You're a good little communist/socialist/marxist in your rhetoric..nm
Posted By: nm on 2008-10-28
In Reply to: Fox news is barely legal and on its way out and RUSH is a lying druggie sm - Mrs. M
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Obama - more Marxist/Socialist/Communist
connections:
After Iowa
Happy New Year and congratulations on a job well done. These have been trying times when the hyenas of war have again been turned loose on humanity by a greedy ruling class.
Now, beyond all the optimism I was capable of mustering, Mr. Obama won Iowa! He won in a political arena 95 percent white. It was a resounding defeat for the manipulations of the ultra-right and their right-liberal fellow travelers. Also it was a hard lesson for liberals who underestimated the political fury of the masses in these troubled times.
Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole,” not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.
The old pattern of politics as usual has been broken. It may not have happened as we expected it to happen but what matters is that it happened. The message is clear: we can and must defeat the ultra-right, by uniting the broadest possible coalition that will represent an overwhelming majority of the people in a new political dynamic. We must quickly shed yesterday’s political perspective and get in step with the march of events.
Frank Chapman (letter to Communist Party newspaper People’s Weekly World.)
Via e-mail
They are socialist/Marxist. That has been the...
mantle of the DNC for years, growing steadily worse. They employ the Alinsky method...read up on it. Obama not only embraces it, he taught it.
It is built on class warfare. You find out what bothers people most, then you rabble rouse. Whatever that sore is, you make it more sore. And you blame whatever institution you are trying to take down. With Hitler it was Jews. With socialists it is "the rich." You make people think the cause of ALL their problems is either (Jews or big nasty corporations). Here it is big nasty corporations. They have fed people this for so many years they have bought into it. People actually think big evil corporations are the cause of everything bad that happens to them.
Saul Alinsky himself summed it up (paraphrasing): "It doesn't matter if it is true or not. It just matters if you can make them believe it."
Basically, in order to keep people voting for them, they have to keep people thinking that the big bad corporations are the cause of all the problems, and they say we are going to take from them and give to you and you have to do nothing to receive that other than keep voting for them. In recent years it has been changed to evil corporations and evil Republicans, and it is working, you see it demonstrated on this board every day. Most of these people really don't even know how corporations figure into our economy. They just know they're "evil." They hate a whole portion of society (Christians, conservatives, etc.) because they are "evil" and the cause of all their problems. Socialism 101. They have practiced it well...they have a lot of believers.
Marxist/socialist? Please. You are just being...sm
inflammatory. He is a liberal democrat, period. If I had called McCain a fascist would you not be insulted. Can we have some brains here? Next thing you will be calling him a communist. Good grief!
Cuba communist not socialist. nm
.
Well, actually he leans more Marxist than socialist...
I did not know that until I studied up on it. However...I have always said I do not agree with McCain on everything and this is certainly one of those things.
Because he's not a Marxist socialist for one thing....
lol.
A BIG WELCOME TO FOUR YEARS OF SOCIALIST/MARXIST STATE
and his democrats. Just you wait
rhetoric rhetoric - just tell people what they want to hear, it worked in 2000 and 2004 right?
xx
Communist might be more like it.
nm
No, but we're so DAM' good at it.
-nm
To what end? Prove a communist
nm
Good grief! You're right.
This IS scary!
I keep hearing how our soldiers are fighting so Iraqis can be free like Americans.
I wonder if anyone bothered to tell them what the Bush definition of freedom really is. Obviously, nobody really bothered to tell Americans. 
If you're an example of a good Democrat...
God help this country if Obama wins.
You are a truly scary person.
I doubt anyone could read your post without picturing you as a crazed, red-in-the-face delusional street person with a whole shopping cart full of crazy and a rat on a string you call 'Willie.'
Oh, good. Nice to know you're not too far.
in the light of day.
Because they're greedy. What's good for the
middle class; i.e., us struggling to make ends meet, is not good enough for them.
Your probably think CNN is Communist Network News.
nm
Are you insinuating that Obama is a communist?
What the heck are you drinking or smoking? Sam thinks he a socialist, you think he is a communist, and the reality is he is a highly-educated, well-qualified democrat presidential candidate that could possibly be the best thing this country has seen in at least 8 years!
If you were a "good little communist" and quit...sm
your job, the Russians would have shipped you off to Siberia. For us that would equate to Alaska. Maybe that's where you should head anyway after election day when Obama wins by a wide margin.
Apparently, you're good for one-liners only.
Sort of like flatus...over in one little emotional gust, nothing much of subtance produced.
And you're very good at shooting the messenger.
It wouldn't matter what I posted here. You've already made up your mind that you hate me, and that's all there is to it. I could come in tomorrow and say I think Bush is the best president we've ever had, but you'd still attack me personally.
If you look at every single thread I have started here, I have never ONCE personally attacked a poster. I have always attacked an administration that is incompetent, dishonest and downright dangerous. The responses I have received have been attacks directed personally at me. Yet, when I respond in kind to those attacks, I'm crucified. If you're going to start the personal stuff, be prepared to get some of it right back at you.
If you disagree, why can't you discuss the reason you disagree? Why must you and the others always personally attack a poster? Must be because you simply can't defend your position, which is understandable.
I hope you have a very nice day. It would be very nice to have an intelligent, legitimate debate with you someday, one directed at the issues and not at a poster you have decided to hate.
That's all fine and good but you're not running
]
Good point, if you're going to support something, you should be able to look at it (sm)
and still think you're right, right?
She did NOT say Obama was Marxist.
She said that he believed in redistribution of wealth (and he does, said so himself) and how is the NOT Marxist? All Biden had to do was explain how it was not Marxist.
As to people in the campaign saying she is a rogue diva...when those "people in the campaign" are named I would come closer to believing it. If they did, I don't give a darn, because I am glad she is not as "yes" person and has a mind of her own. We need MORE of that in Washington. Not someone who toes the party line, unlike Obama who is in lockstep with the DNC and George Soros.
Sam's Marxist dogma.
Ever heard of the progressive tax system...the one the US has ALWAYS had? That would be the same (regressive) tax system that redistributes wealth from top to bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_progressivity_in_federal_income_tax
Check out the table here to see the history of progressive tax structure in the US and notice how much MORE of a percentage of tax the top income brackets have paid in the past as compared to what Obama is proposing. Pay special attention to the prevailing rates between 1932 and 1981.
The vast majority of US economists (81%) support this tax structure. Before income tax was enacted, Theodore Roosevelt (McCain's hero) strongly advocated for progressive tax. McCain has made no mention of repealing or changing its basic structure. Your Marxist arguments about Obama's tax proposals are embarrassingly ill-informed, especially in view of the fact that Obama simply wants to restore the top bracket tax rate that was in effect in 2000 when Bush assumed office (39.6%). That is hardly excessive, in view of US history which informs us that in the past, it has been as high as a whopping 94% and that same bracket rate ranged between 63% and 94% for 49 years (1932 to 1981) of the 95 years we have been paying income tax.
By your logic, we are already a socialist country, and we have had 7 socialist republican presidents. NOT.
Well, of course you have no problem taking welfare from a communist. sm
That's your problem. You believe people should get something for nothing. You believe in support of the masses equally, i.e., socialism where everyone is equally poor but that's okay. I have no problem believing you would think that was okay. He is also virulently anti-American, but then so is the left. Perfect match!
You just stick with the Communist News Ninnies. That's more
O'Reilly sometimes uses three-syllable words, so you wouldn't be interested.
Swiftboating continues; you're in good company.
Walter Cronkite may be next...
Cronkite: Time for U.S. to Leave Iraq
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television WriterSun Jan 15, 6:47 PM ET
Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite, whose 1968 conclusion that the Vietnam War was unwinnable keenly influenced public opinion then, said Sunday he'd say the same thing today about Iraq.
It's my belief that we should get out now, Cronkite said in a meeting with reporters.
Now 89, the television journalist once known as the most trusted man in America has been off the CBS Evening News for nearly a quarter-century. He's still a CBS News employee, although he does little for them.
Cronkite said one of his proudest moments came at the end of a 1968 documentary he made following a visit to Vietnam during the Tet offensive. Urged by his boss to briefly set aside his objectivity to give his view of the situation, Cronkite said the war was unwinnable and that the U.S. should exit.
Then-President Lyndon Johnson reportedly told a White House aide after that, If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America.
The best time to have made a similar statement about Iraq came after Hurricane Katrina, he said.
We had an opportunity to say to the world and Iraqis after the hurricane disaster that Mother Nature has not treated us well and we find ourselves missing the amount of money it takes to help these poor people out of their homeless situation and rebuild some of our most important cities in the United States, he said. Therefore, we are going to have to bring our troops home.
Iraqis should have been told that our hearts are with you and that the United States would do all it could to rebuild their country, he said.
I think we could have been able to retire with honor, he said. In fact, I think we can retire with honor anyway.
Cronkite has spoken out against the Iraq war in the past, saying in 2004 that Americans weren't any safer because of the invasion.
Cronkite, who is hard of hearing and walks haltingly, jokingly said that I'm standing by if they want me to anchor the CBS Evening News. CBS is still searching for a permanent successor to Dan Rather, who replaced Cronkite in March 1981.
Twenty-four hours after I told CBS News that I was stepping down at my 65th birthday I was already regretting it and I've regretted it every day since, he said. It's too good a job for me to have given it up the way that I did.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
*****************************
AND MURTHA:
Web Site Attacks Critic of War
Opponents Question Murtha's Medals
By Howard Kurtz and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 14, 2006; A05
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), the former Marine who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, has become the latest Democrat to have his Vietnam War decorations questioned.
In a tactic reminiscent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) during the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative Web site yesterday quoted Murtha opponents as questioning the circumstances surrounding the awarding of his two Purple Hearts.
David Thibault, editor in chief of the Cybercast News Service, said the issue of Murtha's medals from 1967 is relevant now because the congressman has really put himself in the forefront of the antiwar movement. Thibault said: He has been placed by the Democratic Party and antiwar activists as a spokesman against the war above reproach.
Cindy Abram, a spokeswoman for Murtha, said, We certainly believe that the questions being raised are an attempt to distract attention from what's happening in Iraq. As for how Murtha won the Purple Hearts, she said: We think the congressman's record is clear. We have the documentation, the paperwork that proves that he earned them, and that he is entitled to wear them proudly.
Cybercast is part of the conservative Media Research Center, run by L. Brent Bozell III, who accused some in the media of ignoring the Swift Boat charges, but Thibault said it operates independently. He said the unit, formerly called the Conservative News Service, averages 110,000 readers, mainly conservative, and provides material for other Web sites such as GOPUSA. We won't run anything against anybody if we don't have the goods, he said.
Former representative Don Bailey (D-Pa.), who was quoted in the article, confirmed his account to The Washington Post yesterday.
In a conversation on the House floor in the early 1980s, said Bailey, who won a Silver Star and three Bronze Stars in Vietnam, Murtha told him he did not deserve his Purple Hearts. He recalled Murtha saying: Hey, I didn't do anything like you did. I got a little scratch on the cheek. Murtha's spokeswoman would not address that account.
Bailey, who lost a House race to Murtha after a 1982 redistricting, said Jack's a coward, and he's a liar for subsequently denying the conversation. That just really burned me, he said.
While saying he has only responded to reporters' questions and is not bitter toward Murtha, Bailey said the congressman's approach to Iraq is not responsible and that it just turned my stomach to see Murtha acting as a spokesman for veterans.
He said he shared the information with Republican William Choby, who ran against Murtha four times beginning in 1990 and made the Vietnam decorations an issue. Choby raised the issue again during Murtha's 2002 reelection campaign.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, citing Marine records, reported that year that Murtha was wounded during hostile actions near Da Nang, Vietnam: In the first incident, his right cheek was lacerated, and in the second, he was lacerated above his left eye. Neither injury required evacuation. The Cybercast article cites a 1994 interview in which Murtha described injuries to his arm and knee.
The article included a 1996 quote from Harry Fox, who worked for former representative John Saylor (R-Pa.), telling a local newspaper that Murtha was pretending to be a big war hero. Fox, who lost a 1974 election to Murtha, said the 38-year Marine veteran had asked Saylor for assistance in obtaining the Purple Hearts but was turned down because the office believed he lacked adequate evidence of his wounds.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, The Swift Boat-like attacks on an American hero, Congressman Jack Murtha, are despicable and have no place in politics.
In November, when Murtha called for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the congressman was endorsing Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party and called his stance a surrender to the terrorists. Days later, President Bush called Murtha a fine man and said they simply disagreed about Iraq.
The Cybercast article appeared shortly before a segment scheduled for CBS's 60 Minutes tomorrow in which Murtha predicts that the vast majority of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WHO OPPOSE THE WAR:
Bush to use speech in Kentucky to promote Republicans
January 11, 2006
LOUISVILLE (AP) -- President Bush will have an eye on the fall elections Wednesday when he heads to Louisville, Kentucky, to give a speech on Iraq.
Tuesday, the president told a veterans group that voters should punish any Democrat whose Iraq War rhetoric gives comfort to our adversaries. He said loyal opposition is one thing, but defeatism is another.
Oh good, thanks for replying. Glad they're not just giving it to the right....lol...thx.
:-)
It means you're good at paraphrasing articles others
nm
Nope, no Marxist, communists have ...
come forward claiming that Palin is "a believer". But I have seen some articles that she is not as for reform in politics as she wants us to think. When she was elected mayor it seems that she fired the police chief because he didn't support her in the election. Also, she had asked the librarian about censoring books. I have read conflicting stories on whether that librarian was fired or not, but both articles mentioned she wanted books taken out of the library. Palin claims it was just "rhetoric". She also left the town with a huge amount of debt, I believe $20 mill. when she her mayoral duties were done. She also supposedly hired some lobbyists.
Before I get bashed about Obama's same-ole, same-ole, I am not disputing that fact either.
That is why the Marxist message works with them...
let's take it from all those nasty people who are doing better than me (who incidentally worked hard to earn it) and don't make me do a thing to get it. Class warfare. Classic Marxism. Trouble is, they don't recognize it.
Yeah, and what about those communist Catholics feeding the poor? :-D
You need to make up your mind. Is Obama a Nazi or a Communist? Do you...sm
know the difference? I think not. You are just being inflammatory. He is neither. He is a U.S. constitutional law professor and a proud patriotic American. You need to educate yourself instead of just spouting what you hear from people who are ignorant of the facts.
Good grief! You're a rude, bitter person.
xx
Bush is a black liberationist Marxist, too.
So, let me get this straight. Obama is proposing a tax rebate funded by an oil company windfall profits tax. President Bush's economic stimulus checks were also tax rebates, but they were funded by tax payers. By the "logic" (and I use the term loosely) in your "all do respect" post below, wouldn't that qualify as redistribution of wealth and make Bush a black liberationist theological Marxist/Socialist? Please help me out with this.
The Bush redistribution of wealth is free market capitalism because it was funded by all of us, but Obama's similar policy scheme is black liberationist Marxist/Socialism because it redirects huge oil company profits back to the consumers who generate those profits for them in the first place? After all, we ALL pay for gas, too. So instead of energy cost relief for all of us, you think it is more appropriate for all that dough to be used to bankroll golden parachutes for oil company CEOs? If that's capitalism in its purest form, it sucks and I want no part of it. Sign me up for a little socialism. Maybe those black liberationist theologians are onto something after all.
It is not the tax that is the issue....and please read up on the Marxist ideal of re-
distribution of wealth. Not once during those 7 years was the money from those taxes redistributed to taxpayers in $1000 checks. The Marxist principle is the redistribution of wealth, which is exactly what Obama is proposing.
You can march in lock step with the Marxist...
socialist idea of "equal opportunity for all Americans" if you like. He was the member of a church for 20 years that preached black liberation theology. It is NOT about equal opporunity for ALL Americans. Programmed is right. Get with it? Not in this lifetime.
Rhetoric?
I don't know what posts you have been reading, friend Lurker, with the anything to do with hatred, loving terrorists, etc., are directed at the post containing just that thing. One poster who shall remain nameless stated emphatically that investigating Bush took precedence over terrorism. To me, that is a statement supporting terrorism, and while maybe not idiotic, does not seem to me to be a very smart thing to say, considering Amadinejad stated this morning he wanted the next group of Al Qaeda leaders to come from Iran and that he was sending the US a message soon. And then this afternoon, we find out that the nuclear watchdog group found plutonium in the nuclear waste at the Iranian nuclear plant. But your liberal friend who proudly calls herself so wants to investigate Bush rather than concentrate on terrorism. That would be laughable if it were not that a great number of liberals are in full agreement with her. Which is concerning to say the least. Several who post the liberal board and on the conservative board who clearly identify themselves as liberals do hate democracy (evident in their posts), make frequent statements in support of terrorism (taking attention off them is supporting them), spout socialist policies (why they are called socialists)...if you don't fall into any of those categories, should be no big deal to you. You are including yourself in the group saying we. Liberals come to the conservative board too. Conservatives are not the only ones who cross over boards.
Rhetoric
Per Onelook:
▸ noun: study of the technique and rules for using language effectively (especially in public speaking) (hmmm...yep)
▸ noun: using language effectively to please or persuade (okay, I get it)
▸ noun: high flown style; excessive use of verbal ornamentation (ohh, for sure!)
▸ noun: loud and confused and empty talk (that's the nuts and bolts of it)
As far as rhetoric is concerned, I would say O has it mastered.
Palin was speaking the truth, plain and simple, and she has the record to prove it. Get over it. If you are so embarrased, go live somewhere else.
Where is all of "O's" big bipartisan rhetoric now?
Obviously that is all it was....rhetoric. Preached we had to work across the aisle...bipartisanship...to get things done. And now, with the biggest crisis this country has faced in decades, and he has a chance to put his money where his mouth is...what does he do? Decides what is best for Barack, and that is the tack he takes. ANY credibility he had left with me is gone.
Admit what? Your rhetoric?
BTW, brush your teeth - your breathe stinks - I know where your head has been.
This pub party rhetoric is at least 50 years old.
applies to the 21st century please?
Guess not. 50-year-old rhetoric
fu
Here's the deal. This kind of rhetoric is exactly
and does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of your broken down party and the dirth of leadership you are currently experiencing. This kind of disconnect between your party and the rest of us is exactly what you should be spending your time trying to come to terms with.
Being a democrat, it is fine with me if you persist along these lines, since it would serve to ensure similar election results next time around, but for your own sakes, you guys really do need to GET A GRIP.
Bitter self-serving rhetoric?
I have absolutely no personal ties whatsoever to the middle east, so exactly why would I be bitter, and what would I have to gain? Your statement makes no sense. The main benefit of actually recognizing the history of the region (as opposed to the Israeli version of the *truth*) would be for better political relations with the middle east. Have you noticed that the rest of the world sees what's going on? Why do you think there is so much resentment in the middle east for the US? Israel (or rather our empowering of it and it's abuse of that power) is one of the main problems over there.
Why would I care about your opinion? I don't. There are very few people's opinions that I actually value on this board. Those would be the ones who can actually discuss a subject with reasonable viewpoints, and guess what? Most of them disagree with me on most everything. LOL
I'm simply trying to get you to stay on the subject, which is obviously a lost cause.
Your rhetoric was meaningless months ago...
and it is just as meaningless today. I supported Obama then, and I support him now, as do all of the people who voted for him. It must be miserable to live with such hate in your heart. I would pity you, but it seems that you are doing a pretty good job of that on your own.
No difference. Fact is that primary rhetoric
whenever you try depict rhetoric reversals as LIES, the challenge of your own candidates reversals will be waiting for you. Lame game and pointless.
Yes Sam, Biden is running with O. JB is a 35-year veteran in the Senate and if he felt O was not prepared for office, why then is is willing to place himself on the same ticket? JB knows what he is doing. There is no stronger statement of support than that. No brownie points for you on that one.
Day by day, we will be seeing dems, pubs and indies surface from Alaska who have bones to pick with SP. Wonder why that is? You can try to discredit and dismiss them to your heart's content, but you cannot ignore the fact that the public is never that forgiving and these types of testimonials will have impact on voter confidence. Funny how the verifiable facts that are a matter of public record included in Kilkenny's comments seem to have completely escaped your notice. Those facts will stand for what they are...challenges to the claims that she and the party are making about her fiscal responsibility and evidence of her tendency to want to run the show, run over anybody who gets in her way and take revenge on those would would oppose her. Not such a breath of fresh air after all, and looking a bit on the hypocritical side...a trait that some people associate with dishonesty. So yeah, whose lies and whose truths are not for you or I to decide. We have no choice here except to do our homework, put our views out there and leave it up to the voters to decide.
Actually, nasty, tacky, low-class rhetoric is exactly that,
You seem mighty sure of yourself while you presume to speak for a complete stranger.
I would think with all your anti-semetic rhetoric that you would be a big fan of Hitler's!
Oh the hypocrasy!
Denounce Fox News Outrageous Rhetoric
Fox News Crosses the Line
Target: Fox News Sunday Host Chris Wallace
Sponsored by: Media Matters
For news coverage to be "fair and balanced," there has to be a line separating news from political activism – a clear boundary between legitimate commentary and demagoguery.
Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace repeatedly characterizes his network as "fair and balanced" – a source of news that should be taken seriously. However, several recent actions on Fox News illustrate that the network is contributing to a culture of conservative paranoia and anti-Obama political activism.
For example, since launching his Fox News show, Glenn Beck has engaged in increasingly outrageous rhetoric that promotes a culture of conservative paranoia – from imitating President Obama pouring gasoline onto the "average American" to mocking Obama's aunt's "limp."
If Wallace wants to continue to portray his network and influential Sunday show as a credible source of news, he owes it to his viewers to speak out publicly against Fox News' recent behavior. So please join us in asking Chris Wallace to publicly denounce Fox News' recent actions and repair the damage done to his network's credibility.
Link below to sign petition.
No, work for a living, and have heard all the liberal rhetoric before.
x
|
