Don't confuse me with the facts!

[Mediocrates]

Sounds like you figured out you might need another 2 years solid just to psych yourself out enough in order to vote for him a 2nd time, and you're starting now.

The GOP has to run a credible centrist candidate. It's not impossible if they dump the Teaparty loons.

[NewsGuy]

If Obama were actually a radical leftist, or liberal, that would be a good thing. Not in all senses, but fear mongering that Obama is "socialist" isn't an argument that the policies are actually negative, which is what's important, right? Simply put "socialist" policies applied to certain issues can be a good thing. If it increases efficiency and accountability to centralize decision making, the "socialism" argument becomes irrelevant.

The debate shouldn't be about whether Obama is socialist. You can't prove that's a bad thing just by calling him one.

Obama's problem is that he is a weak leader without any real convictions and is anti-intellectual, not being a socialist.

Those are good points, David. Socialism isn't an evil ideology, but it's just not as successful as capitalism in producing efficiency, high standard of living, innovation and freedom.

At this point, we're mostly a capitalism-based democracy while Obama is fighting tooth and nail to change the us into a Socialist (or even Communist) country. He's scheming to expand welfare programs and other entitlements and planning a government takeover of an enormous part of the economy. All this of course, while forcefully "redistributing" the earnings of hard-working Americans.

The only reason that the Left is complaining, is that Obama has been blocked so far from making his devastating bills into law. It's not that Obama doesn't want to move to Socialism or Communism, it's just that he's unable to do so because of his high disapproval ratings affecting other Dem candidates in an important election year.

Otherwise, left to his own devices, Obama would make even Stalin proud.

[I am David 2]

Those are good points, David. Socialism isn't an evil ideology, but it's just not as successful as capitalism in producing efficiency, high standard of living, innovation and freedom.

At this point, we're mostly a capitalism-based democracy while Obama is fighting tooth and nail to change the us into a Socialist (or even Communist) country. He's scheming to expand welfare programs and other entitlements and planning a government takeover of an enormous part of the economy. All this of course, while forcefully "redistributing" the earnings of hard-working Americans.

I agree, there's no doubt Obama has ratcheted up the stupid with his policy initiatives. But I hesitate to call Obama socialist over most of these things, or even to disagree with some specifics. Obama is all around bad, so i don't even care if the "socialist" label is inaccurate, but not everything he supports is wrong either. Eventually we may get a quality democratic candidate again (after missing Gore and Kerry), and I just think that whatever they support will have some kind of evil label applied to it by the Republicans, like "liberal", or "socialist", even if the specific policy is quite effective. After all, we all know our political system is extremely partisan, and it benefits the major parties to make enemies out of the other major party, so both democrats and republicans have to be aware that sometimes the rhetoric against the other party is just BS, even if it goes against the perception of them being the "bad party."

Socialism isn't an evil ideology, but it's just not as successful as capitalism in producing efficiency, high standard of living, innovation and freedom.

When applied to the whole government non-democratically, true. But in small doses for specific policies, socialism can't mean anything sinister like communism, it just boils down to a different mechanical structure of the legislation, and that can sometimes mean an increase in efficiency. I think socialist policies in Israel have gone a long way in making up for its lack of resources and difficult situation, like universal healthcare and government control of some industries.

[redcake]

Accept that Israel's economy is beyond frail, and it's only been their technology boom, and move towards emulating a more Westernized system that they've shown signs of stability.

You're right that their will always be ideologue Republicans out to lambast any challengers - but at the moment, they happen to be correct. The radical Left has managed to coopt a mainstream party, while the Conservative movement has done some maturing. They're proving themselves to be diverse, and capable of moving on from the one issue politics that defined them since the Reagan years. Creepy Reagan and Goldwater suddenly seem relevant, and their words have a renewed meaning. The real progress is happening on the Right, where women, gays and minority are finding new acceptance, and their success, without marginalizing them with handouts, is being honored. There's a return to the founding father concepts, and focusing on our freedoms, which was really what Liberalism was meant to be about. It's a strange twist.

[andak01]

Actually, you're the one who tries to smear everyone who is not a Socialist like you. Just scroll up and see. I don't think that Socialism and Communism are the same, although they are closely related, and I wonder which label best fits Obama and his radical Leftist supporters like you.

Well since he hasn't come up with a plan for socialized medicine and since he didn't nationalize the banks (who have BTW paid back most of the TARP money) and since he hasn't seized all the guns or created a Hitler youth or stopped elections or any of the other conspiracy theories the right have about him, your only resort is implication through acquaintances, not his actual track record.

I'll grant you he is not for unfettered Capitalism. That is not an extreme position, but a moderate one, since he also supports and is supported by many capitalist institutions.

As for my own views, since I haven't focused on that and since they aren't the topic of this thread, bringing them up (or rather inventing them) can only be for the purpose of a smear.

Since you seem to be the only one saying those things and you feel fatigue, why not just give yourself a little break?

You've always had the power to ban me if you don't want a contrary view on your forum. I'm not imposing anything on you that you aren't a willing participant in. Plenty of the posters here who treat me with even a modicum of respect find that we can discourse even when we don't agree. More and more that can only happen through PMs since the ad homs on the threads run to thick too put forth points.

Going back to my original point, I mentioned that there was strong disagreement about the very points made in the article that the thread is about:

- Obama was born in Hawaii
- Global Warming

You have more than proven my point on the first and we didn't even get to the Global Warming issue, since tarring Obama is such a subject of delight around here. Would you care to weigh in on Global Warming, or does calling me a Communist make you more satisfied?

[redcake]

Re: nationalizing the banks... some facts for you -

the regulatory controls on banks continues to stifle them from doing business and keeping liquid. due to the fdic (and i can try to explain this) smaller banks are getting swallowed up monthly, and without media attention. they are being bought up by the previously failed banks who have special deals with the fdic so that they aren't under the same regulatory controls as every other bank. so, countrywide fails, creates a mortgage crisis, gets bought up by soros and others, who then rebrand it, and without having to pay back the money the feds kicked in, they go and buy up little failed banks at a pittance.

do you see what's wrong with that equation, and how the government is empowering a massive takeover?

now factor in feddie/fannie who were issued an unlimited budget, and consider that this accounts for almost all the mortgages out there.

these three bodies could essentially foreclose on city blocks, in some distressed areas, and claim eminent domain on the rest.

so the idea that we're not nationalizing banks, is contrary to the regulatory controls and side effects. it's a back door nationalization.

[redcake]

You've always had the power to ban me if you don't want a contrary view on your forum.

Honey cake for everyone!

[NewsGuy]

Well since he hasn't come up with a plan for socialized medicine and since he didn't nationalize the banks (who have BTW paid back most of the TARP money) and since he hasn't seized all the guns or created a Hitler youth or stopped elections or any of the other conspiracy theories the right have about him, your only resort is implication through acquaintances, not his actual track record.

Obama is the utmost champion of Socialized medicine and already has taken taxpayer money to expand the power and size of the government. Just because he's been prevented from carrying out his health care scheme so far doesn't mean he isn't still moving forward full steam.

We've already seen how deceptive it is of you to refer to his anti-Semitic and anti-American "uncle" and "mentor" of 20 years as an acquaintance.

And regarding his record, we know that his voting record is to the left of every other senator in the US.

This really is the point of the thread that, even faced with undeniable facts, people like you simply go on smearing the other side and coming up with conspiracy theories to justify your own beliefs.

[andak01]

so the idea that we're not nationalizing banks, is contrary to the regulatory controls and side effects. it's a back door nationalization.

In other words, since Obama hasn't actually nationalized banks, you're going to infer some conspiracy of the FDIC. Let me remind you that it isn't just banks, but all businesses that get swallowed up in tough economic times. The big boys with deep pockets look for little failing fish that still have potential. That is normal business practice, not socialism, much less communism.

Sarbanes-Oxley, one of the most sweeping regulatory reforms in recent history was a product of the Bush administration and a result of the utter failure of Cheney's chums at Enron.

[andak01]

We've already seen how deceptive it is of you to refer to his anti-Semitic and anti-American "uncle" and "mentor" of 20 years as an acquaintance.

I had uncles growing up that were stone cold racists. Some of them mentored me in some ways, but they didn't make me hate blacks. I can tell you that if I'd stood on a soapbox and decried their views in front of them, they would no longer associate or be associated with me. Again, to pretend that there is a continued relationship with Wright is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

This really is the point of the thread that, even faced with undeniable facts, people like you simply go on smearing the other side and coming up with conspiracy theories to justify your own beliefs.

Maybe the point of the thread was all about me. I doubt that. But the article which started its points were about, among other things, people who doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. You are quite evidently one of those people.

Here's the original quote:

But that's the intellectual state of the union these days, as evidenced by all the people who still don't believe the president was born in Hawaii or that the planet is warming. And by Mr. Thompson, who doesn't believe Henry Johnson did what he did.

I do believe it, since it was announced by local papers at the time and the state backs up the claim. You, presented with those facts, believe it was a conspiracy.

I also believe in global warming, not least because one of my best friends has travelled both to Greenland (last year) and to Antarctica (within the month) and has been shown its effects by locals.

[Mil]

by andak01:

I also believe in global warming, not least because one of my best friends has travelled both to Greenland (last year) and to Antarctica (within the month) and has been shown its effects by locals.

the issue is not global warming but what is causing it, and that definitely should not be a political issue....


I had uncles growing up that were stone cold racists. Some of them mentored me in some ways, but they didn't make me hate blacks. I can tell you that if I'd stood on a soapbox and decried their views in front of them, they would no longer associate or be associated with me. Again, to pretend that there is a continued relationship with Wright is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Till about a year ago he went to a church where Write was the priest.

[redcake]

In other words, since Obama hasn't actually nationalized banks, you're going to infer some conspiracy of the FDIC.

It's not a conspiracy to relate daily news events.

You dislike facts, or we could discuss the FDIC role in enabling Indymac was renamed and now operates with an 20/80 loss share deal, with FDIC picking up the 80% side.

[NewsGuy]

I had uncles growing up that were stone cold racists. Some of them mentored me in some ways, but they didn't make me hate blacks. I can tell you that if I'd stood on a soapbox and decried their views in front of them, they would no longer associate or be associated with me. Again, to pretend that there is a continued relationship with Wright is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Again, you're denying what Obama himself stated, which is that the Rev Wright was his "uncle" and "mentor" for 20 years. Unlike your uncle, Obama freely chose to follow the anti-Semitic and anti-American Reverend Wright. It was Obama's choice for 20 years. After admitting that, Obama then lied to all of us, claiming that he had no idea of the Rev Wright's views. Imagine that: After 20 years of attending Rev Wright sermons and having extensive private discussions with Wright, it was just impossible for Obama to know what his "mentor" the Rev Wright stood for... It's Obama's lies and close ties to anti-American radicals that cause people to rightfully (no pun intended) doubt his every word. It doesn't matter that Obama temporarily dissociates from Wright when he became a political liability for Obama. The only conspiracy here is for Leftists to deny the facts.

[I am David 2]

You're right that their will always be ideologue Republicans out to lambast any challengers - but at the moment, they happen to be correct.

Except they were wrong about the last two democrats, and it was their lies and cynical politics which left us with the stupidest president ever, which caused every economic and military problem we have today, and who created a culture of respect for low-IQ candidates who can confidently shout rhetoric but can't remember facts. So they might be right about Obama on certain things, but it's just coincidence.

So they finally got it right about one democrat, good for them, but they have a lot of damage to make up for, and they haven't shown even the slightest initiative in starting to work for the country rather than their party.

[redcake]

They were absolutely correct about Carter.

I think they were correct about Clinton, as well. He ran one of the most corrupt administrations and the current war against terrorism is the direct result of his mistakes in the Cole bombing, Somalia, Arafat, and all the rest.