“All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I … tried to take as my own.” (p. 220) And what was that image? It was “the father of my dreams, the man in my mother’s stories, full of high-blown ideals …” (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, “It was into my father’s image … that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself.” And also that, “I did feel that there was something to prove … to my father” in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)
A bit of research at the library reveals the answers about Barack Obama’s father and his father’s convictions which Obama withholds from his readers.
Obama,Sr. stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya’s Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:
Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced “development plan”, an important element of his attack on the government’s advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)
Obama advocated the nationalization of “European” and “Asian” owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the “indigenous” black population. (pp. 32 -33)
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
I haven’t read the book,but nothing in those passages quoted links his thinking to anything his father may or may not have expounded.
He talks of “the father of my dreams, the man in my mother’s stories, full of high-blown ideals …”.
If that doesn’t in your mind indicate a separation between what he wanted his ideal to be,rather than what the reality may have been,then I don’t know.
Whatever Obama sr may or may not have said is irrelevant.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
If Obama did in fact say this, someone tell me what separates him from the typical socialist? And why would anyone with even an ounce of intelligence vote for this clown?
The more I hear of this character the less I like him.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
If Obama did in fact say this, someone tell me what separates him from the typical socialist? And why would anyone with even an ounce of intelligence vote for this clown?
The more I hear of this character the less I like him.
It was his father that had these positions.
[/quote]
Yes, true. And it is certainly possible to admire one’s father and his idealism, provided the idealism is tempered by understanding. If his father is a socialist/communist and the son expresses admiration for him, he has to say something to the effect of disagreeing with dear old dad’s beliefs…unless the son is a socialist/communist. He needs to make that point clear.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
If Obama did in fact say this, someone tell me what separates him from the typical socialist? And why would anyone with even an ounce of intelligence vote for this clown?
The more I hear of this character the less I like him.
It was his father that had these positions.
Yes, true. And it is certainly possible to admire one’s father and his idealism, provided the idealism is tempered by understanding. If his father is a socialist/communist and the son expresses admiration for him, he has to say something to the effect of disagreeing with dear old dad’s beliefs…unless the son is a socialist/communist. He needs to make that point clear.
Shouldn’t we expect that?
[/quote]
You’re still missing the point. He clearly writes that he had an idealized version of his father in his head,as was described to him by his mother.There is no reference to what his father may have been like in reality.
So no,I don’t think there is any need for him to say anything regarding the subject.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
If Obama did in fact say this, someone tell me what separates him from the typical socialist? And why would anyone with even an ounce of intelligence vote for this clown?
The more I hear of this character the less I like him.
It was his father that had these positions.
Yes, true. And it is certainly possible to admire one’s father and his idealism, provided the idealism is tempered by understanding. If his father is a socialist/communist and the son expresses admiration for him, he has to say something to the effect of disagreeing with dear old dad’s beliefs…unless the son is a socialist/communist. He needs to make that point clear.
Shouldn’t we expect that?
[/quote]
Oh, so anyone running for public office needs to publicly repudiate his nearest and dearest if their political views vary from his? I must have missed the memo about Maoist self-criticism seminars being mandatory these days.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
If Obama did in fact say this, someone tell me what separates him from the typical socialist? And why would anyone with even an ounce of intelligence vote for this clown?
The more I hear of this character the less I like him.
It was his father that had these positions.
Thanks for the clarification Zap.
However, since Obama is one of if not the most liberal Senator, one wonders how close he is to fully agreeing with dear old Dad.
[/quote]
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)
If Obama did in fact say this, someone tell me what separates him from the typical socialist? And why would anyone with even an ounce of intelligence vote for this clown?
The more I hear of this character the less I like him.
It was his father that had these positions.
Yes, true. And it is certainly possible to admire one’s father and his idealism, provided the idealism is tempered by understanding. If his father is a socialist/communist and the son expresses admiration for him, he has to say something to the effect of disagreeing with dear old dad’s beliefs…unless the son is a socialist/communist. He needs to make that point clear.
Shouldn’t we expect that?
Oh, so anyone running for public office needs to publicly repudiate his nearest and dearest if their political views vary from his? I must have missed the memo about Maoist self-criticism seminars being mandatory these days.[/quote]
Ivan Stalin: “My father was an idealist and humanitarian. I don’t feel it necessary to repudiate his ideas and actions.”
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Malevolence wrote:
I take it all you guys grew up without a father? this is a despicable and pathetic attempt to smear. What the hell is wrong with you people?
A better question would be, why aren’t you more concerned? Oh…you’re a liberal right?