Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship

reply to post by Clearskies


Socialist Candidate for President on Barack Obama

CONTEXT

Okay...I watched the youtube of his speech and checked transcripts.
A few things became clear..

(1) Obama ad libbed. He wasn't looking at the tele-prompters when he said it and the campaign didn't have the remark in the prepared transcripts of the speech prior to it being given.

If it had been in the actual speech I am sure one of his advisors would have immediately pointed out how it could be taken out of context and spun by the fringe. Which of course it was. But I doubt even his strategists would have expected a congressman to spin the remark into a Hitler comparison Congressman Broun should win the Congressional Medal of Dufus Superiorous.

(2) In the actual full context of his remarks he is refering to expanding current Corps programs established under Roosevelt, Kennedy and Clinton etc.

It is clear by his remarks that he was referring to everything he just listed before the statement...

Context is important.

Actual Remarks....

We'll send more college graduates to teach and mentor our young people.
We'll call on Americans to join an Energy Corps to conduct renewable energy and environmental cleanup projects in their neighborhoods. We'll enlist veterans to help other vets find jobs and support, and to be there for our military families. And we'll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

***
Watch the youtube video of the speech here and start at the 15 minute mark and ask yourself what you think he was talking about.
www.youtube.com...

This just seems like a media attempt to paint those in the South opposed to big government and Obama as kooky conspiracy nuts for actually being concerned about something that they should be concerned about, that being that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MrWendal
Using your logic and ideology... if these "neo-conservative fascist" are capable of injecting and hiding within the Republican Party, what makes you think they do not exist, or are not capable of doing the same, within the Democratic Party on some level as well?

How can neo-conservative facists hide in the democratic party? They hate the democratic party and they even hate the traditional conservatives.

Your arguement is ABSURD!

Soviet spies hated the american way of life, and yet they managed with some skill, to infiltrate america with great proficiency, then corrupted americans in sensitive places and got them to betray their country.

If they could do that, why cant a neo-con?

Your assertation that his argument is absurd... is infact absurd

reply to post by Irish M1ck


That link's not working for me.
thanks.

reply to post by Clearskies


Maybe this one will?

Socialist Candidate Brian Moore on Barack Obama

*Edit: If it still doesn't work, here's some text he's said:

LA Times

The 65-year-old physical fitness fanatic’s biggest splash came last week on "The Colbert Report." Host Stephen Colbert greeted him as "Comrade Moore," and when the obscure candidate insisted Obama was not a socialist, Colbert retorted, "What do you mean, he wants to redistribute the wealth. That makes him a pinko, right?"

Moore . . ..

. . . . chuckled.

He explained in an interview with The Times that true socialism would require a more dramatic change, one that would not require big government but would put workers in charge of the nation’s wealth.

"Citizens can then share in the profits and redistribute the profits from a military economy into a social service and infrastructure economy," Moore said.

Now Public

"It's misleading for Republicans to say that," the local peace activist and perennial candidate said Wednesday from his Spring Hill home. "They know (Obama's) not a socialist."

Now, more than ever, Moore and his party are getting attention thanks to the $700-billion financial bailout and the rhetoric from the Republican presidential ticket. John McCain and Sarah Palin have repeatedly labeled Obama as a socialist in recent days.

"Now is not the time to experiment with socialism," Palin said at a rally Monday.

"I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth," McCain said in a television interview Sunday. "That's one of the tenets of socialism."

The Republicans are capitalizing on their Democratic rival's recent conversation with Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher, in which Obama told the Ohio man that "when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama was discussing his plan to raise taxes on those making more than $250,000.

Moore said McCain and Palin are abusing the "socialist" label. Likewise, he said Obama's programs wouldn't create a true wealth redistribution.

Funny, he's upset because people are classifying his party as capitalist. To think, some people are actually proud of their ideals.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Jenna


One simple reason.


Because our communities are falling apart. Younger and younger people are perpetrating more and more heinous crimes.


We need something which instills a sense of civic pride and which teaches civics. Remember, they don't teach civics in school.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by MrWendal
Using your logic and ideology... if these "neo-conservative fascist" are capable of injecting and hiding within the Republican Party, what makes you think they do not exist, or are not capable of doing the same, within the Democratic Party on some level as well?

How can neo-conservative facists hide in the democratic party? They hate the democratic party and they even hate the traditional conservatives.

Your arguement is ABSURD!

Do they now?? What you are describing is politics as usual. What I am talking about is an ideology that expands much farther than traditional politics. For people that hate each other as you describe...they sure look pretty happy to me.







timesonline.typepad.com...

Its one thing to find pics of them at work, but do people that "hate each other" spend time together outside of work? Maybe this next pic is just a case of relaxing in the clubhouse after a hard working day?


The only thing absurd is the small mindedness of others. I say again... step out of the left/right, Democrat/Republican BS cave and look at the big picture

reply to post by MrWendal


You telling me conservatives and democrats can't be friends? It's one thing to hate each other's politics, but it's another to let that get personal.

reply to post by Secret Master


What do soviet spies stealing our technology have to do with neo-conservatives infiltrating the democratic party?

Your mixing apples with oranges and making zero sense my friend. If we have any extremists in our party it would be communists but they are so powerless its hardly even worth mentioning it.

Try using common sense, its your best friend!

reply to post by Irish M1ck



umm no we were talking about the "neo conservative fascist that hate traditional conservatives and hate democrats even more" not my words.

My post was illustrating the fact that people who seem to HATE each other so much, they sure don't look like it to me. Do they look they hate each other to you?

Suggestion....stop and read the post instead of searching for ways to score a point in your arguments.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I love this!!! You want him to use common sense... yet common sense should tell us that if it has happened before...it can happen again. He is not comparing apples and oranges. Again you are hung up on labels of politics, and we are discussing an ideology. Ideology goes much farther than politics. It is what would cause a man to infiltrate a group that he "hates" and corrupt it from the inside to serve a great good. Want to see someone who should use common sense? Pick up a mirror.

Check!

Bush set the stage for Obama. There is no way Barak Obama would be elected without George Bush. People were looking for an anti-Bush, and they picked they guy who seemed the most different.

There is no real right/left paradigm; it is a fallacy.

Bush isn't a traditional republican; he and Obama share much in common. They both want to increase the size and scope of the federal government. They both serve corporate interests, not the interests of the people.

The Bush administration paved the way.... Now we have this guy who will allow the public to trust government again, so they can make it even bigger and more and more intrusive in our lives.

We are blind!

I hope and pray to God I am wrong and that Obama makes good on his promises and Americans have more freedom; but I think that is just a pipe dream

reply to post by MrWendal


I read the post. Neo-conservatives "hiding under a democrat guise" is a ridiculous theory. The two approaches to politics are so far on opposite ends that it would be impossible to hide a neo-conservative agenda under a liberal approach. People aren't that dumb.

However, just because somebody hates another's politics doesn't mean they can't be seen high-fiving. It's just politics, and I think even most politicians know that.

For instance, how could they disguise distribution of wealth to the elite as distribution of wealth to all?

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Arcnaver:

You disqualified your own remarks about American Politics by proclaiming you were not an American.

I'm sorry, did you have anything relevant to say? Well, I'm all ears, and awaiting for you to say something relevant. I really am eager for people to bring something to a debate; I should think you (and especially other members) would be better off if you brought your absence. Cheers!

These attacks upon Obama arise from his controversial thoughts on gun control, and just like a bunch of Iagos, those that do not want gun control are obsfucating, misrepresenting and misleading the statements Obama has made. I have already said it once, but it is worth stating again...Obama is not out to create a civilian army for enforcing law. He wants to create a civilian social infrastructure based on service to others. In other words, everybody helping each other out, and in this manner, bringing the nation back to a strength and cohesiveness based on community, all throughout the land. He does not want to train people to fight but to serve each other in various and diverse social fields. This plan of his, its noble aims, are being misrepresented by paranoid gun owners who are too scared to embrace a better and more community-based country, a country that finds that it has no need to a 'right to bear arms'.

However, the debate on this 'right' needs to shift perspective not concerning that the 'right' is in the Constitution (and while it is, then arms can be bourne), but to a perspective on the reasons for the continuance of the 'right' to not be repealed. Benign governance (if such a paradox could exist?) makes a mockery of the 'right'. However, the last eight years of Bush policies, has shown that perhaps the 'right' should continue in a more reformed manner (and I say this totally opposed to the 'right' itself, but in common cognition of how many Americans look upon the 'right' as a safeguard against governmental tyranny, which is why the 'right' is in the Constitution in the first place). The right to bear arms has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom or personal liberty in a general sense, but about meeting a threat (should it arise) to personal liberty and/or freedom. If you need a gun to feel free and safe, then your perspective on freedom and safety is a very narrow and limited understanding. True freedom, true liberty, is being able to live one's life without the need to hold a gun. Until you achieve that, you are not free, nor are you at liberty to be free, but merely live a pseudo-istic form of freedom and liberty. Perhaps, American society needs to mature a lot more before it is ready to give up the gun as both a pacifier and comfort blanket?

reply to post by elysiumfire


Some of what he saids is truth (I'm mixed) most the people (youth, as I am young) supported him cuz he's black or because he supports a few of their beliefs. In fact my class is finishing a project to see whether people voted because of race or on proof, by switching Mccain and Obama's promises.
Sadly so far people did vote on race and two things they believed in.

Now I'll finish reading the rest of the post.

Ya my first post.

reply to post by MrWendal


President Clinton never declared himself a socialist. He was a mild to moderate capitalist with some social democratic ideas. You see there is a big difference between being a mild capitalist to being a socialst to being a communist. Everything is relative to something else!

Off course Bush senior and Clinton have nothing to seperate because they were "middle of the road" candidates. Bush was center-right and Clinton was center-left. Bush junior, however, apparently is far righter than his father or he is just incompetant and easily swayed by the neo-con movement. Take your pick!

What exactly are you trying to prove?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

What do soviet spies stealing our technology have to do with neo-conservatives infiltrating the democratic party?

Your mixing apples with oranges and making zero sense my friend. If we have any extremists in our party it would be communists but they are so powerless its hardly even worth mentioning it.

Try using common sense, its your best friend!

Clearly my point is lost on you in it's entirety.

It is as MrW said, i am not mixing anything, and what the soviet spies took from the US has nothing to do with my point... it was however, a good attempt on your part for distraction, ok... not really.

My point is, that any group can be infiltrated by anyone, so long as the infiltrator has the will and dedication... that and a good poker face.

If i were to come here and spout off about how great Obama was, all the leftists would flock around me as one of their own... but what if i am lieing, what if i am just telling you that so you will let your guard down and take me as one of your own... you have just been infiltrated. it's just that easy, and anyone can do it regardless of their true politics.

a neo-con can infiltrate the democratic party as easily as i could infiltrate an AA meeting. all that is required of him, is that he has never been publiclly, either by deed, word, or film, affiliated with the right.

And sure, Rush limbaugh couldnt infiltrate the dems, and niether could joe the plumber... but what about dave the plumber, or steve the CPA, or tom the school teacher, or debbie the social worker. You dont know who anyone is untill they play their hand. and that makes infiltration easy

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I read the post. Neo-conservatives "hiding under a democrat guise" is a ridiculous theory. The two approaches to politics are so far on opposite ends that it would be impossible to hide a neo-conservative agenda under a liberal approach. People aren't that dumb.

However, just because somebody hates another's politics doesn't mean they can't be seen high-fiving. It's just politics, and I think even most politicians know that.

For instance, how could they disguise distribution of wealth to the elite as distribution of wealth to all?

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]

Well if Obama truly is nothing more than the left foot moving forward after 8 years of the right foot moving forward, we will have an answer to everything you asked and we will find out if my theory is really that far off base. How can they disguise the distribution of wealth?? Give it a year or two and you will see. Of course that is assuming that Obama hold's true to what he has said. Ask yourself, you are being told that they want to redistribute the wealth of the Elite, now is that what they will really do, or is that what you are being told to get you to support an idea that in reality be used to take the wealth away from the middle class?

Congress is currently debating what to do with people's 401ks. Is that the wealth of the Elite or the average citizen?