Bill Ayers: "Obama Is A Pragmatic Moderate Politician"

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Bill Ayers: Right-wing media convinced leftists that Obama was a secret leftist

Leftists in the United States were mistaken to view President Barack Obama as one of their own, according to education activist and former revolutionary Bill Ayers.

During an appearance last Friday at D.C.’s legendary Politics and Prose bookstore, Ayers said he was well-acquainted with Obama. Both men were involved in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and Woods Fund of Chicago. They also both taught at the University of Chicago and lived in Hyde Park.

“It’s a small neighborhood,” Ayers explained. “I was a guy around that neighborhood and so was he, and we would run into each other at the supermarket or the bookstore or the park. That’s the kind of neighborhood it is.”

Ayers never viewed Obama as a leftist like himself.

“He was a community organizer to his great credit, but all through the 2008 campaign Barack Obama said, whenever asked, he would say, ‘I am a moderate, compromising, pragmatic, middle-of-the-road, politician.”

[...]

He concluded that leftist spent too much time “gazing at the sights of power they have no access to” rather than engaging in grassroots activism. Lyndon Johnson wasn’t part of the civil rights movement, Franklin D. Roosevelt wasn’t part of the labor movement, and Abraham Lincoln wasn’t part of the abolition movement, Ayers said.

Coming from the man that knew him well....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/...ced-leftists-that-obama-was-a-secret-leftist/

 

[No1]

Bill Ayers: Right-wing media convinced leftists that Obama was a secret leftist



Coming from the man that knew him well....

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/...ced-leftists-that-obama-was-a-secret-leftist/

I wonder who has said the things in his conclusion on here before

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Well thank you Bill for your thoughts. Hes a politician and we all know what that means, friends.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

I wonder who has said the things in his conclusion on here before

Left-Wingers call him

• Corporatist
• War Monger
• Fascist
• Bush 2.0

Right-Winger call him:

• Socialist
• Communist/Marxist
• Dictator
• Fascist

Libertarians Call him:

• All The Above

And in the end of the day it's possible he's really just pragmatic for the most part.


just sayin

 

[No1]

Left-Wingers call him

• Corporatist
• War Monger
• Fascist
• Bush 2.0

Right-Winger call him:

• Socialist
• Communist/Marxist
• Dictator
• Fascist

Libertarians Call him:

• All The Above

And in the end of the day it's possible he's really just pragmatic for the most part.


just sayin

He's a guy with left-leaning inclinations that is willing to compromise for the sake of getting things done. Often he compromises too much. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about what everyone who is in my generation that voted for the first time in 08 should recognize by now. You don't change politics by changing just the guy at the top. The people at the top respond to pressure from the people at the bottom. That is how the highest office has always been. In that regard I understand the notion of you can't keep voting for the same people and expecting different results. But the people who voted in Congress for example, do believe in what much of those representatives stand for. I think people misunderstand polling and public opinion. Anyone who has taken a public opinion class knows that for the most part people have no idea what they're talking about and that they hold an entire host of conflicting views. Most people polled will support leftist policies in theory and then be afraid of them in practice. It's why a plurality of workers think they would benefit from unions if they were unionized, but a large number are against them because they fear the actions employer will take (firing them, etc).

I think we're at a point where everyone believes that the current system isn't working and that inequality is a problem, but the substantive battle (proving one side's solution is the correct on) is very far from being resolved. A lot of that obviously is because we never get to see "liberalism" fully in practice (though California is moving towards being a useful test site for the rest of the country). If there's anything to take away from what Ayers is getting at is that the pragmatic politician (with some integrity) will do what they think is politically efficacious, but those terms have to be defined by the bottom--if you let those at the top have that limited conversation then you're prone to have results detached from what society requires. What he said about MLK was spot on.

 

[MostReal]

And in the end of the day it's possible he's really just pragmatic for the most part.


just sayin

I remember arguing this point with a Black Republican Doctor a few years back...he just couldn't believe it. Obama said this the entire time that he was Pragmatic and not stuck on hard left policies. Its one of the main reasons he got my vote. This is why he isn't Bush 2.0, this is also why he did try to engage the Republicans...(he really wanted to govern as a Democratic Regan) I don't think he should have exposed this because it allowed Republicans to undercut his policies. He essentially gave his opponents the playbook to his gameplan. That never works

 

[Piff Perkins]

Obama has always been a cautious pragmatist. He's no doubt a liberal on certain issues, but is far more interested in "what can be achieved" than any strict ideological stance. He supported single payer healthcare during his days in Chicago yet passed a healthcare law that benefits insurance companies. Because that's the only thing that could be passed, and also because the bill is cleverly designed to be a Trojan Horse for single payer sometime in the future.

Go back to his HLR days, when his liberal friends were upset he gave conservatives more seats than liberals. Dude has always been focused on building a coalition and getting "something" done.

 

[#1 pick]

Obama problem is he's Black. In United Satan of America, that's a problem.

 

[Type Username Here]

Such nonsense in here that has been exposed many times.

The Pragmatistic argument only works in the confines of battles in Congress. This conveniently ignores facts about policy decisions made by the Administration that had nothing to do with legislation.

Ordering the FBI and Homeland Security to spy, undermine and curb the Occupy Wall Street movement (a grassroots movement by the way) on behalf of banking institutions has NOTHING to do with pragmatism. This has been documented extensively here by me and others, from worldwide reputable sources.

There are many more examples of the above in this Administration.

I'll say it again: If you're a corporatist, capitalist, and moderate economic conservative, Obama is that dude. You got exactly what you wanted.

But don't dismiss people on the left with principles. I have no obligation to defend Obama, even if I voted for him. Matter of fact, I should be EXTRA critical of politicians who I help get elected.

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Such nonsense in here that has been exposed many times.

The Pragmatistic argument only works in the confines of battles in Congress. This conveniently ignores facts about policy decisions made by the Administration that had nothing to do with legislation.

Ordering the FBI and Homeland Security to spy

Do you ever ask why he supported or ordered these actions?

Do you ever ask yourself if he had looked into or thought about several alternatives and other options for domestic security?

Undermine and curb the Occupy Wall Street movement (a grassroots movement by the way) on behalf of banking institutions has NOTHING to do with pragmatism. This has been documented extensively here by me and others, from worldwide reputable sources.

OWS made themselves a tough organization to support on his level to campaign on. This was a group of people ranging from progressive libertarians to outright communist Marxist. There was no core principle to OWS that many ppl couldn't support or get behind.....me being one of them.

I'll say it again: If you're a corporatist, capitalist, and moderate economic conservative, Obama is that dude. You got exactly what you wanted.

Again...this or that comparison. You see him as the above the right-wing is still calling him a commie/socialist what have you.

When two extremes throw different labels to a similar subject and condemn it as opposite of their beliefs what does that mean????

 

[Type Username Here]

Do you ever ask why he supported or ordered these actions?

Do you ever ask yourself if he had looked into or thought about several alternatives and other options for domestic security?



OWS made themselves a tough organization to support on his level to campaign on. This was a group of people ranging from progressive libertarians to outright communist Marxist. There was no core principle to OWS that many ppl couldn't support or get behind.....me being one of them.



Again...this or that comparison. You see him as the above the right-wing is still calling him a commie/socialist what have you.

When two extremes throw different labels to a similar subject and condemn it as opposite of their beliefs what does that mean????

Brother, with all due respect, you approach any criticism of the President with a sense of duty to protect him or his legacy. That is very evident in your posts, along with other posters. The first question you ask yourself is "what is the best possible answer I can give that puts the President in a positive light?" . You read up on Democratic pundits/blogs, see the daily white house talking points and then formulate your stance on the President's actions. This is not standing for principle. Youre advocating the political system status quo as if that is the only logical stance. It is not.

The only fact is a leftist economic grassroots movement advocates challenging the banking, investment and wealth infrastructure that bankrolls almost all political candidates and that modern day Democrats (i.e. centrists) see as a means to be relevant. I cannot support that as pragmatism.


Read yourself from FBI memos:

If there was a unified mission behind the Occupy surveillance, it appears the purpose was to pass information about activists' plans to the finance industry. In one memo from August 2011, the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011.[sic] Numerous incidents have occurred in the past which show attempts by Anarchist groups to disrupt, influence, and or shut down normal business operations of financial districts."

The documents reveal that the FBI met with officials from four banks and one credit union, and spoke over the phone with a representative from a fifth bank. The FBI also talked with officials from the Richmond Federal Reserve, a branch of the central bank that covers much of the American South. If the FBI communicated with any of the trillion-dollar banks that were the primary subject of Occupy Wall Street's economic critique, however, those discussions have been redacted from the documents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2410783.html

Plenty of more sources.

But no amount of sources will alter your thinking because you hold onto your positions either due to emotional attachment or employment.

So again I ask, what is pragmatic about authorizing Federal Agencies to infiltrate and spy on a leftist grassroots movement to aid the banking and financial sectors?

I'll wait.

 

[Type Username Here]

Tell the left they should start a grassroots movement and then defend the man who authorizes grassroots movements to be stomped out brehs.

 

[theworldismine13]

No shyt Sherlock

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

Brother, with all due respect, you approach any criticism of the President with a sense of duty to protect him or his legacy. That is very evident in your posts, along with other posters. The first question you ask yourself is "what is the best possible answer I can give that puts the President in a positive light?" . You read up on Democratic pundits/blogs, see the daily white house talking points and then formulate your stance on the President's actions. This is not standing for principle. Youre advocating the political system status quo as if that is the only logical stance. It is not.

I only do this when people make absurd accusations to label him who he is based off of insufficient evidence.

The same ppl that call him a socialist lack the same evidence of those that call him a corporatist.

The only fact is a leftist economic grassroots movement advocates challenging the banking, investment and wealth infrastructure that bankrolls almost all political candidates and that modern day Democrats (i.e. centrists) see as a means to be relevant. I cannot support that as pragmatism.

When it FIRST started off it was an attractive movement but it was unorganized, there was no central voice to keep the focus on the particular goal of the movement plus with ppl shytting on police cars and rape accusations going on at protest locations...it's not easy for a President to say "Yeah I fully support OWS!!!"

Read yourself from FBI memos:

Again OWS was become way to much of an open umbrella radical group...I was supportive of the idea of a movement to draw attention to push-back on Wall Street...then it just got strange and you had some questionable activity and leaders that I can see what triggered further stings and investigations.

But no amount of sources will alter your thinking because you hold onto your positions either due to emotional attachment or employment.

*See thread about my response when finding out CIA authorized killings from drones to random/unknown/unspecified targets*
*See thread about my response to revelation of administration's "kill list"*

So again I ask, what is pragmatic about authorizing Federal Agencies to infiltrate and spy on a leftist grassroots movement to aid the banking and financial sectors?

I'll wait.

Readd the beginning of the article form huffpost you linked

 

[Odyssey]

Bill Ayers is a communist and a terrorist who wanted to kill 25 million European Americans. The radical left is getting closer to pushing the button on white male genocide, it is happening with demographic displacement, which is a massive left-marxist plot to destroy European society. They are also gearing up for white male genocide in the states by displacing working class whites with increased immigration, and by increased anti-white male cultural subversion. Actually, it's not even "Subverse" anymore, here is what another university professor said about white males recently:

“If you are a white male, you don’t deserve to live. You are a cancer, you’re a disease, white males have never contributed anything positive to the world! They only murder, exploit and oppress non-whites! At least a white woman can have sex with a black man and make a brown baby but what can a white male do? He’s good for nothing. Slavery, genocides against aboriginal peoples and massive land confiscation, the inquisition, the holocaust, white males are all to blame! You maintain your white male privilege only by oppressing, discriminating against and enslaving others,"

Load up on ammo, son's of Aeneas. It's coming.