Obama a Marxist......what is going on in this interview?

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Drudge has this as his top story...

Drudge is the reason there was a Monica "scandal" against Clinton. I'd like to hope that America is capable of moving beyond his smallmindedness.

wow.. not to go too far off on a tangent -- but I will -- the blame for the "Monica scandal" lies entirely at the feet of Bill Clinton and Monica. It was they who chose to act immorally and bring dishonor to the Clinton family and Presidency of the United States. Because of them, parents across the nation had to say to their children "Yes, our President is a scumbag."

Blaming a media outlet for their indiscretions, and the subsequent mess they created, is a bit much...

Anyways, getting back on track, perhaps step one should be to refine what is meant by the phrase "Redistribution of Wealth;" because, I believe it's somewhat dishonest to compare defense spending to free handouts for the poor. Technically speaking, yes, they're both recipients of tax dollars. However, in terms of the Constitutionally defined roles of the Federal government, the former is obviously acceptable while the latter may not be.

Using the term ROW to apply to both probably confuses the issue...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

Nonsense. A politician's ideology is defined by his actions, not his rhetoric.

IMO, this is the major failing of the modern Republican party. It habitually elects leaders who act contrary to their rhetoric, yet the party rank-and-file consistently defends these leader's action with their rhetoric. To an outside observer, even a non-partisan one like myself, this is no longer tolerable.

Not nonsense. It's common sense. What does McCain's voting record mostly reflect, pork spending or spending cuts?

You know that pork is only 0.5% of the federal budget, right? Why would you want to define someone's voting record on such a tiny part of our expenditures?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

Not to mention mccains *real* socialist plan to buy and reprice mortgages.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Drudge has this as his top story...

Drudge is the reason there was a Monica "scandal" against Clinton. I'd like to hope that America is capable of moving beyond his smallmindedness.

wow.. not to go too far off on a tangent -- but I will -- the blame for the "Monica scandal" lies entirely at the feet of Bill Clinton and Monica. It was they who chose to act immorally and bring dishonor to the Clinton family and Presidency of the United States. Because of them, parents across the nation had to say to their children "Yes, our President is a scumbag."

Blaming a media outlet for their indiscretions, and the subsequent mess they created, is a bit much...

Anyways, getting back on track, perhaps step one should be to refine what is meant by the phrase "Redistribution of Wealth;" because, I believe it's somewhat dishonest to compare defense spending to free handouts for the poor. Technically speaking, yes, they're both recipients of tax dollars. However, in terms of the Constitutionally defined roles of the Federal government, the former is obviously acceptable while the latter may not be.

Using the term ROW to apply to both probably confuses the issue...

Not really, because people are painting redistribution of wealth as a bad thing. It's not like they are saying that it's okay on certain things but not others. If they want to attack government spending on certain areas, they should attack that spending, not the concept.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

Nonsense. A politician's ideology is defined by his actions, not his rhetoric.

IMO, this is the major failing of the modern Republican party. It habitually elects leaders who act contrary to their rhetoric, yet the party rank-and-file consistently defends these leader's action with their rhetoric. To an outside observer, even a non-partisan one like myself, this is no longer tolerable.

Not nonsense. It's common sense. What does McCain's voting record mostly reflect, pork spending or spending cuts?

probably pork, just like everyone else.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

Nonsense. A politician's ideology is defined by his actions, not his rhetoric.

IMO, this is the major failing of the modern Republican party. It habitually elects leaders who act contrary to their rhetoric, yet the party rank-and-file consistently defends these leader's action with their rhetoric. To an outside observer, even a non-partisan one like myself, this is no longer tolerable.

Not nonsense. It's common sense. What does McCain's voting record mostly reflect, pork spending or spending cuts?

His legislative record mostly reflects pork spending and invasive legislation curtailing political free speech.
I challenge you to show one real example in McCain's political record when he pushed for spending cuts or smaller govt.

Let's not even discuss Palin's record. Her entire political career seems to have been devoted to capturing pork spending.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You know that pork is only 0.5% of the federal budget, right? Why would you want to define someone's voting record on such a tiny part of our expenditures?

in all fairness, I think they use it to demonstrate his mindset, or approach, rather than the actual dent it has made in our spending.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Drudge has this as his top story...

Drudge is the reason there was a Monica "scandal" against Clinton. I'd like to hope that America is capable of moving beyond his smallmindedness.

wow.. not to go too far off on a tangent -- but I will -- the blame for the "Monica scandal" lies entirely at the feet of Bill Clinton and Monica. It was they who chose to act immorally and bring dishonor to the Clinton family and Presidency of the United States. Because of them, parents across the nation had to say to their children "Yes, our President is a scumbag."

Blaming a media outlet for their indiscretions, and the subsequent mess they created, is a bit much...

You are aware that Clinton was FAR from the first sitting President to be involved in some kind of marital indiscretion, right?

The fallacy in your thinking is believing that not minding your own business when it comes to others' personal affairs is not an act of scumbaggery itself, when it is. As such, the fact that America became infatuated with who the President got a BJ from was just as much, if not more, of a testament to America's immorality as gossiping biddies as to Clinton's as an unfaithful husband.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Drudge has this as his top story...

Drudge is the reason there was a Monica "scandal" against Clinton. I'd like to hope that America is capable of moving beyond his smallmindedness.

wow.. not to go too far off on a tangent -- but I will -- the blame for the "Monica scandal" lies entirely at the feet of Bill Clinton and Monica. It was they who chose to act immorally and bring dishonor to the Clinton family and Presidency of the United States. Because of them, parents across the nation had to say to their children "Yes, our President is a scumbag."

Blaming a media outlet for their indiscretions, and the subsequent mess they created, is a bit much...

Anyways, getting back on track, perhaps step one should be to refine what is meant by the phrase "Redistribution of Wealth;" because, I believe it's somewhat dishonest to compare defense spending to free handouts for the poor. Technically speaking, yes, they're both recipients of tax dollars. However, in terms of the Constitutionally defined roles of the Federal government, the former is obviously acceptable while the latter may not be.

Using the term ROW to apply to both probably confuses the issue...

Not really, because people are painting redistribution of wealth as a bad thing. It's not like they are saying that it's okay on certain things but not others. If they want to attack government spending on certain areas, they should attack that spending, not the concept.

well, just as we witnessed with the nonsense surrounding the phrase, "the surge," the media may be the reason the term is being misused every time you turn around.

As a result, conservatives who intend to use the term in a derogatory fashion to refer to the class-based redistribution of wealth are having their point lost in a muddy pool of nonsense that doesn't really have to do with their original point...

After all, beyond the technical monetary similarities, Federal hand-outs for the poor are NOT the same thing as the purchase of ten new tanks... would you agree?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Vic
You are aware that Clinton was FAR from the first sitting President to be involved in some kind of marital indiscretion, right?

The fallacy in your thinking is believing that not minding your own business when it comes to others' personal affairs is not an act of scumbaggery itself, when it is. As such, the fact that America became infatuated with who the President got a BJ from was just as much, if not more, of a testament to America's immorality as gossiping biddies as to Clinton's as an unfaithful husband.

I'd simply like to think that it's acceptable to hold our President to a higher moral standard than our own scumbag neighbors... and I'm referring to all Presidents, not just Clinton.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
You know that pork is only 0.5% of the federal budget, right? Why would you want to define someone's voting record on such a tiny part of our expenditures?

in all fairness, I think they use it to demonstrate his mindset, or approach, rather than the actual dent it has made in our spending.

It's representative of political corruption.

A primary tactic of sales/marketing is to take your product's biggest and most glaring negative and brag about it. As opposed to waiting for the customers to find out themselves. This is why McDonald's tells people its food is delicious, and why underpowered compact cars are sold as sporty coupes.
Likewise, Republicans attacking Democrats this election cycle on the issue of pork spending.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: senseamp
After an $700B socialization of bank losses, it's a bit hard for the Republicans to call anyone Socialist with a straight face.

The exception does not define the rule. With Obama, socialization is the rule.

Good, with the financial crisis we are heading, guess what, we are going to need a big government, we are going to need wealth redistribution to bail out the impacted people.
And if we do in fact need big government, I want to elect a big government liberal to run it, not a Republican who is either completely clueless about what to do, or will structure the big government to mainly benefit big business, as has been done under the policies of the current administration.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Drudge has this as his top story...

Drudge is the reason there was a Monica "scandal" against Clinton. I'd like to hope that America is capable of moving beyond his smallmindedness.

wow.. not to go too far off on a tangent -- but I will -- the blame for the "Monica scandal" lies entirely at the feet of Bill Clinton and Monica. It was they who chose to act immorally and bring dishonor to the Clinton family and Presidency of the United States. Because of them, parents across the nation had to say to their children "Yes, our President is a scumbag."

Blaming a media outlet for their indiscretions, and the subsequent mess they created, is a bit much...

Anyways, getting back on track, perhaps step one should be to refine what is meant by the phrase "Redistribution of Wealth;" because, I believe it's somewhat dishonest to compare defense spending to free handouts for the poor. Technically speaking, yes, they're both recipients of tax dollars. However, in terms of the Constitutionally defined roles of the Federal government, the former is obviously acceptable while the latter may not be.

Using the term ROW to apply to both probably confuses the issue...

Not really, because people are painting redistribution of wealth as a bad thing. It's not like they are saying that it's okay on certain things but not others. If they want to attack government spending on certain areas, they should attack that spending, not the concept.

well, just as we witnessed with the nonsense surrounding the phrase, "the surge," the media may be the reason the term is being misused every time you turn around.

As a result, conservatives who intend to use the term in a derogatory fashion to refer to the class-based redistribution of wealth are having their point lost in a muddy pool of nonsense that doesn't really have to do with their original point...

After all, beyond the technical monetary similarities, Federal hand-outs for the poor are NOT the same thing as the purchase of ten new tanks... would you agree?

I would agree. Of course in my opinion those ten tanks contribute far less to our nation than aid to the poor, but that's just me.

It still doesn't change the fact that their fundamental argument is that the redistribution of wealth is socialism or even (insanely) Marxism. They are making a categorical argument against it, not an argument against its application. I'm sure they do approve of military spending and not of aid to the poor, their fundamental problem is that they are unable to see these are two different applications of the same principle.

 

[Ferocious]

When will people learn about politicians.

You don't vote based on how someone voted or what they said in the past. You don't vote based on what they say they will do in the future.

You DO vote on what you think they will do in the future.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I would agree. Of course in my opinion those ten tanks contribute far less to our nation than aid to the poor, but that's just me.

It still doesn't change the fact that their fundamental argument is that the redistribution of wealth is socialism or even (insanely) Marxism. They are making a categorical argument against it, not an argument against its application. I'm sure they do approve of military spending and not of aid to the poor, their fundamental problem is that they are unable to see these are two different applications of the same principle.

OK, fair enough. But who is really to blame for confusing the applications? It seems to me that those who argue for the free hand-outs may also be contributing to the problem when they quickly compare such programs to defense spending and other government expenditures.

It's almost as though nobody really wants to debate one issue, or application, at a time...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I would agree. Of course in my opinion those ten tanks contribute far less to our nation than aid to the poor, but that's just me.

It still doesn't change the fact that their fundamental argument is that the redistribution of wealth is socialism or even (insanely) Marxism. They are making a categorical argument against it, not an argument against its application. I'm sure they do approve of military spending and not of aid to the poor, their fundamental problem is that they are unable to see these are two different applications of the same principle.

OK, fair enough. But who is really to blame for confusing the applications? It seems to me that those who argue for the free hand-outs may also be contributing to the problem when they quickly compare such programs to defense spending and other government expenditures.

It's almost as though nobody really wants to debate one issue, or application, at a time...

I think the problem with debating on the individual issue is that it doesn't make a good sound byte. "Obama is a socialist!" works much better than "Obama supports redistributive programs in areas of questionable worth!". We really have no one but ourselves to blame, as politicians wouldn't do it if we didn't react to it.

 

[Budmantom]

Obama is a Marxist, Socialist, Communist....... what a surprise.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: chess9
We've had a major redistribution of wealth the last 8 years. It's time to change the direction of the flow. Tax policy is a rational means of accomplishing that goal. Regulation of Wall Street is another. Reducing subsidies for large oil companies is yet another. Kapish?

Passing a tax cut for the wealthy is an income redistribution scheme. Giving Exxon billions of dollars in special tax credits is an income redistribution scheme. Collecting taxes to pay for a standing army is an income redistribution scheme.

We have more idiots on this board than should be allowed by statistical chance, particularly right wing ones.

-Robert

Exxon mobil pays more federal income tax than the bottom ~34 million taxpayers in this nation.

 

[quest55720]

To bad the MSM will bury this story like all the other stories that could hurt Obama. It is clear Obama is a socialist plain and simple. It will be fun seeing the Obama people defend socialism for the next 4 years.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: chess9
We've had a major redistribution of wealth the last 8 years. It's time to change the direction of the flow. Tax policy is a rational means of accomplishing that goal. Regulation of Wall Street is another. Reducing subsidies for large oil companies is yet another. Kapish?

Passing a tax cut for the wealthy is an income redistribution scheme. Giving Exxon billions of dollars in special tax credits is an income redistribution scheme. Collecting taxes to pay for a standing army is an income redistribution scheme.

We have more idiots on this board than should be allowed by statistical chance, particularly right wing ones.

-Robert

Exxon mobil pays more federal income tax than the bottom ~34 million taxpayers in this nation.

And Exxon receives more socialist Marxist welfare than ANY taxpayer in this country

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: chess9
We've had a major redistribution of wealth the last 8 years. It's time to change the direction of the flow. Tax policy is a rational means of accomplishing that goal. Regulation of Wall Street is another. Reducing subsidies for large oil companies is yet another. Kapish?

Passing a tax cut for the wealthy is an income redistribution scheme. Giving Exxon billions of dollars in special tax credits is an income redistribution scheme. Collecting taxes to pay for a standing army is an income redistribution scheme.

We have more idiots on this board than should be allowed by statistical chance, particularly right wing ones.

-Robert

Exxon mobil pays more federal income tax than the bottom ~34 million taxpayers in this nation.

And Exxon receives more socialist Marxist welfare than ANY taxpayer in this country

What are you talking about?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Budmantom
Obama is a Marxist, Socialist, Communist....... what a surprise.

See palehorse? It's easy to get the peons to mindlessly repeat "SOCIALIST!". Getting them to actually understand the issues is hard. Who has the time really?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
About time you open your eyes.

Look at who the guy pals around with.
Ignore the fact that Ayers was a terrorist and look at his other views. Look at the work ACORN does etc etc.

Obama wins and it is the return of big government.

And even if all that were true, he's still a better choice than McCain and the Republican party. Kinda sad isn't it?

Give me a break about the Ayers nonsense, that is bullshit and you know it. Even the ACORN nonsense isn't worth the time of day, he represented them in a court case along with the US government. He isn't responsible for what the employees of ACORN are out there doing. And you do realize he has to deal with Congress if he wants to enact anything?

I just want to know what the fuck he's trying to say here.

Do you have any clue what Ayers stands for beyond the bombings??

Looked at the ideas in his books about criminal justice?
The guy has admitted to be a communist and a marxist.

Give it a brea....Ayers is a non - issue!

 

[alphatarget1]

Glad I voted for McCain.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Glad I voted for Palin.

:laugh: