Thread: US Presidential Campaign 2008

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

the creeping Marxisim that would be an Obama POTUS

jesus.

Originally Posted by raycarey

jesus.

Unelectable. Turns the other cheek. Talks to his enemies. Helps people in need regardless of their race or religion. Inexperienced. He was a black Jew. Never owned a gun!!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure."

Hmm, so that makes 25% of the American people "elitists".

No...just dumb, stupid or blind to the creeping Marxisim that would be an Obama POTUS...

What books have you read by Marx (and Engels) Boon?

What policies by Obama was Marxist?



Waiting for your answer.

Originally Posted by Milkman

What policies by Obama was Marxist?

His record as the most Liberal Senator in Congress
His association with Bill Ayers who is an unrepentant bomber.

There is no obvious connection between neither "Liberal" nor "bomber" to "Marxist". You'd need to get further into this than 2 sentences making the assertions.
Which blog did you get this from?

Better still, name a "Marxist" policy of Obama, as requested already.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

His record as the most Liberal Senator in Congress

more liberal than bernie sanders or russ feingold?
just because you have a short term memory problem (considering your advanced age, palliative alzheimer's care might be recommended) doesn't mean that others on this forum realize that this right wing blogger talking point is bullshit.
try again.

again, nice try.

a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).

National Journal's vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine's ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the "most liberal senator" -- even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.

As National Journal's editor wrote back then, "[O]ur magazine -- or, more precisely, our annual congressional vote ratings edition -- has become a Republican talking point in the 2004 presidential campaign. And that's been a fascinating, and disconcerting, experience. Fascinating because we're more used to being cited in congressional hearings than on the Today show. Disconcerting because the shorthand used to describe our ratings of Kerry and Edwards is sometimes misleading -- or just plain wrong."

Is Obama the most liberal senator? - First Read - msnbc.com

No reference to "Marxism", how many bills voted on are in line with Marxist policies?

Originally Posted by stroller

No reference to "Marxism", how many bills voted on are in line with Marxist policies?

I believe the term used in another post was creeping Marxism, eh?

That sniveling two-faced, backstabbing snake, Hilary, is trying to pretend to join Obama on the high road:

Clinton emphatically says Obama can win White House

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 55 minutes ago

PHILADELPHIA - Hillary Rodham Clinton said emphatically Wednesday night that Barack Obama can win the White House this fall, undercutting her efforts to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination by suggesting he would lead the party to defeat.

Asked a similar question about Clinton, Obama said "Absolutely and I've said so before" — a not-so-subtle dig at his rival who had previously declined to make a similar statement about him.

Both Obama and Clinton sidestepped when asked if they would place their rival on the ticket as vice presidential running mate in the fall.
"I think very highly of Senator Clinton's record, but I think it is premature at this point to talk about who the vice presidential candidates will be because we're still trying to determine who the nominee will be," Obama said.

Clinton emphatically says Obama can win White House - Yahoo! News

We'll see if fences can be mended between these two later. If not, one of them may get dumped, and I hope it's the biatch.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

I believe the term used in another post was creeping Marxism, eh?

Curiously you have not given any explanation of what "Marxism" is or any indication how any of his policies might relate to it. But never mind, not everybody can be an intellecshual and express what they mean in more than a one-liner and a link to a blog.

Has this commie 'mole' somehow escaped scrutiny, since the state has turned a blind eye after the demise of good ol' McCarthy? I can see this is probable, after all Ted, Bill and commie Kerry amongst others have spread communist propaganda in the highest of offices before now.
It is time for America to wake up.

Is he being paid by the Soviets to establish a Stalinist regime and destroy America and civilisation, do you reckon?

About the debate today.

Final debate thoughts - First Read - msnbc.com
Posted: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:08 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democratic debates
From NBC's Chuck Todd
This was not a good debate for Obama, period. But it wasn't a great debate for Clinton either. Of course, that may not matter to Team Clinton. In a twp-way debate, it's not about which candidate narrowly wins -- but which candidate gets pummeled in the post-debate reviews. And Obama will get pummeled because well he did get pummeled, a little bit by Clinton and a little bit by the moderators.

In the first 40 minutes of the debate, most of the questioning was on Obama's negatives (except for a lone Bosnia-sniper question to Clinton) and that's what helped create what was a near disastrous performance by Obama in those first 40 minutes. He was weak in a lot of his answers on his personal negatives. (Did he really compare Tom Coburn to a one-time '60s radical/terrorist?) Clinton, meanwhile, piled on, particularly (and surprisingly, actually) on Ayers. While I'm not sure if Clinton's piling on ever is good for her in the long run -- see her current poll standing -- it created some post-debate issues for Obama. Many news organizations will feel compelled to do Ayers stories in the next few days. While some may question the fairness and relevancy of the Ayers issue, it's not going to be good for Obama.

This debate is going to lead a lot of Obama supporters to ratchet up the calls on Clinton to either withdraw or tone down the attacks. Clinton supporters will point to this debate as proof that he's not yet ready for the general, that's why she should stay in, and that's why superdelegates should overturn the winner of pledged delegates.
Overall, with the spotlight on him very bright, Obama didn't step up. He got rattled early on and never picked his game back up. Clinton wasn't very warm (outside of he first few minutes), but she didn't have the spotlight on her very bright. And as we've noted in "First Thoughts" quite a few times, whenever the spotlight is on one candidate, the other seems to benefit. Tonight, the spotlight was on Obama, and for a short period of time, I expect Clinton to benefit. But the question is whether she can sustain any benefit since as the negativity goes on, she pays a bigger price than Obama. Let's see what the PA Dem voting public decides in six days. A big Clinton victory and this debate will be seen as an important turning point, a narrow victory (less than five points) and she could find herself facing more calls to get out.
Could tonight's true winner be John McCain? We're betting that's the unanimous pundit scoring tonight.

and your point?

Originally Posted by stroller

Is he being paid by the Soviets to establish a Stalinist regime and destroy America and civilisation, do you reckon?

No, something even simpler than that - taking more of my money thru tax increases. But hey! True to his liberal bleeding-heart mind-set, we must provide for illegals, the indigent & general nare-do-wells because, you know, they just can't take care of themselves!

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

taking more of my money thru tax increases

The plain fact is the Bush administration has left the US government in such a financial hole, mainly thru' a combination of the tax cuts and the Iraqi fiasco, that whoever gets in is going to need to raise more taxes. Either that or radically cut the expenditure of the US government- which would be nice, but it won't happen. End of story.

When you consider the fact that the US gov't was in surplus when Clinton handed over the reins to Bush, the turnaround is quite staggering. Surely you are bright enough to see that a government or household spending Borrowed funds has to pay it back sometime? And it is you that has to pay it back.

Anyone can repeat simplistic catch phrases, and Collectivist people on the Left and Right regularly do this. It doesn't make them true. As things stand, the facts on the ground show that it is the Democrats that are the party of fiscal discipline and balanced bookkeeping, the Republicans the party of deficit financing, currency debasement and amateurish budgeting. This fact is undeniable when you look at the past four US government Presidential administrations, divided between Clinton and Bush, and their financial record.

So, currently, the Republicans are more Radical than the Democrats, who now stand as the only mainstream Conservative / Centrist party- if you abandon the PR hype, and look at the facts on the ground.

Ultimately though, both parties are Collectivist in nature and Federalist in action. Their actions expose the hollowness of their words- they believe in Big government, Big Government spending, and Federalism or the supreme power of the central government, and it's right to interfere in virtually all aspects of individual life. The Democrats are at least more honest about this fact.

Another laughable piece of blue collar Republican Hype is that the GOP is the party of small government! No US government- certainly not in my lifetime- has increased the power, opacity and lack of accountability of the central government as much as the Bush administration. Nowhere near- so once again, the facts on the ground demonstrate the hollowness of words. Yet how few people see it?

Which brings me to my final observation. Big government encourages stoopid people! Not because it necessarily reduces their ability to think, more that with the massive government resources devoted to PR and advertising (i.e selling their policies and actions), and de facto Central control of the Mass media and Academic establishment, people (who are generally intellectually lazy) just plain do not think for themselves, but as a Collective- not only are they told what to think, but what to think about. Subtly.

I am not a Collectivist, I am an Individualist. So I have to point out- America, you deserve the Government you've got. Your system has been warped and twisted away from under you, leaving most of you powerless and manipulated. It is up to you to take the power back.

Why do you think that the majority of the self described 'Right Wing Individualists' on TD have abandoned the US and live here in Thailand, you great Patriots you! Just as I live here and not in Australia- to many the Nirvana of the western world.

Personally, I want as little as possible to do with central government.

By winning back unhappy GOP voters, McCain makes it a race

By ALAN FRAM and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are no longer underdogs in the race for the White House. To pull that off, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats who shunned his party last fall.

Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.

The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.

Political Pulse | The Associated Press-Yahoo! News Poll on Yahoo! News

The Pennsylvania debate was a shameful mass-media circus. I didn't think anything could approach Fox Network's treatment of Ron Paul, but I agree with Tom Shales, who wrote that the ABC moderators "turned in shoddy, despicable performances":

Ratings, criticism big for ABC presidential debate: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

It was hard to determine last night what was more undignified and nauseating, the ABC moderators egging on the candidates or Hillary Clinton trying to re-invent herself as a gun-toting, Bible thumping populist. She's a frightening human being.

^Yes, that is really the big news today.

Critics ripped ABC journalists Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton staffer, for wasting time during Wednesday's debate on questions like why Obama wasn't wearing an American flag pin or rehashing old disputes.

Shales said the debate, which took place in Philadelphia one week before the crucial Pennsylvania primary, "dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia" and said ABC's coverage seemed slanted toward Clinton.

"Stephanopoulos and Gibson are the worst of hacks. Asinine nincompoopery. I'm glad they were jeered at the end," one poster, identified only as Splendoline, wrote.

ABC criticized for handling of Democratic debate - Yahoo! News

The Ant and the Grasshopper

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays
the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act Retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Be careful how you vote in 2008

^ Once again, stereotype and allegory, plainly negated by the facts on the ground.

The Bush administration has
1- destroyed net wealth for the majority
2- redistributed wealth to the richest 5%, inordinately.

I don't need to write a poem or fable about it, although I realise in this day and age it would probably sell to more people.

^^let's assume for a moment that texpat forgot to include the citation...and wasn't plagiarizing.

True, no link or reference. But it's so trite, are you really bothered ray?

Maybe Stuffalumpomous was just tipping his hat to Clinton and her paranoia about the media showing a bias towards Obama?

I wonder how she'll spin this issue? - Oh never mind the though of Hillary spinning is not that appealing.