Is Obama a Marxist?

POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Thursday, October 30, 2008 23:47
VIEWED: 7414
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HERO

Monday, October 27, 2008 12:46 PM

"Is Obama a Marxist?" the lady asks.

Well first of all, your not allowed to ask questions of Obama or Joe Biden. Asking them questions (except those they provide) is racist and racism can't be tolerated.

That said, Barrack Obama is clearly NOT a Marxist. He's a socialist. That means Sweden...not the Soviet Union.

I note for the record that Swedish women are hot.

Is there evidence of Barrack's socialist views? (Racist question.) Well there is his comment to Joe the Plumber about "spreading the wealth". That kind of sounds socialist. It also sounds like an off the cuff comment in response to an unexpected question (and we've already decided that questions of Barrack Obama are by definition...racist). So I think that the Joe the Plumber evidence is weak at best.

What we really need is some definitive evidence of socialist desires on behalf of Barrack Obama. Thankfully Senator Obama has provided it himself when, in 2001, he lamented the tragedy that "redistribution of wealth" was not pursued by the Supreme Court.

Does a simple desire to enact national health care, massive new government programs, and redistribute wealth on a scale never before seen in this country make Barrack a socialist? Don't answer...questions are not allowed.

H

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:21 PM

Just trying to understand: what's wrong with "Socialism?" Why is that such a radioactive word? As if mentioning it is akin to Satanic worship? Don't we already have socialistic programs in place, (welfare, medicare)?

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:39 PM

Piz,

Are you joking?

Or are you really asking what is wrong with Socialism?

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:48 PM

I think he's asking if we don't already have some socialist programs in effect. National parks, Emminent Domain, police and fire departments, public education, state universities, hospitals, insurance, defense spending... All of these take from the many to give to the few, all in the name of the greater public good.

And spreading the wealth? So you're telling me that McCain opposes spreading wealth? He's ANTI-wealth for all? A chicken in no pot and a car in no garage? Is that honestly the plank you want to add to the GOP platform?

Or is it that you support McCain's "spreading the wealth" ONLY as long as it "spreads" upward to the already-rich?

Which is it?

So is McCain a Marxist? Or is that one of the questions that you're not allowed to ask, because he was a POW?

Mike

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:48 PM

So, what about the bailouts? Isn't THAT socialism? Isn't THAT a redistribution of wealth- to the rich? Didn't the biggest growth in government spending occur under George Bush?

Seems might one-sided of you, Hero, ignoring facts like that.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

EVILDINOSAUR

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:49 PM

I'm going to guess that no he is not joking, and repeat his question for him. He does make a good point that this country already has a fair amount of socialist tendencies.

So please, we're dumb, explain to us the badness.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, October 27, 2008 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, what about the bailouts? Isn't THAT socialism?

No. Just like Medicare is not socialism. But going from Medicare to socialized medicine, and going from occasional government assistance in order to avoid an economic collapse to redistribution of wealth is socialism.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 2:13 PM

Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Why its wrong for a free people:

For a free person, the ownership of life, liberty and your pursuits is paramount.

You MUST, as a free-thinking, acting person, be allowed ownership of your legally gained wealth, land or ideas.

To wit, what you make, think of, earn, create, are YOURS TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE!

ANYTHING ELSE, is slavery to the state and promotes a shackling of self-determination to the lowest, weakest, and most failed of the society.

Think of Socialism (and Communism) as an anchor tied to your leg, while you swim in the open ocean. The sea is dangerous enough, without having to be dragged under by the weight of the ignorant masses.

This also goes both ways.

Nor should the less privaledged in society be forced to feed the wealthier. (As with the Bailout)

Another problem with Socialism, is its inherrant lack of faith in the people. In a free society, people have the choice to donate their time or money to a specific cause.

In a Socialist state, they do not.

Also, in a Socialist state, the government controls you. Period.

HERO

Monday, October 27, 2008 2:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, what about the bailouts? Isn't THAT socialism? Isn't THAT a redistribution of wealth- to the rich? Didn't the biggest growth in government spending occur under George Bush?

Seems might one-sided of you, Hero, ignoring facts like that.

Who's ignoring those facts? Not me.

Did government grow too big under George Bush? Yes. In allowing it to grow he adopted a liberal-socialist approach to spending. That approach failed, particularly when combined with the liberal-socialist lending guidelines that have undermined the banking industry. We need a conservative approach, fiscal responsibility and allowing the market to sort itself out which in turn would grow the economy out of its present problems.

I continue to support many of the President's policies, especially on the war, but his spending is and has been out of control.

Socialism is wrong, no matter who is repsonsible. The answer to Bush's out of control spending is not to elect someone who wants more spending and lacks the management experiance to handle it properly.

Taxes are too high, Obama wants to raise them.
Spending is too high, Obama wants even more.

He wants to take money from me and give it to the folks who are not working. I don't take kindly to that. Reminds me of that episode of Ponderosa where the settlers wanted to steal the ranch. Lets face it, Obama would be all for taking the Ponderosa and giving it to the poor.

H

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, October 27, 2008 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Think of Socialism (and Communism) as an anchor tied to your leg, while you swim in the open ocean. The sea is dangerous enough, without having to be dragged under by the weight of the ignorant masses.

Which ocean? Seriously, your examples are so extreme.

No, I wasn't joking, wasn't a political science major either - just want to understand why some people have put such heavy negative meaning to something that we in the US are already living with everyday. Specifically, Socialist programs and even Socialist ideals. And that they actually do positive things for us without taking away our most important freedoms. They aren't necessarily perfect (social security) but it's impossible to have perfection in a democracy.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 2:47 PM

Ok Piz,

Riddle me this.

Why should I work so that I can have some/alot of my money taken, and then given, to someone who refuses to work (or is unable, or is to stupid)?

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok Piz,

Riddle me this.

Why should I work so that I can have some/alot of my money taken, and then given, to someone who refuses to work (or is unable, or is to stupid)?

Because, ironically, that is the price of Freedom. At least that is the price the USA charges for our kind of Freedom (FICA, Social Security).

I know firsthand the scenario you're talking about - I have no compassion for deadbeats or freeloaders. So, you work hard because even though it sucks big time you will in the end make more money for you and your family.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:09 PM

It may be the price of living in the US, NOW..... but it doesn't HAVE TO BE.

This is NOT what the FF had in mind.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:21 PM

Quote:
This is NOT what the FF had in mind.

Are you sure? The Founding Fathers had many opinions about wealth. Some believed in slavery. Thomas Jefferson had this to say

Quote:
"We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partition of intestate's estates, constitutes the best agrarian law.. Our revenues once liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., and the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings."

Also

Quote:
"The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

The FF were not rugged individualistic frontiersmen, they were highly-educated and looked to the French Enlightenment for inspiration. That's why they wanted to "promote the general welfare". And that DIDN'T mean promote the welfare of corporations.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Just trying to understand: what's wrong with "Socialism?" Why is that such a radioactive word? As if mentioning it is akin to Satanic worship? Don't we already have socialistic programs in place, (welfare, medicare)?

Nothing. There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that the people of one's country have the basic necessities.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:28 PM

"Nothing. There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that the people of one's country have the basic necessities."

By the worlds standards, even the very poor amoung us, have it pretty damn good.

But, if by "basic necessities", you mean 20' rims for your hummer, new Fubu gear, grillz, or other such nonsense...no. Not everyone has those.

Too bad, cus I like watching folks like that, driving cars like that, wearing clothes like that, with teeth like that. It reminds me of the circus.

Clowns always did make me laugh.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Nothing. There is nothing wrong with trying to ensure that the people of one's country have the basic necessities."

By the worlds standards, even the very poor amoung us, have it pretty damn good.

But, if by "basic necessities", you mean 20' rims for your hummer, new Fubu gear, grillz, or other such nonsense...no. Not everyone has those.

Too bad, cus I like watching folks like that, driving cars like that, wearing clothes like that, with teeth like that. It reminds me of the circus.

Clowns always did make me laugh.

why to go with the racial stereotypes

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:35 PM

How is it a racial stereotype?

A LOT of poor white kids have been taken in by that nonsense too....

Granted, they are the east/west coasts version of rednecks...but what the hell.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:39 PM

So Wulf, have you read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about inequality of wealth?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:41 PM

Yes.

But this doesnt mean that he (or they) wanted to go all Robin Hood.

Just that the playing field should be level so that you have the oppurtunity to pursue your "happiness".

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:48 PM

Quote:
Just that the playing field should be level so that you have the oppurtunity to pursue your "happiness".

And he wanted to use taxes and other laws to do it.

Quote:
Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

HKCAVALIER

Monday, October 27, 2008 3:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Yes.

But this doesnt mean that he (or they) wanted to go all Robin Hood.

Just that the playing field should be level so that you have the oppurtunity to pursue your "happiness".

And what precisely makes Obama a "robin hood" instead of a playing field leveler? He's gonna revert to Clinton era taxes--was Clinton a Marxist, too?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

MALBADINLATIN

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:00 PM

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Main Entry: Marx·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈmärk-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1887
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx ; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society.

Anti Obama folks please explain exactly how Obama's platform fits into any of these definitions without childish melodramatic stump speech dribble...and! how our own US Government's bailout doesn't...

I'll be amazed and thrilled to see how you can absolve "bailout Republicans and Democrats", while you still have idiotic Palinesque bimbo Conservative media twerps hurling turds at Biden like he's gonna crack and let loose the terrible Dr Evil secret that Obama will bring us Marxism.

My initial response is that the RNC and McCain campaign are shamefully desperate.

Trolls against McCain

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:00 PM

You guys might think thats its ok to be forced to give up your money to support the woman with 5 children by 5 different fathers, but I do not.

Nor do I think my money should go to keep fools in their McMansions.

Or, to bailout the rich.

Also, I do not believe that throwing money at ANY social problem fixes it. Only the society itself can do that.

Sorry, but the government is stealing the money I EARN, to line the pockets of the undeserving.

I don't believe that the government has the right to take ANY of my money. Period.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:11 PM

Quote:
You guys might think thats its ok to be forced to give up your money to support the woman with 5 children by 5 different fathers, but I do not.

Neither do I. But there's a "but..." to that.

Quote:
Nor do I think my money should go to keep fools in their McMansions.

Unless there was fraud involved in the loan, in which case, jail the perps.

Quote:
Or, to bailout the rich.

Okay.

Quote:
Also, I do not believe that throwing money at ANY social problem fixes it. Only the society itself can do that.

The government can be an extension of society, acting collectively. Maybe you just don't like collective action, and you feel that ANY collective action is "socialist".

Quote:
Sorry, but the government is stealing the money I EARN, to line the pockets of the undeserving.

Corporation are ALSO stealing the money that you EARN, to line the pockets of the undeserving.

Quote:
I don't believe that the government has the right to take ANY of my money. Period.

Well then, you and the FF disagree, so don't reference them on the topic again, OK?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:32 PM

"Well then, you and the FF disagree, so don't reference them on the topic again, OK?"

I don't believe I and the FF disagree.

And I'll do what I damn well please.

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Ok Piz,

Riddle me this.

Why should I work so that I can have some/alot of my money taken, and then given, to someone who refuses to work (or is unable, or is to stupid)?

When you say "too stupid", I take that to mean that you're a social Darwinist - you believe that "lesser" people among us should be wiped out so that we don't have to support them. People like, for instance, Sarah Palin's youngest child, who is going to need a LOT of special care and special consideration.

You're saying that those people who are "too stupid" to work should be killed, or at the very least allowed to slowly starve to death. Is that what you intended to say?

I'm just trying to clarify WHERE exactly you draw the line on when socialism is good and when it's bad. It seems that you draw the line just this side of wherever Barack Obama is standing...

Mike

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

was Clinton a Marxist, too?

'course he was. remember that unsupervised trip to Russia while he was at Oxford? When he got recruited by the KGB over one weekend, and turned into the 30 year mole/sleeper agent?

That's why so many "real Americans" hate him, not because of his demon wife.

:<)

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:50 PM

Kwicko....

*SIGH

No, I do NOT think that we should allow them to slowly starve to death...

However, that brings up a good point.

National SOCIALISTS (i.e. Nazis) got their start saying that they wanted to level the playing field. By taking from the rich Jews and giving back to the German people.

In any case. No, supporting Palins child is the job of its PARENTS. Not mine.

So sorry, but its not my RESPONSIBILITY (a word so often forgotten by Socialists) to take care of your stupid children, or you, or your aging granmammy.

Or to fix your cultures social ills, either.

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 4:58 PM

Quote:
"Well then, you and the FF disagree, so don't reference them on the topic again, OK?-Signy

I don't believe I and the FF disagree.
And I'll do what I damn well please. -Wulf

Since I've previously quoted Ben Franklin, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson on their view of taxes (PAY THEM) then I guess the only thing that you have left IS belief, 'cause the facts certainly aren't on your side. And of course you will continue to do whatever you damn well please, because it is in the nature of the true believer never to doubt their beliefs.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

National SOCIALISTS (i.e. Nazis) got their start saying that they wanted to level the playing field. By taking from the rich Jews and giving back to the German people.

Yeah, the nationalist part was a bit more important for them, though. Nice one, immediately going for the Nazi comparison. How about, say East Germany? A lot less genocide to muddy the moral waters.

Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc.

Mind, I am not in favor of socialism. While the idea of a society not based on greed and ambition is a nice one, it's also not really... viable. Flexibility is killed.

But it's not a wellfare holiday state. There is only so much you can take from the rich until it's all been spread around. Taking is not the point or end of it.

Edited for typo.

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
You guys might think thats its ok to be forced to give up your money to support the woman with 5 children by 5 different fathers, but I do not.

The only thing you're giving this woman dollar-wise amounts to a few whiskers from Lincoln's beard on one of the pennies you dropped last year. Let it go; besides, you have more important things to worry about, like...

Quote:
Also, I do not believe that throwing money at ANY social problem fixes it. Only the society itself can do that.

I think you're on to something. What's your idea?

Quote:
I don't believe that the government has the right to take ANY of my money. Period.

Important shit won't get done if they don't, stuff you need like roads and schools and national defense - what's your alternative?

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Kwicko....

*SIGH

No, I do NOT think that we should allow them to slowly starve to death...

However, that brings up a good point.

National SOCIALISTS (i.e. Nazis) got their start saying that they wanted to level the playing field. By taking from the rich Jews and giving back to the German people.

In any case. No, supporting Palins child is the job of its PARENTS. Not mine.

So sorry, but its not my RESPONSIBILITY (a word so often forgotten by Socialists) to take care of your stupid children, or you, or your aging granmammy.

Or to fix your cultures social ills, either.

Wulf

I believe that you will find that the Nazi's were in fact Facists and NOT socialists.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:09 PM

"Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc."

You can do ALL of those things CULTURALLY.

You don't need to be FORCED and STOLEN from.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc."

You can do ALL of those things CULTURALLY.

You don't need to be FORCED and STOLEN from.

You could move.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:29 PM

So could you.

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:30 PM

hmmm...

is Obama a Marxist.

Lets take the basic Tenet of marxism - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

versus our supposed system of, 'to each according to his ability'

So, being that the middle class just aint fucking making it in this country, are we to assume then, since the current system is "fair" capitalism and not socialism by your standards,

that the bulk of the American people just aren't capable enough to support their own needs?

They are making what they should be, according to their ability? The majority of our population deserve no better than to have to pick up a second job, pick up and leave their home, and start renting again?

And are we also to assume that these motherfuckers running their companies and our economy into the ground are making money according to their ability? They are earning that money?

Obama isn't giving people who aren't working a tax cut, he's giving middle class and poor working families a tax cut...you have to be making money and putting it in to get some of it back...

...................................

AGENTROUKA

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Socialism is a lot more complex than taking from one group and giving to another. It's also about creating decent-paying jobs for everyone (a right to work and earn money, basically) so that everyone contributes. It's not about lazy people living off wellfare, not at all. There are a lot of perks to working in a society that actually caters to being able to work. Child care, family friendly hours, a job waiting when a woman comes back from maternity leave, etc."

You can do ALL of those things CULTURALLY.

You don't need to be FORCED and STOLEN from.

You realize that people within a socialist society generally don't consider it as being stolen? It's really a big cultural difference. The state is seen as the tool that creates these cushy conditions, not a dictator. It's an efficient way to distribute wealth. Many people in socialist society find this to be just fine and dandy. Many people in ex-socialist societies miss this. Why the fuss of lots of private charities, why the fuss of lots of private child care facilities, and so on. Efficiency is the word.

So don't consider every socialist state as oppressive by definition just because you don't want to live in it.

(There often is oppression but that's due to reasons not inherent in the concept of socialism, but in the concept of people in power getting crazy-headed over it.)

Now, while I think that - if everyone starts out equally - these things can indeed develop culturally, this world is hardly equal and I do not think that you'd get them to easily develop in a full-fledged capitalist society that arose out of big wealth-discrepancies like almost everywhere in the world. Or it would have, already. Why do you think so many people started loving the idea of socialism to begin with?

Do you see a humane way of phasing from sate-run social progams into entirely private charity, efficient charity? Because I do not think that "5 kids from 5 different fathers" is indeed the typical example of a recipient of wellfare. And I cannot imagine that most people would be - like you - fine with seeing poor and helpless people suffer if private charity doesn't reach them, and then not wonder why the government isn't trying to intervene.

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:36 PM

Quote:

But, if by "basic necessities", you mean 20' rims for your hummer, new Fubu gear, grillz, or other such nonsense...no. Not everyone has those.

Too bad, cus I like watching folks like that, driving cars like that, wearing clothes like that, with teeth like that. It reminds me of the circus.

You're right - not everyone has those. And I'd wager that you can't find me ONE "welfare king" who is living solely off welfare and food stamps who has all of those things, either. You have this idea that there are people out there breeding just to get those extra welfare dollars, and they're getting absolutely filthy rich off the system that way.

Frankly, I don't buy it. I think you're just dealing in stereotypes. I've seen you do it all too many times before, so you've got a track record of it.

Mike

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:37 PM

Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
So could you.

I don't need to. I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:38 PM

Obama is a train wreck, just waiting to happen.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:41 PM

"I don't need to. I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich."

Tell me, what is considered "rich" in this country? What is considered "Middle Class"?

If we ALL paid 1% of our income to the state, the rich would naturally pay MORE. The poor, LESS.

It would also be FAIR.

But I guess we just want ot punish those damn rich people. I mean, they can afford it, right?

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I find that to be morally wrong. Why should those who work harder and make more pay more of what they earn? If you make 2x's what I make, then your 20% will be higher than mine. THAT'S fair. We all should pay the same % , regardless of what we make. And those who don't make a minimum amount should not have to pay any income taxes.

THAT'S what is fair.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:42 PM

I haven't verified this yet, but Alex Bennett of talk radio just said that Dwight D. Eisenhower - that shining bastion of Socialism - STRONGLY supported the tax rate for those making over - in adjusted for 2008 dollars - $3.2 million per year should be NINETY-ONE PERCENT. JFK was a "hero" because he lowered that rate to a "mere" seventy-one percent.

I found it interesting, and I'll be looking to verify it.

Mike

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

AGENTROUKA

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

You do realize that I said I am not in favor of socialism and that it doesn't work in its pure form, with an entirely state-run economy? The thing is, the freedom not to pay taxes is generally not the kind that people were unhappy about not having. The freedoms taken away against their will were very often related entirely to political oppression and personal liberty.

So, you can kindly reply to something else that I said.

Edited for phrasing mistakes.

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:45 PM

Quote:

Taxes are too high, Obama wants to raise them.

He does? Everything I've seen has said taxes will stay the same or go down for 95% of Americans. Several websites have run the numbers and verified those figures.

Remember, Hero: Saying it don't make it so.

Taxes are too high, McCain wants to raise them. He's going to raise your taxes if you make under five million dollars a year - which is his threshold for being "wealthy"!

He has to raise those taxes, because he needs the money to start his next little war.

There ya go - that's every bit as factual as your statements.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

State? Or Country?

How about Sweden?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I find that to be morally wrong. Why should those who work harder and make more pay more ? We all should pay the same % , regardless of what we make. And those who don't make a minimum amount should not have to pay any income taxes.

THAT'S what is fair.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

What is wrong is that the rich pay little to no taxes at all.

how is that fair?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:52 PM

Quote:
So sorry, but its not my RESPONSIBILITY (a word so often forgotten by Socialists) to take care of your stupid children, or you, or your aging granmammy.

Or to fix your cultures social ills, either.

So what, in your view, IS the exact responsibility of the government? And remember, if you say it has ANY responsibilities at all, then you've admitted that it has a right to at least SOME of your money.

HERO

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked.

FantasyLand.

H

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:55 PM

No, I am saying that it is the responsibility of the culture (in terms of said cultures/peoples/races ills) and the parents of the said children to deal with. Not mine, or the governments.

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 5:57 PM

Quote:
Because I do not think that "5 kids from 5 different fathers" is indeed the typical example of a recipient of wellfare.

You're right. The "typical" welfare recipient is a farmer in the midwest who voted Republican because he doesn't believe in welfare. And as long as you never call farm subsidies (paying someone for what they DON'T grow) "welfare", they'll be just fine...

Mike

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, I am saying that it is the responsibility of the culture (in terms of said cultures/peoples/races ills) and the parents of the said children to deal with. Not mine, or the governments.

I think you are using the word culture incorrectly. Perhaps you mean society, and if you do then YOU and the GOVERNMENT ARE part of society.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

HERO

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
He does? Everything I've seen has said taxes will stay the same or go down for 95% of Americans. Several websites have run the numbers and verified those figures.

Remember, Hero: Saying it don't make it so.

First of all the 95% figure is not accurrate because a fair number of folks don't pay taxes.

Then there is the whole business of the Bush tax cuts. They expire next year. That means your taxes are going up...and if your planning to die...please do it before January 20th.

So we start out with a tax increase, then Obama targets a few selected tax cuts and give aways to the poor and lower middle class. Net result, higher taxes (they go up, then come down but not as much as they went up). Then there are his tax increases. These will fall on the wealthy and businesses. The wealthy will respond by paying their taxes and holding off on their investments. Businesses will respond by passing on the costs to the poor and middle class consumers and holding off on new jobs, expansion projects, infrastructure improvements, mergers, outsourcing, or just plain closing down.

Its like yachts. Rich people buy yachts. Tax yachts, cause the rich need to pay their fair share. Rich people stop buying yachts. The poor and middle class yacht builders, mechanics, yard workers, etc. all lose their jobs and the WalMarts, McDonalds, etc., towns built up to support them close down.

H

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked.

FantasyLand.

H

Oooo - stay away from FantasyLand. I hear Saddam still has massive stockpiles of WMD there!

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

AURAPTOR

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I have no problem with lower taxes for the middle class and higher taxes for the rich.

I find that to be morally wrong. Why should those who work harder and make more pay more ? We all should pay the same % , regardless of what we make. And those who don't make a minimum amount should not have to pay any income taxes.

THAT'S what is fair.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

What is wrong is that the rich pay little to no taxes at all.

how is that fair?

That's a lie, assuming you know the truth, or it's flat out wrong, if some how you don't know it. Either way, it's so absurdly wrong, it's laughable. The RICH pay far and away a much greater share of the tax burden than any other group. That's why THEY get tax cuts, because they're carrying far too much of the burden. The top 1% of the income earners pay nearly 40% of the tax burden.

The rich pay little to no taxes at all ? That supplants MY statement that 95% of Americans don't even pay income taxes in the first place!

Thanks for making an even nuttier comment than I made!!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RIGHTEOUS9

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:26 PM

Ah yes, the poor rich people theory again.

In order to get that rich, you have to use our roads, our bridges, our land's resources, our energy supply, all at a far greater extent than the average citizen does. Businesses pollute more than the average citizen does. And lastly, they use our greatest resource, our people.

It stands to reason to me, that if the well-being of the public is entrusted to the rich, because after all they are the ones who generate the jobs according to you guys, and if that well being just plain isn't well, then they are the ones who are not living up to their contract with us. They are not paying their fair share, at one end or the other.

And if they are not generating jobs here anyway,
then what the fuck are you trying to protect? They're outsourcing all the labor! They are not acting in the best interest of America in the first place, and damn straight they should pay for that.

RUE

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:26 PM

The hysteria of the right:

Use Oprah to Defeat Obama!

Message from The National Republican Trust PAC
From Scott Wheeler
Executive Director

Dear Townhall Reader:

Oprah Winfrey, Obama's big celebrity backer, can help us defeat Barack Obama.

In fact, we at the National Republican Trust PAC are using her with great success to defeat Obama.

But before I reveal our "Oprah" strategy, let me remind you that we can win this race.

Barack Obama can be defeated.

The latest AP poll and Investor's Business Daily polls both show the race is neck-and- neck.

Both the AP and IBD poll shows McCain just one point behind Obama!

Yet, the big media continues to tell us that McCain has lost the election!

The liberal media is in full spin mode to help depress the Republican vote, Republican donors and Republican enthusiam.

We here at the National Republican Trust are fighting to win.

So far with your help we have been blanketing Ohio with TV ads exposing Obama as the most radical ever nominated by the Democratic party.

Since we started our ad campaign there, McCain has risen in the polls.

This weekend we are opening up new fronts with more ads attacking Obama in Florida and three other battleground states.

We urgently need more help from you to expand our ad war to expose Obama's radical agenda. Obama is outspending McCain 3 to 1 and in some states 5 to 1 to smear him and steal the election.

Just to show you how much of a difference you can make, if we raise just $25,000 we can buy ads in a major battleground state market for a whole day.

With $25,000 I can order an ad buy that puts our ads on a major network like ABC, CBS and NBC for a full day.

What does this full day look like?

For $25,000 I can buy ads that will show up on the morning news show, morning programs like Dr. Phil, the View, Regis, Oprah, the Price Is Right and others with a heavy female demographics — these are voters we need to sway!

Yes, imagine using Oprah's very own show to defeat Obama!

Help us do just that — Donate today — Go Here Now

In the evening I can then buy the 5PM and 6PM local news followed by entertainment programs like Xtra and Entertainment Tonight.

We can then hit game programs like Jeopardy. We can also buy a major hit series like CSI, Desperate Housewives, Dancing with the Stars and ER.

Finally, we can wrap up the night again buying ads on 10PM and 11PM the local news and the late night talk shows like Letterman and Leno.

All of this for $25,000!

You should know this is exactly what we have been doing in Ohio — and the poll numbers are showing it works!

Now, you can't donate $25,000. The maximum is $5000. You can donate that amount.

But if just a 10 people donate $2500 today I can run this ad schedule in a major market.

If 25 people donate $1000 I can run this schedule.

If 100 people donate just $250 I can do this schedule.

Get the picture? With you help we can have a dramatic effect on the election by informing the American people of the truth about Obama.

Please donate today —make this happen! — Go Here Now

The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country.

We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.

Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president — He is a dangerous one.

This is why I have taken the helm here at the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee.

Here at the National Republican Trust, we understand our mission. It's simple. It will also drive the left-wing media nuts.

Here's the plan: We will tell the American people the truth about Barack Obama!

Every time John McCain or Sarah Palin tries to tell the truth about Obama, they are painted as mean-spirited a

RUE

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:27 PM

More hysteria:

Sunday, October 26, 2008

A Special Offer From The American Vision™
Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate? Discover 2 Secret Plots and Help Stop Obama!

OBAMA UNMASKED

RETAIL $20.00 • ONLY $14.86
ORDER ONLINE • OR CALL 1.800.628.9460 • OPEN 24/7!

"There are several good books on Obama, and we applaud them all. But no other book reveals these two secret plots, plots which clearly explain how Obama rose to power so quickly and how dearly we'll all pay if he wins." — Floyd Brown & Lee Troxler

This new book is a fast bestseller because it reveals two secrets that will rip the mask from Obama's young face and reveal him for what he is—a phantom radical!

Help unmask Obama by getting this book and sharing it with everyone!

And who better to begin the unmasking than Floyd Brown, the man who has loyally served the conservative cause since the Reagan years. Floyd's search for the real man behind the mask took him onto 3 continents, into the slums of South Chicago, up into New York's power suites, and out to Hollywood...

So we are asking you to get Obama Unmasked and then tell at least five friends to get a copy as well - that's how we'll stop the Obama media machine from rolling right over an unsuspecting electorate. Paperback, 264 pages

RETAIL $20.00 • ONLY $14.86
ORDER ONLINE • OR CALL 1.800.628.9460 • OPEN 24/7!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Save 50% When You Order...
The Stop Obama Pack

RETAIL $66.90 • ONLY $32.86
ORDER ONLINE • OR CALL 1.800.628.9460 • OPEN 24/7!

Liberals Gone Wild Wall Calendar & CD-ROM

RETAIL $29.95 • YOUR PRICE ONLY $19.88 with free shipping! • ORDER SEPARATELY!

Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts

RETAIL $17.00 • YOUR PRICE ONLY $13.86 • ORDER SEPARATELY!

Obama Unmasked: Did Slick Hollywood Handlers Create the Perfect Candidate

RETAIL $20.00 • YOUR PRICE ONLY $14.86 • ORDER SEPARATELY!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RETAIL $69.95 • ONLY $32.86
ORDER STOP OBAMA PACK ONLINE • OR CALL 1.800.628.9460 • OPEN 24/7!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in print after 136 Years...

History of the Reformation
in the Sixteenth Century (+ Free DVD-ROM)

"The secret to America's greatness lies in it's rich Christian heritage. This beautifully crafted book presents the religious history that led to America's founding and her success as the greatest nation on earth..."

— Gary DeMar, President of American Vision

An Historic Facsimile Reproduction of the Classic Work by J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, D.D.

FEATURES:

800-page edition with 20 separate books;
Twelve steel engravings;
200 wood illustrations including portraits of the most eminent Reformers;
DVD-ROM with complete image collection and searchable text!
This rare edition was originally published in 1872, by G.P. Putnam & Sons in New York.

When the idea of writing this historical account first occurred to D'Aubigne, he stated that he “was young, and felt strongly impelled to give a narrative of the wonderful works that God had wrought for Christendom in the Sixteenth Century.” He earnestly desired that it should glorify God and he “felt that the Holy Spirit, which then worked in so many hearts, might again manifest His power, and bring to God some souls as yet unacquainted with His saving strength.”

In addition to the spiritual significance of his work, D'Aubigne was deeply concerned about historical accuracy. He researched both public and private libraries and deciphered many manuscripts of the Sixteenth Century—many of which were unknown until he made use of them.

The “History of the Reformation” is an essential volume in the Christian's library because it provides the historical detail and reflects the living power of the doctrines of the Reformation like no other work in history. Hardback, 802 pages

RETAIL $49.95 • PRE-ORDER FOR ONLY $29.95! • Th

SIGNYM

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:34 PM

Quote:
The top 1% of the income earners pay nearly 40% of the tax burden.

And make 60% of the income. So???

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:38 PM

Again..

IF EVERYONE PAID 1% OF THEIR INCOME, FROMT HE RICH TO THE POOR....THEN IT WOULD BE FAIR!

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Monday, October 27, 2008 6:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
[That's a lie, assuming you know the truth, or it's flat out wrong, if some how you don't know it. Either way, it's so absurdly wrong, it's laughable. The RICH pay far and away a much greater share of the tax burden than any other group. That's why THEY get tax cuts, because they're carrying far too much of the burden. The top 1% of the income earners pay nearly 40% of the tax burden.

The rich pay little to no taxes at all ? That supplants MY statement that 95% of Americans don't even pay income taxes in the first place!

What a load of crap. Step away from whatever you are smoking.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

AGENTROUKA

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again..

IF EVERYONE PAID 1% OF THEIR INCOME, FROMT HE RICH TO THE POOR....THEN IT WOULD BE FAIR!

Would that generate the same amount of money?

PIZMOBEACH

Monday, October 27, 2008 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Then there are his tax increases. These will fall on the wealthy and businesses. The wealthy will respond by paying their taxes and holding off on their investments. Businesses will respond by passing on the costs to the poor and middle class consumers and holding off on new jobs, expansion projects, infrastructure improvements, mergers, outsourcing, or just plain closing down.

Sorry, sounds like such a flimsy scare tactic, as if the rich would punish everyone else because they got taxed, like spoiled children. "No. I'm going to raise all prices!"

Wouldn't it be just as likely - using the same kind of family of logic - that since the poor and middle classes are taxed less giving them more discretionary income, that they would actually buy more widgets and thereby compensate the wealthy and businesses?

KHYRON

Monday, October 27, 2008 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Name me ONE state where Socialism is the form of government AND where it has worked. WITHOUT TAKING AWAY THE PEOPLES FREEDOM.

State? Or Country?

How about Sweden?

While there's no country that's truly socialist, if we go by what socialism apparently means to most Americans, you could name just about any Western European nation, they all have some form of social democracy and the vast majority of people there wouldn't want to have any other type of government.

------------------------------

McCain/Palin: The first presidential ticket that features two candidates who have both been found to have violated ethics standards.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, October 27, 2008 9:45 PM

You know, Wulfie does have a point, he's just expressing it badly.

First off, there's a lotta shit we can just plain do without, foreign aid, military interventions, war toys that often don't even WORK (good heavens, don't get me started) and the tremendous black budgets of the alphabet goons, which mostly use em to commit terrorism against US, subsidies, corporate welfare, bailouts...

You cut some big gaping chunks of that shit out, you'll reduce operating costs a lot - and see also my concept of tax abatement for people who make under $15K a year, which would spare operating costs significantly on those systems as well.

We cut, and keep cutting till we reach stuff that a majority can agree on that we actually NEED, and then seperate it by responsibility - the feds don't need to maintain the park down the street, your city can do that, for example, or not, as the people who live there should get to decide.

Cut it down to areas of responsibility, Fed, State and Local - more useful say, to have a uniform standard for interstate highways, so we'd file that under Federal, but repaving main street, that would be local, let the decisions lie as close to the people affected as humanly possible, right ?

And then use a flat scale percentage on whole assets, rather than income, and I bet you could get it under double digits if you cut enough of the bullshit and pork.

As it is, I make barely enough to pay the bills, and I get hit with in excess of 34% depending on how much I pull in as an independant contractor, and then I get hit with motor fuel tax, a tax on every damn thing I buy, property taxes, utility line taxes, and god forbid I wanna belt of cheap whiskey or a smoke, cause then you get a nice slam of religious tax based on a morality I passionately despise....

That's just insane, I bet if I took records for a month and tallied the lot, more than HALF my income goes to taxes, and you can imagine this annoys the piss out of me suckin on cheap ramen while the folks making those decisions are shopping at Saks Fifth, right ?

Look, I don't see it as socialism, but more of a sort of contract mutualism - no, I don't mind so much my taxes goin to keep the roads in order, the bridges from crumbling, the power grid safely operative and all the other bits of infrastructure necessary to maintain our way of life, I am OK with that, and mildly begruding, but accepting, of tossing down on their luck folks a bit of help to make it through, in fact I wouldn't mind if they upped it a bit, since it damn sure ain't enough now.

But I DO mind the blatant waste, fraud and pork, bridges to nowhere and pet projects designed to fail while sucking up as much largess as possible, and a legal system that's such a goddamn nightmare no human being can live one day of a normal life without committing at least three crimes - and all the expense that comes with trying to enforce that ridiculous bullshit.

A flat tax on whole assets is entirely workable, but FIRST we'd have to go through the budget with a goddamn chainsaw, and then follow through with a serious purging of the legal system that's allowed, if not encouraged, things to get as fucked up as they are.

And the problem is, we're in a position where we're asking the gobblers at the trough to shut off their own supply - without something a little more serious than laughable protests which are meaningless up against the gargantuan corporate voting blocs, donations and the ability to gerrymander their own permanent incumbancy, it's just not gonna happen.

I still like my idea of replacing the 1040 with a tax form that allows the payer to decide what every cent is used for, that would cut a whole lot of this crap off right there, cause no one would voluntarily fund it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

KWICKO

Monday, October 27, 2008 10:44 PM

Quote:

Obama is a train wreck, just waiting to happen.

And McCain is a train wreck that's already happened.

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:56 AM

http://worldnetdaily.com/images/1023newparty2.JPG
Obama is a member of the New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and the Community Party USA
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com

BTW, the tax rate in Sweden was over 100%, resulting in a disgruntled female author of children's books being elected to run the monarchy.

Communist Frank Marshall Davis FBI files
www.usasurvival.org/marshall.fbi.files.html

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:12 PM

Terrorist Hussein Obama murdered 1,000 Christians and burned 800 churches during his Communist presidential campaigns in Kenya. Obama's cousin named his son Fidel Castro. Obama wants 500,000 more illegal aliens in USA ASAP.
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamanation-raped-killed-100
0_25.html
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78132

Quote:

While Sam Zell is selling out the future of his own people by refusing to release the tape of Barack Obama toasting known anti-Semite and PLO functionary, Rashid Khalidi, I have been fortunate enough to receive a probable transcript of the toast…

HERE IT IS:

****BEGINNING OF TRANSCRIPT***********

Um, ah….Salaam

Um….My distinguished guests….ughh….it is an honor to be here…

uhh….It is truly refreshing to be surrounded by such a large group of people in which…uh.. I can truly see eye-to-eye with…uh…and completely agree…

Reverend Farrakhan..ughh…great to see you tonight…you always look great in a yellow bow-tie…and..uhh…tonight is no exception….

Bill..Bernadine….I see you everyday…so I don’t need to say much…but…ughh…you know I love you….keep doing the work you do….it’s time to start a revolution

Reverend Wright…..ughh…you are the father that I never had….I’ve never missed a sermon…and…uhh….I never will…

Michelle, while I find your frown so beautiful….I hope to one day make you proud of this country..and uhh…happy…and finally see you smile….

uhhhhh…with that being said…If everyone could please hold off from hitting the hookah…I would like to say a toast..to my, and Yasser Arafat’s, best friend….Mr. Rashid Khalidi….

Rashid…..you are my best friend….spiritual compass…..and baby sitter (crowd laughs..and cries)

I want to thank you for your constant indoctrination….I want to thank you for your imput..and..uhhh…reminders…that Israel is a constant sore….and..uhh…needs to be eliminated off the map….

I also want to thank you for introducing me to your many contacts in the middle east…I am sure…uh…that their imput……and uh…money…..will be of great use to me as I run for President of these great 57 states…..

While David Axelrod may be forcing you to move away from me during the campaign….I am confident…that..uhh…our friendship will not only remain..but actually prosper..during our time of absence….

Rashid…you ARE my middle east adviser….and you ALWAYS will be…

Here’s to Rashid……(A chant of Messiah can be heard in the background….also audible…is a voice (thought to be Ayer’s) screaming REVOLUTION…REVOLUTION..over and over…)

Salaam….

http://chicagoagainstobama.wordpress.com/

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:33 PM

Mark my words.

2008 is 1976 come again.

1. The country is making an illogical and emotional choice against a previous administration they feel betrayed them. (Nixon then, Bush now).

2. The country will reject a decient man and Naval hero as a result (Ford then, McCain now)

3. In favor of a socialist who just 18 months prior they didn't even know (Carter then, Obama now)

4. An economy already teetering will be sent sliding when the new administration creates an anti-business climate while supported by a democratically controlled house and senate. (1977-1981 then, 2009-2013 now)

It's just repeating history. Unfortunately nobody remembers those years because most (like me) either weren't born yet or were too little to know anything about anything.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

RUE

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:48 PM

PN

According to all available information Obama did not and does not agree with the PLO but rather seeks common ground.

Would you say that Clinton was a PLO supporter because he sought an end to Mid-East violence and division ? How about George HW Bush ? Or Ronald Reagan ? Jimmy Carter and the Camp David Accords ?

Please PN - try to put aside your delusions. They make you miserable and you end up wasting your time, energy and resources fighting pointless fights instead of fixing real problems.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIVERLOVE

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Mark my words.

2008 is 1976 come again.

1. The country is making an illogical and emotional choice against a previous administration they feel betrayed them. (Nixon then, Bush now).

2. The counrty will reject a decient man and Naval hero as a result (Ford then, McCain now)

3. In favor of a socialist who just 18 months prior they didn't even know (Carter then, Obama now)

4. An economy already teetering will be sent sliding when the new administration creates an anti-business climate while supported by a democratically controlled house and senate. (1977-1981 then, 2009-2013 now)

It's just repeating history. Unfortunately nobody remembers those years because most (like me) either weren't born yet or were too little to know anything about anything.

Oh that is too intelligent for these boards. That is too true for these boards. That is too perfect for these boards. Prepare for an onslaught of personal attacks and factual corrections. But I like it!

RUE

Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:03 PM

"Prepare for an onslaught of ... factual corrections."

What do you have against FACTS ? Do you think FACTS should be counted with all the things wrong with the world ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

PIRATENEWS

Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:18 AM

Quote:
“That is why Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief: it stresses man's capacity to shape his material destiny – finite and defined as man's only reality – and it postulates the absolute capacity of man to truly understand his reality as a point of departure for his active endeavors to shape it. To a greater extent than any previous mode of political thinking, Marxism puts a premium on the systematic and rigorous examination of material reality and on guides to action derived from that examination.”
—Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, Obama's jewish Polack National Security Advisor, Between Two Ages, 1970
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=46081.0

Obama's Jewish Polish advisor Zbigniew Brezinski founded AllCIAduh, hanging out with USAma Bin Laden in Pakistan

Quote:
"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough. Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at. Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon.''
-Professor Bill Ayers, FBI/CIA employee and confessed bomber of NYPD HQ, US Capitol, NY Supreme Court, bombed and killed two female bombers in his house, busted CIA LSD mind-control agent Timothy Leary out of prison, confessed to 12 bombings but never prosecuted, author of Barack Hussien Obama Sotoro's authorized biography and grant recipient of Obama's Annenberg Foundation

Hussein Obama Soetoro's granny says Hussein was born in British Kenya, Obama's lawyers admitted that in federal court, federal judge opins that US presidents can be illegal aliens in opinion written by Obamas' employers:
www.obamacrimes.com

Terrorist Hussein Obama murdered 1,000 Christians and burned 800 churches during his Communist presidential campaigns in Kenya. Obam's cousin named his son Fidel Castro.

http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamanation-raped-killed-100
0_25.html
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78132

Obama is a member of the New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and the Community Party USA
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945

http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE:

MaCain's wife is a Mafia princess, and his father-in-law is a convicted felon bootlegger for Jewish Meyer Lanski mafiya in Israel.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.crime/browse_thread/thread/7fc1126c
49d4af65

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:25 AM

Sigh... we are screwed either way.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Just trying to understand: what's wrong with "Socialism?" Why is that such a radioactive word? As if mentioning it is akin to Satanic worship? Don't we already have socialistic programs in place, (welfare, medicare)?

Few folks know the real story of the Pilgrims here in the US. When they first came over, everyone in the settlement was told to give up what they grew and made to be put into the ' communal hopper' . That turned into a disaster, as folks realized they could 'take' from the community w/ out giving their all. The next season, the settlers were given each a plot of land, and they were told they could keep what ever it is they grew. The harvest was so bountiful that the settlers invited the Indians, they had so much food to share.

The Pilgrims weren't thanking the Indians for saving them from the harsh winter, they were thanking God for the bounty they grew, and showed this thanksgiving by inviting the locals.

And thus we have THANKSGIVING

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:29 PM

Thx for the info. In that situation - a group so far from their home and where each person can see closely what the other is doing - it makes sense to put such a plan in place. Like a small office where if a co-worker is dragging and you have to pick up their slack (we've all been there right?) you want to have someone light a fire or get rid of them. It's just simply not fair.
That seems to be the essence of the Obama/Socialism connection and complaint - people are worried that some people just aren't gonna work, and it's unfair ("it's bullshit!") for those of us that do to share anything with those that don't.

Great, 300 million people:

1. What's your plan to get everyone working? Seriously, I'm with you 100%, get everyone pushing in the same direction. If I have to work, everyone has to work. How you gonna do that?

2. What do you do about people that just don't or won't work? Debtors prisons? Gulags? Send buses to pick them up each morning and take them to labor camps?

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, October 30, 2008 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by riverlove:

Oh that is too intelligent for these boards. That is too true for these boards. That is too perfect for these boards. Prepare for an onslaught of personal attacks and factual corrections. But I like it!

Well it's been about 24 hours with no personal attacks yet. Perhaps some humor will provoke one?

Here's the lyrics of a song that's playing here in Indiana. It's sung to one of the tunes for a Freecreditreport dot com TV ad. Think of the commerical where the singer is in his wife's parents basement:

"Oh I married my dream girl,
I married my dream girl,
But she didn't tell me
her credit was bad"

Yea, that one.
Here's the new song.

Well he talked to a plumber
He talked to a plumber
But he didn't realize
The cameras were on

And now we've heard him admit to the wealth he's spreading
Leaving us to wonder where our moneys gone.

Are we electing a clone
Of a socialist drone?
Just because he gives good speeches
and he prays to the lord.

If you liked the 1970's and Jimmy Carter
Vote democrat but never say that you were not warned.

Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:28 PM

"Is Obama a Marxist?"

Hardly. Obama is far more conservative than most people realize.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Is Obama a Marxist?"

Hardly. Obama is far more conservative than most people realize.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

No laughing emoticon available which conveys the absurdity of your post.

By " most people" , do you mean the Karl Marx fan club ?

Obama wants to trash the Constitution, because it doesn't speak of rights the GOVERNMENT has to control our lives.

No thanks, I'll stick w/ what the founders had in mind, and life for freedom instead of servitude to the STATE.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:03 PM

Whatever.

***************************************************************
Rap: "We don't need to stinkin' warrants and habeas corpus."

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:09 PM

Off topic, but I didn't want to start another thread just for a comment:

I've mentioned several times that this is a contest between Bush and racism. What that means is that is doesn't matter who is running on the repubican side - it's about Bush. It DOES matter who's running on the 'black' side. For Obama to win he has to be more than twice as good as a white person; and, frankly, Bush has to be twice as bad a president, for many people to consider voting for a n****r.

If Obama wins, it will be despite prevalent racism, not b/c somehow, America's gotten over it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:12 PM

Rue,

Give me a fucking break.

Racism is long since dead.

If I, or anyone else, don't like a particular group of people...its because of their actions.

Not their skin color.

"...judged by their actions and not the color of their skin."

The "Dream" has already happened.

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:18 PM

"Racism is long since dead."

OOOkaaaay then.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

"... an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles. More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views. Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice.

Other techniques used in the poll included recording people's responses to black or white faces flashed on a computer screen, asking participants to rate how well certain adjectives apply to blacks, measuring whether people believe blacks' troubles are their own fault, and simply asking people how much they like or dislike blacks."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Whatever.

***************************************************************
Rap: "We don't need to stinkin' warrants and habeas corpus."

Clinton Proposes Orwellian Computer Monitoring System

Dean: 'Big Brother Will Know Your Every Move'

Free Congress Foundation Press Office

July 28, 1999

Washington, DC - The Clinton Administration has formulated
an anit-cyberterrorism plan to monitor computer networks in
critical industries, raising concerns from civil liberties
groups and privacy advocates, The New York Times reported
today.

"This computer tracking system should make every American
shudder at the thought of their loss of privacy," said Lisa
S. Dean, Vice President of Technology Policy at the Free
Congress Foundation and leader of the effort to expose the
proposed Know Your Customer regulations. "Every electronic
transmission will be under a microscope. Big Brother will
know your every move."

"Given the aggressiveness with which the Clinton
Administration has pursued policies that would erode the
privacy and liberty of American citizens, coupled with the
numerous IRS abuses and the 900 FBI files that that were to
be kept confidential, it is realistic to be concerned about
how the federal government could misuse this information
against law-abiding citizens," Dean continued. "Another
grave concern is how this system would integrate civilian,
military, intelligence and law enforcement components toward
this end. But worse yet, the monitoring system itself could
be open to security breaches, giving hackers or terrorists
access to a one-stop shop for government and corporate
electronic information."

The National Security Council contends the plan is a
necessary measure to ward off potential threats to the
nation's vital computer infrastructure.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Off topic, but I didn't want to start another thread just for a comment:

I've mentioned several times that this is a contest between Bush and racism. What that means is that is doesn't matter who is running on the repubican side - it's about Bush. It DOES matter who's running on the 'black' side. For Obama to win he has to be more than twice as good as a white person; and, frankly, Bush has to be twice as bad a president, for many people to consider voting for a n****r.

If Obama wins, it will be despite prevalent racism, not b/c somehow, America's gotten over it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Bush isn't running for President.

McCain isn't Bush.

America's far less racist than is advertised, and has been, for qutie some time. Not accepting the ideas of a person whose skin doesn't reflect as much light as other's doesn't make anyone a racist. It just means you disagree.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:31 PM

Quote:
Racism is long since dead.

No, it's not. And neither is sexism.

Transgender Experience Led Stanford Scientist To Critique Gender Difference
Quote:
2006 — Ben Barres has a distinct edge over the many others who have joined the debate about whether men’s brains are innately better suited for science than women’s. He doesn’t just make an abstract argument about the similarities and differences between the genders; he has lived as both.
Barres’ experience... contrary to Summers’ remarks, the lack of women in the upper reaches of research has more to do with bias than aptitude.

“This is a street fight,” said Barres, MD, PhD,... at the Stanford University School of Medicine, referring to the gang of male academics and pundits who have attacked women scientists critical of arguments about their alleged biological inferiority. Where Summers sees innate differences, Barres sees discrimination. As a young woman—Barbara—he said he was discouraged from setting his sights on MIT, where he ended up receiving his bachelor’s degree. Once there, he was told that a boyfriend must have solved a hard math problem that he had answered and that had stumped most men in the class. After he began living as a man in 1997, Barres overheard another scientist say, “Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but his work is much better than his sister’s work.”

... What’s worse is that some women don’t recognize that they are treated differently because, unlike him, they’ve never known anything else. ... The situation is similar for minorities. ... In his commentary Barres points to data from a range of studies showing bias in science.

For example, when a mixed panel of scientists evaluated grant proposals without names, men and women fared equally well. However, competing unblinded, a woman applying for a research grant needed to be three times more productive than men to be considered equally competent.
...Barres said that critics have dismissed women who complain of discrimination in science as being irrational and emotional
Just as critics dimiss blacks who complain of discrimination as being angry and prejudiced against whites.

In point of fact, Wulf, there are many "blinded" studies which reveal prejudice against women, blacks, and hispanics.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:35 PM

http://www.gcn.com/print/vol18_no35/859-1.html

FIDnet will monitor federal, not private, nets, administration says

"“As envisioned, FIDnet is being designed to monitor federal executive branch computer networks for intrusions, not private networks or the Internet in general,” said Jon P. Jennings, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.

“The federal government, like any other organization connected to the global Internet, must take steps, consistent with existing laws and constitutional protections, to protect its critical computer networks from attacks by hackers, cyberterrorists or foreign enemies,” he said. “Protecting our networks is simply responsible computer security.”"

So, do you claim the government has no right to monitor it OWN networks for intrusion ?

***************************************************************

Rap --- you have to remember that your 'information' sources are inaccurate at best, and liars at worst. That's why you ALWAYS get basic facts wrong.

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 4:45 PM

"Bush isn't running for President."

No, but this election IS a referendum on Bush.

"McCain isn't Bush."

It really doesn't matter WHO is running, it's still substantially about Bush.

"America's far less racist than is advertised ..."

According to studies of unconscious associations, roughly 80% of people have negative associations with generic 'blacks' (but not with whites) including about 50% of blacks. (Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking, Malcolm Gladwell)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:15 PM

Quote:
rue wrote:
Thursday, October 30, 2008 06:35

So, do you claim the government has no right to monitor it OWN networks for intrusion ?

***************************************************************

Rap --- you have to remember that your 'information' sources are inaccurate at best, and liars at worst. That's why you ALWAYS get basic facts wrong.

So, you believe it when Gov't tells you it'll ONLY monitor its own, but when it says it'll monitor terrorist, and not private citizens, you have your doubts ?

This from the folks who hack into Gov. Palin's e-mail account, and then reveal the tax info on a private citizen, in 'Joe the Plumber' ! Unbelievable !!!

You've never shown my sources to be "wrong", only that you disagree with them and what I say. Disagreeing w/ you is far from being wrong or lying, it's tantamount to being the word of God, if anything. Do you DENY that the Clinton White House obtained 100's of FBI files, none of which it was LEGALLY allowed to have, and that they just found their way into the White House.... " somehow " ??

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:29 PM

Quote:

Obama wants to trash the Constitution, because it doesn't speak of rights the GOVERNMENT has to control our lives.

Cites, please?

What, no catchy sig-line?

Trolls Against McCain!

KWICKO

Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:35 PM

Quote:

Bush isn't running for President.

No, but his legacy is basically "on trial" in this election - it's seen as a repudiation of "the Bush Doctrine" (whatever that is; ask Sarah Palin)

Quote:

McCain isn't Bush.

How can you tell? Can you name me one SUBSTANTIVE difference between the two on major policy issues?

Quote:

Not accepting the ideas of a person whose skin doesn't reflect as much light as other's doesn't make anyone a racist.

Not accepting the ideas of a person SOLELY because their skin doesn't reflect as much light as others DOES make you a racist. That's a textbook example. What about that concept is so hard for you to figure out?

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:39 PM

"So, you believe it when Gov't tells you it'll ONLY monitor its own..."

Depends on the administration.

And, technically, fiscally, and administratively it's hard to claim a system will do one thing (monitor executive branch computer systems for intrusions) and then build, run, and pay for a system to do something else (monitor the entire network for 'whisperings').

If you've ever tried to design and write an information system (and I know you haven't, but I have) then you know that the technology that works for something smaller will fail with something larger.

The scale-up factor between monitoring executive branch computers and the entire private network in the US alone is well over 10 million to one. You can't design and build a system to do one and then have it make 10 million more connections. You can't budget for one job and then somehow sneak in another job that's 10 million times bigger. You can't create a work force to do one job and then give them a job 10 million times bigger. It's just not possible.

"... but when it says it'll monitor terrorist, and not private citizens, you have your doubts."

The Bush administration has been SHOWN to have ILLEGALLY obtained phone records of 1 in every ten American citizens each year over the course of 4 years (or more) without warrants or without court orders. They have been SHOWN to have ILLEGALLY listened in on conversations of people Americans not suspected of anything, without court orders. They has been SHOWN to have ILLEGALLY tracked financial transactions of innocent Americans not suspected of anything, without court orders. And this is only a sampler of illegal administration spying.

It's not a matter of 'doubt', it's a matter of fact.

"This from "the folks" who hack into Gov. Palin's e-mail account ..."

Which 'folks' - the government ? 'Democrats' ? 'Libr'ls' ? Or some hacker ?

"... then reveal the tax info on a private citizen, in 'Joe the Plumber' !"

Again - which 'folks' - the government ? 'Democrats' ? 'Libr'ls' ?
When you have to wave your hands in all directions to blame some generic 'them', it means you don't have a real point. Just some random biases that you spew.

"You've never shown my sources to be "wrong" ..."

But I have, to anyone interested in facts.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, October 30, 2008 5:48 PM

It's kind of unbelievable that anyone who voted for the bailout swindle could accuse someone else of 'socialism'. Glass houses much?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

AURAPTOR

Thursday, October 30, 2008 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Bush isn't running for President.

No, but his legacy is basically "on trial" in this election - it's seen as a repudiation of "the Bush Doctrine" (whatever that is; ask Sarah Palin)

There are several definitions to what the Bush Doctrine are, and Gov't Palin happen to get one of them dead on right.

Quote:

McCain isn't Bush.

How can you tell? Can you name me one SUBSTANTIVE difference between the two on major policy issues?

I can name a few, if you'd like.

The issues on which McCain and Bush differ are legion:

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform -- McCain-Feingold -- that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.

• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress)

Quote:

Not accepting the ideas of a person whose skin doesn't reflect as much light as other's doesn't make anyone a racist.

Not accepting the ideas of a person SOLELY because their skin doesn't reflect as much light as others DOES make you a racist. That's a textbook example. What about that concept is so hard for you to figure out?

But none of my disagreements w/ Obama have to do w/ skin color in the 1st place, so the whole ' racist' issue is moot.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:07 PM

• McCain fought for campaign finance reform -- McCain-Feingold -- that Bush fought and ultimately signed because he had no choice.

And then he tried to get around it by taking government funding for his campaign and theeennn --- exceeding FEDERAL LAW spending limits. The LAW he helped write. A move that got him noticed by the FEC.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008
022103141_pf.html
So that makes McCain a what, again ? Can you say hypocrite ? Sure you can. Can you say law-breaker ?

• McCain led the battle to restrict interrogation techniques of terror suspects and to ban torture.

And then ..."in February, McCain voted against a bill that would have limited the CIA to following the techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual."
So that makes McCain a what, again ? Can you say flip-flopper ? Sure you can.

• McCain went with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a tough measure to curb climate change, something Bush denies is going on.

"As the earth's climate warms, the federal government should be promoting conservation and identifying alternatives to fossil fuels ... McCain once knew this. In an interview at the Globe in December, he deplored the Bush administration's record on global warming, saying "history will judge them very harshly." Six months later, he wants to drill for more fossil fuel. The old McCain would judge this new McCain harshly, too."

• McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts when they passed.

So, he was against them before he was for them ?

• McCain urged the Iraq surge, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom.

Obama urged timelines, a posture Bush rejected for years before conceding its wisdom. Also, the UN mandate is about to be up and we have to get out. That makes NOT planning for this known deadline irresponsible.

• McCain favors FDA regulation of tobacco and sponsored legislation to that effect, a position all but a handful of Republican Senators oppose.

"Aug 11th, 2008
Last month, the House passed legislation — sparking the ire of conservatives — that would grant the FDA stronger regulation power over the tobacco industry, mirroring a 1998 proposal authored by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). At the time, McCain said he would “never” give up on his anti-tobacco efforts.
As the Wonk Room noted, however, McCain recently signaled that he had doubts with the House legislation, stating he wouldn’t “commit to voting for it until he sees the final legislation.” Roll Call reports today that McCain is “declining to embrace” his own legislation ..."

• McCain's energy bill, also with Lieberman, is a virtual blueprint for energy independence and development of alternate sources.

As long as they are coal, offshore oil and nuclear power plants, eh ?

"When new leadership took over Congress and began the process of righting our energy policy and putting us on the road toward the clean energy future, John McCain couldn't find time to make any of the 23 Senate votes cast over a 6-month period of time on last year's landmark energy bill. When every single other senator voted and a provision to repeal billions in government giveaways to Big Oil in order to fund clean energy lost by a single vote, John McCain was nowhere to be found."

• After the Enron scandal, McCain introduced sweeping reforms in corporate governance and legislation to guarantee pensions and prohibit golden parachutes for executives. Bush opposed McCain's changes and the watered-down Sarbanes-Oxley bill eventuated.

"McCain Defends 'Enron Loophole'"
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/051908Leopold.shtml

• McCain has been harshly critical of congressional overspending, particularly of budgetary earmarks, a position Bush only lately adopted (after the Democrats took over Congress)

"And I’m proud to tell you, Chris, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state ...
McCain’s claim is false. In 2006, the senator teamed up with fe

SIGNYM

Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:18 PM

Auraptor has forgotten his old god, Bush. Soon, he will revile everything that the old god stood for and embrace his new god, McCain.

It's kinda like watching a pod person being born. It's fascinating how quickly a person can turn their entire thinking around without acknowledging that anything happened. Creepifyin' too.

But I can say "I told you so", as I predicted about three months ago that this would happen. Poor Rapo, to be lost on ever-shifting sand.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:53 PM

And poor McCain.

After the Bush campaign kicked him like a dog in 2000 he had to go crawling back to Rove and Bush for party money, court the religious right, reverse his positions and 'chose' Palin.

And if he ever needed to be reminded how disposable he is all he has to do is consider Palin. Should he be shoe-horned into a presidency by hook or crook he will be kept on a VERY tight leash.

***************************************************************

John McCain, we hardly knew ye.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:36 PM

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss - neither one of which can actually get the damn lyrics right.

In a word - Morons.

-F

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE