NObama: Marxist Ideology in America?

[PuroAztlan]

This thread makes people want to vote for Obama.

[sevfiv]

Again folks, please try to use some consideration and tact before hitting the "add reply" key.

[TJones]

Best part of the Debate last night was Obama QUICKLY changing the subject to "who he hangs out with now." As if it doesn't matter who or what his past is about. Maybe that's the CHANGE Obama has been spewing about ? Obama wants to CHANGE the subject if he isn't projected in a good light ?

[VicMan]

Vines, he could send his kids to public school... in DC, Maryland, or Virginia.

The last presidential child to attend public school was Amy Carter, who went to a middle school in DC.

the real question that will show what Obama really is

will Obama send his two daughters to the total ghetto hell holes that are DC public schools or will Obama go the private school route

I have no doubt that Obama will send HIS "chilwren" to private schools and you will hear all kinds of BS excuses about security and not wanting to disrupt other "chilwerns" educations, but we (as in anyone with a brain) will know that is totally 100% BS and that Obama thinks his kids are too good for ghetto DC indoctrination while no one else needs to bother to have a vocher for choice for their kids because the ignorant leftist will take care of indoctrinating them just fine in failed ghetto hell hole schools

[TexasVines]

Vines, he could send his kids to public school... in DC, Maryland, or Virginia.

The last presidential child to attend public school was Amy Carter, who went to a middle school in DC.

wait you are kidding me....you mean the clintons would not send precious chesely to DC public hell hole schools

why would Obama send his daughters to DC or Maryland......what excatly would be wrong with the wonderful public schools in DC that would make Obama want to CHOOSE another area to send his kids....yet deny anyone else that choice.....sort of like the clintons

[VicMan]

Vines: Yeah - the Clintons sent Chelsea to private school.

The Clintons could have sent Chelsea to the DC public school serving Georgetown or to Maryland. There's an article written by a guy who wanted the Clintons to send Chelsea to public school: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m131...v24/ai_13251712 - When she was in Arkansas (incl. when Clinton was governor) Chelsea went to public school.

If Obama goes Maryland, all Obama needs to do, Vines, is that he could ask the Maryland school district to accept a limited number of transfers from Washington DC. The transfers would have to maintain good grades and not get into trouble. As Obama is a former university professor, I am sure that he will have no problem ensuring his kids do well in school.

wait you are kidding me....you mean the clintons would not send precious chesely to DC public hell hole schools

why would Obama send his daughters to DC or Maryland......what excatly would be wrong with the wonderful public schools in DC that would make Obama want to CHOOSE another area to send his kids....yet deny anyone else that choice.....sort of like the clintons

[KinkaidAlum]

Why are we talking about where politicians send their kids to school?

It's almost universal that their kids will go to private schools, whether there be an ® by their name or a (D). This isn't a one-way street, Vines.

[barracuda]

Okay, there's so much nonsense and fearmongering in this thread, I had to jump in.

Obama's history and background is SOAKED in Marxism. Redistribution of wealth, pandering to other dangerous world leaders, unilateral nuclear disarmament, unlimited abortion and ILLEGAL immigration, snide remarks about gun owners and talk radio (which cuts to the core of freedom of speech), etc. But...that doesn't seem to matter to his loyal minions who are brainwashed with the "hope and change" mantra.

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

Pandering to other dangerous world leaders: False. Obama has never claimed nor alluded to a policy of pandering to dangerous leaders. This was McCain putting words in his mouth. Obama has merely stated that he'd be willing to open diplomatic relations in order to deal with issues like national security and trade. President Bush has recently begun following Obama's lead and doing just that.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament: False. Obama has stated that he wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles, not unilaterally disarm. Seems like a good idea to me.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/562/

Unlimited abortion and ILLEGAL immigration: False and False. The unlimited abortion claim is a bogus one that Palin has been spreading during campaign rallies. Obama has even stated publicly that he believes the state can restrict late-term abortions. The idea that Obama prefers illegal immigration is also absurd. Here is his immigration plan.. Here is a statement by Obama on illegal immigration from 2006.

Snide remarks about gun owners and talk radio: Ok, so he may have hurt a few feelings when he suggested that some people cling to guns when they feel bitter. That's not the most elegant statement he's made, but it's probably true. Consider the context...Obama comes from a city rife with gun violence.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/06/...im-stunned.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/chicago_loses_mor...to_gun_violence

And can you blame Obama if he ever made snide remarks about talk radio? These are the people making false claims like

Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born outside the U.S....raised in a foreign school for Islamic extremists...now residing here with his anti-American wife as a sleeper terrorist...working in collaboration with domestic terrorists...he intends to raise everybody’s taxes.

So, if Obama has made a snide comment regarding the people who make these claims, more power to him.

.......and Obama wants to give some of your private property that YOU worked so hard and paid for, to the guy that decided to not work so hard, get a govt. check and go blow his money on indian food and video games. Obama's reasoning being, "Hey, you can afford just a little bit, look how much you got here, SPREAD THE WEALTH ,Comrade."

Again, are you just complaining about the progressive income tax? You should spread that blame with every President since Woodrow Wilson.

[TexasVines]

I brought up where LIBERAL politicans send their kids to school because I believe that teachers unions and ignorant leftist have killed public education in America and I am a strong proponent of vouchers for choice

yet every leftist fool is against vouchers, but when push comes to shove and it is time to put up they always send THEIR "chilwren" to private schools because they know the very systems they champion are failed and suck

and no some contrived plan to send kids to Maryland and let a few others come with them does not impress me....how about giving ALL parents a voucher and letting them making a choice that is best for their "chilwren" and or children

it is amazing some fight so hard for "choice" on abortion then they are so opposed to choice once the child is born

it is all part of marxist "theology"....tell everyone what is best for them then do the opposite for you and yours

again why would Obama need to make some deal with Maryland.....why would he just not send his "chilwren" right to the closest DC public school.....is there something wrong with them?

[RedScare]

I brought up where LIBERAL politicans send their kids to school because I believe that teachers unions and ignorant leftist have killed public education in America and I am a strong proponent of vouchers for choice

I can see why you are angry. Public schools have clearly failed you.

[TheNiche]

Okay, there's so much nonsense and fearmongering in this thread, I had to jump in.

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

Again, are you just complaining about the progressive income tax? You should spread that blame with every President since Woodrow Wilson.

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

[Disastro]

Redistribution of wealth: False. It's absurd to call Obama a socialist based on his tax policy. The United States has been using a progressive income tax since the inception of the modern income tax. Both Republicans and Democrats have supported various progressive income tax models. The top tax bracket has been as hight as 94%, and Obama's plan to restore it to 39.6%, which is less than it was even under most of the Reagan administration. You may prefer calling it redistribution of wealth, but you can't pin this on Obama. The progressive income tax has been around for nearly a century.

No, it IS redistribution of wealth. And I most certainly CAN pin it on Obama and the larger Democratic party. As for the Obama tax cut: It's a LIE. There's no way he can pay for all those socialist programs he wants without raising taxes and he knows that. Again, Democrats and higher taxes are like peanut butter and jelly. Bill Clinton promised a tax cut during his campaigns and it didn't happen. In fact, again...in true Democrat form...he raised them. Nevertheless, taxing the so-called "rich" who make $250,000 a year is only going to help crash the economy. Companies WILL lay people off if the Marxist Obama goes after them...and when they do, it will be OBAMA's fault -- not businesses. Joe the plumber was quite correct about Obama and his tax scheme.

Pandering to other dangerous world leaders: False. Obama has never claimed nor alluded to a policy of pandering to dangerous leaders. This was McCain putting words in his mouth. Obama has merely stated that he'd be willing to open diplomatic relations in order to deal with issues like national security and trade. President Bush has recently begun following Obama's lead and doing just that.

Diplomatic relations with the countries Obama wants to sit down with do not work. An example of that is how Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright pandered to North Korea and a few years later was discovered to have cheated on the agreement and then even tested a nuclear bomb. Bush also resorted to this kind of pandering and it failed for him as well. The reason? These people have their agenda and no amount of begging and pandering will change their agenda. Begging and pandering only gives them more time to develop and test their weapons. Iran should be given an ultimatum -- not the prestige of meeting with a US diplomatic attache and given more time to threaten to wipe Israel off the map (as they've vowed to do almost weekly). This sort of thing will become the norm under Obama -- who will be perceived as weak and will not hold any credibility.

Russia is on the march. NOT because of anything the West has or has not done (or has proposed doing) but because Russia is still the same old Russia. McCain was quite correct when he said he saw a K, a G, and a B when looked in Putin's eyes. Now we have Medvedev, Putin's puppet, but the strategic goals of Russia have never changed. Last weekend they tested THREE ICBMs and landed them in the Pacific (which they had not done since the Cold War "ended").

Obama is naive and weak. Our enemies know that as well as I do. I don't want the guy in there. He'll put us all at risk from a national security standpoint.

Unilateral nuclear disarmament: False. Obama has stated that he wants to reduce nuclear stockpiles, not unilaterally disarm. Seems like a good idea to me.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/562/

It might seem like a good idea to you (it might SOUND good, but it's not reality) -- and to me -- but our enemies will never agree to it -- or at least cheat on it. Russia has never signed a treaty it didn't cheat on. Neither has North Korea as I pointed out above. And this is why Russia would prefer Obama in the White House over McCain. They know McCain will be tougher.

Here's one of Obama's naieve diatribes on disarmament:

Unlimited abortion and ILLEGAL immigration: False and False. The unlimited abortion claim is a bogus one that Palin has been spreading during campaign rallies. Obama has even stated publicly that he believes the state can restrict late-term abortions. The idea that Obama prefers illegal immigration is also absurd. Here is his immigration plan.. Here is a statement by Obama on illegal immigration from 2006.

Some words from Obama on illegal immigration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUDGjchVNtM

McCain is just as bad on this subject, so by no means am I singling out Obama on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN3ab-dY2E0

Snide remarks about gun owners and talk radio: Ok, so he may have hurt a few feelings when he suggested that some people cling to guns when they feel bitter. That's not the most elegant statement he's made, but it's probably true. Consider the context...Obama comes from a city rife with gun violence.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/06/...im-stunned.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/chicago_loses_mor...to_gun_violence

And can you blame Obama if he ever made snide remarks about talk radio? These are the people making false claims like So, if Obama has made a snide comment regarding the people who make these claims, more power to him.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Period.

There are no excuses for Obama's views on gun ownership...and particularly his condescending comment about the people of Pennsylvania.

There haven't been any false claims about Obama on talk radio. All the claims can be substantiated or at least merit investigation. But, unfortunately, Obama feeds many of these claims himself by avoiding the topics or using deflection -- or providing half-explanations. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama seems to have a lot to hide -- particularly with regard to his past associations with rather nefarious individuals. Can you imagine the uproar if McCain had served on a committee or launched his political career from the home of Timothy McVeigh? Such is the nature of Obamas past with Ayers. Definitely of no less import! Or if McCain had spent time hanging out with the KKK. But there have been plenty of bogus false racism claims by the Obama camp with regard to statements by Sarah Palin, etc. Additionally, secret service has said today that his claim that someone at a McCain rally called for "killing Obama" were false or at least unsubstantiated. Bogus claims coming from talk radio listeners are quickly shot down on talk radio...at least by the hosts.

Remember, when Obama cracks down on free speech (as his minions have) with regard to his infamous "truth squads" in Missouri -- it won't be long before the USA under an Obama administration will see things such as the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" implemented. That will be just the beginning. Do you believe free speech should be protected (in ALL instances -- not just when liberals speak.) or not? What you give up now will come back to bite you in the butt later.:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0...h_squads_2.html

[memebag]

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

So Adam Smith was socialist before the word "socialism" was invented?

[crunchtastic]

Progressive taxation has existed throughout history, long before 'socialism' came about.

The Romans created the inheritance tax to fund the military. For some juicy examples read English history circa 15th century.

You may not like the idea of progessive taxation, but don't blame it on the 'socialists.'

[Disastro]

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

On this, we agree Niche!

Look, I think BOTH parties have failed us on this issue...as they have on more than one issue!

I just firmly believe a drastic REDUCTION of taxes at all levels is what is called for to spur economic growth. I've always believed that and it's a simple economic truism that our government REFUSES to accept or impliment.

Cut and eliminate programs (Government just can't give up it's "crack" of sticking it's hand into your wallet!) and go to either a consumption tax or a FAIR and binding flat tax.

I am convinced that's the only way to go, but government has to give up its addiction to YOUR income. They've even got some of our citizens indoctrinated into thinking the government has a right to dip it's paws into our income...that was never the intent of the founding fathers and it's a patently FALSE belief that such a right exists.

We all pay taxes, but we all do so under duress.

Nobody likes it or the current system but nobody seems to want to "kick the habit".

Why?

Progressive taxation has existed throughout history, long before 'socialism' came about.

The Romans created the inheritance tax to fund the military. For some juicy examples read English history circa 15th century.

You may not like the idea of progessive taxation, but don't blame it on the 'socialists.'

Taxation is the means by which the wealth is redistributed, so YES -- I do blame it on the socialists.

Please don't try to muddy up the waters Crunch...

If you can believe tanks are going to roll through the streets I know you can accept this simple concept.

[RedScare]

I just firmly believe a drastic REDUCTION of taxes at all levels is what is called for to spur economic growth. I've always believed that and it's a simple economic truism that our government REFUSES to accept or impliment.

Perhaps because it is untrue, but don't let that stop you. It hasn't stopped you on any of your other claims.

[Disastro]

Perhaps because it is untrue, but don't let that stop you. It hasn't stopped you on any of your other claims.

That post was the equivalent of you putting your hands over your ears and saying "blah! blah! blah! blah! I'm not listening to you" or the ever popular "Liar, liar, pants on fire".

Highly intellectual stuff, that...

[TheNiche]

On this, we agree Niche!

Look, I think BOTH parties have failed us on this issue...as they have on more than one issue!

I just firmly believe a drastic REDUCTION of taxes at all levels is what is called for to spur economic growth. I've always believed that and it's a simple economic truism that our government REFUSES to accept or impliment.

Cut and eliminate programs (Government just can't give up it's "crack" of sticking it's hand into your wallet!) and go to either a consumption tax or a FAIR and binding flat tax.

I am convinced that's the only way to go, but government has to give up its addiction to YOUR income. They've even got some of our citizens indoctrinated into thinking the government has a right to dip it's paws into our income...that was never the intent of the founding fathers and it's a patently FALSE believe that such a right exists.

We all pay taxes, but we all do so under duress.

Nobody likes it or the current system but nobody seems to want to "kick the habit".

Why?

Taxation is the means by which the wealth is redistributed, so YES -- I do blame it on the socialists.

Please don't try to muddy up the waters Crunch...

If you can believe tanks are going to roll through the streets I know you can accept this simple concept.

Firstly, I'd like to distance myself from disastro...especially the bolded statements. I do not agree with what he's getting at. Government spending is not in and of itself a bad thing, insofar as it is managed responsibly.

My chief objection to a progressive income tax is that people who pay more ought to receive a commensurate level of government services. Likewise, those that pay nothing should receive nothing. This is government-enforced charity--which if it were carried out by a private citizen would be considered theft. More importantly, that the government is engaging in theft and redistribution is an indicator that they are adopting a kind of morality to the exclusion of individual opinions. I oppose the redistribution of wealth on the same basis that I oppose them condoning marriage (gay or not), restricting abortion of any sort, or that they would provide any sort of free healthcare to anybody. My position is that it is not their place to make or encourage such decisions that are better left to individuals.

EDIT: But I will give disastro credit...he does advance his position whereas most other people are just make irrelevent quips aimed at deflating his credibility, that are irrelevent to the point, or that are out-and-out personal attacks. In that sense, I've got to respect him...even if I really, really, really disagree with his reasoning.

[TexasVines]

I can see why you are angry. Public schools have clearly failed you.

how do you know I went to public schools

and if by "failing me" you mean I don't subscribe to the crap obama throws out then I think they served me just fine

[barracuda]

There is no falsehood, there. It was socialist policy when it was implemented, it has been socialist policy supported by both parties, it is socialist policy today, and it will be socialist policy when it is contorted by Obama such as he proposes. There is no question as to what it is or that it has enjoyed broad bipartisan political support. The point of contention as it pertains to this particular presidential election is whether it should be a milder form or more extreme form of socialist policy.

Your counterargument seems to address semantics and provides some history; it fails to address the crux of the matter. In fact, by my reading, it looks like you're saying "It is absurd to call Obama a socialist because he's only more extreme of a socialist than the other candidate." That's pretty weak.

What's absurd is to suddenly call out Obama as the socialist when previous administrations have supported far greater disparities in income taxes. If a widely progressive tax code is the simple definition of a socialist President, then Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan were far more socialist than Obama.

[RedScare]

That post was the equivalent of you putting your hands over your ears and saying "blah! blah! blah! blah! I'm not listening to you" or the ever popular "Liar, liar, pants on fire".

Highly intellectual stuff, that...

Knowing that making a simple google search would have flooded your computer screen with studies that show that your incredibly oversimplified statement is incorrect, it is clear to me that you are uninterested in knowing the truth, but rather wish to make ideological statements without regard to their accuracy. I can think of no reason whatsoever why I would wish to waste my time proving it, especially knowing that you would simply not read them. You know where the google button is if you'd rather know the truth.

[RedScare]

My chief objection to a progressive income tax is that people who pay more ought to receive a commensurate level of government services. Likewise, those that pay nothing should receive nothing.

The argument can be made that those who pay more in taxes receive MUCH MORE in government services. The $2 Trillion in bailout money is going to pump up banks that are owned by the wealthy, and hold deposits of the wealthy. The bailout is also aimed at calming the stock markets that are invested with wealthy money. The military advances the economic footprint of the US, a bonus to the wealthy. The police protect the wealthy from the poor thieves. In fact, police departments rarely investigate wealthy thieves, for a variety of reasons. The list goes on.

The poor can benefit from some of these same institutions, but at a far reduced level. Some estimates of military spending...direct and indirect...have reached fully ONE-HALF of all federal spending. If the United States were not far and away the wealthiest nation on earth, very little of that military spending would be needed, as we would have little need to expand our economic footprint, and would have few enemies.

[TheNiche]

What's absurd is to suddenly call out Obama as the socialist when previous administrations have supported far greater disparities in income taxes. If a widely progressive tax code is the simple definition of a socialist President, then Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon and even Reagan were far more socialist than Obama.

I could go on for pages on the historical context of each of those presidential administrations but it would all be besides the point. Elections are not (or at least should not be) a referendum on the past.

Going forward, we are faced with a decision to chose either a milder or more extreme proponent of socialist policy.

The argument can be made that those who pay more in taxes receive MUCH MORE in government services. The $2 Trillion in bailout money is going to pump up banks that are owned by the wealthy, and hold deposits of the wealthy. The bailout is also aimed at calming the stock markets that are invested with wealthy money. The military advances the economic footprint of the US, a bonus to the wealthy. The police protect the wealthy from the poor thieves. In fact, police departments rarely investigate wealthy thieves, for a variety of reasons. The list goes on.

The poor can benefit from some of these same institutions, but at a far reduced level. Some estimates of military spending...direct and indirect...have reached fully ONE-HALF of all federal spending. If the United States were not far and away the wealthiest nation on earth, very little of that military spending would be needed, as we would have little need to expand our economic footprint, and would have few enemies.

Red, a weak economy hurts poor people the most. They have very little in the way of savings and end up getting crowded out of the labor market. Check out historical BLS data.

[RedScare]

Red, a weak economy hurts poor people the most. They have very little in the way of savings and end up getting crowded out of the labor market. Check out historical BLS data.

That is a separate argument from my post, one in which I do not necessarily disagree.

[barracuda]

No, it IS redistribution of wealth. And I most certainly CAN pin it on Obama and the larger Democratic party. As for the Obama tax cut: It's a LIE. There's no way he can pay for all those socialist programs he wants without raising taxes and he knows that. Again, Democrats and higher taxes are like peanut butter and jelly. Bill Clinton promised a tax cut during his campaigns and it didn't happen. In fact, again...in true Democrat form...he raised them. Nevertheless, taxing the so-called "rich" who make $250,000 a year is only going to help crash the economy. Companies WILL lay people off if the Marxist Obama goes after them...and when they do, it will be OBAMA's fault -- not businesses. Joe the plumber was quite correct about Obama and his tax scheme.

Either candidate will have a tough time managing the economic mess left in the wake of the Bush administration. They will both have to work with a budget deficit if they want to run the government and even partially implement their spending plans. The increase in income taxes for those making more than $250,000 is not likely to hurt those people. But there are only so many ways to argue this point. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. If I made over $250,000 a year I would be pretty thrilled even though that next level of income was taxed higher.

Diplomatic relations with the countries Obama wants to sit down with do not work. An example of that is how Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright pandered to North Korea and a few years later was discovered to have cheated on the agreement and then even tested a nuclear bomb. Bush also resorted to this kind of pandering and it failed for him as well. The reason? These people have their agenda and no amount of begging and pandering will change their agenda. Begging and pandering only gives them more time to develop and test their weapons. Iran should be given an ultimatum -- not the prestige of meeting with a US diplomatic attache and given more time to threaten to wipe Israel off the map (as they've vowed to do almost weekly). This sort of thing will become the norm under Obama -- who will be perceived as weak and will not hold any credibility.

Russia is on the march. NOT because of anything the West has or has not done (or has proposed doing) but because Russia is still the same old Russia. McCain was quite correct when he said he saw a K, a G, and a B when looked in Putin's eyes. Now we have Medvedev, Putin's puppet, but the strategic goals of Russia have never changed. Last weekend they tested THREE ICBMs and landed them in the Pacific (which they had not done since the Cold War "ended").

Obama is naive and weak. Our enemies know that as well as I do. I don't want the guy in there. He'll put us all at risk from a national security standpoint.

Right. The Bush Doctrine has been a disaster. We have created terrorists where previously there were none. We have let the leader of a terrorist organization that attacked on our own soil get away with it and train more terrorists. A world that once respected and admired the United States now prefers to spit in our face. Our dollar is weak, our economy is crumbling, and our power is beginning to wane. The last thing we need is another Bush style foreign policy which you seem to be advocating. This only deters our allies and strengthens the resolve of our enemies to fight back. Giving Iran ultimatums only encourages to work harder on their nuclear program. Yes, we use our military power, but only when warranted and not preemptively.

We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Period.

There are no excuses for Obama's views on gun ownership...and particularly his condescending comment about the people of Pennsylvania.

Yes, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling confirms that. But this obsession with gun rights just never makes sense to me. Everyone knows this amendment was written for a bygone era, and I don't personally think the right to bear guns deserves a sacred level of protection over the lives of humans. The power and extremist nature of gun advocates and the NRA seems to thwart serious rational discourse on the topic. Besides, it's not a priority for Obama and he's not about to take anyone's guns away, so I wouldn't worry about it.

There haven't been any false claims about Obama on talk radio. All the claims can be substantiated or at least merit investigation. But, unfortunately, Obama feeds many of these claims himself by avoiding the topics or using deflection -- or providing half-explanations. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Obama seems to have a lot to hide -- particularly with regard to his past associations with rather nefarious individuals. Can you imagine the uproar if McCain had served on a committee or launched his political career from the home of Timothy McVeigh? Such is the nature of Obamas past with Ayers. Definitely of no less import! Or if McCain had spent time hanging out with the KKK. But there have been plenty of bogus false racism claims by the Obama camp with regard to statements by Sarah Palin, etc. Additionally, secret service has said today that his claim that someone at a McCain rally called for "killing Obama" were false or at least unsubstantiated. Bogus claims coming from talk radio listeners are quickly shot down on talk radio...at least by the hosts.

I highly doubt that. Many pundits and talk radio personalities walk a fine line between fact and fiction to develop a story. The lies perpetrated by Rush Limbaugh could fill books. But then again, I can't stomach listening to these hateful windbags, so I'll just have to disagree on this.

[TheNiche]

That is a separate argument from my post, one in which I do not necessarily disagree.

Yep, I only responded to that portion of your post that seemed to have relevence to the one you were responding to.

[Subdude]

There have been a couple of complaints about the tone and posters in this thread.

1) Keep it civil and make the effort to behave like gentlemen. 2) Don't respond to trolls - it only encourages them.

[Disastro]

Firstly, I'd like to distance myself from disastro...especially the bolded statements. I do not agree with what he's getting at. Government spending is not in and of itself a bad thing, insofar as it is managed responsibly.

My chief objection to a progressive income tax is that people who pay more ought to receive a commensurate level of government services. Likewise, those that pay nothing should receive nothing. This is government-enforced charity--which if it were carried out by a private citizen would be considered theft. More importantly, that the government is engaging in theft and redistribution is an indicator that they are adopting a kind of morality to the exclusion of individual opinions. I oppose the redistribution of wealth on the same basis that I oppose them condoning marriage (gay or not), restricting abortion of any sort, or that they would provide any sort of free healthcare to anybody. My position is that it is not their place to make or encourage such decisions that are better left to individuals.

EDIT: But I will give disastro credit...he does advance his position whereas most other people are just make irrelevent quips aimed at deflating his credibility, that are irrelevent to the point, or that are out-and-out personal attacks. In that sense, I've got to respect him...even if I really, really, really disagree with his reasoning.

Niche,

Why would you want to "distance yourself"? The truth is the truth and I don't think we're that far apart on the issues. You may not always agree with my method of delivery or the exact words I choose but I think we are close to agreement on some things. True, we disagree on some though...and at the risk of starting another heated exchange, I will refrain from pointing those out.

Give me a break...I am trying to "reach across the aisle"...are you gonna chop my hand off when I do?

[Disastro]

Either candidate will have a tough time managing the economic mess left in the wake of the Bush administration. They will both have to work with a budget deficit if they want to run the government and even partially implement their spending plans. The increase in income taxes for those making more than $250,000 is not likely to hurt those people. But there are only so many ways to argue this point. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. If I made over $250,000 a year I would be pretty thrilled even though that next level of income was taxed higher.

I won't defend Bush on the things he doesn't deserve defending on (because, believe me, I am no Bush fan) but I'm not going to sit by and let a Democrat whitewash of the economic situation go unchallenged. We all know Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer had a lot to do with the imposition on financial institutions of granting mortgages and loans to people based on socio-economic status. The practice was put in place to make it easier for lower-income people to get loans. Many of these defaulted as they should never have had loans they were unable to pay. Also, the Democratic insiders at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said all along they fine. Now, either they were lieing about that or incredibly incompetent. Either way, the Democrats were in bed with these people and had the blankets pulled up over their heads.

With regard to income taxes, you seem to be saying "well, they have enough money -- they can afford it". Well, what you don't seem to recognize is the basic fact that it's not the governments business to decide who can afford what and it's not the government's business to dip into our wallets. And it doesn't matter if you make 10K a year or a million a year -- that still holds true. Taking from the so-called rich and giving to the government machine is socialism. And this kind of aggressive pursuit of business owners is going to HURT the economy even more -- again, through layoffs. By no means is this going to stimulate the flow of capital >> which stimulates spending >> which stimulates job creation/growth. Families making $250,000 a year are NOT rich either.

Also, what is not included or considered are geographic factors. $250,000/year in Texas is a lot of money...still not "rich"...but in California it's chickenfeed because money doesn't go as far there. So, how will the "messiah" Obama adjust for these factors?

Right. The Bush Doctrine has been a disaster. We have created terrorists where previously there were none. We have let the leader of a terrorist organization that attacked on our own soil get away with it and train more terrorists. A world that once respected and admired the United States now prefers to spit in our face. Our dollar is weak, our economy is crumbling, and our power is beginning to wane. The last thing we need is another Bush style foreign policy which you seem to be advocating. This only deters our allies and strengthens the resolve of our enemies to fight back. Giving Iran ultimatums only encourages to work harder on their nuclear program. Yes, we use our military power, but only when warranted and not preemptively.

Yeah, as I've said repeatedly since 9/11, why is Bush an S.O.B. for defending this country? You can't defend the national security of the US in a courtroom! Bush took the war to the terrorists (albeit, ineptly in my opinion) and I APPLAUD and CONGRATULATE him on that -- and to hell with any of the other countries that don't like it! Don't give a rat's bottom what they think! And neither should any of us. A LOT of the so-called "lack of respect" comes from subversive agents from Russia, brainless MoveOn.org types and their willing accomplices in the US media (borderline or full-fledged communists who don't even know from whence the their own thinking comes from due to indoctrination) who thrive on generating anti-US propaganda and building anti-US concensus.

American lives come before those in countries that harbor terrorists or even other countries that plot aggression against us. History has proven talking doesn't accomplish anything.

Smack em (terrorist states and others that plot aggression) down and smack em down hard (tactical nukes) at the first sign of trouble, I say...particularly those with a historical record of mischief and aggression.

Whatever it takes to defend and preserve the citizens of the US...and NO apologies for it! If Europe wants to be sitting ducks...that's their business.

Yes, the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling confirms that. But this obsession with gun rights just never makes sense to me. Everyone knows this amendment was written for a bygone era, and I don't personally think the right to bear guns deserves a sacred level of protection over the lives of humans. The power and extremist nature of gun advocates and the NRA seems to thwart serious rational discourse on the topic. Besides, it's not a priority for Obama and he's not about to take anyone's guns away, so I wouldn't worry about it.

Well, I'm not a "gun nut" but I recognize the need for them and the right to have them. When the Constitution talks about the right to bear arms, it's not referring to your right to go deer or duck hunting. It is, in part, a kind of built in national security measure for a worst case and unthinkable scenario in which, say, a dictator came to power in the US and the people themselves had to resort to historical measures to end the oppression.

I highly doubt that. Many pundits and talk radio personalities walk a fine line between fact and fiction to develop a story. The lies perpetrated by Rush Limbaugh could fill books. But then again, I can't stomach listening to these hateful windbags, so I'll just have to disagree on this.

Well, as I suspect will become the norm (as has already been displayed in the media recently) in an "Obama era", any criticism or pointing out of record will be considered "hateful". We're seeing that already just during this campaign. Here, we've got John McCain REGULARLY saying he's going to have a respectful campaign (to the point of FAULT in my opinion) and there has been no discussion from either Palin or McCain about race. Obama's past has been pointed out as a matter of discussion. His voting record has been pointed out as a matter of discussion. Etc.

These things are not "hateful". Pointing out a record and past associations is FAIR GAME. As I've said, certainly if McCain had KKK connections (for example) that would be all the rage in the press -- we'd never hear the end of it and McCain would give up his candidacy in shame ("I'm sorry my friends, but because I have friends in the KKK I am unfit to serve as your President -- my friends"). But, this is how the power mad insidiously begin to turn society into an "online forum" with "moderators". This is the same thing that happened in Nazi Germany and in the Soviet Union.

As Goebels said, (paraphrasing) "If you repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth". This is the philosophy and thinking of the far-left, socialist Democrats.

So, knowing this...calling the truth a lie does not change it from being the truth. Nor is the truth a matter of "hate". You may not like what you hear because it's about "your man" but it's not hate and it's not automatically a "lie" -- if there is evidence to support the claims.

At any rate, I've never heard a talk show personality embrace wild-eyed, conspiracy theory nonsense (AM Coast-to-Coast being the exception). All the ones I have heard quickly reject such nonsense. Now, the multi-source stuff with some "meat" on the story are different matters.

I fully expect Obama and his minions to try to snuff out any criticism during his reign -- should he get in there.

[sarahiki]

Also, what is not included or considered are geographic factors. $250,000/year in Texas is a lot of money...still not "rich"...but in California it's chickenfeed because money doesn't go as far there. So, how will the "messiah" Obama adjust for these factors?

This is really a numbers game, isn't it? It's totally reasonable for anyone making over $250,000, no matter where they live, to worry about their taxes going up. Whether it's Joe the Plumber (he must be one heck of a good plumber, by the way), or someone in California, or someone who is really, really rich. So sure, they might want to vote for McCain.

But what seems clear is that most people in this country don't make that much. And they appear (based on polls) to be realizing that they're not benefitting from Republican policies. YOU may be. Or even if you're not, you may ideologically find them more appealing... so, in case you ever do get rich, nobody will try to take your money. Fine, whatever. But you're outnumbered.

I joked a couple of days ago about being "po'", and therefore voting for Obama. True, I am poor, but you don't have to be poor. You just have to make less than 250K. Whether you call that rich or middle class, those numbers are working out for Obama.