Republican @ MindSay 
democrat
Obama's a Socialist? (my response)
This was taken from a Freedom and Reason blog post. Many Anons posted ignorant comments, of which, Austin replied to. I also replied. See "Steve Indigo":
Anonymous said... 
Andrew Austin said... Anonymous said... Anonymous said... Anonymous said... Andrew Austin said... Steve Indigo said...
Obama likes to talk about all his small donors, but records show that one-third of his campaign contributions come from donations of $1,000 or more. It totals $112 million so far. This money comes in as "bundlers," which are collected contributions totaling $50,000 and more. The dough comes from the capitalist class. They're investing heavily in Obama's campaign.
posted by Andrew Austin at 11:19 PM on Aug 5, 2008
Anonymous said... Why would capitialists want a socialist president?
August 6, 2008 9:07 AM
Andrew Austin said... They wouldn't. You're not seriously trying to suggest that Obama is a socialist, are you? Because if you did this you would informing people about how ignorant you are of basic political philosophy, and surely you don't want to do that.
August 6, 2008 9:21 AM
Anonymous said... We all already know he IS a socialist, so there will be no informing of anyone, prehaps YOU are ignorant.
August 6, 2008 8:24 PM
Anonymous said... Yeah, I agree with the previous guy, he is a socialist.
August 6, 2008 8:25 PM
Anonymous said... http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/
August 6, 2008 8:32 PM
Andrew Austin said... Gotta love the AIM link. Thanks, guys.
August 6, 2008 9:49 PM
Steve Indigo said... What these anons are posting is absurd, to say the least. AIM may be non-profit, but they are, without a doubt, cheerleaders for conservative establishment media.
Most importantly, it doesn't matter what was happening in that recent past, because this is the Obama that we see today: a half-black, anti-progressive candidate who, maybe, 150 years ago, would have made great speeches in attempts to justify slavery. He would be just as famous, if not more, if he was the Republican presidential candidate.
Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?
Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.
The Myth of the Two-Party System 
Every election year, the only two people the media ever wants to talk about are the two major party candidates. The Democrats push out yet another rich martini-swilling progressive while the Republicans yell "next" and present the next rich scary-looking old man in line.
During the primaries, each candidate becomes a champion of their party's values. The Democrats are all super-liberal and super-progressive, promising vast sweeping social reforms and government programs galore. The Republicans are all real conservatives, ready to bring this country back to a smaller government and more open market. Then, the primaries end, the candidates are chosen, and both start sounding a lot more like each other. We have John McCain being an environmentalist, and Barack Obama citing "safety of the American people" when he votes to give the government more warrant-less wiretapping powers. Before you know it, Obama will be an Iraq War supporter.
It's clear that the worst time to determine a politician's loyalties is an election year. Pandering to every voter interest possible inevitably leads to contradiction and policy "flip-flopping." What's also clear is that when no one is trying to garner votes, the party lines are substantially blurred. The Republicans and Democrats work essentially as one party in the "off season." As a result, nothing ever changes.
People do recognize this. Many do not get involved in politics, citing "they're all the same" as the reason. So why is it, election after election, these same people pick the person they hate over the person they really hate? Why don't they vote for a third-party candidate?
The reason is because people love to be right, and too often, voters will vote for who they think will win rather than who they like. Voting for a third party candidate is seen as throwing a vote away, or worse yet, giving it to the enemy. Many cite Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign as an example. Nader is blamed for Gore's defeat because those making the claim assume that if Nader wasn't running, all of his votes would have gone to Gore. Many of them probably would have, but there is also one other important fact: Gore won the popular vote in Florida and thus the 2000 election. It was the supreme court that made the determination that Bush won. Nader's votes wouldn't have tipped the scales because they were already tipped in Gore's favor.
But even if that sentiment was true, it was the sentiment itself that made it so. It's not impossible for a third party candidate to win an election. Ross Perot, and independent candidate, actually polled as the winner in the 1992 presidential elections for a short time. Perhaps if he hadn't dropped out of the race, we would have had 8 years of President Perot in the 90's.
Many are fed up with the one political party that masquerades as two come election time, but are still drawn to vote for it when the crucial moment comes. Some may be genuinely fooled (yet again) by campaign rhetoric, but the vast majority I feel continue voting for the same corrupt system because they get caught up in the black-and-white, us-vs-them mentality. To them, they may not like the candidate they're voting for, but they really hate the other candidate. They feel the risk is too great to vote third party. The problem is, once again, that voting for a major party because you don't believe a third party candidate can win is precisely why third party candidates don't win.
I was a victim of the same reasoning. As an Obama supporter, I began to excuse more and more minor shifts in direction he exhibited. When the controversy over FISA started, I adopted a "wait and see" attitude. Obama promised us he was different. He wasn't just another politician, and he was true to his ideals. I trusted his words against FISA (including those against telecom immunity) meant that when given the opportunity to act against it, he would do so.
When Obama had the chance to seize that opportunity, he changed his mind, and instead supported the FISA bill in the end. That's when I realized that he is, in fact, just another Republi-crat. Now that he's not courting the left wing, his politics are diving strictly to the center, where he believes he will get more votes. Now he's starting to talk about safety, and how great of a reason it is to give the government unprecedented spying abilities and let large corporations off the hook for violating the law.
On the conservative side, McCain has long been a disappointment to conservatives. His record as a conservative is paltry at best, and often throws in with Democrats in order to propose very liberal (to the conservatives anyway) legislation.
As I thought about these things, I realized that there is a battle between two political wills in this country, but not between the two that most people think. No, the battle is between the Republi-crat establishment and the minor party rebellion. These parties, whether it be the Libertarian, Green, or Constitution Party are the only ones that are advocating real, sweeping change. You want an interesting debate? I would much rather see Ralph Nader go up against Bob Barr than watch Barack Obama and John McCain pretend to disagree with each other. I know where Nader and Barr stand. They actually have sharply different ideas on how to run this country. There are more issues at stake than just pro-war vs. anti-war.
To anyone reading this who is reading this, who is fed up with Obama and disappointed by McCain, I beg you to seriously consider your political alternatives. Really think about what the purpose of an election is, and above all, remember that in order for a third party candidate to really win this time, it takes your, yes your vote. Ignore the polls, ignore the media. They're bought and paid for by the political institution. They'll ignore Barr, Nader, McKinney, or Baldwin no matter what the polls show. Sure, they throw the rebels a bone once in a while, but the vast majority of their time is on the candidates who are part of the system. I'm proud that I'll be voting this November for Ralph Nader, because I know I'll be voting for real hope and real change from someone that has actually changed things for the better. I hope you can feel the same way when you pull the lever this November, regardless of who your candidate is.
Every election year, the only two people the media ever wants to talk about are the two major party candidates. The Democrats push out yet another rich martini-swilling progressive while the Republicans yell "next" and present the next rich scary-looking old man in line. During the primaries, each candidate becomes a champion of their party's values. The Democrats are all super-liberal and super-progressive, promising vast sweeping social reforms and government programs galore. The Republicans are all real conservatives, ready to bring this country back to a smaller government and more open market. Then, the primaries end, the candidates are chosen, and both start sounding a lot more like each other. We have John McCain being an environmentalist, and Barack Obama citing "safety of the American people" when he votes to give the government more warrant-less wiretapping powers. Before you know it, Obama will be an Iraq War supporter.
It's clear that the worst time to determine a politician's loyalties is an election year. Pandering to every voter interest possible inevitably leads to contradiction and policy "flip-flopping." What's also clear is that when no one is trying to garner votes, the party lines are substantially blurred. The Republicans and Democrats work essentially as one party in the "off season." As a result, nothing ever changes.
People do recognize this. Many do not get involved in politics, citing "they're all the same" as the reason. So why is it, election after election, these same people pick the person they hate over the person they really hate? Why don't they vote for a third-party candidate?
The reason is because people love to be right, and too often, voters will vote for who they think will win rather than who they like. Voting for a third party candidate is seen as throwing a vote away, or worse yet, giving it to the enemy. Many cite Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign as an example. Nader is blamed for Gore's defeat because those making the claim assume that if Nader wasn't running, all of his votes would have gone to Gore. Many of them probably would have, but there is also one other important fact: Gore won the popular vote in Florida and thus the 2000 election. It was the supreme court that made the determination that Bush won. Nader's votes wouldn't have tipped the scales because they were already tipped in Gore's favor.
But even if that sentiment was true, it was the sentiment itself that made it so. It's not impossible for a third party candidate to win an election. Ross Perot, and independent candidate, actually polled as the winner in the 1992 presidential elections for a short time. Perhaps if he hadn't dropped out of the race, we would have had 8 years of President Perot in the 90's.
Many are fed up with the one political party that masquerades as two come election time, but are still drawn to vote for it when the crucial moment comes. Some may be genuinely fooled (yet again) by campaign rhetoric, but the vast majority I feel continue voting for the same corrupt system because they get caught up in the black-and-white, us-vs-them mentality. To them, they may not like the candidate they're voting for, but they really hate the other candidate. They feel the risk is too great to vote third party. The problem is, once again, that voting for a major party because you don't believe a third party candidate can win is precisely why third party candidates don't win.
I was a victim of the same reasoning. As an Obama supporter, I began to excuse more and more minor shifts in direction he exhibited. When the controversy over FISA started, I adopted a "wait and see" attitude. Obama promised us he was different. He wasn't just another politician, and he was true to his ideals. I trusted his words against FISA (including those against telecom immunity) meant that when given the opportunity to act against it, he would do so.
When Obama had the chance to seize that opportunity, he changed his mind, and instead supported the FISA bill in the end. That's when I realized that he is, in fact, just another Republi-crat. Now that he's not courting the left wing, his politics are diving strictly to the center, where he believes he will get more votes. Now he's starting to talk about safety, and how great of a reason it is to give the government unprecedented spying abilities and let large corporations off the hook for violating the law.
On the conservative side, McCain has long been a disappointment to conservatives. His record as a conservative is paltry at best, and often throws in with Democrats in order to propose very liberal (to the conservatives anyway) legislation.
As I thought about these things, I realized that there is a battle between two political wills in this country, but not between the two that most people think. No, the battle is between the Republi-crat establishment and the minor party rebellion. These parties, whether it be the Libertarian, Green, or Constitution Party are the only ones that are advocating real, sweeping change. You want an interesting debate? I would much rather see Ralph Nader go up against Bob Barr than watch Barack Obama and John McCain pretend to disagree with each other. I know where Nader and Barr stand. They actually have sharply different ideas on how to run this country. There are more issues at stake than just pro-war vs. anti-war.
To anyone reading this who is reading this, who is fed up with Obama and disappointed by McCain, I beg you to seriously consider your political alternatives. Really think about what the purpose of an election is, and above all, remember that in order for a third party candidate to really win this time, it takes your, yes your vote. Ignore the polls, ignore the media. They're bought and paid for by the political institution. They'll ignore Barr, Nader, McKinney, or Baldwin no matter what the polls show. Sure, they throw the rebels a bone once in a while, but the vast majority of their time is on the candidates who are part of the system. I'm proud that I'll be voting this November for Ralph Nader, because I know I'll be voting for real hope and real change from someone that has actually changed things for the better. I hope you can feel the same way when you pull the lever this November, regardless of who your candidate is.
THE BISHOP HAS A NEW BLOG
HERE IS THE NEW BLOG SING UP NOW.
Dr. C.
Fudking Insane Despotic Retrograde Republicans!
Some several or a few years back I coined the word "fudking" [gogoogleit]. It is, actually and with intent, a dynamic acronym with each letter being open to representation of different descriptive words or adjectives.
You see: fascist foolish foppish fraudulent fucking unpatriotic uneducated uncaring dumb-ass despotic demonic dangerous dispiccable know-nothing knuckle-headed kind-less knee-jerk ignorant imbecilic neoconservative ghoulish Godless goon etc, etc, etc. Ya see?
Fudker: fascist unpatriotic despotic knee-jerk egregious Republican etc, etc. Ya see?
Sincerely in pursuit of happiness and freedom from insane fascist retrograde tyranny in AUSPONA [gogoogleit].
Mr. David Tecumseh Schmidt, MSW '82 University of Michigan Tecumseh High School '59
Some several or a few years back I coined the word "fudking" [gogoogleit]. It is, actually and with intent, a dynamic acronym with each letter being open to representation of different descriptive words or adjectives.
You see: fascist foolish foppish fraudulent fucking unpatriotic uneducated uncaring dumb-ass despotic demonic dangerous dispiccable know-nothing knuckle-headed kind-less knee-jerk ignorant imbecilic neoconservative ghoulish Godless goon etc, etc, etc. Ya see?
Fudker: fascist unpatriotic despotic knee-jerk egregious Republican etc, etc. Ya see?
Sincerely in pursuit of happiness and freedom from insane fascist retrograde tyranny in AUSPONA [gogoogleit].
Mr. David Tecumseh Schmidt, MSW '82 University of Michigan Tecumseh High School '59
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Vista - You know, all that being said, I did spend some quality time with the control panel after I...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy