PDA

View Full Version : no commies in congress, eh?



Grizz_
10-19-2008, 11:21 AM
the Wallstreet Journal doesn't agree:





A Liberal Supermajority

Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933









If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CN357_oj_1de_D_20081017111258.jpg AP


Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
The nearby table shows the major bills that passed the House this year or last before being stopped by the Senate minority. Keep in mind that the most important power of the filibuster is to shape legislation, not merely to block it. The threat of 41 committed Senators can cause the House to modify its desires even before legislation comes to a vote. Without that restraining power, all of the following have very good chances of becoming law in 2009 or 2010.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AI396_Filibu_NS_20081016214818.gif


- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.
Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.
The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.
- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.
The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.
- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.
The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.
- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.
- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.
- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.
Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.
- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

It's always possible that events -- such as a recession -- would temper some of these ambitions. Republicans also feared the worst in 1993 when Democrats ran the entire government, but it didn't turn out that way. On the other hand, Bob Dole then had 43 GOP Senators to support a filibuster, and the entire Democratic Party has since moved sharply to the left. Mr. Obama's agenda is far more liberal than Bill Clinton's was in 1992, and the Southern Democrats who killed Al Gore's BTU tax and modified liberal ambitions are long gone.
In both 1933 and 1965, liberal majorities imposed vast expansions of government that have never been repealed, and the current financial panic may give today's left another pretext to return to those heydays of welfare-state liberalism. Americans voting for "change" should know they may get far more than they ever imagined.

enjoy the changes you believe in ! ;)

Memphis Mike
10-19-2008, 11:23 AM
fart!

Dan McCosh
10-19-2008, 11:30 AM
I hadn't realized that negotiating the lowest cost for government purchases was a communist plot. Thanks for the tip.

ljb5
10-19-2008, 11:32 AM
The article doesn't say anything about "Commies."

ljb5
10-19-2008, 11:34 AM
Can anyone think of a reason why Washington D.C. shouldn't have representation?

They pay taxes, right?

Bob Cleek
10-19-2008, 11:51 AM
Looks like it's inevitable... the liberals have won decisively and there's no prospect of turning it around in our lifetimes. I fully expect to see most of the small towns taxed into oblivion and abandoned to the tumbleweeds in short order... much like the Dust Bowl era... with millions of unemployed "Joe the Plumbers" migrating to the big cities, unemployed, living in run down government subsidized housing projects, their lives controlled by "tax and spend liberal" black and Hispanic politicians who will be controlling the welfare system... Their kids joining gangs and living for nothing but their next rock of crack, their daughters giving it up for a bag of crystal meth. "Share the wealth, Baby!" America has been take over by the socialists.

Give me a break! For how much longer do you think we should put up with the mess the Republican party, controlled as it is by the those lying sacks of ****e like the Bush family, Cheney, Bechtel, Halliburton, and the Carlyle Group, have made of the presidency and the Middle East? You ain't had enough yet, Mr. True Believer? A century from now, Historians will marvel at this election... that the Republicans even HAD a "base." "Yes, students... There really were that many Americans in the United States who believed Obama was an "Arab" who "palled around with terrorists..." Yep, about forty percent of the American electorate swallowed that Kool Aid... and the really amazing thing about American democracy in those days was... ta dah!... THEY STILL LET PEOPLE THAT STUPID VOTE!"

Lew Barrett
10-19-2008, 12:02 PM
the total available data on Griz's profile:


Join Date
08-19-2008
Total Posts
93

Another faceless, nameless, seemingly boat-less troll. The longer this nonsense goes on, the more I am inclined to see that the Marquesses of Queensberry's rules really don't seem to apply in these "conversations."

What will such people be up to after the election, one wonders?

Dave Gray
10-19-2008, 12:03 PM
The pendulum has swung in the other direction. Once it was all republicans with Cheney/Rove dictating the agenda and all of congress walking in lock step. Due to mismanagement, arrogance, and bad fiscal policy we now face a democratic majority. This has right wingers palpitating in fear about how much of Bush's reign will be undone. Bush was a great undoer in his own right. Not to worry though, the right will do all it can to sabotage any initiatives, good or bad, the new order will attempt to initiate. I imagine the pendulum will swing in both directions for a while before it settles into customary gridlock which will again give rise to another demagogic president.

Grizz_
10-19-2008, 12:22 PM
the total available data on Griz's profile:


Join Date
08-19-2008
Total Posts
93

Another faceless, nameless, seemingly boat-less troll. The longer this nonsense goes on, the more I am inclined to see that the Marquesses of Queensberry's rules really don't seem to apply in these "conversations."

What will such people be up to after the election, one wonders?

Ah Lew,

Let's see, I've posted my experience on the forum before, I bet my sea time trumps yours, want to have a go?

So, you're offended that I posted a Wallstreet Journal article? You can't read critically and connect dots? You don't understand American or world history? Your best shot is an ad hominum attack? Or, since you waived the 'rules', are you just exactly totally witless?

You've left no room for other conclusions by your clueless response...

But, in the interest of fairness, do you have even one comment germaine to the article that I posted? Or is that beyond your pay grade?

huisjen
10-19-2008, 12:26 PM
Grizz, what's your opinion of John Birch?

Lew Barrett
10-19-2008, 12:40 PM
Ah, Grizz, my man....or woman. If you have spent a lifetime or a moment on the sea is hardly for me to argue, as only you know who you are. It's not a bet I'd take, but for the record, what kind of boat do you have? The rest of us can only guess.

Sans face and name, you're but a genderless troll.

ljb5
10-19-2008, 12:50 PM
But, in the interest of fairness, do you have even one comment germaine to the article that I posted?

I'll take you up on that....

The article says nothing about "commies." That's a slander you added on your own, without logical basis. I can think of no good reason why the residents of Washington D.C. should not have representation. They pay federal tax, just like we do. Renegotiating mortgages is now something John McCain is pushing quite hard (although erratically and in an ill-advised manner.) When the Republicans were in control, they complained loudly about the power of the filibuster. Now that they are out of power, they praise it.

I'd also like to hear about your boat, but I think you need to address these issues first.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-19-2008, 12:58 PM
The Wall Street Journal has a great news organization.
On the other hand, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal is composed of friends of, and promoters of, those wonderful people that gave us the meltdown in the banking and stock markets. If they are your heros you ain't playing with a full deck. They are hard right-wing, big-money people who would sell you down the river in an eye blink. And like the Republican Party, they only love you when they want something from you.
The reason the Democrats will have control of two branches of government is because the Bush administration has created the biggest government SNAFU in US history and people are scared.
So the right-wingers are digging up all those old bugaboos like "godless commanism" "gun-registration" and anything else weak minded voters are likely to take hold of.
We are looking at a very deep hole. We don't even know if we are about to fall in or are in it already. It is an very uncertain time. If the only thing on your mind at the moment is feeding your gut impulses you are not grasping how dangerous things are and how much worse they could possibly get.
Right now huge segmnents of the financial industry have been effectively nationalized by your buddies in the Bush administration. They did something akin to what Fidel Castro did long ago because they don't have any better ideas. The next president will inherit that and, also, will have to accept it for the time being.
The next four years ain't going to be fun but, at least, we will have a person at the tiller who has a first class intellect, realizes there are very few certainties and that he is unlikely to get messages from God.

ljb5
10-19-2008, 01:29 PM
Grizz,

I still think we deserve an explanation of where you found the word "Commie" in the WSJ article.

Chris Coose
10-19-2008, 02:02 PM
These freaks heads 'd blow off their shoulders if it was a democratic administration purchasing bank assets and bailing all the mortgages today.

StevenBauer
10-19-2008, 02:44 PM
Thanks for sharing the good news, Griz. ;) About time.


Steven

Grizz_
10-19-2008, 03:11 PM
Grizz, what's your opinion of John Birch?

never met him

Grizz_
10-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Ah, Grizz, my man....or woman. If you have spent a lifetime or a moment on the sea is hardly for me to argue, as only you know who you are. It's not a bet I'd take, but for the record, what kind of boat do you have? The rest of us can only guess.

Sans face and name, you're but a genderless troll.

Well Lew, I can see that you're in that same class, a genderless troll. Contratulations. What's the saying, a skunk smells itself first?

You are good for laughs, I'll grant you that. Witless ones at that.

Grizz_
10-19-2008, 03:21 PM
Grizz,

I still think we deserve an explanation of where you found the word "Commie" in the WSJ article.


I never said I found the word in the article, you did. Can't help you there, you have to be able to put two and two together and get past three. Since you can't get that far, you don't comprehend the characterization I made.

So, out of curiosity, is everything about the article is perfectly normal and desireable for you, there's nothing in the article that gives you pause to think about the information they published?

Or is it something like labels you understand, but ideas just go completely over your head? Yeah, that's the impression you've made. Good on ya.

Grizz_
10-19-2008, 03:26 PM
the Bush administration has created the biggest government SNAFU in US history

Chuck, what SNAFU is that exactly, and how did the Bush administration create it?

Ian McColgin
10-19-2008, 03:38 PM
Why is the thread titled "no commies in congress, eh?" ??

ljb5
10-19-2008, 03:38 PM
I never said I found the word in the article.

You said, "No commies in congress, eh?... The Wall Street Journal doesn't agree."

If you have some information about what the WSJ agrees or does not agree with, please post it..... especially anything related to "commies in congress."

You made the claim. You back it up.


So, out of curiosity, is everything about the article is perfectly normal and desireable for you, there's nothing in the article that gives you pause to think about the information they published?

As I have already pointed out (more than once), I see nothing wrong with the citizens of Washington D.C. having representation. Also, the plan to renegotiate mortgages is something John McCain is pushing very hard.... and I have absolutely no problems with price controls on prescription drugs.

None of that has anything to do with "commies."

You used the word "commies".... but that word doesn't exist in the article, nor in any of the policies under discussion

Please show some evidence of "commies."

Canoeyawl
10-19-2008, 05:13 PM
Until quite recently The Dow Jones Co. owned the Wall street Journal.
Now owned by Rupert Murdoch it is still the propaganda machine it always was.
It just isn’t working right now…lol

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-19-2008, 05:24 PM
I've never forgiven the Dow Jones outfit for wrecking the Far East Economic Review.

And the WSJ op-eds have been Fascist's Forum for as long as I can recall.

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-19-2008, 05:32 PM
Chuck, what SNAFU is that exactly, and how did the Bush administration create it?

Are you serious? Do you read, watch TV or listen to radio news?
They did nothing when advised of the dangers.

Lew Barrett
10-19-2008, 05:45 PM
Well Lew, I can see that you're in that same class, a genderless troll. Contratulations. What's the saying, a skunk smells itself first?

You are good for laughs, I'll grant you that. Witless ones at that.

I feel complimented that you would like my words well enough to use them again, Grizz.:D

To keep things moving along, please do tell us about your boat and how it drew you here. ;)

Scott Rosen
10-19-2008, 05:52 PM
COMMIES!?! OMG!

They'll be the death of us. Before you know it they'll start taxing income for the wealthy at the rate of 92%.

My God, they'll be stealing from the rich and creating the welfare state. It'll be socialism, the death of America.

What kind of anti-American, radical leftist would do such a thing? It would create a new era in America, a change so radical, it would be unrecognizable to our fathers and grandfathers.

Wait a second. We once had an income tax rate of 92% for the highest earners. That was during the administration of Eisenhower. Eisenhower, that no good commie pinko socialist. Anti-American too.

The real radical change in policy occurred during the Regan years. He reduced the highest tax rates from 70% to 28%. That's about half of what they were in the 1950's and 60's -- the good old days that every so-called conservative wants to return to.

An increase in tax rates would be a RETURN to the years before and after WWII. It would not be new policy. It would be the policy of the Greatest Generation.

capt jake
10-19-2008, 06:09 PM
COMMIES!?! OMG!

They'll be the death of us. Before you know it they'll start taxing income for the wealthy at the rate of 92%.

My God, they'll be stealing from the rich and creating the welfare state. It'll be socialism, the death of America.

What kind of anti-American, radical leftist would do such a thing? It would create a new era in America, a change so radical, it would be unrecognizable to our fathers and grandfathers.

Wait a second. We once had an income tax rate of 92% for the highest earners. That was during the administration of Eisenhower. Eisenhower, that no good commie pinko socialist. Anti-American too.

The real radical change in policy occurred during the Regan years. He reduced the highest tax rates from 70% to 28%. That's about half of what they were in the 1950's and 60's -- the good old days that every so-called conservative wants to return to.

An increase in tax rates would be a RETURN to the years before and after WWII. It would not be new policy. It would be the policy of the Greatest Generation.

Very well said there Scott!

ljb5
10-19-2008, 07:15 PM
I was promised commies and, by god, someone better show me some commies!

capt jake
10-19-2008, 08:06 PM
I was promised commies and, by god, someone better show me some commies!

I think he (or she) is way back at the start of the thread. :D

ahp
10-19-2008, 08:42 PM
Please enlighten us with your definition of "Commies". Careful now, I might be pleased to be numbered with them.

mdh
10-19-2008, 08:52 PM
Obama and "Spread the Wealth" is commie. So are a lot of wooden boat owners, evidently.

Tom Montgomery
10-19-2008, 08:56 PM
Really?

Have you been paying attention to the news out of Washington D.C. for the last few weeks?

If Obama is a "commie," what does that make Bush, Cheney, Paulson and Bernanke?

Scott Rosen
10-19-2008, 09:06 PM
If Obama is a "commie," what does that make Bush, Cheney, Paulson and Bernanke?

Bush Republicans. They steal from the poor and give to the rich. They're so good at it, some of their victims even say thank you and ask for more.

Donn
10-19-2008, 09:21 PM
Bush Republicans. They steal from the poor and give to the rich. They're so good at it, some of their victims even say thank you and ask for more.

They must be lawyers!:p

PeterSibley
10-20-2008, 03:51 AM
The US definition of "commie " seems a little Non Marxist :D .You have some strange ,strange people over there .

Lew Barrett
10-20-2008, 09:30 AM
You just noticed, Peter? :D

Rick-Mi
10-20-2008, 09:34 AM
Obama and "Spread the Wealth" is commie. So are a lot of wooden boat owners, evidently.


Most certainly true. What people don't realize is how often Marx's manifesto and the American liberal agenda run parallel. The heavy progressive income tax system to "spread the wealth" which is so endeared by lefties on the WBF happens to be the second plank of the communitst manifesto.


.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-20-2008, 09:39 AM
I met a Communist once. Nice elderly chap; he was a retired lecturer in Marxism-Leninism and he sincerely believed that it would work if only it were done properly.

Of course, I've met loads of people who are members of the Communist Party of China, and I was once jokingly proposed for membership by a Party Secretary* but I've only met one actual Communist.

* He said I met the basic requirements - I was a good bloke, I knew enough theory to be getting on with but, most important, I could hold my drink!

Dan McCosh
10-20-2008, 10:07 AM
Most certainly true. What people don't realize is how often Marx's manifesto and the American liberal agenda run parallel. The heavy progressive income tax system to "spread the wealth" which is so endeared by lefties on the WBF happens to be the second plank of the communitst manifesto.


.


FWIW, the Share our Wealth movement was the anti-communist, but pro-Hitler, party launched by Father Coughlin and Huey Long in the 1930s. Coughlin was still heading up the local Catholic school in the 1960s.

TomF
10-20-2008, 10:09 AM
Counts me out. Perhaps for lack of diligent practise, I can't hold the drink like I used to.

I suspect that Nixon, JFK, Truman and the rest of the Cold Warriors up 'till Reagan's massive tax overhaul would be shocked to discover they were communists the whole time.

LeeG
10-20-2008, 10:19 AM
Grizz, you have funny tactics, we're supposed to accept your argument of fear because you are afraid?

John of Phoenix
10-20-2008, 10:41 AM
Capitalism has nothing to fear from Communism. Or Islamism, or Liberalism, or any other ism except Capitalism itself.

You have been witnessing Capitalism consuming itself - good old fashioned robber baron greed.

Commies... gimme a break.

Keith Wilson
10-20-2008, 11:23 AM
Capitalism has nothing to fear from Communism. Or Islamism, or Liberalism, or any other ism except Capitalism itself.
You have been witnessing Capitalism consuming itself - good old fashioned robber baron greed.This is the best post for a long time.

I am in favor of capitalism. I wish to preserve it. The problem with Capitalism is that unregulated, or poorly regulated, it self-destructs because people are not willing to put up with extreme boom-and-bust cycles. Had FDR not tempered capitalist excesses in the '30s, the US probably would have had a genuine socialist revolution, whether of the left or the right-wing variety (like Peronism, or National Socialism).

Shang
10-20-2008, 02:09 PM
"...If Obama is a "commie," what does that make Bush, Cheney, Paulson and Bernanke?"

Ow!
Don't give us straight-lines like that...!
I have chapped lips and it hurts to laugh...

ahp
10-20-2008, 02:21 PM
Where I live now, a "commie" is likely to be someone who talks like they ain't from around here.

ahp
10-20-2008, 02:24 PM
Jews, Moslems and Christians all subscribe (in theory) to the the virtue of giving alms. What does that make them?

Flying Orca
10-20-2008, 02:39 PM
I have chapped lips and it hurts to laugh...

Reminds me o' the dusty cowpoke who hitched his horse in front of the saloon, walked around to the hind end, and planted a big kiss, ah, under the horse's tail.

Feller passing the time outside the saloon asked him, "Why'd you just kiss your horse's arse?"

The cowboy favoured the stranger with a squinty look and said, "Chapped lips."

"Wow, really? I've never heard of that treatment. Does it work?"

The cowboy paused for a second and replied, "Stops me lickin' 'em."

Scott Rosen
10-20-2008, 04:25 PM
Jews, Moslems and Christians all subscribe (in theory) to the the virtue of giving alms. What does that make them?Alms givers?

Donn
10-20-2008, 04:32 PM
Jews, Moslems and Christians all subscribe (in theory) to the the virtue of giving alms. What does that make them?

eleemosynary

seanz
10-20-2008, 05:17 PM
I met a Communist once. Nice elderly chap; he was a retired lecturer in Marxism-Leninism and he sincerely believed that it would work if only it were done properly.


Capitalism suffers a major (and some minor) collapse and reorganization every now and then and I never hear Capitalists say it's not being done properly.
When will we see 'Full Capitalism'?
;)

Grizz_
10-24-2008, 08:36 AM
OK OK, how about "socialist" ? Do you think there's any socialists in congress?

Come on, let's hear it for socialists:


Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership[/B]

Posted: October 24, 2008
12:50 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
WorldNetDaily

Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians
to office who espouse its policies.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.

But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.

The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/1023newparty2.JPG
Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.

According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."]

So any deniars here wanting to prove that BHO isn't a SOCIALIST ?

OR, (as in EITHER/OR) are y'all socialists also?

Keith Wilson
10-24-2008, 09:28 AM
And he eats babies too.

John of Phoenix
10-24-2008, 09:40 AM
Will there ever come a day when republicans don't rely on fear mongering, hate and lies?

Vince Brennan
10-24-2008, 09:49 AM
eleemosynary

Play fair, Donn!

Keith Wilson
10-24-2008, 09:51 AM
It's interesting, in a perverse sort of way, to watch the pattern of attacks on Obama. They pretty much all follow this form: "He's not really who he says he is, he's really a (insert something nasty and far left here)".

Now a far more effective strategy would be to find a position that Obama actually advocates, demonstrate this with a complete quotation from his campaign website (not a single out-of-context sentence), and then make arguments why it's a really bad idea. The problem with this, of course, its that most folks will look at Obama's ideas, and say "Hey, that seems pretty reasonable." Republicans cannot win on issues. A considerable majority of people in the US support the mainstream Democratic positions on Iraq, on heath care, on the economy, and even on abortion. Hence "He's really a radical !!!" even though nothing Obama says or writes is even vaguely radical. It's kind of pathetic, really.

CK 17
10-24-2008, 10:09 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQCJr0cO7E

Cuyahoga Chuck
10-24-2008, 10:17 AM
Grizz
Feel better now?

Grizz_
10-24-2008, 11:03 AM
Grizz
Feel better now?


I feel great.

The world's economies agree that BHO is a socialist and they're preparing for the coming American socailist worker's paradise. Have you noticed any world markets lately? They're not falling because of housing forclosures in America ya know.

I'll keep catching your draining wasting assets while you keep congratulating yourselves on your intelligence.

It reminds me of the saying, love is blind. So now you're the blind following the blind. How attractive is that?

here ya go: http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/marketsummary/

Canoeyawl
10-24-2008, 11:09 AM
ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases

Whazzat??? Massive??? (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Republican%20pedophiles)

Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.

Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.

Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.

Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

*Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

*Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.

*Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

*Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

*Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.

*Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.

*Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.

Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.

Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.

*Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.

Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

*Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.

Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.

Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.

Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.

TomF
10-24-2008, 11:13 AM
...The world's economies agree that BHO is a socialist and they're preparing for the coming American socailist worker's paradise. Have you noticed any world markets lately? They're not falling because of housing forclosures in America ya know. I suspect that the market will start recovery shortly after, if Obama's actually elected. Will do a lot to calm world market jitters.

John of Phoenix
10-24-2008, 11:16 AM
When Obama announces his replacement for that moron Paulson you'll see a rally that will knock your socks off.

mdh
10-25-2008, 03:24 PM
and the skies will open up, and we'll all sing koom bi yah...

Grizz_
11-01-2008, 11:49 AM
I suspect that the market will start recovery shortly after, if Obama's actually elected. Will do a lot to calm world market jitters.

All you deniers are very amusing. Too bad you cannot connect the dots like humans who can think, like this:


Friday, October 31, 2008

The Manchurian Candidate

Mrs. du Toit
There’s an old saw that says, you’re not delusional if they really are out to get you.
The other night, while channel flipping, we came across a Frontline episode about the two presidential candidates, The Choice 2008 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/). I put on the show..... I was unprepared for the Frontline episode. .........
The Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) had a post a few days ago about the press, and their failure to provide any meaningful and/or substantive background on Obama. Bill had this to say (http://dailypundit.com/?p=32410), regarding their handling of the Obama campaign:
A free and healthy democracy cannot function when it has no way to determine reality. We have our corrupt, degenerate, dangerous mass media to thank for this situation. The solution is simple: Destroy them. Don’t read them, buy them, or support them in any way. As somebody else said, “Let them die. I’ll dance on their graves.”
....................
The idea that the charge of “socialist” is being debated, discounted as being a racist distraction, when someone is on-record (twice!) as stating that wealth redistribution is a good and noble thing, is so far outside of normalcy that a kind of panicked, Chicken Little reaction begins to set in.
Barack Obama, in 2001:

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
Regarding his near blank slate record:
… One of the benefits of running when he ran is not having too long a record. Daschle told him, “There’s an open window here, and maybe it’s not a bad thing not to have a long record.” Explain your point of view on that.
I think that’s right. ... As you say, he didn’t have 20 years of votes to go back and people to pick up. They’re doing a good job claiming he’s a flip-flopper now, and he was only there for a couple of years. Imagine what you can do with a record, what they’re doing to McCain on the tax cuts and so forth and so on. ... It’s not the reason to run, and it doesn’t mean, obviously, that you can’t run with a record. But the Senate, half those votes are calculated to put people on the spot, to give them trouble running for re-election, never mind higher office.
The killer quote from Rouse is this one:
I think he’s talking about moving forward with a progressive agenda. Clearly it’s not going to be 100 percent of what you want, but we can do better. And we can get 65 to 70 percent, 75 percent, whatever it is, if we work together and are honest about it and, obviously, build popular support for it.
Bradford Benson (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/etc/choice.html), a conservative classmate at Harvard:
The big question mark, in my mind, is whether they will be harnessed to a substantive policy agenda for the country that will be healthy or deeply harmful. And that’s where I’m far from convinced.
The moderation and pragmatism that I perceived at the time we were law students together have not been in evidence in substance in his career in public life. They’re still very much in evidence rhetorically. But, whether that rhetorical moderation, that rhetorical bipartisanship actually translates into a real moderation and real bipartisanship from a policy perspective and how he governs, that’s the big unknown in my mind.
And so for me I think the choice between McCain and Obama is primarily a choice between two sets of policy agendas, domestically and abroad. Two different approaches to the world. And we really can’t allow ourselves to focus on anything other than what these two candidates say about what they believe, and what they want to do. That’s got to be currently the best and most reliable guide to what they will do.
Barack Obama left Chicago to get his law degree so that he could use politics, rather than community organizing, to bring about the changes he felt were important. He gave up on using education and awareness programs to reform the poor.
He could have become a law clerk for the Supreme Court, and uncharacteristically for someone on the Law Review he chose the political, rather than the judicial route.
Everything this man has ever done has been calculated for affect, where he lived, what he chose to do, whom he befriended and married, and where he went to church.
If a great puppeteer had pulled the strings, it could not have turned out better, which is why many of us have had that sense that we’re being manipulated, and that sense of paranoia that something isn’t quite right about it. All we see, all we can point to, are the smoke and mirrors, but they float away before you can capture them on tape, or on film.
There is no puppeteer. It is all Obama’s doing. He’s crafted an image of himself to appeal to those he needs to get him where he wants to be, but what he intends to do with that power, once he gets it, is an unknown… The only thing we have to go on, and it isn’t much, are (as I said before) his friends and compatriots. They’re among those at bottom of the barrel, the most evil among us on the Marxist side of the fence.
If you want to know a man’s character, what he truly believes and desires, judge him by the friends he keeps; and like with every power-seeking Marxist before him, they’ll be the first to stand before the firing squad once he’s gotten where he wants to be and is finished with them. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of folks, certainly, but what Obama wants, beyond his lust for power, is enough to make one confident that he really is out to get us.
SOURCE: http://www.mrsdutoit.com/index.php/main/single/3649/

The amount of historical, political, and economic ignorance on this forum is staggering. There is NOT ONE SINGLE STUBSTANTIVE CONTEXTUAL REASON to elect Obama.

So far not one Bilge denizen has given a reasoned and measured evaluation of the consequences of electing him. No surprise.

So did you read this essay? Is there anyone who can discuss it intelligently?

Nothing but love for all the Bilgers

Grizz

ljb5
11-01-2008, 12:05 PM
All you deniers are very amusing. Too bad you cannot connect the dots like humans who can think, like this:


Warren Buffet, Charles Fried, Colin Powell, Ron Reagan and Christopher Buckley are voting for Obama.

You think you're smarter than them?

Keith Wilson
11-01-2008, 01:24 PM
And The Economist, that radical rag and hotbed of Marxism, just endorsed Obama. Too bad they cannot connect the dots like humans who can think. :D:D

Lordy, the things that have slithered down into the bilge lately. :rolleyes:

Grizz_
11-01-2008, 03:01 PM
Warren Buffet, Charles Fried, Colin Powell, Ron Reagan and Christopher Buckley are voting for Obama.

You think you're smarter than them?

Yes