Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Frank Schaeffer: After The Debate: The Case For Obama

huffingtonpost.com — Before my son John joined the Marines I would have laughed at the idea that I -- a life long Republican, white, middle aged "I Want!" kind of selfish guy -- would become a loyal Obama supporter.

Bury

PistonMoaned 99 days ago, made popular 98 days ago

842 diggs
digg it

158 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

caponumen, on 04/19/2008, -36/+10Nice, take it out on all of us, why don't you.
But you might want to check Obama's voting record before you do......
- neognostic, on 04/19/2008, -12/+24If you read the article in it's entirety and this is the only comment you can make, then your hate has truly taken over your soul. Please get help.
  - Wartyboskfapped, on 04/19/2008, -1/+8He has a soul?
    - forgiste, on 04/19/2008, -1/+4Not anymore Fryman... The Moonijuana scared it out of existence...
mabs0, on 04/19/2008, -5/+30Very moving story.
- LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -15/+3The only thing that moved was my stomach when I vomited reading this lib propaganda.
  - quarc, on 04/19/2008, -4/+8"Lib Propaganda" You sir, are a douche.
  - LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -11/+3You sir, are a whore, just like Obama's mom.
  - LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -6/+3Lib whores
  - SoxSweepAgain, on 04/19/2008, -1/+4A pro-military Republican writes about switching to Obama and he's a "Lib [sic] Propagandist"?
    
    Please.
    - 140Suffolk, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2He's lying you idiot.
  - LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -5/+2How do I know this person is real? Pics or it didnt happen.
  - LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -6/+2Hey everyone I just want you to know I am Jesus Christ. I have returned to save you. Follow me my people. Please wire money to account #34567890123 so we can build the giant spaceship to the sky so we can be with God and the angels.
gsxrjason, on 04/19/2008, -7/+44"We have a choice in this election between the old cynicism and a new hope... that resonates in Obama's speeches and his life of service to community, not to mention his self-control when under even the most unfair attacks."
- BrendanSheehan, on 04/19/2008, -11/+2You are a copy and paste God!
- LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -19/+4Obamas idea of change:
  Actor 1: So Obama what do you bring do this presidency
  Obama: Change
  Actor 1: Can you elaborate?
  Obama: Change
  Actor 1: yes yes we know you want change but what kind of change?
  Obama: The kind of change you can believe in.
  Actor 2: What change? Obama: believe in the change!
  Actor 2:I'm sorry I just don't understand what change you bring that some other candidate can't offer.
  OBama:Sorry this debate has no substance. I have to go submit this discussion on digg.com.
  - zanderw00t, on 04/19/2008, -2/+4I'm going to post the same exact reply I did to the last person that made this comment.
    
    I really don't see an issue with this. Of course "change" is a broad term, but that's exactly the reason I'm going to vote for him in Nov. I feel he's the one who can start the process of changing the majority of the issues in the US. I'm not going as far as saying that he's just going to waltz into the oval office and everything will be peachy-keen; I would never give anyone that much credit. What I am saying is that this man will be the catalyst for change and move this country towards a better direction.
    - VoodooPunk, on 04/19/2008, -8/+2Sounds like you're a typical Obama voter. Not interested in concrete ideas or issues, just happy with buzz words and pointless platitudes.
      - zanderw00t, on 04/19/2008, -1/+7First of all, how are you able to judge me regarding my interest in "concrete ideas or issues"? Secondly, based on my OWN research on most of the potential candidates for president, I am confident that the faith that I'm placing in Obama for president, compared to the other candidates, is a good choice.
      - VoodooPunk, on 04/19/2008, -6/+1I know you're not interested in concrete ideas or issues because your satisfied with voting for a man who's done nothing to address any issue and offered virtually no ideas. You might as well vote for someone based on how attractive they are or how much you like their fashion sense. I find it depressing that so many people can be compelled to vote for a man that says nothing and has done nothing.
      - FairDinkumMate, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3I suppose you voted for Bush because of his concrete issues & ideas?
      - zanderw00t, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2You are COMPLETELY ignorant if you believe half of what you are saying. You do not stay this long in the race if you don't "address any issues and offer[ed] virtually no ideas." It doesn't happen. Every candidate thus far has let the public in on what problems are on the top of his or her agenda and how they are going to fix said issues. Everyone from McCain, Clinton, Obama, Paul, etc. Please, next time, grow a half of a ***** brain.
      - VoodooPunk, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Suggesting that Obama wouldn't still be in the race if he didn't offer concrete ideas is both ignorant and naive. Instead of trying to back up your argument by falsely suggesting that Obama must have ideas to still be in the race, why not simply list his proposed solutions. The only thing I'm certain Obama wants to do is withdrawal the troops immediately (he qualified this proposal by saying he would send troops back if Al Qaeda was in Iraq...which means that he'll be bringing the troops home and sending them right back because not even the democrats are disputing that Al Qaeda is currently there), and he wants to raise taxes. Please feel free to educate me by providing Obama's other detailed plans for the presidency....
  - LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -10/+1Bah bah black sheep have you any bull?
    YEs sire yes sire three bags full.
    - zanderw00t, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4Jesus christ, are you capable of any sort of intelligent debate?
    - LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -8/+1I heard sheep and I responded. Bah.
- LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -13/+3Obamas idea of change Act 2:
  Actor 2: So Obama why is it you are more qualified to be president then say Hillary Clinton or John Edwards?
  Obama: Change
  Actor 2: You know I was looking at your website and those of John Edwards and Hillary Clinton and you know I didn't notice much difference at all. All the sites have the same home page.
  Obama: I bring something different
  Actor 2: what exactly?
  Obama: Change
  Actor 2: I get the impression that maybe if John Edwards or Hillary Clinton were black, people might realize the only change you bring is more melanin.
  Obama: That's change I can't believe in.
  - consoneo, on 04/19/2008, -1/+7LukasSmith:
    I can't remember any people's names on Digg, but I made it a point to remember yours. Yours is the only name I can remember off the top of my head on this entire website, and I have been here for a long time.
    
    How are you such a piece of ***** that I remember your name, only, amongst the myriad members of this site?
    - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -9/+1Because you're a freaking mongo that can't remember *****?
    - consoneo, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1The point of my statement, is that I never read names on comments. I don't have a desire to know who makes them, leaving me completely subconsciously unbiased to any comments I read on this site, and making available to me, a forum of discussion that I cannot find anywhere else.
mreal197, on 04/19/2008, -8/+18awesome story
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -6/+1you are a tool - wake up and see how you blindly accept everything he does without question.
imgstacke, on 04/19/2008, -6/+20"Inspiration is what Obama offers. A true and good life backs up his words. The presidency is a symbolic position as well as a powerful one. The nation's leader must be able to inspire. Obama does that. His life and words match. And his ability to draw all those young people to him is what leadership -- in the Oval Office or on the parade deck at Parris Island -- is. Obama is worth fighting for."
- LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -6/+1Drawing highschool kids might draw a few eyebrows. Heres looking at you Micheal Jackson.
dinot, on 04/19/2008, -8/+18This should be required reading for all voters.
- wild, on 04/19/2008, -4/+8This should be required reading for anyone who isn't voting.
- LukasSmith, on 04/19/2008, -10/+2This should be thrown in the garbage like all huffington post articles. Just lib propaganda.
  - MacEnvy, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3The guy who wrote is it a self-described CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN. Perhaps you should read the stories you comment on. Or would that violate the terms of your contract with whoever is paying you to spam your copy/pasted comments?
oldhick, on 04/19/2008, -5/+21Its enjoyable to read the words of a man who believes you can answer a higher calling to serve your country in a war you don't agree with. I get tired of the Diggers who can't separate the two. This is the patriotism that I know and that I love. You can answer the call to serve, you can do so while disagreeing with the war. His story and his son's makes me proud. Thanks.
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -5/+4OMG you actually buy the ***** and would gladly sacrifice your life even though you know that there is no reason to do so.
  Is there any more brainwashed way to serve your masters - finding fulfillment in your slavery? Making excuses as to why -- "just this once"???
  Have you ever thought that governments get away with this ***** over and over b/c no one stands up and says the Emperor has No Clothes?
- MacEnvy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4Just curious, oldhick, since I'm sure we've both been reading each others comments here for a while now ... what did you make of his argument? What do you think of his reasoning, and do you see any promise in the candidacy of Obama now?
  
  I'm honestly interested - if the article was moving for you, but had no effect on your thoughts on the election, I'd be interested to hear why.
  - oldhick, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3I definitely am liking Obama much more than Hillary and McCain. I think he's inspiring and energetic. I am glad to see him getting such a positive response. I'm still not decided. I'm leaning more towards Mike Gravel, because I find myself appreciating the libertarian principles more and more. Ending the "war on drugs", the "war on terror", progressive taxation, border control, and real democracy are important to me. I disagree with Mike Gravel on universal health care, but I am beyond not voting for a candidate because of a single issue...
    Most important to me is ending the two party system. In this effort I will continue to cast my vote for third party candidates. I believe strongly in term limits for all elected offices.
    And I'm not trying to convince anyone else, I understand peoples feelings and other approaches. I know many feel that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. These are simply my feelings right now, today.
    - Hillsfar, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1As long as it's not for Ralph Nader, please. :)
- soumynona, on 04/19/2008, -4/+2I find nothing honorable in serving in a war based on lies,greed, and corruption.
  - averagejoesgym, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Civilians like you and I run the country. There are Pentagon officials, the Secretary of Defense and Asst Sec Def, etc... that override anything any general can say. To say that men and women in the service are serving with dishonor because the civilian leadership is not cool.
  - oldhick, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1All war is based on lies, greed and corruption. Be it all parties involved or one, wars don't occur because people sit down to have an open and honest dialog about how things could be better... I'm not sure you really understand what war is and why it occurs. But many people feel as you do, so you can take comfort in knowing you're not alone on this issue.
    - soumynona, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1I fully understand what war is and why it occurs. It's the very reason I don't find any honor it. When humans cannot obtain their desires on the Maslow Hierarchy of needs we turn to violence.War is the embodiment of human barbarism cloaked in "fighting for a cause". Killing one's own species should not be considered noble and yet we have been doing this throughout our history. Maybe human affinity for war is nature's way of population control but it's 2008. You can romanticized it with notions of group bonding, a higher calling or whatever but at the core war is barbaric and murder by government.
      - oldhick, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1Now you just sound silly. Wars have been fought over much less than the Maslow Hierarchy of needs. We turn to violence for many reasons. Adultery has launched wars, philosophical disputes have launched wars. Don't pretend that you understand what turns men to violence because you do not know.
        In what situation would you fight? What cause is worthy of the ultimate sacrifice to you?
    - soumynona, on 04/20/2008, -1/+1Love is part of the scale so adultery would fall under that category. Philosophical disputes would fall under self-actualization. The fact that wars have started over ***** someone's wife proves how utterly barbaric it is. Talk about alpha male syndrome. Unless my life is in danger there is no cause worthy of my sacrifice. I'm selfish like that. I'd find every route available to avoid it, why should I die for other people? You may not like my point of view, but I don't give a *****.
      - oldhick, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1No, the world is full of people like you and thats fantastic. Living in an homogenized society wouldn't do much for me. I think selfish cowards are necessary to highlight the acts of the courageous and the selfless. Intellectually your argument falls down pretty quickly. If you are as selfish as you claim than why not use force to better your self? Peace is an act of selflessness.
    - soumynona, on 04/24/2008, -0/+1Please, the majority of the people in the military are there because they don't have better options. Ranging from economic pressure to the desire to escape a dead-end situation at home to the promise of citizenship.I t's no secret they have been scraping the bottom of barrel for years. So spare me the courageous and selfless spiel.
      
      If you are as selfish as you claim than why not use force to better your self?
      
      That makes no sense.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4It's not support of the war he's talking about. It's honoring your oath. We need a standing army and that requires guys who are willing to follow orders regardless of whether they personally agree with the conflict.
  
  I'd wager there's more soldiers that are disgusted with Iraq than there are that are gung-ho about it. They are going to become a very powerful voice in politics in the coming years. I would recommend we not alienate them as our viet nam veterans were alienated by both liberals who made the mistake of confusing honoring your oath with being complicit with the unscrupulous individuals who keep the war economy rolling and conservatives who were ashamed of our troops for failing to secure a victory in a war that had no realistic objective. All the craziness and doubletalk, the yellow ribbons, the profound conservative respect for GOP vets but disgust for honest-to-God liberal war heroes who made the mistake of calling Viet Nam like it really was afterwards, and the dumbass peace protesters saying we support our troops too because we just want to keep them safe (what the hell do they think soldiers do?); all of that nonsense comes down to shortsighted, closeminded fools like yourselves faliling to grasping the concept.
  
  If Old Hick can make that distinction and he's conservative, hopefully he can also understand that it's possible to be against a war without being against the troops. If that's the case, there's hope for our country yet. But don't confuse being a liberal for mocking our veterans. That only makes you a disingenuous punk, the likes of who piss and moan about cops constantly until you actually need one.
rexreason, on 04/19/2008, -25/+1Tory Foster kills Cally Tyrol on the latest Battlestar Galactica!
- Ozzsanity, on 04/19/2008, -4/+1Ciri is the million $$ winner on survivor.
Krisgi, on 04/19/2008, -9/+20I thought that the Marine comparison was surprising and insightful. Soldiers are trained to surpress their own individual identity and needs in favor of those of the greater group. Their loyalty to that group is unmatched and their heroics in war time are a reflex because of this strong sense of collective unity and identity. But soldiers are not born, they are made. By their leaders.

I think this country just needs a Leader and some serious team work. Period. We have had presidents aplenty, but when was the last time we really had a Leader with a capital L? A person who unites us as a Group and influences us to work towards an objective or goal as, strictly defined, the word Leader means? I think of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Mandela... these men moved mountains, but, although History has finally given them the places of honor that they deserve, they were also questioned, shunned and imprisoned and killed for their capacity to unite the People against the political forces that needed to keep them divided and thus conquered.

The ways things "should or have to be" is imposed on us by the media and the government, and the majority of us passively accept, gripe or complain, but join forces to do nothing. Common Men and Women, regardless of color, education or religious beliefs, are the overwhelming majority. We need to focus on what makes us the same. Not what makes us different.

We have lost the essence that made us a Nation to be admired. They have stripped us of our collective identity and want to try and make us rally around icons that represent the unity that we lack. Why wear a flag on your lapel or say the Pledge of Allegiance if we have denaturalized the notion of E Pluribus Unum that these symbols represent?

Obama reminds us that we are a group that needs to recuperate its union before we try to make it more perfect. That is the first step. Ask not what our country can do for us, but what WE can do for our country. It´s the 1st person plural, WE, that takes JFK´s words to a higher level, and we have every reason to thank Barack Obama for reminding us what we had forgotten. He is a true Leader. That is what we perceive intuitively about him. He reminds us that only with the US before America, can we truly re-become the USA.
- bicyclethief, on 04/19/2008, -3/+4Good stuff.
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -6/+1Way to be like the Soviet Union. How much money do you pay in taxes and what do you get back that you have to be proud of?
  Do you work for the politicians, or the other way around?
  - Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Have you read the article? I think you might identify with its author.
  - Krisgi, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5"Way to be like the Soviet Union" You know something? You just seem like a very ignorant person because you manipulate terms that you do not understand. Have you ever studied political science or read a book about it? There are plenty of healthy democracies that combine a functioning free-market economy with enormous social benefits: universal health care, scholarships for citizens to study, child care for working parents, 2,500 euros for every child born to help out with expenses, 150 euros/month for each child under 3, four months paid maternity leave, two weeks paid paternity leave, 10 days for getting married, and a month´s vacation minimum every year. All paid in full. And then some... I am a self-employed professional and I pay 18% income tax. My husband works for a company and he pays out roughly the same. We have 15% witholdings and usually get a refund because we have a mortgage, etc. We don´t live in a communist regime or anything of the sort... Get out, travel, read, see what else is out there. I guess you are happy living in your little red white and blue bubble being misinformed, manipulated and paranoid. Tough luck. It´s people who think like you and refer to other people as "commies" STILL, that drag the US down and keep the majority of citizens stupid and impoverished, unless you are one of the privileged few and then you get to exploit them. You´d rather be a parasite than live in a symbiosis.
Stevanoski, on 04/19/2008, -32/+7BHO wilted like a lily in a hot wind with just a few tough questions. McCain will beat him easily.
- alk509, on 04/19/2008, -6/+18Just admit what everyone else can plainly see: you're secretly gay for Obama! He's got you over a barrel, and you know it!
  - techweenie1, on 04/19/2008, -18/+6Gay for Obama...no that's you obamaniacs that have an instant boner at the mention of his name....it's a wonder viagra isn't out of business due to you people.
    - alk509, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1HE'S GOT YOU OVER A BARREL, AND YOU KNOW IT!
- buhbyebot, on 04/19/2008, -13/+4"wild like a lily in a hot wind"
  What? You write like a sonnet... over dramatic much?
  
  McCain will beat him easily but only if he brings his -bitch be good bat- he uses on his "trollop ***** wife"
  - Stevanoski, on 04/19/2008, -2/+1do you wear glasses buhb? Are you wearing them now?
- notSLICK, on 04/19/2008, -3/+7McCain doesn't stand a chance... anyone who would vote for him at this point is either uninformed or misinformed or working for china.
  - MacEnvy, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2Sadly, it seems you've described nearly half the country :/
- Wartyboskfapped, on 04/19/2008, -2/+8Hehe, no chance. McCain will lose - against whoever fields against him. And you know it.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I actually respect McCaine, but I don't think he was a realistic choice for the GOP. The guys not entirely consistent or stable and the age factor can't help with that. And let's face it, you guys have really !@#$ed over just about everybody you need to win this thing.
Picaroon, on 04/19/2008, -2/+10I dugg this if only because of the ignorance coming from some of the elitist snobs he mentioned.
"One dad ... spoke up at a school meeting denounced my son's choice and suggested that the school should 'carefully evaluate what went wrong in this case.'"
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Those would NE chickenhawks alright.
damndj, on 04/19/2008, -13/+3Muffington Post has some good servers to handle all this Digging!
Scheissen, on 04/19/2008, -11/+4Don't be selfish or greedy. Give everything you earn to the obamanation.
- chaosium, on 04/19/2008, -5/+1I'm all for him but for chrissake "obamnaation"?
  - MacEnvy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Don't feed the trolls. He's trying to make Obama supporters look bad. Check the comment history.
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -4/+1Televangelist of fascist dictator?
  Maybe, for you, both?
  - Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Are you sober? WTF?
p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -18/+5Comparing an America-hating racist Marxist to the self-sacrifice and honor of the Marines is an insult. The hyperbole you Obamabots engage in has just reached ludicrous speed!
- MidgardMurda, on 04/19/2008, -2/+9Yes, I'm going to take someone named "Poser" seriously? Next Please.
  - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -13/+4Are you ***** kidding me? "Midgard Murda"? WTF? Your LARP party broke up early? WOW servers down?
    - MidgardMurda, on 04/19/2008, -2/+9Hmm, Good job. I got Midgard from Final Fantasy VII but since you want to be a moron here you go....
      
      "This name is attested in many ancient Germanic languages. It occurs in Old Norse literature as Miðgarðr. In Old High German poem Muspilli it appears as Mittilagart. The Gothic form Midjungards is attested in Luke's Gospel as a traduction of the word "earth". The word is present in Old English epic and poetry as Middangeard; later transformed to Middellærd or Middel-erde ("Middle-earth") in Middle English literature. "Middle-earth" is usually avoided in modern English, as it has strong associations with J.R.R. Tolkien's fantastic "legendarium".
      
      All these forms are from a conjectural Proto-Germanic *medja-gardaz (*meddila-, *medjan-). Even if the two terms derive from Indo-European roots *medhyo ("middle") and *ghartos ("enclosure"), the construct exists only in Germanic. It's possible to speculate about the ancientness of this cosmological concept, but it may be inappropriate to trace back the Germanic terminology in common Indo-European.
      
      The Danish and Swedish form Midgård, the Norwegian Midgard or Midgård, derive from the Old Norse term."
      
      See now why I can't take you seriously? And no WoW servers arn't down I just don't feel like playing atm.
      - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -11/+2So, LARPfag, now explain the wigger 'Murda' part? You some LARPer gansta? Were you like, "hey, Chocolate and Peanut Butter, Midgard and Murda! I ain't no Guild Master, I'm a Guild Gangsta!, Straight up Thine homey's Ye olde -Yo!"
      - MidgardMurda, on 04/19/2008, -1/+8Hmm, Wigger? So the moron is able to guess my race from a name? Nice try but you fail hard...don't be a pissy bitch because no one takes you serious. It's lame.
        
        I play Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 too...Do you have a nickname for that? FPSfag? You're so creative.
      - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -11/+2Yo Yo Yo, bitch guildies, we gonna rape Ragnaros's face beeeeooooyyyyy! Don't fo get yo mana pots and 20 sided die! For the Horde, Homies!
      - chaosium, on 04/19/2008, -2/+7Get back to Stormfront, p0w3r.
      - MidgardMurda, on 04/19/2008, -2/+8You know what's hilarious. I didn't even know what LARP meant...had to go look it up...and no "Poser" I don't do Live action role playing but nice try...sadly once again it's a fail.
        
        Please explain to me though how you knew what it meant? Sounds to me like the "Poser" is an angry "LARPfag". Someone kill you and take your +1 Mace of Anal Dickery or something?
      - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -9/+2Ye Olde Good Sir, Thou Hast Bested Me whitherest Thou raise a cup of Mead?
        /ooc LOL you RP fag
      - MidgardMurda, on 04/19/2008, -1/+8LOL, So now it's RP fag? I play all video games so you can pretty much sum it up to "Gamer".
        
        It's pretty awesome how you insult people...I wish I had the same skills. lolposeraddsfagtosomethingandthinksitsaninsult you're so full of phail.
      - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -10/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZrU3RtWF30 = you.
      - MidgardMurda, on 04/19/2008, -1/+7Meh, You've become boring "poserfag". The link you posted is wasted since I will not be viewing it, once again...nice try...but you fail.
        
        I'll be going to my 360(Gamertag:NinjaJesus13) now to be an FPSfag...let me know how life works out for you "poserfag".
      - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -10/+2Sure thing, Gaymer!
    - ssn697, on 04/19/2008, -2/+9At least now we know p0s3r is some 14 year old racist idiot. Thanks for the clarification, punk...
Arnos, on 04/19/2008, -4/+5We have a choice in this election between the old cynicism and a new hope.

That's what this republican will tell his friends when they ask 'why Obama?'
Note- You democrats better put up the right man in your primary.
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Make fun of Bush and Co (rightly) for going to war against a tactic ("terrorism") and fall for the same ***** broad brush of a tactic ("hope") when it has to do with Obama. Are you really that ***** stupid? Don't you know that's how Benito Mussolini came to power?
- wonderworm, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Arnos. We are working on it................together with you. Because this isn't a Blue and Red America. We are all one America.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You're going to have to provide a better argument than that of how Obama represents WW2 era Italian fascism.
jbenson2, on 04/19/2008, -14/+6After the debate: The Case AGAINST the O-man

Senator Obama is a man of no accomplishments, a man of no accomplishments other than getting elected to the United States Senate, and before that, to the Illinois State Senate. He’s done nothing, he has a wafer-thin legislative record, he wrote an autobiography about nothing. So when you have such a man running for president, all you can tell about him are who he has chosen to spend his life with. He’s chosen to spend his life with this kind of yuppy play terrorist who led the Weather Underground, and the neo-segregationist, racist, ranter like Jeremiah Wright. That’s really all we know about Barack Obama, and it’s entirely legitimate to ask him about it.
- p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -10/+5Oh you're dead wrong. His autobiography wasn't about nothing. It was all about 'Whitey' and how 'Whitey' keeps the 'Man' down.
- roamzero, on 04/19/2008, -3/+4As bad as the debate was I thought some of the character based questions were appropriate. The problem was that the issues took a backseat.
  - p0s3r, on 04/19/2008, -2/+322 Debates on issues and Clinton bashing not enough? Do you actually think you were going to hear something new? Obama said himself they could repeat each others answers.
    - Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+145 minutes of character bashing that both sides have been responding to for weeks is never appropriate. Obama was the only one who got that and he showed it when he refused to play along with the sniper thing.
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4jb - they won't listen they "want to believe"- but of course that's how fascism always starts; with youth "revolution"s where people aren't allowed to ask questions
  - Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Fascism starts with anti-intellectuallism, politicizing the judicial system, targeting the citizenry with your intelligence apparatus while limiting oversight of it, and controlling or goading the media into distorting the truth.
notSLICK, on 04/19/2008, -4/+5 Your peice was honest and moving. I sincerely hope that many, many people read it.
- paulmike3, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Who are you talking to?
  - notSLICK, on 04/19/2008, -1/+0if you dont know, dont ask.
adml_shake, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3Welcome to the club man...
DivisibleByZero, on 04/19/2008, -6/+2Catholics are supposed to not vote for pro-abortion candidates unless there's a significant enough reason to vote otherwise. So I'd like to hear what he's got against McCain so badly.

(Don't say Iraq. There are way more abortions than there are casualties of war every year, so from the Catholic standpoint, abortion would have to be worse than the war.)
- AlwaysDiggsDown, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Simple: Voting for McCain won't prevent a single abortion.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3How about the Hagee endorsement that he's not going to take back? You know, the guy that called Catholicism a cult? Or how about the fact that the moral authority you obey without questions like "where in scripture exactly is it made clear when and how souls manifest" has been molesting kids wholesale and covering it up for decades. Or how about the fact that every time you guys let these push-button issues sweep everything else off of the table everybody loses? If you want to talk compromise on abortion we're all ears but because it's all or nothing and a lot of you don't think for yourselves, you're basically making the rest of us crazy.
camilos007, on 04/19/2008, -4/+3Am I the only one who mostly ignores articles from the huffingtonpost? I'm no conservative, far from it actually. But any article that comes from the huffingtonpost always seems to be pro Obama. I love Obama as much as the next guy. But I want un-biased articles and reports. I want my ideals to be challenged with facts and intelligent opinions. The huffingtonpost just emphasizes what I already believe.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I felt the same way at first but they do write occasional pro-Hillary as well as stuff critical of Obama. They actually broke the story that resulted in all this Bittergate nonsense. I don't think they're pretending to be anything but liberal but it just may be that the Obama love is more a factor of Hillary not doing much to make us proud. Good luck finding that 100% unbiased paper. I used to respect Slate but they've been playing the controversy/gotcha game and it's really ticking me off. The media is out of hand.
nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -10/+2
(read the first few sentences before digging down!!11!!?)

Webster Tarpley

Preface: The Need to Expose Obama from the Left

“Where did you get a public opinion that we should fully disarm
and then, according to some theoreticians, such as Brzezinski,
divide our territory into three or four states? If there is such a public
opinion, I would disagree with it.” – Russian President Vladimir
Putin, June 4, 2007.

This book exposes Obama, but it does so from a standpoint that is
fundamentally different from almost all other critical studies seen so
far. This book exposes and refutes Obama from the left.
In this book, the vague and vapid messianic and utopian platitudes,
the lemming legions, the personality cult, the narcissism, the
megalomania, the fake polling, the media and intelligence agency
manipulation which are the essence of Obama and his campaign of
mass manipulation are criticized thoroughly, but always from a
standpoint which reaches back to the Franklin D. Roosevelt New
Deal, in many ways the best government that America has ever
known. The basic thesis shared by the authors of this book is that
Obama is a right-winger, an elitist, a creature of Wall Street, and a
deeply troubled personality, running far to the right of his main
opponent, Sen. Clinton, on all major issues, including the two critical
areas of economics and foreign policy. Obama’s ultra-left
components, concentrated in social and energy policy, are an
ideological camouflage which only accentuates, and does not alter,
his overall pro-Wall Street profile. Obama is a right-winger, and this
book criticizes him from the left. This, it turns out, is by far his most
vulnerable flank in today’s crisis of simultaneous wars and economic
depression.
Other studies of Obama can be divided into three main groups.
First are those which approach their subject with transparent adulation
and hero worship. This is the majority of the treatments of Obama
coming out of the liberal and left liberal community, and these studies
are so biased as to be basically worthless. The authors are often the
limousine liberals and wealthy elitists and their publicists, and these
persons tend to make up Obama’s most devoted base.
Next are those, like Shelby Steele or Bill Sammon, who approach
Obama from a right-wing or neocon point of view. Sometimes, if the
author is an intelligent reactionary (a rarity), these studies can offer
useful perceptions. But generally they fall far short of comprehending
their subject because of the distortions inherent in right-wing or
neocon ideology itself. Sometimes the results are almost comical:
right-wing critics try to portray Obama as a communist, when his
pedigree is that of a controlled asset of the Ford Foundation and the
Trilateral Commission, both important centers of coordination for the
Anglo-American finance oligarchy. And the list is even longer: not
just Ford and Trilateral, but also Bilderberger, Council on Foreign
Relations, Skull and Bones, RAND Corporation, Chicago School,
Woodrow Wilson Center – all of them are backing Obama.
The rightists speculate that Obama will surrender to the supposed
global jihad, whereas his true goal is to launch his own apocalyptic
global hyper-jihad against Pakistan, China, and Russia, in conformity
with the prescriptions of his guru and svengali, the marplot Zbigniew
Brzezinski. Obama is the darling of the failed and bankrupt elites:
Brzezinski, Jay Rockefeller, George Soros, Paul Adolph Volcker,
General Merrill “Bomb Now, Die Later” McPeak, Joseph Nye of the
Trilateral-Bilderberger complex, and the notorious ruling class cover-
up artist Lee Hamilton are all in Obama’s amen corner. The right-
wingers then try to portray Obama as a Moslem, whereas he
obviously worships at the Ford Foundation Church of the
Counterinsurgency, where the racist provocateur Jeremiah Wright
purveys a Gnostic synthetic religion totally distinct from both
Christianity and Islam. They try to portray Obama as a left liberal,
whereas he exhibits in fact many of the features of what is being
increasingly recognized as postmodern fascism. All of these right-
wing and neocon attempts to understand the Obama phenomenon are
thus crippled by an attempt to make this candidate and his supporters
fit into ideological schemes left over from the Cold War, or else from
the post-9/11 era. But the Cold War is long gone, and the post-9/11
era is rapidly fading into yesterday’s headlines, even as the Brzezinski
faction gears up for the global showdown with Moscow, Beijing, and
the other capitals of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
The net result of all the right-wing and neocon studies of Obama is
to vastly underestimate the danger that he poses, both in terms of
world-wide thermonuclear confrontation (the likely outcome of
Brzezinski’s endgame), as well as in terms of the transformation of
the US society and economy towards postmodern fascism. The
postmodern fascist danger is not confined to Obama: the radical
environmental charlatan Al Gore has just announced his intention to
spend $300 million to create a private army of 10 million –
Malthusian fanatics who will coerce politicians and society in general
into implementing global warming countermeasures. These will
obviously include reductions in the standard of living, and speculative
bonanzas for Gore and his clique of elitists. Gore’s Green Army will
be available for strikebreaking. It might also undertake a March on
Washington in the spirit of Benito Mussolini’s October 1922 March
on Rome. Will Gore’s environmental storm troopers wear green
shirts? If they do, they will join the tradition of the green-shirted
Romanian Iron Guards of Codreanu, an imitator of Il Duce. Not
surprisingly, Obama has announced that Gore will be prominent and
influential in the future regime of the Illinois messiah.
A third class of critical analysis regarding Obama comes from
writers who can generally be reckoned to the center-left of the
Democratic Party. These are often individuals of courage and
character who have distinguished themselves in the battles of the past
decade against the monstrous excesses of the Republicans and the
Bush regime. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the husband of Valerie
Plame, one of the leading public adversaries of the Bush regime, has
written eloquently of the support he and his wife received from the
Clintons during their battles with the Bush neocons, at a time when
the struggle-averse Obama was AWOL, as he always has been in
moments when decisive action was required. Professor Paul Krugman
of Princeton has fought many a skirmish with Bush & Co. over recent
years, and has now developed in his New York Times columns an in-
depth critique of Obama’s health care plan, highlighting Obama’s
refusal to support universal health care. Krugman is obviously
horrified by Obama’s pseudo-movement of militant Kool-Aid
drinkers, and has focused attention on the venomous, personality cult
aspects of the Obamakins. Professor Sean Wilentz, who defied the
reactionary Republican clique during the Clinton impeachment
hearings ten years ago, has established beyond any doubt that it is Obama,
not the Clintons, who must bear responsibility for introducing
racial polarization into this year’s presidential campaign. We must
also mention Keidi Obi Awadu of the LIB Radio Network in Los
Angeles and Glen Ford of the Black Agenda Report, two authentic,
intelligent and critical black voices who have not hesitated to offer
criticism of Obama. These studies by people who have really been
fighting Bush, Cheney, and the neocons convey deserved contempt
for Obama’s hollow claim that he is an agent of change.
- JimmyTheHeel, on 04/19/2008, -3/+1Evil Educators induce major
  ignorance into education that
  is fatal to human existence on
  Earth. Education actually
  destroys the analytial Brain,
  leaving only a single brain
  perspective android servility.
  Educators who suppress the
  Harmonic Time Cube 4 Day
  4 corner Earth simultaneous
  rotation deserve hanging, for
  ONEism threatens humanity.
  
  ONEism IS EVIL - the value
  of DEATH, and Hell Cometh
  upon the ONEism Educated .
  Religious/academia ONEism
  is based upon a dead queer
  Jew giving birth to you and
  denouncing your flesh and
  blood Mother as a whore -
  and you are a pimp for her.
  Just how sick and putrid
  can a human mind dwell?
  Humans exist as Opposites,
  Earth opposite hemispheres,
  ONE is the value of Death.
  One God is Death Math belief.
  Paint word God on the ass of
  donkey and moronic believers
  will worship it. Truthfully -
  God is really Satan in Guise,
  but the Educated stupid can
  not analyze over 1 perspective,
  that screws up Opposite Brain. Educated doomed by ONEism.
  
  I am a Knower of 4 corner
  simultaneous 24 hour Days
  that occur within a single
  4 corner rotation of Earth.
  Your 1st Day God is void.
  *********************************************************************
  BURN THE DAMN EVIL ONE BIBLE
  before it destroys existing Cubic Creation
  
  You are educated stupid - an evil ANDROID,
  your opposite brain destroyed by Evil ONE.
  ONE - DOES NOT CREATE, NOT EVEN A GOD.
  I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND
  CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS - FOR I HAVE CREATED 4 SIMULTANEOUS CORNER 1st DAYS IN 1 EARTH ROTATION,
  AND THE TRUTH OF 4 CORNER 1st DAYS WILL DESTROY
  ALL RELIGIONS AND FALSE GODS WE WORSHIP TODAY.
  IF YOU CAN'T TEAR AND BURN THE EVIL BIBLE, THEN
  YOUR MIND IS BIAS, PREJUDICED AND UNFIT TO VOICE
  YOUR OPINION ON A SINGLE CONTROVERSY. THE BIBLE
  GOD ALREADY EXISTED IN THE HUMAN FORM THAT
  HE CLAIMED ADAM AND EVE WERE THE ORIGINALS
  OF. THERE WAS EVEN A NEARBY TOWN CALLED NOD-
  A "NATION OF WOMEN" (KINDA LIKE USA) FROM
  WHERE CAIN GOT HIS WIFE. ADAM AND EVE IS A LIE.
  REMEMBER THAT THE FAKE GOD CLAIMED TO CREATE
  A 1ST DAY AND I HAVE CREATED 4-1ST DAY ROTATION.
  ONE IS A DEMONIC RELIGIOUS LIE
  taught by stupid and evil Educators, who
  should be whipped for Evil ONEism against
  children and Nature's 4 Corner Creation.
  *************************************
  Until you can tear and burn the bible to
  escape the EVIL ONE, it will be impossible
  for your educated stupid brain to know that
  4 different corner harmonic 24 hour Days
  rotate simultaneously within a single 4
  quadrant rotation of a squared equator
  and cubed Earth. The Solar system, the
  Universe, the Earth and all humans are
  composed of + 0 - antipodes, and equal
  to nothing if added as a ONE or Entity.
  All Creation occurs between Opposites.
  Academic ONEism destroys +0- brain.
  If you would acknowledge
  simple existing math proof
  that 4 harmonic corner days
  rotate simultaneously around
  squared equator and cubed
  Earth, proving 4 Days, Not
  1Day,1Self,1Earth or 1God
  that exists only as anti-side.
  This page you see - cannot
  exist without its anti-side
  existence, as +0- antipodes.
  Add +0- as One = nothing
  - nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1I don't think you read the first couple sentences of my post... oh, well... if you loved Brzezinski's time with Carter you ought to love him since he's Obama's chief advisor. So sad...the author hates neocons as much as you and you'll not even take the time to read his viewpoint.
  - Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1The author lost me when he called me a lemming and you've been nothing but a petty git on these comments.
JimmyTheHeel, on 04/19/2008, -3/+7Frank Schaeffer knows whereof he speaks: his father, Francis A. Schaeffer, pretty much started the modern Christian Conservative movement. He was a conservative long before toeing the Limbaugh/Hannity/Fox/Freeper line became the standard for the Bushies. He's twice the true conservative -- and probably twice the American -- than any of the spambots you'll see insulting him here.

He gets it. They don't.

Great post.
- VoodooPunk, on 04/19/2008, -3/+2How exactly is his father's conservative qualifications in any way relevant to the fact that he's voting for one of the most liberal politicians in the US? So by your logic, because Ronald Reagan was a Republican that means his flaming liberal son Ronald Reagan Jr should be the conservative standard? If you think Frank Schaeffer is a "true conservative" then you obviously have absolutely no idea what a conservative is.
  - averagejoesgym, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1The label "conservative" as it is used today is a joke. The real meaning of conservative is limited government, focus on domestic issues, hesitancy to get involved in the affairs of other countries, free market, etc... Today's so-called conservative and neo-conservatives support (as do liberals) governing morality, pre-emptive involvment with foreign nations, government involvment in the free market on the side of management but not labor, etc.... These current "conservatives" are an embarrasment to the largely sensible roots of conservatism.
muckemuck, on 04/19/2008, -5/+3I get that he's opposed to the Iraq war, but.. wtf? Why not vote for a Republican candidate that is for smaller federal government and understands that the Iraq war is a dead end? oh.. wait.. the GOP decided they didn't want a candidate like that in the race. How about that.. they'd rather have the Republican voters switch over and vote Democrat and defeat the Republicans than give up on a war that's only being fought for the wrong reasons. Nice...
- darwinwins, on 04/19/2008, -1/+4Did you just say Republican and "small government" in the same sentence? How far gone from reality do you have to be to believe in that ***** anymore?
  - blinkerbug, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1about as far gone as Democrat and "fiscal responsibility" ... or Democrat and "lower the national debt".
    - Krisgi, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1About as far gone as Republican and "improve the Nation."
    - Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1In what fantasy world do liberals get the blame for this ridiculous debt or fiscal irresponsibility?
dmax4usa, on 04/19/2008, -8/+2The author somehow manages to compare Obama to the Marines because he "senses the same moral ethic." How degrading to the people that actually serve in the military to compare a Marine's level of discipline taking bullets for us and Obama for "refusing to be drawn into Senator Clinton's nasty web of insinuation." Is this a joke?

This is a hastily written article desperately attempting damage control after a lost debate.

Obama is a nice image. He looks iconic. He's eloquent. But who is he?

Sadly, I think many of us don't want to know...
- darwinwins, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2He was comparing the willingness of youth to follow an ideal - to place self behind an organization - for lack of a better word.
- yammy1688, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2what is it you'd like to know? nothing already answered from his website, his books, and legistative record of course.
- nycmac247, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Wife is heavy into CFR - too bad none of the Obama supporters have read their position papers...
  - Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Link to them.
headzoo, on 04/19/2008, -2/+7"I also see a Marine-like level of discipline in Obama, as when, for instance, he refused to be drawn into Senator Clinton's nasty web of insinuation during the April 16 debate in Pennsylvania. Obama could have opened a Pandora's Box of scorched-earth counter attack"

And this one one of the reason I like Obama so much. He has a very Gandhi-ist attitude. That is, just let your opponents hit you, slam you, and deface you, but don't attack back. Stand firm, and stand proud, and weather the storm. In the end, everyone will see with their own eyes what a cruel person your opponent is, and at that point they have lost battle without you throwing a single punch.
darwinwins, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I leave for Iraq in one week - my mother's opinion of democrats or liberals has yet to change. You win some you lose some. C'est la vie.
Enjia, on 04/19/2008, -5/+1sounds fake
VBDon, on 04/19/2008, -6/+1Sounds like the same old "I Want" "Social Republican" he has always been. He doesn't know and doesn't care what Obama believes in or stands for (if anything). The crowd is for him, so he has to follow. His son's enlistment is just an excuse to go along in order to get along. Real Republicans aren't "I Want" people. It's the self-centered Liberal Democrats who always whine and picket for what they want but aren't willing to earn through hard work.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I think he's talking about the jagoffs who keep voting for tax cuts for the rich at the expense of all other considerations. The GOP of the last 25 years has been a bald-faced lie misrepresenting everything the party stood for before Reagan.
- Krisgi, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1How in God's name could anyone think that Liberals are self-centered? What we want is in benefit of everyone. Conservatives are the ones who are all about Me, Myself and I. What a hypocrite you are.
  - Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I'm self-centered. I'm just capable of seeing how what comes around goes around and giving the rich money they can use to ship our industries and jobs to other countries doesn't help that.
- averagejoesgym, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0You wrote, "Real Republicans aren't "I Want" people" Unfortunately, the vast majority of Republicans voted into office do not fit this standard. I have alot of problems with liberal Democrats as well. I believe that you are likely a "real" Republican and, as such, I must ask, "Do you have blinders on?". Criticizing your own party's faults is a sign of strength and independence, not of weakness.
joeanon, on 04/19/2008, -7/+2Well that's all grand and all.

But just in the first sentence.. I would have laughed at thinking beyond the tiny scope that my mind exists within.. that pretty much sums up my desire to listen to your opinion as well.

Just because you're desperate and looking for answers doesn't mean you're change of heart is the savior of the nation.

If you would just THINK for yourself and demand logic and rational answers AND learn to see political gimmicks and ploys ahead of time... the reality is.. you wouldn't be able to vote republican.

If you had been using your MIND instead of your EGO for the last 40 years, you'd vote democrat.

The reasons are nearly unlimited, but beside the fact that the GOP constantly talks of fiscal responsible and then RUNS the country on borrow and spend politics. Go read a book man. The nation debt was created by republicans.

We've been support one corrupt GOP administration after another since Nixon. You,sadly, are likely one of the many fooled by propaganda and your sheer desire to assume all that is American is good. You probably think Reagan was a good President, like many Americans.

But, where has that thinking gotten us. Where has this republican revolution, spearheaded by Nixon and then Reagan gotten us ?

Reagan gave us the largest tax cuts for the wealthy in US history, so large in fact congress had to go back and correct them. He failed at star wars. He illegally traded arms and then BOLDLY lied about it saying I do not recall OVER AND OVER. Reagan also ended the National Institute of Health's ability to review drugs. So now, if you didn't know, the DRUG companies do ALL the clinic research to prove the safety of their own drug without third party regulations or oversight.
Just.. using common sense. How smart is it to hand over oversight of an entire industry... to that very industry. Do we expect Big Pharma will critically review it's products... or just push them for profit.

Why can't you just READ THE NEWS and think for yourself. Only a moron who believes TV personalities would vote republican time and time again. I'm not saying now and then don't give the elitists their chance. But look.. When Carter won office... we started ending the war on drugs. Carter told us we shouldn't import oil. Carter told us to TURN DOWN out thermostats.

And YOU and your cronies laughed him out of office.

It's not about people who speak well.

It's about your inability to just grasp simple logic and that's why you vote republican.

The GOP strategies are self defeating. You can't reward the rich and forever grow the wealth gap, civilization simply CANNOT work like that and democracy cannot survive infinate monoplization, no matter how natural the market forces of supply and demand are.

Have you ever heard the phrase that PURE capitalism is.. Nasty, brutish and short. Much like corporate run anarchy we would be bought and old. Like before the Child Labor Act.

You're problem is that the Republican party HAS NOT represented conservatism AT LEAST since Nixon, but many of you blindly stuck with them.

Obviously the Democrats are the more diversified party. They lack unity, but if you can't see why a party of unified hive minded people supposedly representing the people's will isn't self defeating... then WELL...... that's why you find yourself here.

Liberalism means you support ideas like equality. Most Republican's ... are liberals. They've been fed false definitions do long though... the ideology has lost it's mean and become a badge of pride, conflict and ultimately ignorance.

Anyone who stands blindly on partisan lines... if obviously a failure of a citizen because the nation RELIES on us to provide oversight and ethics. When you sell your nation out to the highest bidder.... you get corporate control of your nation.

Many of you blame the government, but your wrong. Like they say.... follow the money.

Carter and Clinton are the ONLY president's in modern history with positive economic records. ALL the republican's are economic failures. Read the stats... look at the Dow... the historic data does not lie THAT OFTEN that you can't boldy deny it over and over. The Clinton admin is, without a doubt, the most impressive economic administration in modern history. The DOW nearly goes vertical under their administration. Now we all know it's not Bill fueling the 90's boom... no more like Al Gore's 91 bill for major funding of the internet is what really broke the gates lose. Obviously computers and the internet fueled that 90s boom. They say somewhere around 75% of ALL economic booms are fueled by technology.

That's right... technology... remember that stuff... like from back in the 60s when the world watched in awe as we landed on the moon several times. So you don't have to like it, but the Clinton's do have awesome economic stats.. but now without some sacrifice. Clinton's also bombed Iraq setting the stage for Bush's invasion. Clinton's also took power from the FDA allowing Big Pharma yet more control (though Reagan's damage was far greater by ENDING third party clinical drug review)... I'm still trying to get over how American's sat still and didn't notice that being a bad idea.

With that kind of thinking we should let restaurants and grocery stores do their own health and food inspections.... resulting in... YEAH it's good enough time and time again.

I can go on for a few more pages, but the reality is the CON voters fear giving the dems a chance... especially after Clinton. With the GOP holding desperately the claim that they have superior fiscal strategies, the fact Clinton blew away the Reagan economy in terms of family income, Dow performance, all time low welfare, really hurts the GOP claim of any type of fiscal superiority.

No, their advantage is they think hive minded and they do what it takes to win, even if it's immoral or illegal. That's powerful stuff and it works perfectly with rallying religious groups.

I really don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to keep voting republican after Nixon no less Reagan.. and now Bush.

The Dems don't play hard enough.. that's true, but to rise to the GOP game would also be falling to their level of competition which bypasses rather important ideas such as morality and constitutional law.

But... time is on the Dem side. The current crop of Republican's simply are not conservatives.

Conservative would mean.. small government.. that means small military, no borrow and spend, no gay marriage ban, no spying and no torture. These are all TOOLS of big government. These programs MAKE government more powerful and ultimately that's a real conservatives worst enemy.

Yet oddly it's the cons who push prohibition, yet more BIG government regulation of your lives.

People fail to take into account, that without government, you're at the mercy of wealth... the arostrocracy is still around, they just have new names. Like Exxon, WalMart, General Motors, BP.

Most of you think this is the free market we envisions so many years ago... well... you haven't been paying attention..

In all our success American's have gotten quite stupid and quite ignorant of history.

In fact, the corporation was invented as a means to reduce liability primarily so that businesses could be convinced to provide HIGHLY REGULATED public services. The businesses would be chartered by the state with specific provisions and time frames. None of this here is a giant wad of money please go make the nation a better/richer place.

It wasn't primarily about money, it was primarily about providing a cost effectice solution to the public. Secondly it reduced liability in an effort to attract more investors for these large public projects.

That's what a corporation was SUPPOSED to be.

Now get this... this is a fact that a real con or liberal will love, but a republican will likely hate, since republicanism is truly a party of corporatism not conservatism. Just go look up the definitions for yourself.

Anyway... the corporation existed as a public service, therefore held accountable by democracy since they were controlled by tight regulation and agreements by the state. All these terms were agreed upon before hand. In many cases the time frame ensured corporations did not go beyond their public service scope and monopolize the markets.

AND then... the dark side of abolition became clear. By decree of the Constitution all men are equal under the law. So get THIS... A corporation has always been considered an entity, not just a business. The corporate entity is considered a person for all legal aspects. That's why it protects the people who own it, because you can't sue them directly, you must sue the corporation, hence the reason businesses incorporate.

Some smart ass corporate lawyers got their case to the Supreme Court and evidentally in THE Johnnie Cochran moment of all lawyer victories... the Supreme Court ruled that.. well if a corporation is a person.. then it must also be equal under the law and therefore the state cannot tell it how to operate, just like it cannot tell us how to live our lives.

Anyway, many of you may say.. well that's fair. It's just open market supply and demand.

That's where our public education fails us. I too would have at one point fallen for this logic failure.

Now I see however that allowing corporations to act as mega people with nearly unlimited wealth and spider webs of legal protection isn't just a bad idea in general.

Allowing this to happen puts corporations outside the boundaries of democracy. Many will say OH but we have the Dow and we can boycott. Yes.. we can... but these methods rely on individual wealth.

As the wealth gap grows corporations gain power in the form of relative wealth over the working class. That means every year that the rich get richer the working class lose more and more leverage using methods like boycotting or even using the Dow to influence a compoany and it's stockholder.

One major problem is corporations have no legal obligation other than they must make a profit for their shareholder. If that means.. selling secrets to the competition.. so be it. If that means starving the domestic population to feed the Europeans becuase the Euro is up.. so be it (not as if that will happen but..). The premise is valid. Corporations should be smart enough to just KNOW that abusing the working class devalues the entire nation.

Much of the reason corporate American keeps going and the wealthy turn their noses up at the working classes plight is well first off... most of them are little rich boys like Bush who inherit their money and it's just not that hard to stay rich once you have family fortune like that. Secondly the wealthy fail to fully put into perspective that eroding the working class erodes the US dollar. So, while their profit stay the same or go up, they aren't computing the national level damage that does when the working class is actually going into debt. In my mind that is cannabalizing the working class to keep the status quo for the wealthy classes.

Ok, well thats fair I guess, BUT, they really feel they are isolated and thats where all this Trickle Down econmics ***** comes from.

No... go back through history people. Where did we get the money to win World War 1... where did we get the money to get out of the depression... where did we get the money to end World War 2. We SURE AS HELL didn't borrow it from the communists or the fascists. No.. we taxed the rich.

Imagine a better way to prevent unnecessary wars than requiring we raise taxes to keep the budget balanced. WOAH all of a sudden the wealthy will become the war protesters and we'll start having REAL plans when we go to war.. not giant groups of testosterone clad youths running vigilante justice over the land.

That is the traditional American solution... when things get rough.. you tax the rich. That creates the incentive for the wealthy not to try to constantly throw the balance of the nation off in their favor. If they do that, and we lose money and the people notice... well... it's taxing time for the top income brackets.

Do you have ANY idea how much of a tax cut Reagan gave the wealthy. The average millionaire
can get away with paying as little as 15% in taxes... What do you pay ? How the HELL is that a proportional tax system.

Many blame income tax.. WRONG. You cant blame a social program any more than you can blame a chair when you fall off it because you should have been using a ladder. What you have is bad management. Bad management, regardless of the economic model socialism vs capitalism, is what kills efficiency first and foremost.

The USSR Mir space station for instance.. which sat up in orbit for however long I can't remember. During it's ENTIRE lifespan Mir cost around 3% of the International Space Station budget. That's a DAMN well managed program.. socialist or not. Sometimes central management is better than privatization.

One of the dirty truth the GOP will forever deny is that political science experts an PH'D's and such consider the US a hybrid economy. We are a hybrid socialist/capitalist economy. Min wage, Child Labor Act, 8 hour workday, workmans comp, first time home buyers programs. That's all socialism. The US military, police, national guard, firemen, postal service... that's all socialism.

Some of these programs are managed fairly well .. such as the postal system which for the longest time ran a slight profit or basi
- buhbyebot, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2READER'S DIGEST VERSION PLEASE.
  end caps.
  - darwinwins, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1When I clicked on this comment, I was expeting TLDR. Close enough.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I don't disagree but nobody reads comments this long.
wonderworm, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I would give my life for Obama!..............................
Well......maybe not just yet........still working on my selfishness. But I will get involved and educate everyone I can about how truly life changing Barack is and how for the first time in our lifetime we can create a government that inspires us to take the steps to make our nation the model for the entire World.
- Pherdnut, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Let's not get THAT enthusiastic until we see whether people follow up with reasonable rep and senate votes.
FairDinkumMate, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6Gee the right-wing fanatics are doing so well applying logic & facts here to further the discussion. A short sample of the responses on this page alone:

quarc - "Lib Propaganda" You sir, are a douche.
LukasSmith - You sir, are a whore, just like Obama's mom.
nymac247 - you are a tool - wake up and see how you blindly accept everything he does without question.
VoodooPunk - Not interested in concrete ideas or issues, just happy with buzz words and pointless platitudes.
p0s3r - Because you're a freaking mongo that can't remember *****?
Stevanoski - BHO wilted like a lily in a hot wind with just a few tough questions. McCain will beat him easily.
damndj - Muffington Post has some good servers to handle all this Digging!
jbenson2 - He’s chosen to spend his life with this kind of yuppy play terrorist who led the Weather Underground
Payman25 - ***** Obama and all his Muslim Croonies
Enjia - sounds fake

With such intelligent discourse being posted on the web against him, Obama must certainly be concerned...
- Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I'd actually much prefer being challenged by intelligent discourse from the GOP and Hillary camps for a change. I am willing to change my mind when given good arguments folks.
Bbau01, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Outstanding article and LOL to FairDinkummate - excellent point
vicisaran, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2This is one of the best articles I've ever read on Obama, as it relates the writer's life experiences with Obama's record and leadership abilities. Why does this have less than 600 diggs??
- Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Dugg for fun sarcastic irony even though I liked the piece.
140Suffolk, on 04/19/2008, -4/+1He sees a "...Marine-like level of discipline in Obama..." ? By avoiding legitimate questions about Hillary? Such as:
+Clinton's association with communists in her youth -- this is 100% legitimate
+Her husband's association with dictators as a for profit "consultant" -- also something Americans have a right to hear about.
How about the $100K she made instantly on commodities? How about Bill Clinton pardoning FALN unrepentant terrorist bombers?
So this guy sees Marine-like discipline in Obama's ability to help conceal from American voters these important issues?

How about Obama's phony resume? He was a civil rights lawyer for years. Except his name is not on ANY cases as attorney-of-record in the state where he practiced? Why? Cause he was arm-candy. He introduced clients and then stepped back and allowed the real lawyers to do their work. Phony talk and vague generalities doesn't actually work in court where your adversary will challenge you. Oh well.
How about Barack's accomplishments in the Illinois legislature. Well, if he is nominated for president it will come out that most of the bills that have his name as sponsor were actually sponsored by other Illinois Dems. After the Dems took control of the Illinois state legislature after the last election the Illinois Democratic leadership convinced the REAL sponsors to take their names off the bills. And put Barack's name on. Why? To manufacture a resume for him.
Empty suit. Fake. Phony. Fraud. And this debate shows that he is stumped when he doesn't have the answers in front of him. Makes a great speech, just like any other actor.
.. on and on. But Obama didn't go there.
- Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2Links please. If you're going to direct us to things that are supposedly factual but not common knowledge the burden is on you.
kcalabama06, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I understand exactly how you feel and are moved. I'm a lifelong Republican and a wife to an now ex-officer. I've consoled fathers, mothers, wives and kids when their spouse, parent, or kid was tragically killed even during times of non-war ... it is harder during wartimes because every person that comes to the door - your heart stops momentarily wondering.
These men and women share a brotherhood that has no boundaries - no color, no class, nothing. Just the companionship caused by putting your life on the line for each other.
Bless you and bless your article.
- Krisgi, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Excellent point. Thanks for summing up the essence of the article. We can all have different ideologies and religious beliefs, but not one of them should be allowed to annihilate the notion of our one-and-the-same-ness. I am not a religious person at all, but I understand that, while I am in this life, I am my brother´s keeper.
Pherdnut, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I think it's also important that we start seeing each other as fellow Americans and shouldering responsibility for bad judgment when it comes to votes for crappy leadership as a failure on our parts to make a convincing argument. Liberals could do a lot more to avoid alienating conservative elements that are being taken advantage of. It's true that we rarely make good economy arguments for instance, and the burden is on us to be more pragmatic about such matters if we want to convince GOP voters that we've got the right idea.
140Suffolk, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1"Everything must be different!" or "Alles muss anders sein!" was a slogan of the National Socialist Party.
Now, is it me, or does that sound a lot like "Change!"
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Frank Schaeffer: After The Debate: The Case For Obama

Login or register to add a comment