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

[Dari]

Did anybody even listen to all 54 minutes? Obama was taking a conservative pov regarding the civil right's actions. Instead of suing, he said it was better for governments to pass laws regarding redistributive rights.

 

[kamiller42]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: kamiller42
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?

Try reading the question again. The question addresses McCain's perspective on spending, not just pork.

0.5% or 0.7% is significant to me. The only the percentages appear small is because the total budget is too high in the first place, which gets me back to the question.

 

[kamiller42]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kamiller42
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.

Just one example of an effort to cut spending? Here's one. Don't forget the Boeing event.

Is Biden for spending cuts? No, he is not even for a freeze, which McCain called for.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: kamiller42

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: kamiller42
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?

Try reading the question again. The question addresses McCain's perspective on spending, not just pork.

0.5% or 0.7% is significant to me. The only the percentages appear small is because the total budget is too high in the first place, which gets me back to the question.

Right, and my response said that if you are basing his perspective on spending on such a small part of the budget, you could end up with a severely wrong conclusion. If I measured your spending on how often you used those gumball machines where you stick a quarter in it and spun the dial, found that you never used those, and then used that information to state that you were an exceptionally frugal man, surely you can see how my conclusion could be flawed.

Funny that you should mention the huge size of the budget, because McCain has shown absolutely no interest in reducing the size of the programs that make it so large. (SS, Medicare, defense spending) McCain's centerpiece when it comes to budget matters is his war on less than 1% of spending. Color me underwhelmed.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Funny that you should mention the huge size of the budget, because McCain has shown absolutely no interest in reducing the size of the programs that make it so large. (SS, Medicare, defense spending) McCain's centerpiece when it comes to budget matters is his war on less than 1% of spending. Color me underwhelmed.

Tell that to Obama!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...tics/main4529142.shtml

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that Republican rival John McCain wants to cut $882 billion from Medicare over a decade to finance his health care plan and the result would be more costly drugs, diminished services and lower quality care for seniors.

"It's entirely consistent with Sen. McCain's record during his 26 years in Congress where, time and again, he's opposed Medicare," Obama said. "In fact, Sen. McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times."

Campaign officials said the $882 billion estimate was drawn in part from a study by the Center for American Progress, a public policy organization stocked with prominent Democrats.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Funny that you should mention the huge size of the budget, because McCain has shown absolutely no interest in reducing the size of the programs that make it so large. (SS, Medicare, defense spending) McCain's centerpiece when it comes to budget matters is his war on less than 1% of spending. Color me underwhelmed.

Tell that to Obama!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...tics/main4529142.shtml

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that Republican rival John McCain wants to cut $882 billion from Medicare over a decade to finance his health care plan and the result would be more costly drugs, diminished services and lower quality care for seniors.

"It's entirely consistent with Sen. McCain's record during his 26 years in Congress where, time and again, he's opposed Medicare," Obama said. "In fact, Sen. McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times."

Campaign officials said the $882 billion estimate was drawn in part from a study by the Center for American Progress, a public policy organization stocked with prominent Democrats.

So McCain is gonna cut Medicare? Why isn't he campaigning on that? Seems like an impotant policy direction that people should consider when voting.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Funny that you should mention the huge size of the budget, because McCain has shown absolutely no interest in reducing the size of the programs that make it so large. (SS, Medicare, defense spending) McCain's centerpiece when it comes to budget matters is his war on less than 1% of spending. Color me underwhelmed.

Tell that to Obama!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...tics/main4529142.shtml

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that Republican rival John McCain wants to cut $882 billion from Medicare over a decade to finance his health care plan and the result would be more costly drugs, diminished services and lower quality care for seniors.

"It's entirely consistent with Sen. McCain's record during his 26 years in Congress where, time and again, he's opposed Medicare," Obama said. "In fact, Sen. McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times."

Campaign officials said the $882 billion estimate was drawn in part from a study by the Center for American Progress, a public policy organization stocked with prominent Democrats.

So McCain is gonna cut Medicare? Why isn't he campaigning on that? Seems like an impotant policy direction that people should consider when voting.

Obama is doing it for him. McCain doesn't have as much money.

Frankly, its the best reason I can think of to vote for a candidate.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Funny that you should mention the huge size of the budget, because McCain has shown absolutely no interest in reducing the size of the programs that make it so large. (SS, Medicare, defense spending) McCain's centerpiece when it comes to budget matters is his war on less than 1% of spending. Color me underwhelmed.

Tell that to Obama!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...tics/main4529142.shtml

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that Republican rival John McCain wants to cut $882 billion from Medicare over a decade to finance his health care plan and the result would be more costly drugs, diminished services and lower quality care for seniors.

"It's entirely consistent with Sen. McCain's record during his 26 years in Congress where, time and again, he's opposed Medicare," Obama said. "In fact, Sen. McCain has voted against protecting Medicare 40 times."

Campaign officials said the $882 billion estimate was drawn in part from a study by the Center for American Progress, a public policy organization stocked with prominent Democrats.

So McCain is gonna cut Medicare? Why isn't he campaigning on that? Seems like an impotant policy direction that people should consider when voting.

Obama is doing it for him. McCain doesn't have as much money.

Cus he's a socialist who wants the taxpayer to finance his campaign, while Obama is financing his with private sector donations.

 

[midway]

Originally posted by: kamiller42
Don't forget the Boeing event.

Makes it a lot easier to ship American jobs overseas when your advisors are lobbyists for the company you helped get the contract.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Dari
Did anybody even listen to all 54 minutes? Obama was taking a conservative pov regarding the civil right's actions. Instead of suing, he said it was better for governments to pass laws regarding redistributive rights.

Why even bother? The right wing echo chamber as per usual has cherry picked parts, [snip] parts out, and pieced together something that doesn't even come close to resembling what Obama really said and in what context. /shock

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: winnar111
Obama is doing it for him. McCain doesn't have as much money.

Cus he's a socialist who wants the taxpayer to finance his campaign, while Obama is financing his with private sector donations.

Basically.

 

[midway]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: winnar111
Obama is doing it for him. McCain doesn't have as much money.

Cus he's a socialist who wants the taxpayer to finance his campaign, while Obama is financing his with private sector donations.

Basically.

If the shoe fits..

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: Rangoric

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.

RETURN of big government? Which party is for SMALL government?

Libertarians.

Libertarians, knowing they will never be called upon to govern or to make responsible policy decisions, are free to stick to their ideology and shake their fingers at those who do have to make hard decisions affecting real people.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: senseamp

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.

So does that mean we can all soon quit our mundane jobs and a "big government liberal" will take care of our every need? Awsome!

Oh wait... then who's going to harvest the food, catch the fish, butcher the cow, stock the shelf, school the children, care for the sick, police the public, judge the law, jail the criminal, build the house, teller the bank, repair the car, supply the utilities, deliver the mail, truck the goods, take the trash, make the movies, sing the songs, and most of all who's going to make the video games? Agghhh!!!!

Oh wait [again]... Barack Obama is the next messiah... WOOHOO!!!

 

[OrByte]

OK I just listened to Hannity's rant about this particular issue.

TOO FUNNY!!

its soo complex and confusing, its not like its a 4 word quote or something...it damn near took 5 minutes to get through the entire quote over the radio. And by the end of it you still couldn't tell just exactly what Obama said!

yeah, this is the bottom of the barrel stuff we are going through now...too funny!!

thanks Hannity, I laughed all the way home from work.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Pro-Jo, is this just a macro you have? Every time you're called out on your ridiculous guilt by association arguments you just run away. Why? Because you have nothing more than vague insinuation. Remember before when everyone would trash Bush and you (correctly) asked for evidence to support their claims? Do you really think you would have taken your current standard of evidence as good enough? Really?

As for the Obama wealth redistribution thing, his only fault here is through use of terminology. Every time the government takes in a tax dollar and spends it, it is redistributing wealth. Having programs that attempt to prevent the rise of a permanent underclass in America is a pretty damn good idea I think, but it is a redistribution of wealth. You never see people crying about when we redistribute our wealth to Halliburton, military contractors, etc? Often these sums are far larger than anything we spent on the black community, but hey... that's redistributing to the rich. Apparently that's okay, they make jobs after all!

****Shakes head****

Some people just don't get it.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

Most likely folks will be disappointed because nothing much changed. We'll be out of Iraq, possibly out of the *istans but that's about it. Electing Obama is about binding the wounds, not about walking on water. No messiah, just a guy trying to stop the insanity of Republican rule.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Pro-Jo, is this just a macro you have? Every time you're called out on your ridiculous guilt by association arguments you just run away. Why? Because you have nothing more than vague insinuation. Remember before when everyone would trash Bush and you (correctly) asked for evidence to support their claims? Do you really think you would have taken your current standard of evidence as good enough? Really?

As for the Obama wealth redistribution thing, his only fault here is through use of terminology. Every time the government takes in a tax dollar and spends it, it is redistributing wealth. Having programs that attempt to prevent the rise of a permanent underclass in America is a pretty damn good idea I think, but it is a redistribution of wealth. You never see people crying about when we redistribute our wealth to Halliburton, military contractors, etc? Often these sums are far larger than anything we spent on the black community, but hey... that's redistributing to the rich. Apparently that's okay, they make jobs after all!

****Shakes head****

Some people just don't get it.

He has a point IN THAT INSTANCE. All that money going to private companies (Military Industrial Complex) could be much better spent on infrastructure here within the US. I'll never argue against that. But what I will argue against is the redistribution of wealth coming from the common man. Those that may have decent jobs or businesses that make $250k or more a year. Remove the tax loopholes for all the very wealthy but offer incentives for companies that BRING BACK their factories that they had shipped overseas because of tax or labor reasons. We need to rebuild the infrastructure of the US but I don't think Obama will be the man to do it.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

Most likely folks will be disappointed because nothing much changed. We'll be out of Iraq, possibly out of the *istans but that's about it. Electing Obama is about binding the wounds, not about walking on water. No messiah, just a guy trying to stop the insanity of Republican rule.

We won't be leaving either theater of war for at least 5-10 years, regardless of who we elect next week...

bet?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: eskimospy

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.

Pro-Jo, is this just a macro you have? Every time you're called out on your ridiculous guilt by association arguments you just run away. Why? Because you have nothing more than vague insinuation. Remember before when everyone would trash Bush and you (correctly) asked for evidence to support their claims? Do you really think you would have taken your current standard of evidence as good enough? Really?

As for the Obama wealth redistribution thing, his only fault here is through use of terminology. Every time the government takes in a tax dollar and spends it, it is redistributing wealth. Having programs that attempt to prevent the rise of a permanent underclass in America is a pretty damn good idea I think, but it is a redistribution of wealth. You never see people crying about when we redistribute our wealth to Halliburton, military contractors, etc? Often these sums are far larger than anything we spent on the black community, but hey... that's redistributing to the rich. Apparently that's okay, they make jobs after all!

****Shakes head****

Some people just don't get it.

We get it just fine. You're the one who doesn't get it because you drank the koolaid. The Pubs and Dems are both big govt parties, just slightly different forms of big govt.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

Most likely folks will be disappointed because nothing much changed. We'll be out of Iraq, possibly out of the *istans but that's about it. Electing Obama is about binding the wounds, not about walking on water. No messiah, just a guy trying to stop the insanity of Republican rule.

We won't be leaving either theater of war for at least 5-10 years, regardless of who we elect next week...

bet?

That will depend upon our ability to finance the effort. Our annual military budget is very close to our annual deficit...

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

He still has an election to win

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

Most likely folks will be disappointed because nothing much changed. We'll be out of Iraq, possibly out of the *istans but that's about it. Electing Obama is about binding the wounds, not about walking on water. No messiah, just a guy trying to stop the insanity of Republican rule.

We won't be leaving either theater of war for at least 5-10 years, regardless of who we elect next week...

bet?

Regroup and find a real leader and it could be done in two, the consequences of Iraqi leadership will ALWAYS be the same regardless but we can eradicate the Taliban and cut off the support routes with or without help.

It's Obamas plan and i've heard none better in 7 years.

Oh, and... you were right and i was wrong... so, THERE i said it... now shut up..

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I think the Obama crowd will react one of two different ways in 4yrs. Either they will be appalled by the vast economic changes he made (something like a dictator) or they will be apologists.

Most likely folks will be disappointed because nothing much changed. We'll be out of Iraq, possibly out of the *istans but that's about it. Electing Obama is about binding the wounds, not about walking on water. No messiah, just a guy trying to stop the insanity of Republican rule.

We won't be leaving either theater of war for at least 5-10 years, regardless of who we elect next week...

bet?

Regroup and find a real leader and it could be done in two, the consequences of Iraqi leadership will ALWAYS be the same regardless but we can eradicate the Taliban and cut off the support routes with or without help.

It's Obamas plan and i've heard none better in 7 years.

Oh, and... you were right and i was wrong... so, THERE i said it... now shut up..

LOL! right on bro.