Obama '08?

You are correct. Amend my last post to read. "a moderately intelligent and discerning person can't take that stuff seriously".

After all it is The Guardian !

Very good, slk!

Bush: 20/96 months = .083
What this shows is Bush's lack of attacking the real problems of 9/11 even though his rhetoric was to destroy bin Ladin, and instead set his sites on Iraq where al Qaeda wasn't even an issue until Bush's war in that country.

Obama: 4/9 months = .444 (that's equal to five times more than Bush)
At this rate, Obama's potential at getting the enemy is 42.666 for 96 months in office.

Meaningless statistic...and you know it.

The extreme stuff that I post, I did not make them up. People like the Reverend Wright, Black Liberation Theology, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, The New Party, and all of those guys that are Marxists, mentors of Obama, I did not make that stuff up, maporsche. These are more than mere acquaintances of Obama.

He has not yet had time, and I have posted on this forum more than once that I hope, I want to believe our system of government will prevent what Obama may want to do in total. I also think and believe that what Obama wants to do must be done incrementally, he cannot expect to accomplish everything he believes at once, he knows that, and I know that, but that does in no way negate what Obama probably believes and wants to do.


I agree, but that bill was passed with alot of hysteria prevailing, with Obama and the Democrats telling us that the financial world would collapse without action, and they told us that it was an emergency that had to be done that weekend without a full airing of the content of the bill. You and I both now know that hoopla was overblown. And face it, his spending spree has ballooned the deficits far past any deficit ever. For what purpose?

Thanks, I appreciate that, and I perceive you as a more fair minded Democrat leaning person than others here on this forum. That is why I said I think it is up to you and like minded people to really examine the facts about Obama and admit to yourself in all honesty what is going on with him. The Marxist associations of Obama are not a figment of my imagination, and as much as you may still want to believe Obama is some kind of a moderate, I am suggesting to you that there is alot of evidence out there to the contrary. You can choose to take the evidence seriously or not. You can choose to wait until Obama really has enough time to prove you wrong before you consider the idea that you may be wrong, or you could be very wise by considering that now. At any rate, thanks for listening. And I appreciate your civility.

One little tangent of this subject, Obama is really ratcheting up the noise about Fox News. I for one am very suspicious of his intent here. First of all, I do not believe it is a very smart political move, but I wonder if he is trying to set the stage for some alibi or move to shut the opposition down? The reason I am suspicious more than usual is that this is not normal presidential behavior to start with, and secondly shutting up the opposition is what Marxists do. So I intend on watching this situation very closely, although this is but one of numerous issues to watch out for with this guy.

An interesting note here to follow up my post. Speaking of extremism, check out the Communist Party USA website, maporsche, which headlines Michael Moore's movie demonizing capitalism. Seriously now, this whacko and communist Michael Moore was given honored seating status at the DNC a few years ago. Your party is really going left, way left, and people need to wake up to what is going on.

http://www.cpusa.org/

Your logic is flawed.

Shouldn't Michael Moore be getting honored seating status now?

The Democratic Party isn't moving toward Michael Moore; Michael Moore is moving away from the Dems.

Meaningless because it's true! Also true is the fact that Bush was responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives (Iraqis) in a war that cost our country over 4000 lives and billions of dollars that didn't cure what ailed Iraq - tribal wars that's been on-going for over a thousand years.

UM, if you count the unfunded liability of rebuilding the military and of lifetime support of those soldiers injured the cost is near $1 trillion.

The more important cost, that you don't mention, is the destruction of the Constitution, as well as America's role as the defender of freedom.....though the illegal act of torturing suspected terrorists.

From where you sit, there ain't too much on your right, and a hellava lot on your left. Must be scary for you. Even halfway to the middle must look like your nightmares come true.

If you believe in communism, I suppose that would be appropriate for you.

I don't think Moore is much different now than he was a few years ago.

I am not a libertarian, so I think you are wrong there. I have been around observing politics for 50 years plus, and I don't think the Democratic Party is anywhere near the same as it was 50 years ago, it is way to the left today. I don't think anyone that is as radical as Obama is would have gotten more than 10% of the vote 50 years ago. But a part of that equation is media support. The media would have never given it then. Fact is, Obama would probably be the subject of FBI investigations over his ties to dubious characters, and in fact probably would never have even qualified for a security clearance.

okie's myopia is very significant to his inability to see both sides of this subject; he hasn't seen the shift of the conservative party during the same period, and thinks only the left has become extreme. okie needs to have his eyes and brains examined.

Both sides of this subject is when you campaign for nuclear disarmament and you don't campaign for nuclear disarmament at the same time.

spendi, You miss the "point" as usual.

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain ci.

Contenting yourself with blurting out that I've missed the point might be a satisfactory explanation in your circles but this is Able To Know not a school playground.

I can't decide if you're being disingenuous, or if you're really not able to follow what I was saying.

Try reading it this way: If the Democratic party is really moving further left, then Michael Moore would not have lost his preferred seating. He would be moving UP the ladder, not DOWN the ladder.

And I believe that there is something called communism. It's not like communism is Santa Claus. I don't happen to agree with communism, though.

It's about time you learned that simple truth.

If Moore has lost any standing in the Democratic Party, it is because the party now views him as a liability because of him being viewed as the buffoon that he is, not because there is now more disagreement. In my opinion anyway. The same principle applies to all of the other extremist radical types, such as the Reverend Wright, Obama had to distance himself from him for political purposes, not because of real disagreements, same with people like Ayers, etc. Fact is, I think the distancing with Wright, Wright or Obama predicted that would have to happen for political purposes. Others like Van Jones have resigned when found out, and there could be more resignations.

This all ties into the fact that I think leftists cannot be totally open about their beliefs, they must instead cloak their radicalism into a more acceptable political model in order to get elected. Hugo Chavez is a good example in Venezuela, when first elected he was not viewed as nearly as radical as he is now becoming down there.

So you're saying that if the Democrats happen to do something that you would really agree with, it's just because they're lying about what they really believe, and therefore even more reason to disagree with what they're doing.