View Full Version : President Barack Obama!
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:18 AM
We may have to get used to hearing those terrible words.
To me, its a scary thought, that this man could be elected President of The United States less than 9 months from now. But it's starting to look more and more likely.
Latest poll numbers have Obama leading McCain by an average of 4.5%.
Interestingly, polls show McCain beating Hillary, but losing to Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
I know polls can't always be relied on, but when 6 out of 7 major national polls have Obama winning, that's something we shouldn't totally ignore.
God help America if this ultra-liberal/socialist becomes president.
John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
Poll- Date- Spread
RCP Average 02/07 to 02/20Obama +4.5%
FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022108_release_web.pdf) 02/19 - 02/20 Obama +4%
Hotline/FD (http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/08_Feb_Data.pdf) 02/14 - 02/17 Obama +8%
Reuters/Zogby (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2032989820080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)02/13 - 02/16 Obama +7%
USA Today/Gallup (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/usa-todaygall-1.html?csp=34)02/08 - 02/10 Obama +4%
AP-Ipsos (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080211-3topline.pdf&id=3813) 02/07 - 02/10 Obama +6%
Rasmussen (Sun) (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) 4 Day Tracking McCain +2%
http://bp3.blogger.com/_VEkyyVw2JrU/Rm32YqAueTI/AAAAAAAAAE4/rpRT5Yw2PZc/s320/obama+time+magazine.JPG
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#charts)
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 09:21 AM
he wont get my vote, no socialist will, ever, lol,dt
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:23 AM
And lets not forget the flags of Communist hero Che Guevara (http://www.che-lives.com/home/) in Obama's Houston campaign office.
I'm amazed the media hasn't given this story more attention. Hopefully McCain will during the campaign.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston.jpghttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg
(from http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss)
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:24 AM
Go Obama Go!!!
Do you still feel the same way considering the Che Guevara pictures/flags in his campaign office?
Simple fact is, there is no reason for the Dems to loose this election.
the ONLY thing that should be in Baraks way is his skin color. Or if it is Hillary, her gender.
It appears that as a nation, we might have moved past that bigotry which is a good thing.
But as it relates to this election cycle, we have never elected a president from the same party as a sitting president with an approval rating below 45%.
It simply is an insurmountable hill to climb.
It appears thatObama is about to be handed 4 years to do his deal. Lets just pray the dammage isnt too great.
We may have to get used to hearing those terrible words.
To me, its a scary thought, that this man could be elected President of The United States less than 9 months from now. But it's starting to look more and more likely.
Latest poll numbers have Obama leading McCain by an average of 4.5%.
Interestingly, polls show McCain beating Hillary, but losing to Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
I know polls can't always be relied on, but when 6 out of 7 major national polls have Obama winning, that's something we shouldn't totally ignore.
God help America if this ultra-liberal/socialist becomes president.
John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
Poll- Date- Spread
RCP Average 02/07 to 02/20Obama +4.5%
FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022108_release_web.pdf) 02/19 - 02/20 Obama +4%
Hotline/FD (http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/08_Feb_Data.pdf) 02/14 - 02/17 Obama +8%
Reuters/Zogby (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2032989820080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)02/13 - 02/16 Obama +7%
USA Today/Gallup (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/usa-todaygall-1.html?csp=34)02/08 - 02/10 Obama +4%
AP-Ipsos (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080211-3topline.pdf&id=3813) 02/07 - 02/10 Obama +6%
Rasmussen (Sun) (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) 4 Day Tracking McCain +2%
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#charts)
Yup. I fear that 2008 with McCain is a replay of 1996 with Bob Dole. An elderly Senator who has a history of being a moderate and therefore has no wing of the party excited.
The disappointment and lack of enthusiasm for the Republican nominee is evident in the lackluster turnout among Republicans in the primaries vs. the extraordinarily high turnout for Democrats.
I believe two of the keys to the outcome of the election will be;
1. Can Obama translate the tremendous enthusiasm among young people into actually getting them to show up and vote. Every four years the Dems say so but never deliver.
2. Will enough sensible Republicans and Independents realize what a disaster Obama or Hillary would be for America and work through the malaise to make the effort to vote for McCain.
Do you still feel the same way considering the Che Guevara pictures/flags in his campaign office?
TR, while I dont know if DA is serious, I do know that Che doesnt make the rank and file democrat's stomach turn.
He is one of them. just a little more dangerous.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:28 AM
Simple fact is, there is no reason for the Dems to loose this election.
the ONLY thing that should be in Baraks way is his skin color.
The the skin color thing is less and less of an issue today. But maybe his inexperience is a good reason for him to lose (not to mention his ultra liberal views being out of touch with much of middle America).
I mean, would you give the keys to your Mercedes to someone who just got their drivers license yesterday?
Do you still feel the same way considering the Che Guevara pictures/flags in his campaign office?
The regional office of a political party and it's decor is not not necessarily representative of the candidate ...
Are there pictures of Robert E. Lee in the offices of politicos in South Carolina? There are confederate flags for sure.
Or pictures of David Duke and Strom Thurman in a Republican office.
Let's be real.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:30 AM
TR, while I dont know if DA is serious, I do know that Che doesnt make the rank and file democrat's stomach turn.
True, but he makes the stomachs of not only conservatives, but many moderates, turn.
I think if the Republicans portray Obama as being as far to the left as he really is, he might not be as much of a shoo-in as many people now think.
Jehoram
02-25-2008, 09:31 AM
We may have to get used to hearing those terrible words.
To me, its a scary thought, that this man could be elected President of The United States less than 9 months from now. But it's starting to look more and more likely.
Latest poll numbers have Obama leading McCain by an average of 4.5%.
Interestingly, polls show McCain beating Hillary, but losing to Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
I know polls can't always be relied on, but when 6 out of 7 major national polls have Obama winning, that's something we shouldn't totally ignore.
God help America if this ultra-liberal/socialist becomes president.
John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D)
Poll- Date- Spread
RCP Average 02/07 to 02/20Obama +4.5%
FOX News (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022108_release_web.pdf) 02/19 - 02/20 Obama +4%
Hotline/FD (http://www.diageohotlinepoll.com/08_Feb_Data.pdf) 02/14 - 02/17 Obama +8%
Reuters/Zogby (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2032989820080220?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)02/13 - 02/16 Obama +7%
USA Today/Gallup (http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/02/usa-todaygall-1.html?csp=34)02/08 - 02/10 Obama +4%
AP-Ipsos (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr080211-3topline.pdf&id=3813) 02/07 - 02/10 Obama +6%
Rasmussen (Sun) (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) 4 Day Tracking McCain +2%
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#charts)
Well, what are we to do?
The conservative voice in America is waning.
There are forces in our world beyond our control.
Netanyahu and others feel we have a very short time before radical Islam rules the entire world - including America.
Europe is crumbling under its power, and no one in America seems to have the will necessary to combat its spread.
It truly is comparable to Hitler in 1938. He told everyone his intentions, yet no one believed he would actually follow through with his threats.
These current madmen are serious, and will not rest until we are destroyed.
People get ready, there's a train coming.
And Obama, Clinton and McCain are just minor players with no real will to attempt a defense.
The the skin color thing is less and less of an issue today. But maybe his inexperience is a good reason for him to lose (not to mention his ultra liberal views being out of touch with much of middle America).
I mean, would you give the keys to your Mercedes to someone who just got their drivers license yesterday?
TR, as far as I am concerned a persons skin color means ziltch.
Louisiana just righted a wrong they did by not electing Bobby Jindal 4 years ago. (they just elected him 2 hurricans's too late)
I was mad as a wet hin when he was defeated the last time. and he lost because he was Indian and no other reason.
but I would not vote for Barak Obama for dog catcher. he is a massive liberal with vertually NO experience.
The good news is he is smart. when he utterly fails, they wont be able to blame his lack of intelegence. they will have to accept the fact that it is the stupid liberal policies that are wrong.
TR, as far as I am concerned a persons skin color means ziltch.
Louisiana just righted a wrong they did by not electing Bobby Jindal 4 years ago. (they just elected him 2 hurricans's too late)
I was mad as a wet hin when he was defeated the last time. and he lost because he was Indian and no other reason.
but I would not vote for Barak Obama for dog catcher. he is a massive liberal with vertually NO experience.
The good news is he is smart. when he utterly fails, they wont be able to blame his lack of intelegence. they will have to accept the fact that it is the stupid liberal policies that are wrong.
McKain doesn't have a chance agains the momentum of Obama's candidacy.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:34 AM
The regional office of a political party and it's decor is not not necessarily representative of the candidate ...
Are there pictures of Robert E. Lee in the offices of politicos in South Carolina? There are confederate flags for sure.
Or pictures of David Duke and Strom Thurman in a Republican office.
Let's be real.
I am being real. You're missing my point, unless maybe you're just trying to be contrary as you seem to so often do.
The concept is simple "birds of a feather flock together".
The issue is that by his supporters brazenly having Che Guevara flags for all to see, they're displaying a far-left socialist bent that is out of touch with most of the American population.
Now you get real.. if there was a Nazi flag in Huckabee's campaign office, you dont think it would/should raise eyebrows?
Well, what are we to do?
The conservative voice in America is waning.
There are forces in our world beyond our control.
Netanyahu and others feel we have a very short time before radical Islam rules the entire world - including America.
Europe is crumbling under its power, and no one in America seems to have the will necessary to combat its spread.
It truly is comparable to Hitler in 1938. He told everyone his intentions, yet no one believed he would actually follow through with his threats.
These current madmen are serious, and will not rest until we are destroyed.
People get ready, there's a train coming.
And Obama, Clinton and McCain are just minor players with no real will to attempt a defense.
these are great points.
sadly conservitism is waining because elected conservitives decided they couldnt keep power as cons. that was wrong on their point.
Alter Ego,
I think it is incumbent upon us as Christians to support the canidates who have a reasonable chance of winning that best reflect Christian values. That is really all we can do.
If Christians throw away their votes on fringe 3rd party canidates or stay home on election day they have speeded up the move you described by allowing the election of liberal forces.
An example of this is the effect the midget Perot had on the 1992 election when he split the vote and insured Bill Clinton won even though Clinton had less than 40% of the popular vote.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 09:36 AM
i agree, skin color dont matter, it is what he believes and he believes in socailism, if condi ran i would vote for her in a minute, and she is a woman and............., i rest my case, i vote for the person not the color of there skin, dt
I am being real. You're missing my point, unless maybe you're just trying to be contrary as you seem to so often do.
The concept is simple "birds of a feather flock together".
The issue is that by his supporters brazenly having Che Guevara flags for all to see, they're displaying a far-left socialist bent that is out of touch with most of the American population.
Now you get real.. if there was a Nazi flag in Huckabee's campaign office, you dont think it would/should raise eyebrows?
There are extremists on both sides ... so to use the affinities of those on the extreme is irresponsible ...
Most Americans will vote based on the moderate values they know ... and the beauty of our system is that candidates are accountable to their constituents.
McKain doesn't have a chance agains the momentum of Obama's candidacy.
You may be right but I don't think Obama can keep up the smoke and mirrors in the general election.
He has teeny bobbers all excited but what happens when he starts having to be specific? When he can't just intone "Hope!" and "Change!" at every stop.
There is also a chance that when adult voters start really thinking about a guy with just two years experience in the Senate and just state legislator experience before that heading up America in these difficult times they may prefer McCain.
I agree Obama has great momemtum but remember all of this adoration is from base Democrats who are very left wing anyway.
Mrs. LPW
02-25-2008, 09:37 AM
I am being real. You're missing my point, unless maybe you're just trying to be contrary as you seem to so often do.
The concept is simple "birds of a feather flock together".
The issue is that by his supporters brazenly having Che Guevara flags for all to see, they're displaying a far-left socialist bent that is out of touch with most of the American population.
Now you get real.. if there was a Nazi flag in Huckabee's campaign office, you dont think it would/should raise eyebrows?
Dan is NEVER contrary.. how dare you suggest such a thing!!!!!
:)
:bolt
Mrs. LPW
02-25-2008, 09:39 AM
You may be right but I don't think Obama can keep up the smoke and mirrors in the general election.
He has teeny bobbers all excited but what happens when he starts having to be specific? When he can't just intone "Hope!" and "Change!" at every stop.
There is also a chance that when adult voters start really thinking about a guy with just two years experience in the Senate and just state legislator experience before that heading up America in these difficult times they may prefer McCain.
I agree Obama has great momemtum but remember all of this adoration is from base Democrats who are very left wing anyway.
:toofunny I have got to get out of this thread!!!
Dan is NEVER contrary.. how dare you suggest such a thing!!!!!
:)
:bolt
Lady LPW ... do we want a glorified GNC or do we want divergent views ....
The FORMER IS BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.
Jehoram
02-25-2008, 09:40 AM
Alter Ego,
I think it is incumbent upon us as Christians to support the canidates who have a reasonable chance of winning that best reflect Christian values. That is really all we can do.
If Christians throw away their votes on fringe 3rd party canidates or stay home on election day they have speeded up the move you described by allowing the election of liberal forces.
An example of this is the effect the midget Perot had on the 1992 election when he split the vote and insured Bill Clinton won even though Clinton had less than 40% of the popular vote.
I agree that we should perform our civic duty.
But, in 2008, there are forces at work that will not be denied.
There is a massive shift coming to our world within the next few years. It will impact our nation, the church and our immediate families.
You may be right but I don't think Obama can keep up the smoke and mirrors in the general election.
He has teeny bobbers all excited but what happens when he starts having to be specific? When he can't just intone "Hope!" and "Change!" at every stop.
There is also a chance that when adult voters start really thinking about a guy with just two years experience in the Senate and just state legislator experience before that heading up America in these difficult times they may prefer McCain.
I agree Obama has great momemtum but remember all of this adoration is from base Democrats who are very left wing anyway.
McKain will lose by at least 9-10 point margin against Obama. You heard it here
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:40 AM
The regional office of a political party and it's decor is not not necessarily representative of the candidate ...
Yes, we all know that.
But when the socialists love Obama, then it raises the question: "why"?
And the obvious answer seems to be, that perhaps they think he is one of them, at least that his views are close to theirs on many key issues.
Keep in mind that one of the reasons Howard Dean fell out of favor, and John Kerry rose to replace him as the democratic frontrunner. was that Dean was seen by many as being unelectable for being too far left, and his support by groups like MoveOn.org hurt him.
Pressing-On
02-25-2008, 09:41 AM
Simple fact is, there is no reason for the Dems to loose this election.
the ONLY thing that should be in Baraks way is his skin color. Or if it is Hillary, her gender.
It appears that as a nation, we might have moved past that bigotry which is a good thing.
But as it relates to this election cycle, we have never elected a president from the same party as a sitting president with an approval rating below 45%.
It simply is an insurmountable hill to climb.
It appears thatObama is about to be handed 4 years to do his deal. Lets just pray the dammage isnt too great.
I agree with you Ferd! Good post, so true! Well, if it happens my only consolation is that we wont' have a Clinton in the White House.
On another note, my husband's family are largely Democrats and they are saying that if Obama is the front runner they are voting for McCain. Hmmmm.
Jehoram
02-25-2008, 09:41 AM
You may be right but I don't think Obama can keep up the smoke and mirrors in the general election.
He has teeny bobbers all excited but what happens when he starts having to be specific? When he can't just intone "Hope!" and "Change!" at every stop.
There is also a chance that when adult voters start really thinking about a guy with just two years experience in the Senate and just state legislator experience before that heading up America in these difficult times they may prefer McCain.
I agree Obama has great momemtum but remember all of this adoration is from base Democrats who are very left wing anyway.
There is a lot of dirt in his closet.
But it won't matter.
He will be the next President.
Yes, we all know that.
But when the socialists love Obama, then it raises the question: "why"?
And the obvious answer seems to be, that perhaps they think he is one of them, at least that his views are close to theirs on many key issues.
Keep in mind that one of the reasons Howard Dean fell out of favor, and John Kerry rose to replace him as the democratic frontrunner. was that Dean was seen by many as being unelectable for being too far left, and his support by groups like MoveOn.org hurt him.
Those that have been on the far left have been voting Democrats for years ... Clinton, Carter, etc ....
as there are fascists voting for the conservative Republicans too ...
Let's stop the hysterics ....
Mrs. LPW
02-25-2008, 09:43 AM
Lady LPW ... do we want a glorified GNC or do we want divergent views .... Course not silly!
The FORMER IS BOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.
(that's why I used a smilie)
:gaga
I think I'm overtired, I'm in this strangely giddy mood... that's why a political thread isn't the place for me.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:44 AM
these are great points.
sadly conservatism is waning because elected conservatives decided they couldn't keep power as cons. that was wrong on their point.
Well, I'd say conservatism is waning because American society is becoming more and more liberal (on gay marriage/abortion, etc) and the Repubs feel like if they dont shift toward the left/middle they'll lose all day long to the Democrats.
Its just a political calculation on their part in response to an obvious shift in society's views.
Actually I think conservatism is waning because American society is becoming more and more liberal (on gay marriage/abortion, etc) and the Repubs feel like if they dont shift toward the left/middle they'll lose all day long to the Democrats.
Its just a political calculation on their part in response to an obvious shift in society's views.
This stuff is cyclical. It's based on generations countering the previous generation ... give it 15 years and the pendulum swings again.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:48 AM
Those that have been on the far left have been voting Democrats for years ... Clinton, Carter, etc ....
as there are fascists voting for the conservative Republicans too ...
Let's stop the hysterics ....
No hysterics here. Just speaking the obvious.
Even though those on the far have voted democrat for years, mainstream Democrats dont like to be openly associated with Communists/Socialists.
Similarly, Republicans will always get the Neo-nazi/KKK vote, but they sure don't want any Nazi/KKK flags hanging in their campaign offices.
No hysterics here. Just speaking the obvious.
Even though those on the far have voted democrat for years, mainstream Democrats dont like to be openly associated with Communists/Socialists.
Similarly, Republicans will always get the Neo-nazi/KKK vote, but they sure don't want any Nazi/KKK flags hanging in their campaign offices.
As usual this is usually remedied ... also keep in mind the free speech factor ...
Obama will be the next president ... and I wll vote for him. The first time I will vote for a Democrat in a national election.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 09:53 AM
Those that have been on the far left have been voting Democrats for years ... Clinton, Carter, etc ....
as there are fascists voting for the conservative Republicans too ...
Let's stop the hysterics ....
Dan, with all fairness you misrepresent conservatives by using the term 'fascists'. Fascism has been documented to be the seedbed of the radical left....not the radical right.
As usual this is usually remedied ... also keep in mind the free speech factor ...
Obama will be the next president ... and I wll vote for him. The first time I will vote for a Democrat in a national election.
I had hoped you were just kidding. It is beyond me how any Christian could vote for someone who advocates abortion, gay lifestyle, socialism, etc.
Federal judges appointed by either Hillary or Obama will speed up the liberal social agenda by leaps and bounds.
The logical extension of their agenda is to make any criticism of homosexuality a hate crime so you will see the day when churches will legally be bound to hire gays and if an employee is found to be gay will not legally be able to fire them as it will be "discrimination" and "hate" and "intolerance".
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 09:55 AM
The logical extension of their agenda is to make any criticism of homosexuality a hate crime so you will see the day when churches will legally be bound to hire gays and if an employee is found to be gay will not legally be able to fire them as it will be "discrimination" and "hate" and "intolerance".
Unfortunately you probably will be correct.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:56 AM
This stuff is cyclical. It's based on generations countering the previous generation ... give it 15 years and the pendulum swings again.
I highly doubt it . When gay marriage becomes law it wont be overturned. The pendulum wont swing back on that.
...Just as how although abortion became legal 30+ years ago, it has now become so entrenched into American society that Roe Vs Wade has practically zero chance of being overturned.
Conservatism is based in large part on a foundation Judeo-Christian moral values. As America drifts farther and farther away from that foundation, I don't think that true conservatism will ever swing back to the level of influence it had back in the Ronald Reagan/Moral Majority days of the 80's.
McKain doesn't have a chance agains the momentum of Obama's candidacy.
you might be right.
I think McCain doesnt have a chance against history.
Dan, with all fairness you misrepresent conservatives by using the term 'fascists'. Fascism has been documented to be the seedbed of the radical left....not the radical right.
I'm a social and fiscal conservative .... CC1 ... and cringe when I hear the fascists in the party spew their hate .....
Fascism is the anti-thesis of socialism ... see WWII.
Interestingly enough it's already been stated that Obamas is a straight up socialist in this thread ...
I had hoped you were just kidding. It is beyond me how any Christian could vote for someone who advocates abortion, gay lifestyle, socialism, etc.
Federal judges appointed by either Hillary or Obama will speed up the liberal social agenda by leaps and bounds.
The logical extension of their agenda is to make any criticism of homosexuality a hate crime so you will see the day when churches will legally be bound to hire gays and if an employee is found to be gay will not legally be able to fire them as it will be "discrimination" and "hate" and "intolerance".
I voted for Giuliani for mayor of NYC both times ... who supports most of the views you just described ...
If he was the candidate for the party ... I assure you that most conservatives would vote for him.
Furthermore, McKain has waffled on many conservative issues.
I have decided to vote for who I think will best lead based on character ... McKain has none politically.
As usual this is usually remedied ... also keep in mind the free speech factor ...
Obama will be the next president ... and I wll vote for him. The first time I will vote for a Democrat in a national election.
which begs the question.
what has been the deciding factors?
why vote for a Democrat in this national election?
i am very interested.
I'll just pass this on without comment.
Jim Ellis
---------------------------------
A Spry Farrakhan Sings Obama's Praises
Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:00 PM
In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.
The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.
"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."
Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.
"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."
Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.
Farrakhan's keynote address at McCormick Place, the city's convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.
It had a different tone from a year ago, when Farrakhan made what was called his final public address at a Saviours' Day event in Detroit. The 74-year-old was recovering from complications from prostate cancer and months earlier had temporarily passed on leadership duties of the organization's day-to-day activities to an executive board.
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
which begs the question.
what has been the deciding factors?
why vote for a Democrat in this national election?
i am very interested.
See previous post.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:02 AM
I'm a social and fiscal conservative .... CC1 ... and cringe when I hear the fascists in the party spew their hate .....
Fascism is the anti-thesis of socialism ... see WWII.
Interestingly enough it's already been stated that Obamas is a straight up socialist in this thread ...
You are incorrect. Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". He provides great documentation.
I voted for Giuliani for mayor of NYC both times ... who supports most of the views you just described ...
If he was the candidate for the party ... I assure you that most conservatives would vote for him.
Furthermore, McKain has waffled on many conservative issues.
I have decided to vote for who I think will best lead based on character ... McKain has none politically.
I would suggest you have decided to vote on who is the best orator.
How do you have any idea what Obama's character is? He doesn't have a record long enough to know that. Two years in the senate and a few in the IL. legistlature is not enough.
Can you give me concrete reasons you believe Obama has great character?
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 10:03 AM
i dont understand how you can be as strong an advocate for conservative politics and vote for obama dan, sorry, dont get it, lol,dt
i dont understand how you can be as strong an advocate for conservative politics and vote for obama dan, sorry, dont get it, lol,dt
There is no justification or logic to it. I can only assume this young man has been sucked in by a great orator spewing empty platitudes and sloagans.
See previous post.
I saw it after my post.
charictor.
interesting. I find myself agreeing with you no McCain. He has been all over the place and far too willing to let the liberals have their way.
Obama sure appears to be honest and forthright.
I told some people the other day that if it comes down to McCain and Obama, we might be able to move past the gutter politics that have held sway for so long.
For me I have decided to vote for the moderate I dont like over the liberal.
me and 3 other people in the US still believe staying the course in Iraq is the only option. McCain will at least do that.
But I get what you are saying. (at least you arent telling me you want a socialist government.)
You are incorrect. Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". He provides great documentation.
I am so about to read that book!
Ive listened to several interviews with him. Brilliant stuff!
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:07 AM
Can you give me concrete reasons you believe Obama has great character?
CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no justification or logic to it. I can only assume this young man has been sucked in by a great orator spewing empty platitudes and sloagans.
CC1, it was a close decision between staying home, and voting for McCain.
there is that voice withing the Republican party that says maybe it is better to loose this one because winning will only get us more muddy water and more liberalism in congress.
I said that Iraq is the deciding factor. that is half true. McCain will at least not put a Ginsburg on the supreme court.
Obama will do that and worse i am sure.
Pressing-On
02-25-2008, 10:12 AM
I said that Iraq is the deciding factor. that is half true. McCain will at least not put a Ginsburg on the supreme court.
These are the factors for me and I think the American people have this in mind as well. We shall see.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 10:13 AM
McCain will at least not put a Ginsburg on the supreme court.
Obama will do that and worse i am sure.
If Obama serves for 8 years, he may end up replacing 2-3 of the Supreme Court justices... who will almost certainly be liberals.
That by itself would leave its imprint on American society for another 30 years or more, easily.
A_PoMo
02-25-2008, 10:16 AM
I understand Reformed's position and hope for it deeply. But, the cynic in me reminds me that "The more things change the more the stay the same." Not a whole lot changed when Bill was prez (except we ended up with a good economy and a budget surplus) and I remember all the angst against him when he was elected and then re-elected (not including the Monica thing). Obama is getting the post-modern vote because he is novel, relative, and experiential. He's makes people FEEL something and that's all that matters in a pomo world. If it makes you feel good then it must be true. Kinda like a political feel good gospel of sorts. Even so, IF I do vote (that's a big if for this independent) I'll prob vote for Obama for the sheer reason that if anybody has a chance to get things done for poor people and disenfranchised people here and abroad it'll be him. In my view Hil and McCain have zero chance to actually get anything done either way. Both of them are too polarizing, in my opinion.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 10:18 AM
i believe that there are even people on this forum that cant get past the demonization of gwb, and think straight, obama is a super lib at best, he aint what a real conservative wants at all, i for one take offfense to dan making reference constantly to fascist, the true fascists in the world today are the islamo fascists which obama will at least give a pass, inho, dt
If Obama serves for 8 years, he may end up replacing 2-3 of the Supreme Court justices... who will almost certainly be liberals.
That by itself would leave its imprint on American society for another 30 years or more, easily.
very true. hopefully it will only take him 4 years for folk to figure him out.
without doubt, the next president will replace John Paul Stevens who is considered the most liberal judge on the court (and the best reason for hating Nixon I might add)
it is all together possible that both Kennedy and Ginsburg could exit.
Kennedy is a swing vote and it would be a monster blow if he were replaced by a democrat.
replacing Stevens with another like him just turns my stomach.
You are incorrect. Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism". He provides great documentation.
No sir ...
The Neo-nazis are ultra-conservatives ... Nazism/Fascism has its roots in conservatism gone wild.
Anything else is revisionism.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 10:22 AM
very true. hopefully it will only take him 4 years for folk to figure him out.
without doubt, the next president will replace John Paul Stevens who is considered the most liberal judge on the court (and the best reason for hating Nixon I might add)
it is all together possible that both Kennedy and Ginsburg could exit.
Kennedy is a swing vote and it would be a monster blow if he were replaced by a democrat.
replacing Stevens with another like him just turns my stomach.
i personally believe that this is the key point that any con should consider when falling for the rhetoric of obama, really, the courts are the key to what is goin to shape this country in the next few years, dt
I understand Reformed's position and hope for it deeply. But, the cynic in me reminds me that "The more things change the more the stay the same." Not a whole lot changed when Bill was prez (except we ended up with a good economy and a budget surplus) and I remember all the angst against him when he was elected and then re-elected (not including the Monica thing). Obama is getting the post-modern vote because he is novel, relative, and experiential. He's makes people FEEL something and that's all that matters in a pomo world. If it makes you feel good then it must be true. Kinda like a political feel good gospel of sorts. Even so, IF I do vote (that's a big if for this independent) I'll prob vote for Obama for the sheer reason that if anybody has a chance to get things done for poor people and disenfranchised people here and abroad it'll be him. In my view Hil and McCain have zero chance to actually get anything done either way. Both of them are too polarizing, in my opinion.
Remember that Bill governed from the center and was a member of a moderate Democrat organization.
Barak is a self proffessed liberal.
these are vastly different things.
Also, after 2 years of Bill we elected a strong conservitive House and Senate. that in itself prevented the country from lurching to the left.
I expect working majorities in both house and senate after this election.
TR,
We must remember that abortion was legalized under a Republican president ....
The legalization of homosexuality will take either a constitutional amendendment ... and it would not garner the 2/3 for ratification
or a Supreme Court ruling .... not likely to happen as the court sits right now.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:24 AM
No sir ...
The Neo-nazis are ultra-conservatives ... Nazism/Fascism has its roots in conservatism gone wild.
Read the book then we can discuss it.....but I know you won't.
Read the book then we can discuss it.....but I know you won't.
Dave ... socialism is an economic system ... men like Hitler and Mussolini hated the socialists and communists for that very reason...
I won't read a revisionist book just like I refused to read Howard Zinn in college even though it was required reading.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:27 AM
Dave ... socialism is an economic system ... men like Hitler and Mussolini hated the socialists and communists for that very reason...
I won't read a revisionist book just like I refused to read Howard Zinn in college even though it was required reading.
It's amazing how one can criticize something they haven't read.........
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 10:27 AM
Uh oh...
looks like some of Clinton's people are playing dirty again!
http://drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
http://drudgereport.com/oa.jpg
CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE 'DRESSED' OBAMA
Mon Feb 25 2008 06:51:00 ET
With a week to go until the Texas and Ohio primaries, stressed Clinton staffers circulated a photo over the weekend of a "dressed" Barack Obama.
The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat frontrunner fitted as a Somali Elder, during his visit to Wajir, a rural area in northeastern Kenya.
The senator was on a five-country tour of Africa.
"Wouldn't we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" questioned one campaign staffer, in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.
In December, the campaign asked one of its volunteer county coordinators in Iowa to step down after the person forwarded an e-mail falsely stating that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe quickly accused the Clinton campaign Monday of 'shameful offensive fear-mongering' for circulating the snap. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html)
Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams responds: "If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed."
Developing..
http://drudgereport.com/flashoa.htm
EDITOR'S NOTE: Other leaders have worn local costumes:
http://drudgereport.com/cc1.jpghttp://drudgereport.com/bc.jpghttp://drudgereport.com/cc2.jpg
Also... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html
It's amazing how one can criticize something they haven't read.........
Facism is not liberal politics, Dave ... I don't kow a mainstream historical scholar that would support this.
Jehoram
02-25-2008, 10:30 AM
I don't think there is much difference between McCain and Obama - not that I would ever vote for either one of them.
McCain has proven to be a man of very low morals. He has an awful temper and a history of ignoring/supporting illegal immigration.
Obama is a drug-using, anti-Christian globalist.
I can't understand how we can prefer one over the other, especially when McCain is soft on abortion and gay marriage as well.
Jehoram
02-25-2008, 10:30 AM
It's amazing how one can criticize something they haven't read.........
He's closed-minded.
I don't think there is much difference between McCain and Obama - not that I would ever vote for either one of them.
McCain has proven to be a man of very low morals. He has an awful temper and a history of ignoring/supporting illegal immigration.
Obama is a drug-using, anti-Christian globalist.
I can't understand how we can prefer one over the other, especially when McCain is soft on abortion and gay marriage as well.
I have to agree w/ the thrust of this ... both are not appealing ...
but I will not throw my vote away in November ... so Obama is my choice.
He's closed-minded.
Do you read the Wiccan bible?
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:32 AM
Facism is not liberal politics, Dave ... I don't kow a mainstream historical scholar that would support this.
Again do your homework. Both Germany and Russia advocated a messianic view of the state.
If Obama serves for 8 years, he may end up replacing 2-3 of the Supreme Court justices... who will almost certainly be liberals.
That by itself would leave its imprint on American society for another 30 years or more, easily.
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts what a wonderful Christmas it would be.
Jehoram
02-25-2008, 10:33 AM
Do you read the Wiccan bible?
Hmmm, so there are some things your mind isn't opened to?
Again do your homework. Both Germany and Russia advocated a messianic view of the state.
Both extremes join hands at the end of the spectrum and for this reason they may appear similar in quality ... but the inherent foundations are different ...
CC1, it was a close decision between staying home, and voting for McCain.
there is that voice withing the Republican party that says maybe it is better to loose this one because winning will only get us more muddy water and more liberalism in congress.
I said that Iraq is the deciding factor. that is half true. McCain will at least not put a Ginsburg on the supreme court.
Obama will do that and worse i am sure.
If we were not facing Global Islamic terrorism and an onslought of humanism I would be tempted to buy in to that thought.
However too much is at stake. I can't stand McCain but will vote for him and hope for a miracle that he wins. McCain at his worst is ten times better than the danger Obama and Hillary pose to our National Security and family values.
There will probably be at least two vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next four years and the thought of what kind of activist judges Obama or Hillary will appoint is scary.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 10:37 AM
Facism is not liberal politics, Dave ... I don't kow a mainstream historical scholar that would support this.
Again do your homework. Both Germany and Russia advocated a messianic view of the state.
Is it possible that both a left winger and a right winger can be Fascists? It doesnt seem to me that Fascism is exclusively the domain of either right or left.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is an authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29), religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism), nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism), militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism), totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), anti-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism), corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism), collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism), autocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy) and opposition to political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism).
Historically, there was a period where several countries and leaders openly accepted the label of "fascist" to describe their political systems, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s. However, owing to the historical record and verdict on these past fascist countries, the term has now fallen largely into disuse as an objective description. Overall, this is due to the associations between fascist regimes and racial supremacist policies, especially in Nazi Germany, although not all fascist regimes espoused racist policies.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] The term is now used more as an epithet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet) than as a term for any existing systems. This is true even in countries where it might legitimately apply.
Some of the governments and parties most often considered to have been fascist include Fascist Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic) under Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini), Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) under Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)'s Falange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange), Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)'s New State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_%28Portugal%29), Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)'s Arrow Cross Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)'s Imperial Way Faction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Way_Faction), Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)'s Iron Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Guard), and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) under the National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_%28South_Africa%29). Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain of these parties and regimes.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#_note-7) Following the defeat of the Axis powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers) in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, fascist has become a slur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_%28epithet%29), used by adherents of some ideologies to describe their opponents....
No sir ...
The Neo-nazis are ultra-conservatives ... Nazism/Fascism has its roots in conservatism gone wild.
Anything else is revisionism.
DA, you are mixing your nouns.
Facism has its roots in a form or conservitism that is quite foreign to American Politics.
Early 20th century European Conservitives believed in totalitarianism that was an extention of the Monarchical systems of Europe
this relates in no meaningful way to American Conservitives at all.
American Conserivitives draw their traditions from the founding fathers who were enlightenmenet liberals
Liberalism by definition is much more closely alligned with American Conservitives than American Liberals.
American Liberals arent even liberals (Hillary agrees by the way).
they are Progressives who are much more alligned with certain aspects of Facism and socialism than they are with the ideas of the enlightenment liberal views that are the core of True Liberalism.
So, while you are accurate in saying that Facism is more a conservitive view, you are incorrect in connecting that word "conservitive" to Modern American Politics"
American Liberals are the true conservitives.....we American Conservitives really are the true Liberals!
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:38 AM
Both extremes join hands at the end of the spectrum and for this reason they may appear similar in quality ... but the inherent foundations are different ...
It is fascinating to see the interest shown by FDR and several of his cronies to the 'Italian experiment'.......
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 10:38 AM
If we were not facing Global Islamic terrorism and an onslought of humanism I would be tempted to buy in to that thought.
However too much is at stake. I can't stand McCain but will vote for him and hope for a miracle that he wins. McCain at his worst is ten times better than the danger Obama and Hillary pose to our National Security and family values.
There will probably be at least two vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next four years and the thought of what kind of activist judges Obama or Hillary will appoint is scary.
have to agree with you cc1, truth is spoken, now anyway, dt
Is it possible that both a left winger and a right winger can be Fascists? It doesnt seem to me that Fascism is exclusively the domain of either right or left?
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is an authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29), religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism), nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism), militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism), totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), anti-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism), corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism), collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism), autocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy) and opposition to political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism).
Historically, there was a period where several countries and leaders openly accepted the label of "fascist" to describe their political systems, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s. However, owing to the historical record and verdict on these past fascist countries, the term has now fallen largely into disuse as an objective description. Overall, this is due to the associations between fascist regimes and racial supremacist policies, especially in Nazi Germany, although not all fascist regimes espoused racist policies.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] The term is now used more as an epithet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet) than as a term for any existing systems. This is true even in countries where it might legitimately apply.
Some of the governments and parties most often considered to have been fascist include Fascist Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic) under Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini), Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) under Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)'s Falange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange), Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)'s New State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_%28Portugal%29), Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)'s Arrow Cross Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)'s Imperial Way Faction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Way_Faction), Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)'s Iron Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Guard), and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) under the National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_%28South_Africa%29). Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain of these parties and regimes.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#_note-7) Following the defeat of the Axis powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers) in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, fascist has become a slur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_%28epithet%29), used by adherents of some ideologies to describe their opponents....
As a slur indeed ... but the fact that it is anti-communist shows it's anti-thetical to leftist economic views ... hence my position stands
A_PoMo
02-25-2008, 10:41 AM
Bill was a self-professed liberal just as GWB was a self-professed conservative and they all end up governing in the middle somewhere. That's why I'm not worried about Barak's "liberal" tag. He'll either govern in the middle or try to do some lefty stuff and conservatives will galvanized against him and elect majorities as you mentioned. That's what Dems did to GW and neither side can get anything substantive done, in my opinion. My hope is that we as a nation will do more to help people rather than merely protect our interests. I don't see HIl or McCain even trying to do that. At least Barak talks about it and this hope is what I think fuels the grass-roots response from the younger voters. They want things to be better, not more of the same. Whether he can deliver on that is questionable at best, but at least he has a chance at actually doing it, thus will prob get my vote. It'll be the first time I voted for a Dem since I started voting. If I don't vote it'll be the first election where I didn't vote. Hey, these are just my opinions. Mine stink just as much as everybody else's. :)
It is fascinating to see the interest shown by FDR and several of his cronies to the 'Italian experiment'.......
Rhetoric is one thing Dave ... but when we speak of socialism/communism keep in mind the economically these are leftist policies ... fascism is anti-thetical economically and for the most part politically from these leftist ideals.
In the end game ... as extremes they both stifle free thought and civil liberties.
Is it possible that both a left winger and a right winger can be Fascists? It doesnt seem to me that Fascism is exclusively the domain of either right or left.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Fascism is an authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism) political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State), party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity), cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture), racial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29), religious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotism), nationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism), statism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism), militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism), totalitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism), anti-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communism), corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), populism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism), collectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism), autocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy) and opposition to political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) and economic liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism).
Historically, there was a period where several countries and leaders openly accepted the label of "fascist" to describe their political systems, particularly in the 1930s and 1940s. However, owing to the historical record and verdict on these past fascist countries, the term has now fallen largely into disuse as an objective description. Overall, this is due to the associations between fascist regimes and racial supremacist policies, especially in Nazi Germany, although not all fascist regimes espoused racist policies.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] The term is now used more as an epithet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithet) than as a term for any existing systems. This is true even in countries where it might legitimately apply.
Some of the governments and parties most often considered to have been fascist include Fascist Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Social_Republic) under Mussolini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini), Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) under Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler), Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain)'s Falange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange), Portugal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal)'s New State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_%28Portugal%29), Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary)'s Arrow Cross Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party), Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan)'s Imperial Way Faction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Way_Faction), Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania)'s Iron Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Guard), and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa) under the National Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_%28South_Africa%29). Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain of these parties and regimes.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#_note-7) Following the defeat of the Axis powers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers) in World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, fascist has become a slur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_%28epithet%29), used by adherents of some ideologies to describe their opponents....
to understand how closely Facism and American Liberals are alligned I suggest looking into both corporatism and collectivism.
these are two very important tenants of Facism that find interesting homes within modern American Liberal thought.
DA, you are mixing your nouns.
Facism has its roots in a form or conservitism that is quite foreign to American Politics.
Early 20th century European Conservitives believed in totalitarianism that was an extention of the Monarchical systems of Europe
this relates in no meaningful way to American Conservitives at all.
American Conserivitives draw their traditions from the founding fathers who were enlightenmenet liberals
Liberalism by definition is much more closely alligned with American Conservitives than American Liberals.
American Liberals arent even liberals (Hillary agrees by the way).
they are Progressives who are much more alligned with certain aspects of Facism and socialism than they are with the ideas of the enlightenment liberal views that are the core of True Liberalism.
So, while you are accurate in saying that Facism is more a conservitive view, you are incorrect in connecting that word "conservitive" to Modern American Politics"
American Liberals are the true conservitives.....we American Conservitives really are the true Liberals!
Ferd ... once again I am a fiscal and social conservative ... but to say that there are not Communists in the Democratic party and Fascists in the Republican party is missing it.
Rhetoric is one thing Dave ... but when we speak of socialism/communism keep in mind the economically these are leftist policies ... fascism is anti-thetical economically and for the most part politcally from these leftist ideals.
In the end game ... as extremes they both stifle free thought.
I find it intesting that you would use the word "rhetoric" to discribe Dave's comment, then end with the statement in bold.
What do you base that on?
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:46 AM
Rhetoric is one thing Dave ... but when we speak of socialism/communism keep in mind the economically these are leftist policies ... fascism is anti-thetical economically and for the most part politcally from these leftist ideals.
In the end game ... as extremes they both stifle free thought and civil liberties.
What were the philosophical economic differences between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia?
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:46 AM
I find it intesting that you would use the word "rhetoric" to discribe Dave's comment, then end with the statement in bold.
What do you base that on?
That I don't agree with him.......
I find it intesting that you would use the word "rhetoric" to discribe Dave's comment, then end with the statement in bold.
What do you base that on?
Rhetoric:1. persuasive speech or writing: speech or writing that communicates its point persuasively
Calling FDR as fascist ... was rhetorical political speech to incite feelings during a hotbed of events.
Stating that fascism is not leftist in it's economic view is fact.
What were the philosophical economic differences between Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia?
Captalism still existed in Germany ... Communist Russia worked to obliterate it in theory.
In Communism the people as a community own the means of production.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:55 AM
Captalism still existed in Germany ... Communist Russia worked to obliterate it in theory.
In Communism the people own the means of production.
You seem to relegate fascism/communism to strictly economic differences. While I don't believe that the economic differences were all that distinct, and many times blurred, both are complete worldviews that are much more similar than they are different. Essentially it is differences of degree and not much in true substance.
You seem to relegate fascism/communism to strictly economic differences. While I don't believe that the economic differences were all that distinct, and many times blurred, both are complete worldviews that are much more similar than they are different. Essentially it is differences of degree and not much in true substance.
Again in the end game both views stifle free thought and civil liberties ... but they remain distinct in their means and foundational views.
Some would say the religiously UCs and ULs are just mirror images of one another.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 10:58 AM
Again in the end game both views stifle free thought and civil liberties ... but they remain distinct in their means and foundational views.
Foundational views? Explain.
Foundational views? Explain.
One is based on capitalist and nationalist views .... the other in leftist economic views ... We must keep in mind that socialism and communism in theory are economic counsins in their view ...
In practice ... totalitarianism rears it's ugly head in both extreme regimes
Ferd ... once again I am a fiscal and social conservative ... but to say that there are not Communists in the Democratic party and Fascists in the Republican party is missing it.
Dan, I have posted with you enough to know the statement here is true. I know you are a conservitive.
and I agree that there are progressives( read facists) in the Republican party.
Im not trying to score points bro. just trying to get clairity in what we are discussing.
I have been fed that line about Facism and Conservitism for a long time and just accepted it. Then a month or so ago, the subject came up on another form and I began to look into what was being said.
Turns out, while true, it doesnt relate exactly so simply when you are connecting it to the American political system.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 11:04 AM
One is based on capitalist and nationalist views .... the other in leftist economic views ... We must keep in mind that socialism and communism in theory are economic counsins in their view ...
Their philosophic basis are essentially the same. They have the same religious presuppositions, that is salvation by the state. They used many of the same methods and had many of the same prejudices. One can't relegate the philosophy to just economic distinctives alone. BTW, in neither system did the populace have economic freedom.
Their philosophic basis are essentially the same. They have the same religious presuppositions, that is salvation by the state. They used many of the same methods and had many of the same prejudices. One can't relegate the philosophy to just economic distinctives alone. BTW, in neither system did the populace have economic freedom.
You are speaking of totalitarianism, Dave. One can have the same objective but your means can be different.
Dan, I have posted with you enough to know the statement here is true. I know you are a conservitive.
and I agree that there are progressives( read facists) in the Republican party.
Im not trying to score points bro. just trying to get clairity in what we are discussing.
I have been fed that line about Facism and Conservitism for a long time and just accepted it. Then a month or so ago, the subject came up on another form and I began to look into what was being said.
Turns out, while true, it doesnt relate exactly so simply when you are connecting it to the American political system.
Ferd .. are you calling progressive Neo-Nazis and Arians in the Republican party progressives? Not sure if that's what you intended, is it? Did I misread?
Dan, I have posted with you enough to know the statement here is true. I know you are a conservitive.
and I agree that there are progressives( read facists) in the Republican party.
Im not trying to score points bro. just trying to get clairity in what we are discussing.
I have been fed that line about Facism and Conservitism for a long time and just accepted it. Then a month or so ago, the subject came up on another form and I began to look into what was being said.
Turns out, while true, it doesnt relate exactly so simply when you are connecting it to the American political system.
Ferd ... my position is this ...
extreme conservatism can result in fascism
extreme liberalism can result in socialism or communism
both use totalitarianism or Dave's Messiah theory to subjugate people.
The analogy would be that UCs and ULs usually end up in the same place ... cultic and proporting to be the possessors of ALL TRUTH.
Are all religious conservatives legalists ... probably not.
Can a UC be a legalis yes.
Individually are they the same, no.
Ferd ... my position is this ...
extreme conservatism can result in fascism
extreme liberalism can result in socialism or communism
both use totalitarianims or Dave's Messiah theory to subjugated people.
The analogy would be that UCs and ULs usually end up in the same place ... cultic and proporting to be the possessors of ALL TRUTH.
You are espousing the traditoinal theory that politics is a circle. Some would contend it is a straight line and that rather than facists being on the right they are really leftist as a large controlling central government is one of their main features.
ReformedDave
02-25-2008, 11:20 AM
Fascism / Communism
The only real difference, and it's really one in degree, is in 'class'. Socialism is working class and fascism is bourgeois.
You are espousing the traditoinal theory that politics is a circle. Some would contend it is a straight line and that rather than facists being on the right they are really leftist as a large controlling central government is one of their main features.
Then I'm a traditionalist, lol.
Fascism / Communism
The only real difference, and it's really one in degree, is in 'class'. Socialism is working class and fascism is bourgeois.
Well ... I know what you are trying to say ... but not really
... in the classical revolution model (no matter the political/economic ideology) ... the working class .. and the bourgeios must team together to effectuate political change... the proletariat (working class) becomes the the muscle while the bougeois (middle class) become the leaders of the movement to depose of the ruling class.
Hitler in is ascent to power ,during the late 20's/early 30's, relied heavily on the masses/proletariat to solidify his power using nationalism, promises of prosperity and xenophobia... while getting support from some of the middle class .... the same happened in Communist Russia ... as the same happened here in the Colonial America.
rgcraig
02-25-2008, 11:46 AM
Think he'd considering chaning his name?
I just can't imagine the headlines "Obama withdraws troops as search for Obama ends" or "Obama vows to attack American again as Obama passes universal health care"
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 11:59 AM
Think he'd considering chaning his name?
I just can't imagine the headlines "Obama withdraws troops as search for Obama ends" or "Obama vows to attack American again as Obama passes universal health care"
you funny renda, dt:ursofunny
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 12:02 PM
God lifts up and God puts down. The Republicans really could have helped this country. They failed. It's time for a change.
Ferd .. are you calling progressive Neo-Nazis and Arians in the Republican party progressives? Not sure if that's what you intended, is it? Did I misread?
facist isnt necessarily neo-nazi. these are vastly different things.
one can be a facist (politically speaking) and not be a racist or a neo-nazi.
Facism is a political movement. not a racist ideology.
This is the problem. I think too few understand what these different political strains are and where they come from.
it is much more easy to look at a republican and say "Facist"
or a democrat and say "Commie" (I do this myself)
Fact is things are a bit more complicated than that.
Ferd .. are you calling progressive Neo-Nazis and Arians in the Republican party progressives? Not sure if that's what you intended, is it? Did I misread?
delving a bit deeper.
Progressivism as a political strain, has proponents in the Republican party. Progressivism is very much alligned with facism as a political movement.
i was not speaking of the neo-nazis that claim a home in the Republican party.
These guys are simply racists who may hold some conserviive views (by conservitive I mean modern American Conservitive) to go along with their racism.
They arent Facists in the strict sense of the word.
the true "facists" arent the racists. they are the progressives
Pressing-On
02-25-2008, 12:30 PM
Think he'd considering chaning his name?
I just can't imagine the headlines "Obama withdraws troops as search for Obama ends" or "Obama vows to attack American again as Obama passes universal health care"
We need to get Ann Coulter on this one. I think I'll email her!
Ferd ... my position is this ...
extreme conservatism can result in fascism
extreme liberalism can result in socialism or communism
both use totalitarianism or Dave's Messiah theory to subjugate people.
The analogy would be that UCs and ULs usually end up in the same place ... cultic and proporting to be the possessors of ALL TRUTH.
Are all religious conservatives legalists ... probably not.
I apologize for this long post….But bare with me. You might find it.. Enlightening (if you don’t mind my pun.)
Chris, take note, there is a place for a long post. see below.
And my contention is that you are mistaken.
AND it is a very common mistake. AND it is one that I myself once believed.
Then I started looking into things a bit more deeply. (Very interesting I might add.
Fascism and Marxism (father of both communism and socialism) found their roots in the perceived failures of laissez fair liberalism.
Where Marx wanted to overthrow corporations and manipulate economies by strict government control, doing what was best for the collective at the expense of the individual, Fascism wanted to co-opt the corporations marrying the will of the state to the power of the business structure, and again, the will of the individual was subjected to the benefit of the state.
Both of these ideals were reactions to Liberalism
Liberalism which flows from the Enlightenment sought to place the individual at the center. Classical Liberalism seeks to extend individual rights and limit the power of government.
To understand the flow here you have to understand Europe in the min 1800's. Conservatives held to a strong belief in the Monarchies that existed, they saw the emerging industrial revolution as a method of making the state strong and robust.
Liberals sought to limit the state and saw the industrial revolution as a method of expanding the rights of the individual at the expense of the state.
Both of these views ran into serious trouble. Workers were exploited to a staggering degree, Governments became weak and inept in dealing with the power of the new Industrialist class.
Where Marx and the Communists focused on the workers who were being exploited, the Conservatives focused on harnessing the power of industry for the nationalist goals.
NEITHER sought to expand the true LIBERAL ideals of freeing the individual.
And so here we are a hundred and fifty years later and it’s all jumbled.
Modern American Conservatives are TRUE CLASSICAL LIBERALS in the vein of
Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and Thomas Paine.
This doesn’t relate to either Fascism OR Marxism.
Both Fascism and Marxism are reactions (and bad ones at that) to failures of older economic models like Mercantilism.
Bottom line here, Progressives in American Politics (like FDR and his New Deal warriors) were very odd blends of both Marxism and Fascism.
Reformed Dave is absolutely historically accurate, when he points out that many of FDRs leaders in the New Deal were very much keenly aware of the goings on in Italy under Mussolini. (Sp)
They viewed Fascism’s collectivist model as very beneficial to the American situation. They viewed the power of co-opting the corporations as vital to getting out of the depression they were combating at the time.
That isn’t rhetoric, it is historic fact. They wrote about it, they talked about it, they created some aspects of it in the New Deal.
But they also saw many ideas from Marx that they liked as well. Those things became incorporated as well. What you end up with is a blend of Classical Liberalism, Marxism, and Fascism and we call it Progressivism (Which is what Hillary calls herself)
Modern American Conservatism is "conservative" because it seeks to hold a line against Progressivism. NOT because it is connected to European Monarchies. Modern American Conservatism, IS simply Classical Liberalism.
Long live Voltaire!
God lifts up and God puts down. The Republicans really could have helped this country. They failed. It's time for a change.
for those that need an object lesson, the above is rhetoric.
If we were to use the term Classical liberalism, Ferd in it's full meaning we'd all be liberals ...
You may also be confusing Marxist politics and original MARXIAN theory.
Daniel,
Did you ever answer about why you think Barak Obama has great character?
I can see why you would think he is a great orator (I believe the best in National politics since Ronald Reagan) but am at a loss as to how this great character has been determined by you.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 01:03 PM
Daniel,
Did you ever answer about why you think Barak Obama has great character?
I can see why you would think he is a great orator (I believe the best in National politics since Ronald Reagan) but am at a loss as to how this great character has been determined by you.
i would like to hear that answer too, hmmm, dt:laffatu
Daniel,
Did you ever answer about why you think Barak Obama has great character?
I can see why you would think he is a great orator (I believe the best in National politics since Ronald Reagan) but am at a loss as to how this great character has been determined by you.
I don't know if I characterized it as GREAT.
Bill Clinton was a better orator.
When left w/ the choice between McKain and Obama ... I'll take the one who has stood by his principles.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 01:04 PM
If the Republicans would have ruled well they wouldn’t have anything to fear. Their failure is responsible for Democratic gains.
If we were to use the term Classical liberalism, Ferd in it's full meaning we'd all be liberals ...
You may also be confusing Marxist politics and original MARXIAN theory.
Pretty much. Yes. that, to an extent is what i am saying.
but you HAVE to understand that to understand the correct acertain that Facism is an extention of conservitivism. which it is, but is is unconnected from Modern American Conservitives.
However, Progressives are only classical Liberals to a certain extent.
and when i used "Marx/Marxism I was speaking of all forms of economic/political models that harken back to Marx.
If the Republicans would have ruled well they wouldn’t have anything to fear. Their failure is responsible for Democratic gains.
Additional Rhetoric.....
Americans dont "rule" we "Govern"
there is a difference.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 01:09 PM
Americans dont "rule" we "Govern"
there is a difference.
Americans govern...Republicans "rule".
I don't know if I characterized it as GREAT.
Bill Clinton was a better orator.
When left w/ the choice between McKain and Obama ... I'll take the one who has stood by his principles.
Dan, as a fellow conservitive who like you finds himself without a real choice, I understand what you are saying....
Im not going to join you. I think it is a mistake, but I do understand the sentement.
Americans govern...Republicans "rule".
Chirs has taken "Rhetoric" to new heighths today.
dude, really. I get those stupid emails from Democrats.com too.
dont believe the hype!
Chirs has taken "Rhetori" to new heighths today.
dude, really. I get those stupid emails from Democrats.com too.
dont believe the hype!
Definitely rhetoric.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 01:17 PM
Definitely rhetoric.
no kidding, dt, lol:tissue
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 01:20 PM
Chirs has taken "Rhetoric" to new heighths today.
dude, really. I get those stupid emails from Democrats.com too.
dont believe the hype!
How many bills from the Republican Congress did President Bush veto?
It’s evident that the fascist/neo-con Republicans “rule” not govern.
How many bills from the Republican Congress did President Bush veto?
It’s evident that the fascist/neo-con Republicans “rule” not govern.
Chris, how about getting an edumaction before you type such hype.
dude, what kind of non-sense is this?
I disagreed with GWB and the Republican Congress on a number of issues, but to suggest that the fact that these two bodies agreed on issues is somehow fascist is simplistic boardering on paranoia!
Ever consider that he didnt veto anything because he agreed with the legislation? Maybe had some of his team working with the Republican leadership to create the legislation?
what a crackpot, hairbrain theory.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 01:54 PM
ferd , that impostor claims to be a republican but he spews all the standard dem nonsense, who is he trying to kid, lol, dt:ursofunny
ferd , that impostor claims to be a republican but he spews all the standard dem nonsense, who is he trying to kid, lol, dt:ursofunny
Himself.
DT, if the poor fellow would just read some of what I've written here, he might learn a thing or two.
I've layed down a pretty solid edumaction today, if I do say so myself.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 02:03 PM
DT, if the poor fellow would just read some of what I've written here, he might learn a thing or two.
I've layed down a pretty solid edumaction today, if I do say so myself.
reasonable education i would say, but he isn not reasonable, lol,dt go boy, lol
COOPER
02-25-2008, 02:03 PM
Go Obama Go!!!
gO away Obama go and stay with Ben Laden!:kickcan
gO away Obama go and stay with Ben Laden!:kickcan
Maybe all the illegal aliens will follow??? :reaction
Maybe all the illegal aliens will follow??? :reaction
On that subject, you might end up hating me more than our friend here.
I believe we should do absolutly nothing about the illegals in the country.
yup. thats right. nothing. Dont kick them out, dont give them a path to citizenship, dont make them legal.
Now, I do believe we need to lock down the southern boarder then rationalize immagration (read increase the legal number allowed to meet demand which is almost double the current allotment)
back to the story. why do nothing? because Illegal immagrants have a very important function in the American Economy. the hold down wage inflation.
by keeping wage inflation in check, we keep real inflation in check.
DividedThigh
02-25-2008, 02:22 PM
On that subject, you might end up hating me more than our friend here.
I believe we should do absolutly nothing about the illegals in the country.
yup. thats right. nothing. Dont kick them out, dont give them a path to citizenship, dont make them legal.
Now, I do believe we need to lock down the southern boarder then rationalize immagration (read increase the legal number allowed to meet demand which is almost double the current allotment)
back to the story. why do nothing? because Illegal immagrants have a very important function in the American Economy. the hold down wage inflation.
by keeping wage inflation in check, we keep real inflation in check.
be careful ferd the libs freak when what you say makes sense, lol,dt:tantrum
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 02:22 PM
Racial and ethnic slurs are not needed. That exposes much about the spirit behind many.
Racial and ethnic slurs are not needed. That exposes much about the spirit behind many.
LOL! Have you gone from blind rhetoric to random comments?
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 02:41 PM
Chris, how about getting an edumaction before you type such hype.
dude, what kind of non-sense is this?
I disagreed with GWB and the Republican Congress on a number of issues, but to suggest that the fact that these two bodies agreed on issues is somehow fascist is simplistic boardering on paranoia!
Bush didn’t see a Republican bill he didn’t love. He didn’t use veto, even when it would have been good for our country. It’s a symptom of fascist one party rule. Many real Republicans are not patrician hacks, and they’re willing to admit that the Republican party has gone down the road of fascism and extremism. Anyone with a lick of sense can see this.
Ever consider that he didnt veto anything because he agreed with the legislation? Maybe had some of his team working with the Republican leadership to create the legislation?
what a crackpot, hairbrain theory.
One party rule without challenge, that’s not “government”…that’s rulership. The President is the nation’s chief executive…Bush used it as a fast track to pass every Republican initiative into law even when it was bad for the American people. They say power corrupts…and the one party rule provided near absolute power and has rendered the current leadership of the Republican party absolutely corrupt.
Fascist one party rule is what the Republicans have given us and wish to build upon in the coming years. They’d make it illegal to be a Democrat if they could. They have a vile fascist globalist agenda. Their real constituents are massive globalized corporations that aim to put the common man out of business until they have aggregated all wealth into their sphere and advance into a fascist world government. The Republican goal is redistribution of wealth…distributing it from the public trust and free market into the massive global corporate conglomerates.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 02:41 PM
ferd , that impostor claims to be a republican but he spews all the standard dem nonsense, who is he trying to kid, lol, dt:ursofunny
“Hey Spike, you wanna take ‘em? Huh Spike? LOL
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 02:42 PM
On that subject, you might end up hating me more than our friend here.
I believe we should do absolutly nothing about the illegals in the country.
yup. thats right. nothing. Dont kick them out, dont give them a path to citizenship, dont make them legal.
Now, I do believe we need to lock down the southern boarder then rationalize immagration (read increase the legal number allowed to meet demand which is almost double the current allotment)
back to the story. why do nothing? because Illegal immagrants have a very important function in the American Economy. the hold down wage inflation.
by keeping wage inflation in check, we keep real inflation in check.
Wreckless. We can’t afford to allow millions of people fly below the radar as illegal citizens in this age of terror. It’s a national security issue. We need to find a way to get them citizenship so that they aren’t exploited by scrupulous employers looking to violate labor law and get them legally employed. Then they will also pay taxes like every other American.
I know a Hispanic family who lives in a rental property by our home. Two of them are illegals. They worked with a few others to rebuild the roof of a local business and were promised payment upon completing the job. Once the job was complete the business owner refused to pay them and threatened to turn them in to immigration.
Not only wreckless. Immoral.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 02:44 PM
If the Democrats win it is only because of the Republicans failure to lead for the common good.
Wreckless. We can’t afford to allow millions of people fly below the radar as illegal citizens in this age of terror. It’s a national security issue. We need to find a way to get them citizenship so that they aren’t exploited by scrupulous employers looking to violate labor law and get them legally employed. Then they will also pay taxes like every other American.
I know a Hispanic family who lives in a rental property by our home. Two of them are illegals. They worked with a few others to rebuild the roof of a local business and were promised payment upon completing the job. Once the job was complete the business owner refused to pay them and threatened to turn them in to immigration.
Not only wreckless. Immoral. And stupid.
Careful, CC1 is gonna turn you into ICE because you have admitted to knowing illegals without reporting them.
so, going a step further, I didnt say my belief was very nice. It is rather harsh.
but lets back up a second and create some definitions.
First of all, there is no such thing as an "Illegal Citizen" by definition, their status as "Illegal" prevents them from being "Citizens"
and here is where I go old school harsh.
I had an old boss who once told me what his dad would tell him when he was a teen and got into trouble.
If you are going to be stupid you better be tuff.
People who are here illegal, must accept certain risks. it is the nature of the decision they made.
As for as the national security risks. The real reason for closing the southern boarder is the NS risk. those that are here now will not magically decide to get documented because Congress passes some legislation to legalize the illegals. what a silly notion.
wreckless? not really. but your theory is flawed on several levels.
first you want a nanny state that will even take care of those who thwart our laws.
Second you think terrorists that are already here will somehow magically get caught because we legalize the illegals!
crazy.
If the Democrats win it is only because of the Republicans failure to lead for the common good.
Look everybody, Chris can copy and paste from moveon.org!
LOL!
How many bills from the Republican Congress did President Bush veto?
It’s evident that the fascist/neo-con Republicans “rule” not govern.
How do you group neo-cons w/ the fascists? Do you know what neo-con refers to?
Bush didn’t see a Republican bill he didn’t love. He didn’t use veto, even when it would have been good for our country. It’s a symptom of fascist one party rule. Many real Republicans are not patrician hacks, and they’re willing to admit that the Republican party has gone down the road of fascism and extremism. Anyone with a lick of sense can see this.
One party rule without challenge, that’s not “government”…that’s rulership. The President is the nation’s chief executive…Bush used it as a fast track to pass every Republican initiative into law even when it was bad for the American people. They say power corrupts…and the one party rule provided near absolute power and has rendered the current leadership of the Republican party absolutely corrupt.
Fascist one party rule is what the Republicans have given us and wish to build upon in the coming years. They’d make it illegal to be a Democrat if they could. They have a vile fascist globalist agenda. Their real constituents are massive globalized corporations that aim to put the common man out of business until they have aggregated all wealth into their sphere and advance into a fascist world government. The Republican goal is redistribution of wealth…distributing it from the public trust and free market into the massive global corporate conglomerates.
Chris, please stop with the goofy stuff. you are embarrassing yourself!
Dude, please! Republicans dealt with a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. NO law was passed that the Dems didn't agree to prevent from passing!
much of the legislation that did pass, that Bush did sign was supported by a number of democrats.
Are you going to say the same thing if Obama wins and the Dems pick up seats in both houses of congress? will the Dems all the sudden be Fascists???
what hypocrisy! but then again, hypocrisy seems to be the name of the game with you.
How do you group neo-cons w/ the fascists? Do you know what neo-con refers to?
Bro, Chirs reads Moveon.org and just starts regurgitating.
he cant help it.
On that subject, you might end up hating me more than our friend here.
I believe we should do absolutly nothing about the illegals in the country.
yup. thats right. nothing. Dont kick them out, dont give them a path to citizenship, dont make them legal.
Now, I do believe we need to lock down the southern boarder then rationalize immagration (read increase the legal number allowed to meet demand which is almost double the current allotment)
back to the story. why do nothing? because Illegal immagrants have a very important function in the American Economy. the hold down wage inflation.
by keeping wage inflation in check, we keep real inflation in check.
I agree that illegals affect wage inflation ... but a lot needs to be done to legalize them in one fashion or the other. Lock down the borders ... indeed
Bush didn’t see a Republican bill he didn’t love. He didn’t use veto, even when it would have been good for our country. It’s a symptom of fascist one party rule. Many real Republicans are not patrician hacks, and they’re willing to admit that the Republican party has gone down the road of fascism and extremism. Anyone with a lick of sense can see this.
One party rule without challenge, that’s not “government”…that’s rulership. The President is the nation’s chief executive…Bush used it as a fast track to pass every Republican initiative into law even when it was bad for the American people. They say power corrupts…and the one party rule provided near absolute power and has rendered the current leadership of the Republican party absolutely corrupt.
Fascist one party rule is what the Republicans have given us and wish to build upon in the coming years. They’d make it illegal to be a Democrat if they could. They have a vile fascist globalist agenda. Their real constituents are massive globalized corporations that aim to put the common man out of business until they have aggregated all wealth into their sphere and advance into a fascist world government. The Republican goal is redistribution of wealth…distributing it from the public trust and free market into the massive global corporate conglomerates.
Thank God we are far from being a fascist state and/or communist ...
To pin how some corporations have bilked America on the Republicans only is irresponisble and inaccurate ...
Last I look the bi-cameral legislative body in our nation has consisted of both parties ... w/ the Republicans have a relatively short-lived majority in the last decades. The pillaging has been going on for decades.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:02 PM
Careful, CC1 is gonna turn you into ICE because you have admitted to knowing illegals without reporting them.
so, going a step further, I didnt say my belief was very nice. It is rather harsh.
but lets back up a second and create some definitions.
First of all, there is no such thing as an "Illegal Citizen" by definition, their status as "Illegal" prevents them from being "Citizens"
and here is where I go old school harsh.
I had an old boss who once told me what his dad would tell him when he was a teen and got into trouble.
If you are going to be stupid you better be tuff.
People who are here illegal, must accept certain risks. it is the nature of the decision they made.
Ferd, I believe human beings have human rights by virtue of being human beings, not on the basis of any “citizenship”. Obviously the fascist Republican machine has convinced you that it is the state that issues human rights and value. Now you reveal your statist fascism. We cannot deprive human beings of human rights based on how the “state” views them. Again, you’re being part of mankind’s problems not part of the solution.
As for as the national security risks. The real reason for closing the southern boarder is the NS risk. those that are here now will not magically decide to get documented because Congress passes some legislation to legalize the illegals. what a silly notion.
The more we bring into legal compliance and citizenship the less there will be to track below the radar thus improving our security.
wreckless? not really. but your theory is flawed on several levels.
first you want a nanny state that will even take care of those who thwart our laws.
No. I believe they should have to pay at least one year’s back taxes and a fine, in addition to following a track to citizenship.
Second you think terrorists that are already here will somehow magically get caught because we legalize the illegals!
crazy.
No. Illegals that mean us no harm will become citizens. Those who are desiring to fly under the radar will be fewer and our measures to track them will be more successful.
It’s common sense.
DT, if the poor fellow would just read some of what I've written here, he might learn a thing or two.
I've layed down a pretty solid edumaction today, if I do say so myself.
Not, Ferd ... you simply tried to disassociate the party from the fascist tag. Both Fascism and communism are not uniquely American ... both models are for the most part European in character ... but ideals have been espoused by many living here for decades ...
McCarthyism ring a bell?
I don't fear labels ... sometimes they are just that ... and sometimes their is a figment of truth in them.
Look everybody, Chris can copy and paste from moveon.org!
LOL!
Playing to the audience, Ferdinand?
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:11 PM
Look everybody, Chris can copy and paste from moveon.org!
LOL!
So evidently Ferd doesn't believe that leaders should lead according to the common good? Again he reveals his neo-conservative elitist views. Now the question is....who's good does Ferd prefer government officials work toward? The answer....the good of the globalist corporate elite that run the Republican Party.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:13 PM
How do you group neo-cons w/ the fascists? Do you know what neo-con refers to?
This might help a little. It's an article from the American Conservative.
http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:17 PM
Chris, please stop with the goofy stuff. you are embarrassing yourself!
Dude, please! Republicans dealt with a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. NO law was passed that the Dems didn't agree to prevent from passing!
much of the legislation that did pass, that Bush did sign was supported by a number of democrats.
Are you going to say the same thing if Obama wins and the Dems pick up seats in both houses of congress? will the Dems all the sudden be Fascists???
what hypocrisy! but then again, hypocrisy seems to be the name of the game with you.
Leading Republicans, defend torture in a most Clintonesque fashion. "Is water boarding torture?" "Is our current policy condoning torture?"
Leading Republican answer, "It depends what the definition of 'is' is."
Leading Republicans have lowered America to a two bit regime with disregard of human rights...to the point of looking the other way in regards to torture.
http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Papers-Road-Abu-Ghraib/dp/0521853249
Human Rights Watch:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm
This is a real issue that needs to be addressed.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:18 PM
Bro, Chirs reads Moveon.org and just starts regurgitating.
he cant help it.
Actually, I haven't been out to Moveon.org. But maybe they're on to something, though I'm sure I might disagree on some issues of theirs.
Instead of attempting to discredit through fabricated association...defend your indefensible position.
So evidently Ferd doesn't believe that leaders should lead according to the common good? Again he reveals his neo-conservative elitist views. Now the question is....who's good does Ferd prefer government officials work toward? The answer....the good of the globalist corporate elite that run the Republican Party.
U need to burn your Farenheit 9/11 DVD, Chris. :tantrum
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:28 PM
The subject of "torture" is one that has to be addressed. Again the statists argue against human rights based on the value issued by the state. There is a morality greater than the Government or any human constitution.
Besides, information gained under torture isn't reliable seeing men will confess anything to end their torment.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:32 PM
Republicans should be highly upset with President Bush and this current stock of Republican leaders. They have shamed our nation and if the Democrats win (and almost all agree that they will) the Republicans only have one place to place the responsibility...Bush/Cheney Inc.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:34 PM
Many would say,
Democrat = Pro-Abortion and Communism.
Then is it safe to say,
Republican = Pro-Torture and Fascism?
Sadly, there isn't a third option. So the only option I can see is to reign in each with the other when they cross the line. And yes, each will cross the line.
My point Ferd is that you're very fast to call Democrats, and those like me who feel they've got a case, Communists and hardline socialists...but my question is...will you defend Republican atrocities? And how do you feel and/or react when you hear Republicans labeled a pro-torture fascists?
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 03:42 PM
Maybe I'm neither Republican or Democrat. Maybe I'm a radical independent. LOL
COOPER
02-25-2008, 04:11 PM
Maybe all the illegal aliens will follow??? :reaction
After 9-11 and the war on terror............ Some one named "Barak Hussain Obama" will not be my president.
Monkeyman
02-25-2008, 04:33 PM
After 9-11 and the war on terror............ Some one named "Barak Hussain Obama" will not be my president.
You moving to Canada???:ursofunny
Monkeyman
02-25-2008, 04:35 PM
*disclaimer* (I am an evil evil man) Having said that, I have no problem with torture...I know huh, my wife says I'm weird! But if torture would have stopped 9-11, I say, grab the hose...
*Other than that, I'm a reaaaalllly nice guy*
Mrs. LPW
02-25-2008, 04:38 PM
*disclaimer* (I am an evil evil man) Having said that, I have no problem with torture...I know huh, my wife says I'm weird! But if torture would have stopped 9-11, I say, grab the hose...
*Other than that, I'm a reaaaalllly nice guy*
:toofunny
Yes.. he only uses waterboarding techniques to stop terrorist attacks and off key choir members.
I don't know if I characterized it as GREAT.
Bill Clinton was a better orator.
When left w/ the choice between McKain and Obama ... I'll take the one who has stood by his principles.
How can you as a conservative vote for someone whose very agenda is the oposite of a conservative one?
Bush didn’t see a Republican bill he didn’t love. He didn’t use veto, even when it would have been good for our country. It’s a symptom of fascist one party rule. Many real Republicans are not patrician hacks, and they’re willing to admit that the Republican party has gone down the road of fascism and extremism. Anyone with a lick of sense can see this.
One party rule without challenge, that’s not “government”…that’s rulership. The President is the nation’s chief executive…Bush used it as a fast track to pass every Republican initiative into law even when it was bad for the American people. They say power corrupts…and the one party rule provided near absolute power and has rendered the current leadership of the Republican party absolutely corrupt.
Fascist one party rule is what the Republicans have given us and wish to build upon in the coming years. They’d make it illegal to be a Democrat if they could. They have a vile fascist globalist agenda. Their real constituents are massive globalized corporations that aim to put the common man out of business until they have aggregated all wealth into their sphere and advance into a fascist world government. The Republican goal is redistribution of wealth…distributing it from the public trust and free market into the massive global corporate conglomerates.
Your rhetoric is not only "ove the top" it is just plain wrong. You show a total lack of understanding of what facism is.
Your post here illustrates exactly my disappontment that so many OP's are caught in the global conspiracy theories and other Black Helicopter garbage.
The Republicans that have governened may not have been exactly what you would like but they have represented less government and less government intervention in peoples lives than the Democrats ever dreamed of.
Republican policies leave the door open for the American dream. It is still small businesses that power America's economy. Democrats would tax small business owners out of existence if they had their choice.
Maybe I'm neither Republican or Democrat. Maybe I'm a radical independent. LOL
I have another term but then I would have to ban myself.......:gaga
Not, Ferd ... you simply tried to disassociate the party from the fascist tag. Both Fascism and communism are not uniquely American ... both models are for the most part European in character ... but ideals have been espoused by many living here for decades ...
McCarthyism ring a bell?
I don't fear labels ... sometimes they are just that ... and sometimes their is a figment of truth in them.
Check me Daniel, I was speaking of the American Conservitives. NOT the republican party! in fact I stated that there ARE Fascists in the Republican party.
McCarthyism is a debate in and of itself. I am not willing to connect it to Fascism. Bad mojo for sure but Fascism? Not willing to say that.
and that bit about Fascism and communism not being uniquely American? well we agree 100%
just dont tag the American Conservitive movement with the fascist lable. we aint it.
So evidently Ferd doesn't believe that leaders should lead according to the common good? Again he reveals his neo-conservative elitist views. Now the question is....who's good does Ferd prefer government officials work toward? The answer....the good of the globalist corporate elite that run the Republican Party.
There you go Chris, OUT YOURSELF>
There has NEVER been a Republican (which you have claimed to be) who used these words: "the good of the globalist corporate elite that run the Republican Party"
You should feel better, you are OUT LOUD and IN MY FACE! Go Chris!
Now see there, doesnt it feel better to just be a liberal and be proud?
And Chris, I believe the conservitive principles that guide conservitive politicians are best for every single person in the United States.
Many would say,
Democrat = Pro-Abortion and Communism.
Then is it safe to say,
Republican = Pro-Torture and Fascism?
Sadly, there isn't a third option. So the only option I can see is to reign in each with the other when they cross the line. And yes, each will cross the line.
My point Ferd is that you're very fast to call Democrats, and those like me who feel they've got a case, Communists and hardline socialists...but my question is...will you defend Republican atrocities? And how do you feel and/or react when you hear Republicans labeled a pro-torture fascists?
LOL! dude, next thing your going to do is start a thread on the next time you will be out with the anarchists protesting globalism and the evil corporate globalist machine that is exploiting workers around the world.
do you still bathe? LOL!
Torture is wrong. Water Boarding is not torture
And you and Barak are still commies.
LOL! dude, next thing your going to do is start a thread on the next time you will be out with the anarchists protesting globalism and the evil corporate globalist machine that is exploiting workers around the world.
do you still bathe? LOL!
Torture is wrong. Water Boarding is not torture
Exactly! drowning somebody would be torture. Making someone feel like they are drowning when in fact they are not and are perfectly safe is not. It is a method of coercion.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 06:13 PM
Your post here illustrates exactly my disappontment that so many OP's are caught in the global conspiracy theories and other Black Helicopter garbage.
Just so I understand you here...You consider to be "garbage" the idea that there are some in this world who have a desire and plan to guide our world toward world government?
Just so I understand you here...You consider to be "garbage" the idea that there are some in this world who have a desire and plan to guide our world toward world government?
The idea that politicans meet in dimly lit rooms conspiring to bring a one world government to reality.
I am almost 49 years old and have heard that jumk all of my life. Those conspiracy theories were particularly popular in the late 1960's and 1970's.
Now go ahead and give me a history lesson on trilateralism. Tell me how that Democrats and Republicans are all the same and meet behind closed doors to pick who is going to win each election with a wink, wink, nod, nod.
Oh, and don't forget how there is a giant computer in Brussells that is the "Beast: in revelation. Oh, wait. That one has kind of died out since the 80's.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 07:44 PM
Now go ahead and give me a history lesson on trilateralism. Tell me how that Democrats and Republicans are all the same and meet behind closed doors to pick who is going to win each election with a wink, wink, nod, nod.
Oh, and don't forget how there is a giant computer in Brussells that is the "Beast: in revelation. Oh, wait. That one has kind of died out since the 80's.
Well, I was just curious as to your point of view on it.
But please...I could do without the the sarcasm. It was just a simple question.
RandyWayne
02-25-2008, 08:00 PM
Oh, and don't forget how there is a giant computer in Brussells that is the "Beast: in revelation. Oh, wait. That one has kind of died out since the 80's.
I remember hearing about that giant computer during the 80's from a certain end-times evangelist. Funny thing is that my current 4 PC's has more power then that thing ever had.
"This is the voice of colossus...."
Well, I was just curious as to your point of view on it.
But please...I could do without the the sarcasm. It was just a simple question.
I typed it with a smile on my face. Doesn't that count for something? It really reads more sarcastic than it was meant to be. I just have very little patience for conspiracy buffs.
I remember hearing about that giant computer during the 80's from a certain end-times evangelist. Funny thing is that my current 4 PC's has more power then that thing ever had.
"This is the voice of colossus...."
I remember finding out a few years ago that the computer in our cars that controls the engine is more powerful than the computer that landed the Lunar Landing Module!
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:11 PM
*disclaimer* (I am an evil evil man) Having said that, I have no problem with torture...I know huh, my wife says I'm weird! But if torture would have stopped 9-11, I say, grab the hose...
*Other than that, I'm a reaaaalllly nice guy*
We will never know if torture would have prevented 9/11. However, we do know that numbers of individuals are tortured for information they don't know. That means men are tortured for virtually no reason. We know that when men are tortured they do not always provide reliable information because they often say anything to end the torture. Sometimes they are coerced into confessing that things are happening that aren't truly happening. It's a crime against humanity. We stand against foreign countries torturing Americans...therefore we have a moral responsibility to live up to being a more civilized and just civilization.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:22 PM
Your rhetoric is not only "ove the top" it is just plain wrong. You show a total lack of understanding of what facism is.
Your post here illustrates exactly my disappontment that so many OP's are caught in the global conspiracy theories and other Black Helicopter garbage.
The Republicans that have governened may not have been exactly what you would like but they have represented less government and less government intervention in peoples lives than the Democrats ever dreamed of.
Republican policies leave the door open for the American dream. It is still small businesses that power America's economy. Democrats would tax small business owners out of existence if they had their choice.
Wrong. Small businesses and the middle class do better under Democrats. Primarily massive corporate powers do best under Republicans. Democrats would break up corporate powers and restore the innovative competition between smaller businesses and family enterprises such as what you see in Europe.
CC1, solid conservative publicans have associated the current Neo-Con leadership of the Republican party leaning towards fascism.
And in regards to conspiracy theories...I know this much...
There is a devil.
There is a spirit of antichrist working to unite the world against Christ and the Gospel.
I know that evil men have succumbed to this spirit.
I know that private powers are using their money to pull the strings from behind the scenes.
A global government will not just happen...there are individuals and groups working to make it happen. We're not talking about secret groups of behind the scene power brokers anymore. We're talking about men advocating the New World Order in the open. Look it up. Here's Kissinger commenting on it himself....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4&feature=related
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:25 PM
Check me Daniel, I was speaking of the American Conservitives. NOT the republican party! in fact I stated that there ARE Fascists in the Republican party.
McCarthyism is a debate in and of itself. I am not willing to connect it to Fascism. Bad mojo for sure but Fascism? Not willing to say that.
and that bit about Fascism and communism not being uniquely American? well we agree 100%
just dont tag the American Conservitive movement with the fascist lable. we aint it.
American conservatives aint it. But via the Republican Party they are married to it. Only conservatives that vote Constitutionalist can argue that they have completely broken ranks from the neo-con fascists of the Republican party.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:26 PM
I typed it with a smile on my face. Doesn't that count for something? It really reads more sarcastic than it was meant to be. I just have very little patience for conspiracy buffs.
ok. understood.
not a problem.
Bro-Larry
02-25-2008, 09:31 PM
Go Obama Go!!!
Go where? :ursofunny You can't be serious? or can you?
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:33 PM
There you go Chris, OUT YOURSELF>
There has NEVER been a Republican (which you have claimed to be) who used these words: "the good of the globalist corporate elite that run the Republican Party"
First, when a Republican does speak out against the one party facist agenda of the Republican party that are in bed with the globalist elite....in loyalty to the party you denounce him. If a man tells you the truth about your party you choose to view him as no longer Republican. When a man tells you the truth he becomes your enemy.
Second, you'd accept any thing the party does. You have no uncompromisable morals that might lead you to challenge your party for it's own good. You're a partisian loyalist.
And Chris, I believe the conservitive principles that guide conservitive politicians are best for every single person in the United States.
Conservative principles don't guide conservative politicians...only $$$ guides them. Oh, there may be a few niave true believers, but the majority are out for money and power. Think of all the Republican politicians that lobby for private interests and then leave office...to work for the massively wealthy corporate interests they lobbied for.
And we'll see if these principles are best for every American. If they are best and Americans are served well by them...Americans will re-elect a Republican. If not...Americans will tell you themselves they don't want the current version of conservatism your peddling.
I think it is hilarious to see someone seriously writing things like "the one party facist agenda of the Republican party".
I trust you are either kidding or at least don't expect to be treated seriously. You sound like some 19 year old College kid at Berkely after a few classes with left wing Professors.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:35 PM
LOL! dude, next thing your going to do is start a thread on the next time you will be out with the anarchists protesting globalism and the evil corporate globalist machine that is exploiting workers around the world.
do you still bathe? LOL!
Torture is wrong. Water Boarding is not torture
Water boarding isn't the only form of torture the Republicans are in support of. And the idea that water boarding isn't torture is entirely debatable. I'm sure if someone water boarded you with no end in site until you affirmed the Trinity you'd find it torturous.
Bro-Larry
02-25-2008, 09:37 PM
The Goverment is in the business of distributing privileges, benefits, and opportunities.
Water boarding isn't the only form of torture the Republicans are in support of. And the idea that water boarding isn't torture is entirely debatable. I'm sure if someone water boarded you with no end in site until you affirmed the Trinity you'd find it torturous.
Can you list all of the methods of torture that the evil facist Republicans want to use? I thought libs / Dems were only whining about water boarding.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:41 PM
I think it is hilarious to see someone seriously writing things lie "the one party facist agenda of the Republican party".
I trust you are either kidding or at least don't expect to be treated seriously. You sound like some 19 year old College kid at Berkely after a few classes with left wing Professors.
Of course, you're a party loyalist.
Independent solid conservatives can see the growing fascism in the Republican party.
http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:42 PM
And in regards to conspiracy theories...I know this much...
There is a devil.
There is a spirit of antichrist working to unite the world against Christ and the Gospel.
I know that evil men have succumbed to this spirit.
I know that private powers are using their money to pull the strings from behind the scenes.
A global government will not just happen...there are individuals and groups working to make it happen. We're not talking about secret groups of behind the scene power brokers anymore. We're talking about men advocating the New World Order in the open. Look it up. Here's Kissinger commenting on it himself....
Well said, sir.
30 years ago the whole One World Government thing might have [understandably] seemed to be just a silly conspiracy theory, the product of a very overactive imagination.
Today, there are many leaders in politics, academia, civil service, government-related non profit groups, etc who have openly spoken and written about their desire to see a unified world government.
It's easy for people to brush it all off as "black helicopter" conspiracy theory, or portray it as being about just a group of "evil men in dark rooms plotting to take over the world", but that tends to be just an oversimplified caricature that largely ignores much of the factual information that's already out there on this issue.
Whatever one's particular prophetic bent (pretrib, post, midtrib, preterist, whatever...) any fair minded, objective individual informed of the facts should be able to acknowledge that the One World Government idea is one that's been advocated with increasing openness by a wide variety of influential people in our society.
Bro-Larry
02-25-2008, 09:45 PM
Well said, sir.
30 years ago the whole One World Government thing might have [understandably] seemed to be just a silly conspiracy theory, the product of a very overactive imagination.
Today, there are many leaders in politics, academia, civil service, government-related non profit groups, etc who have openly spoken and written about their desire to see a unified world government.
It's easy for people to brush it all off as "black helicopter" conspiracy theory, or portray it as being about just a group of "evil men in dark rooms plotting to take over the world", but that tends to be just an oversimplified caricature that largely ignores much of the factual information that's already out there on this issue.
Whatever one's particular prophetic bent (pretrib, post, midtrib, preterist, whatever...) any fair minded, objective individual informed of the facts should be able to acknowledge that the One World Government idea is one that's been advocated with increasing openness by a wide variety of influential people in our society.
You are right on target, Bro.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:51 PM
Can you list all of the methods of torture that the evil facist Republicans want to use? I thought libs / Dems were only whining about water boarding.
Waterboarding is the only form of torture the authorities have admitted to. However, the Bush Administration is currently allowing Lybia to detain hundreds of prisoners – many incommunicado - and allowing the Lybian authorities to conduct brutal torture of these prisoners.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 09:56 PM
Well said, sir.
30 years ago the whole One World Government thing might have [understandably] seemed to be just a silly conspiracy theory, the product of a very overactive imagination.
Today, there are many leaders in politics, academia, civil service, government-related non profit groups, etc who have openly spoken and written about their desire to see a unified world government.
It's easy for people to brush it all off as "black helicopter" conspiracy theory, or portray it as being about just a group of "evil men in dark rooms plotting to take over the world", but that tends to be just an oversimplified caricature that largely ignores much of the factual information that's already out there on this issue.
Whatever one's particular prophetic bent (pretrib, post, midtrib, preterist, whatever...) any fair minded, objective individual informed of the facts should be able to acknowledge that the One World Government idea is one that's been advocated with increasing openness by a wide variety of influential people in our society.
Amen. And thank you.
We may not agree on politics, but I'm so thankful that you see it too.
And interestingly it's not just one political party in the US that is behind this. There are those sold out to these globalist efforts in both parties. They own McCain and Hillary can't be trusted to thwart them. Obama on the other hand is fresh and has them worried. They don't know how well they can control him. Obama may indeed turn out to be a man of the people. But only time will tell. All three, McCain, Hillary, and Obama may be in solid agreement with the globalist agenda. But Obama appears to stand out as the one most likely to break ranks with the powers that be and challenge the establishment if they get too agressive.
TRFrance
02-25-2008, 09:57 PM
I trust you are either kidding or at least don't expect to be treated seriously. You sound like some 19 year old College kid at Berkely after a few classes with left wing Professors.
Ouch.
Christopher, no offense but... if I may be frank, I must say CC1 is kinda right on that point. :O)
From what I've observed, your posts on political issues have a tendency to at times indicate an oversimplified, almost naive view of things, the kind normally seen in overzealous but unseasoned college students... at least as far as the rhetoric you tend to use.
ChristopherHall
02-25-2008, 10:05 PM
Ouch.
Christopher, no offense but... if I may be frank, I must say CC1 is kinda right on that point. :O)
From what I've observed, your posts on political issues have a tendency to at times indicate an oversimplified, almost naive view of things, the kind normally seen in overzealous but unseasoned college students... at least as far as the rhetoric you tend to use.
Bro, I've posted entire policy papers on issues and I'm chided for my posts being too long. So yep...here I'm resorting to a bit of simplified rhetoric one can fit on a bumper sticker. lol
OP_Carl
02-26-2008, 04:17 AM
Simple fact is, there is no reason for the Dems to loose this election.
the ONLY thing that should be in Baraks way is his skin color. Or if it is Hillary, her gender.
It appears that as a nation, we might have moved past that bigotry which is a good thing.
But as it relates to this election cycle, we have never elected a president from the same party as a sitting president with an approval rating below 45%.
It simply is an insurmountable hill to climb.
It appears thatObama is about to be handed 4 years to do his deal. Lets just pray the dammage isnt too great.
This is why political conservatives in Ohio, Texas, and whatever other states have yet to hold their primary elections should get out there and vote for Hillary. There is no way she can win the general election. Even liberal men shudder and get a chill when they think about getting cozy with Hillary. While lots of women support her, mainly just because she's a woman, close to half have strong negatives. (that means hate her guts 'cause she's a back-stabbin shrew, for those of you in Rio Linda)
I'll tell you right now that I would vote for a black or a woman if I agreed with them politically. I don't need for my representative to look like me - just think like me. :evilglee
COOPER
02-26-2008, 06:55 AM
I just found this....
Obama worked with terrorist
Senator helped fund organization that rejects 'racist' Israel's existence
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57231
Monkeyman
02-26-2008, 07:00 AM
We will never know if torture would have prevented 9/11. However, we do know that numbers of individuals are tortured for information they don't know. That means men are tortured for virtually no reason. We know that when men are tortured they do not always provide reliable information because they often say anything to end the torture. Sometimes they are coerced into confessing that things are happening that aren't truly happening. It's a crime against humanity. We stand against foreign countries torturing Americans...therefore we have a moral responsibility to live up to being a more civilized and just civilization.But what we DON't know is what has been prevented by torture>
I think it is hilarious to see someone seriously writing things like "the one party facist agenda of the Republican party".
I trust you are either kidding or at least don't expect to be treated seriously. You sound like some 19 year old College kid at Berkely after a few classes with left wing Professors.
CC1, this has gone from a discussion to the absurd.
Not even Chris believes the junk he is throwing down. It is a charade. I think he thinks he is cute.
funny thing is, everyone here reads it and instead of seeing his joke, they see the rantings of a half mad mind starved for oxygen and IQ points.
It is sad really.
But what we DON't know is what has been prevented by torture>
Monkeyman, here is the solid facts.
torture is not being used. Water Boarding is. regardless of our friends silly comments, there is no indication that any form of torture has been used or is even advocated.
As for Water Boarding, it has stopped at least 6 different attempts by terrorists on U.S. soil.
It has been used on a VERY small number of people, all of whom are known associates of Bin Ladin.
DividedThigh
02-26-2008, 08:10 AM
CC1, this has gone from a discussion to the absurd.
Not even Chris believes the junk he is throwing down. It is a charade. I think he thinks he is cute.
funny thing is, everyone here reads it and instead of seeing his joke, they see the rantings of a half mad mind starved for oxygen and IQ points.
It is sad really.
hey ferd, to late on the iq points i allready took the test, lol,dt
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 08:30 AM
But what we DON't know is what has been prevented by torture.
This is one of the big issues I have with what the fascists have done to the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general. They have taken an extremist position in which they have adopted a worldview of the end justifying the means. For example, it’s ok to standby and allow the torture of 50 people in Libya who have nothing to offer because of the mere chance of finding that one individual who might provide good information. That’s absolutely deplorable. There was a time when America wouldn’t stand for that. By adopting a pro-torture stance we legitimize the practice of torture thus expanding its implementation in nations where they were on the edge with the issue. By taking a pro-torture position we nearly guarantee that our forces will be even more brutally tortured if captured even in cases where their torture would have otherwise been unlikely. They can point to the US and say, “Look, the US allows torture. What have we done differently?” How can we hold Iran, China, or N. Korea in contempt for torturing prisoners if we do the same? Same with domestic spying, they are turning us into a police state in which they can spy on us, read our emails, tap our phones, monitor our bank accounts, etc. They are capitalizing in terror to advance their fascist agenda. The Neo-Con fascists that have hijacked the conservative movement and the Republican Party in their efforts to turn America into a rogue nation more akin to some third world dictatorship than a free nation that protects, defends, and stands for the highest ethics in regards to human rights.
Think about it…these guys socially conditioned us to embrace a pre-emptive invasion against a nation that didn’t attack us nor had connections with those who did. In the 80’s and 90’s such would have been unthinkable. They turned our attention from terrorism to eliminate a nation state that wasn’t cooperating with their scheme to consolidate resources, namely oil. The Republicans are figure heads. The real power brokers are unelected corporate, globalist, powers making proposals in closed door meetings and securing their no-bid contracts to manage their efforts. This isn’t a conspiracy theory…this is happening right out in the open. The real “useful idiots” are the puppets in they get into the executive office and the voters who will vote for them regardless their radical fascist agenda. These people realized that politicized religion indeed can be used as an opiate of the people to keep them mindlessly obedient. That’s why they specialize in their “culture war” and their re-constructionist, historical-revisionist, rhetoric. When they’re finished you’ll support globalist efforts to destabilize the American economy and redistribute our wealth and labor throughout the globe, you’ll support bankrupting the national treasury, massive corporate giveaways, no-bid contracts, war profiteering, torture, domestic spying, wiretapping, unchecked and unregulated corporate power, corporate political involvement, unregulated CEO salaries, utilitarianist Social Darwinism, and predatory health care that culls the sick and poor from our population.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
DividedThigh
02-26-2008, 08:34 AM
talks like a lib, walks like a lib, even smells like a lib (no bath), yeah must be a lib, lol, this is getting really funny, poor baby, better be tuff like ferds old boss says, cause the pain will get worse, dt:ursofunny:laffatu
BrotherEastman
02-26-2008, 09:15 AM
Don't worry about it folks, Ralph Nader will take some of the democrats vote.
This is one of the big issues I have with what the fascists have done to the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general. They have taken an extremist position in which they have adopted a worldview of the end justifying the means. For example, it’s ok to standby and allow the torture of 50 people in Libya who have nothing to offer because of the mere chance of finding that one individual who might provide good information. That’s absolutely deplorable. There was a time when America wouldn’t stand for that. By adopting a pro-torture stance we legitimize the practice of torture thus expanding its implementation in nations where they were on the edge with the issue. By taking a pro-torture position we nearly guarantee that our forces will be even more brutally tortured if captured even in cases where their torture would have otherwise been unlikely. They can point to the US and say, “Look, the US allows torture. What have we done differently?” How can we hold Iran, China, or N. Korea in contempt for torturing prisoners if we do the same? Same with domestic spying, they are turning us into a police state in which they can spy on us, read our emails, tap our phones, monitor our bank accounts, etc. They are capitalizing in terror to advance their fascist agenda. The Neo-Con fascists that have hijacked the conservative movement and the Republican Party in their efforts to turn America into a rogue nation more akin to some third world dictatorship than a free nation that protects, defends, and stands for the highest ethics in regards to human rights.
Think about it…these guys socially conditioned us to embrace a pre-emptive invasion against a nation that didn’t attack us nor had connections with those who did. In the 80’s and 90’s such would have been unthinkable. They turned our attention from terrorism to eliminate a nation state that wasn’t cooperating with their scheme to consolidate resources, namely oil. The Republicans are figure heads. The real power brokers are unelected corporate, globalist, powers making proposals in closed door meetings and securing their no-bid contracts to manage their efforts. This isn’t a conspiracy theory…this is happening right out in the open. The real “useful idiots” are the puppets in they get into the executive office and the voters who will vote for them regardless their radical fascist agenda. These people realized that politicized religion indeed can be used as an opiate of the people to keep them mindlessly obedient. That’s why they specialize in their “culture war” and their re-constructionist, historical-revisionist, rhetoric. When they’re finished you’ll support globalist efforts to destabilize the American economy and redistribute our wealth and labor throughout the globe, you’ll support bankrupting the national treasury, massive corporate giveaways, no-bid contracts, war profiteering, torture, domestic spying, wiretapping, unchecked and unregulated corporate power, corporate political involvement, unregulated CEO salaries, utilitarianist Social Darwinism, and predatory health care that culls the sick and poor from our population.
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
Lies and distortions. What I can’t figure out is whether you are complicit in the lies or simply a mind numbed robot following the teachings of the America hating George Soros.
Either way, I am sad for you.
Also.
Sir, you have perpetrated a lie on the good people of AFF. You have stated that you are a Republican. That you are not a liberal. You simply have found yourself agreeing with certain things advocated by the democrat party, like Universal Healthcare.
In this thread you have proven yourself to be not only a liberal but an extreme leftwing ideologue.
You have defrauded the good people that have read your postings in GOOD FAITH.
I expect an apology to this board ASAP!
COOPER
02-26-2008, 09:22 AM
Lies and distortions. What I can’t figure out is whether you are complicit in the lies or simply a mind numbed robot following the teachings of the America hating George Soros.
Either way, I am sad for you.
Also.
Sir, you have perpetrated a lie on the good people of AFF. You have stated that you are a Republican. That you are not a liberal. You simply have found yourself agreeing with certain things advocated by the democrat party, like Universal Healthcare.
In this thread you have proven yourself to be not only a liberal but an extreme leftwing ideologue.
You have defrauded the good people that have read your postings in GOOD FAITH.
I expect an apology to this board ASAP!
:popcorn2
DividedThigh
02-26-2008, 09:28 AM
:Nhl_crash:att long wait ahead, lol,dt
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 11:09 AM
Lies and distortions. What I can’t figure out is whether you are complicit in the lies or simply a mind numbed robot following the teachings of the America hating George Soros.
Either way, I am sad for you.
Also.
Sir, you have perpetrated a lie on the good people of AFF. You have stated that you are a Republican. That you are not a liberal. You simply have found yourself agreeing with certain things advocated by the democrat party, like Universal Healthcare.
In this thread you have proven yourself to be not only a liberal but an extreme leftwing ideologue.
You have defrauded the good people that have read your postings in GOOD FAITH.
I expect an apology to this board ASAP!
Ah, but you lie. I'm a registered Republican who has only voted Democratic two or three times if counting local elections.
You ignorantly assume anyone who sees the evil of the Republican Party is a
"liberal", just as I stated above. Many Paleo-Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists would agree with me...and they are hardly liberal. I simply don't see any sense in voting third party. The only weapon we can use to bring the Republicans back to sanity is the Democratic Party. Spank the Republicans by voting Democratic, when they learn their lesson and return to true conservatism reward them with power. If we continue to compromise and allow the Republicans to get by scott free...we destroy conservatism. The Democratic policies will either work or they won't. Those policies that don't work can easily be reformed. Also one can use the Democratic blunders to advance a Republican majority in Congress.
You see...you're a party loyalist. You could care less if the party destroys conservatism...because you're not a real conservative. You more or less identify with the fascist neo-cons.
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 11:12 AM
The reader will note that anyone who voices a criticism of the neo-fascist, neo-conservative, extremist wing of the Republican Party is regarded as a “liberal”, “Communist”, “Socialist”, “Leftist”, and the pejorative labels spew forth. If you disagree with them that will say:
“You’re a liberal!”
“You’re a Commie!”
“Are you Pro-Abortion?”
“Are you anti-God?”
“Are you with the terrorists?”
“You’re un-American!”
And they will psychologically brow beat you and until you bow before their neo-con globalist agenda.
But not only are Liberals seeing this. Even solid conservatives in the Libertarians and Constitution parties are seeing this. The big government, fascist, neo-con powers are having major issues with the Republican candidate….even the majority of Republicans can see McCain is just a pawn, another useful idiot of the globalist elite. They twist the truth, they rule the world. Their crown is called deceit. They are the emperors of lies, we grovel at their feet. They rob us, and slaughter us. Our downfall is their gain. Yet we play the sycophants and revel in our pain. All they promise are lies. All their love is hate. They are the politicians, and they decide our fate. They march before a martyred world, an army for the fight. They speak of great heroic days, of victory and might. They wave a banner, drenched in blood…they urge you to be brave. They lead you to your destiny…they lead you to your grave. Your sons will build their palaces; your bones will stud their crowns. They serve Mammon, their peace is war…and they will cut us down. The Neo-Cons must be stopped.
DividedThigh
02-26-2008, 11:12 AM
the party continues, lol,dt:ursofunny
Ah, but you lie. I'm a registered Republican who has only voted Democratic two or three times if counting local elections.
You ignorantly assume anyone who sees the evil of the Republican Party is a
"liberal", just as I stated above. Many Paleo-Conservatives, Libertarians, and Constitutionalists would agree with me...and they are hardly liberal. I simply don't see any sense in voting third party. The only weapon we can use to bring the Republicans back to sanity is the Democratic Party. Spank the Republicans by voting Democratic, when they learn their lesson and return to true conservatism reward them with power. If we continue to compromise and allow the Republicans to get by scott free...we destroy conservatism. The Democratic policies will either work or they won't. Those policies that don't work can easily be reformed. Also one can use the Democratic blunders to advance a Republican majority in Congress.
You see...you're a party loyalist. You could care less if the party destroys conservatism...because you're not a real conservative. You more or less identify with the fascist neo-cons.
no appology. your words betray you.
discussion is over.
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 11:20 AM
no appology. your words betray you.
discussion is over.
The reader should note the above. Does Ferd admits to his fascist leanings?
DividedThigh
02-26-2008, 11:22 AM
i dont note that, but i read what you said, i note that, i know ferd, you could be anybody, so be who you are, lol, dt:laffatu
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 11:34 AM
Ferd, you know I’m just razzin’ ya. You called me a Communist because in this election I’m pulling for the Democrat. LOL
I was just hoping to see if you could take it since you dished it out so well. LOL
I'll be the Commie and you can be the Fascist. ;)
Ferd, you know I’m just razzin’ ya. You called me a Communist because in this election I’m pulling for the Democrat. LOL
I was just hoping to see if you could take it since you dished it out so well. LOL
I'll be the Commie and you can be the Fascist. ;)
hee hee.
you still want to socialize 1/5th of the US economy....
:tantrum
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 01:21 PM
hee hee.
you still want to socialize 1/5th of the US economy....
:tantrum
So, I'm now only 1/5th of a socialist. LOL
At least that's some progress. :)
Hey Ferd, really, no hard feelings bro. Love ya.
So, I'm now only 1/5th of a socialist. LOL
At least that's some progress. :)
Hey Ferd, really, no hard feelings bro. Love ya.
Its been a good hard nosed debate. nothing wrong with that....
progress....thats a good word so long as it isnt short for progressive!
ChristopherHall
02-26-2008, 01:38 PM
lol
TRFrance
03-05-2008, 07:20 AM
uh oh...
Hillary Clinton is now hinting at a "dream ticket" of herself and Barack Obama. If they join forces, I don't think McCain has much of a chance to beat them in November.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/clinton.obama.ticket.2.669799.html
Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama
Speaking on "The Early Show" on CBS, Clinton said "that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket."
Clinton said the race between her and Obama remains "incredibly close," with just "smidgens of difference" between them in both the popular vote and number of delegates.
Clinton's remarks came after her campaign won two big states yesterday: Ohio and Texas. She also won Rhode Island. The wins enabled her campaign to break Obama's 12-state winning streak and pick up some momentum of its own.
Speaking later on "The Early Show," Obama congratulated Clinton on her victories while maintaining he would be able to wrap up the Democratic nomination.
"We still have close to an insurmountable lead in delegates," Obama said. Obama said his campaign had won nearly twice as many states as Clinton as well as a greater share of the popular vote.
scotty
03-05-2008, 07:32 AM
I don't know , I think they would butt heads. Neither one will want to be the VP. She got the popular vote but He is still way ahead on delegates..
TRFrance
03-05-2008, 07:44 AM
I don't know , I think they would butt heads. Neither one will want to be the VP. She got the popular vote but He is still way ahead on delegates..
1... George Bush and Ronald Reagan butted heads a lot during their campaign , but when Reagan won, he chose bush as his running mate. Head butting during the campaign usually doesn't mean that much when its time to pick a running mate. Practicality sets in, and its about choosing who gives you your best chance to win it all.
2... He's ahead on delegates but he's lost the momentum by Clinton winning Texas and Ohio last night . Plus, she's on track to win the next two big states too, Pennsylvania and New York, and is leading in several other upcoming states. In the end, it'll come down to who the superdelegates choose. Theres still a big question mark on that, because I think voters are beginning to have second thoughts about Barack Obama.
scotty
03-05-2008, 07:55 AM
1... George Bush and Ronald Reagan butted heads a lot during their campaign , but when Reagan won, he chose bush as his running mate. Head butting during the campaign usually doesn't mean that much when its time to pick a running mate. Practicality sets in, and its about choosing who gives you your best chance to win it all.
2... He's ahead on delegates but he's lost the momentum by Clinton winning Texas and Ohio last night . Plus, she's on track to win the next two big states too, Pennsylvania and New York, and is leading in several other upcoming states. In the end, it'll come down to who the superdelegates choose. Theres still a big question mark on that, because I think voters are beginning to have second thoughts about Barack Obama.
1. alot more pride in these two though, if its clinton then ok, but if obama is Pres. I don't think Clinton can swallow the VP spot. she wasn't even 2nd to Bill...
2. yeah but momentum is good if there was an election in a week or two, it is 7 weeks now till Penn....anything can happen...Bill could open his mouth again and mess everything up for Hillary...
TRFrance
03-05-2008, 08:07 AM
Clinton would pick Obama.
I'm not sure he would pick her though.
He could win in November without her... I'm not sure she could win without him.
uh oh...
Hillary Clinton is now hinting at a "dream ticket" of herself and Barack Obama. If they join forces, I don't think McCain has much of a chance to beat them in November.
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/clinton.obama.ticket.2.669799.html
Clinton Hints At Sharing Ticket With Obama
Speaking on "The Early Show" on CBS, Clinton said "that may be where this is headed, but of course we have to decide who is on the top of the ticket."
Clinton said the race between her and Obama remains "incredibly close," with just "smidgens of difference" between them in both the popular vote and number of delegates.
Clinton's remarks came after her campaign won two big states yesterday: Ohio and Texas. She also won Rhode Island. The wins enabled her campaign to break Obama's 12-state winning streak and pick up some momentum of its own.
Speaking later on "The Early Show," Obama congratulated Clinton on her victories while maintaining he would be able to wrap up the Democratic nomination.
"We still have close to an insurmountable lead in delegates," Obama said. Obama said his campaign had won nearly twice as many states as Clinton as well as a greater share of the popular vote.
Unfortunretly I don't think McCain has much of a chance in November against either one. This feels like dejavu all over again, like we are reliving the 1996 Presidential election when the Republicans fresh from taking over the house and senate and with the President embroiled in scandals decided to blow their opportunity by nominating an elderly Senator who had zero chance of winning.
McCain has a better chance now than Dole did but not much. Especially if the economy does in fact fall into a recession. Bush gets no credit for pulling the economy out of both the recession he inerhited and the devastation that 9-11 did to it. He also gets no credit for taking the terrorists on in a proxy fight overseas helping tie them up and keeping another major attack on the homeland.
The Republicans are the "daddy" party. The protectors and firm. The Democrats are the "mommy" party. Warm and nurturing and wanting to give you everything even when they don't have it to give. The "free" stuff appeals to a lot of people who don't understand economics and the Dems will probably prevail until the next big threat or National Security disaster occurs under their watch.
TRFrance
03-05-2008, 09:47 AM
The Republicans are the "daddy" party. The protectors and firm. The Democrats are the "mommy" party. Warm and nurturing and wanting to give you everything even when they don't have it to give. The "free" stuff appeals to a lot of people who don't understand economics and the Dems will probably prevail until the next big threat or National Security disaster occurs under their watch.
... in which case many of them will find a way to blame George Bush anyway. It's always Bush's fault... somehow.
Unfortunretly I don't think McCain has much of a chance in November against either one. This feels like dejavu all over again, like we are reliving the 1996 Presidential election when the Republicans fresh from taking over the house and senate and with the President embroiled in scandals decided to blow their opportunity by nominating an elderly Senator who had zero chance of winning.
McCain has a better chance now than Dole did but not much. Especially if the economy does in fact fall into a recession. Bush gets no credit for pulling the economy out of both the recession he inerhited and the devastation that 9-11 did to it. He also gets no credit for taking the terrorists on in a proxy fight overseas helping tie them up and keeping another major attack on the homeland.
The Republicans are the "daddy" party. The protectors and firm. The Democrats are the "mommy" party. Warm and nurturing and wanting to give you everything even when they don't have it to give. The "free" stuff appeals to a lot of people who don't understand economics and the Dems will probably prevail until the next big threat or National Security disaster occurs under their watch.
CC1, the way this thing is shaking out, I wonder if any really solid Repbulcians who could have been candidates just decided to sit it out.
History tells us this is the Dems to loose, no matter who the republicans run.
I dont know why Rush wanted to keep Hillary alive in this. I always thought you get rid of compitition as soon as possible. crazy.
DividedThigh
03-05-2008, 09:58 AM
CC1, the way this thing is shaking out, I wonder if any really solid Repbulcians who could have been candidates just decided to sit it out.
History tells us this is the Dems to loose, no matter who the republicans run.
I dont know why Rush wanted to keep Hillary alive in this. I always thought you get rid of compitition as soon as possible. crazy.
i think that rush believes the clinton machine will weaken obama, really , :kickcan, dt
TRFrance
03-05-2008, 09:58 AM
I dont know why Rush wanted to keep Hillary alive in this. I always thought you get rid of compitition as soon as possible. crazy.
1... because Hillary is more beatable than Obama. She has higher negatives, and McCain polls better against her than Obama
2... the longer she campaigns, the more negative stuff she and Obama will throw out there about each other... that can only help McCain.
Pressing-On
03-05-2008, 10:06 AM
CC1, the way this thing is shaking out, I wonder if any really solid Repbulcians who could have been candidates just decided to sit it out.
History tells us this is the Dems to loose, no matter who the republicans run.
I dont know why Rush wanted to keep Hillary alive in this. I always thought you get rid of compitition as soon as possible. crazy.
Because she will target Obama the way he needs to be targeted and McCain won't be able to do that. Obama can turn and say, "You voted with us on this and that." We need Hillary in the race!
What McCain CAN DO because he was a foot soldier in the Regan Revolution is to borrow Reagan's "a great nation has a strong currency" and go on the campaign trail arguing that we need a dollar surge.
He will need to insist that the Treasury Department initiate on some open-market actions in order to boost the dollar. He needs to talk about conducting a dollar-strengthening diplomacy with Europe, Britain, Canada, Japan, etc.
He also needs to say that he is going to appoint someone else, beside Bernanke, who is ignoring the dollar and inflation.
Strengthening our dollar is an act of patriotism and will show the world, especially the "jihadists" that we are not in a decline and I think McCain can do it.
He needs to point out all of these things because the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are GOP appointees and have neglected the dollar.
He is strong on Iraq - now he needs to be strong on the dollar.
My thoughts......
1... because Hillary is more beatable than Obama. She has higher negatives, and McCain polls better against her than Obama
2... the longer she campaigns, the more negative stuff she and Obama will throw out there about each other... that can only help McCain.
I fall back to my poor dumb country boy line of thinking.
I grew up on a farm. when a couple of wild dogs started killing sheep, we would hunt them down. If you found the first one you killed it.
what you didnt do was try to get the two dogs to fight each other, all the while watching your own sheep get killed.
Obama is weak. Hillary is vicious. we need her OUT.
DividedThigh
03-05-2008, 10:22 AM
have to agree with you ferd, but she is a tough old girl, lol,dt
Esther
03-05-2008, 10:28 AM
I fall back to my poor dumb country boy line of thinking.
I grew up on a farm. when a couple of wild dogs started killing sheep, we would hunt them down. If you found the first one you killed it.
what you didnt do was try to get the two dogs to fight each other, all the while watching your own sheep get killed.
Obama is weak. Hillary is vicious. we need her OUT.
You like Obama over Hillary?
TRFrance
03-05-2008, 10:35 AM
I fall back to my poor dumb country boy line of thinking.
I grew up on a farm. when a couple of wild dogs started killing sheep, we would hunt them down. If you found the first one you killed it.
what you didnt do was try to get the two dogs to fight each other, all the while watching your own sheep get killed.
Obama is weak. Hillary is vicious. we need her OUT.
I dont think Obama is as weak as you think he is.
He virtually came out of nowhere, and now he's thisclose to defeating The Mighty Hillary.
Dangerous maybe, but not weak.
As much as I'm not a Hillary fan, I'd much rather live under a Clinton presidency than an Obama presidency.
SOUNWORTHY
03-05-2008, 10:39 AM
All I can say, it's time for praying people to pray and conservatives who really love this great country of ours to vote for the lesser of the evils. God help us!!
GodsBabyGirl
03-05-2008, 11:01 AM
Okay here goes...
As a black woman in this country, I will admit it would be nice to see a black man be voted into office. It would be good for our kids to see that black men can excel in a position of leadership and rule with excellence.
It will do my heart good to see that the blood of many wasn't shed in vain. Its not a racial thing. Just imagine if you were born and raised in a country where you were the minority. Where your race was still discriminated against after decades or even a century or more of strides towards racial equality.
Then you look at the State of the Union address and instead of seeing someone who never has walked in your shoes, or experienced what you have telling you how the country is. In is world, yes. But for many, the State of the Union is jacked up, for all, but moreso for your race.
In times of economic upheavel, civil unrest, and national uncertainty and fear, you would better believe what is coming out of the President's mouth when that President is of your race.
So yes, it would be history making, ground breaking and for us refreshing to see a fresh face in the White House. McCain and Hillary been around talking the same swagger. I listened to some Iowans say they just plain don't trust her, I was like, DITTO. I don't either.
Now I understand she is a woman. So I should support her because she is a woman? No.
I say whoever is most qualified AND whomever the people trust and want should be President.
I'm sorry, out of the choices presented, I honestly can say I trust Obama more. He comes from a single parent household, I am a single parent.
He has had to overcome obstacles to make it, I have, too.
He is well educated, intelligent black man, I am a well educated, intelligent black woman.
He wants this war to end. I do too.
He came to N.O. about a month ago and the man preached! He reached the people, real people! Hillary came a week after, but people were like, 'why this white woman down in N.O. trying to get my vote? Does she really care what happens to me and my kids?'
Is it right that many will dismiss her because of who she is? Probably not. But that is the reality.
People are tired of having folks in office who aren't real. Who cannot relate to regular people.
Have any of you ever seen 'Head of the State?'
It is a movie with Chris Rock. He is a down and out alderman in NY who is encouraged to run for President. Many think b/c he is black he won't win. Then they dig up some trash from his past, try to miscontrue words he spoke during interviews, and try to stick scandal on him so he can't win.
No one, including Chris, believes he can win.
In the end, he does. It is a hilarious movie.
Talk about fiction come to life here!!!!! :bliss:bliss
BrotherEastman
03-05-2008, 11:04 AM
Okay here goes...
As a black woman in this country, I will admit it would be nice to see a black man be voted into office. It would be good for our kids to see that black men can excel in a position of leadership and rule with excellence.
It will do my heart good to see that the blood of many wasn't shed in vain. Its not a racial thing. Just imagine if you were born and raised in a country where you were the minority. Where your race was still discriminated against after decades or even a century or more of strides towards racial equality.
Then you look at the State of the Union address and instead of seeing someone who never has walked in your shoes, or experienced what you have telling you how the country is. In is world, yes. But for many, the State of the Union is jacked up, for all, but moreso for your race.
In times of economic upheavel, civil unrest, and national uncertainty and fear, you would better believe what is coming out of the President's mouth when that President is of your race.
So yes, it would be history making, ground breaking and for us refreshing to see a fresh face in the White House. McCain and Hillary been around talking the same swagger. I listened to some Iowans say they just plain don't trust her, I was like, DITTO. I don't either.
Now I understand she is a woman. So I should support her because she is a woman? No.
I say whoever is most qualified AND whomever the people trust and want should be President.
I'm sorry, out of the choices presented, I honestly can say I trust Obama more. He comes from a single parent household, I am a single parent.
He has had to overcome obstacles to make it, I have, too.
He is well educated, intelligent black man, I am a well educated, intelligent black woman.
He wants this war to end. I do too.
He came to N.O. about a month ago and the man preached! He reached the people, real people! Hillary came a week after, but people were like, 'why this white woman down in N.O. trying to get my vote? Does she really care what happens to me and my kids?'
Is it right that many will dismiss her because of who she is? Probably not. But that is the reality.
People are tired of having folks in office who aren't real. Who cannot relate to regular people.
Have any of you ever seen 'Head of the State?'
It is a movie with Chris Rock. He is a down and out alderman in NY who is encouraged to run for President. Many think b/c he is black he won't win. Then they dig up some trash from his past, try to miscontrue words he spoke during interviews, and try to stick scandal on him so he can't win.
No one, including Chris, believes he can win.
In the end, he does. It is a hilarious movie.
Talk about fiction come to life here!!!!! :bliss:bliss
I believe he can win, and if he were conservative, he would have my vote. In good conscience, I just cannot bring myself to vote for any liberal.
COOPER
03-05-2008, 11:14 AM
I dont think Obama is as weak as you think he is.
He virtually came out of nowhere, and now he's thisclose to defeating The Mighty Hillary.
Dangerous maybe, but not weak.
As much as I'm not a Hillary fan, I'd much rather live under a Clinton presidency than an Obama presidency.
Hussein Obama.....:runhills
ChristopherHall
03-05-2008, 12:49 PM
I’ll proudly admit that I voted for Obama in Ohio’s Democratic Primary.
Do I agree with everything he believes? No.
But I look at it like this….
McCain’s a phony conservative that is licking the boots of the corporate interests who control the Republican Party. He’s just a “yes man”, a “figure head”, just like Bush is. That’s why McCain’s sticking to the same policies…he’s not his own man. Also McCain is a womanizing lush. If he wins…nobody knows what we’re really getting. The best guess is that we’d get “Bush III”. Bush, in my opinion is terribly incompetent the policies Bush has stood by are failures, especially his domestic policy. Small businesses are really struggling here in Ohio. Its good times for massive corporations…it’s turbulent waters for small businesses. So McCain’s not a man I can support.
Hillary, she’s never really been herself. I wish she would open up more and be herself because she’s really far more likeable than the image she presents. I believe that comes from being a woman competing for political office in a man’s world. She’d just offer us more Clinton. Sure, times might have been good during the Clinton Administration, but that was then…this is now. Bush pushed us back into the 80’s, Hillary wants to bring us up into the 90’s…but it’s not the 90’s, it’s 2008. So I see her running to establish another chapter in the Clinton legacy. Would I vote for her over McCain? Maybe, but I’d much rather see her out of the race.
Obama, Obama is pretty liberal and I don’t agree with everything he believes. But…though we may disagree with some things he believes…he’s honest about what he believes. He really wants to make a difference. He’s honest about being a liberal compared to McCain, who’s a phony conservative. Obama wants to see real change. Hillary is pushing “Clinton III” and McCain is pushing “Bush III”. Obama is pushing…an Obama Administration. That’s spelled C-H-A-N-G-E. Obama hasn’t been in Washington very long. That mean’s he’s not as beholden to special interests like Hillary and McCain and is closer to being an average man like us. He’s definitely not establishment. McCain and Hillary also don’t have a spiritual bone in their bodies…but Obama is a very spiritual man though we may disagree with some of his theology (we don’t even agree with each other theologically). Obama is a praying man and has been faithful to his church, even if we don’t agree with everything his church teaches. Obama has sincere and genuine faith…even if we don’t agree with him on every point. Not so with McCain and Hillary. For McCain and Hillary their religion is merely a membership card to wave before the election. Obama will be a straight shooter who will be more likely to tell us what we don’t want to hear in a way that we will be glad he did.
So in summary, I believe my choices are…
McCain = A phony conservative who only offers “Bush III”.
Hillary = A cold liberal who only offers “Clinton III”.
Obama = An authentic liberal who is sincere about real change.
I know plenty of black brothers and sisters and let me tell you, they are straight up and tell it like it is…even if it’s not popular. They also don’t care what you think about them. They’ve experienced too much to worry about what somebody else thinks. Think about it…that’s what makes black comedians so funny…they just know how to tell it like it is. LOL
DividedThigh
03-05-2008, 12:52 PM
tell your self whatever you have to so you can sleep at night, but i thought you were a registered republican, hmmmmm, lol,dt
scotty
03-05-2008, 12:57 PM
tell your self whatever you have to so you can sleep at night, but i thought you were a registered republican, hmmmmm, lol,dt
So that don't mean anything to him, my dog is a registered cheewawa....don't mean he wont h*mp a poodle.....:ursofunny
Pressing-On
03-05-2008, 12:58 PM
So that don't mean anything to him, my dog is a registered cheewawa....don't mean he wont h*mp a poodle.....:ursofunny
:smack
DividedThigh
03-05-2008, 01:01 PM
:blissSo that don't mean anything to him, my dog is a registered cheewawa....don't mean he wont h*mp a poodle.....:ursofunny
:bliss:laffatu i see, dt
scotty
03-05-2008, 01:01 PM
:smack
:sorry :angelsad
DividedThigh
03-05-2008, 01:03 PM
:sorry :angelsad
it was worth it scotty, dt:laffatu
Pressing-On
03-05-2008, 01:03 PM
:sorry :angelsad
Go to your room, Scotty!!! :foottap
:killinme
Pressing-On
03-05-2008, 01:03 PM
it was worth it scotty, dt:laffatu
:smack
scotty
03-05-2008, 01:04 PM
it was worth it scotty, dt:laffatu
:winkgrin
DividedThigh
03-05-2008, 01:04 PM
:smack
whatever press, lol,dt
Pressing-On
03-05-2008, 01:04 PM
:winkgrin
:killinme
Turkey!
scotty
03-05-2008, 01:05 PM
Go to your room, Scotty!!! :foottap
:killinme
:kickcan
Pressing-On
03-05-2008, 01:05 PM
whatever press, lol,dt
:killinme
BrotherEastman
03-05-2008, 01:13 PM
I’ll proudly admit that I voted for Obama in Ohio’s Democratic Primary.
Do I agree with everything he believes? No.
But I look at it like this….
McCain’s a phony conservative that is licking the boots of the corporate interests who control the Republican Party. He’s just a “yes man”, a “figure head”, just like Bush is. That’s why McCain’s sticking to the same policies…he’s not his own man. Also McCain is a womanizing lush. If he wins…nobody knows what we’re really getting. The best guess is that we’d get “Bush III”. Bush, in my opinion is terribly incompetent the policies Bush has stood by are failures, especially his domestic policy. Small businesses are really struggling here in Ohio. Its good times for massive corporations…it’s turbulent waters for small businesses. So McCain’s not a man I can support.
Hillary, she’s never really been herself. I wish she would open up more and be herself because she’s really far more likeable than the image she presents. I believe that comes from being a woman competing for political office in a man’s world. She’d just offer us more Clinton. Sure, times might have been good during the Clinton Administration, but that was then…this is now. Bush pushed us back into the 80’s, Hillary wants to bring us up into the 90’s…but it’s not the 90’s, it’s 2008. So I see her running to establish another chapter in the Clinton legacy. Would I vote for her over McCain? Maybe, but I’d much rather see her out of the race.
Obama, Obama is pretty liberal and I don’t agree with everything he believes. But…though we may disagree with some things he believes…he’s honest about what he believes. He really wants to make a difference. He’s honest about being a liberal compared to McCain, who’s a phony conservative. Obama wants to see real change. Hillary is pushing “Clinton III” and McCain is pushing “Bush III”. Obama is pushing…an Obama Administration. That’s spelled C-H-A-N-G-E. Obama hasn’t been in Washington very long. That mean’s he’s not as beholden to special interests like Hillary and McCain and is closer to being an average man like us. He’s definitely not establishment. McCain and Hillary also don’t have a spiritual bone in their bodies…but Obama is a very spiritual man though we may disagree with some of his theology (we don’t even agree with each other theologically). Obama is a praying man and has been faithful to his church, even if we don’t agree with everything his church teaches. Obama has sincere and genuine faith…even if we don’t agree with him on every point. Not so with McCain and Hillary. For McCain and Hillary their religion is merely a membership card to wave before the election. Obama will be a straight shooter who will be more likely to tell us what we don’t want to hear in a way that we will be glad he did.
So in summary, I believe my choices are…
McCain = A phony conservative who only offers “Bush III”.
Hillary = A cold liberal who only offers “Clinton III”.
Obama = An authentic liberal who is sincere about real change.
I know plenty of black brothers and sisters and let me tell you, they are straight up and tell it like it is…even if it’s not popular. They also don’t care what you think about them. They’ve experienced too much to worry about what somebody else thinks. Think about it…that’s what makes black comedians so funny…they just know how to tell it like it is. LOL
But you'll vote for a man who thinks that same sex marraige was endorsed by Jesus himself? Okay Chris!
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.