Obama best hire

Obama best hire

There are 55 comments on the Hampton Roads Daily Press story from Sep 19, 2008, titled Obama best hire. In it, Hampton Roads Daily Press reports that:

Sen. Barack Obama was editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review. Many may not know the requirements for that position.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hampton Roads Daily Press.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
josiah p

Hampton, VA

#1 Sep 20, 2008
book sense versus common sense

“Howdy!”

Since: Aug 08

Portland, Oregon

#2 Sep 20, 2008
Great information in this letter! It's nice to know people are encouraging others to do their homework!
Downtown Hpt

Atlanta, GA

#4 Sep 22, 2008
Wow, now there's a real reason to vote for someone. hahahahahhahahaa
Zippy

Warrenton, VA

#5 Sep 22, 2008
Better than the bleeding-heart McCain any day.

Let's look at the facts:
McCain - born into privilege as the son and grandson of admirals. Self-described hellion @ school, and graduated near the bottom of his class @ Annapolis. Endured horrific injuries as a POW (no one can slight that), but has been a political opportunist. Nearly got sent packing in the "Keating 5" S&L scandal. Got whacked by Bush & Rove and their loathesome smear tactics in 2000, yet has adopted the same tactics for 2008. Has repeatedly proven himself impulsive and reckelss (see selection of Palin), while at the same time wishy-washy and out of touch (see support for Bush tax cuts now vs. against them 6 years ago, "fundamentals of economy are strong" even as Wall Street went to its knees, Shia-Sunni mixups, the "Iraq-Pakistan border," etc.).

Obama - Came from tough, multiracial background. Attended top colleges on scholarships with high level of academic success. Decided to work as a community organizer instead of at some high-priced law office. Honed political skills in the Chicago system; his opponents were disqualified because Obama, like any candidate can do at any time, requested that signatures be verified - a legal maneuver). Sufficient were discredited to disqualify the other candidates. He has had his share of verbal hiccups, too ("57 states," "cling to guns and religion," and the like).

The "voting present" is a typical legislative maneuver in Illinois. Many GOP parrots squawk about the "130 times" he did so, out of the many 1000s of votes he DID take a stand on while in the legislature. How many votes has McCain missed in the House, or the Senate? How many votes did he abstain from?

So...who is the better candidate? The evidence points to Obama, who has proven himself a studious person. Is he a political neophyte? In many ways, yes he is. However, the U.S. Constitution's only requirements for President are "at least 35 years of age, be native-born, and have lived in the US for at elast 14 years" - all of which he satisfies. Would HRC have been a better candidate? Perhaps...but...Obama mastered the rules of the primaries & caucuses, and beat her at her own game.

Is race an issue? Seems so, which is sad, given that it's 2008. If we are to truly live out King's statement to judge people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," then we ALL need to set that one aside. Race has nothing to do with qualifications or worthiness for ANY political office - the same way that gender should have no bearing.

Since: Jul 08

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#6 Sep 22, 2008
Zippy wrote:
Better than the bleeding-heart McCain any day.
Let's look at the facts:
McCain - born into privilege as the son and grandson of admirals. Self-described hellion @ school, and graduated near the bottom of his class @ Annapolis. Endured horrific injuries as a POW (no one can slight that), but has been a political opportunist. Nearly got sent packing in the "Keating 5" S&L scandal. Got whacked by Bush & Rove and their loathesome smear tactics in 2000, yet has adopted the same tactics for 2008. Has repeatedly proven himself impulsive and reckelss (see selection of Palin), while at the same time wishy-washy and out of touch (see support for Bush tax cuts now vs. against them 6 years ago, "fundamentals of economy are strong" even as Wall Street went to its knees, Shia-Sunni mixups, the "Iraq-Pakistan border," etc.).
Obama - Came from tough, multiracial background. Attended top colleges on scholarships with high level of academic success. Decided to work as a community organizer instead of at some high-priced law office. Honed political skills in the Chicago system; his opponents were disqualified because Obama, like any candidate can do at any time, requested that signatures be verified - a legal maneuver). Sufficient were discredited to disqualify the other candidates. He has had his share of verbal hiccups, too ("57 states," "cling to guns and religion," and the like).
The "voting present" is a typical legislative maneuver in Illinois. Many GOP parrots squawk about the "130 times" he did so, out of the many 1000s of votes he DID take a stand on while in the legislature. How many votes has McCain missed in the House, or the Senate? How many votes did he abstain from?
So...who is the better candidate? The evidence points to Obama, who has proven himself a studious person. Is he a political neophyte? In many ways, yes he is. However, the U.S. Constitution's only requirements for President are "at least 35 years of age, be native-born, and have lived in the US for at elast 14 years" - all of which he satisfies. Would HRC have been a better candidate? Perhaps...but...Obama mastered the rules of the primaries & caucuses, and beat her at her own game.
Is race an issue? Seems so, which is sad, given that it's 2008. If we are to truly live out King's statement to judge people "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," then we ALL need to set that one aside. Race has nothing to do with qualifications or worthiness for ANY political office - the same way that gender should have no bearing.
Was this an attempt at a fair analysis of the two candidates? It's laughable if that was your intent. Every statement about McCain was negative. You brought up some past scandals and association with shady characters. Every statement about Obama was positive, and no mention made of scandals or shady characters. Try again.
American

Poquoson, VA

#7 Sep 22, 2008
Zippy wrote:
...Obama -....Decided to work as a community organizer ...
Prior to which, in fact for years, BHO was mentored by Saul "The Red" Alinsky (founder of community organizing; , who wrote the book _Rules For Radicals_ which encourages radical left extremists like Obama to hide his true agenda from the people lest they keep him from power.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/arti...

EXCERPT from above linked article:
----------
In Artful Dodger style, Barack Obama, plays down his mentorship with Communist author Saul Alinsky. But Alinsky’s son, L. David Alinsky, credits Obama for “learning his lesson well” from the Communist guru.

Indeed, Alinsky Jr. who credits his late father for the success of last week’s Democratic National Convention, may have done something that Obama’s detractors couldn’t: blown the cover on the presidential hopeful’s communist leanings.

No one can blame Alinsky for the pretentiousness of the Ancient Greek Temple from which Obama addressed plebes, or for the tacky neon colours on display at the Pepsi Centre, but it was Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicals, the bible of the far left.
----------
~~~~~~~~~~
And note the reference to Obama in this Wikipedia piece on Alinsky (better hurry - leftists are always editing this stuff out):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alinsky,_Saul_Da...
~~~~~~~~~~

RADICAL LEFT EXTREMIST OBAMA:

Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

EXCERPT:
----------
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
----------

EXCERPT from a 14-article series on Obama:

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/series8.aspx

or Search: IBD "The Audacity of Socialism".

EXCERPT:
-------
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago.

His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale.

While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)
American

Poquoson, VA

#8 Sep 22, 2008
Matt Insley wrote:
Great information in this letter! It's nice to know people are encouraging others to do their homework!
We can only 'hope' that everyone will...
Downtown Hpt

Atlanta, GA

#9 Sep 22, 2008
Yeah, instead of sheeple, maybe a few will actually try to figure out what's up.
Zippy

Goldvein, VA

#10 Sep 22, 2008
uh-yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
Was this an attempt at a fair analysis of the two candidates? It's laughable if that was your intent. Every statement about McCain was negative. You brought up some past scandals and association with shady characters. Every statement about Obama was positive, and no mention made of scandals or shady characters. Try again.
Obama -
Scandals? To what scandal of Obama's do you reference? The closest thing is the Tony Rezko mess...for which Obama was never charged with anything, nor questioned by police, nor indicted for anything. Does that outweigh McCain's "Keating 5" imbroglio? Doubtful.

Past associations? Alright...I'll cede you a point here. Let's look at them.

1.) William Ayers - "unrepentent bomber of the Pentagon" is a widely-bandied phrase, referring to domestic terrorism sponsored by his group, The Weather Underground. Their actions were done while Obama was a toddler or small child. Ayers himself presented a defense of his actions (which, to the majority of folks, including me, are still deplorable), and also clarified his "We didn't do enough" remark. interestingly, the bombings that were done were always tiemd to result in no deaths or injuries to humans. Not an excuse, just a fact. Still, aside from serving on the board of a community group, and living relatively close together, there's scant (if any) hard evidence that Obama shares Ayers' views or holds him in high esteem.

2.) Rev. Wright - A highly inflammatory preacher and speaker. 20 years IS a long time to sit in a church and hear angry sermons...but...folks do it all the time, and the church does do other good works. Much the same way that, despite some pretty wack political views, questionable ethical choices (personal use of Op Blessing aircraft and trucks to haul diamonds and other goods that are not ministry related..hmmm...) and dunderheaded statements, Pat Robertson's 700 Club and operation Blessing do a good work.

McCain -
Scandals? The aforementioned "Keating 5," for which McCain rightly and honorably owned up to as a mistake, and which - until this election cycle - served as a stark reason why he was initially a reformer since then. You also have his ethically questionable use-personal-wealth-of-wife-as -collateral-to-obtain-a-loan-o n-premise-of receiving-nomination-and-thus- public-financing sidestep of campaign finance laws last summer.

Shady characters? Hmmm...the sheer number of lobbyists who, rather hypocritically, staff high campaign positions for a man who despises lobbyists. The employ of Bush foot soldiers to tear down anyone who disagrees with what he says - staffers of an administration and a president who personally attacked him 8 years ago in a heinous way, and who McCain loathes. Sarah Palin, who has proven herself to be right at home with the Bush way of politicking - promises openness, but then does all she can, up to and including outright abdication of power as a state official by a de facto ceding of control of the Dept. of Law to the McCain campaign to thwart "Troopergate" and the suppression of key emails, staffers' testimonies, and access to information (a la Cheney).

No...with all those folks running McCain's show (yet...interestingly...not in a coherent direction), Obama still - to me, an Independent voter - looks like the better choice. Certainly a damn sight better than the C+ Yalie who has occupied 1600 Penn. Ave. the past 8 years and thoroughly wrecked America's international standing, overseen an economic disaster, and got us bogged down in a war in Iraq we never should have begun. McCain wants to do more of the same? NO thanks!

Since: Jul 08

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#11 Sep 23, 2008
Congrats, you're batting 1000! You downplay the negativity on Obama's side and amplify it on McCain's side. Can you find anything good about McCain? I can find good about Obama. He's a political outsider in DC for the most part, having not been there too long. I probably agree with him on some environmental issues as well. The Republicans have too long stuck to new oil drilling as the only hope for our energy woes.

Your turn.
Zippy wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama -
Scandals? To what scandal of Obama's do you reference? The closest thing is the Tony Rezko mess...for which Obama was never charged with anything, nor questioned by police, nor indicted for anything. Does that outweigh McCain's "Keating 5" imbroglio? Doubtful.
Past associations? Alright...I'll cede you a point here. Let's look at them.
1.) William Ayers - "unrepentent bomber of the Pentagon" is a widely-bandied phrase, referring to domestic terrorism sponsored by his group, The Weather Underground. Their actions were done while Obama was a toddler or small child. Ayers himself presented a defense of his actions (which, to the majority of folks, including me, are still deplorable), and also clarified his "We didn't do enough" remark. interestingly, the bombings that were done were always tiemd to result in no deaths or injuries to humans. Not an excuse, just a fact. Still, aside from serving on the board of a community group, and living relatively close together, there's scant (if any) hard evidence that Obama shares Ayers' views or holds him in high esteem.
2.) Rev. Wright - A highly inflammatory preacher and speaker. 20 years IS a long time to sit in a church and hear angry sermons...but...folks do it all the time, and the church does do other good works. Much the same way that, despite some pretty wack political views, questionable ethical choices (personal use of Op Blessing aircraft and trucks to haul diamonds and other goods that are not ministry related..hmmm...) and dunderheaded statements, Pat Robertson's 700 Club and operation Blessing do a good work.
McCain -
Scandals? The aforementioned "Keating 5," for which McCain rightly and honorably owned up to as a mistake, and which - until this election cycle - served as a stark reason why he was initially a reformer since then. You also have his ethically questionable use-personal-wealth-of-wife-as -collateral-to-obtain-a-loan-o n-premise-of receiving-nomination-and-thus- public-financing sidestep of campaign finance laws last summer.
Shady characters? Hmmm...the sheer number of lobbyists who, rather hypocritically, staff high campaign positions for a man who despises lobbyists. The employ of Bush foot soldiers to tear down anyone who disagrees with what he says - staffers of an administration and a president who personally attacked him 8 years ago in a heinous way, and who McCain loathes. Sarah Palin, who has proven herself to be right at home with the Bush way of politicking - promises openness, but then does all she can, up to and including outright abdication of power as a state official by a de facto ceding of control of the Dept. of Law to the McCain campaign to thwart "Troopergate" and the suppression of key emails, staffers' testimonies, and access to information (a la Cheney).
No...with all those folks running McCain's show (yet...interestingly...not in a coherent direction), Obama still - to me, an Independent voter - looks like the better choice. Certainly a damn sight better than the C+ Yalie who has occupied 1600 Penn. Ave. the past 8 years and thoroughly wrecked America's international standing, overseen an economic disaster, and got us bogged down in a war in Iraq we never should have begun. McCain wants to do more of the same? NO thanks!

“Howdy!”

Since: Aug 08

Portland, Oregon

#12 Sep 23, 2008
uh-yeah wrote:
Congrats, you're batting 1000! You downplay the negativity on Obama's side and amplify it on McCain's side. Can you find anything good about McCain? I can find good about Obama. He's a political outsider in DC for the most part, having not been there too long. I probably agree with him on some environmental issues as well. The Republicans have too long stuck to new oil drilling as the only hope for our energy woes.
Your turn.
<quoted text>
I see your point here as well. I understand that people on either side of the political spectrum have to find negativity about the other candidate while never really trying to find any redeeming qualities.

For me, I make politics an incredibly personal situation. The reasons why I cannot vote for a Republican candidate are incredibly personal and doesn't have much to do with the integrity of the Republican candidate his/herself. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who doesn't believe that I deserve equal civil rights.
Wondering

Virginia Beach, VA

#13 Sep 23, 2008
Matt Insley wrote:
<quoted text>
I see your point here as well. I understand that people on either side of the political spectrum have to find negativity about the other candidate while never really trying to find any redeeming qualities.
For me, I make politics an incredibly personal situation. The reasons why I cannot vote for a Republican candidate are incredibly personal and doesn't have much to do with the integrity of the Republican candidate his/herself. I simply cannot bring myself to vote for a candidate who doesn't believe that I deserve equal civil rights.
Whoa whoa whoa...definie equal civil rights? By civil rights are you asking for the right to vote, freedom of speech, right to bear arms? Which 'RIGHT' are you being restricted on by Republicans? If you're talking about Gay marriage, which would not be a 'right', that goes FAR deeper than Republicans as many Democrats have voted against it as well.

“Howdy!”

Since: Aug 08

Portland, Oregon

#14 Sep 23, 2008
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa whoa whoa...definie equal civil rights? By civil rights are you asking for the right to vote, freedom of speech, right to bear arms? Which 'RIGHT' are you being restricted on by Republicans? If you're talking about Gay marriage, which would not be a 'right', that goes FAR deeper than Republicans as many Democrats have voted against it as well.
The democratic candidate I am voting for this time believes in equal rights for gay people. This is the first time I haven't voted for a third-party candidate. Don't accuse me of being a democrat just because I'm voting for one this time around.

I don't think you can find me a single republican who believes that gay people deserve equal rights.
Logical Thinker

Newport News, VA

#15 Sep 24, 2008
If we elect Obama, rest assured we'll get what we deserve.
Zippy

Warrenton, VA

#16 Sep 24, 2008
uh-yeah wrote:
Congrats, you're batting 1000! You downplay the negativity on Obama's side and amplify it on McCain's side. Can you find anything good about McCain? I can find good about Obama. He's a political outsider in DC for the most part, having not been there too long. I probably agree with him on some environmental issues as well. The Republicans have too long stuck to new oil drilling as the only hope for our energy woes. Your turn.
<quoted text>
Good about McCain - if we're speakign of John McCain circa 2000, then we're speaking of the candidate I voted for in the Virginia GOP primary that year. I appreciated his "tell it like it is" manner, the way he maturely owned up to his part in the Keating 5 imbroglio and then went about attempting to clean up campaign finance matters, etc. I like how, up until 2007, he was one of the loudest gadflies in Bush's ointment about Iraq and the p**s-poor way it was palnned and carried out.

If you're talking about the John McCain of the 2008 Presidential Campaign, then I respectfully disagree with you. He has sold his soul, along with his personal integrity and honor, to follow Karl Rove's blueprint to win the White House: change major positions to attempt to appease and pacify the right-wing base (odd, since he's always billed himself as a moderate); slash and burn your opponent; brow-beat the media into submission when they catch him lying; and deny the lies, fallacies, and discrepancies to stay one step ahead of the truth squads.

No...today's John McCain is a shadow of the righteous warrior I voted for in 2000. He has become cynical, two-faced, dishonest, and bitter...and apparently has a low opinion of the American voter if he thinks that choosing Sarah Palin, with her numerous shortcomings and limitations (see her repeated lies, her own ethical missteps, her terrible performance in the Katie Couric interview, her open dodging of questions - even softballs tossed to her like batting practice at a GOP-only "town hall" meeting last week), will be suifficient to see that he does not have what it takes to lead this country.

His stunt today - I'm going to suspend my campaign, and let's delay the debate, so we can focus on the economic issue - has rightfully been called out for what it is: a political stunt to get the heat off of him (caught totally flatfooted and out of his league by this economic crisis) and Palin (who looked totally ouf of her league talking with Katie Couric.
American

Poquoson, VA

#17 Sep 24, 2008
Matt Insley wrote:
<quoted text>
The democratic candidate I am voting for this time believes in equal rights for gay people...
Or at least he says he does so you will vote for him.

That's about all politicians do from what I can tell...

I don't think Obama cares about anything except getting elected. He's a power monger and he'll do what power mongers do - pander to as many groups as possible for votes and 'hope' its enough to win.

I've not seen any evidence that he really cares about what he claims to.

He's shrewd - voting "present" about 130 times to avoid having any particular position pinned on him is an indicator that he's been working up to what he's doing now for some time.

And just for the record, I don't much like McCain, or many other politicians either. I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain to keep out the Left, which I think is important.

History shows that the Left is very dangerous.

But it also shows that big, overgrown, bloated government, of any stripe, is the most dangerous thing ever created by humankind.

----------
"The book that permanently made me a sadder and wiser man was Edward Gibbons' The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire . To follow one of the greatest civilizations of all time as it degenerated and fractured, even before being torn apart by its enemies, was especially painful in view of the parallels to what is happening in America in our own times."

"The fall of the Roman Empire was not just a matter of changing rulers or political systems. It was the collapse of a whole civilization -- the destruction of an economy, the breakdown of law and order, the disappearance of many educational institutions."

"It has been estimated that a thousand years passed before the standard of living in Western Europe rose again to the level it had once reached back in Roman times."
-- Thomas Sowell
----------

The "Dark Ages" - about fifty generations - were a largely a result of the political ambition of a few elites, and big-government-gone-wrong.

"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."
-- P.J. O'Rourke

"Politicians are foxes. But we insist on believing that some are guard dogs. We elect them to watch the hen house, and on the first Wednesday in November there's nothing left but feathers."
-- P. J. O'Rourke, author of parliament of whores and peace kills

"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money -- only for wanting to keep your own money."
-- Joseph Sobran

And Mark Twain said it like this:

"I like my beer dark, cigars strong, coffee black, bourbon straight and politicians on the end of a rope."

“Howdy!”

Since: Aug 08

Portland, Oregon

#18 Sep 24, 2008
American wrote:
<quoted text>
Or at least he says he does so you will vote for him.
That's about all politicians do from what I can tell...
I don't think Obama cares about anything except getting elected. He's a power monger and he'll do what power mongers do - pander to as many groups as possible for votes and 'hope' its enough to win.
I've not seen any evidence that he really cares about what he claims to.
He's shrewd - voting "present" about 130 times to avoid having any particular position pinned on him is an indicator that he's been working up to what he's doing now for some time.
And just for the record, I don't much like McCain, or many other politicians either. I'll hold my nose and vote for McCain to keep out the Left, which I think is important.
History shows that the Left is very dangerous.
But it also shows that big, overgrown, bloated government, of any stripe, is the most dangerous thing ever created by humankind.
----------
"The book that permanently made me a sadder and wiser man was Edward Gibbons' The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire . To follow one of the greatest civilizations of all time as it degenerated and fractured, even before being torn apart by its enemies, was especially painful in view of the parallels to what is happening in America in our own times."
"The fall of the Roman Empire was not just a matter of changing rulers or political systems. It was the collapse of a whole civilization -- the destruction of an economy, the breakdown of law and order, the disappearance of many educational institutions."
"It has been estimated that a thousand years passed before the standard of living in Western Europe rose again to the level it had once reached back in Roman times."
-- Thomas Sowell
----------
The "Dark Ages" - about fifty generations - were a largely a result of the political ambition of a few elites, and big-government-gone-wrong.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
"Politicians are foxes. But we insist on believing that some are guard dogs. We elect them to watch the hen house, and on the first Wednesday in November there's nothing left but feathers."
-- P. J. O'Rourke, author of parliament of whores and peace kills
"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money -- only for wanting to keep your own money."
-- Joseph Sobran
And Mark Twain said it like this:
"I like my beer dark, cigars strong, coffee black, bourbon straight and politicians on the end of a rope."
Are you done quoting Rush Limbaugh or did you have more?
American

Poquoson, VA

#19 Sep 25, 2008
I've seen you argue points before. If this is all you have on what I said, to compare me to RL, then I guess that means you don't really have much to argue in a reasonable fashion, except that the whole thing just doesn’t "feel right" to you, like when you tell a child that Santa Clause isn’t real. Sounds like Cognitive Dissonance to me.

Since you asked if I have more, sure, plenty. I'm getting up in years, have seen many administrations come and go and have spent the past twenty years or so (longer than most Obamatrons have been so-called adults) in a fairly deep study of 'current events in a historical context'. Self-employment in a land of individual freedom and property rights has allowed my very hard work to pay me well. I'm self-made, from scratch, semi-retired, and have America to thank - I believe that no where else could I have what I do now.

"We all enter the world knowing nothing but, by the time we are teenagers, we know it all. Sometimes it is decades later before we know enough to realize how little we know."
-- Thomas Sowell

One thing has become very clear to me is how little the average Obamatron of any age knows of the dangers that have historically accompanied the ideals they seem to wish on us.

Lenin, a smart guy who came to rule, with an iron fist, hundreds of millions of people (and murder millions of them), called American Leftists "useful idiots" because they, in their relative prosperity and relative ignorance, are complete suckers for the latest shallow presentations of the same old recycled, disproven leftist utopian socialist visions. Due to extensive ignorance of history in the target market these presentations need be only thinly disguised and based on an emotional foundation of irrelevant buzz words like 'hope' and 'compassion' and 'change' which, while very important in many aspects of life, are just a ruse here. These "useful idiots" are the simplest, but possibly the most necessary of tools in support and furtherance of the leftist power-monger's dream of world-wide leftism. Krushchev understood this process well:

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism."
-- Nikita Khrushchev, of the political trend launched by Roosevelt's "New Deal" - As read into the Congressional Record, page 12622, July 26, 1961.

Here are three primary, key points that are mostly lost on the average "useful idiot", with his gullible acceptance of the political "fad de jour":

"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."
-- Paul Johnson

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child."
-- Cicero (~60 BC)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
-- George Orwell

Political leftism, allowed to run its course, has NEVER, in the entire history of the world, EVER eventually resulted in anything but rule by elites, economic ruin, poverty, misery, further tyranny and despotism, and often mass death for the subjects of the governments involved - about 200 million civilian innocents (non-combat, non-war) were murdered largely by Leftist governments-gone-wrong in the 20th century. Here I reference Dr. Rummel on 'death-by-government', or 'democide' as he calls it:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Nothing, absolutely nothing else even comes close to leftist-government-gone-wrong as a hazard to human life, and those 200 million are just the dead. For every one dead victim, how many tens of thousands were reduced to lifelong misery and poverty by these Leftist systems gone wrong?
American

Poquoson, VA

#20 Sep 25, 2008
And furthermore:
It is the height of arrogance to believe that "Yes We Can" dabble in Leftism and make it work THIS time:

--
Nobel Award winning Economist, Milton Friedman was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of a national constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Ted Kennedy argued that a requirement for a balanced budget would restrict the federal government's power and its ability to spend – thus, he said, Washington's role in more fairly and equitably distributing wealth, goods and services.

"Senator, socialism hasn't worked in 6,000 years of recorded history," explained Friedman. "Why won't you give up on it?"

Kennedy rose to his feet and replied: "It hasn't worked in 6,000 years of recorded history because it didn't have me to run it."
--

Self-aggrandizing, arrogant, Leftist elitism... What else could it be called? It is interesting to note that Kennedy agreed with the premise that socialism has never worked…

I'll stick with what remains of the side that most closely advocates the policies that made America what it has been during my lifetime, that made it so my life can be as good as it is now, not with 'progressives' who ignorantly, arrogantly and ungratefully whine (from the platform of their relative prosperity) that things can’t get any worse, blindly advocate 'change' at any cost, and most of whom cannot answer even the simplest questions about the relevant reality of the world they live in. The self-avowed socialist Hitler (21 million innocents murdered) brought 'change' to a people far and away more educated than the largely ignorant, shallow and witless Obamatrons in America today.

"Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important. Some confuse that feeling with idealism."
-- Thomas Sowell

"When the Right is wrong, that doesn’t mean that the Left is right, or any less dangerous than it has historically been."
-- Me

==========
And these are profound and relevant, but hardly understood at all by most of today's citizens (tomorrow's subjects?):

"Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384

"Reason and Ignorance, the opposites of each other, influence the great bulk of mankind. If either of these can be rendered sufficiently extensive in a country, the machinery of Government goes easily on. Reason obeys itself; and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it."
-- Thomas Paine

“What luck for the rulers that men do not think.”
-- Adolph Hitler

"The sheeping of America is nearly complete."
-- Ted Nugent

"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
-- Bertrand de Juvenal
Walther

Virginia Beach, VA

#21 Sep 25, 2008
Hussein Obama is a socialist. You think our economy is bad now? Just wait if this socialist and that moron Biden become our leaders. That will be the end of the USA as we know it. Under Obama/Biden the USA will become a havenot, third world country with a weak military and your kids will be forced to read the koran and bow to mecca every couple of hours. I will not stand for this and neither should you. We must not bow to the will of the terrorists (10 out of 10 terrorists support Obama) nor to the socialists that want to take this country down the path of Europe.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hampton Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Earl 1,872,073
News Homeless man gone, but his Ghost remains (Feb '09) 1 hr martin garey 24
News Explain vote against Christmas (Dec '07) 17 hr Cowboys 75
Qur'an does not allow gays or rainbow flags Tue Taquan 7
I remember in Newport News (Dec '07) Mon Brady C 2,438
Hampton High Graduates 1975-1980 Let hear from you Mon Ray P 10
News Is Illinois couple's murder tied to bankruptcy ... (Oct '08) Dec 10 NeverForget 22

Hampton Jobs

Personal Finance

Hampton Mortgages