Comments for The Man Behind the Whispers About Obama »
Posted By Beau7890 1 year, 1 month ago in NewsUntil this month, the man who is widely credited with starting the cyberwhisper campaign that still dogs Mr. Obama was a secondary character in news reports, with deep explorations of his background largely confined to liberal blogs.
But an appearance in a documentary-style program on the Fox News Channel watched by three million people last week thrust the man, Andy Martin, and his past into the foreground. The program allowed Mr. Martin to assert falsely and without challenge that Mr. Obama had once trained to overthrow the government.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 169
-
92%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And here we have it.
Reply
The man behind many the unfounded smears of Obama suffers from delusions of grandeur and paranoia.
And Fox News gave him an unrestricted forum on its network.
Is anyone surprised?
From the article:
"An examination of legal documents and election filings, along with interviews with his acquaintances, revealed Mr. Martin, 62, to be a man with a history of scintillating if not always factual claims. He has left a trail of animosity -- some of it provoked by anti-Jewish comments -- among political leaders, lawyers and judges in three states over more than 30 years.
"He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of 'moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.' "-
89%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
-
-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The dumbocrat dribble and kindergarden whining is unbelievable. Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Racism knows no color. There are White racist,Black racist,Brown racist, ECT. To some it is a hatred, to some it is distrust, and to others it is a tool of deceit. The last thing the USA needs at this time is an Amateur. There is no time for on the job training. More Socialist debt is definitely not what we need. Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself. Being what one "Goppy" called an old f*rt, I have already survived this type situation (Carter), and really shiver at the thought of having to go through it again. Therefore the inexperience definitely concerns me. The Socialist leaning is a big red flag. Obama's record shows nothing to recommend him. Pretty words and rhetoric may soothe the soul but do nothing to solve problems. The fairy tale he is preaching comes direct for the Socialist Handbook.
Reply-
100%
swvmd1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try reading anything legitimate and you'll see McNasty is another McFraud just like Shrub-Dick. Rolling Stone has an in-depth article complete with interviews with former classmates, peers and fellow POWS all of whom describe this petulent
Reply
elitist as an opportunist and core scumbag. It's factual which is something the media has avoided dealing with since repuked spin replaced actual reporting. He's another conservative clone with a fictional persona adopted shamelessly by himself and now pitched to the media and the nation by the same Rove apparatus that gave us W.-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You consider Rolling Stone research?Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself.
Reply
For those fighting the party wars.
Party is the madness of many for the gain of a few.-Alexander Pope
If your 20 and not a Liberal, You have no Heart. If you are 40 and not a Conservative, You have no Brain--Sir Winston Churchhill-
-
90%
GWHayduke1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Amervtn's parroting of Churchill's statment is a very good example of one's inability to think rationally and for him/herself.
Reply
Discrediting Rolling Stone and any other dissenting view as "hype" while embracing the most extreme similar views is par for this putt-putt course.
His claim that he is not 'fighting the party war' and 'do your own research' bears a shocking resemblance to this exchange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUOFTPbxuWA
Funny how the Nobel winner was dead on in his assessment, while the radical, partisan hack turns out to be nothing more than a yelling lunatic with ZERO credibility.-
0%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, please do not give Krugman any credit.
Reply
He as been predicting "recession" for 7 straight years. He even predicted recession during Clinton's administration. Sooner or later, recessions will come. And "Chicken Little" will sit back and say "I told you so."
But, if you insist on giving Krugman credit, then, this is HIS explanation for our current finacial crisis: (NYTimes, July 4, 2008)
"At the top of my list of causes for the lousy economy are three factors: the housing bubble and its aftermath, rising health care costs and soaring raw materials prices."
Note that even Krugman does not blame Bush.
So, does this mean YOU will stop blaming Bush? After all, Krugman won the Nobel Prize for Economics, thus, he muuuust be right!!!-
-
0%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You may have a degree, but, you are not educated.
Reply
So what if you did not mention Bush. You brought up Paul Krugman and his Nobel Prize.
(Did you even know his name? I know your resources are limited to videos and comic books. You know, lots of pictures.)
I simply responded that Krugman does not deserve the accolades he is getting. He is a "Chicken Little". I used his analysis of the Bush economy to get you to rethink your praise of him.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Could you specify what in the article you object to, amervtrn? There is no mention of racism, and certainly no mention of socialism. Further down, your comment implores people to research candidates--if you researched Obama, you'd find nothing socialist.
Reply
And even if you did, could you tell us why socialism would produce worse results than the situation we now find ourselves in? (Please do that without confusing socialism, where the government tries to provide a basic standard for the survival of its people by providing services, and communism, where there is no private ownership of anything and the goal is that all people earn an equal amount.)-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
socialism, where the government tries to provide a basic standard for the survival of its people by providing services
Reply
I can't really agree with that definition. That's just good government. We've reached a point where anything not laissez-faire is "socialism". The fact is, few places are socialist in this day and age and yup, Obama certainly isn't a socialist.-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't mean that so much as a definition of socialism as a description of what it accomplishes, and as a way to contrast it with the radical no-oversight, no-accountability capitalism espoused by today's Republicans.
Reply
But I agree whole-heartedly with your statement that "we've reached a point where anything not laissez-faire is 'socialism.' The fact is, few places are socialist in this day and age and yup, Obama certainly isn't a socialist."-
100%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually I disagree. We DO NOT have laissez faire and have not had it for a long time. What we have is corruption. What happens depends on who you know and who you pay off in "government". The screams of "freedom" are just a means for covering up corruption.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're right, too. We don't have a free market, but many of the benefits of the government's manipulation of market forces do not go to ordinary citizens. Still, there are many who would call any kind of restriction of free markets "socialism."
Reply
But I have to ask--do you think an unregulated free market would be a good thing (even if the effects of all corruption were removed)?-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is a trick question Beau:
Reply
Lets say someone forms a corporation and puts rat poison in a bottle and sells it as baby food.
With our current regulation all the folks that gave the dude the money to set up shop are protected from the law and can lose only the value of the stock they bought, if they where not smart enough to sell it before the crap hit the fan.
The dude that thought of it may face a fine or even some prison time, He gets to keep his earnings and house and the profits from before he was caught.
Just for the sake of what I might consider a pure "Free Market" and the company and share holders where not protected by the state chartered gift of limited liability.
A jury could then asses damages that would reach into the pockets of shareholders, and there would be no need to label or check or regulate the product. It would be bad business to sell poison or pollute water or air and investors would have to be very careful about the type of activity they became involved with. The huge pools of money create cartels and monopolies, with stockholders blindly looking only towards returns on their investment, and sleeping soundly knowing that even if there money is causing harm, they are not going to get hurt as long as their timing is good.
Stock market is not Free Market.
So yes I do think an unregulated free market would be a good thing.
But if industry is given protection it has to be regulated.
We have to know if the baby food has rat poison in it, and since the the folks selling it are protected, we are stuck trying to keep up with them.
Weights and measures, Patents, are forms of regulations that exist in our Constitution, and our government is mandated to enforce them.
OOPs my thoughts are drifting: time to hit the Reply button,
sorry for the ramble.
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're deflecting. What do you think about a man with questionable mental health starting rumors that you bought? You were used. One would think that would make you angry, and you'd start assessing the kind of people you promote. But noooo. Here you are fighting to the end that you weren't wrong. Absolutely pitiful.
Reply -
-
100%
JEBUS081 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
at least obama has a positive message - what does mccain have, just a bunch of hate filled implied attacks against the opposition - and i would rather have a socialist debt, which would at least benefit citizens in terms of health care and social security, than the current debt, which benefits huge corps
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
88%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really, this is an amazing find Beau.
Reply
One often wonders where this stuff comes from.
And so often, it originates in the minds of people of dubious mental or moral character.
What I find so ironic is this ... how disconnected can one political party be from their own 'Branding'? We all remember a story recently about how the Republicans wanted to 're-brand' their party.
Since the Republican Revolution - with the guidance of the adulterer Newt Gingrich - the Republican 'Brand' has proclaimed itself as the bastion of high morals and rectitude.
And yet ... where do the the supporters of Republican Candidates to every single election?
Answer ... they source the 'straight ticket ideologues' - extremist nutcases like this guy Andy Martin and Jerome Corsi. People who go first to their own demented paranoia to attack candidates.
These nutcases ... instead of being denounced by Rational Republicans, are EMBRACED by them.
Their paranoid delusions are repeated ad naseum by other 'straight ticket ideologues' such as perennial Agent of Disinformation - redtomato ... (aka luvmyprez & AlphaGnosis), Nixie, Wolfie, and Klarissa.
My personal observation is ... when you have a party that thrives on the support from paranoiacs and conspiracy theorists, anti-Islamist, anti-Catholic, homophobic, and dare I say, latent racists (for, in my years of observation and inquiry, that is the inspiration of a certain percentage of the Republican base) ... when you have a party that thrives on these people .... .... .... it's a sure sign that this party has lost it's way ... lost it's compass ... in my estimation .. a Morally Vacant Ideology.
.. -
-
7%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The facts about Obama's religion have been proven over and over again. Some people don't listen.
Reply
In this case, people like you appear to prefer the ramblings of a man who was disqualified from the bar association because of delusions and paranoid fantasies to evidence.-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have the facts of Obama's religion been proven? I could never have made a mistake like this about my religion.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M=1-
-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M=1 This should be the right link.
Reply-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M=1
Reply
This Link should work. Sorry about that.-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope this link works. Obama is being interviewed by George Stephanopoules and he say's, "That's right, John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and George corrects him and say's "Christian Faith".
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, we've all seen it, or heard it.
Reply
If you listen to the entire thing, you'll see that they were discussing people who believe Obama is a Muslim. It's clear in the entire context that when Obama said "his Muslim faith," he meant his supposed Muslim faith. In other words, it's like putting quotes around a phrase to indicate what others might say.
You'll argue, I'm sure. Whatever. People who know how to speak, read and write understand when a phrase has a literal meaning or not.-
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's not a gaffe. A gaffe is a mistake. It's a misinterpretation on your part.
Reply
It's similar to if you called me a Christian, and I replied to someone asking me about it, "I don't know why people are questioning 'my Christian beliefs.' "
Get it? It's the way people speak. There's no gaffe, and I've never been a Christian. And no--since I'm certain you're wondering, neither am I Muslim.
And no soul-searching was required for me to make that statement. Just logic and linguistic convention. -
100%
Beeboppin711 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He must have searched his soul to see what he really believed."
Reply
Well, since he's been a practicing Christian for over 20 years, I'd say that was a fairly accurate statement.
Even if it wasn't, I'd still see no problem with voting for a man who practices the Muslim religion. Not all Muslims are out to blow up American buildings, not all Muslims are terrorists. To believe anything but but is nothing short of hysteria, and it's very bigoted. It's like saying that all Germans want to kill Jews, or all black men are thugs on drugs. It's simply not true.
Republicans play to these base fears of the general public because they know that many are undereducated in these matters. It is reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's very despicable and insulting to any Republican voter. You're allowing them to treat you as if you're stupid. Why do you guys put up with this tripe from your party? Do you all enjoy living in a closet with your duct tape and garbage bags?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read my above comment. I was never indoctrinated by any religion. So it left me free to examine many beliefs for myself. His very early formative years he was in a divided household. Fact. His mother was raised a Christian. His father was a Muslim.
Reply-
-
25%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then why the Muslim name?
Reply
Was his original name changed to a Muslim name by his step-father?
When Barack made his own decision regarding his faith, why did he not change his name back? It is not required by any Christian principle, but, if his name was originally "Christian or western" and changed to Muslim, why not change back?-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His original name is Barack Hussein Obama. When his mother was with his step-father, he took on the name "Soetero", which was his step-father's last name. Then he changed back.
Reply
Also, to make a point here. My name is Timothy. That is a Christian name. Yet I am not a Christian. Does my name make me a Christian? Of course not. I also have little wish to change my name, I like how my full name sounds. It rolls of the tongue, as it were. So, why would I change it just because I'm not a Christian? Why would Obama change his name from his birth-name of Barack Hussein Obama?-
20%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If his birth name is BHO, then, I agree, no change expected.
Reply
Your source please? I will not dispute your claim, but, it is interesting that a "Christian" mother and an "apostate/atheist" father would give him a Muslim name. Perhaps if he had been born in a Muslim country? But, if born in Hawaii to those two people, again, why the very distinct Muslim name?
Barack is not ignorant of its implications. That is why he seldom uses his middle name. He is not stupid, but, there are some interesting and unexplained issues here. They may turn out to be meaningless. Maybe not?-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Reply
Here is the reason for his name:
Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Obama, Sr.
He was named for his father. His birth announcement:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_th...
can be found in that link. It names a "Barack H. Obama" being born.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bluebirdwatcher1 tells us THEY would never make a mistake like Obama's incomplete sentence, -
Reply
then posts the wrong link twice?
And offers this, as evidence of sincerity.
Which is harder; to type as slowly as you wish,
with 3 minutes to edit and correct, - or to speak ad lib into a microphone?
Work on it, bluebird.
-
-
-
-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USA's enemies are drooling at the thought of Obama. They love the naïve inexperience weak amateur. Where there have been young leaders in the past, they had over a decade of (real)experience, yet we paid a price for it.Racism knows no color. There are White racist,Black racist,Brown racist, ECT. To some it is a hatred, to some it is distrust, and to others it is a tool of deceit. The last thing the USA needs at this time is an Amateur. There is no time for on the job training. More Socialist debt is definitely not what we need. Research what and who you vote for, check your resources, do not buy into the hype, think and reason for yourself. Being what one "guppy" called an old f*rt, I have already survived this type situation, and really shiver at the thought of having to go through it again. Therefore the inexperience definitely concerns me. The Socialist leaning is a big red flag. His record shows nothing to recommend him. Pretty words and rhetoric may soothe the soul but do nothing to solve problems.
Reply-
93%
swvmd1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've been at the conservative fountain of misinformation drinking the same magic mix that re- created reality and installed Cheney and Bush as our fearless leaders. The only difference between McNasty and Bush is that Bush was a better pilot. Their heroic lives as portrayed by people that think Fox News is real are otherwise total fabrication and fiction. Obama is real. McNasty is McFraud and Shrub in actual history is the worst there ever was! And McNasty would be worse!
Reply-
0%
amervtrn1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USA's enemies are drooling at the thought of Obama. They love the naïve inexperience weak amateur. Where there have been young leaders in the past, they had over a decade of (real)experience, yet we paid a price for it. We already know you consider Rolling Stone research. I've lived through the same fairy tale and believe me what he is offering is more like a nightmare.
Reply-
100%
Progressive1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The USA's allies want Obama as president, too:
Reply
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2360...
-
-
-
92%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, amervtrn, there is no racism mentioned here. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Reply
As for experience, Obama HAS had over a decade of experience in government. He has a long record of accomplishments in the Illinois State Senate (yes, there's more than the "present" votes), but apparently you did not do the research, or believe any provided for you, that would show you.
And once again, please talk about the "socialist tendencies" you accuse Obama of displaying. It would be nice to know specifics of what you're talking about so that I could disprove them. (And when did you "survive" socialism?)-
0%
bluebirdwatcher11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have trillions of dollars of debt we now realize we have taken on because of the housing programs and we have $10 trillion unfunded liabilities of Social Security. Medicare piles another $50 to $60 trillion on top of the $10 trillion Soicial Security Debt. 100 years ago government took 10cents of every dollar, today it takes 35 Cents of every dollar. How is Obama going to find the funds for all his social programs? It will only threaten S.S. and Medicare for the future generations. I think it is time we returned to the ethics of hard work and stop relying on govenment to pay for and solve all our problems.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hate to tell you, but the national debt stood at about $9.7 trillion TWO WEEKS AGO before the bailout was passed. That program is supposed to cost less than ONE trillion.
Reply
The "housing programs" (do you mean failed mortgages?) you speak of did not cause that $9.7 trillion in debt. I have NO idea where you're getting your $50-60 trillion number about Medicare. You may be confusing "billions" and "trillions."
Nevertheless, if you were to look it up, you'd discover that paying interest on the national debt accounts for almost 10% of federal spending every year. The military and mandatories (SS & Medicare) each take about 22%; close to 40% goes to payroll and administrative expenses of being the nation's largest employer; and discretionary spending (which includes but is not entirely made up of social programs) is only about 6% of the budget.
And would you like to know which political party has contributed most to the massive debt that requires interest payments (only interest--not principal!) of 10% of your taxes? Take a look at this chart, from White House data:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi Beau:
Reply
This comment is a place holder.
I think your numbers are inaccurate.
I have the budget in my computer at home, and I think the %10 figure is light.
"In 2006 all of the personal income tax paid by folks west of the Mississippi went to paying the interest on the dept." Google it.
I have filtered for discretionary spending, and way more than half of it goes to DOD, and that does not include the emergency or supplemental spending that is kept out of the budget.
If I have time this evening, I will provide the numbers I have found.
I am fairly confident they would enforce your argument.
I also think that graph would be more dramatic if governmental deficit spending was subtracted from the GDP the same way imports are.
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think it is time to face reality.
Reply
There are not going to be any tax cuts.
I am still in the very fuzzy stages of building a time line.
But if you look at the history of tax cuts and there dates the seem to coincide with depressions, recessions, and stock market crashes.
I should keep my fat mouth shut until I finish my research.
But the dates of major tax laws seem to fit, there are exceptions.
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry. Throwing out ridiculous assertions isn't debate. It's just ridiculous. "drooling at the thought"...."naive inexperience"..."Amateur"...."Socialist leaning"....
Reply
ALL of those nonsensical assertions have nothing, absolutely nothing to back them up.
Typical CON speak. -
100%
cleare1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
amervtrn must have some inside information from "The USA's enemies", perhaps he's been watching too much al jazeera...or maybe he's some kind of operative with special insight into the thoughts of our "enemies".
Reply
and as to experience...my response is that no one but an incumbent can claim appropriate experience for the presidency. nothing prior can sufficiently prepare someone for the weight of the world, we have to look at the character of the individuals running. "experience" also translates to me as insider cronyism. -
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama's experience is remarkably similar to Abraham Lincoln. Further, Obama has an outstanding education and a long history of public service 'in the trenches' with community organizations. I think the latter gives him a superior command of domestic policy, while the former provides depth of analysis and a calm rationality.
Reply
I find very little Socialism in Obama's policies and proposals. I think a reversal of top-down economics will strengthen the middle class without artificial temporary subsidies. I think an energy policies that focuses on renewables and alternatives will help America once again become a powerhouse of innovation and make us less beholding to rogue nations . I think investing in our deteriorating infrastructure will create jobs and energize home-grown heavy industry over the long term. I think affordable healthcare is a right, not a privilege. I think the government should stay the heII out of people's bedrooms, lifestyles, and reproductive choices.
-
-
-
100%
hyperbola1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we miss the point by "blaming" this man, who is only a tool. The real crooks are the oligarchs who finance and support him. They are the ones we should be identifying and holding up to ridicule. We haven't much time left.
Reply
Americas Political Cannibalism
It is no longer our economy but our democracy that is in peril. It was the economic meltdown of Yugoslavia that gave us Slobodan Milosevic. It was the collapse of the Weimar Republic that vomited up Adolf Hitler. And it was the breakdown in czarist Russia that opened the door for Vladimir Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Financial collapses lead to political extremism. The rage bubbling up from our impoverished and disenfranchised working class, glimpsed at John McCain rallies, presages a looming and dangerous right-wing backlash.
As the public begins to grasp the depth of the betrayal and abuse by our ruling class, as the Democratic and Republican parties are exposed as craven tools of our corporate state, as savings accounts, college funds and retirement plans become worthless, as unemployment skyrockets and as home values go up in smoke, we must prepare for the political resurgence of a reinvigorated radical Christian right. The engine of this mass movement—as is true for all radical movements—is personal and economic despair. And despair, in an age of increasing shortages, poverty and hopelessness, will be one of our few surplus commodities.
Karl Polanyi in his book “The Great Transformation,” written in 1944, laid out the devastating consequences—the depressions, wars and totalitarianism—that grow out of a so-called self-regulated free market. He grasped that “fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function.” He warned that a financial system always devolved, without heavy government control, into a Mafia capitalism—and a Mafia political system—which is a good description of the American government under George W. Bush. Polanyi wrote that a self-regulating market, the kind bequeathed to us since Ronald Reagan, turned human beings and the natural environment into commodities, a situation that ensures the destruction of both society and the natural environment. He decried the free market’s belief that nature and human beings are objects whose worth is determined by the market. He reminded us that a society that no longer recognizes that nature and human life have a sacred dimension, an intrinsic worth beyond monetary value, ultimately commits collective suicide. Such societies cannibalize themselves until they die. Speculative excesses and growing inequality, he wrote, always destroy the foundation for a continued prosperity. ....-
hyperbolaComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
89%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He is a law school graduate, but his admission to the Illinois bar was blocked in the 1970s after a psychiatric finding of “moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.”>>>>
Reply
I have to laugh at this. I just know that these crazies sit around drinking and laughing at the stupidity of the right wing conservative base. They know they'll run with anything derogatory. It's like fishing for them, throwing out the lure to catch a dummy. And those very dummy's adore the crazies who make fools of them. -
-
89%
Goppy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder if Mainstream Media will do any stories on this.
Reply
LOL!!!!!
What am I thinking ... MSM is either so cowed by charges from the right that they are biased, they won't touch this story out of fear of retribution by Rush Limbaugh and his cronies.
It just shows how the Propaganda of the "Liberal Media" has harmed our nation's information flow.
And yet FOX and SBC continue to promote Swift Boat like stories at will ... with no accountability.
..-
95%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jeez. I thought the NY Times WAS mainstream media.
Reply
Glad you like the story. It's a good link to give people who repeat smears.
You know what the most insidious and damaging thing the ultra-right elite has done? It's that they've discredited the media. A lot of people no longer believe truth even when you smack 'em in the face with it like a three-day-old mackerel.-
100%
Progressive1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Jeez. I thought the NY Times WAS mainstream media."
Reply
According to McCain-Palin, that's only when they source it for a negative story on Obama. Otherwise, the GOP considers it a leftist rag.
Attacking the media has always been the last refuge of a political loser. When all intelligent reasoning runs against them, they blame the messenger, even when the message is carried by other respected conservatives like George Will and Ed Rollins.-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, it's interesting how the 'authority' of something depends on when it supports your side. Factcheck.org is a good source if it's anti-Obama, but 'biased' when it's against McCain, same with NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and just about any reasonably respectable news source. Of course FOX is always infallible, even though they ran with the 'Obama attended a Madrassa' story, called Michelle Barack's 'baby mama', and famously described Barack and Michelle's fist bump as a 'terrorist fist jab'.
Reply
Of course if it's a blog or a youtube video, it is INSTANTLY credible and beyond reproach.
-
-
-
-
86%
randispriv1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Personally, I feel the word Muslim is modern code for N****r. Such ingrain feelings of distrust, hatred, and hostility is in the fabric of our society. Its taught in our homes, our playgrounds, even our workplace. Displayment of fear and confusion is instilled and silk ties replaced white sheets and raised fists. It is easy to demonize differences.
Reply
My solution for our country-It would be ill gained to legistrate, it must come from the individual that recognizes why he acts a certain way.
an opinion from a black child of the 50s-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree, and its sad. I'm fairly young so I've been extremely surprised by the level of racism displayed in this particular general election. It completely floored me. I honestly have very rarely, if ever, seen any large displays of racism. It is just something people in my age group don't understand, for the most part, so this election has been a surprise.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
86%
sinophil491 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Up to the point I am typing this post, I counted 12 posts already. Not a single one from any of the Republican or neoconservative, regular participants. VEERRRYY INNTTERRRESSTING! I am curious if any of them will acknowledge this article as correct or try to deny or obfuscate the issue.
Reply
I do note that several of the previous posts each have a single neg. Looks like we have a busy little negative termite trying to gnaw away at some of the posts, without writing a post him(her)self.
What a coward!
Oh, and what a slimy, despicable character this Anthony (or Andy) Martin is. Will this expose stop the perpetuation and dissemination of this lie? Will any of the Republican and neoconservative members of these discussions ever acknowledge they were wrong in falsely accusing Obama of being a Muslim or a terrorist? Will any of them apologize?
OF COURSE NOT. This type of false and obviously outlandish claim always seems to resonate and embeds itself in the radical right mentality. It will live forever in the mythology of the paranoid Republican mind.-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
93%
Bluedragon9121 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've also noticed no conservatives have commented. But it's not very interesting. Why? Because this story is toxic sludge to them and their ideologies. No matter the truth of this story, it will be spun, or at least attempted to be spun. Nope, not today cons.
Reply -
83%
InAStrangeLand1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It really doesn't matter to any one any more who wins your election. All we care about is that you start fixing the damage done by Dubya and associates over the past sixteen years-- yes, it's been that long!-- and spare us from having to listen to your self-indulgent and whiny trash. Wake up and smell the coffee, chaps. I do happen to like America, and most of you Americans. But the rhetorical rubbish I see on this blog is really, really getting to me. Yes, REALLY.
Reply-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
0%
coymoy1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So Basically ... this guy said Obama was a Muslim, made some antisemitic remark and hates John McCain. Barack Obama himself said he was a muslim and Stephanopolis corrected him. Who cares!
Reply
Obama's mother was a communist. Obama's mentor was a Marxist. Obama's pastor hates America. Obama's friends with a socialist terrorist. I'll pass on that too.
Obama is INEXPERIENCED. Obama is all over the place with his campaign promises, and some on them are just ridiculous (businesses don't pay capital gains tax). Again, Obama is too inexperienced!-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You and others go on about Obama's family and "mentor" (though you like to call several different people his "mentor").
Reply
Here is a summary of Obama's accomplishments in the Illinois State Senate. Which of these is Marxist, socialist, or terrorist?
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/po...-
0%
sillyfoulks1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not sure what your definition of socialist is. Universal Health Care and the Welfare system are socialist programs. Both these programs are clear paths to a egalitarian society, which is the main agenda of a socialist. Our public schools, Social Security, and medicaid are also socialist programs.
Reply-
100%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you describe are the commons. People pool their money (taxes) to make a better place to live for the whole of society, including them. That isn't socialism. That's common sense. But as you can't see it, maybe this will help;
Reply
Imagine how you would live without roads, without bridges, without a clean water supply, without sewers, without drugs to save your life (tax dollars being used for research), without police. How long would a society last without educated people who could find work? Would they be robbing you to survive? Welfare is for children. Would you like to walk over their dead bodies after they've starved or frozen to death? Is that the kind of society you want. What exactly DO you want? Have you even considered what would happen if society didn't work together for the whole? Of course not! You're merely parroting nonsense.-
20%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jordan,
Reply
When people VOLUNTARILY pool their resouces to provide infrastructure, schools, security (fire and police) - services that all benefit from, we call that "CIVILIZATION". And yes, there may some element of "coercion" where some feel that they are required to pay more than their fair share, but, disagreements do not move "civilization" to "socialism".
When people VOLUNTARILY pool their resources to provide for statistically predictable situations (accidents, illness, etc), we call that INSURANCE. And to some extent, we each get to dictate the level of risk we are willing or able to assume.
HOWEVER, when the state comes in and confiscates your property, redistributes it to others for THEIR BENEFIT ALONE, telling you that you OWE to the system, telling you it is your duty and responsibility to comply and submit to the state's demands, then, "civilization" moves towards "socialism". When the state starts limiting benefits and dictating what you can go out and secure on your own, that is socialism. Just ask the Canadians, who are allowed to pay for a MRI for their dog, but not for themselves.
Is there a distinct line in the sand that clearly shows the demarcation? NO. But, that does not mean that isn't a demarcation.
Surely, you are not going to suggest that what the world witnessed in the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea was "common sense"?!!-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is considered by many as a transitional stage is not necessarily a transitional stage.
Reply
I wasn't going to put it the way Mdiar did, but his comment directly above is more succinct than mine, while perfectly highlighting the irrelevance of mentioning what many consider to be a "transitional stage" to anything.
Many say marijuana is a gateway drug to heroin. I'd argue that oxygen is, as well.
-
-
-
100%
Tangent0011 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All civilizations are socialistic in one regard or another. I hardly think the American experiment is teetering on the edge of Communism, even if Obama managed to implement every single one of his proposals. Indeed, it is the current administration that seems to be doing the most to move property into the hands of the government by buying shares of private companies. McCain proposes the government buy up bad mortgages, which is moving private property potentially into the hands of the government.
Reply
It is the current administration that has allowed for the government to spy on its own people. -
75%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bull crap! People like you would opt to contribute nothing. Why the hell should I help pay for the roads, bridges, sewers, water supply, police, and on and on and on so YOU could enjoy their benefits for nothing?
Reply
Obviously, because of selfishness, the Commons has to be forced on people like you who want a free ride. This is a society. Not a lot of people living in their private spaces who never venture out! You use it, you should damn well help pay for it!
And let me guess; you put down welfare recipients at the same time you whine about contributing to the commons. -
-
-
-
-
83%
jordan111 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Socialism is when government has ownership and the people have nothing. Government owns the goods, and people work for the government to make the goods. Do you know who made ownership for Americans a high priority? Democrats. Do you know who developed the accesses to higher education, which in turn produces better minds which give us more innovations, which builds our economy, which gives everyone a higher standard of living? Or gives us better scientists who find the cures for our diseases? Democrats. Do you know who makes the needs of children a priority, and who just recently sought to give more of them access to health care? Democrats. Though not perfect, Democrats have done more to make this an ownership, educated, and healthy society than republicans could dream of. And you call that 'socialism?' Are you daft?
Reply-
33%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are experts who would strongly disagree with you here.
Reply
Humans by nature (not just Americans, not just Republicans) are insecure, greedy, lazy, and selfish. Given the opportunity, they will "milk" the system, do as little as they have to, yada yada. The failure of the Soviet Union, and all other socialist societies, was predicted because while the systems of production and distribution were changed, there was nothing to change the nature of the individual. The real failure of the USSR was its inefficiency, wastefulness, and corruption, which was a direct result of the selfish & greedy nature of the individuals themselves! (Sorry guys, but corruption is not limited to right-wingers!)
You mention "common sense". Common sense will tell you that ANY 3-party system is inherently wasteful and inefficient.
Capitalism, even with its ruthless
(BTW - capitalism does not prohibit charity
or "neighbor helping neighbor". It just does not force us to behave this way if we do not want to.
A few quotes/thoughts:
"... when a man spends someone else's money on someone else, he doesn’t care how much he spends or what he spends it on. And that's government for you." – Milton Friedman
"If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side." - Orson Scott Card
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill
"Under capitalism man exploits man; under socialism the reverse is true." -Polish Proverb
No one I know believes that capitalism is perfect or fair, but, it has PROVEN to be better than socialism! Look at what has happened in China since the state backed off and embraced some level of free-market ideas.-
75%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
reidgator:
Reply
"Humans by nature (not just Americans, not just Republicans) are insecure, greedy, lazy, and selfish. Given the opportunity, they will "milk" the system, do as little as they have to, yada yada."
This is EXACTLY why we need a government with strong powers of enforcement to oversee the capitalist forces of supply and demand with regard to basic necessities for survival.
Take those humans and band them together into corporate entities, with even less moral or fiduciary responsibility than individuals, and they become greedier, lazier, and more selfish. Given the opportunity, they will exploit their workers as well as those who consume their goods. And they will allow others to DIE if they can't afford the prices of those goods. All in the name of profit.
Now, if you want to talk about capitalist vs. socialist societies, you must realize that socialism and communism are two entirely different economic philosophies. The USSR, China, Cuba, etc. are NOT socialist--they're communist.
Try comparing US "free-market" capitalism to the socialism practiced in Scandinavian countries--high taxes, high general standards of living, high levels of government social services. It would be more accurate than comparing to China.-
25%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not sure where you got you education, but, it is lacking severely.
Reply
First, let's back up to your definition of socialism, specifically regarding the "basic necessities of survival". What are those basic necessities? Schools? Roads? No - the three basic necessities are: food, clothing, & shelter.
If you look at those Scandanavian societies, you will find that they are not using any socialist system to distribute the basic necessities to their societies.
Yes- they do have taxes that are used to build schools & roads and other services, just like we do.
But, by YOUR OWN DEFINITION, that is not socialism. Rome built roads, but, Rome was not socialist. Rome did not assume responsibility for feeding and clothing it entire society!
The Scandanavian societies do appear to have socialized medicine. As does Canada! As does China! But, these systems are not as good as ours.
You wrote: "And they will allow others to DIE if they can't afford the prices of those goods. All in the name of profit."
WTF do you think is happening in China and Canada. They are rationing and delaying health resources, allowing people to die! Have you been to China or Canada? I have and the people in general are not served as well as our system serves us. China is facing a severe problem with lung cancer from smoking. The treatment is nothing more than roll the patient off to the side and let them die!
You also wrote: "This is EXACTLY why we need a government with strong powers of enforcement ..."
So you want the government to be a "moral agent". Hmmm, now you sound like the religious right, asking the government to police people's behavior! Tell me - how long before our socialized health care system demands that people stop smoking, reduce drinking, reduce gluttony, and exercise more. Using you own words, the "powers of enforcement" can and will be brought to bear on those who abuse their body and burden the rest of us with extra health care costs!
Look - I'll let you off the hook a little. Your goals are honorable, but, the truth is, every time the government tries to be a parent or nanny, it's solutions make things worse in the long run.
I'll add a couple more quotes to let you ponder:
"The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of the authorities must be moderated and controlled. Payments to foreign governments must be reduced. If the nation doesn't want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." – Marcus Tullius Cicero, 55 BC
"America's abundance was not created by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes." – Ayn Rand-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Let's agree to refrain from mocking others based on what your perceptions of the schools they attended. Without getting too specific, the schools I attended are VERY highly regarded internationally, though the locales are simply not important. After all, it's really what we took away from our educations that counts, and one can graduate from very good schools without learning much. Don't you agree, MP?
Reply
I did not define socialism, specifically because words may have a few different definitions, and those definitions can be misinterpreted and/or perverted to suit particular arguments--as you demonstrated when you called certain programs I mentioned socialist, then began to argue against them as communist.
Let's talk about actual real world examples, if that's all right with you. The examples I gave are examples of what YOU called socialist programs (regardless of whether that label is appropriate). Those programs are arguably justified by what the founders set out as goals of our government in the Preamble to the Constitution.
If you want to move the bar and speak only of necessities as you define them (food, clothing and shelter, though I'd say those are NOT the only necessities, which shift with technology--after all, technological advances have given us both fossil fuels and medicine, without which we can't survive, just as advances tens of thousands of years ago taught humans to seek and then to build shelter), then my comment still applies. Manufacturers, builders, growers of food will seek whatever they can from a "free" market. They are the suppliers. They need to be regulated, as the market does not care whether their customers live or die, so long as there are more babies being born to buy more goods later on.
The only behavior I believe government should police (and yes, government SHOULD be a moral agent in this respect) is that which directly threatens the "general Welfare" of its citizens. If you'd like to put that in somewhat more explicit terms, that's behavior that threatens their lives, liberties, or interferes with their pursuit of happiness, as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Yes, that allows for some varied interpretations, but I'm sorry, but no matter how many times you or Ayn Rand might assert that all issues should be seen in black and white, the real world simply does NOT exist like that.
You said, "Tell me - how long before our socialized health care system demands that people stop smoking, reduce drinking, reduce gluttony, and exercise more." Some insurance policies do that now. And if you hate private insurance as I do (but for different reasons), some DOCTORS will demand that you stop smoking, reduce drinking, and exercise more in order to keep you as a patient. Every healthcare provider seeks to reduce costs (as any well-run business would—right?), so why should a government-run system be different?-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree that the budget must be balanced. We were on track to do that in the '90s, even including the Clinton administration's "socialist" (as many have called them) social programs. I do NOT agree with your Ayn Rand quote—as I've said before out here, Rand was a sophomoric writer with extremist and untenable economic and political ideas that oversimplify human nature, as well as that of the world we live in. Besides, America itself WAS created by public sacrifices to the common good, not by those pursuing their own private interests. That came later, when monopolistic industrialists ruled the land. Though it's true that much of our infrastructure was created during that time, the quality of life of the majority of people was not improved over that period.
Reply
A balance must be struck between individual liberties and the good of society. I am not in favor of a "nanny state" that regulates what individuals can put into their bodies with their own consent. I am, however, in favor of a government regulating the sellers of goods and services to protect the very lives of consumers—businesses should not be allowed to hide the fact that their products may kill its users. (May I assume you too are outraged at the discovery of melamine in many foods imported from China?) Informed choices are necessary to a free society.
This necessary balance is also why neither unfettered free-market capitalism nor communism is a viable economic model—they both neglect human nature.
I'll leave you with a quote from one who's universally considered more qualified to make ethical pronouncements than Ayn Rand:
"The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom." --Aristotle
-
-
-
0%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Part of your problem is that is that you assume:
Reply
"Take those humans and band them together into corporate entities, with even less moral or fiduciary responsibility than individuals..."
Why does the "corporate" automatically have LESS responsibility than the individuals?
Capitalism does not prohibit rules or constraints. Some rules are good. Some rules are bad.
Especially if the membership of the corporation is voluntary.
Some of the most restrictive "corporations' in the US are homeowners associations. But, these people chose to live in these communities and voluntarily placed themselves under the constraints.-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Legally, corporations DO automatically have less responsibility than the individuals who comprise them. In fact, the avoidance of legal responsibility for certain misdoings (whether intentional or not) is the primary purpose for the existence of corporations, limited liability partnerships, and other legal business entities.
Reply
Though you did not choose to be born into a particular country, you are bound by the social contract that is made up of the values and the law of that country. If you like, you may try to change that country's values and law, or you may emigrate. If you choose to stay, you voluntarily place yourself under that country's governmental constraints. I think we agree on this--a nation is similar in that way to a homeowner's association.-
100%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WRONG! Corporations are no less liable than the individual.
Reply
But, the individual (doctor for example) can shield his personal assets (home, etc) from being confiscated in the event his corporation is succesfully sued.
Larger corporations exist for much the same reason. There are tax reasons as well as liability reasons. Simply put - if you and I form a corporation,, that corporation helps define the demarcation between our personal life and business life.
Will respond to other posts later. Gotta ago! -
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sillyfoulks, okay, I'll bite.
Reply
You can call universal healthcare, public schools, Social Security and Medicaid socialist programs if you like, in that the government pays for or subsidizes services all people receive.
But if you wish to argue that way, it's a long leap to saying that these socialist programs lead to your "main agenda" of a socialist, to create a completely egalitarian society. The programs you speak of don't LEAD to egalitarianism--they're a tiny portion of what would result from egalitarianism.
So let me ask you--since the Constitution sets forth that the US government should "promote the general Welfare," how are any of those programs un-American? They're certainly in keeping with the stated purpose of the US government from its very beginning.
And if they're not un-Åmerican, then honestly--what's wrong with those programs, other than the label "socialist"?-
25%
sillyfoulks1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beaue7890, I'll bite back.
Reply
First, I never did say the these programs were "un-American."
Promoting general welfare is a stated purpose of the US Government. However, I have to ask, were do we draw the line? I am pretty sure I have never read in the US Constitution or the Declaration of Indepence that an able body man or women, has the right to sit on his/her A$%, year after year, while the rest of us support him/her.-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That isn't the intent of these programs, however. Should a person not be able to attend college if they wish, even if they are rather poor? Why should health-care be rationed according to insurance? Why not have a voluntary national plan, like Obama is proposing (as opposed to a forced one, like other countries do)?
Reply
Most programs in the United States, and the western world at large, are aimed at creating a distribution of wealth not based on the class they are born into, but on how they work. That is why they tend to emphasize things like education, health-care and infrastructure. Things that allow for a person, no matter what class they are born into, to get a leg up in life and actually compete with very few things simply "given away".
Also, socialism is essentially a worker dominated society. It is when workers control the factories they work in, the farms they work on and so on. It has little to do with specific programs and it tends to not emphasize government power at all; in fact, it does the opposite. Most "socialism" is built around direct democracy as opposed to the form pretty much the entire western world practices. It also emphasizes strong unions. Communism is when the classes cease to exist and everyone enjoys equal ownership into the society at large. -
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I must have confused you with the many who would say that any form of socialism is un-American. I apologize for that.
Reply
I'm not arguing for a welfare state in the sense of government handouts that equalize all, or that allow people to contribute nothing while the rest of us support him/her.
But I am arguing for the government to provide a safety net--that is, to manage social security to ensure we don't have old, homeless people who cannot get a job sleeping on streets; to give basic medical care (possibly including preventative care that would avoid large costs to the public resulting from conditions going untreated for long periods of time); and a basic level of education (though I know that brings up entirely different issues about who determines the curriculum).
It seems to me that providing a basic level of education, healthcare, and yes, some money for necessities, is in the government's and the public's interest. At the very least, it saves us money down the road.-
100%
sillyfoulks1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beau7890
Reply
Apology excepted.
I agree totally! All these programs are vitally important. I am not sure what my own family would do without Medicare and Social Security. Both my husband & I have elderly parents with significate health issues.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
While all of that was nonsense, the part I liked best was, that Obama is all over the place with his campaign promises.
Reply
Obama acts like he is running for president?
And for the 134th time and countring, - I point out that you tell us nothing good of Mccain; only evil nonsense about Obama.
Which is why McCain has lost.
-
-
-
100%
HateKoolAid1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How dare you libs slander someone who has Gods ear!! We conservatives have never or will ever lower ourselves to spreading innuendos. Mr. Martin searches for the absolute truth and with divine intentions passes it on to Fox News and Drudge. Once in a while he takes pity on Rush Limbaugh and whispers in his ear as well. So there!!
Reply
-
-
88%
Progressive1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bravo, Beau.
Reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/robert-gi... -
100%
fsev411 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One thing in this article that caught my eye was that a judge has banned Martin from filing any more lawsuits (say "frivolous")without the judge's permission. This immediately brought to mind the nutcase in Pennsylvania that filed the lawsuit over OBama's citizenship. He also is known for filing frivolous lawsuits. Bird's of a feather---.
Reply -
-
-
-
100%
Jayson1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Just last Friday, a woman told Senator John McCain at a town-hall-style meeting, “I have read about him,” and “he’s an Arab.” Mr. McCain corrected her."
Reply
When I heard about that woman's comment, I had to laugh. Ugh! Where do these people come from and why was this woman chosen to speak to the press? She and the crazy Obama whisperer should get together! -
0%
myqwerty1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spreading the wealth. Right out of Obama's mouth. Hope he doesn't need a plumber anytime soon.
Reply
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x72626_wealth_new... -
Neutral
RedstateLib1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Funny thing is I posted about this guy during the primaries when all the Obots were screaming it was Hillary who was starting these rumors. At that time the info on Martin was either ignored by them or shouted down. Funny how some of my former allies find truth useful only when it suits their agenda. Reminds of those people we used to laugh at, Bushbots. LOL how ironic it is to look at some of those people and know that they have become just what they claim they hated.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've supported Obama since he got into the race. (I'm not sure if that qualifies me to be called an "Obot" by you.)
Reply
I have NEVER accused Hillary Clinton of starting rumors. I have seen you (notice I don't say "Hillary-bots," just YOU--an individual) repeatedly slamming Obama and his supporters for all thinking the same things in the same way.
I think you've been caught up in a (failed) Republican ploy to split the Democratic party. And I think you have become exactly what you rail against--one who appears to believe all supporters of one candidate or elected official all parrot the same talking points, all think the same way, and if they oppose you, all lie.
You may want to take a breath and think about how much your bitterness over Clinton's primary loss informs your comments about Obama and his supporters.-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps RedstateLib is a con sock puppet,
Reply
built to cause fights between Obama supporters and hillary supporters.
Like those 'i was a life-long democrat' puppets that Nixie builds.
TrulyUlyLib 0%
1 minute ago
I was a lifelong Democrat and named
my cat Trotsky; but you Obama
people have gone where I will not go.
Although I have never
posted before I feel
I know and hate you always.
-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not unless she had a long-term plan--before Obama ever got into the race, I used to see scathing comments against cons from RedStateLib.
Reply
But hey--I think Trotsky is an excellent name for a cat. Though Rasputin might be more a propos--after all, cats have nine lives, and they had to kill Rasputin what--a dozen different ways?
-
-
-
-
0%
getreal11 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If there is anything about elections is that people will say anything to help the one of their choice. Obama has allowed the race card, his middle name and associations, to be used as an enhancement through the primaries and he will do the same in this one. People are upset that he has had these ties to foreign terrorist. Well they should be. Paranoia doesn't often come without a reason. Maybe that lady was saying that to make a bad day for McCain and an enhancement for Obama.
Reply-
100%
Beau78901 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Which ties to which foreign terrorist?
Reply
If you name them, I will dispute them. But I can't argue against a general statement like that.
By the way, here is Merriam-Webster's definition of paranoia:
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations 2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
In other words, it's excessive fear that is NOT grounded in reality. By definition. -
-
-
tony20suxComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
17%
lostnthfifties1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Has the world come to this ? I will bet my last dollar that most of you libs are under 30 years old..DO you ever listen to yourselves ?
Reply
Obama needs to be investigated,, no one has looked into this mans past other than a few things that has popped up here and there..One reporter , working for a major network said, we are not alowed to say anything about Obama..The network does not want to be called racist ?
But they sure didn't have any problem going after Palin like rabid dogs, ripping her and her family apart..MCain is not perfect but I know what i am getting with him..
I am a 67 year old Grandmother..Never in all my days have i seen such hate and filth come out of people's mouths , as i have the democrats and liberals.. Who raised you people ?
Someone sure failed somewhere...
My Dad was a democrat and getting disgusted with the party when he died ..I bet he is turning over in his grave now..
Most of you come across as spoiled , little self centered children that stomp their feet if they don't get their way..
You are a product of the liberal , humanist school systems, and parents who oboviously failed somewhere..
You need to grow up,, get educated, and learn some manners..
Obama is not what he seems...You need to wake up...-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama needs to be investigated,, "
Reply
You feel that Obama has not been investigated?
You tell us to wake up?
Stop stamping your feet and throwing your hate at us;
we are not impressed by your name calling, or your paranoia, or your age.
Young lady from the 50s, this is a thread of discussion.
You can be choose to be truthful; or just wily; eloquent, or merely factual.
But posting a spit-dribbling bit of disrespect to people who present facts and honest argumentation about what they believe
- is ill-mannered, uneducated, and darn unimpressive. -
-
-
14%
lostnthfifties1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Has the world come to this ? I will bet my last dollar that most of you libs are under 30 years old..DO you ever listen to yourselves ?
Reply
Obama needs to be investigated,, no one has looked into this mans past other than a few things that has popped up here and there..One reporter , working for a major network said, we are not alowed to say anything about Obama..The network does not want to be called racist ?
But they sure didn't have any problem going after Palin like rabid dogs, ripping her and her family apart..MCain is not perfect but I know what i am getting with him..
I am a 67 year old Grandmother..Never in all my days have i seen such hate and filth come out of people's mouths , as i have the democrats and liberals.. Who raised you people ?
Someone sure failed somewhere...
My Dad was a democrat and getting disgusted with the party when he died ..I bet he is turning over in his grave now..
Most of you come across as spoiled , little self centered children that stomp their feet if they don't get their way..
You are a product of the liberal , humanist school systems, and parents who oboviously failed somewhere..
You need to grow up,, get educated, and learn some manners..
Obama is not what he seems...You need to wake up...-
100%
JEBUS081 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tell me exactly what he is. please i beg you. we keep hearing this over and over again. there is only one thing it leads to. if he was a white guy with no background you wouldnt be coming up with this bullsnip. just because he is BLACK, and you dont know much about him, THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT HE IS A FLIPPIN SLEEPER CELL, dont you think the CIA and the FBI look into candidates backgrounds thoroughly. your name suits you well, i bet you liked sitting in the front of the bus and having your own drinking fountain. your dad is rolling over in his grave so he doesnt have to look at your ugly hate filled face when you come to visit him.
Reply -
-
100%
Progressive1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My parents are even older than you are and they are voting for Obama. They raised me not to call people names when we disagree. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, but this is an old photo, so you can donate that dollar to Obama's campaign in honor of your grandchildren, whose future would be mortgaged by McCain.
Reply
-
-
-
-
25%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not syaing it is true, but, why dismiss it?
Reply
Why is this so hard to believe?
Obama is very intelligent. and he knows that we are a nation/society that strongly relates or sympathizes with the "victim". If any politician wants to achieve some level of sympathy, he/she can have himself or herself unjustly attacked in some way. This is really what the "playing race card" is about. The candidate claims to be a "victim" of unjust treatment.
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
getreal1 said:
Reply
"(Obama) put those negatives out there himself through desperate people"
But, actualy, I said it.
I am cleverly posting criticism of Obama,
as inefectual pieces of paranoia;
thus playing into my own hands!*
*which sounds twisted but isn't so there.
-
-
-
Neutral
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Post 1 of 5)
Reply
Beau
You wrote: “one can graduate from very good schools without learning much. Don't you agree, MP?”
Strongly agree! (P.S. who is MP?)
You wrote: “words may have a few different definitions”
In earlier post you wrote: “you must realize that socialism and communism are two entirely different economic philosophies. The USSR, China, Cuba, etc. are NOT socialist--they're communist.”
I strongly AGREE and DISAGREE.
I agree that we can label ourselves as we wish, but, that does not make us so. You are correct that words can be perverted and misused.
Example: USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Does that mean the USSR was indeed socialist? (contrary to your position)
And: DPRK (North Korea) = Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Are they a democracy or a republic?
On that note, who decides the meaning of socialism and communism and Marxism? We could argue the same for “democracy” and “republic”. However, the latter two are easier debates because they are systems defined strictly by their POLITICAL STRUCTURE. They are not defined by any values, goals, or agendas. Similarly, monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships are defined by their structure, not their values, goals, and agendas.
(LW = left-wing, C = centrist, RW = right-wing):
There can be LW democracies, C democracies, RW democracies!
There can be LW republics, C republics, RW republics!
There can be LW dictatorships, C dictatorships, RW dictatorships!
(Have I defined LW vs. C vs. RW? No, let’s hold that for a later thread!)
What sets socialism and communism and Marxism apart from republics and democracies is that they have an agenda: the “fair and equitable” production and distribution of ECONOMIC assets/wealth. They are first and foremost concerned about the distribution of the BASIC NECESSITIES: food, clothing, and shelter to ALL members of the society, not just the poor!
So, what sets communism and socialism and Marxism apart from each other? Their POLITICAL AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE?
I find it interesting that I have seen both of the following:
(a) “socialism and communism/Marxism”
(b) “socialism/Marxism and communism”
If you look at the basic definitions of the terms, it appears that (a) is correct, in that Marxism and communism both are based on the idea of a “classless society”.
However, Marx did not “invent” communism. Yet, you could argue he “invented” socialism. I believe that Marxism is a new form of communism, where to achieve and maintain a classless society, private property must be eliminated. Hence, (b) is probably more correct. However, most prevailing definitions of socialism have few inherent restraints on classes or private property. -
Neutral
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Post 3 of 5 to Beau)
Reply
You wrote: “Manufacturers, builders, growers of food will seek whatever they can from a "free" market. They are the suppliers. They need to be regulated, as the market does not care whether their customers live or die, so long as there are more babies being born to buy more goods later on.”
You refute your statement within your statement! You imply that as long as the babies being born can replace those who die, then the market will always have a demand. But, that ignores the fact that a manufacturer is a customer himself.
He has a demand for labor and supplies. Unless he is a one-man operation, he needs a supply of labor. Unless he generates and transports his own raw materials, he has that need. Babies can consume, but, they can not supply labor. And they can not consume without the assistance of their parents. So, for at least 12 -15 years, someone has to care for the babies. Do you suggest that the manufacturer provide an orphanage for those babies until they become old enough to be customers?
Bottom line – the WISE manufacturer respects and considers the welfare of his customers. Unless, of course, the demand for his goods are greater than his supply! Which means he can probably raise his prices. However, in a capitalist society, another supplier will easily come along, increasing supply and forcing prices back down.
In a MSC society (Marxism/communism/socialism), we have to rely on the decision-makers to recognize that the demand exceeds the supply. Please point out any success stories in this arena!?
You wrote: “you or Ayn Rand might assert that all issues should be seen in black and white, the real world simply does NOT exist like that.”
Hmmm. Neither Rand or myself have expressed that view. Both of us recognize that the real world is highly interdependent, with all sorts of “gray areas” and competing forces and factors. We just believe that the individual is better capable of making the right decisions than the government. That does not mean “anarchy”. I do not propose a society without government. Neither did Rand.
In an earlier post, I wrote: “how long before our socialized health care system demands that people stop smoking, reduce drinking, reduce gluttony, and exercise more?" and you responded, ”Some insurance policies do that now.”
GOOD. I have no desire or intentions to pay for someone else’s bad habits. Why should I pay the price for YOUR pleasure? Your smoking or excessive drinking or eating too much is NOT a COMMON GOOD. That is a PRIVATE GOOD and you can pay for it yourself! -
Neutral
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Post 3 of 5 to Beau)
Reply
You wrote: “Every healthcare provider seeks to reduce costs (as any well-run business would—right?), so why should a government-run system be different?”
This is the crux of the matter!!!!!!!!!!
A government should run any program efficiently and cost-effectively. But, history says that they will not! That is the problem. There is no inherent incentive on an individual basis for the government bureaucrat to keep costs down. In fact, the opposite is true. The inherent incentive for the government bureaucrat is to enlarge his staff and “fiefdom”. And you fail to offer any explanation as to why government employees are more moral or responsible or trustworthy than people in the private sector!
You wrote: “America itself WAS created by public sacrifices to the common good, not by those pursuing their own private interests.”
That is a lie and you know it. The first settlers may have collaborated with each other, they may have shared the hard-work and sacrifices, but the notion that they had no private interests is BS!
You wrote: “I am, however, in favor of a government regulating the sellers of goods and services to protect the very lives of consumers—businesses should not be allowed to hide the fact that their products may kill its users. (May I assume you too are outraged at the discovery of melamine in many foods imported from China?) Informed choices are necessary to a free society.”
Requiring that goods meet safety standards or that the consumer be warned of any dangers/risks is inconsistent with capitalism or libertarianism. I doubt that Rand would not oppose of many of today’s requirements for an informed public or safety standards. Actually, she would probably promote a flexible, but standardized system, similar to the UL where each product is encouraged to be tested against accepted standards. Failure to be tested or failure to meet these standards would mean the lack of an approval. That may or not prevent the sale of the product, but, at least the customer would know that the product did not meet standards.
You may counter – “Why would we let an unsafe product be sold?”
Different levels of risk, etc. What is dangerous to YOU may not be dangerous to others. Or the benefits may outweigh the risks. Consider the ongoing debate about vaccines and their alleged link to autism. What about the use of criminalized drugs or unapproved medications? While there are risks, shouldn’t we let the patient and doctor make the INFORMED decision? At least in most cases? -
Neutral
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Post 5 of 5 to Beau)
Reply
You wrote: “This necessary balance is also why neither unfettered free-market capitalism nor communism is a viable economic model—they both neglect human nature.”
HALF-RIGHT and HALF-WRONG. Marxism/socialism/communism (MSC) can not work unless ALL members of the commune are competent, knowledgeable, dependable, responsible, and moral. Yet – it offers nothing to ensure that. MSC’s failure is that they changed the political structure without changing the human individual. Capitalism does not neglect human nature. It does not ignore it. It does not attempt to regulate it, but it does recognize the risks and lets those risks and long-term ramifications of immoral behavior convince people to behave morally.
This is the way of nature. The best incentives not to drink too much are: the cost, the harm to ourself when we fall over, and the hangover. Does that prevent people from getting drunk? No, but, the one who does pays for his own drinks, lives with his injuries, and hugs the porcelain throne and pays the price the next day.
Note that we can place restrictions on one’s behavior here. Obviously, common sense says no to DUI! But, that hardly takes us into the realm of MSC.
The reality of life and recorded history disputes your conclusions. Capitalism has indeed worked. Perfectly? No, but much better than any other system. It is not designed to, therefore, it is not capable of directly preventing one person from harming another, but, each of us can exercise the level of precaution and risk we choose.
But, then, why do you think a government regulated system is any better? Note you own example of the tainted milk from China! Combined with other issues (lead in painted toys, Chernobyl, etc) it is obvious that a MSC society is actually less capable of protecting its citizens than a capitalist society!
You then quoted Aristotle: "The virtue of justice consists in moderation, as regulated by wisdom."
Given the choice between Marx and Rand and Aristotle, I choose Aristotle. But, he is dead. And I know of no one, no government or system that is as wise as he. Note that he did not say “regulated by government”! He appears to agree with me!
So, given the choice between Marx and Rand, history says “Go with Rand”!!
P.S. - your mentioning of other coutries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, raises a point. They are very homogenous societies compared to the USA. Cultural and ethnic diversity brings both benefits and costs! Also, historians will tell you that in the mid-19th century, Japan was probably the most civilized society on Earth. Yet- it was probably one of the most restrictive and draconian societies.
You and I agree there needs to be a balance. We simple disagree on where the optimal balancing point lies. -
100%
reidgator1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(Post 2 of 5 to Beau)
Reply
NOTE - this is out of sequence. Firfst attempt to post evidently failed and I did not realize it until the others were posted.
Some say that socialism is a precursor stage to communism. Others say the opposite. Or, to frame the debate more clearly, do you need a classless society to achieve equal distribution of the wealth? Or, do you have to achieve equal distribution to eliminate the classes? Both arguments have merit.
Keep this in mind – Karl Marx was a “thinker” and a writer. However, he failed to support himself and his family (they lived in poverty). He was supported by his friend Friedrich Engels, whose family owned a textile company in London. Note the irony. Marx loathed the idea of private ownership and industrialists, but, was supported by one. He was chewing on the very hand that fed him and his children.
Again, you wrote: “The USSR, China, Cuba, etc. are NOT socialist--they're communist.”
A TRUE communist society has to be democratic or at least a republic. That was the agenda/goal of Marx, to put the decision-making power back into the hands of the masses, the proletariat.
Hence, the USSR & “Red China, can not really be communist! (Hence, I disagree with you!
You are correct that the USSR was a totalitarian society. Lenin & Stalin seemed to share Marx’s economic goals, but, they did not believe the goals could be achieved by letting the masses be the decision-maker, hence, the USS of Republics! The problem is they were not a democratic republic. The proletariat could not vote for their own representatives! Hence, the totalitarianism.
One of the lies of Marxism/communism/socialism is that oppression and exploitation are due to the existence of classes. “Get rid of the classes, you get rid of oppression and exploitation.” That is unadulterated BS. If you spend time in any particular socioeconomic segment of town, you will observe oppression and exploitation WITHIN that class. Example: one of the biggest problems within the black neighborhoods is “black-on-black” crime!
Bottom line –
#1: The Marxists/socialists/communists (MSC) can not get their own dogma defined and agree on what they mean and who is what. I have no desire to do it myself.
#2: The gulf between MSC and what we have here is much larger than the differences between M, S, & C.
Therefore, when debating the policies of our government, I do not distinguish between Marxism and communism and socialism. I admit they are not equal, but they are similar enough to treat them as the same.
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.