Butrflynet
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 10:43 pm
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obamas_priorities_for_first_10.html


Excerpt:

Barack Obama offered a vision today of his top priorities during the
first 100 days of an Obama administration that won't be much of a
surprise to anyone who has been following his presidential campaign.

Asked about the first 100 days of a hypothetical Obama administration at
a fundraiser in Denver, Obama said he would focus on interim progress
toward three key goals: troop withdrawals from Iraq, health care access
for all and action on energy and climate change, according to a pool
report of the fundraiser.

On Iraq, Obama said, the public should expect within 100 days of taking
office he would convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff to devise a plan for
withdrawing troops from Iraq.

He also set a goal of proposing legislation on his promise of affordable
health care coverage available for all quickly upon arriving in the
White House. "We need a bill...by March or April to get going before the
political season sets in," Obama said.

Obama also promised to take early action on energy and climate change.
"We will have to be immediately prepared to send a signal to the world"
on alternative energy, he said.

For good measure, he added that he would rapidly proceed with a review
of all executive orders imposed by the Bush Administration and consider
overturning them.

"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive
order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive
decisions that I feel violate the constitution," Obama said.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 10:53 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
So, what's the beef, that he knew that being a fallen hero does not require that you be dead? That he recognized the appropriateness of memorializing not only the dead but the sacrifices of the injured survivors?


Except -- historically -- Memorial Day is to commemorate America's dead soldiers, not the injured survivors.

I know The Rockstar is all about "change," but does that mean he gets to change the meaning of Memorial Day too?



No, it just means he acknowledged the Vets at the venue and people looking for gotchas had to make something up.


Nothing made up there. He misspoke. Again. And Foxy pointed it out. Again. And you rose to his defense. Again. Nothing made up, and nothing out of the ordinary, really.


Of course! We all know that the only soldier worthy of acknowledgement on Memorial Day is a dead soldier.

The fact that Barack Obama chose to recognize the vets in the crowd in the first few sentences of his speech is totally indefensible. My gosh! How unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops can the man get. I'll bet he wasn't even wearing a flag pin or holding his hand over his heart when he did it too. That's some nerve!


This isn't rocket science, Butterflynet.

Memorial Day is to honor dead American soldiers. Let me know if you disagree with that statement.

Your hero said:

The Rockstar wrote:
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes-I see many of them standing here today--our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.


"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors it's unbroken line of fallen heroes ..."

Memorial Day is the day the nation honors dead solders; ergo, "fallen heroes" = dead solders -- except in the Bizarro Butterflynet world where Obama can do no wrong.

"-- I see many of them standing here today."

So, he either has developed a Sixth Sense, or the man came off message and MISSPOKE. It's clearly a struggle for you to come to grips with this possibility.


Yes, it's a terrible thing it was. Him not wearing a flag pin, not covering his heart, all while acknowledging the living heros in the crowd during a Memorial Day speech. He really should be ashamed.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 10:54 pm
Quote:
May 28, 2008, 4:00 a.m.

Obama's Bad Prescription
Paving the way for a full government takeover.

By James C. Capretta


In describing the health-care plan of the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, reporters invariably parrot the campaign line that he would build on, not replace, today's dominant employment-based system of private insurance. This is reassuring to those millions of voters who see the need for reform but are generally satisfied with the coverage they get today. Unfortunately, the Obama spin is nothing more than that. In truth, the Obama plan would sow the seeds of destruction for private health insurance, whether provided by employers or offered on the open market.

Fortunately, voters will not have to rely exclusively on information from a swooning press corps and the Obama propagandists for the duration of the coming campaign. There are, and will be, more rigorous assessments by outsiders of what the Obama plan would really mean, financially and otherwise. Indeed, a partial assessment of an Obama-like plan is already available ?- financed by an Obama ally, no less. Tellingly, even it points to the inescapable bottom line: Obama's plan would put the country on an irreversible fast-track to government-run health care for everyone.

The Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based philanthropy, has a well-deserved reputation as a very deep pocket for left-leaning health-policy initiatives and research. Chances are, if a new study supports an expanded government role in health care, Commonwealth Fund money made it happen.

Recently, three Commonwealth executives ?- Cathy Schoen, Karen Davis, and Sara R. Collins ?- published a proposal to rework health-insurance arrangements in the United States. The plan is of special interest because it is indistinguishable from the Obama plan in its basic design.

First, the Commonwealth executives, like Obama, would impose so-called "play or pay" on America's employers. All U.S. businesses would either have to organize coverage for their workers and finance a portion of the premium, or pay a tax ?- seven percent of their payroll ?- to the federal government to offset the costs of enrolling workers in government-organized insurance.

Second, they, like Obama, would have the federal government establish a new national "insurance exchange" for small-business workers and individuals who don't get coverage through a job. The government would impose heavy regulations on participating insurers, including mandatory benefits and limits on the range of premiums they could charge to different enrollees.

Third, and most importantly, both the Commonwealth executives and Obama want to initiate, as an additional option in the insurance exchange, a new publicly run insurance plan, modeled on Medicare. With this option, the federal government would act as the insurer, collecting premiums from enrollees to cover the cost of paying health-care claims on their behalf.

This public-insurance option is the crucial pivot upon which these plans, and others like them, tilt toward a government takeover. The Commonwealth executives make it clear that the new publicly run insurance would import Medicare's arcane and elaborate rules for paying hospitals, physicians, and other providers. These payment rates are not negotiated with the suppliers of services; they are imposed by the federal bureaucracy on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. There is no efficiency gain or improvement in the quality of care. Rather, the government simply fixes payments at below-market rates. In time, such actions always lead to constrained supply and frustrated demand.

Private insurers, of course, also try to control costs, using whatever levers are at their disposal. They can't dictate fees for doctors and hospitals, but they can try to steer enrollees to a limited number of preferred providers, to whom they promise volume in exchange for lower prices. Many also try to manage care for the most expensive, chronically ill cases, sometimes to the great frustration of patients and doctors. And they usually require patients to pay at least some of every bill to provide a financial incentive for thinking twice before using services.

But even the most aggressive, cost-cutting insurers are no match for a government determined to use its sovereign power to set prices and shift costs to others. An analysis accompanying the Commonwealth executives' plan, produced by consultants at The Lewin Group, estimates that the public-insurance option could charge premiums 30 percent below what an average employer plan cost in 2007. Such a premium differential would have dramatic implications in the marketplace. Lewin estimates that, of the 60 million small-business workers and others getting their insurance through the national "insurance exchange," 40 million would choose to enroll in the new public insurance option because of its lower cost. This would effectively double the size of the population covered under Medicare payment rules. The Commonwealth executives also propose expanded enrollment in Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), adding another 12 million Americans to public programs.

Once in place, the momentum toward the new public-insurance option would be impossible to reverse. Large employers might, for a time, continue playing rather than paying as a service to their workers. But with each passing year, the premium differential between private plans and the public option would grow and induce additional migration from private to public insurance, which, in turn, would increase the government's ability to impose lower prices, further widening the premium gap. It would be just a matter of time before all employers abandoned the effort to compete with a monolithic government-run plan.

If the only consequence of such a shift in power were lower premiums, many analysts and ordinary voters would cheer on the change. But, of course, government control brings government bureaucracy, inefficiency, and heavy handedness. The tragedy is that price controls are only effective if they control and limit the supply of services. In time, that means waiting lists and other barriers to accessing care, along with skyrocketing costs to the taxpayer. That's the true bottom line of the Obama plan.

?- James C. Capretta is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a health-policy and research consultant.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 11:14 pm
Quote:
May 28, 2008, 6:00 a.m.

Lobbying for Obama
Media misses.

By Mark Hemingway


Incredulous, easy-to-debunk claims of presidential candidates are often subjected to fierce media scrutiny. In the case of Obama, however, the media has been suspiciously negligent.

Supremely confident of his intractable media support, a carefree Obama conceals his contradictions and weak positions with blanket statements, effectively misrepresenting the truth, distorting his record to make it more favorable, or sweeping criticisms under the rug. And a starry-eyed media smiles and nods.

Nowhere is this more obvious than Obama's stance on the all-purpose Washington villains known as lobbyists. "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists ?- and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president," Obama said at a speech in Iowa last November.

Of course, Obama left out a number of caveats. According to his campaign's de facto standards, taking money from state and municipal lobbyists is acceptable, employing "former" lobbyists on the campaign is okay, as is having lobbyists as unpaid advisers, and taking money from lobbyists wives is acceptable. The Center for Responsive Politics has reported that Obama has taken $85,000 directly from state and municipal lobbyists or the family members of federal lobbyists.

Notable exceptions aside, Obama's real prestidigitation is still more impressive. When Obama says he hasn't taken money from lobbyists, what he means to say is that he hasn't taken money directly from the bank accounts of registered lobbyists. He's taken lots and lots of money from lobbyists who are out actively raising money from others on his behalf. The practice of using well-connected individuals to raise money from groups of people is known as "bundling." The fact that he has plenty of lobbyists working as bundlers for his campaign wouldn't seem to make him any less beholden than if he'd taken their personal checks. If anything, it's actually less transparent.

New Federal Election Commission regulations would guard against this kind of equivocation in campaigns by requiring that candidates explicitly disclose when they employ lobbyists as bundlers. However, the new regulations have been stalled because the FEC requires that four people serve on the commission for the commission to take any action (including the enactment of the new regulations).Currently, only two people serve, and the Democratic congress refuses to approve any of the Bush administration's appointees (or at least, that's the conventional wisdom. One might also note that Obama personally placed a hold on Hans von Spakovsky, the most recent nominee for a position on the FEC. (Von Spakovsky has since withdrawn his name.))

Could a functioning FEC force a number of formal disclosures for the Obama campaign? So far we don't know, and aren't likely to know before Election Day given how long the FEC has been held up.



All in all, Obama has some 14 registered Federal lobbyists bundling money for his campaign. But whether they're "lobbyists," however selectively Obama wishes to define it, is almost beside the point. Let's just look more broadly at some of the people we know who are working as bundlers for Obama's campaign:

Peter Bynoe has pledged to raise between $100,000 and $200,000 for the senator. Bynoe was an Illinois state lobbyist who is on the federal government's list of people who helped raise money for Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich through Chicago political rainmaker Tony Rezko. When he wasn't helping Obama with his shady housing purchase, Rezko was busy arranging for kickbacks for Blagojevich's wife and other senior officials in Blagojevich's administration, which has also been the target of a number of unrelated Federal corruption investigations.

Mike Bauer has pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000 for Obama. Another Illinois state lobbyist, Bauer was suspended from practicing law for improperly taking $300,000 from a family trust fund. According to the Chicago Tribune, "During the same time he was taking money from the trust fund, his donations to national and local candidates totaled $300,000." But Obama didn't take issue with Bauer's unethical conduct or distance him from the campaign. "Mike has been a leader in the community and a good supporter of our campaign and many others. He is working through this difficult, private challenge with his family, and we wish them well," Obama spokesman Bill Burton told the Tribune.

Other notable bundlers include former registered lobbyist and defense attorney Howard Gutman, who in 2001 represented Susan Rosenberg a member of Bill Ayers's domestic terror group the Weather Underground, someone who was "Lobbyist of the Year" in 2006. And there are a few more influential bundlers that seem problematic, despite the fact that they haven't been afflicted with the lobbyist pox:

Greg Craig has pledged to raise between $100,000 and $200,000 for Barack Obama, and is a foreign policy adviser to the campaign. He's a partner in a Washington law firm and is currently defending Pedro Miguel González, a Noriega supporter and the president of Panama's legislature. González is a fugitive under federal indictment for the murder of U.S. Army Sgt. Zak Hernández Laporte shortly before President George H.W. Bush's visit to Panama in 1992. Craig was also the personal attorney of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan during the Oil-For-Food corruption scandal, and has also represented would-be presidential assassin John Hinckley.

Jodi Evans of the radical anti-war group CODEPINK has pledged to raise $50,000 to $100,000 for Obama. Even by the standards of the radical left, CODEPINK is known as being especially shrill and annoying. The feminist group is known for actively trying to drive military recruiters out of Berkeley, California, and regularly disrupting congressional hearings on the war. Evans is particularly objectionable - she claims that women in Iraq were better off under Saddam and calls the invasion of Iraq "global testosterone poisoning."

Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias has pledged to raise $100,000 for Obama. An early Obama supporter, Giannoulias has hosted fundraisers for Obama and given $7,000 to Obama's senate campaign since 2003. As a senior loan officer at his family's Broadway bank in Chicago, it came to light that Giannoulias had loaned millions to Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution ring promoter. Giannoulias said the loans were approved before he became a full-time bank employee - then the Chicago Tribune reported that Giannoulias personally oversaw $11.8 million in mortgage loans to Giorango in 2005. In his defense, Giannoulias said Broadway Bank "Never Financed Any Casinos. We Never Did Anything Like That." You can guess where this is headed: "But newly obtained records show that $3.6 million of the recent loans were used by Giorango and another convicted felon to acquire a casino boat marina in Myrtle Beach, S.C.," reported the Tribune.

The above sampling of problematic Obama fundraisers alone provides an ample array of stories with which the media could run. Instead, a tendentiously pro-Obama media has focused its attention on a McCain adviser, Charlie Black, who recently left the McCain campaign because of voluntarily imposed standards about having lobbyists on paid positions on the campaign, the New York Times reported it this way:

…some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign, and if the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in Mr. McCain's inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is a reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

Ostensibly, the Times approach is justified by the "prominent" role of lobbyists in McCain's campaign, or so they say. Nonetheless is it too much to ask that the candidate of "change," the "reformer taking on special interests in Washington" be held to the same standard?

?- Mark Hemingway is an NRO staff reporter.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 11:26 pm
Quote:
Electoral College:While national polls garner attention, they have no direct bearing on choosing our next President. A state-by-state count of electoral votes is the key to analyzing the presidential race.

For the first time this year, we run through all 50 states plus the District of Columbia in order to handicap the presidential race. Outlook: If the election were held today, we see a McCain victory by the narrowest of margins.

The electoral map looks nearly identical to 2004, with Iowa and Colorado swinging into the Democratic camp. Beneath the surface, however, we see Michigan and Pennsylvania becoming more competitive for Republicans.

The election will hinge on two regions: Lake Erie and the Mountain West. An Obama win in New Mexico or Nevada would be enough to tip the scales, but a McCain win in Pennsylvania could put the race out of reach. In the end, as always, it comes down to Ohio, where Obama's weakness among rural whites could send McCain to the White House. McCain 270, Obama 268.


http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/3117/enprelectoralcollege200uz1.gif
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 11:33 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
So, what's the beef, that he knew that being a fallen hero does not require that you be dead? That he recognized the appropriateness of memorializing not only the dead but the sacrifices of the injured survivors?


Except -- historically -- Memorial Day is to commemorate America's dead soldiers, not the injured survivors.

I know The Rockstar is all about "change," but does that mean he gets to change the meaning of Memorial Day too?



No, it just means he acknowledged the Vets at the venue and people looking for gotchas had to make something up.


Nothing made up there. He misspoke. Again. And Foxy pointed it out. Again. And you rose to his defense. Again. Nothing made up, and nothing out of the ordinary, really.


Of course! We all know that the only soldier worthy of acknowledgement on Memorial Day is a dead soldier.

The fact that Barack Obama chose to recognize the vets in the crowd in the first few sentences of his speech is totally indefensible. My gosh! How unpatriotic and unsupportive of our troops can the man get. I'll bet he wasn't even wearing a flag pin or holding his hand over his heart when he did it too. That's some nerve!


This isn't rocket science, Butterflynet.

Memorial Day is to honor dead American soldiers. Let me know if you disagree with that statement.

Your hero said:

The Rockstar wrote:
On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes-I see many of them standing here today--our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.


"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors it's unbroken line of fallen heroes ..."

Memorial Day is the day the nation honors dead solders; ergo, "fallen heroes" = dead solders -- except in the Bizarro Butterflynet world where Obama can do no wrong.

"-- I see many of them standing here today."

So, he either has developed a Sixth Sense, or the man came off message and MISSPOKE. It's clearly a struggle for you to come to grips with this possibility.


Yes, it's a terrible thing it was. Him not wearing a flag pin, not covering his heart, all while acknowledging the living heros in the crowd during a Memorial Day speech. He really should be ashamed.


You can't admit he does anything wrong, can you? You haven't progressed that far in your relationship? Still in the honeymoon stage? Madly in love?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Wed 28 May, 2008 11:49 pm
He hasn't done anything wrong. Except what lowlifes try to invent out of thin air and bull$hit.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 12:02 am
There they go again, Ticomaya.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 09:22 am
Nah, there you low-lifes go again.

Not wearing a pin on his chest? Not using the words you would like in a memorial day speech? Oh Noez! Major gaffes by Obama!

It's a little pathetic that this thin gruel is the best that you guys have.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 09:27 am
I have to admit I learned something from Obama. Apparently 10,000 people were killed by tornadoes in the midwest in the last two weeks. Who knew? Not even the MSM!
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 10:21 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Yes, it's a terrible thing it was. Him not wearing a flag pin, not covering his heart, all while acknowledging the living heros in the crowd during a Memorial Day speech. He really should be ashamed.


You can't admit he does anything wrong, can you? You haven't progressed that far in your relationship? Still in the honeymoon stage? Madly in love?

Yes, Memorial Day is for remembering our dead. And Yes, it seems to have become another Veterans' Day. My son asked me why I didn't put my name on a list at church for veterans to be acknowledged last weekend at a church service. I answered that I wasn't dead. Still, it's the thought that counts.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 11:46 am
engineer wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Yes, it's a terrible thing it was. Him not wearing a flag pin, not covering his heart, all while acknowledging the living heros in the crowd during a Memorial Day speech. He really should be ashamed.


You can't admit he does anything wrong, can you? You haven't progressed that far in your relationship? Still in the honeymoon stage? Madly in love?

Yes, Memorial Day is for remembering our dead. And Yes, it seems to have become another Veterans' Day. My son asked me why I didn't put my name on a list at church for veterans to be acknowledged last weekend at a church service. I answered that I wasn't dead. Still, it's the thought that counts.


A little disconcerting though that a candidate for President of the United States doesn't seem to know the difference between the two.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 01:06 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
engineer wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Yes, it's a terrible thing it was. Him not wearing a flag pin, not covering his heart, all while acknowledging the living heros in the crowd during a Memorial Day speech. He really should be ashamed.


You can't admit he does anything wrong, can you? You haven't progressed that far in your relationship? Still in the honeymoon stage? Madly in love?

Yes, Memorial Day is for remembering our dead. And Yes, it seems to have become another Veterans' Day. My son asked me why I didn't put my name on a list at church for veterans to be acknowledged last weekend at a church service. I answered that I wasn't dead. Still, it's the thought that counts.


A little disconcerting though that a candidate for President of the United States doesn't seem to know the difference between the two.



What is disconcerting is that someone would actually claim that Obama doesn't know the difference between Memorial Day and Veteran's Day.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 01:20 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
engineer wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
Yes, it's a terrible thing it was. Him not wearing a flag pin, not covering his heart, all while acknowledging the living heros in the crowd during a Memorial Day speech. He really should be ashamed.


You can't admit he does anything wrong, can you? You haven't progressed that far in your relationship? Still in the honeymoon stage? Madly in love?

Yes, Memorial Day is for remembering our dead. And Yes, it seems to have become another Veterans' Day. My son asked me why I didn't put my name on a list at church for veterans to be acknowledged last weekend at a church service. I answered that I wasn't dead. Still, it's the thought that counts.


A little disconcerting though that a candidate for President of the United States doesn't seem to know the difference between the two.



What is disconcerting is that someone would actually claim that Obama doesn't know the difference between Memorial Day and Veteran's Day.


I'll bet he does now.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 01:22 pm
okie wrote:
Obama dogged by endorsements from the wrong people:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/28/obama-dogged-by-praise-from-americas-foes/

"In a presidential race in which unwanted, damaging endorsements seem far more plentiful than endorsements that actually could help, Barack Obama has had the unfortunate distinction of being a magnet for such well-wishers.

The latest unsought praise for the Democratic front-runner came from Fidel Castro, who wrote in a column for Cuba's Granma newspaper Monday that Obama is "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency.""


He is the most progressive candidate, so WTF? That is a good thing. Of course, you probably want to vote for the most regressive candidate?
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 01:33 pm
Except that "progressive" is a well known misnomer for "communist".

I'm still waiting for you to change your mind and wanting to get your dick sewn back on.
0 Replies
 
eoe
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 01:55 pm
you are so absolutely ridiculous. But I'm sure you thrive on that.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 01:59 pm
Me?

My previous post was as far from ridiculous as any I've ever made.

"Progressive" is a codeword for "communist", it always has been. And Roxx is no female.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 02:11 pm
cjhsa wrote:
"Progressive" is a codeword for "communist", it always has been.


round here the progressives are the provincial conservatives

http://www.ontariopc.com/

http://www.albertapc.ab.ca/

http://www.pcnb.ca/

http://www.pcparty.nf.net/

and federally,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Conservative_Party_of_Canada

Quote:
The party was formed in 1867 and became Canada's first governing party under Sir John A. Macdonald, and for years was either the governing party or the largest opposition party. In 2003, the party membership voted to dissolve the party and join the new Conservative Party of Canada being formed with the members of the Canadian Alliance.

After 2003, several members of the Senate of Canada who opposed the merger continued to sit as members of a "Progressive Conservative" caucus,
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Thu 29 May, 2008 02:19 pm
cjhsa wrote:
Except that "progressive" is a well known misnomer for "communist".

Teddy Roosevelt was a communist? That will be interesting news for the Republican party. But by your logic he must have been, since he was a progressive.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 885
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 03/17/2026 at 05:05:26