Viva la Obamamania Revolution - Marxists/Socialists/Communists for Obama?

Canada Free Press ^ | July 2, 2008 | JB Williams

[PlainOleAmerican]

Obama’s useful idiot minions on college campuses across America may have no clue what types of change Obama has in store for America. But every Marxist, Socialist and Communist around the globe, knows all too well…

“We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!”

(snip)

I took this quote from a group on Obama’s official campaign web site, calling themselves, Marxists, Socialists and Communists for Obama”

(snip)

How can so many Americans be so easily duped into rallying behind the most unqualified man to ever seek the Oval Office, who also clearly represents the will of Marxists, Communists and Socialists everywhere?

(snip)

It’s much easier than you think…

[PlainOleAmerican]

How can a single American vote for Obama? Is the average American really this ignorant? Or are they now that socialist?

[Eurale]

The government educator’s (brainwashers) chickens are coming home to roost.

[rlmorel]

[PastorTony]

Ignorant more than socialist. When you sit down with the average American and go at them issue by issue they are conservative & libertarian. Most people believe government is the problem and not the solution. However, they are conditioned to vote one way or another, and since in large part they only have a choice between Republican socialism and Democratic socialism they are voting for the candiate that was marketed better than the other.

If you took Obama and McCain’s positions issue by issue with people you would find that most disagree with them across the board. They don’t want a big government solution to energy, health care, education, etc. People realize government is the problem. Sadly though, the party that is supposedly the champion for limited government abandoned that principle decades ago.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"How can so many Americans be so easily duped into rallying behind the most unqualified man to ever seek the Oval Office,"

Last time we ended up with a Jew hating, terrorist loving, peanut farmer!

[PlainOleAmerican]

I think more socialist, which shows great ignorance!

The nation has been programmed to vote themselves gifts from the treasury. While I’d love to think a true conservative candidate could win today, I see NO evidence of that anywhere.

I have come to believe that McCain (or someone like him) is the only type of Republican who could even attempt to win a national election today.

Republicans have been forced to pander gifts from the treasury in order to remain in any power at all. The nation has moved left and the politicians who have not moved with it find themselves out of work.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Obama makes Carter look good!

[PastorTony]

I am just the oppostie because I see evidence everytime when I engage people in discussions of the issues. Even my lifetime union father-in-law doesn’t fundamentally believe in big government, though he is conditioned to vote for the Democrat because that’s what a good union guy does. Even the welfare mom with 2 kids that works at the convenience store down the road from me knows that the government system is desgined to trap her and she’d be in better shape without it all.

However, if McCain is the only type of Republican that can win, then Republicans are no different than the Dems, and I have been saying that for a while now. It really doesn’t make a difference which one of them wins.

I truly believe that if given the platform, a conservative candidate would win this election by a landslide. But I’m not talking about “conservative” as in spending less than the Dems, I am talking limited government conservatives/libertarians that have been all but forced out of the GOP.

Put the limited government views of Barr, Baldwin, Paul, etc up against the big government views of Obama, McCain, Bush, Clinton, etc and the limited government views will win everytime because they speak to the heart of the American people.

[SERKIT]

...Marxists, Socialists and Communists for Obama.”

Same as Progressives, not a bit of difference. For Progressives, "progress" means movement toward Socialism.

[Don Corleone]

How can so many Americans be so easily duped into rallying behind the most unqualified man to ever seek the Oval Office, who also clearly represents the will of Marxists, Communists and Socialists everywhere?

Thank the MSM the Democrat Party and the NEA now thoroughly infested with Communist/Socialist symps.

[PlainOleAmerican]

“I am talking limited government conservatives/libertarians”

You mean like Ron Paul, who can't muster even 3% support nationwide, almost none of it “conservative” support?

“that have been all but forced out of the GOP.”

Libertarians invited themselves to the party - please don't lump conservatives together with libertarians. They are FAR from the same things...

[PlainOleAmerican]

Precisely!

[PastorTony]

Libertarians invited themselves to the party - please don't lump conservatives together with libertarians. They are FAR from the same things

Ronald Reagan said, "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

That quote is from an interview in 1975. It would do well for you to read the things Reagan said back then, because they are far from what the GOP stands for today. Here is a link : http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html

[PastorTony]

Libertarians invited themselves to the party

From the same interview: "I’d like to see the Libertarian Party–I don’t say they should quit being a party–I’d like to see them, I’d like to see the conservatives, I’d like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I’m talking–I’d like to see them all come in"

So you are incorrect. It appears Reagan invited them to the party. Perhaps you need to brush up on the history of the GOP and the conservative movment as a whole.

[PlainOleAmerican]

I've not only read Reagan, I was honored to know Reagan, personally. People often cherry pick quotes to suit their argument, ignoring other quotes and the body of works that dispute their argument. Such is the case here...

Yes, limited government is a concept shared by both conservatives and libertarians. However, conservatives and libertarians part company in two vital areas...

1) Conservatives are not isolationists and most libertarians are. Ron Paul's first mistake with conservatives.

2) Libertarians side with liberals on social issues, and like liberals, they make no connection between the high public cost of social ills and the liberal social policies that cause them.

Conservatives by definition, seek to “conserve.” The question is, what?

If the answer isn't ALL foundational American principles and values, then it isn't “conservative.”

This would include the fact that only a MORAL nation is at all suited for self-governance.

[PlainOleAmerican]

for the record, using cherry picked quotes to make your case is a liberal practice...

Having said that, America welcomes all comers... That was not a problem until we stopped expecting those comers to adopt and adhere to American principles and values. The same is true of Reagan’s BIG TENT invitation.

Reagan saw that there was some common ground between conservatives and libertarians, but did he become a libertarian, or was he asking libertarians to follow his Republican leadership?

Keep in mind that Reagan himself had been a Democrat most of his life. So, is Reagan the rightful standard bearer of conservatism? Many today think Reagan was the most conservative president ever. Yet he was slow to defend life, was the only president in U.S. history to ever pass real Amnesty for Illegals, and set new records in deficit federal spending... This is your standard bearer of conservative principles and values?

I loved Reagan, the real Reagan, the man. But the most conservative president, he was not. Only because the nation has moved so far left, does Reagan look conservative today. But as compared to true rank and file conservatives of old, not even close.

And when he noted the common ground between conservatives and libertarians, and saw a need to use a “BIG TENT” method of growing Republican Party power, did he invite them to join Republcian values or to bring their own and redefine the party?

[PastorTony]

1) Conservatives are not isolationists and most libertarians are. Ron Paul's first mistake with conservatives.

An isolationist is one who is a non-interventionist in regards to foreign policy and a protectionist in regards to economic policy. Paul, and most libertarians/paleocons are not protectionists and therefore cannot be an isolationists.

2) Libertarians side with liberals on social issues, and like liberals, they make no connection between the high public cost of social ills and the liberal social policies that cause them.

Libertarians side with social liberals on some issues and with social conservatives on some issues. It all depends which side is trying to use big government to get their way.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Paul is indeed an isolationist, a non-interventionist on foreign policy and a isolationist on foreign trade, opposed to all forms of foreign entanglements...

Get your facts straight please...

[PastorTony]

Paul is indeed an isolationist, a non-interventionist on foreign policy and a isolationist on foreign trade, opposed to all forms of foreign entanglements...Get your facts straight please...

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12

Of course if you read these writings you would have to admit you are wrong, and I have a feeling you won't do either.

[PlainOleAmerican]

No, if you read the reality instead of the campaign rhetoric, you will have to admit that you are wrong...

Obama says he’s lots of things, but his track record says he is something quite different.

The same is true of Ron Paul.

[PastorTony]

33 essays & speeches spanning 10 years are not “campaign rhetoric”. Did you even visit the link? Did you bother to read any of the articles?