Obama the Marxist

[Gimpy]

you're not wrong old friend.

I was, but not by that much.

It was not 28 years, sorrry bout dat.

It was however at least 20 of the past twenty eight.

You're right about the Congress and their function to "legislate".

But, it is the President who sets "policy" and his cabinett members and political "appointees" who "manage" and RUN all the government agencies. Not the Congress. Congress CAN control the "purse strings".....IF they have ENOUGH VOTES to "overide" a Presidential "veto"..........of which the current Congress DOES NOT have.

The folks INCHARGE of the Guvment these past twenty-eight years were:

RonniRayGun.........8 years

Bush 41................4 years

Bush 43................8 years (6 with a majority republican Congress)

Total...................20 years


Plus......Bush 43 NEVER, NADA, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME...EVER "VETOED" a single piece of legislation the first six years of his administrations tenure while the Repubs were the "majority" in Congress.

Not so since the Dems took over, he's "vetoed" a number of bills that the Dems didn't have a full 60 vote "super majority" in the Senate that would allow them to "overide" his veto.

Clinton had .................8 years (6 with a majority republican Congress)

And, I will agree that SOME Companies have an "advantage" when it comes to "supply & demand" during "emergencies" or "War". You make my point exactly!

Why the heck do YOU suppose Cheney was the LEAD DOG on the short road to War with Iraq? He knew damn well the "no bids" would be going to "Halliburton" and "KBR" (a subsidiary of Halliburton).....That sumbitch knew EXACTLY what he was doing back when he was Bush 41's "SecDef" and reduced the armed forces and military spending like he did in 91 and 92. Remember his "peace dividend" after the Soviet Union fell apart?

Why the heck do you suppose he "selected" himself as Vice-Presdent for GEE-W in the first place? The man is evil, for sure........but an EVIL GENIUS!

Cheney WANTED to go to War with Iraq for ALL the reasons you've mentioned. And, he had the Dingbat in Chief, GEE-W, right in the palm of his hand!

There's a special place in HELL for that A--Hole!

Anyway, I hope that clears up the 28 year thingee.

And, I agree we CAN talk without all the "name calling" stuff.

It's awfully hard ta do though when fellows frum New Jersey (and sometimes Texas) are continually "trash talkin" and "name callin" all the damn time.

You know me............I GIVE as good as I GET! My momma and daddy always taught me to "turn the other cheek".........the FIRST TIME......next time, give'um BACK what they give you! I've always lived by that "Southern tradition"..........probably always will. It's in my "blood"....can't help it!

Talk at later my deah southern brother,

Gimp

[reconeil]

The answer to your question of Gimpy: "How come you and I can talk without all the name
callin'?",...is actually quite easy. You do the only thing acceptable to Political Supremacists
and/or take such phonies at their word as if decent, honest, believable & honorable people,...
while facts, realities & history prove quite the opposite.

Had President Bush so foolishly caved-into Lordly Democrat Demands INSTEAD, he too would
have escaped any Typical Democrat Name Calling & Character Assassinations like being
falsely labelled: "LIAR" to The World & Wartime Friends & Allies.

Even ex-Democrat Presidents Carter & Clinton got in on that Fanatical Muslim Enemy gratifying
& satisfying: "LIAR" Character Assassination of a sitting Wartime Commander-In-Chief.
Such despicable antics by ex-Presidents were never before so treasonably experienced
in America,...in either PEACE or WARTIME. "HOOORAH" for The Democrat Phonies.

Neil

[MORTARDUDE]

Marxism at its best ( in reverse ) :



http://www.bostonherald.com/business...ever_shifting/

[MORTARDUDE]

Since 1968 ( 40 years ) ..... 7 out of 10 Presidents have been Republicans, and in 18 out of 40 years, the Republicans have controlled the Senate, and in 12 out 40 years, the Republicans have controlled the Senate.

[MORTARDUDE]

The Columbia World of Quotations. 1996.


NUMBER: 30729
QUOTATION: I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
ATTRIBUTION: Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), U.S. president. Letter, May 28, 1816, to political philosopher and senator John Taylor, whose book An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States (1814) had argued against the harmful effects of finance capitalism.
BIOGRAPHY: Columbia Encyclopedia

[darrels joy]

Americans Split on Redistributing Wealth by Taxing the Rich…Ready for this? It seems that Obama’s APPEAL, is from Americans who have NOT achieved, nor would they ever have been able to achieve. WHAT BULLSHIT!October 30, 2008
Posted by Rodrigo Díaz in Uncategorized.

Gallup>>
PRINCETON, NJ — A majority of Americans (58%) say money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people, although slightly less than half (46%) go so far as to say that the government should redistribute wealth by “heavy taxes on the rich.”>>


Gallup has been asking Americans periodically for over 20 years whether the distribution of money and wealth in this country is “fair,” or whether they should be “more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people.” (The question wording does not include a reference to exactly how they would be more evenly distributed and does not mention the government.)
Across the nine times the question has been asked, a majority of Americans have agreed with the thought that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed. The current 58% who agree is one of the two lowest percentages Gallup has measured (along with a 56% reading in September 2000). Sixty-eight percent agreed in April of this year and 66% in April 2007.>>
The responses to this question are extraordinarily differentiated by partisan orientation, reflecting a fundamental fissure in Americans’ views on this money/wealth distribution concept.>>

Just 30% of Republicans say there should be a more even distribution of money and wealth, compared to 60% of independents and an overwhelming majority of 84% of Democrats.
The sentiment that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed does not address the issue of exactly how this objective would be achieved. One of the more contentious points on the presidential campaign trail in recent weeks has been John McCain’s continuing assertion that Barack Obama’s tax plan, which would involve higher taxes for high-income families, is “redistributionist,” with some McCain supporters going so far as to argue that Obama’s tax plans would be “socialist.” These disputes focus on the longtime argument in economic and political philosophy over government’s ideal role, if any, in attempting to redistribute money and wealth through the use of taxes.>>
Gallup has from time to time asked a question that addresses this issue in part — a question that Roper first asked in a FortuneMagazine survey conducted in March 1939, near the end of the Depression. The question is phrased as follows: “People feel differently about how far a government should go. Here is a phrase which some people believe in and some don’t. Do you think our government should or should not redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich?”>>
This question is notable because it directly invokes the idea that government should intervene and redistribute wealth through taxes on the rich. The question phrase “heavy taxes on the rich” is certainly not one the Obama campaign would choose to describe its plan, which Obama repeatedly says would return high income tax rates only back to where they were under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, before the Bush administration tax cuts. Still, the question generally addresses the basic issue of taxing high-income individuals to transfer wealth in a society.
Gallup has asked this question only four times over the last decade, and, in a broad sense, sentiment has been split every time. In 1998, there was a slight tilt toward the negative response; in 2007, sentiment was split almost equally; in April of this year, there was a slight tilt toward the positive response; and in the current poll, sentiment is more evenly split, with a slight tilt back toward the negative.>>
Still, in each of the four times Gallup has asked this question in recent years, between 45% and 51% of Americans have gone so far as to agree with the fairly harsh-sounding policy of “redistribut[ing] wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.” Although the survey methods used now certainly differ in a number of ways from those for surveys conducted in 1939, the trend lines at least suggest that Americans are currently as willing as, if not more willing than, they were during the Depression to sanction the use of taxes on the rich as a mechanism for redistributing wealth.>>
Again, there are big differences by partisan orientation in response to this question.>>
Republicans overwhelmingly reject the concept, independents are split down the middle, and Democrats strongly support it.
Americans’ responses to the two income-redistribution questions can be combined, with results in the accompanying graph.

This combination of the responses to the two questions allows the classification of Americans into broad groups as follows:
· Forty-one percent of Americans are “strong redistributionists” — those who say money and wealth should be more evenly distributed and that the government should do so with heavy taxes on the rich. >>
· Thirty-two percent are “anti-redistributionists” — those who say the current distribution of money and wealth is fair and who oppose heavy taxes on the rich. >>


· Fifteen percent are “non-government redistributionists” — those who say money and wealth should be more evenly distributed, but that the government should not attempt to do so with heavy taxes on the rich.
The rest of the sample either gives the ambiguous response that the distribution is fair but that government should tax the rich (4%), or gives a “don’t know” response to one of the questions.
Implications
Perhaps the most important implication of these data is the extraordinary partisan differences found in responses to both questions dealing with money and wealth distribution in this country. Democrats believe that wealth should be more evenly distributed, and that this redistribution should be accomplished by heavy taxes on the rich. Although Obama has not advocated what he would call “heavy” taxes on the rich, the general sentiment that taxes on high-income families should be increased in order to help provide tax relief for those making less money is a part of his campaign platform.
Republicans fairly strongly reject both the concept that the current distribution of money and wealth is unfair and the idea of imposing heavy taxes on the rich. In this, they certainly reflect the campaign statements and platform of McCain.
Independents, the most crucial group in a close election, are more ambivalent — as one would expect. Independents swing to the Democratic side in their majority (60%) belief that the distribution of money and wealth is not fair and should be more even, but split almost exactly evenly on the concept of heavy taxes on the rich.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,010 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Oct. 23-26, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
For results based on the 511 national adults in the Form A half-sample and 499 national adults in the Form B half-sample, the maximum margins of sampling error are ±5 percentage points.
For results based on the sample of 957 registered voters, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
http://elcampeador.wordpress.com/200...o-achieve-wha/

For graphics, go to site above.

[Gimpy]

Originally Posted by MORTARDUDE

Since 1968 ( 40 years ) ..... 7 out of 10 Presidents have been Republicans, and in 18 out of 40 years, the Republicans have controlled the Senate, and in 12 out 40 years, the Republicans have controlled the Senate.

Thanks old buddy.................this just proves further my arguement.


Gimp

[reconeil]

Why is it that when even Blacks other than Obama are quite obviously Marxists or Racists
(or both),...most all politicians & journalists(?) dare never refer to such as so?

Are politicians & journalists(?) just that fearful of vengeance by Marxists or Racists?
Or, are they just basically afraid of Black Vindictiveness against society, in general?
Whatever, don't dare call Muslim Born Obama with 2 large extended Black Muslim families &
only 1 small White Christian family, a Muslim Publicly. You will be pounced on just as severe.

Still, could never understand why Whites must alway watch what say around Blacks &
Hispanics or pretty-much walk-on-egg-shells,...whereas People of Color (now Muslims also)
can and do usually say whatever-the-hell-they like to Whites, in public or on air?

The effigy hanging of Governor Palin was declared merely an example of: "Free Speech" by
most all being a good example of Black & While Double Standard afflicting America. Was truly
amazed finding out that even Statutes defining Hate Crimes were Quite Color BIASED.

That: "Hate Crimes can only permitted against minorities" sure-as-hell proves that America's
Officialdom and/or our Ruling Elite Policy Makers have most certainly developed an extremely
bad case of The Vote Pandering Nationally-Suicidal Stupids.

Neil

[darrels joy]

'SHARE THE WEALTH' WITH THE WORLD?

By PETER SCHWEIZER


Obama: Wants big hikes in foreign-aid spending.



Posted: 5:00 am
November 1, 2008
Barack Obama doesn't simply want to "spread the wealth around" here in America: He's on record as favoring redistribution on a global scale.

As the Democrat explained last year in Foreign Affairs, he thinks we need to be "sharing more of our riches to help those in need" around the world and promised to double American foreign assistance. He also proposed a multibillion-dollar Global Education Fund to eliminate what he calls the "global education deficit."

Obama has already acted on these beliefs. In the Senate, he co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act, which calls on the US to allocate 7/10ths of 1 percent of our GNP to foreign aid and debt relief. (That's $845 billion more than we're now set to spend over the next 13 years.)

When Joe the Plumber explained that he wanted to buy a plumbing business and that high taxes would complicate his plans, Obama explained that the government needed to balance the scales. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

When it comes to global economics Obama has a similar suspicion of business and profit as a source of wealth creation. In his Foreign Affairs essay, he speaks quite a bit about the need for government aid to balance the scales - but little about trade as a source for lifting the developing world out of poverty.

In a statement on the Global Poverty Act, Obama explained we need to transfer massive amounts of money to the developing world and get "beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere."

Profits, in Obama's view, don't help people - they hurt them. Whereas redistribution can fix all kinds of problems - including terrorism, a global scourge that Obama believes is actually a result of inequality.

In a Hyde Park Herald article published eight days after 9/11, Obama (then a state senator) explained the causes of terrorism. After acknowledging that "demagogues and fanatics" can contribute to political violence, he said: "Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair." In Foreign Affairs, he wrote of global terrorists who "respond to alienation and perceived injustice with murderous nihilism."

Since terrorists are responding to injustices, including disparities in wealth, "sharing our riches," will help them reform. Never mind that most terrorists in the West come from middle class or even affluent homes and are well educated. Or that Mali, is one of the world's poorest countries, has a sizeable Muslim population but doesn't produce terrorists - while wealthy Saudi Arabia churns them out in great numbers.

Obama has almost no experience in the business world (he spent just one year working for a business consultancy) - but plenty of US politicians (including John McCain) have equally slim records. Few, however, are as hostile to the notion of profit - or as committed to redistributing the wealth - both nationally and globally.

Perhaps that's why so many in the world hope Obama wins.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. His most recent book is "Makers and Takers."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11012008...ld__136288.htm

[darrels joy]

BARRACK OBAMA IS A COMMUNIST
by zach on 10/8/2008

Sen. Barrack Obama is a communist. There is nothing moderate about him. That image of a cross-party candidate can no longer stand. A recently uncovered Online Archive page for the socialist New Party's online update from October 1996 clearly states that in Illinois "Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring." Among the names listed is dear old Barry. Some quick research on the third party revealed it to be a socialist parasite scheme deeply involving the Democratic party. This maybe the last wake up call we get before the elections. People must know just exactly how radical this candidate is. Here are the links to the Online Archive page and the wikipedia list of socialist parties in the US. Sadly, the wikipedia page for the New Party does not contain any real information about what they stand for.

Online Archive - October 1996 New Party Update

Category:Democratic_Socialist_and_Social_Democratic_parties_and_organizations_in_the_United_States


http://www.zachlive.com/article.aspx?id=42