quote:

Obama’s Marxist View

Here we are about 100 days until the most important election in the history of our magnificent country. No I didn’t vote for Marxist Barack Hussein Obama. I held my nose and voted for RINO John McCain, an obvious lesser of two evils vote. At least in McCain’s case no one could accuse him of lack of patriotism. He would have ruled as a hawk, but with heavy liberal overtones. How could any sane person be a buddy of the infamous Teddy Kennedy?

But Obama is beyond what anyone would have believed, except national media who still will lie to support him and the public gives him wide latitude because he claims to be black. He is something less than 50 percent black if indeed his father was Kenyan since he was principally Arabian. However new studies offer the possibility that Franklin Marshal Davis is more likely his father. Davis was a black poet, writer, communist and pornographer. There is a video which shows naked pictures of Obama’s mother when she was a teenager and his writings seem to indicate Davis was the photographer. But whether or not Davis was his father, he spent huge amounts of time with Obama and surely poisoned his mind as did 20-year minister Reverend Wright.

Much of this information was available to McCain, but he refused to use it. He did himself and the nation no favors for Obama is clearly a dictator who ignores the constitution and dictates by executive order.

With only three months until the election it is frightening that, so far, although Mitt Romney has dealt with the abysmal record of Obama there is so much more. Donald Trump, the billionaire developer, said the pleas from the White House that Romney reveal his tax records should be met with a Romney suggested trade; he will release tax records when Obama produces his birth certificate, college applications, school grades, travel records, etc.

Obama recently drew fire from conservatives of the nation when he gave a speech claiming that no one’s business was started by an individual without government help. A well written editorial by Michael Barone suggested the rain in South Carolina where Obama spoke didn’t allow use of a teleprompter.

Barone noted Obama was defending his policy of higher tax rates on high earners when he said, “There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back.”

And, as Obama continued, “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this incredible American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you have a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Barone says Obama’s statements were equivalent to saying it wasn’t Steve Jobs who made Apple into what it is. More than that Bill Gates of Microsoft didn’t graduate from college but was once the wealthiest person in the world. Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle, is a billionaire who just bought Lanai Island in Hawaii for $500 million. He spoke to a graduating class in Harvard and asked why they were there; he mentioned he was high school graduate.

I once wrote an obituary about a friend named “Hank” Raymond Patterson, a brilliant engineer but a lousy student in college. Someday I will write about an ex-sailor, who, without any formal training, was a brilliant engineer and program manager.

Silicon Valley is full of entrepreneurs who have had multiple start ups and successes on their own. Sure, venture capitalists funded many of them but that is a classic part of the capitalistic system.

Obama has had no experience except Chicago style chaos and crime. How can he dare to speak on business success when he has not one iota of experience and has his czars staffed by communists, Marxists, liberal misfits and perverts.

It is unthinkable an American President would have such a jaundiced view of capitalism and entrepreneurship. It is further proof he is a Chicago thug and extremely dangerous. The next election, now close, is the most important of any election in our country. He already has used the federal treasury to benefit voters. He has passed executive orders to backdoor amnesty and is attempting to save his fellow traveler friend, Eric Holder, who is trying to take away our guns.

You can expect he will attempt to vote the graveyard, a Chicago tradition. He will try to allow votes to illegal aliens and felons. We can only hope the Tea Party will expand sufficiently to block his illegal actions.

Dr. Tough posted:

John McCain: a well known liberal, an election more important than 1860, a new birther conspiracy, and other treats.

Dr. Tough posted:

John McCain: a well known liberal, an election more important than 1860, a new birther conspiracy, and other treats.

Bruce Leroy posted:

I want to develop a time machine (TARDIS, DeLorean, etc.) solely to bring Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, and other communist luminaries to the present just to give them all strokes from apoplectic rage after seeing how little people understand what communism, Marxism, etc. actually are.

John Giokaris posted:

I Want to be the next Mitt Romney
Something this election year really disturbs me. It's not the super PAC spending or that Mitt Romney hasn't released 10 years' worth of tax returns. (What are we supposed to find out? That he's rich?)

It's that a guy's American success story is now being used against him.

Any other time, a guy like Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, would be admired as a great example to follow.

After receiving a juris doctorate and a master’s of business administration, he became a financial success by building an investment company from the ground up. He then went on to manage the Olympics and serve in office, where he turned a $3 billion deficit into a $700 million surplus without raising taxes. Even though they look like a Banana Republic ad, Romney's family is picture-perfect with a wife of 43 years, five sons and 18 grandkids.

Call me crazy, but isn't that the American dream?

So then why is he being labeled "out of touch"? I didn't know personal and professional success is out of touch with America today.

Has it really gotten to a point where being rich is a bad thing? We're supposed to feel guilty if all that hard work pays off?

In its latest effort to distract Americans from the bad economy and high unemployment, the Obama campaign is attacking Romney as a "corporate raider" and "outsourcer in chief," in addition to claiming he's a "vampire capitalist" who hates dogs and women. Yet investigative efforts to verify these claims, from factcheck.org to The Washington Post, have concluded that these allegations are false.

When I see everything Romney's accomplished, I'm not raging with envy and trying to think up ways we can take him down. I think, "Wow, how can I be the next Mitt Romney?"

Or even the next Barack Obama. I hate to break it to the left, but Obama's in the 1 percent too. And I respect his accomplishments as much as I do Romney's.

It was the American system that gave them the opportunity to be where they are today—the very same system that the president of the United States claims isn't "fair."

Really?

Looks like it's been plenty fair to them. Both Harvard grads studied hard, and both worked their butts off to become the financial successes they are today. And both have great families.

But somehow there's supposed to be a difference between their successes. The only difference I see is that one's an unapologetic free market capitalist and proud of it, while the other seems to feel guilty about it and reluctantly acknowledges how great the system is that put him in the White House.

Well it's not stopping me. I'm going to study and work hard to get where they are. I want to raise a big family too. And yes, I even want to run for office some day and give back to the same country that provided me the opportunity to become a success.

And you can bet I won't be making my kids feel guilty about their success or discrediting it by pointing out how they didn't get there on their own because my support made it happen.


JOHN GIOKARIS IS THE POLITICAL DIRECTOR OF THE CHICAGO YOUNG REPUBLICANS

Bruce Leroy posted:

I want to develop a time machine (TARDIS, DeLorean, etc.) solely to bring Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, and other communist luminaries to the present just to give them all strokes from apoplectic rage after seeing how little people understand what communism, Marxism, etc. actually are.

Pope Guilty posted:

I want to bring Adam Smith to the modern era, give him a baseball bat and let him beat on people who think he was a crazy right-wing free-market fundamentalist.

TetsuoTW posted:

The Davis thing has been going around since the last campaign, btw.

Dr. Tough posted:

John McCain: a well known liberal, an election more important than 1860, a new birther conspiracy, and other treats.

quote:

He already has used the federal treasury to benefit voters

Dr. Tough posted:

quote:

is attempting to save his fellow traveler friend, Eric Holder, who is trying to take away our guns.

Boxman posted:

Is this a reference to something I'm not familiar with, or is "traveler" the new way for racists to say "black"?

Boxman posted:

Dr. Tough posted:

For some reason this is the first time I'd heard of it. Was it just a little too crazy to become widespread maybe?

Bruce Leroy posted:

I want to develop a time machine (TARDIS, DeLorean, etc.) solely to bring Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, and other communist luminaries to the present just to give them all strokes from apoplectic rage after seeing how little people understand what communism, Marxism, etc. actually are.

1stGear posted:

The funny thing about the "Romney is the American Dream" one is that there is an embodiment of the American Dream in this race and it's loving Obama. Child of a black foreigner and a white citizen, humble beginnings, rose through hard work and perseverance to attend college and become wealthy and literally achieve that tripe about how anyone can become the President. If you want some kind of proof that the Dream isn't bullshit, it'd be him.

Instead, a white guy born to rich white people who did whatever he wanted and became even richer off the misery of others is the American Dream. He's an accurate embodiment of America, just not the parts people like to talk about.

The Nuge posted:

The Dirty Harry of tax and government reform is Grover Norquist.

Orange Devil posted:

Why do I get that dreadful feeling that the author thinks that Dirty Harry is a hero or morally good character?

LP97S posted:

It's Ted Nugent, in his opinion the guy shooting people is always the good guy. People seem to ignore the very ending of Dirty Harry a lot.

1stGear posted:

The funny thing about the "Romney is the American Dream" one is that there is an embodiment of the American Dream in this race and it's loving Obama. Child of a black foreigner and a white citizen, humble beginnings, rose through hard work and perseverance to attend college and become wealthy and literally achieve that tripe about how anyone can become the President. If you want some kind of proof that the Dream isn't bullshit, it'd be him.

Instead, a white guy born to rich white people who did whatever he wanted and became even richer off the misery of others is the American Dream. He's an accurate embodiment of America, just not the parts people like to talk about.

Orange Devil posted:

Why do I get that dreadful feeling that the author thinks that Dirty Harry is a hero or morally good character?

Orange Devil posted:

Isn't it earlier in the film where he does a bunch of illegal poo poo like searches causing the killer to go free while not actually saving anyone with it? Like, the entire ending of the film wouldn't have happened if only he stuck to the book and for all his torture and loose cannon poo poo, it doesn't save anyone but only endangers more people?

quote:

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

I want to thank Odette Cook for her letter, "Never forget the Veledrome d'Hiver," about the Holocaust atrocity in Paris. Ironically, just a few days ago, I watched the movie "Sarah's Key," a graphic portrayal of one Jewish girl's story that reverberated through the next generations of both her family and the French who stood idly by.

Evil is ever with us, as evidenced by the horrendous violence committed both in the Aurora movie theater recently and against unborn lives every day in this nation.

The words of Isaiah and King David still speak to the societal evil today: "Their feet run after evil. They rush to shed innocent blood." (Isaiah 59:7) and "There is no fear of God before his eyes." (Psalm 36:1)

Whether it is 15,000 innocent Jews, 70 innocent Colorado moviegoers or millions of innocent unborn babies over the past three decades: Never forget.

Rebecca Hogg.

Henrico.

quote:

July 12, 2012
Why Our Elites Stink
By DAVID BROOKS

Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Protestant Establishment sat atop the American power structure. A relatively small network of white Protestant men dominated the universities, the world of finance, the local country clubs and even high government service.

Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance.

Yet, as this meritocratic elite has taken over institutions, trust in them has plummeted. It’s not even clear that the brainy elite is doing a better job of running them than the old boys’ network. Would we say that Wall Street is working better now than it did 60 years ago? Or government? The system is more just, but the outcomes are mixed. The meritocracy has not fulfilled its promise.

...

Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else. This attitude prevails in the Ivy League, in the corporate boardrooms and even at television studios where hosts from Harvard, Stanford and Brown rail against the establishment.

As a result, today’s elite lacks the self-conscious leadership ethos that the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys’ network did possess. If you went to Groton a century ago, you knew you were privileged. You were taught how morally precarious privilege was and how much responsibility it entailed. You were housed in a spartan 6-foot-by-9-foot cubicle to prepare you for the rigors of leadership.

The best of the WASP elites had a stewardship mentality, that they were temporary caretakers of institutions that would span generations. They cruelly ostracized people who did not live up to their codes of gentlemanly conduct and scrupulosity. They were insular and struggled with intimacy, but they did believe in restraint, reticence and service.

Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous). Wall Street firms, for example, now hire on the basis of youth and brains, not experience and character. Most of their problems can be traced to this.

...

Zwabu posted:

David Brooks makes the case that America's WASP ruling elites of a century ago are superior to current elites that are determined by more meritocratic methods than genealogy, apparently because they had that whole noblesse oblige going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html


It's kind of amazing to me that in 2012 a guy writing op/eds for the New York Times could give the idea of an exclusive WASP upper crust a handjob like this.

Zwabu posted:

David Brooks makes the case that America's WASP ruling elites of a century ago are superior to current elites that are determined by more meritocratic methods than genealogy, apparently because they had that whole noblesse oblige going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html


It's kind of amazing to me that in 2012 a guy writing op/eds for the New York Times could give the idea of an exclusive WASP upper crust a handjob like this.

quote:

Gee, now I’m what? A statist? That’s a good one. It actually fits my blood father much better than me. He was a Cal Tech mathematician who designed weapons for the Navy.

Henry Ford once said, “History is bunk!” George Carlin called it “bullcrap.” A true and honest recounting of history is very elusive. Sometimes it takes a century or more to get it right. I could go on and on about the hundreds of proven facts which poke holes not only in World War II myths, but also in many dating back millennia.

Manipulators broad-brush complex events with simplistic words and phrases, so that foolish people will slavishly support their evil agenda. How easy it is to toss a person under the “Holocaust Denier” bus.

I don’t deny that Jews died in World War II, but why don’t we mention more often the 55 million non-Jews who were killed? Why Not? Because history is written for the victors, and the winners at this time are Jews. Why don’t we mention the 60+ million Christians murdered in communist Russia or the genocide in Red China by our new-found buddies? Why not? Because the Bolshevik Revolution was dominated by B’nai B’rith Jewish Freemasons.

The winners of wars create the history books, the movies and the “Company Line” – but I guarantee you that nature does not accept lies and liars forever!

Tom Metzger

quote:

The Koch brothers hijacking the Republicrats party is a little like a prostitute complaining that a john gave her to much money. Buying a politician or political party is the American way.

As far as not talking about the massive corruption of the Democrazy party this newspaper has a word limitation on letters. Otherwise it would take a the whole paper to expose both parties.

At least on paper the Democrazies used to champion the working-class but somewhere along the line they lost their way. Now they champion the working-class of the world and assist them in coming here to tune of 20 million illegal Mestizos. The Democrazies are fighting night and day to recruit them. On a lessor scale the Republicrats are too. But they only get the Rubio types.

When I sat on the San Diego County Democrazy central committee they spent most of their time wringing their hands over protecting illegal aliens and suspected problems that homosexuals might have. I was forcefully removed from my elected seat by a self-identified lesbian. That was a real blow for the working class.

Both Soros and the Koch brothers are major economic criminals so what’s new? Perhaps my detractor should concentrate on one criminal or one group of criminals at a time.

One ray of hope is that George Bush has finally been convicted of war crimes in several countries. Anyone up for a citizens arrest? The Nuremberg laws weren’t created just for Germans you know.

Tom Metzger

quote:

Greetings, peasants.
1. Would you like low-cost train and bus service from Warsaw to the rest of the country or occupy other countries, enriching the billionaires?
2. Would you rather see low-cost meaningful college education, or finance 700 military outposts and bases around the world?
3. Would you rather revitalize small-town life and business or support nation building in China?
4. Would you prefer military body bags and quadruple amputees coming home from occupied countries, or young families left intact?
5. Would you prefer a national system to use your TV and our computer to vote on important issues as they happen, instead of the phony Democracy you live under now in which your opinion counts for almost nothing?
6. Would you rather be out of work and living in your car or take power back from major Indiana corporations and the Republicrat party so you can make a living wage?
Tom Metzger

Zwabu posted:

David Brooks makes the case that America's WASP ruling elites of a century ago are superior to current elites that are determined by more meritocratic methods than genealogy, apparently because they had that whole noblesse oblige going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html


It's kind of amazing to me that in 2012 a guy writing op/eds for the New York Times could give the idea of an exclusive WASP upper crust a handjob like this.

Saint Sputnik posted:

Here's a Tom Metzger letterdump

It scares me that he follows all the insane, racist bullshit with that last mostly sane and evenhanded letter.

Zwabu posted:

David Brooks makes the case that America's WASP ruling elites of a century ago are superior to current elites that are determined by more meritocratic methods than genealogy, apparently because they had that whole noblesse oblige going on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html


It's kind of amazing to me that in 2012 a guy writing op/eds for the New York Times could give the idea of an exclusive WASP upper crust a handjob like this.

Goatman Sacks posted:

Not really an editorial, but it seems this pile of poo poo is coming out this week:

http://www.runawayslavemovie.com/

Just look at that. What kind of black person would think this is a good idea.

Saint Sputnik posted:

It scares me that he follows all the insane, racist bullshit with that last mostly sane and evenhanded letter.

Guilty Spork posted:

The more I read about American history, the more history looks like a story about rich white guys loving over everyone else, sometimes to the point where it's like some kind of horrible sociopathic masturbation rather than anything with a real objective. Colonial America had brutal income inequality that led to frequent riots and revolts, and the wealthy basically looked at that and said, "Is there a way we can have these dirty poors fight the Indians?"

quote:

To liberal Americans during the Bush years, Vice President Dick Cheney was the apotheosis of evil in the modern world. Four years later, they have decided he was right all along.

In the Bush years they detested Cheney because he prosecuted the war on terror with unapologetic zeal. After 9/11, it was Cheney who said preventing further attacks would require America to go over to "the dark side." It was Cheney who said waterboarding — "a dunk in the water," as he called it — was "a no-brainer."

In fact, Cheney went so far as to say such methods were not only morally permissible, they were in fact morally required: "I think it would have been unethical or immoral for us not to do everything we could in order to protect the nation against further attacks," he said. After leaving office, he told CBS the use of harsh interrogation techniques saved "perhaps hundreds of thousands" of lives.

That was Cheney's ethical rationale: Individual rights and constitutional rules might be important, but saving lives was more important by far. As David Addison, Cheney's chief of staff, once insisted when the White House's Office of Legal Counsel was threatening to withhold approval of a certain counterterrorism program: "If you rule that way, the blood of the hundred thousand people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

To liberals, this was absolute hogwash. The threat of a terrorist attack — even one as horrific as 9/11 — did not justify the manifold constitutional affronts, from warrantless wiretapping to demanding library patrons' records under the Patriot Act, the Bush administration was committing. Yes, saving lives was important — but not at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional law.

All of that, however, was before Aurora.

Since James Holmes murdered 12 people and wounded 58 more in a Colorado movie theater two weeks ago, liberal America has been screaming from the rooftops that saving lives is more important than individual rights — and insulting anyone who dares to think differently.

The failure to pass more gun-control laws, says The New York Times, proves "politicians are far too fearful of the gun lobby to address gun violence." The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne agrees, calling that failure evidence of "eternal gutlessness." To the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, support for gun rights is "a belief so irrational that even death and destruction cannot alter it." (So, hey, no need to debate the merits — Those People are all crazy!)

Gopnik's take neatly encapsulates the liberal mindset: Massacres make the need for more gun control so obvious there is nothing left to debate. Since the solution is so plainly beyond dispute, the failure to impose it can be accounted for only by something else, such as cowardice or derangement.

Gun-rights defenders have responded mostly on pragmatic grounds, by insisting gun control doesn't work or that mass killers can be stopped by shooting back. But there is also a strong moral argument against gun control — one that mirrors the liberal case against Bush-era counterterrorism tactics.

Sixty million Americans own firearms, and almost none of them ever will fire a shot in anger. The premise behind gun control, then, is that millions of law-abiding Americans should have their rights and liberties circumscribed in order to prevent a minuscule fraction — something like three one-hundredths of 1 percent — from abusing those rights.

Imagine the uproar if you applied this reasoning to, say, Muslim-Americans. Imagine saying, "We know most of you will never commit a terrorist act, but we also know some of you might do so in the future, so we're going to ask every single one of you to register with your local police department. This is a simple, common-sense measure that could save lives." Americans, quite rightfully, would erupt in furious outrage at such a proposal. Why, then, do liberals embrace it for gun owners?

Answer: Because — just like conservatives who favor racial profiling — they consider some rights important and others not.

When the Supreme Court upheld the habeas corpus rights of alleged enemy combatants in 2008, The New York Times lavished praise on its "stirring defense" of "human decency" and a "cherished right . . . so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution." Two years later, when the court upheld an individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment (another "clause in the Constitution," you might say) The Times struck a far different tone. Citing the thousands of lives lost to gun violence, it wrote: "The arguments that led to Monday's decision undermining Chicago's [handgun ban] were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real and bloody."

Dick Cheney could have said precisely the same thing about the court's rulings on the rights of terrorist detainees. In fact, he did. As he put it in an interview: "How does one argue with someone convinced that the routine massacre of our children is the price we must pay for our freedom?"

Oops, sorry — that was The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, writing about those who support gun rights. But you can see how easily it is to get the two confused, can't you?

quote:

Answer: Because — just like conservatives who favor racial profiling — they consider some rights important and others not.

colonelslime posted:

Yes, I too remember when banks were moral, and only had what was best in mind for society, never speculated excessively and never behaved in a predatory nature. As is shown by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), bankers always accurately weigh risk and return, and are never greedy or reckless in the playing of the market.

Oh, wait.

In sum:




E:


You just have to remember that Ron Paul libertarians like this guy (I assume he is one, he just seems like he would be) only support stopping American military actions to isolate themselves as much as possible from all the brown people, rather than any genuine concern for all the lives being lost(except white soldiers obviously).

VVVVV So yeah, even more proof for my hypothesis. It is weird that one of the more progressive ideas (not having an interventionist military smashing other countries apart) present in conservative America should pull from racism.

rkajdi posted:

Sad part is his first letter has a grain of truth to it. We in the West don't give a poo poo about the other victims of the Holocaust, judging by the fact that Roma get treated like poo poo and ghettoized all over Europe and at best are swept under the carpet in the US. I can't even get people to take me seriously that gyped is a racial slur.

TheOneOutside posted:

Ah, fun times with the local newspaper. A few months ago this guy argued, in all seriousness, that we'll never have a crisis over fossil fuels and could continue using them at our current pace because business will figure something out before it becomes too bad (He also regularly argues against anything remotely like alternate energy sources). Today he claims that calling for gun control is exactly like condoning torture!

"Liberals discover their inner Cheney"- A Barton Hinkle

Goatman Sacks posted:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313251/olympic-political-correctness-john-fund?pg=1

Wherein NRO blows the worlds largest dogwhistle while trying to defend two folks kicked off of olympic teams for being literal nazis.