solar]

Just more reich-wing propaganda meant to scare the masses into foaming at the mouth chickenhawks.

Ooops, nevermind, for a minute there I thought I was Bullypulpit. :laugh2:

This guy nails it dead on. And they aren't claims that can be laughed at or dismissed by the left, they are serious issues, and issues Obama will have to face if he has a chance in hell of being re-elected. IMO, the above letter will serve as a perfect explanation as to why Obama will only serve one term and how the Dems will show the world the quickest way to go from having "the power" in every arena to losing it all.

I believe you're correct, not only will they lose power, but for an entire generation.
I have been predicting for sometime that they fooled a lot of people, but for the last time, they said they were all about change, what they didn't tell their flock, was they planned socialism as their goal, and now the left has awaken from the "Jim Jones" brand of Koolaid.

It will take an entire generation to grow up that won't remember what they tried to pull off.
Just think, nearly three decades with the left out of power.

I also think they have permanently ruined another black person' chance of being elected as a Dim POTUS.

[Pagan]

Let's not forget 'Dubya and all the sheep who supported (and still support) the Socialist/Liberal Big Government policies he enacted.

Obama is using the power the NeoCon's so freely handed over to Government. What is so pathetic is they still support handing more over to Government while in the same breath complain about Obama ........ :argue:

[Alias.258]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Solar, would have never found it myself. He makes some very solid points that i would have no way of arguing against.

[Agnapostate]

The idea that the President is a socialist or interested in enacting socialism is quite absurd, and rejected by the vast majority of self-identifying socialists, such as myself. But as expected, we have to deal with anti-socialist opponents insisting that they can define our own platform better than we can. Socialism involves workers' ownership and management of the means of production. The current administration does not intend to implement this, and has taken active steps against it, in fact, in not using nationalization of auto industry firms to establish collectivization.

As for U.S. capitalism providing the highest standard of living in the world, that is also quite absurd. The social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia provides manifestly higher standards of living, which is empirically demonstrable.

[Sweetchuck]

I've said this before, BO isn't enacting socialism but socialist policies. Policies that are of socialist nature that is.

Pure socialism would reduce our society and way of life from the worlds greatest power to just another mediocre nation. That might be BO's plan though, to weaken the nation with socialist ideology.

[Solar]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention Solar, would have never found it myself. He makes some very solid points that i would have no way of arguing against.

You're welcome, I hadn't heard about it either till yesterday, when a friend in Canada told me about it.
Go figure, our media is burying it!

[Solar]

The idea that the President is a socialist or interested in enacting socialism is quite absurd, and rejected by the vast majority of self-identifying socialists, such as myself. But as expected, we have to deal with anti-socialist opponents insisting that they can define our own platform better than we can. Socialism involves workers' ownership and management of the means of production. The current administration does not intend to implement this, and has taken active steps against it, in fact, in not using nationalization of auto industry firms to establish collectivization.

As for U.S. capitalism providing the highest standard of living in the world, that is also quite absurd. The social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia provides manifestly higher standards of living, which is empirically demonstrable.

Are you really so ignorant, that you don't understand the steps necessary to buil a socialist nation?

You first must destroy it's economy, then when all are in total despair, they become willing victims of the gov to bail them out.

Tell me you don't see the first step underway?

[Solar]

I've said this before, BO isn't enacting socialism but socialist policies. Policies that are of socialist nature that is.

Pure socialism would reduce our society and way of life from the worlds greatest power to just another mediocre nation. That might be BO's plan though, to weaken the nation with socialist ideology.

Very true!

[Pagan]

Are you really so ignorant, that you don't understand the steps necessary to buil a socialist nation?

You first must destroy it's economy, then when all are in total despair, they become willing victims of the gov to bail them out.

Tell me you don't see the first step underway?

Let's not forget it was 'Dubya who kicked off with the bail outs and McCain and Obama both suspended their campaign to run like the little bought and paid for bitches that they are to push for it's passage.

The Democrats AND the Repub's are both bought and paid for Big Government Liberal Socialists

[Solar]

Let's not forget it was 'Dubya who kicked off with the bail outs and McCain and Obama both suspended their campaign to run like the little bought and paid for bitches that they are to push for it's passage.

The Democrats AND the Repub's are both bought and paid for Big Government Liberal Socialists

Which is exactly why the RINO are taking a beating at the ballot box.
People are sick of their incestuous nature.
The Tea party is going to clean the scum out of the pond that is the GOP.

Steele is on his way out, along with the majority of RINO.

But you have to admit, what Bush did is nothing in comparison to what Hussein is doing.

[BoogyMan]

Your argument about socialism is one that denies the existence of incrementalism as a tool for the implementation of socialist ideologies in America. Mr. Obama most certainly IS a socialist who entertains Marxist leanings in his views.

The pure or nothing argument is a fools position.


The idea that the President is a socialist or interested in enacting socialism is quite absurd, and rejected by the vast majority of self-identifying socialists, such as myself. But as expected, we have to deal with anti-socialist opponents insisting that they can define our own platform better than we can. Socialism involves workers' ownership and management of the means of production. The current administration does not intend to implement this, and has taken active steps against it, in fact, in not using nationalization of auto industry firms to establish collectivization.

As for U.S. capitalism providing the highest standard of living in the world, that is also quite absurd. The social democratic capitalism of Scandinavia provides manifestly higher standards of living, which is empirically demonstrable.

[Solar]

Your argument about socialism is one that denies the existence of incrementalism as a tool for the implementation of socialist ideologies in America. Mr. Obama most certainly IS a socialist who entertains Marxist leanings in his views.

The pure or nothing argument is a fools position.

Nailed It!!!
:laugh:
Had you posted earlier, you could have save me a lot of typing.

[Alias.258]

Okay here is what i'm going to suggest to you before you go keep going around calling yourself a Socialist. Go to your local college, take a course in Political Science and take a course in Economics. Then maybe you have earned the right to call yourself a Socialist, provided you pass the classes. I knew a guy in high school who claimed he was a Communist, he tried everything to convince people. His pens wrote in red, he wore red and yellow and he tried to make communist remarks. It didn't mean he understood what that was. Go take the courses and maybe you can make yourself sound a little more intelligent. And please do yourself a favor and refer yourself to my signature at the bottom before you respond to this.

[Agnapostate]

I've said this before, BO isn't enacting socialism but socialist policies. Policies that are of socialist nature that is.

Pure socialism would reduce our society and way of life from the worlds greatest power to just another mediocre nation. That might be BO's plan though, to weaken the nation with socialist ideology.

Socialist policies are those that serve to enact workers' ownership and management of the means of production. Describe several of these that have been implemented by the current administration.


Are you really so ignorant, that you don't understand the steps necessary to buil a socialist nation?

You first must destroy it's economy, then when all are in total despair, they become willing victims of the gov to bail them out.

Tell me you don't see the first step underway?

It passed, if the current administration was acting in concert with the previous one. When the administration had a potential for complete nationalization and subsequent collectivization of major auto industry firms (since nationalization is not a sufficient condition for socialism and may in fact be anti-socialist in some instances), it did not occur.


Your argument about socialism is one that denies the existence of incrementalism as a tool for the implementation of socialist ideologies in America. Mr. Obama most certainly IS a socialist who entertains Marxist leanings in his views.

The pure or nothing argument is a fools position.

You are not sufficiently informed to know anything about socialism or Marxism, but on the topic, the "incrementalist" implementation would have involved the enactment of at least one policy aimed at instituting workers' ownership and management of the means of production by this point. This has not occurred, and measures in opposition to that aim have occurred instead.


Okay here is what i'm going to suggest to you before you go keep going around calling yourself a Socialist. Go to your local college, take a course in Political Science and take a course in Economics. Then maybe you have earned the right to call yourself a Socialist, provided you pass the classes. I knew a guy in high school who claimed he was a Communist, he tried everything to convince people. His pens wrote in red, he wore red and yellow and he tried to make communist remarks. It didn't mean he understood what that was. Go take the courses and maybe you can make yourself sound a little more intelligent. And please do yourself a favor and refer yourself to my signature at the bottom before you respond to this.

If you believe that you know more about political science and economics than I do, I'd be willing to oblige you in a discussion anytime you please. However, I sincerely doubt that you will succeed. Your suggestion that I, along with the vast majority of socialists that reject the idiotic premise that Barack Obama is one of us, are all mistaken and that you and your fellow non-socialists are correct, is amusing.

[Solar]

Socialist policies are those that serve to enact workers' ownership and management of the means of production. Describe several of these that have been implemented by the current administration.

You just described Capitalism, not socialism!
In a socialist society, the gov owns all production.
You deceive yourself if you think you would actually own it in a socialist society, when the Gov dictates what and how much you produce, you are not an owner, you are merely a pawn for an Aristocracy.



It passed, if the current administration was acting in concert with the previous one. When the administration had a potential for complete nationalization and subsequent collectivization of major auto industry firms (since nationalization is not a sufficient condition for socialism and may in fact be anti-socialist in some instances), it did not occur.

You need to rethink that comment, it was terribly convoluted, but if I got the gist of your argument, you are wrong.

Hussein gave control to the Unions, as in the form of a bailout, and do you have any idea of just what entity controls these Unions?
Go to the CPUSA page and enlighten yourself.


You are not sufficiently informed to know anything about socialism or Marxism, but on the topic, the "incrementalist" implementation would have involved the enactment of at least one policy aimed at instituting workers' ownership and management of the means of production by this point. This has not occurred, and measures in opposition to that aim have occurred instead.

Again, it was not for lack of trying, but there are some Dims that have fought him on this.
As much as I despise the Dims, there are still quite a few that didn't drink all their Koolaid.


If you believe that you know more about political science and economics than I do, I'd be willing to oblige you in a discussion anytime you please. However, I sincerely doubt that you will succeed. Your suggestion that I, along with the vast majority of socialists that reject the idiotic premise that Barack Obama is one of us, are all mistaken and that you and your fellow non-socialists are correct, is amusing.

Your claiming it simply doesn't make it so.
Look at his history, look at the people that put him in office, that speaks more about the man, than anything he has accomplished thus far.

[Agnapostate]

You just described Capitalism, not socialism!
In a socialist society, the gov owns all production.

Government ownership is contrary to public ownership because there is a divergence of interests between state elites and the general population. Government ownership is therefore contrary to socialism. Capitalism is also contrary to socialism, but similar to government ownership in that a small number of hierarchical ruling elites control the majority of means and factors of production.


You deceive yourself if you think you would actually own it in a socialist society, when the Gov dictates what and how much you produce, you are not an owner, you are merely a pawn for an Aristocracy.

If you continue to insist on defining the Leninist states of the world as "socialist," I will define them as "republican," since they claimed to be republican democracies. Or have you perhaps considered not taking the claims of authoritarian rulers at face value?


You need to rethink that comment, it was terribly convoluted, but if I got the gist of your argument, you are wrong.

Hussein gave control to the Unions, as in the form of a bailout, and do you have any idea of just what entity controls these Unions?
Go to the CPUSA page and enlighten yourself.

State intervention increases in inevitable periods of capitalist crisis. This has never culminated in the establishment of socialism in the past, and it will not occur this time. If socialism were being enacted, we would already be seeing democratic management of workplaces and public democratic management of local resources by this point.


Again, it was not for lack of trying, but there are some Dims that have fought him on this.
As much as I despise the Dims, there are still quite a few that didn't drink all their Koolaid.

Then by all means, describe the attempt to enact workers' ownership and management of the means of production on the part of this administration.


Your claiming it simply doesn't make it so.
Look at his history, look at the people that put him in office, that speaks more about the man, than anything he has accomplished thus far.

But almost all socialists concurring with my view should serve as quite strong evidence to the contrary. But you go through life with your primitive little preconceived notions, obstinately stamping your foot and refusing to change them no matter what evidence is thrust in your face. Sad little fool.

[Alias.258]

If you believe that you know more about political science and economics than I do, I'd be willing to oblige you in a discussion anytime you please. However, I sincerely doubt that you will succeed. Your suggestion that I, along with the vast majority of socialists that reject the idiotic premise that Barack Obama is one of us, are all mistaken and that you and your fellow non-socialists are correct, is amusing.

1. I refuse to have a debate with you because it is clear you are not capable of making a rebuttal without insulting somebody as proven in numerous threads.
2. You may or may not know more about Political Science or Economics than me. It was a suggestion that you take those courses. However because one my mentors grew up in Soviet Russia i am probably more informed on the subject of Communism and Socialism than you.
3. I never once mentioned Barack in my post, therefor making that comment an unfounded personal attack without premise.
4. Who are these Socialists that you know? Did you meet them on the internet or in person? And what are their qualifications to speak on the subject.
5. Your posts seem to lack reputable sources, and i do not believe that you are old enough or well enough versed to speak on these subjects without them.
Note: One can be young and well informed allowing for detailed discussion on political topics.
6. I have no 6 as i have already made my point in numbers 1-5. If that is not clear please re-read 1-5.

[Agnapostate]

1. I refuse to have a debate with you because it is clear you are not capable of making a rebuttal without insulting somebody as proven in numerous threads.

This is evidence only of your biased one-sided perspective, where you apparently ignore the slate of insults directed at me, only commenting on my reciprocation and pretending that it was unprovoked.


2. You may or may not know more about Political Science or Economics than me. It was a suggestion that you take those courses. However because one my mentors grew up in Soviet Russia i am probably more informed on the subject of Communism and Socialism than you.

It was an suggestion intended to convey insult, since the implication was that I needed education in those fields, when I have more formal education in economics than the majority of this board's membership. I also sincerely doubt that you know more about communism and socialism than I do, since you've thus far merely repeated rightist cliches about those topics. You've also not responded to this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29008-Hamas-use-of-Civilians-as-shields&p=440172#post440172) I made earlier, in which I decried and dismissed your attempt to associate my own anarchist ideology with Leninism.


3. I never once mentioned Barack in my post, therefor making that comment an unfounded personal attack without premise.

Apart from the fact that the post was a comment on the general content of the thread (I was speaking to you all as a group), I did not make a personal attack. I disparaged the premise that he was a "socialist" as idiotic.


4. Who are these Socialists that you know? Did you meet them on the internet or in person? And what are their qualifications to speak on the subject.

The beliefs of the socialists I quoted were described on the Internet, since that was the only way for me to directly demonstrate the socialist opposition to the President:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29054-Obama-admin-halts-prosecution-of-USS-Cole-bomber&p=439666#post439666

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29054-Obama-admin-halts-prosecution-of-USS-Cole-bomber&p=439746#post439746

However, every socialist that I actually know opposes him just as adamantly, but this is anecdotal experience that cannot be validated.


5. Your posts seem to lack reputable sources, and i do not believe that you are old enough or well enough versed to speak on these subjects without them.

This is an example of either significant ignorance or willfull duplicity on your part. Of the entire membership on this forum, I am perhaps the most focused on providing corroborating empirical sources to validate conclusions, with many people here having criticized this an excessive tendency, since I reject appeals to personal anecdotes. For example, in this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29054-Obama-admin-halts-prosecution-of-USS-Cole-bomber&p=440118#post440118), I cited numerous sources in peer-reviewed academic journals, which were responded to by belligerent foot-stamping.

[Alias.258]

You've also not responded to this post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29008-Hamas-use-of-Civilians-as-shields&p=440172#post440172) I made earlier, in which I decried and dismissed your attempt to associate my own anarchist ideology with Leninism.

I wont reply to the rest of that post, however...
I stopped reading your rebuttal when your argument because it started out with
When calling people idiots, it's perhaps advisable to adhere to accepted standards of correct usage of the English language, such as proper grammar and punctuation. Calling you an idiot was overkill in that post. It didn't need to be said and it has no place on a discussion/debate forum. But i was feeling extremely aggressive that and needed a release for that aggression. You were just unfortunate enough to walk into my cross-hairs. I was and still am experiencing something that i hope nobody on this forum ever has or will. But using my grammar is not an argument, as i will openly admit on this forum that my written English skills even though i grew up in and live in the US -- Suck. So anybody that wants to stoop low enough to insult a shortcoming that i have admitted from here on out...Feel free, i wont take it personally cause i know its true.

[Agnapostate]

But using my grammar is not an argument, as i will openly admit on this forum that my written English skills even though i grew up in and live in the US -- Suck.

And therein lies the irony in calling people idiots.

[jimnyc]

It was an suggestion intended to convey insult, since the implication was that I needed education in those fields, when I have more formal education in economics than the majority of this board's membership.

How do you know what the member base of this board has been educated in, and for how long they studied? You're barely old enough to have graduated with a Bachelors degree and you want to profess how you are somehow superior to others? You sound more to me like someone who very rarely goes outside the home, if ever, and does a ton of reading and research. Self taught book smart will only get you so far in real life. Someday you will find out that having actual experience will trump your "empirical research" 9 out of 10 times.

[Agnapostate]

How do you know what the member base of this board has been educated in, and for how long they studied? You're barely old enough to have graduated with a Bachelors degree and you want to profess how you are somehow superior to others?

Not at all; I'm a foe of credentialism. However, when the inaccurate insinuation that I've not even taking beginning economics courses when I in fact have formal education in the topic and was elected economics club president at my college is made, I'll hasten to refute it.


You sound more to me like someone who very rarely goes outside the home, if ever, and does a ton of reading and research.

I have between a 12 and 30 mile cycling commute on weekdays between two campuses on alternate days, so I'm afraid I don't have time for "a ton of reading and research." And while I can point to significant theoretical and empirical support for my philosophy, it's probably something that hits closer to home as a result of living in an urban environment.


Self taught book smart will only get you so far in real life. Someday you will find out that having actual experience will trump your "empirical research" 9 out of 10 times.

The spectrum of human behaviors and experiences is so heterogenous that individual anecdotes cannot possibly serve as a substitute for statistical analysis of large data sets, which are after all massive amalgamations of all that "experience" to see what the general trends are. And anyway, a middle-class white man can't tell me about "personal experience"; I'm from Southeast Los, nigga! :laugh:

[Alias.258]

How do you know what the member base of this board has been educated in, and for how long they studied? You're barely old enough to have graduated with a Bachelors degree and you want to profess how you are somehow superior to others? You sound more to me like someone who very rarely goes outside the home, if ever, and does a ton of reading and research. Self taught book smart will only get you so far in real life. Someday you will find out that having actual experience will trump your "empirical research" 9 out of 10 times.

Thanks jimnyc, somebody needed to say it other than me. Just because somebody researches and knows something doesn't necessarily make them qualified enough to speak on it. Just because somebody knows a a lot about Physics won't get them far in the profession without the necessary qualifications. Any paper that they publish will way more often than not, be completely ignored by the Professors and Researches with PhD's. Just they way things are.

[Alias.258]

And therein lies the irony in calling people idiots.

What does that have anything to do with my English skills being horribly inadequate?

[Agnapostate]

What does that have anything to do with my English skills being horribly inadequate?

It's indicative of idiocy, and therefore makes for amusing irony.

[Pagan]

It's indicative of idiocy, and therefore makes for amusing irony.

Yeah, so tell us again how Anarchy is explicitly socialist ideology you ignorant fuck .... :lol:

[Alias.258]

It's indicative of idiocy, and therefore makes for amusing irony.

My inability to spell and use proper grammar is a sign of idiocy? Which seems to be amusing to you... If nothing before was a personal attack, that certainly was. And i don't think a persons intelligence is based just on their ability to write properly.

[Pagan]

You know Agna's post is so choice I HAVE to have it as a signature :lol:

[Solar]

It's indicative of idiocy, and therefore makes for amusing irony.

One should be so quick to judge.
For someone that can string together countless words, perfectly spelled, yet say absolutely nothing.

Can you say irony?:slap:

[Pagan]

One should be so quick to judge.
For someone that can string together countless words, perfectly spelled, yet say absolutely nothing.

Can you say irony?:slap:

Hey Solar, remember the oh so wise and intelligent one who comes up with divine wisdom of things like ----

"... anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideology "
:lol::lol:

[Solar]

Hey Solar, remember the oh so wise and intelligent one who comes up with divine wisdom of things like ----

"... anarchism is an explicitly socialist ideology "
:lol::lol:

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Funny, I never thought of you as a socialist?

He also claims to be a libertarian socialist, now there's some serious intellect at work.

[SassyLady]

The spectrum of human behaviors and experiences is so heterogenous that individual anecdotes cannot possibly serve as a substitute for statistical analysis of large data sets, which are after all massive amalgamations of all that "experience" to see what the general trends are. And anyway, a middle-class white man can't tell me about "personal experience"; I'm from Southeast Los, nigga! :laugh:

Statistical analysis of large data sets has a tendency to remove the personal intimacy of the individual experience which leads to robotic interpretation and reguritation by people who actually believe stats are the only way to evaluate trends.

[Pagan]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Funny, I never thought of you as a socialist?

He also claims to be a libertarian socialist, now there's some serious intellect at work.

Everytime this mountain of intellectual wisdom and knowledge opens it's Pie Hole the only thing I can think of is this quote from Plato -

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”