Radio Address Uncovered: Interview with Senator Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)
It was a link I found via courtesy of Fox News, also found information on this from Newsbusters, and it sounds like if true, this also indicates that media outlets like: CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, AP, Reuters, etc. have absolutely no credibility left whatsoever.
Btw, there are also links on the drudge report:
http://www.drudgereport.com/)
News busters story:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/27/will-msm-continue-ignoring-shocking-obama-redistribution-wealth-audio)
Another Source is Little Green Footballs:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/31702_Obama_on_the_Redistribution_of_Wealth)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs)
Little Green Footballs is a right wing blog with an extremely good reputation including breaking stories on: The Killian Documents controversy (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents) and Adna Hajj photographs controversy (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy).
Little Green Footballs is ran by: Charles Johnson (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Johnson_(blogger))
jmac, please buddy, no need to be this snarky - please avoid use of expletives even if the filters do cut them down, it conveys an unnecessary amount of hostility in a post. You are of course free to state if you think a source has wasted your time, but please do this in a more courteous manner - thanks - :) j7
And here is why it is a bad thing:
1. small businesses (and quite a few make over $250,000 a year) would be taxed more which would affect their ability to employ workers.
2. the health insurance taxes would then add yet again to these burdens further cutting jobs.
Eventually it becomes too expensive for the business to function and the small business owner just gives up. Part of the American Dream is to be able to get ahead in life by working hard, someday maybe even becoming rich.
Obama's tax plan + rebates flies in the face of that dream, there is no longer an incentive to do your best work because the government is going to take care of you.
Also taxing capital gains affects middle class people whom own stocks, not just the rich.
1. small businesses (and quite a few make over $250,000 a year) would be taxed more which would affect their ability to employ workers.
ORLY? (
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html)
Also, John McCain is a socialist, the horror.
[W]e feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.
....
And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans ... all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they – you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view.
...
[H]ere's what I really believe, that when you are – reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.
source (
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/21/1577609.aspx)
MSM not Correcting 'McCain Will Tax Your Benefits' Claim by Obama Campaign (
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-menefee/2008/10/03/obama-ad-watch-claims-mccain-will-tax-your-benefits)
My favorite part of the article is where the author uses herself (
http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,68/category_id,0/blog_id,1094/type,33/) as a source. Nowhere in either article does she cite and properly source McCain's actual economic position, leading me to believe she's making all this up.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/10/21/guess-who-sees-msm-double-standard-bidens-latest-gaffe)
Dan Rather (
http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/10/2008-10-21MSNBCMJ.wmv)
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand (which you started) and further attempts to run with this line of thought will be deleted as spam.
Getting back to topic, Obama has ties to several socialists and Marxists.
And John McCain is tied to someone (
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct24/0,4670,JoeMcCain911,00.html) who thinks it's okay to call 911 to complain about traffic and then curse at them. Why does John McCain associate with people like this, who think it's fine to abuse our emergency services systems in such a frivolous manner? :rolleyes:
My favorite part of the article is where the author uses herself (
http://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,68/category_id,0/blog_id,1094/type,33/) as a source. Nowhere in either article does she cite and properly source McCain's actual economic position, leading me to believe she's making all this up.
Technically even if you use an article you've written before, if you mention it at all in another location, you're supposed to source it. One of those little legal situations that makes little sense but is on the books.
And John McCain is tied to someone (
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct24/0,4670,JoeMcCain911,00.html) who thinks it's okay to call 911 to complain about traffic and then curse at them. Why does John McCain associate with people like this, who think it's fine to abuse our emergency services systems in such a frivolous manner? :rolleyes:
Wasn't that John McCain's brother named Joe McCain? He doesn't have a choice who his family is and you know it.
Technically even if you use an article you've written before, if you mention it at all in another location, you're supposed to source it. One of those little legal situations that makes little sense but is on the books.
I don't care if she cites herself as a source, as long as she cites a source that backs up her claims as well. Fact of the matter is, I didn't see any links to anything from the official McCain stance on the economy. What I saw was one right-wing writer's rebuttal of the Obama Campaign's claim on McCain's economic policies that uses un-sourced conjecture and no legitimate links to back it up.
Wasn't that John McCain's brother named Joe McCain? He doesn't have a choice who his family is and you know it.
Wow, he's McCain's brother? Wowee wow wow, this gets even better! So John McCain has obviously known this guy for a long time! I wonder if he shares Joe's views on using the 911 emergency system.
Nice try. This one doesn't source itself to McCain's actual economic policies either. It just gives another political writer's interpretation of what they think McCain's plan is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/14/usa-johnmccain)
Again though what does this have to do with the topic, and I can point out where his policies differ with socialism all day but again that isn't the topic.
Oh, so now you want to be on-topic. :rolleyes:
Actually I was on topic, I was using a strategy that is referred to as inductive reasoning (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inductive%20reasoning) and pointing out why I was dismissing a particular source.
Again while you pointed out McCain's brother the fact is it differs from Obama's associations significantly because McCain couldn't choose whom he is related to by blood. Senator Obama chose to associate himself with socialists and marxists whom aren't even related to him.
Bah, I'm curious as to one thing how socialism is a bad thing, plus I never knew that it was a political viewpoint, but more of an economic theory, ah well, just ignore the man behind the curtain I guess.
Bah, I'm curious as to one thing how socialism is a bad thing, plus I never knew that it was a political viewpoint, but more of an economic theory, ah well, just ignore the man behind the curtain I guess.
Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?
There is a difference between people being charitable and the government coming in, taking your money that you worked for and just giving it to people whom were too lazy to work a job.
An article that would be good reading to bring you up to speed can be found here. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/14/usa-johnmccain)
I don't want you to source the articles, I want the authors to do it for their own writing. The fact that they did not source their articles is rather suspect, in my opinion.
Actually I was on topic, I was using a strategy that is referred to as inductive reasoning (
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inductive%20reasoning) and pointing out why I was dismissing a particular source.
Sure you were. :dozey:
Senator Obama chose to associate himself with socialists and marxists whom aren't even related to him.
Gonna have to ask you to cite some sources that aren't in the tank for McCain.
Please can everyone calm down, lets not get snarky with each other... don't let me get my big stick out.... Also you are all reminded to please stay on topic :) - j7
Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?
This is subjective at best - furthermore have you actually read the Marxist Charter? Any country that took it up, would infact be the most "democratic" country on earth - the USSR, was never what Marx had envisioned. Furthermore it is entirely subjective to see socialism as a bad thing... I love that in a country that is apparently about freedom of speech, it is seen as bad for Obama to associate with such people.... - My 2 cents.
This is subjective at best - furthermore have you actually read the Marxist Charter? Any country that took it up, would infact be the most "democratic" country on earth - the USSR, was never what Marx had envisioned. Furthermore it is entirely subjective to see socialism as a bad thing... I love that in a country that is apparently about freedom of speech, it is seen as bad for Obama to associate with such people.... - My 2 cents.
Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).
Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.
Also he is a member of the New Party (Democratic Socialists), they tried to remove it from their website when this was made public.
On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.
From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party)
Additional Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html)
Isn't factcheck.org tied to the Annenberg Foundation which was once ran by Senator Obama, and also associated with Bill Ayers?Hey, maybe you should read the article and see the vast number of sources they use to support their position as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand because they're "in the tank" with Obama (even though they condemn just as many of his false claims).
Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).Socialism can work, but most of the attempts in recent history have not been executed properly. I agree that socialism on a larger scale will eventually collapse, but when in city-state form, perhaps in an anarcho-socialist scheme, it might just work. Like J7 said, true Marxist communism hasn't even implemented yet. There's a reason why USSR's government was known as Leninism, and eventually Stalinism, and so forth; Each leader shifted the basic communist principles to their own philosophical beliefs. Which is why Marxism shouldn't be written off yet, as it has never been truly implemented.
Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.Sweet Jesus, please don't bring that up again.
Hey, maybe you should read the article and see the vast number of sources they use to support their position as opposed to just dismissing it out of hand because they're "in the tank" with Obama (even though they condemn just as many of his false claims).
I have read through a lot of their stuff, and while they have condemned quite a few of Obama's false statements, there have been things they've allowed to slip through and this case is one of them. To be fair to factcheck.org they've been a lot better at covering things than the mainstream media.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/16/joe-plumber-calls-obamas-tax-plan-socialist-sawyer-defends-it)
I've been trying to find the actual interview on Fox News where one of Obama's advisors said that the $250,000 cutoff refers to Gross Income, I actually saw it on TV a few days ago, which completely debunks the accusation that McCain wasn't telling the truth.
Anyways, even without it I can say this taxes are taken on a person's gross income, that means the total amount you make before taxes and other expenses.
Socialism is a bad thing because of human nature, there has to be some incentive for people to do their best work. If people are paid the same regardless of how much they work for instance or don't have to work to get paid would you work?
Marxism=/=Socialism. I've just spent the last 5 weeks studying Marx, they're not the same. The execution of Marxism and what Marx intended aren't even the same thing.
There is a difference between people being charitable and the government coming in, taking your money that you worked for and just giving it to people whom were too lazy to work a job.
I guess you don't realize that taxes also pay for our failing airline industires, support our steel companies, pay for our roads, keep our food cheap.
Unless you'd like an apple to cost 10 dollars, build your own roads, have steel owned by the Swiss and have no form of air travel, you're already loving a lot of socialist things.
You want a socialist government, it's not Marx. It's the UK, or Japan. Socialism is more of an economic policy that governments participate in the operation of business to ensure a stable economy.
An article that would be good reading to bring you up to speed can be found here. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_socialism)
How about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
It gives general information, unlike the other which is just a critique. And it gives some pros and cons, but mostly gives you the information and lets you decide for yourself.
Jonathan no country could take it up, the problem with socialism is that while it looks good on paper and can work on an extremely small test case, it doesn't work good in practice (on the large scale).
Also as far as the associations are concerned, it isn't just the fact that his friends are socialists, at least two of them are unrepentant domestic terrorists.
Also he is a member of the Democratic Socialists, they tried to remove it from their website when this was made public.
It seems you've mixed up socialism with communism.
Socialism:
1. 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.
2. Procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Communism:
1. A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.
Now, the definition of Marxist socialism does indeed mean a transitional period between the two. But lets looks closer:
It transitions into communism. Now, as far as we know, true 100% communism has never existed. There have been very good examples of it happening, but even these tribes have had some form of trade, currency (be it hides, meat, respect, etc), and concept of ownership, even if it was small. So, through this, I think we can establish that true Marxist communism is a pipe dream that will never work in a society.
It is the Garden of Eden of societies if you will. A utopia that is only promised in religious lore, but never successfully implemented on a scale larger than roughly 100 people.
Now, we seem to agree with this from what I've read of your posts. But, if you would like me to pull up some sources on such tribes then I would be more than welcome to provide them.
But, moving on to socialism as it actually applies to the world and not as Marx pipe dream says it should:
Just throwing it out there, but America is a capitalist/socialist hybrid in many respects. Now, while we may not have Universal Health Care, we do share other socialist aspects of society with other socialist/capitalist hybrid countries.
For example:
Military
National Defense
Police
Firemen
Roads
Highways
Bridges
Water treatment
Recycling
Trash collection
Welfare
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
Social Security
Prisons
Jails
Our Taxes, in most if not all of the United States, pay for these services that you enjoy. We give the government the money, and we hope, through elected officials, that they use the money in a way that benefits our society, or "community" if you will.
One of the other aspects of Socialism is the creation of an Egalitarianist society. Egalitarianism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.
America's Bill of Rights says roughly the same thing, but we have established that said "rights" can be removed from a person if they fail to follow the established rules/laws that the society and government has in place. And, for the most part, all first world countries nowadays attempt to follow this doctrine.
So, your claim that "no country could take it up" is odd to say the least. While we are not entirely Socialist, we share many aspects of a socialist society. Outside of Universal Health Care, most of what you'd call socialist in other countries are things this very country stands for.
Huh, looking at all these articles, I feel pretty sure that Socialism isn't the worst path to go down, I guess I don't really understand the whole laziness argument since I grew up with a single mom and a 50,000 a year income and she treated(She works in Medicine) a lot of people who happened to be laid off due to outsourcing and such. Ah well, I have a clearer understanding of the matter at least, though considering there was a statement from the Socialist Candidate that Obama isn't a Socialist will probably be an influence on this whole argument.
EDIT: Here's a link to his statement:
http://vote-socialist.org/press/081023spt.html)
Marxism=/=Socialism. I've just spent the last 5 weeks studying Marx, they're not the same. The execution of Marxism and what Marx intended aren't even the same thing.
A lot of the aspects are the same though.
I guess you don't realize that taxes also pay for our failing airline industires, support our steel companies, pay for our roads, keep our food cheap.
I live in the United States in our case it's the other way around as far as food is concerned, or it used to be. Government actually paid farmers not to farm so food prices didn't fall through the floor.
Unless you'd like an apple to cost 10 dollars, build your own roads, have steel owned by the Swiss and have no form of air travel, you're already loving a lot of socialist things.
I'll agree pure capitalism is bad, however you're missing the point. What we're talking about is Marxist/Socialist style of class warfare.
You want a socialist government, it's not Marx. It's the UK, or Japan. Socialism is more of an economic policy that governments participate in the operation of business to ensure a stable economy.
I don't want to have my success taxed if I manage to get over the $250,000 gross income cutoff. Furthermore, raising taxes in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. See the state of Michigan as an example.
How about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)
It gives general information, unlike the other which is just a critique. And it gives some pros and cons, but mostly gives you the information and lets you decide for yourself.
Again Socialism doesn't work on a large scale, it ends up falling apart relatively rapidly.
Look at Venezuela, as an example they've devolved into a dictatorship.
Huh, looking at all these articles, I feel pretty sure that Socialism isn't the worst path to go down, I guess I don't really understand the whole laziness argument since I grew up with a single mom and a 50,000 a year income and she treated(She works in Medicine) a lot of people who happened to be laid off due to outsourcing and such. Ah well, I have a clearer understanding of the matter at least, though considering there was a statement from the Socialist Candidate that Obama isn't a Socialist will probably be an influence on this whole argument.
Raising taxes on employers causes the price of goods to increase or they ship the jobs overseas. Or the business just closes up.
A lot of the aspects are the same though.
Yeah, and we share 50% of our basic building blocks with a banana. Does that make us a banana? no it doesn't.
I live in the United States in our case it's the other way around as far as food is concerned, or it used to be. Government actually paid farmers not to farm so food prices didn't fall through the floor.
Farmers get HUGE government subsides, paid by our taxes, to keep being farmers instead of selling their land to have homes built on it.
I'll agree pure capitalism is bad, however you're missing the point. What we're talking about is Marxist/Socialist style of class warfare.
No we're not. YOU didn't even say that to being with. And STOP equating Marxism with Socialism. They are not the same.
I don't want to have my success taxed if I manage to get over the $250,000 gross income cutoff. Furthermore, raising taxes in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. See the state of Michigan as an example.
Okay, my mistake for thinking you'd actually know about the countries I mentioned. Japan's government is heavily invested in the largest corporations in their nation, though this often causes massive corruption, it has also lead to the government subsidizing business to allow for cheaper operating costs and LESS class warfare. Workers are better taken care of, government and business walk hand in hand instead of head to head.
Again Socialism doesn't work on a large scale, it ends up falling apart relatively rapidly.
Look at Venezuela, as an example they've devolved into a dictatorship.
This did not happen because of socialism. This happened because a guy with dictatorial dreams was in power. France, Germany, England, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, ALL very successful nations, ALL practice strongly Socialist principles.
France is probably not one of the better examples of socialism with its huge unemployment problems. Venezuela is likewise a poor example of failing socialism, since Chavez has turned out to be nothing more than a petty would-be dictator.
Explain to me the dividing line between Socialism and Communism, Web Rider. Because from where I'm sitting, Socialism is just the road to Communism.
I don't see much of a difference between Socialism, Communism, and Marxism either, even after reading about the three on wiki and even finding definitions for the three. But I don't think that they are 'evil' concepts. There are some good ideas from these similar concepts, and some bad ideas.
I think that the best government system is one that is a hybrid of many systems, designed to adapt accordingly depending on the factors the system would have to work with.
I don't know what specific ideologies of politics and economics I support, technically, but my veiw of it is that the best system would consist of adaptation, fairness, and logic.
Explain to me the dividing line between Socialism and Communism, Web Rider. Because from where I'm sitting, Socialism is just the road to Communism.
Communism is the extreme application of socialism, where government management of the economy is transformed into totalitarian control of the state. A little bit of socialism is good in the same sense that a moderate amount of capitalism is also good; it's the extremes of both you have to worry about.
Explain to me the dividing line between Socialism and Communism, Web Rider. Because from where I'm sitting, Socialism is just the road to Communism.
I would suspect that if you can tell that Socialism is NOT Communism, and only could possibly lead there, then you can tell the difference yourself.
Now, I'm just curious as to what exactly you call "communism" 'cause ya know, it's been applied to dictatorships, which isn't the original intention of Marx.
It's been applied to dictatorships? Of course it has - every wannabe Communist state on Earth is a Dictatorships. Marx's original intent is really not relevant.
I really can't tell the difference between a state that's committed to Socialism and a state that's committed to Communism. I can tell a truly Communist state when I see it, but none of those have ever existed or are ever likely to exist, so I can't exactly compare and contrast.
It's been applied to dictatorships? Of course it has - every wannabe Communist state on Earth is a Dictatorships. Marx's original intent is really not relevant.
I really can't tell the difference between a state that's committed to Socialism and a state that's committed to Communism. I can tell a truly Communist state when I see it, but none of those have ever existed or are ever likely to exist, so I can't exactly compare and contrast.
Well it sounds like you're pretty committed to the idea that socialism is pretty much gonna end up a dictatorship-style communism, so I don't see much point in attempting to dissuade you.
I really can't tell the difference between a state that's committed to Socialism and a state that's committed to Communism. I can tell a truly Communist state when I see it, but none of those have ever existed or are ever likely to exist, so I can't exactly compare and contrast.
I hope you can tell the difference between Britain and the Soviet Union.
There is confirmation that the audio tape is the genuine article and Obama is going nuts over this.
Obama Attacks Fox News over Coverage of 2001 Radio Interview (
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/27/radio-interview-obama-laments-lack-supreme-court-ruling-redistributing-wealth/)
Also anyone hear about that interview Biden blew a gasket concerning in Florida, well there was another one just the other day in Pennsylvania that Biden blew a gasket in. (Gonna see if I can find a tape of that)
It looks like there is some weight to the socialism charge.
Based on that article, I do not understand where you get the notion that Obama is "going nuts" over this. Sounds like an Obama spokesman simply told the interviewer that Obama does not intend to push any kind of socialist agenda as president, even though the title of the web page also indicates some kind of 'freak out'.
Based on that article, I do not understand where you get the notion that Obama is "going nuts" over this. Sounds like an Obama spokesman simply told the interviewer that Obama does not intend to push any kind of socialist agenda as president, even though the title of the web page also indicates some kind of 'freak out'.
It's a figure of speech, anyways the tape in question basically calls Obama's integrity into question especially with the Obama spokesman denying it all, just like they denied his ties to ACORN, Rev. Wright, etc.
Here are the facts: (And I'm probably going to miss a few)
Obama associates with Marxists
Obama said he wants to spread the wealth around to "Joe the Plumber"
He made similar statements in the radio tape, which Dick Moris on Hannity and Colmes on Monday, October 27 pointed out the way he said it was the code phrases used in the 60s and 70s.
He said he wants to cut wealth to 95% of Americans when a significant percentage of those people don't pay Federal Income Taxes. (Which in my opinion and many other people's opinion as well is welfare).
It's a figure of speech, anyways the tape in question basically calls Obama's integrity into question especially with the Obama spokesman denying it all, just like they denied his ties to ACORN, Rev. Wright, etc.It's not just a figure of speech, it is a complete twisting of words; a blatant attack.
Here are the facts: (And I'm probably going to miss a few)
Obama associates with Marxists
Obama said he wants to spread the wealth around to "Joe the Plumber"
He made similar statements in the radio tape, which Dick Moris on Hannity and Colmes on Monday, October 27 pointed out the way he said it was the code phrases used in the 60s and 70s.
He said he wants to cut wealth to 95% of Americans when a significant percentage of those people don't pay Federal Income Taxes. (Which in my opinion and many other people's opinion as well is welfare).
Any sort of proof would be much appreciated.
so we're going to base our socialism charges against Obama based on a single 2001 interview, but we cannot assume that John McCain is going to do the same based on the statements he made in 2000? (
http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545287&postcount=6)
Is it just me, or is Obama having slightly socialist leanings not really important?
So what if he associates with Marxists? It doesn't make him a Marxist.
so we're going to base our socialism charges against Obama based on a single 2001 interview, but we cannot assume that John McCain is going to do the same based on the statements he made in 2000? (
http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545287&postcount=6)
And I don't exactly agree with McCain on that point either, however McCain isn't advocating giving checks to people that don't pay taxes to begin with.
Is it just me, or is Obama having slightly socialist leanings not really important?
As an American whom would actually be affected directly by an Obama Presidency it concerns me.
So what if he associates with Marxists? It doesn't make him a Marxist.
If his associations coincide with statements and interviews he has made, in addition to his associations interconnecting, then we're looking at a pattern. So his associations can indicate him to be a Marxist.
If he just had one or two bad associations it would raise some eyebrows, but it wouldn't be much of a cause of concern. But the number of associations he has and how they interconnect is why it indicates that he is likely a socialist.
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.
And that's all I have to offer. No useless walls of text that lead to more walls of text here.
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.
Amen, was trying to think of a way to say it without appearing condecending, but essentially you're right.
And I've just found myself a pattern all the way back to when Obama was in college.
Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."
Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days (
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/)
Except that the "Ayer's living room" thing has been debunked. Unless you have evidence (not right-wing hearsay) that shows otherwise, of course.
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.
And that's all I have to offer. No useless walls of text that lead to more walls of text here.What are you talking about when you refer to McCain being "associated" with his brother? The 911 phone call? If so, that'd probably be on the news as a "lighter side of the news" story even if he wasn't John McCain's brother just because of its sheer ridiculousness.
Except that the "Ayer's living room" thing has been debunked. Unless you have evidence (not right-wing hearsay) that shows otherwise, of course.
Debunked by who?
A foundation chaired by Barack Obama that was designed to improve Chicago public schools gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Small Schools Workshop, an organization led by former Weatherman Bill Ayers and by Michael Klonsky, a former chairman of both Students for a Democratic Society and, according to The Washington Post and New York Times, a group called the “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=74B7DB99-A934-4340-9D46-1438C29400C3)
I just want to point out the hypocrisy in people getting all upset when others point out Obama's association with his minister and "fellow terrorists" and all that, yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.
And that's all I have to offer. No useless walls of text that lead to more walls of text here.
I agree with you... Also, has anyone heard about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs? (They're just as insane as Obama's) She's into witchhunting and whatnot... Not to mention that she seems to be anti-science. For example, how she was talking about ridiculous government funding and said that the research of fruit flies is a waste of money. Apparently she has no idea how important fruit flies are to our study of some pretty major diseases... Also how she wants creationism taught in public schools...
yet are so quick to jump on McCain being "associated" with his brother who did something stupid once.I believe you are misunderstanding Rogue Nine's use sarcasm. It was a parallel drawn to show the ridiculousness of the charges against Obama, though it seems to have been lost on the intended target(s).
I agree with you... Also, has anyone heard about Sarah Palin's religious beliefs? (They're just as insane as Obama's) She's into witchhunting and whatnot...
If you want to start on that and are referring to the source I'm thinking of it was debunked long ago, whereas Obama's associations are well documented.
I believe you are misunderstanding Rogue Nine's use sarcasm. It was a parallel drawn to show the ridiculousness of the charges against Obama, though it seems to have been lost on the intended target(s).
ET Warrior, something tells me that he didn't misinterpret anything, because the charges aren't ridiculous.
Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/)