Barack Obama’s Communist connections.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm a bit peeved at MaGz. He raised my hopes that the US might be voting in at least a Socialist - only to be cruelly dashed on the rocks of corporate reality.

Sigh!

Not that you have to be a commie to be for the people and the common good over corporate greed, (capitalism can work quite well for the people and the common good you know), but Obama and Clinton both are disappointingly in the corporate fold. I'll still take either of them and work with it over the Republican nightmare we've just had for the last 7 years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's pretty much a open debate as to who the worst Mass Murderer of the 20th Century was between the Big Three...but I give the edge to Hitler,though not by much.

I think if you actually do a head count, Hitler just had more publicity and was more brazen about it.
Stalin and Mao are certainly in the competition. The totals just aren't known for any of them really.

Stalin's death count

Higher estimates: MEDIAN: 51 million for the entire Stalin Era; 20M during the 1930s.
Lower estimates: MEDIAN: 8.5 Million during the 1930s.
AVERAGE: Of the 17 estimates of the total number of victims of Stalin, the median is 30 million.

Mao Zedong's death count

Analysis: If we line up the 14 sources which claim to be complete, the median falls in the 45.75 to 52.5 million range

Hitler's death count

MEDIAN: ca. 15.5M
NOTE: These numbers only include outright murders, but keep in mind that some 28M civilians and 14M soldiers died in the European War. That's 42,000,000 deaths which can probably be blamed on Hitler to one extent or another.

 

[Kopji]

I don't think that running on an 'anti Bush' platform is going to get anyone elected. It's like making fun of crazy uncle Fester.

Rove is very clever, but a Rove strategy goes something like: (I'm making this all up) accusing you of fathering a black child, when everyone knows that black child by your side was adopted. And while you are momentarily stunned that such a claim is actually getting feet with stupid voting Americans, you would be faced with formal requests to turn in your war medals. Youtube testimonies from your ex torturers that you weren't really tortured all that badly would even be on Fox.

Now that's more Rove's style. I think that we can be pretty sure that by the time Rove is through supporting McCain, we will all be wondering how we could have ever considered electing an atheist terrorist like Obama into office, and how grateful we should be that we have a God Fearing alternative like McCain.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand all that part, Kopji. Obama is a Muslim, wears a turban, went to a madrassa, hangs with Farrakhan, and now we see he's really a Commie.

But the other problem Rove has is there are way more Dems coming to the polls than Reps. And almost half of them are for Clinton. So sheer numbers are coming out to vote "for change". If McCain is seen as "not change" then he can't win no matter how they trash Obama with nonsense.

(BTW, I happen to think most people are not going to fall for a black baby war coward one more time, but who knows what Rove believes.)

 

[Kopji]

As a loyal 'Independent', I think Clinton would probably make a good president. McCain would, Obama would. I think Romney probably had good business sense but was a bit wishywashy, and Huckabee would probably not start WW3 hoping to force Jesus's hand but why take the chance? Ron Paul is a little too much like a cult leader for someone with my background to vote for, but I'm sure he's a nice enough guy.

Bush is sort of a war coward and he got elected, so I don't think people really care much. Two good things that Bush has done as President is 1: hopefully inoculated us from blindly following a fool, at least for a few years. And 2:, shown us that even a person of average intelligence and skill could probably do a really fine job as president, with quality staff and advisors.

If I were to guess, it would be that the 08 election will turn on how motivated people are to vote. Republicans could very well just stay home and watch TV if they are apathetic about the Democrat candidate. A Dem strategy will surely be to not motivate Republicans to vote, unless of course, it is for the Democratic candidate.

The upcoming strategy against McCain could be that he's just not a very nice person and doesn't really play very well with other children. He has a reputation as being something of a bully here in Arizona, and that will of course be developed and expanded during the months ahead.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If McCain is seen as "not change" then he can't win no matter how they trash Obama with nonsense.

That is the GOP's problem, in a nutshell, in November. Substitute Hillary for Obama in that sentence and it still works.

DR

 

[joobie]

well i quit my job so i could work alone
changed my name to sherlock holmes
followed some clues in my detective bag
discovered there were red stripes in the american flag!

that ol' betsy ross...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is the GOP's problem, in a nutshell, in November. Substitute Hillary for Obama in that sentence and it still works.

DR

[side track]That is the lie from Obama's campaign, ignored as negative campaigning, and typical of the crap people don't notice in verbal manipulation of thought.

Are you claiming Bill Clinton and GW Bush's Presidencies were the same? Bull![/sidetrack]

 

[CFLarsen]

[side track]That is the lie from Obama's campaign, ignored as negative campaigning, and typical of the crap people don't notice in verbal manipulation of thought.

Are you claiming Bill Clinton and GW Bush's Presidencies were the same? Bull![/sidetrack]

Which two presidencies were the "same"?

 

[Dr Adequate]

[side track]That is the lie from Obama's campaign, ignored as negative campaigning, and typical of the crap people don't notice in verbal manipulation of thought.

Are you claiming Bill Clinton and GW Bush's Presidencies were the same? Bull![/sidetrack]

I do not believe that you read Darth Rotor's post carefully enough.

Let's look at it again in slow motion.

If McCain is seen as "not change" then he can't win no matter how they trash Obama with nonsense.

That is the GOP's problem, in a nutshell, in November. Substitute Hillary for Obama in that sentence and it still works.

Here's the sentence as re-written according to Darth Rotor's intructions:

"If McCain is seen as "not change" then he can't win no matter how they trash Hillary with nonsense ..."

Any objections? Is this a "lie from the Obama people"? "Verbal manipulation of thought"? "Claiming Bill Clinton and GW Bush's Presidencies were the same"?

The word "hostility" comes to mind, I can't think why.

 

[Nogbad]

Not that you have to be a commie to be for the people and the common good over corporate greed, (capitalism can work quite well for the people and the common good you know), but Obama and Clinton both are disappointingly in the corporate fold. I'll still take either of them and work with it over the Republican nightmare we've just had for the last 7 years.

To be sure, being whacked with the little stick is preferable to being whacked with the big stick.

My first post was a little tongue in cheek to be honest.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I do not believe that you read Darth Rotor's post carefully enough.

Let's look at it again in slow motion.

Here's the sentence as re-written according to Darth Rotor's intructions:

"If McCain is seen as "not change" then he can't win no matter how they trash Hillary with nonsense ..."

Any objections? Is this a "lie from the Obama people"? "Verbal manipulation of thought"? "Claiming Bill Clinton and GW Bush's Presidencies were the same"?

The word "hostility" comes to mind, I can't think why.

[side track continued, hopefully for the last post] It doesn't even make any sense posed that way. So if I read DR to be saying Obama/Clinton instead of McCain/Clinton then, I misread it. I misread it apparently because it made no sense to me the other way around.

It doesn't change the charge I made:

This specific campaign rhetoric spoken many times by Obama in response to Clinton's emphasis on his experience implies Clinton is part of the Bush debacle when that is a false accusation.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Potomac Primary Night; Madison, WI | February 12, 2008

We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.

I understand the reasonableness of such an reply to the 'not enough experience' charge, but it falsely attributes what everyone is disgusted with in Bush's government to Clinton. It's a farce to claim this is a only comment on the partisanship deadlocks over the years or the politics of special interests, which Obama is not so far removed from as he pretends.

Yet no one in the media points out the false implication in Obama's rhetoric that the country has been suffering from the worst administration, perhaps in history, for 15 years when it has only been the last 7. Regardless of Bill's personal issues, the country under Bill Clinton was nothing like under Bush.

As for the hostility, yes I'm hostile...toward Darth, whom I first encountered when he called me a skeptic bimbo. Such ad homs are typical of his posts in the politics forums.

And it has nothing to do whatsoever with the thread on my experience at the caucus with Obama supporters. A charge which you seem to have taken a bit personal it would seem, yet I was merely describing what I observed and had not observed in previous caucuses. I also posted what other people had written about Obama. I attacked no one personally. I tried to have a reasonable discussion about it. I see nothing particularly hostile about that. [end side track - feel free to PM me or carry this back to the Obama hostility thread if there really is any more to be said]

 

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't even make any sense posed that way. So if I read DR to be saying Obama/Clinton instead of McCain/Clinton then, I misread it. I misread it apparently because it made no sense to me the other way around.

Why not? His claim is that if McCain is identified with the last eight years, then Hillary will win. You understood the original claim, made by you, that Obama would beat McCain under those circumstances. I don't see why you don't understand the same claim when made of Hillary rather than Obama.

Surely this does make sense to you, as one of her supporters. You cannot, surely, be convinced that she'd lose under those conditions? If so, can I interest you in an Obama bumper sticker?

It doesn't change the charge I made:

Yes it does. 'Cos of it not being true, and stuff. A post from Darth Rotor, a moderate conservative, saying that Hillary Clinton can beat McCain, is not a "lie from the Obama campaign", is not "verbal manipulation of thought", is not "claiming Bill Clinton and GW Bush's Presidencies were the same", is not in any way derogatory of Hillary Clinton, and indeed seems rather free of political bias.

I understand the reasonableness of such an reply to the 'not enough experience' charge, but it falsely attributes what everyone is disgusted with in Bush's government to Clinton.

Er ... no it doesn't. In any way. Whatsoever. Which is why it is reasonable.

Yet no one in the media points out the false implication in Obama's rhetoric that the country has been suffering from the worst administration, perhaps in history, for 15 years when it has only been the last 7. Regardless of Bill's personal issues, the country under Bill Clinton was nothing like under Bush.

If that is what Obama is "implying", then why is it that Obama's supporters haven't been convinced to believe anything remotely like that by his wonderful powers of rhetoric, and only you can see this mysterious "false implication"?

 

[Elizabeth I]

If so, can I interest you in an Obama bumper sticker?

[answering a question not asked of me, but answering it anyway]I have an Obama bumper sticker. It says (since we're in South Texas), "Obamanos" (an Obama/Spanish pun.) It's already on my car.[/answering a question not asked...etc.]

 

[MaGZ]

All over the USA Communist Party members and supporters are swinging in behind Barack Obama.

http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-file-8-baltimore-communists-back.html

 

[sackett]

MaG! Heil!

Don't listen to the commie pinko queers on this forum. That red moslem nigg- 'scuse me, Person of Color, Hussein Obamination, lives for the day when he can pollute your precious bodily fluids.

And your mama's.

 

[headscratcher4]

CPU memebers flooding to Obama...a flood of dozens? Too funny. He's going to get the Shaker vote..and the whigs too.

 

[dudalb]

I am sure some of MaGZ's White Surpemists buddies will vote for Obama precisely becuase they think his election as President would cause the Racial Holy War they want so badly to break out.

 

[BPSCG]

Free speech is a good thing. It makes it easier to spot the idiots.

 

[Cleon]

The CPUSA has been campaigning for Democrats for decades. They haven't had a Presidential candidate of their own since 84, the last time Gus Hall ran.