ET Warrior Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 If you want to start on that and are referring to the source I'm thinking of it was debunked long ago, whereas Obama's associations are well documented.Because when the fact checkers debunk something about the Republicans they got it right, but if anything about Obama is debunked they're just in the tank with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 Because when the fact checkers debunk something about the Republicans they got it right, but if anything about Obama is debunked they're just in the tank with him? When they're being funded by the Organization that the Democratic candidate ran, that's the general idea. I'd be a little suspicious of a fact checker funded by an Organization that Senator McCain ran if it were debunking rumors about him. (though last I checked he hasn't been on any boards funding a fact checker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 A foundation chaired by Barack Obama that was designed to improve Chicago public schools gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Small Schools Workshop, an organization led by former Weatherman Bill Ayers and by Michael Klonsky, a former chairman of both Students for a Democratic Society and, according to The Washington Post and New York Times, a group called the “Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist).” I fail to see what is wrong with giving money to the Small Schools Workshop (other article by Klonsky)? It seems pretty much in line with the foundation's objectives The fact that Ayers or Klonsky might have done stupid things 40 years ago when Obama was just a kid doesn't seem very relevant to me in that regard. It's rather what they have become, now Ayers is a University professor and Klonsky works as an educator (see above description of his project) and the Small Schools Workshop isn't a Marxist organization. Unless I am missing something there was nothing illegal in giving money to that organization (and I bet they had attribution criteria for the donation and the Small Schools met them). It appears as a total non-story to me. As a foreigner I am appalled at how low the attacks against an adversary can be in the American campaign. I happened to give money last year to a charity that helps poor children...I knew that the organizer who contacted me was an ex drug addict who committed manslaughter in the past and I am pretty sure that he had a different political allegiance than mine...sounds to me that, accordingly to what you say, I would have been supporting drug traffic and crime and I would be sharing the same political views as that guy too instead of helping out children As for adding a small tax percentage to the people with higher revenues I don't see how that makes Obama a socialist ( !) or why it is such a big deal in the current situation (ouch!)... Besides, as several other people mentioned already, socialism does no equal totalitarianism. In any event, my take is that if Obama is elected, there will a very slight move to the left (and hopefully a more open approach towards foreign policy), nothing more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Vougalot Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Yes, he is. He is practically Karl Marx reincarnated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 ... ok, I've gotta jump in after that. On what are you basing that, Zerimar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom wherever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. I can't help but make relation between our current election fears and the Red Scare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 source I'm thinking of it was debunked long ago What source are you thinking of then and how was it debunked? I'd prefer not to be misinformed any longer if what I heard was not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism." http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/ I once made a speech extolling eugenics and social Darwinism. Which is by far much worse than extolling socialism or communism, or Marxism or Leninism. So what's your point? Lots of people make speeches about lots of things in their life. Aren't we in that country where we can express our opinion freely on any subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 I fail to see what is wrong with giving money to the Small Schools Workshop (other article by Klonsky)? It seems pretty much in line with the foundation's objectives The fact that Ayers or Klonsky might have done stupid things 40 years ago when Obama was just a kid doesn't seem very relevant to me in that regard. It's rather what they have become, now Ayers is a University professor and Klonsky works as an educator (see above description of his project) and the Small Schools Workshop isn't a Marxist organization. Unless I am missing something there was nothing illegal in giving money to that organization (and I bet they had attribution criteria for the donation and the Small Schools met them). It appears as a total non-story to me. As a foreigner I am appalled at how low the attacks against an adversary can be in the American campaign. The devil is in the details Darth333: Neither were they an innovative, sophisticated way to sort and track kids. Rather, the small schools movement offered a strategy for engaging teachers, students, parents, and whole communities, the people with the problem, in a movement for democratic education --http://www.pdkmembers.org/members_online/publications/archive/pdf/k0602aye.pdf I happened to give money last year to a charity that helps poor children...I knew that the organizer who contacted me was an ex drug addict who committed manslaughter in the past and I am pretty sure that he had a different political allegiance than mine...sounds to me that, accordingly to what you say, I would have been supporting drug traffic and crime and I would be sharing the same political views as that guy too instead of helping out children Darth333, in that situation I would question your judgement on taking that guy's word at face value. That being said, that would be the only thing I would question in regards to that. However, your example doesn't compare to this situation, there are multiple reasons for that, one of which you weren't on a board with this guy overseeing how money was spent with the money ending up in the hands of groups like ACORN. Furthermore, in your case we're only looking at one association here, in Obama's case I'm looking at 4 interconnecting associations that begin with the letter A and all four of them have socialist leanings. As for adding a small tax percentage to the people with higher revenues I don't see how that makes Obama a socialist ( !) or why it is such a big deal in the current situation (ouch!)... Besides, as several other people mentioned already, socialism does no equal totalitarianism. In any event, my take is that if Obama is elected, there will a very slight move to the left (and hopefully a more open approach towards foreign policy), nothing more... There is a difference in what McCain suggested (which I disagree respectfully disagree with McCain on his prior stance), compared to Senator Obama's stance. Obama wants to give tax breaks to people that already don't pay any Federal Income tax, in order to subtract from 0 you have to send a bunch of checks to these individuals which is not a tax cut, it's welfare. If you listen to the audio tape from youtube that I posted (which has been confirmed to be authentic), you'll see that there is a significant difference. I can't help but make relation between our current election fears and the Red Scare. Well the tape has been confirmed to be real, so there appears to be some evidence to back up what I'm saying. What source are you thinking of then and how was it debunked? I'd prefer not to be misinformed any longer if what I heard was not true. The places I heard of the rumor from included Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and also MSNBC (least I think they were the ones to drag this up). Along with the bogus story that Palin's youngest son trig was actually a case of incest between her husband and Palin's oldest daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Well the tape has been confirmed to be real, so there appears to be some evidence to back up what I'm saying. Clearly you misunderstood my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 Clearly you misunderstood my post. Obviously, because as far as I'm interpretting what you're saying, you're trying to compare apples and oranges whose only similarity is that they are both fruit, I really don't get the connection because unlike the "Red Scare" there is quite a lot of evidence on public record concerning Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 You have yet to provide evidence, as well you have yet to validate that socialism = unamericanism. I suggest re-reading over my post and understand what was being talked about. If there is further information you need on the situation you can google McCarthyism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 You have yet to provide evidence, as well you have yet to validate that socialism = unamericanism. I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now. He also has a history of diverting funds to groups with questionable agendas: Obama's Education Groups funded Controversial Organizations' Tax Returns (a lot of the groups mentioned in the article have socialist agendas) Though if you want to go down the unamerican road, I don't think funding a group that specializes in voter fraud is pro-American putting it mildly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now.You still have not given any credible proof on why we should believe that Obama is a socialist. Unless if you have a document(s) which says OBAMA=SOCIALIST, then you are making wild claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 You still have not given any credible proof on why we should believe that Obama is a socialist. Unless if you have a document(s) which says OBAMA=SOCIALIST, then you are making wild claims. Had posted it earlier: Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). New Party tried to scrub this but it was saved on the web Archive The New Party is a Socialist Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 The New Party is a Socialist Party.In your own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share Posted October 28, 2008 In your own opinion. It isn't just my opinion. The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others. So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization? http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now.unless you can provide evidence that socialism will crash the economy or can prove you have a doctorate in economics, kindly stop throwing around assertions like that. furthermore, history goes against what you've just said, look at the great depression and the new deal that came after and dragged the economy out of the ****ter. It isn't just my opinion. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/10/08/will-msm-report-obama-membership-socialist-new-party well, i'm certainly surprised that a right wing website that you cherry picked shares your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 You still have not given any credible proof on why we should care that Obama is a socialist. Fix'd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Fix'dOh yes, my bad. Thanks for correcting me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'm saying that he's a socialist and his policy ideas are extremely dangerous because it will tank the economy even worse than it is now. Is that even possible? Eight years of trickle down voodoo economics did not work, maybe we should try trickle up economics for a while. You know like under Clinton when all we had to gripe about was the man’s character. :bow:El Sitherino for post #56 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Some perspective for those that crave it. Of course, all taxes are redistributive, in that they redistribute private resources for public purposes. But the federal income tax is (downwardly) redistributive as a matter of principle: however slightly, it softens the inequalities that are inevitable in a market economy, and it reflects the belief that the wealthy have a proportionately greater stake in the material aspects of the social order and, therefore, should give that order proportionately more material support. McCain himself probably shares this belief, and there was a time when he was willing to say so. During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” a young woman asked him why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.” There's more good stuff both before and after this part, but I think this passage here is essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 You have yet to provide evidence, as well you have yet to validate that socialism = unamericanism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck Listen to the audio tape again, and as for providing proof, I was proving he is a socialist. Though coming from someone that is taking classes on the United States Constitution currently it sounds pretty anti-American to me considering, our founding fathers were talking about "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," in the declaration of independence. Not government giving everything to you and us living in a nanny state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Where is Obama's manifesto? So far you have shown no evidence of anything negative or dangerous on Obama's part. I must say it is disturbing to see citizens of any class exploit a system of fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcesious Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I think three things we need to do are: Declare a flat tax for all citizens. Make stricter regulations about spending. Illegalize (large, but not small) corporate monopolies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.