Winner Of The Presidential Election is....

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
462

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Obama isn’t a communist.

[/quote]

Obama’s mentor from the age of 9 by his own admission was Frank Marshall Davis[Communist Party Number 47544.] Obama mentions him 22 times in his autobiography.

From The American Thinker:

Frank Marshall Davis’s politics were so radical, and so pro-Soviet, that the Democrats who ran the Senate in 1956 summoned him to Washington to testify on his pro-Soviet activities. Even more remarkable, the FBI placed him on the federal government’s Security Index, meaning that if a war broke out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Obama’s mentor could have been placed under immediate arrest.

Davis, like many American communists, decided to join the Democrats. There were two primary factors that drove this decision: 1) American communists realized that they could never get elected to national office openly campaigning as communists, and 2) when Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party collapsed in 1948, the communists who had pervaded it had nowhere else to go. So, many American communists opted to hitch their wagon to a different star – namely, to the most viable left-leaning party in America: the Democratic Party.

Frank Marshall Davis was among these. This tactical move by Davis is evident in his declassified 600-page FBI file, and specifically an April 1950 report that states that “members of the subversive element in Honolulu were concentrating their efforts on infiltration of the Democratic Party through control of Precinct Clubs and organizations.” These communist subversives, said the report, were pushing “their candidates in these Precinct Club elections.” According to the report, on April 6, 1950, one such candidate, Frank Marshall Davis, was elected “assistant secretary and delegate” to the Territorial Democratic Convention in his particular Precinct Club.

In other words, the Hawaiian Communist Party went underground, realizing that it lacked political viability. Hawaii’s communists changed their tactics, concentrating instead on the mainstream Democratic Party, even running their members in local elections to seize delegate positions. One of those who not only urged this tactic, but was himself elected to a Democratic precinct was Frank Marshall Davis.

Tellingly, Davis himself, in an eerily Obama-like sentiment, had emphasized the need for “fundamental change” in America – advocating exactly that in his kick-off column for the Chicago Star on July 6, 1946.
[/quote]
Oh for the love of fucking god ;P. If he wins reelection and he nationalizes the banks the next day instead of bailing them out in time for record profits and he abolishes the corporations he is currently helping to achieve same record profits get back to me. What industry has he nationalized?

464

[quote]groo wrote:

What industry has he nationalized? [/quote]

The Auto industry - GM and Ford. He is also on record as saying, and I quote: “now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.”

EDIT: Meant GM and Chrysler

465

BTW your post was only 3 minutes after mine. I doubt you even bothered to read it.

466

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
Its not a great leap of wisdom to think that when the topic of rape comes up you should just say something like I am against it. Yet again and again thats not what gets said.

The last guy can be some Calvanist if he wants I’ll still go with free will and moral culpability thank you.

His statement isn’t really taken out of context. Dress it up how you like but to him its part of his god’s plan this woman was raped. Its a bit of a conundrum to have an all powerful, all knowing, and eternal god having all of these attributes as well as that being being good.

I don’t particularly like either of the candidates.

At this point in time do you really think there is a large group of undecideds?

Being in Ohio we are getting a ton of focused ads currently and I’d say Obama’s are more compelling and have a big focus on early voting. As a registered independent I get several mailings a day which are lukewarm at best for either candidate.

This forum is almost entirely a partisan circle jerk in one direction why fight the good fight against that? I’d lay odds that upwards of 90 percent of this subforum would never vote for Obama and couldn’t be convinced that his policies are sound. Some of them go so far as to paint him as a communist. The differences in belief systems are too great. There is no middle ground.[/quote]

Good fucking grief, someone bring some cheese to go with all this whine.[/quote]

[photo]37673[/photo]

467

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
BTW your post was only 3 minutes after mine. I doubt you even bothered to read it.[/quote]
Gotta work fast when the whole circle jerk is against ya :P. I read it. I am sure the feeling is mutual but I don’t think anything of your ethos.

You really think the auto industry is nationalized? Meh.

I don’t agree Obama is a communist. He’s been very good for large corporations. He hasn’t done much if anything for small businesses, but I’d say as a rule most presidents pay lip service only to local business and all of them suck up to the corporate trough.

468

I think you’re reaching, groo. Take a look at the quote again. I think it is obvious from Mourdok’s use of the word “horrible” to describe rape that the LIFE of the child, NOT the rape, was what he described as God’s intention. I agree that it could have been worded better, but the meaning is not that hard to discern. What’s happened, though, is that blinkered partisan opportunists have snatched it up and used it to chum the waters along with any other scrap of withered beef jerky they can find, in the hope that a few Republicans, and if they’re lucky, the big one, Romney, will be gobbled up by the shark feeding frenzy that ensues.

469

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I think you’re reaching, groo. Take a look at the quote again. I think it is obvious from Mourdok’s use of the word “horrible” to describe rape that the LIFE of the child, NOT the rape, was what he described as God’s intention. I agree that it could have been worded better, but the meaning is not that hard to discern. What’s happened, though, is that blinkered partisan opportunists have snatched it up and used it to chum the waters along with any other scrap of withered beef jerky they can find, in the hope that a few Republicans, and if they’re lucky, the big one, Romney, will be gobbled up by the shark feeding frenzy that ensues. [/quote]
Can’t have one without the other if the child is god’s intent and part of the plan so is the rape. He could easily move his position on predestination a bit. Or his view on god being all powerful. These likely aren’t palatable alternatives.

I’d imagine his best ploy would have been to not address rape though.

470

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I think you’re reaching, groo. Take a look at the quote again. I think it is obvious from Mourdok’s use of the word “horrible” to describe rape that the LIFE of the child, NOT the rape, was what he described as God’s intention. I agree that it could have been worded better, but the meaning is not that hard to discern. What’s happened, though, is that blinkered partisan opportunists have snatched it up and used it to chum the waters along with any other scrap of withered beef jerky they can find, in the hope that a few Republicans, and if they’re lucky, the big one, Romney, will be gobbled up by the shark feeding frenzy that ensues. [/quote]
Can’t have one without the other if the child is god’s intent and part of the plan so is the rape. He could easily move his position on predestination a bit. Or his view on god being all powerful. These likely aren’t palatable alternatives.

I’d imagine his best ploy would have been to not address rape though.[/quote]

Thing is, these things blow up over what someone meant. His intention, that a child is a gift from God and something to appreciate and not to murder, is being opportunistically reframed as being as stupid as Clayton Williams dumbass suggestion to rape victims to “relax and enjoy it.” It was perfectly natural to crucify him for such an idiotic statement. Mourdok’s comes nowhere near it. I think it reflects badly upon the people who are trying to turn it into something it isn’t.

471

[quote]groo wrote:

Oh for the love of fucking god ;P. If he wins reelection and he nationalizes the banks the next day instead of bailing them out in time for record profits and he abolishes the corporations he is currently helping to achieve same record profits get back to me. What industry has he nationalized? [/quote]

Your logic is flawed and void of thought.

Let me try and explain with an example. I’m a free market guy who is very apathetic towards the plight of others.

This doesn’t mean I would void all regulation and end all social safety nets if I were president. Not only do I have to work with people in my own party, I have to work with the other party. And I have a duty to keep the government I run representitive of the wishes of the people.

If the people want regulation and welfare, then I have to give it to them, or the government fails, and the country is ruined.

Doesn’t mean I’m not who I am, means I’m doing my job…

He is a communist, it is painfully obvious. And the trouble people go to in order to fall all over themselves to deny it is hilarious.

472

To be totally fair, GM was not nationalized and neither were the banks. Both were given bailouts that were going to be given regardless of the party in power. GM couldn’t go bankrupt because there was nobody there who could finance it which would mean they went totally under. Same goes for the banks. There were trillions of dollars that were leveraged which could potentially mean the collapse of our financial system.

If I’m reading the documents correctly all parties have paid off that money or are well on their way to paying off that money so that the govt no longer owns any of their debt.

All this talk of nationalizing GM is unrelated to whether or not Obama is a communist because that’s not what happened.

james

473

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I think you’re reaching, groo. Take a look at the quote again. I think it is obvious from Mourdok’s use of the word “horrible” to describe rape that the LIFE of the child, NOT the rape, was what he described as God’s intention. I agree that it could have been worded better, but the meaning is not that hard to discern. What’s happened, though, is that blinkered partisan opportunists have snatched it up and used it to chum the waters along with any other scrap of withered beef jerky they can find, in the hope that a few Republicans, and if they’re lucky, the big one, Romney, will be gobbled up by the shark feeding frenzy that ensues. [/quote]

This. There are two separate things at play here:

one is the words on the page. Take a look at what’s being said, and then ask yourself how a Christian could believe something OTHER than what was said. How could an event–any event, including the best and worst of them–not figure into the intentions of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Now, there is a serious debate to be had about abortion in cases of rape. But that’s not by any means what’s happening: liberals are looking at this sentence, finding it extremely convenient that the word’s “rape” and “God’s intention” appear so close together, and turning on the old conveyor belts in the outrage factory.

Now, the other thing at play is political savviness. And you can certainly make the case that this guy is short on it. But don’t confuse “saying something the in a way that leaves you politically vulnerable” with saying something evil.

474

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
I think you’re reaching, groo. Take a look at the quote again. I think it is obvious from Mourdok’s use of the word “horrible” to describe rape that the LIFE of the child, NOT the rape, was what he described as God’s intention. I agree that it could have been worded better, but the meaning is not that hard to discern. What’s happened, though, is that blinkered partisan opportunists have snatched it up and used it to chum the waters along with any other scrap of withered beef jerky they can find, in the hope that a few Republicans, and if they’re lucky, the big one, Romney, will be gobbled up by the shark feeding frenzy that ensues. [/quote]

This. There are two separate things at play here:

one is the words on the page. Take a look at what’s being said, and then ask yourself how a Christian could believe something OTHER than what was said. How could an event–any event, including the best and worst of them–not figure into the intentions of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. Now, there is a serious debate to be had about abortion in cases of rape. But that’s not by any means what’s happening: liberals are looking at this sentence, finding it extremely convenient that the word’s “rape” and “God’s intention” appear so close together, and turning on the old conveyor belts in the outrage factory.

Now, the other thing at play is political savviness. And you can certainly make the case that this guy is short on it. But don’t confuse “saying something the in a way that leaves you politically vulnerable” with saying something evil.[/quote]

Internet high five. Good post

475

groo, take a look at the title of this thread. If you want to start a rape thread be my guest. This thread is about the Presidential election specifically. And unless Romney or Obama say something about rape well it just isn’t applicable.

476

The “politics of rape” has less to do with actual outrage over the statements, as clumsy and foolish as some of them are, and more to do with manufactured outrageously outrageous outrage because Obama’s lead among women has evaporated. This is the last ditch effort to have the “War on Women” theme recapture lost votes.

EDIT: typos fixed.

477

Deval Patrick on the morning radio show (not a direct quote): Don’t trust the poll numbers, women favor Obama very heavy.

This is 15 mins after a woman called in defending Murdock’s statement, in the blue state if MA.

Now Patrick isn’t afraid to lie, and has done so for the president over and over, but he isn’t an awful governor, nor a scumbag either.

The fact the Dem’s have become “poll truthers” after bashing repubs for doing it up until the first debate bounce, has me wondering if internal numbers aren’t as close as the external numbers are.

478

Ya, Obama is a Communist because when he was nine years old his favorite ice cream parlor was run by a guy named Comrade Shalinksy.

This shit is ridiculous, and note that the smart posters on here never spout this nonsense. They’ll say he’s bad for business, he doesn’t really understand the private sector, he’s arrogant, he’s too progressive, etc. But only the deluded put him in the same column as Stalin. Grab your tinfoil hat and join me on a little excursion:

Obama bailed out the auto industry…at the request of the private sector, to save our free market system from sliding into depression (Unless somebody thinks our economy would have absorbed millions of jobs lost during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression).

Mitt Romney has spent the last 3 debates arguing that the auto bailout was “exactly what [he] called for in [his] Op-Ed.” Close to the truth, except that private financing was not an option. Here’s the bi-partisan Congressional Oversight Panel: “the circumstances in the global credit markets in November and December 2008 were unlike any the financial markets had seen in decades. U.S. domestic credit markets were frozen in the wake of the Lehman bankruptcy, and international sources of funding were extremely limited.”

And here’s Steven Rattner, a former WALL STREET executive who HEADED THE AUTO TASK FORCE (aside: surely it makes sense that a Communist like Obama would appoint one of Capitalism’s standard-bearers to head his Bolshevik takeover. Right? And obviously it also makes sense that the auto executives–including Ford’s CEO, competitor of Chrysler and GM–would come to Washington to beg for it. Because nothing screams Leninist like a fucking Chief Executive Officer): “In late 2008 and early 2009, when GM and Chrysler had exhausted their liquidity, every scrap of private capital had fled to the sidelines.”

And Bob Lutz, former Vice-Chairman of GM: the bailouts were “necessary government intervention…the banks were even more broke than we were.”

So, to recap: Obama did what Romney said he should do, except for the part where what Romney had prescribed was impossible.

479

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Deval Patrick on the morning radio show (not a direct quote): Don’t trust the poll numbers, women favor Obama very heavy.

This is 15 mins after a woman called in defending Murdock’s statement, in the blue state if MA.

Now Patrick isn’t afraid to lie, and has done so for the president over and over, but he isn’t an awful governor, nor a scumbag either.

The fact the Dem’s have become “poll truthers” after bashing repubs for doing it up until the first debate bounce, has me wondering if internal numbers aren’t as close as the external numbers are.
[/quote]

All of the credible pollsters have Romney and obama exactly tied among women as of this morning.

The left can dream on…

480

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Ya, Obama is a Communist because when he was nine years old his favorite ice cream parlor was run by a guy named Comrade Shalinksy.

This shit is ridiculous, and note that the smart posters on here never spout this nonsense. They’ll say he’s bad for business, he doesn’t really understand the private sector, he’s arrogant, he’s too progressive, etc. But only the deluded put him in the same column as Stalin. Grab your tinfoil hat and join me on a little excursion:

[/quote]

Being a communist doesn’t mean he is Stalin. I’m not saying he is a dictator, I’m not even saying he hates America.

I am saying he sees the world through the lens of a collectavist.

In his perfect world he would never be a Stalin, he would never re-make America into North Korea. (He doesn’t have the balls to be a Stalin first off, nor does he have the demeanor for mass murder.)

He simply wants socially constructed “fairness” where everyone is equally “average” through social and economic policy. He just wants to bring everyone into the middle. Because he sees poorness as a result of others being rich.

He doesn’t hate success, he just doesn’t think success should yield such great returns, because he believes those returns are at the expense of people not getting great returns.

Is “communist” a bad word choice? Sure. But is sure is fun to watch people flip out when you say it.