Tyranny to Come!

OldPilot 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Gosh, I love letters like Mr. Wards. Obviously working in the intelligence community doesn't make one intelligent. Saul Alinsky was neither a Communist nor a socialist, he was a liberal organizer, a well intentioned one at that by all accounts (even those he opposed), and had a sense of humor or sense of the absurd which he used in his work to skewer those against whom he was organizing. He makes for interesting reading. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Ali... That said a cabal is generally considered to be a group of people unified in some design together, and in 2012 reference to a "cabal" often falls within the realm of conspiracy theory. Since Alinsky is dead it's takes quite a leap of faith to imagine Alinsky participating in a "cabal" with the President or anyone else for that matter....so conspiracy theory wins.

dustyrhoades 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Alinsky is one of those names the wingnuts pull out of a hat when they're trying to look smart to stupid people. He's their Emmanuel Goldstein.

fatboy 7 months, 2 weeks ago

No doubt that the reference to "Saul Alinsky Cabal" was off base, the rest of the article was spot on.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 2 weeks ago

It seems that the "Obama is a socialist" canard will never die. No matter how much money he receives from corporations, no matter how many of his policies clearly benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, the right insists on attacking Obama as anti-capitalist.

To be clear, I oppose Obama's expansion of government. But I opposed Bush's expansion of government as well, and I oppose the expansion of government that will almost certainly come if Romney is elected. There is nothing unique about Obama and the Democratic Party; indeed, historically, Republicans are even worse than Democrats when it comes to the size of government. Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and the two Bushes expanded government just as readily as any of their Democratic counterparts.

At any rate, "expansion of government" does not mean "socialism." Socialism implies that there is a move toward social and economic equality. It is perfectly possible to expand government in a way that benefits the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class, and this is exactly what Obama and his predecessors have done. Take his health care law: regardless of whether the law is good for the health care system, it's clearly designed to protect health insurance companies first. Essentially what it does is forces people to buy from big corporations and then gives them money to do that. It's clearly in the interest of Humana, Blue Cross, et. al., and indeed those companies lobbied for that bill.

The vast majority of the Demcrat's money comes not from unions or environmental groups, but from big corporations, particularly banks. Would the corporate elite fund a socialist? Hardly. Obama is for big government, certainly, but not for socialism.

The_AnonymusProfit 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Great letter. spot on. 1 thing though, Obama is not a socialist, he is something much worse, a anti imperialist.

MikeNC 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I believe Obama to be several things, rolled into one: Anti Capitalist,Anti Imperialist, combined with some sort of personal score he thinks he needs to settle. Diane

JD 7 months, 1 week ago

Anti-imperialism is a term that may be applied to a movement opposed to any form of colonialism or imperialism. Anti-imperialism includes opposition to wars of conquest, particularly of non-contiguous territory or people with a different language or culture; it also includes people opposing the expansion of a country beyond earlier borders.

So really whats to disagree with this? The whole system seems outdated even though we plant military bases along with our flags now.

I think if you want to rage at Obama try this: Anti-Americanism is a common contemporary negative stereotypes of Americans include that Americans are: aggressive, arrogant, ignorant, imperialistic, know-it-alls, loudmouthed, militaristic, obsessed with making money rather than making friends, too moralistic, obnoxious, and that many Americans are overweight.

Oh look imperialism. Guess other countries don't like wars of conquest. They will once we conqueror them.

Nezumi 7 months, 1 week ago

Gandhi could also be considered anti-imperialist. Despite how tired the expression became in the 20th century, the Chinese use anti-imperialist slogans today in the Senkaku Island dispute. Old habits die hard.

JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago

And those malcontents who challenged imperialism to break with England back in the eighteenth century to form the US. Scary bunch.

Apparently Rodney hasn't spent much time in Europe (most of which is socialist) or he wouldn't compare poverty-stricken Southerners with Europe's middle class. Not even close.

The_AnonymusProfit 7 months, 1 week ago

Village pesant to the romann regent.

Dear sir i wish you to vacate my land your presence is destructive to us.

Roman regent to the village pesant.

Dear sir how are you feeling slighted. I understand we have annexed you but let me impose. What is it about roman rule you wish to remove? Besides the running water, roads, medicine, agriculture, education, sanitation, technology, food, protection, law, freedom of religion, economic prosperity..etc etc what is it that you dont like?

Nezumi 7 months, 1 week ago

TAP, I'll see your letter and raise you a Life of Brian quote - similar to what you wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6...

Easygoing 7 months, 1 week ago

Wow, more wackos appear

marathonman 7 months, 1 week ago

Great piece! Liberal organizer = socialist! Cabal = Ayers, Clinton, Obama plus all his czars. You lefties sure go out of your way to ignore the obvious; e.g., Obama's minions defending his poor debate performance, re distribution of all wealth is enough to warrant a charge of trying to move the country to big gomint take over and the destruction of capitalism. I notice the chief lugnut; Rhoades chimes in out of context, as usual. Olinsky is the mentor of the cabal as noted in Mr. Ward's piece and the latest version of a Lenin, Marx, Mao, Castro, Chavez, etc.... Again, great piece!

OldPilot 7 months, 1 week ago

Question: did "marathonman" do better in those he ran than the one Ryan ran? Oops, forgot. Ryan lied about that too. So: "liberal organizer = socialist" & "cabal = Ayers... etc"? That's as silly as saying social security recipients are socialists while in reality social security indeed does redistribute wealth: many pay in more than they ever recieve, many pay in less than they ultimately recieve. PS: it isn't "Olinsky", it's Alinsky, and since Alinsky died some years ago he can't be the latest version of anything, particularly since (in case you haven't noticed) Castro and Chavez are still alive, and Chavez just got re-elected. We may not like Chavez but we sure buy a lot of Venezulean oil....and "TheAnonymusProfit" still can't spell.

jahuphs1982 7 months, 1 week ago

Must suck to wake up every morning, with visions of conspiracies, dancing in your head. President Obama is a Kenyan National, Muslim, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Son of a Porn Actress & Communist poet, Going to take my guns away, Declare Marshall Law, Throw us into FEMA Concentration Camps & Pee on my Azalea's, and sell my daughter into Sexual Slavery.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@The_AnonymousProfit:

How is anti-imperialism a bad thing? Are you saying that it's a benefit to live under tyranny? Imperialism is incompatible with freedom; how can a government thousands of miles away ever understand or protect the interests of its subjects?

As for your "Roman/peasant" example, the fact that the Romans imposed their own model of economic development on their subjects did not justify their empire. Besides the fact that millions died in the Roman wars of expansion, the reality is that "civilization" is not an objective term. What works for Rome does not necessarily work for Gaul, Greece, or Carthage. Yes, the Romans built roads and aqueducts, but your example presupposes a) that roads and aqueducts were more important than liberty, and b) that the provincials could not have obtained them in any other manner.

Incidentally, many of those conquered by Rome (particularly the Greeks and the broader Hellenistic civilization) were economically and technologically more advanced. Counterfactual history is difficult, but it's entirely popular that left to develop on their own, these societies could have advanced much faster than they did on their own.

Finally, where do you get this idea that Obama is anti-imperialist? Obama has expanded American military power every bit as much as his predecessors. He expanded the war in Afghanistan, entered Libya, and continues to spend more than a trillion dollars on the military every year. He's the farthest thing from an anti-imperialist.

alladat1 7 months, 1 week ago

My printer just stopped working - it's all Obama's fault.

marathonman 7 months, 1 week ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?feature=player_embedded&v=-Czo5Vf8KZs

The_AnonymusProfit 7 months, 1 week ago

In response. There is no denying that the Roman Empire was a brutal place, Having said that, I will state that the time in which the Romans ruled, the entire world was a brutal place. Yes I realize that the Greeks gave us Many of the technological advancements that the Romans would later use,

Having said that, No I do not think Imperialism is incompatible with freedom, however I will also say that it would be a monumental task to have anything close to a perfect Imperialist Empire.

You are correct, what works for Rome may not work for Gaul, the Romans understood this, this is why a counqured nation was allowed to keep its leaders, its religion, its customs, as long as it contributed to the Roman empire, Citizenship brought more pluses then it ever did negatives,

Do i think that these nations would have gotten there eventually? Yes, Do I think Roman rule helped, Yes, Again the Romans did not remove Liberty, in fact most people were more Free under roman rule then before roman rule.

As to Obama being Anti Imperialist, This is a list I can not make on a cell phone, but I will certainly make it for you.

bkw2011 7 months, 1 week ago

What is so appealing about Obama ? What are his strengths ? Do his strengths align with the needs of this country ? What is his single most important policy ? Will the current set of Czar's transition into congressionally appointed positions if Obama is re-elected ?

marathonman 7 months, 1 week ago

The simple answer to any of the comments on Roman Empire - which has nothing at all to do with Mr. Ward's piece - is Freedom. Any form of gomint which is totalitarian in form goes against our constitution, our constitutional republic and our capitalism driven economy.
Finangle's law: there is no such thing as a free lunch. And I say, nor should there be. Good post bkw2011! Lets hope this bunch of lefties can provide a logical answer. I know give the job to Heim........

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@The_AnonymousProfit:

How is empire compatible with freedom? An empire requires ipso facto that one small group of people (those living in the motherland) can dictate policy for the much larger group of people living in colonies and tribute states. If those people don't listen, they will be severely punished or killed. Since when is being told what to do under threat of violence freedom?

Of course, governments of small states can be tyrannical as well, but they have less ability to do so because the leaders live in the same society as the subjects. They are thus more likely to understand their subjects' needs and to sympathize with them. In an empire, by contrast, the subjects live hundreds or thousands of miles away from the rulers.

"what works for Rome may not work for Gaul, the Romans understood this, this is why a counqured nation was allowed to keep its leaders, its religion, its customs, as long as it contributed to the Roman empire" Then Rome was free precisely to the extent that it didn't act like an empire. To the extent that the Romans left the provinces to be governed by locals, this was more of a commonwealth than an empire. To the extent, however, that the Romans forced their provincials to participate in the empire (namely by worshipping the emperor and paying tribute to Rome), it was an assault on their liberty.

"Do i think that these nations would have gotten there eventually? Yes, Do I think Roman rule helped, Yes" But this entire question revolves around the assumption that Roman standards of "development" were the same as actual development. Empire denied the provincials the ability to choose how they wanted to develop. Rather than choosing what aspects of Roman and Hellenic technology, economics, and culture to apply to their own societies, these societies were forced into the Roman system. Thus we have no way of knowing whether they actually wanted these changes or saw them as a benefit.

"most people were more Free under roman rule then before roman rule" What is your evidence for this? In what way were the societies that Rome conquered less free than the Roman Empire itself?

I look forward to reading your evidence that Obama is anti-imperialist. Forgive me if I"m very skeptical; it's hard for me to believe that someone who has continued to finance the military and involve the US overseas as much or more than his predecessors could possibly have an objection to empire.

alladat1 7 months, 1 week ago

And the winner is - Andrew. Sorry profit - you are in over your head.

DingoMike 7 months, 1 week ago

come on people, when will anyone with half a brain figure out that Obama feels that he's the smartest person in any room. I for one am sick and tired of being talked down to by someone that has never held a job in his life. The belief that Hope and Change will make the entire world want to hold hands and sing kum bi ya around the camp fire is mind blowing. Wait I know, lets just spend a few more trillion dollars we don't have and all willl be better.

The_AnonymusProfit 7 months, 1 week ago

@Andrew,

An empire requires that a small group of people living in the mother land dictate policy for the larger empire. If they disobey they are punished severely. Im going to break this down into the two different statements, first being that a small group of people dictate policy to the larger masses, this is absolutely true. In fact it is how the US government runs.

The second part being the punishment part, I am personally obliged to believe as my opinion that during this time period an Iron fist was required at times to curtail a society that was much more sophomoric in its understanding of morality. And No I dont think we have evolved much since.

Remember that Rome was an Idea, it was run by a senate that was elected by the people. yes eventually the Caesar's ended that, however the idea of Rome was in large part the prelude to the United States which is by far the freest nation ever to exist. Yet the US is infact an Empire, maybe not in land mass though you could consider each individual state a soverign nation paying homage to the great capital of the district of columbia, More of a Economic empire where by we can impose our will through economics. While many may see this as a bad thing, I personally have no problem being the worlds police, nor do I think that there is any way currently in use that is better.

As to paying tribute to Caesar and Rome, this is in as much as a nation must Tax in order to run. Again nations conqured nations and do so still to this day, Am I to say that Romes conquest of Carthage was a bad thing for the Carthiniagins? I cant answer that with a firm yes, mostly due to the fact that at some point someone would have conquered Carthage or Carthage would have conquered somebody. This was the way of the world back then, Empires came and went and in the middle areas you were either the conquered or the conquer. The idea of the sovereign citizen is a relatively new idea in its implementation though the Idea can actually be traced back to father Abraham. /It is very difficult to compare apples to oranges and so to compare the freedoms and liberties of the people of ancient Rome, ancient Greece, or ancient Mesopotamia to todays freedoms we have in America is very difficult. As to my comment on most people having more freedoms under Rome, many, if not most of the areas Rome annexed were held to strict tribal and religious customs, once a person became Roman, they were free to "choose" whether or not to follow these customs or not, to that extent they were free to choose to follow or not follow.

@ alladat1 This is not a contest, me and andrew have had many long conversations and I have learned much from him and I hope he has learned from me, its called a conversation and this is one that I enjoy because unlike some here Andrew knows how to have a conversation. And no sir I am not in over my head.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@The_AnonymousProfit:

"my opinion that during this time period an Iron fist was required at times to curtail a society that was much more sophomoric in its understanding of morality"

Then your argument is that liberty was impossible, not that Rome defended liberty.

Actually, the Roman Senate was not elected by the people at any point in Roman history; it was essentially a club of aristocrats, similar in some degree to the House of Lords in the UK. There were other democratic bodies in Rome (i.e.- the tribunate, the plebeian council, and to a lesser extent the century assembly) that were democratic, but the Senate was always a firmly aristocratic and fervently anti-democratic body.

"This was the way of the world back then, Empires came and went and in the middle areas you were either the conquered or the conquer"

Perhaps this is true; I hope it isn't, but it certainly does have a powerful historical precedent. Even so, this is not an argument that Rome was good so much as that it was inevitable (i.e.- if not Rome, then Carthage or wherever else). It's very different to argue that imperialism is inevitable than that imperialism is good.

I will continue to fight against imperialism because of the serious contradictions and tyrannies inherent therein. If imperialism is inevitable, then I'll fail anyway; I'd like, however, to stop it, and will take any chance I can.

"It is very difficult to compare apples to oranges and so to compare the freedoms and liberties of the people of ancient Rome, ancient Greece, or ancient Mesopotamia to todays freedoms we have in America is very difficult"

But that's my point: you can't simply compare the liberties and lifestyles of people within and without the Roman Empire and conclude that Romans were more developed. There were benefits and drawbacks to being in any of these societies, and it's completely arbitrary to pick any combination of factors and say that they made Rome more civilized. I object to the Roman Empire not because Rome was more or less civilized than its conquered territories, but rather because the act of forcing them into the empire is itself a denial of liberty.

"As to my comment on most people having more freedoms under Rome, many, if not most of the areas Rome annexed were held to strict tribal and religious customs"

I don't know that this is true. Many of the societies conquered by Rome were not tribal (namely the Hellenes, Egyptians, and Carthaginians). Even among those that were, there are many different kinds of tribal society, some of which are far freer than others. It's not at all clear that people were freer under Rome; what is clear is that the act of forcing them to follow Rome was in itself a denial of freedom.

The_AnonymusProfit 7 months, 1 week ago

I still lean to a preference for an Imperialistic Nation, however, I think that this can be accomplished democratically and without the need of force.

Your points are all valid, and I must return to my history books before I can respond again. As always Andrew truly enlightening.

fugitiveguy 7 months, 1 week ago

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/group-warns-of-foreign-fraudulent-donors-to-obama-campaign/

Obama campaign knowingly breaking federal law by accepting foreign donations online. IOKIYAD

marathonman 7 months, 1 week ago

Mr. Ward's piece was hijacked by minions of the Liberal left and its cohort The Pilot.
So, we conservatives can take from this hijacking that if you can not compete on the issues, confuse the public, and others, by launching a debate on something other than the tyranny of the Obama Presidency to come should he be re elected. My cheers to those on the conservative side who stood up to be counted and my jeers to those on the left who make snide and despicable comments aimed at those who argued to the merits of the piece. And so it goes.
Good news from the recent polling, that is if you can believe polls...... Thanks to fugitiveguy who points out the possibility that Obama has taken foreign contributions. Would it surprise anyone to find Hugo Chavez among those contributors? Or Valdimir Putin?

CC85 7 months, 1 week ago

This really get's old, the fear mongering from the right.

geoffcutler 7 months, 1 week ago

Would that fear mongering be the same as the left's trotting out Republicans want to take Social Security from our seniors, you know, push them off cliffs in their wheelchairs? Or would it be more like Biden telling a Black audience that Romney would put Blacks back in chains? How about scaring people into thinking voter suppression is afoot if valid picture IDs are required by the states? Do you mean that type of fear mongering? We weren't sure.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@marathonman: But that's the pooint: there is no "tyranny of the Obama Presidency." Yes, Obama has expanded government, but so did Bush and Reagan. There is virtually no criticism that anyone can make of Obama or of the Democratic Party that cannot be made of the Republican Party.

The Obama Administration has continued the same trends that the United States has been following for thirty years. The far right's ranting and raving about Obama is a diversion; if we really want to fix this country, we have to look past any individual politician or party and radically rethink the role of government in our lives.

JD 7 months, 1 week ago

-preference for an Imperialistic Nation

-democratically and without the need of force

pick one

Middleman522 7 months, 1 week ago

Andy. Stimulus (TARP was paid back)..Oblaimascare... Amnesty for illegals brought here by parents, around Congress... Buying a prison in IL, around Congress....blocking pipeline and drilling... assault on coal...a felony to talk bad about Oblaima in presence of SS...attacking States for voter ID and Illegal's enforcement...forcing non-believers to provide birth control...sending gun accross with NO intention on tracking...Using AF1 to campaign for 3 years...SS showing up at 7th grader's school because of a Facebook post about BinLaden...How am I doing so far???

marathonman 7 months, 1 week ago

Andy, you are sadly mistaken on the issues to start and the content of the intent to change this country fundamentally based on the writings of Alinsky. Don't know your background but compared to mine and others - nevermind their political leanings - you are in way over your head. I wonder if you were pointed in this direction to attempt to diffuse the discussion away from the sorry state of our country and the world since 9/11. Then throw in the hysteria of the country when a black guy runs for pres and says he is going to fundamentally change our country, they buy in and here we are 4 years later on a slippery slope like a snow ball headed for hell. The way forward is not to redistribute wealth and give the hard earned money of tax payers to failed green enter- prizes who agree to kick back money to the DNC. There will always be some greed in politics but conservatism is the way forward. Give those who truly need it a hand up, cause others to actually work instead of finding ways to live off others generosity, overhaul education by getting rid of unions and the NEA, cause students at all levels to be able to think to their level of achievement and to move forward on their own without expecting gomint, at all levels, to pick them up, revise taxing; could mean a Fair Tax in all cases everyone should pay taxes...everyone! Reform our immigration policies to allow those who want to work here to pay our taxes and, should they chose, to work for citizenship. We must guard the borders - more now than before - against those whose wish is to bring about our demise. Our policy in the MidEast should be one of containment, not imperialism. We are beyond brute force wins all the time policies. You can respond Andy, but I will not be debating you unless or until you demonstate having served in the military, worked in the intel community or other foreign assignments required, college grad is not a requirement now or should it be for anyone to achieve in any one field or another. That last statement should generate some comments from the elitists on your side of the political spectrum. But for to long we have demanded a college degree or hit the road. We need education which could be AA or specialty training provided by employers or through cooperating community schools.

fugitiveguy 7 months, 1 week ago

"There is virtually no criticism that anyone can make of Obama or of the Democratic Party that cannot be made of the Republican Party."

Obama ran up the national debt by an unprecedented amount in < 4 years time. He rightly called GWB out for running the debt from 6 to nearly 11T in 8 years, called him reckless and unpatriotic. The debt (under Obama) is projected to hit 20T by 2016.

JimHeim 7 months, 1 week ago

Since this group is such a fan of imperialism, I'm sure there's a lot of support for Louis Gohmert (R-Crazytown) and his resurrected Ottoman Empire. I guess we're going to be taken over by a bunch of round foot-rests.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@Middleman522:

Actually, Bush had a stimulus package, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. It was much smaller, but the principle was the same, and certainly Bush was no stranger to intervening in the economy.

Obamacare is not fundamentally different from government policies over the last fifty years. It is yet another attempt by the federal government to control the healthcare system. Bush also expanded government intervention in healthcare through Medicare Part D, and at a comparable cost.

Offering illegal immigrants amnesty is a good thing. I've argued this at length, and don't feel the need to reproduce those arguments here. You can check out my previous article: http://www.thepilot.com/news/2012/mar...

How, exactly, has Obama assaulted coal?

Most of these other things (SS showing up at schools over a Facebook post, etc.) constitute suppression of civil liberties. Certainly Obama has suppressed civil liberties, but so did Bush (remember a little bill called the PATRIOT Act).

Remember, I'm arguing that Obama is not fundamentally different from his predecessors, not that Obama hasn't been bad. I highly dislike Obama, but I don't buy that he's some new level of tyranny.

@fugitiveguy:

But that's the point: Obama and Bush both added massively to the national debt. Obama may have done so faster than Bush, but there is no qualitative difference between the two. Again, Obama represents a continuation of the same bad policies that the US has been pursuing for thirty years or more.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@marathonman:

Nothing you have said here addresses my point. I'm not arguing that liberalism is better than conservatism (as a libertarian, I obviously believe that both ideologies are highly flawed). What I'm arguing is that Obama is not fundamentally, qualitatively different than his predecessors. There is no unique "tyranny of Obama," and removing him from office and replacing him with a Republican will not change anything. This country needs a social, political, and economic overall that goes far beyond which party is in power.

fugitiveguy 7 months, 1 week ago

"There is no unique "tyranny of Obama," and removing him from office and replacing him with a Republican will not change anything. This country needs a social, political, and economic overall that goes far beyond which party is in power."

I deal in the here and now. I deal in what is possible, not what is fantasy. One of these two men is going to be our next president. I firmly believe things will get better under Romney. The debt is real and growing and it will bring down our economy and it will be unlike anything any of us have lived through. Obama has proven he is not serious about dealing with the debt, quite the contrary he has grown it markedly and would continue to do so. No, he didn't do it by himself, yes he has failed to recognize the problem and deal with it in any meaningful way. That alone for me is reason enough that he has to go. Of course, we know there are many other reasons.

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@fugitiveguy:

Then you miss my point entirely: Romney is not fundamentally different from Obama. They support the same basic policies (imperialism, government regulation of health care, etc.), and differ only on specifics. There's no reason to expect Romney to be able to deal with the debt any better than Obama has. Unless we can get serious about scaling back American military involvement and reigning in entitlement programs, the debt will continue to grow. Romney has not demonstrated he is any more serious about this than Obama; indeed, at least in terms of military spending, he'll probably be a lot worse.

geoffcutler 7 months, 1 week ago

Romney would not reign in the military. Not when we're essentially in a world war and terrorism threatens the globe and our shores. He'll spend more. Romney will reign in entitlements by first repealing Obamacare and then protecting SS and Medicare by fixing them for future generations. Obama will drastically cut military spending, raid Medicare for Obamacare, and leave SS to go broke before you, Andrew, will have a chance to get your money back. They are fundamentally different. Sorry!

fugitiveguy 7 months, 1 week ago

"Romney is not fundamentally different from Obama.

Well, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree. As I have said, one of these 2 men will be the next president. IMO one of them is eminently qualified, (governor, highly successful business man, turned the Olympic games around, long term marriage, has given millions to charity, no scandels (and you know they've been digging night and day, etc). The other candidate boasts the thinnest resume of anybody to ever seek the office, has rammed the debt to 16T, we've never lived in a more divided country, dept's of state and justice are a national joke. It is my hope that this president this time next year will be out organizing a community whatever the hell that means.

packwilleat 7 months, 1 week ago

Not the same huh?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IWDJEc92d38

DannySteen 7 months, 1 week ago

Andrew I agree with you. There is not much difference in the two parties. Some even claim they switched identities awhile back. I like to say they are opposite ends of the stick government beats us with. No matter who is in the White House or in charge on The Hill, The Government is always there. That being said, they, or that is, the Government, will never let Libertarians get a foothold. The Government fears free thinking people. The “People” will not join Libertarians because no matter what they say they love “mother” and all she gives them. So how do you make the needed changes to this country and its government? Will there be enough time to change? Even the Tea Party, that is loathed and despised by both parties, can’t gain the traction it needs and many of its own members cling to “mother”. I myself am not a member of the Tea Party as I am not a joiner but I do like much of what they are seeking. I am sure they will get lost somewhere down the road if the Government has its way.

Spocks_Brain 7 months, 1 week ago

What are the real issues in the 2012 Presidential election? Employment?

What about these issues? Obama's use of executive orders, which by the way are illegal unless they support a law made by Congress...and that goes for any President by the way 'Chanting' at the USDA? According to Larry Kudlow on CNBC there are reports employees have to chant' All our forefathers are illegal immigrants' in their diversity training-Obama and his Czars are 100 PER CENT behind this indoctrination, and it is simply put re-education Energy patrols of young kids at schools at the behest of the Maosist regime, coming to a neighborhood near you Telling NASA to 'reach out ' to Muslim nations, more insanity Obama admitting his 'muslim faith' to George S. on ABC Sunday morning, only changing his wording when corrected Obama in his speech to Cairo saying no nation should tell another nation they should have nukes...WTF??? And so forth and so on In closing...other than hiring more government workers, what does Obama know of economics?? Look at Amtrak, losing billions and finding enough cash to run ads showing gay couples with kids...is that government policy now?? To restructure the family? Why is Obama so obsessed with all issues gay? Are the stories of his arranged marriage by Jesse Jackson and Rev. Wright on wnd.com true?

I rest my case

Spocks_Brain 7 months, 1 week ago

And now this..Obama's Muslim ring

http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/

Totally illogical

Nezumi 7 months, 1 week ago

Spock - again, I find it amusing and ironic that you've chosen an avatar name based on a great TV show that was a pioneer in advocating tolerance, and proceed to bash the president as a secret Muslim. I suggest you re-watch "Balance of Terror".

Spocks_Brain 7 months, 1 week ago

Yes and in 'Balance of Terror' Spock agreed and advised attacking the Romulans-it was the helmsman that was racist...if Obama is Muslim and homosexual as I now believe and in an arranged marriage then he was and is all a lie, and has an agenda that is hidden, yet apparent, and cataclysmic.

As astonishing as it may seem, there have been a whole series on wnd.com in re Obama's alleged homosexuality and none of it has been denied, and these stories are on a major news site. The tie in is how emabssies are aggressively appointing gay ambassadors and promoting a gay agenda in places like Pakistan. Evidently this guy in Libya was homosexual also..connect the dots

Middleman522 7 months, 1 week ago

Andy you can see why we disagree. Government taking over everything it can is different than Bush. And if this bunch had kept both Houses for 2 more years, we would be like Chavez land and you know it. Why is there a pile of bills on Dingy Harry's desk. Big difference in the parties right now.

marathonman 7 months, 1 week ago

to those of you who believe there is no difference between Obama and Romney I say: horsehockey and what are you smoking and where have you been? There is the greatest fundamental difference between these two more than ever in the past. You are all ignoring the Alinsky connection which began in earnest with Clinton although Carter was influenced to a degree. Clinton was fatally flawed and could not deliver. Hillary is a part of the Alinsky cabal but was not as viable a candidate as is current puppet, BHO. Do not mistake this. Have you been paying attention to the number of czars and the amount and number of regulations being imposed on small and medium business. Healthcare was initiated by Hillary and finally gotten through congress by BHO. It is a controlling mechanism and the beginning of overthrow of all capitalism. If BHO is given another term more takeovers will happen. Look for takeover of all banks to isolate money. Look for a continued downward spiral of the economy so that more takeovers can take place and this time with more popular support as the situations will be shown as fatal unless the gomint steps in and takes control. Like cockroaches when pushed out from one place, they will show up in another with the same agenda so too are the progressives/socialists/commies leftists, etc....

Courseaire 7 months, 1 week ago

This might explain Spocks Brain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am-5DMBXz8s&feature=related

Nezumi 7 months, 1 week ago

Good clip Courseaire - I've been planning to watch all of the TNG episodes and catch the ones I missed (like this one).

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@geoffcutler:

Exactly, Romney will not reign in the military, and that's a problem. US military involvement is far too large. It isn't fiscally sustainable, and it makes the world less safe and less secure (terrorist groups like Al-Qeada are acting largely in retaliation to far worse crimes carried out by the US).

"Obama will drastically cut military spending" Lol how I wish this were true! Obama has been every bit as much a war-mongerer as the Republicans have been. He has increased American presence abroad. The notion that he will significantly cut military spending is a pipe dream.

"Romney will reign in entitlements by first repealing Obamacare and then protecting SS and Medicare by fixing them for future generations"

How, exactly, will Romney do this? Medicare spending was out of control before Obamacare; simply repealing that legislation will not fix anything. How do you know that Romney will fix Medicare and Social Security for future generations? Because he says he will?

@Middleman522:

"Government taking over everything it can is different than Bush" How so? Government's taking over everything it can is exactly what happened under Bush. Bush increased government intervention in the healthcare system, the financial system, and the education system. He rapidly increased military spending and gave the Feds the power to tap our phones. Bush was the fracking poster child for "government's taking over everything it can."

"if this bunch had kept both Houses for 2 more years, we would be like Chavez land and you know it" Definitely. I'm sure the Democratic Party, which is bankrolled by the big banks and insurance companies, is definitely a fan of Bolivarian socialism. It's not like virtually every piece of legislation they've signed has clearly been in the interest of some corporation or other!

AndrewSoboeiro 7 months, 1 week ago

@marathonman:

And you continue to spew the "Obama is a socialist" canard. You do realize that no one takes this hysteria seriously anymore, yes? Obama has proven beyond a doubt that he is no socialist.

My friend, Obama is the biggest friend the crony capitalists ever had! He is all about defending the privilege of the rich. That's what Obamacare was about: forcing people to pay their money to insurance companies and their wealthy executives. That's what the bailouts, the stimulus, and the new regulations are about. They seek to defend the status quo, not to replace it with some Marxist utopia.

In modern parlance, a socialist is someone who expands the government in order to help the lower classes at the expense of the rich. Obama has certainly expanded government, but it has been largely to benefit the rich.

Why do you think huge corporations keep giving millions of dollars to the Obama campaign and to the Democratic Party? Do you really think they would bankroll a candidate that was trying to destroy them?

packwilleat 7 months, 1 week ago

Andrew ~ I'll have to disagree with you for once on Obama not being a socialist. He and congress have allowed for the growth of un-natural monopolies. Picking the winners and losers, if you will. That is how fascism rises to socialism.

Nezumi 7 months, 1 week ago

Pack, gov't agencies picking winners and losers is also how some countries have been successful at creating global industrial leaders - Japan's MITI was heavily involved in the Japanese automotive development, as well as consumer electronics. The Korean industrial ministry has assisted the likes of Hyundai. China as well has industrial policy that selects strategic industries for subsidies or other assistance - witness Huawei, one of the benefactors of this policy, is now a $30 billion company. Much of the high tech development in SE Asia is due to strong government promotion and collaboration, favorable tax and import policies, as well as the availability of low-cost skilled and unskilled labor. I'm not advocating it, but merely observing that many nations in the most dynamic part of the world economy believe in the picking winners and losers.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
28	29	30	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31	1

Tyranny to Come!

More like this story

Comments

May events