 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama is a socialist
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:15 AM I shouldn't wonder that they (Cuba and North Vietnam) might have helped American dissidents like the Weathermen. Why wouldn't they? Now you should look into what American government and corporate agents have done all over Latin America and the Third World if you want something that will really curl your hair. I'm talking about assassinations, coups, regime change, invasion, torture, mass murder, and the killing of many, many thousands of Third World people in the name of corporate free enterprise and profit. There's a war going on out there all the time. Your error is in assuming that the "angels" are on your own government's side. They're not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:33 AM ...........and not in the corporations that buy parties, candidates and presidents!!...Wait till you get a load of their advertising campaign..its called 'the news'! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:52 AM You stick with Cuba and Vietnam, I'll stick with the US. Freedom is OK with me. "corporations that buy parties, candidates and presidents" That must be Soros you're talking about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:12 AM Who did Liddy's people bomb? Seen him standing on the flag recently? Does he run away and hide when questioned then call the police? Does he address people as Comrade? I guess Bobert can't figure out those ages. Too difficult. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:25 AM CCs $500,000 "gift" from Mccain to Khalidi she has been hooting about: Factcheck.org Since 1993, McCain has been chairman of the International Republican Institute â€" a nonprofit and nonpartisan group that helps promote democratic practices and institutions across the globe. The IRI, in an October 29 press release, said it "gave grants" to the Center for Palestinian Research and Studies for polling in the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza. The IRI said its "relationship with CPRS ended in 2000, and we understand that it no longer exists." "We understand that Rashid Khalidi was one of the many founders of CPRS, and we understand that he was for some amount of time, a board member," the IRI said. A defunct CPRS Web site lists Khalidi was one of the seven people who founded the group in March 1993. CPRS described itself as "an independent academic research and policy analysis institution." "Because CPRS is independent of political factions, it is in a unique position of being able to serve as a forum for meetings of Palestinian and international researchers from various political backgrounds and ideologies in a free academic and professional atmosphere," the group said. John McCain has never met Rashid Khalidi, while Barack Obama has acknowledged a close friendship with him. The Verdict: True. There was a relationship in the 1990s between the IRI, chaired by McCain, and the CPRS, co-founded by Khalidi, which received IRI funding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Nov 08 - 02:12 AM From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:52 AM "corporations that buy parties, candidates and presidents" That must be Soros you're talking about. ..and Murdoch, and Westinghouse, and Goldman Sachs, and AIG, and Geico, and Dow Chemical, and Exxon, and BP, and Lilly, and NBC. and Boeing, and McDonald-Douglass, and Alcoa, and GM, and Warren Buffett, and Mattel, and Pfizer, and Mobil, and Lockeed, and Ford, and Hunts, and Hollywood movie industry, and General Electric, and Colt, and Bell, and General Dynamics, and Chrysler, and Singer, and General Foods, and Microsoft, and AOL, and Caterpillar, and...well you get the idea... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 02:58 AM The instructions I received from Billy Ayers was that the bombs to be used in Detroit must have shrapnel (fence staples, specifically) and fire potential (propane bottles). The intention was to kill police officers. When I objected to Billy Ayers that more innocent people would be killed in the restaurant, he replied, "Innocent people have to die in a revolution." Billy also acknowledged during a criticism session in Buffalo that Bernadine placed the bomb at the Park Police Station which resulted in the death of Police Officer McDonnell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Nov 08 - 03:22 AM http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/11/bill_ayers_dedicated_his_1974.html Sawzaw, and Rig...you'll like this one.. ..Obama groupies will not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:17 AM LOLOL Well, the election is only a couple of days away. It doesn't look like those kinds of ugly smear tactics are working for the McCain people. In fact, it looks like the effect they're having is the opposite of the one the McCain people intend. And that's as it should be. Time for me to not waste any more time responding to the smear tactics and go hit the pavement to get out the votes for Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:21 AM But I will say, as I have also said on other threads, I feel pretty confident that Ayers believes that Sirhan Sirhan did not kill Bobby Kennedy, that he blames the US government for Kennedy's death, and that he dedicated the book to Kennedy because he believes that Sirhan Sirhan was set up to take blame for a murder he did not commit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 04:22 AM Correction: *he dedicated the book to Sirhan Sirhan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:21 AM Ah, what the hell... McCain Transition Chief Aided Saddam In Lobbying Effort William Timmons, the Washington lobbyist who John McCain has named to head his presidential transition team, aided an influence effort on behalf of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein to ease international sanctions against his regime. The two lobbyists who Timmons worked closely with over a five year period on the lobbying campaign later either pleaded guilty to or were convicted of federal criminal charges that they had acted as unregistered agents of Saddam Hussein's government. During the same period beginning in 1992, Timmons worked closely with the two lobbyists, Samir Vincent and Tongsun Park, on a previously unreported prospective deal with the Iraqis in which they hoped to be awarded a contract to purchase and resell Iraqi oil. Timmons, Vincent, and Park stood to share at least $45 million if the business deal went through. Timmons' activities occurred in the years following the first Gulf War, when Washington considered Iraq to be a rogue enemy state and a sponsor of terrorism. His dealings on behalf of the deceased Iraqi leader stand in stark contrast to the views his current employer held at the time. John McCain strongly supported the 1991 military action against Iraq, and as recently as Sunday described Saddam Hussein as a one-time menace to the region who had "stated categorically that he would acquire weapons of mass destruction, and he would use them wherever he could." Timmons declined to comment for this story. An office manager who works for him said that he has made it his practice during his public career to never speak to the press. Timmons previously told investigators that he did not know that either Vincent or Park were acting as unregistered agents of Iraq. He also insisted that he did not fully understand just how closely the two men were tied to Saddam's regime while they collaborated. But testimony and records made public during Park's criminal trial, as well as other information uncovered during a United Nations investigation, suggest just the opposite. Virtually everything Timmons did while working on the lobbying campaign was within days conveyed by Vincent to either one or both of Saddam Hussein's top aides, Tariq Aziz and Nizar Hamdoon. Vincent also testified that he almost always relayed input from the Iraqi aides back to Timmons. Talking points that Timmons produced for the lobbyists to help ease the sanctions, for example, were reviewed ahead of time by Aziz, Vincent testified in court. Proposals that Timmons himself circulated to U.S. officials as part of the effort were written with the assistance of the Iraqi officials, and were also sent ahead of time with Timmons' approval to Aziz, other records show. Moreover, there was a major financial incentive at play for Timmons. The multi-million dollar oil deal that he was pursuing with the two other lobbyists would only be possible if their efforts to ease sanctions against Iraq were successful. * |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:35 AM In February 1988, the Washington Post reported that McCain personally (and relatively "recently") gave the Contras $400. No one can doubt that acts of terror were committed by the Contras. Human Rights Watch concluded in 1989 that "the Contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners." Human Rights Watch also criticized acts of terror by the Sandinista government, but called the Contras "a force that has shown itself incapable of operating without consistently committing gross abuses in violation of the laws of war." Here are some eyewitness reports of the terrorism committed by the Contras: They took out their knives and stuck them under his fingernails. After they took his fingernails off, then they broke his elbows. Afterwards they gouged out his eyes. Then they took their bayonets and made all sorts of slices in his skin all around his chest, arms, and legs. They then took his hair off and the skin of his scalp. When they saw there was nothing left to do with him, they threw gasoline on him and burned him. The next day they started the same thing with a 13 year old girl. They did more or less the same, but they did other things to her too. First, she was utilized, raped by all the officers. They stripped her and threw her in a small room, they went in one by one. Afterwards they took her out tied and blindfolded. Then they began the same mutilating, pulling her fingernails out and cutting off her fingers, breaking her arms, gouging out her eyes and all they did to the other fellow. They cut her legs and stuck an iron rod into her womb. Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken and their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were then killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit. A congressional committee confirmed at the time that the Contras "raped, tortured and killed unarmed civilians, including children" and that "groups of civilians, including pregnant women and children were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded." Harold Pinter recalled the testimony of Father John Metcalf: I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity. And no one can doubt that McCain knew about these acts of terror when he was publicly funding them. On February 10, 1987, the New York Times noted that a 170-page report by Americas Watch determined about the Contras, "They still engage in selective but systematic killing of persons they perceive as representing the Government, in indiscriminate attacks against civilians or in disregard for their safety, and in outrages against the personal dignity of prisoners. The Contras also engage in widespread kidnapping of civilians, apparently for purposes of recruitment as well as intimidation." The report noted, "The escalating brutality of Contra practices leads Americas Watch to conclude that disregard for the rights of civilians has become a de facto policy of the Contra forces." McCain also must have known that the Contras were engaged in drug smuggling while he was handing them money. On August 5, 1987, the CIA Central American Task Force chief testified before the Iran-Contra Committee about the Contra drug trafficking: "It is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people."(pdf, p. 38) In addition to his personal support for the Contras, McCain has a supporter who is far more of a terrorist supporter than Bill Ayers. His name is Oliver North. Ayers was never convicted for any crime, and there's no evidence he ever killed anyone. North, by Contrast, was convicted (he got away with it because his testimony to Congress provided him with immunity). There can be no doubt about North's connection to terrorism. Under the direction of North, the US covertly sold $48 million in battlefield missiles and other weapons to Iran, even though Iran was classified by the US government as a sponsor of international terrorism. North then illegally used some of this money to help finance the Contras. So what is the McCain campaign's position toward this terrorist supporter? Have they denounced his views? No, McCain's own campaign website promotes the endorsement of him by North. McCain also supported North's 1994 campaign for the US Senate in Virginia. The Washington Post blog did ask the McCain campaign, "Is McCain pleased to receive North's endorsement, given the fact that the failed GOP senatorial candidate was convicted in 1989 of shredding documents, accepting an illegal gratuity and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress?" The McCain campaign declined to criticize North or remove their link to his endorsement: "We'll let the comments in the release stand," wrote spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker in an e-mail. Obviously, McCain has no regrets about supporting the Contras. McCain named Otto Reich as his adviser on Latin American issues, even though Reich was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. In the mid-1980s, Reich ran the U.S. Office of Public Diplomacy and illegally coordinated with the CIA to run a "White Propaganda" campaign planting bogus op-eds written by his speechwriters in newspapers. In 1987, the Republican Comptroller-General formally found that Reich had broken the law. As ambassador to Venezuela, Reich arranged the release and asylum of Cuban-American terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had planted a bomb on a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 people on board. * |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Amos Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:11 AM Lo and behold. terrorism raises its ugly head behind our own lines. What a surprise. Say, Sawz, did you know McCain contributed to the Contras? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:53 AM Everyone wants freedom, Sawzaw...they want their own form of it. To the Cubans and Vietnamese, freedom meant self-government of their own lands, free of domination by foreign governments and foreign business interests. It meant ending colonialism, kicking out the Mafia and the foreign bosses and the CIA. It meant self-rule. Got it? You don't get it because you weren't born a Third Worlder in a land being ruthlessly exploited by rich American (or French) interests. Your freedom in your own land has no bearing on the matter whatsoever, because it is not extended to the suffering populations in other lands which your business people rape and exploit for their profits. Your country doesn't promote freedom outside its own borders. It promotes exploitation, war, slaughter, torture, and corruption...all for the sake of corporate profit. And even in your own land your freedoms are being taken away, bit by bit. The Patriot Act was a big step in taking them away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,Mike M Date: 02 Nov 08 - 11:15 AM Ask Obama which way middle income earners taxes will go when he allows the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010? Well, Obama won't technically be raising THOSE taxes then will he? Won't matter, his policy to BANKRUPT the coal industry and shut off 50% of our electricity in the process with this FRAUD AGW nonsense will have done so much damage by then that we'll all have broken backs trying to grow potatoes in our back yards ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 11:23 AM Study: Bush Tax Cuts Favor Wealthy (CBS/AP) President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office. The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said. The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent. The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, quickly provided fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Mr. Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office. "Over the last four years, the burden of taxes has shifted from the wealthy to the middle class," Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said at a campaign event in Springfield, Oregon. "The middle class is paying more taxes." The White House defended Mr. Bush's tax cuts, saying those in lower- and middle-income brackets also benefited. People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts. In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year. "George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years." Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said, "Because of President Bush's policies every American pays less in taxes today than they did before he became president...John Kerry has promised to raise taxes during the campaign. That is the clear choice Americans will have in the fall elections." The study is based on figures in 2001 and assumes no changes in wealth distribution from increases in income, dividends or capital gains. * |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 11:34 AM CNN's Cooper said McCain opposes rolling back Bush tax cuts "which Democrats say favor the rich" - but McCain previously said the same thing Summary: CNN's Anderson Cooper stated: "On taxes, Senator McCain pledges not to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats say favor the rich." In fact, it is not just Democrats who say that the Bush tax cuts favor the rich. McCain himself made the same claim in 2001, in explaining his opposition to the tax cuts, a fact that Cooper did not mention. During the October 27 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper stated: "On taxes, Senator [John] McCain pledges not to roll back the Bush tax cuts, which Democrats say favor the rich." However, Cooper did not note that McCain himself, in explaining his then-opposition to the Bush tax cuts, also said they disproportionately benefitted the rich. While McCain now supports making the tax cuts permanent, in 2001 and 2003, he voted against them. As Media Matters for America has documented, in 2001, McCain explained his vote by stating: "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." Furthermore, on the April 11, 2004, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain reaffirmed his rationale for originally opposing the Bust tax cuts by stating, "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans." * In May 2001, McCain voted against the final version of Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax-cut package. In a floor statement explaining his opposition, McCain said that while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." In 2003, McCain voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut dividends and capital-gains taxes. * During the October 23 edition of Fox News' Studio B, general assignment reporter Steve Brown accused Sen. Barack Obama of "leav[ing] out" the purported reason Sen. John McCain initially opposed the Bush tax cuts, which Brown claimed was "because they didn't match up with corresponding cuts coming out of the budget." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, when McCain voted against the tax cuts in 2001, the reason he gave in his floor statement was not that they were not accompanied by spending cuts; rather, McCain stated, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." Indeed, during the February 3 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace told McCain: "[Y]ou've been saying, 'Well, the reason was because they didn't have spending cuts along with it.' Senator, we checked your speech before the final vote in the 2001 tax cut. ... You never once mentioned the fact that there weren't spending cuts." On the April 11, 2004, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, McCain reaffirmed his rationale for originally opposing the Bust tax cuts, stating: "I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthy Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit. But the middle-income tax credits, the families, the child tax credits, the marriage tax credits, all of those I would keep." As Media Matters has noted, McCain has since reversed his position on the tax cuts -- he now supports their permanent extension. * |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 12:19 PM "corporations that buy parties, candidates and presidents" Chris Dodd Donors: $11,106,498 Citigroup Inc $314,194 United Technologies $262,700 SAC Capital Partners $242,900 American International Group $223,478 Royal Bank of Scotland $213,600 St Paul Travelers Companies $201,000 Bear Stearns $198,700 Goldman Sachs $175,600 Credit Suisse Group $154,550 Morgan Stanley $154,300 Merrill Lynch $131,950 JPMorgan Chase & Co $129,650 Lehman Brothers $122,300 KPMG LLP $113,100 General Electric $110,650 Hartford Financial Services $110,450 UBS AG $108,500 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu $108,000 The Hartford $94,350 Bank of America $91,300 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 12:21 PM In his campaign, Obama says he wants to crack down on overseas tax havens and stop allowing hedge funds to pay a 15 percent capital gains rate on most income, rather than the 35 percent income tax rate.. Obama's billionaire finance chair, Penny Pritzker' family fortune: "I call it taking a bowl of spaghetti and untangling it," Thomas says. "We don't know of anyone who's undertaken something with the complexity of this." The breakup is well under way. Trott's Goldman Sachs Capital Partners, the private equity arm of Goldman Sachs, plus an investment firm affiliated with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Chairman Rob Walton, has spent $1.1 billion for a minority stake in Global Hyatt. In total, Hyatt may be worth $11 billion, says Ted Mandingo, owner of an Elmhurst, Illinois-based hotel consulting firm. Selling Assets The Pritzkers sold chewing tobacco maker Conwood Co. to Reynolds American Inc. for $3.5 billion in 2006. That year, they tried and failed to shed Triton Container International Ltd., a shipping container company, for as much as $2.5 billion. And Penny says they've sold a significant portion of a $5 billion real estate portfolio that she developed. The Pritzkers own 80 percent of a partnership that holds a 15.6 percent stake in Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. The family portion was worth $719 million on Aug. 19. The Pritzkers list eight casinos on company Web sites. The casino licenses alone are worth $500 million each, says John Kindt, a University of Illinois business professor. Next year, the family will open a Grand Hyatt hotel and casino with 2,973 rooms just north of the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas. In six years, by the time Buffett buys the other 40 percent of Marmon, he'll have spent $10 billion-$11 billion to acquire that company, Trott says. Buffett says he was so confident in the financial analysis that the Pritzkers developed for Marmon that he decided during a flight from San Francisco to Omaha to buy it. "It came with a price attached,'' Buffett says. "In the end, we could meet it." All told, the Pritzker empire is worth as much as $40 billion, a person familiar with the situation estimates. The family's offshore accounts prevent anyone from getting a complete picture of their wealth. In 1986, when Abram Pritzker died, his heirs claimed an estate worth $25,000. The Internal Revenue Service sued to collect $53 million in back taxes. The two sides settled in 1994 for $9.5 million, according to U.S. Tax Court records. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 08 - 12:40 PM Nobody bothers to untangle spaghetti. The way to deal with it is you just stick in a fork, twist it round, and put it in your mouth. Nothing too complicated about that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 01:47 PM Big Pharma donations: Obama: $848,00 Clinton: $639,429 Romney: $410,411 McCain: $347,375 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 02:02 PM Obama Donors: University of California$909,283 Goldman Sachs $874,207 Harvard University $717,230 Microsoft Corp $714,108 Google Inc $701,099 JPMorgan Chase & Co $581,460 Citigroup Inc $581,216 National Amusements Inc $543,859 Time Warner $508,148 Sidley Austin LLP $492,445 Stanford University $481,199 Skadden, Arps et al $473,424 Wilmerhale Llp $466,679 UBS AG $454,795 Latham & Watkins $426,924 Columbia University $426,516 Morgan Stanley $425,102 IBM Corp $415,196 University of Chicago $414,555 US Government $400,819 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Nov 08 - 02:45 PM The corporate world buys both parties, because it expects them both to faithfully do its bidding once they are in office....and they do. Whichever party the corporate world regards as more electable in any given election, that is the one they will give more money to, I would think. They are buying up future cooperation when they do so. Obviously, they would rather bet on the horse that they think is going to win. But if they spread their bets around some, then they've got it covered either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Amos Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:26 PM Looks like a lot of very smart people are putting their money on the Senator from Illinois this year, huh? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Musket Date: 02 Nov 08 - 06:40 PM Wow, listening from this side of the pond, I keep forgetting how we are separated by a common language. (Not to mention technology, I filled up my hire car with fuel in California earlier this year and the machine wouldn't accept my payment until I gave it my zip code. We don't have zip codes and the UK post code just didn't work.) Sorry, Talking about Obama and socialists. We have socialists too. They mean something different here though. Here, it means politician (or anybody expressing a political view I guess) who who thinks society needs an even break, not just big business. I take it socialist means something else in USA, as it appears to be a dirty word. A bit like the dirty words the rest of the world is using because of sub prime in the states leading to us all catching a cold. if only socialists were in charge eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:52 PM Yep, those evil corporations buy candidates and elections. Then in the next breath, it is smart for those wonderful corporations to buy candidates and elections. Flipty Flopity there goes the Hypocrity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 07:54 PM so·cial·ism (sÅ쳌’shÉ™-lÄz’əm) n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:02 PM But it was okay to give no-bid contracts to Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton??? (But, Bobertz, Halliburton is the onlu corporation that could have maintained trucks, built schools, cooked food and/or put out pipeline fires...) Bull feathers... That falls under tha category of the "Big Lie"... Don't anyone talk about Obama being this big redistributor when over the last 8 years we have seen more and more of the working classes labors transferred to the rich and well connected... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:23 PM I am stating what occurs with corporate financing of political parties, Sawzaw. I am not saying I approve of it or think it's a good thing. The fact that there are no laws in place to prevent that sort of lobbying leaves the foxes in control of the henhouse. That is not a good thing...no matter which party wins the election. Now..."socialism". Your definition of socialism seems to assume that it must be universal (applying to ALL means of producing and distributing goods) in order to be socialism. That's ridiculous. It does not have to be universal, and it isn't, except under the most extreme forms of Communism...hell, even there it is probably not universal. Your definition also leaves out the many forms of socialism which do NOT apply to producing and distributing goods at all, but to providing various forms of absolutely necessary public service, such as: - a government - a public educational system - an armed forces - a judicial system - a police force - public hospitals - public libraries - social security systems - large media and communications networks - environmental regulation agencies - publicly financed scientific research efforts - NASA and the space program - public parks - conservation areas to protect wildlife - roads, bridges, sidewalks, traffic lights, traffic signs, airports, and other necessary transportation facilities - a postal system - and a great many other NECESSARY things which you seem to have forgotten about? All of the above are socialist instititutions because: 1. They are paid for by taxes 2. Their personnel are hired and employed by the government 3. They exist for the benefit of the general public and the maintenance of a functioning society 4. They are done not for profit, but because it is something that NEEDS to be done for its own sake, regardless of profit. That is what socialism is for. It is NOT for taking away all your private enterprise and taking over all your production of goods. (That part is done just fine by capitalism.) It is NOT for establishing the kind of dark dictatorship you imagine in the lunatic pipedreams that have been fed to you by several generations of fools in the USA who are living on scary myths that they don't even begin to understand. Every modern society has a great deal of socialism in place right now, because there is NO way you can possibly run a society without it. You have it. We have it. Everyone does. We have it because we must. Your definition is misleading. It's incomplete. It's wrong. It's selectively ignorant. It was written by someone who can only think in terms of a completely full glass or a completely empty glass, but apparently never even grasped the concept of a glass that is half full or that has two liquids mixed inside it. I believe in a society in which both socialism AND capitalism play a healthy part, and guess what? That's exactly what I have in Canada. It's what you have in the USA too, only you apparently don't know it. I have seen NOTHING to indicate that Obama intends to convert society so that "producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy". How could he? It is asinine to think that he would want to do that or that there would be even the ghost of a chance of him doing that in the USA (or in Canada) (or in Europe). Therefore, if that is your definition of socialism, then you cannot accuse Obama of being "socialist", because nothing the man has said or done suggests in any way that he has intentions of having the government take over the producing and distributing of all the goods in your society. Really, it's just ridiculous to think he would try to do that! It's asinine. No one could do it even if they wanted to. You might as well accuse him of witchcraft and vampirism too, while you're at it. That would make about as much sense. No American politician can possibly alter your society to make it what you think of as "socialist". Not a chance. And none would attempt to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:31 PM In fact if you actually examine that Obama quote about spreading the wealth around it is pretty evident that what he is talking about is reducing taxes so as to leave more money in the hands of more people, so they can spend it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: curmudgeon Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:40 PM Thank you LH and McGrath for explaining what should be obvious to those who take the time to look at the facts - Tom |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 08 - 08:42 PM That's right, LH... The real socialists are Bush and his buddies who think that no-bid contratcs are just peachy... That is socialism because there is no competition... The government becoem the purchaser of good and services based on, ahhhhhhhh, exactly nothing other than they want to??? This is Sawz idea of what is just peachy... It is 100 times more socialistic than anything that Obama has proposed... In a free market companies bid... This is the part of capitalism where things work best... Does anyone for one minuite think that Halliburton was the only company on the planet who could hire truck drivers??? Or folks who could lay block... Or could open a friggin' can of vegeatables??? Come on, Sawz.... Your arguments are weaker than branch water... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:04 PM "But it was okay to give no-bid contracts to Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton???" It was OK by Gore. He invented them as part of him a Bubba's balancing of the budget. Take a bow Al. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 02 Nov 08 - 09:05 PM Anyone who thinks Obama favors the kinds of economic systems in the definitions above is pretty deluded if they think Obama's economic philosophy fits either of those definitions. Obama is a huge believer in the market. That's why, for instance, he prefers a market based solution to the health care crisis rather than a socialist solution. Kucinich's health care plan is socialist (if anyone needs to see what a socialist health care plan looks like), unlike Obama's, which is market based. That's also why Obama's economic plan includes economic incentives to get the green technology market up and running. Because he sees that the green economy is where the market has the most growth potential, and he doesn't want the US to be left behind in this emerging world market. Some people are so ignorant, it truly takes my breath away. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:34 PM "letting the lobbiests run the country" That be Chris Dodd, lettin them run the counrty. A friend of Angelo and largest recipient, next to Obama, of $11,106,498 in lobbyist contributions from: Citigroup Inc.................$314,194 United Technologies...........$262,700 SAC Capital Partners..........$242,900 American International Group..$223,478 Royal Bank of Scotland........$213,600 St Paul Travelers Companies...$201,000 Bear Stearns..................$198,700 Goldman Sachs.................$175,600 Credit Suisse Group...........$154,550 Morgan Stanley................$154,300 Merrill Lynch.................$131,950 JPMorgan Chase & Co...........$129,650 Lehman Brothers...............$122,300 KPMG LLP......................$113,100 General Electric..............$110,650 Hartford Financial Services...$110,450 UBS AG........................$108,500 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu .....$108,000 The Hartford...................$94,350 Bank of America................$91,300 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 03 Nov 08 - 12:01 AM Both sides have presented their cases..and on the most part, pretty well. Both sides show the other to be corrupt, and at the behest of special interest....what's the news flash?? They are POLITICIANS!..You know, professional liars, for a buck..mouthpieces for those behind the scenes that need a front man, to make it appear that the bucks they get, corruptly, is perfectly legal..or at least offer plausible deniability, that they conned the public, with due process!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Nov 08 - 12:12 AM In 1974 Ayers co-authored --along with Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn -- a book titled Prairie Fire. This book contained the following statements: * "We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men ... deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism." * "Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside." * "The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war." * "Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle." * "Without mass struggle there can be no revolution. *Without armed struggle there can be no victory." * "We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society." * "Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism." * "Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: CarolC Date: 05 Nov 08 - 12:12 AM Socialist or not, he's now the president elect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: catspaw49 Date: 05 Nov 08 - 12:17 AM So Sawz.....Do you think Ayers should be Secretary of State, Defense, or Interior? Blow me Whineytittybaby Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Big Al Whittle Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:27 AM Now that us socialist terrorist muslims are in the charge - you Americans better watch out. Specially those who wanted to use stun guns on low settings in the privacy of your own homes, and bring in the death penalty for being a moose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Alice Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:29 AM give it a rest, Saw it will help your blood pressure |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Amos Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:32 AM Or at least try to find out what is really going on in a time-frame more recent than the 20th century, eh? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:32 AM I am so happy for you angry people, even the ones that like blowjobs from other guys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,TIA Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:18 AM Angry? Who's angry? Yeeeeeeehaaaaaaaa! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Nov 08 - 12:50 PM I am happy for you TIA for not having a chip on your shoulder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:21 PM "Obama is a socialist" So was Eugene V. Debs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:28 PM "Obama is a socialist" so am I. (I was president of my graduating high school class) biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: Lepus Rex Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:35 PM If Obama were a aocialist, I'd have voted for his pinko ass. And I didn't. ---Will |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama is a socialist From: artbrooks Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:37 PM 600...and what a waste of bandwidth. |
