More Reason to Rally Against the Socialist Obama


PDA






Winchester 73
February 24, 2008, 02:57 AM
Frightening?

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=328029

Obama's America looks a lot like Canada
Diane Francis

This U.S. election represents a major inflection point for that country as well as for Canada and the world.

Obama will crush Hillary and then McCain in the fall, a new comprehensive poll shows.

Why? Because America is not working like it used to and has deteriorated in the past generation into more have-nots than haves. This is not news, but now the have-nots, and other disenchanted voters, are turning out in record numbers to vote.

This week's poll shows Obama with a 14-point edge over Clinton, 52% to 38%, after being in a statistical tie last month. In a head-to-head matchup, Obama beats McCain 47% to 40%.

Obama is uniting those left behind by the Republicans and other social Darwinists who have exclusively looked after -- to quote President George Bush -- the "haves" and "have mores." Enormous tax cuts go to rich people, while the rest are given a stern lecture by the Republicans about the benefits of hard work and the American dream, which, by the way, is mostly unobtainable if you were born a member of a minority or if you cannot stay healthy or are uneducated.

Republicans have created budget deficits with their tax cuts for plutocrats, CEOs, Wall Street hedge fund pirates, lawyer ambulance chasers, overpaid doctors and insurance companies. (Their combined profits last year were nearly what provinces spend on providing health care to 32 million Canadians).

Tax cuts to rich people are regressive and don't help people who don't make much money or pay little, if any, taxes. They are an instrument of class division.

The point is, if Bush policies worked for the majority, McCain would be ahead. Instead, there is a large, and growing, "third-world country" inside the United States that consists of unhealthy, damaged and disenfranchised people victimized by lousy education in poor neighbourhoods, little or no medical care or war injuries that are not compensated for properly. African-Americans have been damaged for centuries and there is no help for America's "downstairs" -- the millions of illegals, exploited as nannies, delivery "boys" or orange and avocado pickers -- who cater to America's wealthy "upstairs" elite.

Is it any wonder that African-Americans and Mexican-hispanics vote solidly Democrat and will opt for Obama in dizzying numbers? They represent two out of every 10 voters. Many of these have never bothered to vote, but Obama is getting virtually all of the 15% voting in primaries who are "first-time" voters.

Obama also connects with prosperous voters concerned about what I call the "Brazilling" of America -- the reduction of the middle class and the increase in poverty.

Here are Obama's initiatives, which are common policy in Canada and other developed nations:

-Americans will have the same health-care benefits as its politicians;

-Poor American children should enjoy the same quality of public education as well-off children; and

-The United States will pull out of Iraq and work on multi-lateral efforts to restore peace around the world. President Obama will expect Canada, Europe and others to pony up much more to help create global police forces.

dfrancis@nationalpost.com

If you enjoyed reading about "More Reason to Rally Against the Socialist Obama" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Slinky
February 24, 2008, 04:07 AM
While I can't really argue with any individual point, a certain Ronald Reagan quote comes to mind.

HK G3
February 24, 2008, 05:52 AM
-Poor American children should enjoy the same quality of public education as well-off children

I honestly do not see anything wrong with this assertion - everyone should be entitled to the same amount of opportunities starting from birth - what they choose to do with it, however, is up to the individual.

To say that rich children should somehow enjoy more educational privileges than their poorer counterparts, just, I don't know, strikes me as rather un-American.

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again - we can't just assume a McCain victory - we have to make it clear that if Obama starts to wage war against the RKBA that we will counter-strike and cost our elected officials their seats. Assuming that we will defeat a politician at the polls is far too risky - the myriad of issues facing the American voter today often leaves the 2A at the bottom of the pile in terms of importance, unfortunate as that may be.

Autolycus
February 24, 2008, 05:54 AM
I doubt that any counterstrike by gunowners will result in anything. RKBA is not a major issue for the majority of US citizens.

Lucky
February 24, 2008, 06:28 AM
Man and that's the right-wing national newspaper...:(

HKG3 when you say it like that it's fine. But the issue is HOW do you distribute the goods. You take it from one and give to another. That's a recipe for long-term problems.

IOW you are willing to sacrifice FREEDOMS for CASH. And guess what, once they've got your freedoms, they're going to stop giving you cash!

Standing Wolf
February 24, 2008, 06:45 AM
Because America is not working like it used to and has deteriorated in the past generation into more have-nots than haves. This is not news, but now the have-nots, and other disenchanted voters, are turning out in record numbers to vote.

When an "article" starts with a socialist lie, I stop reading. Life is too short to waste wading through muck.

doc2rn
February 24, 2008, 10:48 AM
I have watched the last 9 caucus states say Obama has gotten the majority of new voters with his incentive to decrease the cost of high education. Who can blame them I am paying $9,000 yr and they just added 5 extra classes needed to graduate so all BS programs are now 5yrs to the tune of $45,000 and that does not include the cost of living, raising kids, car payments, insurance, etc...

jkingrph
February 24, 2008, 04:07 PM
-Poor American children should enjoy the same quality of public education as well-off children; and

I should have been able to send the son to Harvard instead of U.Texas?????

SIGguns
February 24, 2008, 04:42 PM
The truth is that those voting are truly ignorant or really dumb. They vote on the basis of sound bites. Obama is where he is today because of his speaking ability. He's basically running on the same party platform of the past, it's just that he talks about "change" and "hope" because the ignorant will get tuned out otherwise.

velojym
February 24, 2008, 04:45 PM
Interesting. He never admits that the welfare state has anything to do with propagating all those problems he listed.
Not surprised, though. A successful parasite knows better than to kill its host.

Bill2e
February 24, 2008, 04:47 PM
WOW nothing fair and balance about that article...

bogie
February 24, 2008, 04:54 PM
Well, education is cheap, if it is just about education.

If it is about going to "school" to party for four years, and come out indoctrinated, then it's expensive.

doc2rn
February 24, 2008, 05:41 PM
bogie~Well, education is cheap, if it is just about education.

If it is about going to "school" to party for four years, and come out indoctrinated, then it's expensive.

I am going to a city college because that is all I can afford as a single dad. I would gladly go to a premier college if the cost was the same. "Party for four years", I wish! I am holding a 3.48 GPA, requested to join the Sagamore Society for scholars, and working to keep a roof overhead and food in our bellies. Indoctinated~ if you mean living in a Red state and seeing the future of RKBA get flushed by both parties, yup. :scrutiny:

campbell
February 25, 2008, 12:51 AM
I should have been able to send the son to Harvard instead of U.Texas?????

Harvard is not a public university.

He's also probably referring to the wide range of quality in public high schools and such.

campbell
February 25, 2008, 12:58 AM
Realistically, you all should start composing well though out letters and such to Democrats on RKBA issues, because like it or not, the Republicans are going to get crushed. They've totally mismanaged the country, and the election is going to give Democrats a bigger margin in Congress as well as the Presidency.

Start encouraging guys like Murtha, Gov. Brian Schweitzer in MT, Jim Webb, etc.

chris in va
February 25, 2008, 04:47 AM
Being in a near-recession, times are ripe for a socialist Democrat to take office.

"I'm out of a job and I'm voting Democrat because they promise employment for EVERYBODY!"

Etc.

Nematocyst
February 25, 2008, 05:18 AM
This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fZHou18Cdk) spoke volumes to me
about his marketing campaign.

Socialist? No.
(Just an idealistic democrat.)

Anti? Remains to be seen.

Hollywood? Yes. Big time.

sctman800
February 25, 2008, 11:05 AM
Anti? Remains to be seen.

Sorry, but he is probably more anti than Hillery. I am from Illinois so I know him and his record. He advocates a national handgun ban, ban all semi-autos and elininate concealed carry across the US. He is endorsed by Mayor Daley whose goal is to rid Illinois of all guns. While in Illinois state politics he voted for every restriction on gun owners possible. Since being a US senator he has voted mostly anti-gun. The exceptions have been votes that would obvously be landslide victories one way or the other. These are votes that count for nothing except so he can say he votes with the gun owner when the restrictions are "reasonable." And, if he wins he will think he can do no wrong. My opinion he is worse than Hillery, she is more of a politition who wouldn't touch this until her second term because she knows the power of gun owners. Jim.

Deanimator
February 25, 2008, 11:16 AM
Anti? Remains to be seen.
No. His anti-gun record is as clear and distinct as David Duke's record of racism and anti-Semitism.

I'd like to see him crush Hillary, just because she's arrogant and deserves it.

I'd NEVER vote for him, EVER.

oda226
February 25, 2008, 11:19 AM
"Obama is where he is today because of his speaking ability". So was Adolf Hitler...

LawBot5000
February 25, 2008, 11:20 AM
Obama's is going to remove about 100 billion a year in non-permanent spending (iraq war) and replace it with (so far) about 800 billion a year in new entitlements.

Printing money will not work to the advantage of America's poor.

I also don't think that more money is going to fix our educational system. Here in Florida, the amount we've spent on education has increased many times over due to increasing real estate taxes, but the Democrats in the legislature still talk like we've taken money away from them. The problem is that when we spend money on education, it just gets funneled into administrative costs and building new facilities, not actually teaching the children.

Anyway, Obama could really flush this country down the toilet if he even implements half his goals. At the very least, we would simultaneously be buried under a mountain of both debt and tax.

LawBot5000
February 25, 2008, 11:34 AM
Socialist? No.
(Just an idealistic democrat.)

Anti? Remains to be seen.

Hollywood? Yes. Big time.

He was a board member of the Joyce Foundation for years.
He has proposed legislation:
-banning all semiautos
-banning all FFLs from within 5 miles of a school or park (this covers about 99 percent of the united states, amounting to a total ban)
-banning handguns
-banning "assault weapons"

And on top of this, he "suppports the 2nd amendment" but thinks that the DC restrictions are entirely within the 2nd amendment, no questions asked.

As for being a socialist, nearly everything he says sounds straight out of the 1930s. I don't get how he could be any more socialist than he already is.

campbell
February 25, 2008, 12:01 PM
So was Adolf Hitler...

At least now the thread can't get any dumber.

highorder
February 25, 2008, 01:10 PM
I really dont see the "poor" comming out in record numbers to vote. Same goes for the volatile and unpredictable "youth" vote they say is going to sway every election, and doesn't.

pdowg881
February 25, 2008, 01:45 PM
Most people that tell me they are voting for Obama beacuse they "like what he says" are dumbfounded when I question them about his actually policies and opinions on issues. I think a lot of people really fall for him because of his charisma and speaking abilities. I'm also part of the college age crowd, and the perception that Obama is cool or whatever is also a large factor. Similar to the Drafur thing or the latest "cause" on campus.

Matt304
February 25, 2008, 02:37 PM
Obama makes me SICK.

I sent him two messages via email abount different issues, one was pertaining to the NICs system.

I received replies to both of those emails (surely typed by someone else) stating how he supports these new regulations and blah blah blah.

After the school shooting, I sent him another email asking how regulating concealed carry would have helped students in this situation. I also asked how he thought the situation would have been different had students actually been carrying.

I received no reply to any of those later issues.

That slimebag really upsets me.

highorder
February 25, 2008, 09:15 PM
Most people that tell me they are voting for Obama beacuse they "like what he says" are dumbfounded when I question them about his actually policies and opinions on issues.

same here. A woman I work with supports Obama because "he's for the environment"?

Just the same, she will probably forget to vote.

catfish101
February 25, 2008, 10:03 PM
This is a scary election this year. We are very to a national economic meltdown.

Coronach
February 25, 2008, 10:32 PM
OK, so how about we plan some activism? You know, what we're supposed to be doing here, as opposed to going ZOMG OBAMA SUXXORS!!!!!!11111one!!!!

If you have some activism in mind, feel free to open a new thread.

If you enjoyed reading about "More Reason to Rally Against the Socialist Obama" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!