New National Anthem of USSA

  • Thread startermissouri_hubby
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sexycouple2011 said:
One problem moron...Hitler's Germany was actually fascist, not socialist. And I'd say that "righteousness" as a negative connotation more accurately belongs to the far-right, Republican bible-thumper Christians who have misled this country to ruin the past 8 years.

Try again.

technically it was national socialism although your heart is certainly in the right place
 
missouri_hubby said:
A few more interesting articles:

» The Creeping Socialism of Barack Obama - Blogger News Network

Why You Should Not Vote For Senator Obama | MND: Your Daily Dose of Counter-Theory

http://www.gaypatriot.net/2008/10/13/more-interest-in-palins-peccadillos-than-obamas-record/

And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and.... but I'll let you do your own research. I need to go drink a beer and shoot something.

LOL Ok, so let me get this straight...you think that posting opinion-based BLOGS that can be posted by anyone on the intarweb actually constitutes "proof" of anything?

<chuckle>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blkoralslaveboy said:
technically it was national socialism although your heart is certainly in the right place

True on the vernacular, but in these systems are not the same in form or function. The fascism of Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Tojo's Japan, Franco's Spain or Pinochet's Chile were certainly not nearly the same as the "pure socialism" of the USSR, China, socialist Sweden, socialist England, Cuba, North Korea, East Africa, or Southeast Asia.

I could write a paper on the subject. The first hugely obvious difference is that fascism maintains the notion of private property while socialism abolishes that entirely. In the USSR, for example, people used to have to wait years for their name to come up on a list to receive a car from the government. At the same time, under Nazi rule there were many famously wealthy Germans such as Oskar Schindler who lived and thrived as rich men under the Nazi system. There are far more differences than similarities, despite the *name* of National Socialist party that Nazi stands for. The bottom line is that most people throw such labels around glibly with a lot of ignorance attached, no true understanding of any of it or what it really means.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tileman said:
A lot of blacks think like you. I am a white man, and I have to problem with a black man being president. Get some one like Colon Powell, someone that will do right for America. ......Tileman

BY THE WAY Colon Powell isn't stupid he knows he would NEVER get the republican nomination simply because a VERY small portion of that party would agree with you and vote for a black :mad:conservative. In that sense you are better than they, although you have much too much room for improvement still! Maybe in another 25 years.
 
RoSquirts said:
editorials and you tube videos seem to be the only fodder some here can comprehend.

Well, this kind of comment is exactly what I might expect. Like I so graciously said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I expect people to think. THAT is the whole purpose of the thread... to make people use that pile of shit between their ears for something other than holding up their hat. BUT... despite the fact that I've refrained from name calling and tried to keep MY comments in line, what I've seen here -I think exclusively from people on the Democratic side- is smartass comments and vile, hateful remarks. You people are filled with hatred from the word go. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a bigger collection of bigots and racists in my life! You people would honestly put a KKK rally to shame. Anyone doesn't agree with your ideas they're repukes or nazis (do you even know what the word means? Did you have relatives bake in the ovens in Germany?) or beer swilling backwoods hicks or -OMG- Evangelical... like having some sort of set of values is a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree with all those people but BY GOD I RESPECT THEM FOR HAVING THE BALLS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE, AND DO IT WITH CLASS. At least they don't just blindly follow like sheep to slaughter. OMG, he reads (yes I do read... and at a college level at that... do you?) blogs... somebody's opinion! Watched CNN lately? OMG! you watched somebody's opinion! And a biased one, at that! What do you think they do there! Do you honestly believe they report the news without spinning it? You do? Boy are you naive! That's why your job is to read everything you can, then sort the shit from the truth. Don't like my sources of information? FINE! Research it yourself! Find the TRUTH! It's out there, and it's not pretty.

And if you want to STILL want to vote for Obama... Great! That's your privilege because this is America. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with you... and I don't.

And now I am going to do what Comrade Obama should have done the first time vile shit began spewing from that racist bastard "Reverend" Wright's mouth... I'm leaving. I need to go study my Russian Language lessons. I think I may need them.
 
Don't associate me with the name calling, thank you. And of course, don't respond to the video I posted for YOU to think.

You label someone as a socialist, hitler , etc without proof and then accuse others of being filled with hatred when you offer no substantial justification for those charges. It's kind of ironic, no?

Blogs are not sources of information, they're opinion. I only asked for evidence of why you think Obama is a socialist, nazi, communist. You couldn't deliver so you resort to attacks.

So be it, I rest my case.
 
Will & Eve said:
I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are actually so out of touch you believe this stuff.

from your response i actually give you the same credit is tile in that you are much better than your fellow neocons. if they were all like you then MAYBE there would have been a non-white president by now. perhaps Colon Powell. By the way despite the fact that he's a republican I actually am very proud of Powell... but i can't say the same for Rice... i was at one point but, well, she followed through with the b.s. instead of hitting the eject button. don't hate me will/eve i don't hate you after all it is a free country still.
 
missouri_hubby said:
Well, this kind of comment is exactly what I might expect. Like I so graciously said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I expect people to think. THAT is the whole purpose of the thread... to make people use that pile of shit between their ears for something other than holding up their hat. BUT... despite the fact that I've refrained from name calling and tried to keep MY comments in line, what I've seen here -I think exclusively from people on the Democratic side- is smartass comments and vile, hateful remarks. You people are filled with hatred from the word go. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a bigger collection of bigots and racists in my life! You people would honestly put a KKK rally to shame. Anyone doesn't agree with your ideas they're repukes or nazis (do you even know what the word means? Did you have relatives bake in the ovens in Germany?) or beer swilling backwoods hicks or -OMG- Evangelical... like having some sort of set of values is a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree with all those people but BY GOD I RESPECT THEM FOR HAVING THE BALLS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE, AND DO IT WITH CLASS. At least they don't just blindly follow like sheep to slaughter. OMG, he reads (yes I do read... and at a college level at that... do you?) blogs... somebody's opinion! Watched CNN lately? OMG! you watched somebody's opinion! And a biased one, at that! What do you think they do there! Do you honestly believe they report the news without spinning it? You do? Boy are you naive! That's why your job is to read everything you can, then sort the shit from the truth. Don't like my sources of information? FINE! Research it yourself! Find the TRUTH! It's out there, and it's not pretty.

And if you want to STILL want to vote for Obama... Great! That's your privilege because this is America. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with you... and I don't.

And now I am going to do what Comrade Obama should have done the first time vile shit began spewing from that racist bastard "Reverend" Wright's mouth... I'm leaving. I need to go study my Russian Language lessons. I think I may need them.

While I agree with some of the spirit of your post, the credibility of your opinion falls off a steep cliff right around the time you start saying that hard core evangelicals don't just follow blindly along and imply that they, as a general group, tend to be in any way highly educated as compared to more moderate voting blocks. This sort of stuff doesn't pass the straight face test. The far right is by far the largest voting block which for all intents and purposes is a living embodiment of following blindly behind leaders who lead by ideology rather than knowledge or reasoned judgement. To argue otherwise is simply to not pay attention to reality.

As for calling Obama a un-Patriotic or communist, you better check that shit at the door and quick. By the standards of the far right, this is unacceptable talk about the next President of the United States. I can't believe how many people used to help spread the idea that it was un-Patriotic to question the "Commander in Chief" during the first 3 or 4 years of Bush II's Presidency. No matter how badly he fucked up...time after time...it was the same line of bullshit..."Trust your President, support your President, or you're not a Patriot".

I wonder...when Obama wins (and he will)...are all of those self-proclaimed country-first Repubs gonna walk the same walk and support Obama even if they don't like him?

Or are they going to suddenly become hypocrites?
 
Will & Eve said:
The point is honesty.

Neither side can win with it, both sides stoop. If my "top of the head" example is not a perfect analogy, then believe as you will.

The point is that, IMHO, either side that says "look how low the other side is stooping" really isn't paying attention because both sides are stooping.

Will, you make an excellent point here...but I also have to agree with RoSquirts assertion as well.

To her point: it seems to me that accusing someone of being a potential terrorist due to his associations with someone for a business deal to bring money to inner city kids for education is stretching things in the extreme. On the flip side, equating McCain's real life Economic policy to Bush's seems to be fairly accurate insofar as the McCain campaign has totally failed to differentiate their ideas from Bush in the slightest. In fact, despite what is widely held as the worst economic crisis the world has seen since the great depression we can't get the McCain group to really even acknowledge it much since they seem more interested in red herrings and distractions like Ayers and Wright. Ultimately, the economic conflation that Obama wants to point at McCain is appropo due to the current state of the world. Talking about Ayers and Wright is by comparison just silly.

To your point: I agree its inconvenient for our needs during this crisis for our candidates to get down into the muck and sling mud at each other in order to win, much of it dishonest. This is Karl Rovian tactics at its finest. Many, many sources indicate this is just a fact of life in Presidential politics due to the direction that Rove decided to take things back in 2000 when he ironically destroyed McCain's bid for the Presidency with lies and muckraking.

There is a somewhat accurate argument that McCain should have been our President the past eight years. After all, until he lost the South Carolina primary he was kicking W's ass. And no Repub candidate in history had ever lost the nomination after winning New Hampshire. McCain should have won. Rove changed that. And he changed the nature of "how to win the Presidency 101" at the same time.

Bottom line: Kerry lost at least partially because he wasn't willing or able to get down and dirty in 2004. For all the things that Obama might be, being a pushover or a pansy is not one of them. He proved his mettle in a tough Chicago market...then beat what most considered an unbeatable Clinton machine for the nomination.

Is it really any surprise that he's willing and able to "stoop" to the level of Steve Schmidt's underhanded bullshit and try to beat them at their own game? Schmidt is Rove's protege'. To think we were going to have anything other than an all-out, no-holds-barred mud-slinging contest from the word go is just naive.
 
missouri_hubby said:
Well, this kind of comment is exactly what I might expect. Like I so graciously said, I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I expect people to think. THAT is the whole purpose of the thread... to make people use that pile of shit between their ears for something other than holding up their hat. BUT... despite the fact that I've refrained from name calling and tried to keep MY comments in line, what I've seen here -I think exclusively from people on the Democratic side- is smartass comments and vile, hateful remarks. You people are filled with hatred from the word go. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a bigger collection of bigots and racists in my life! You people would honestly put a KKK rally to shame. Anyone doesn't agree with your ideas they're repukes or nazis (do you even know what the word means? Did you have relatives bake in the ovens in Germany?) or beer swilling backwoods hicks or -OMG- Evangelical... like having some sort of set of values is a bad thing. I don't necessarily agree with all those people but BY GOD I RESPECT THEM FOR HAVING THE BALLS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE, AND DO IT WITH CLASS. At least they don't just blindly follow like sheep to slaughter. OMG, he reads (yes I do read... and at a college level at that... do you?) blogs... somebody's opinion! Watched CNN lately? OMG! you watched somebody's opinion! And a biased one, at that! What do you think they do there! Do you honestly believe they report the news without spinning it? You do? Boy are you naive! That's why your job is to read everything you can, then sort the shit from the truth. Don't like my sources of information? FINE! Research it yourself! Find the TRUTH! It's out there, and it's not pretty.

And if you want to STILL want to vote for Obama... Great! That's your privilege because this is America. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with you... and I don't.

And now I am going to do what Comrade Obama should have done the first time vile shit began spewing from that racist bastard "Reverend" Wright's mouth... I'm leaving. I need to go study my Russian Language lessons. I think I may need them.

you're so right i don't sense any anger in this little post of yours. it seems so objective especially calling evangelicals classy... wow, maybe we should take a poll here at the DARKCAVERN IR/Cuck community to see how many members share that opinion. hats off to you brother. and oh yes, shame on me for misspelling something-- it is interesting that it outweighs any other fault to be found in my statement. i assure you the opposite would be true were i the one returning the rebuttal.
 
The contrast between, on the one hand, the huge amount of material about Obama’s radical associations that has been published in on-line journals and in a few brave newspapers, and on the other the refusal by big media to address it and to vilify those who do, becomes more astounding by the day. The Obamaniacs are spinning the relationship between Obama and William Ayers, former of Weather Undergound Terrorism Inc, as of no consequence because this was supposedly a chance acquaintance and because the educational project they worked on, the Annenberg Challenge, was a worthy one.

Stanley Kurtz now nails that canard by showing how, through the Annenberg Challenge, Obama and Ayers channelled funds to extremist anti-American Afrocentric ‘educational’ programmes which were a carbon-copy of the world view of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s black racist mentor who, under pressure, Obama was ****** to repudiate. These programmes promoted, amongst other radical ideas, the ‘rites of passage’ philosophy which attempted to create a ‘virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world’ in order to ‘counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society.’ One such teacher taught that

‘The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy.’

Kurtz concludes:

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright.

No surprise there, since back in June Kurtz pointed to evidence that Obama shared the black racism of the Trinity United Church of Christ. In this article Obama was reported as rejecting ‘integrationist assimilation’ and wanting to channel black rage more effectively into political organisation. Kurtz dug out a chapter in a 1990 book called After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois in which Obama sketched out how radical black churches could be harnessed to help radicalise the black population. As Kurtz wrote:

So it would appear that Obama’s own writings solve the mystery of why he stayed at Trinity for 20 years. Obama’s long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright’s radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama’s grand political strategy.

Those few brave souls who do try to enlighten the public about all this come up against the kind of intimidation by Camp Obama charted here by Michael Barone:

Stanley Kurtz appeared on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio program in Chicago. Mr. Kurtz had been researching Mr. Obama's relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers in Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers in the Richard J. Daley Library in Chicago - papers that were closed off to him for some days, apparently at the behest of Obama supporters. Obama fans jammed WGN's phone lines and sent in hundreds of protest e-mails. The message was clear to anyone who would follow Mr. Rosenberg's example. We will make trouble for you if you let anyone make the case against The One.

Other Obama supporters have threatened critics with criminal prosecution. In September, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce warned citizens that they would bring criminal libel prosecutions against anyone who made statements against Mr. Obama that were ‘false.’ I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-'02. Not so, apparently, in metropolitan St. Louis. Similarly, the Obama campaign called for a criminal investigation of the American Issues Project when it ran ads highlighting Mr. Obama's ties to Mr. Ayers.

No such threats, of course, will be made against this new book whose publication is tactfully timed for next year so as not to frighten the horses -- Race Course Against White Supremacy, by none other than William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Meanwhile, it turns out that not only did Obama do favours for convicted Chicago fraudster Tony Rezko, but as this story reports Alexi Giannoulias, who reputedly bankrolled Michael ‘Jaws’ Giorango, a Chicagoan twice convicted of bookmaking and promoting ************, became Illinois state treasurer last year after Obama vouched for him, and has now has pledged to raise $100,000 for Obama’s campaign.

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.
 
blkoralslaveboy said:
and oh yes, shame on me for misspelling something-- it is interesting that it outweighs any other fault to be found in my statement. i assure you the opposite would be true were i the one returning the rebuttal.

??? Did I miss something? You didn't read that in any of my posts, and I'm assuming thats what you imply since you said it in a reply to my post. As for the rest of it, As I said at least five times now, you don't have to agree with me.
 
Thank you, toni, a wonderful statement of the facts.

And as for me, I'm done arguing with you people. Vote how you like. It's your funeral.

Admins, please delete my account. Thank you.
 
blkoralslaveboy said:
I gotta say this is a clever video! well done and amusing. but best of all it is a taste of what's to come from the Reps once Obama wins. since they have nothing to brag about and no solutions to offer other than failed policies, i suspect they will spend the remainder of the time between Obama's win and Bush leaving the office making all types of wild accusations...the wilder the better. then after bush leaves they'll spend the first year blaming obama for the remnant of bush's fu-k ups that obama hasn't cleaned up yet. yeah its gonna be fun fun fun.


real spit
 
missouri_hubby said:
Thank you, toni, a wonderful statement of the facts.

And as for me, I'm done arguing with you people. Vote how you like. It's your funeral.

Admins, please delete my account. Thank you.

Dude, come on...seriously...you're gonna take your ball and leave the sand-box? ;-)

Reasoned judgements about which side is doing more mud-slinging and muckraking should not be something that causes you undue consternation.

Extremist viewpoints abound, but to win this election you have to seek the middle ground, the independently minded voter. The base on both sides is, generally speaking, blind to reality because they are ideologically motivated instead of paying attention to the reality on the ground and adjusting one's assessment and solutions to problems on a case-by-case basis. The best leaders are those who find solutions based on facts and instincts born out of prior experience, not gut instincts born out of nothing but ideology. We've seen what 8 years under an ideological leader can and does do. And it aint pretty.
 
just catching up on reading this section... lol. both fascism bolshevism, originally represented two variants of socialism. of course after world war 2 the anglo-american capitalist philosophy utilized a pseudo intellectuals' guide as a way of discernment via labeling, one the pro-nazi fascist the other the bolshevic communist. this early attempt at division of similar terms dismissed the idea that fascism was essentially the western euros' own national socialism trying to distinguish itself from ideological links to russia. therefore in their own minds it seems renaming helped. of course since then everyone thinks they know everything... where most are just nonthinking "memorizers" of clever, quick answers.
 
blkoralslaveboy said:
just catching up on reading this section... lol. both fascism bolshevism, originally represented two variants of socialism. of course after world war 2 the anglo-american capitalist philosophy utilized a pseudo intellectuals' guide as a way of discernment via labeling, one the pro-nazi fascist the other the bolshevic communist. this early attempt at division of similar terms dismissed the idea that fascism was essentially the western euros' own national socialism trying to distinguish itself from ideological links to russia. therefore in their own minds it seems renaming helped. of course since then everyone thinks they know everything... where most are just nonthinking "memorizers" of clever, quick answers.

This reminds me of debates I remember having in college about one economic system vs. another. :) You're not going to convince me that fascism is the same as socialism, but I am aware there is a small fraction of thinkers out there who think they are similar or in the same family. ;-) I just happen to think that there are far too many differences and not enough similarities. Like I said, the notion of Private Property is probably one of the bigger, more obvious ones. Socialism does not include any such notions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sexycouple2011 said:
This reminds me of debates I remember having in college about one economic system vs. another. :) You're not going to convince me that fascism is the same as socialism, but I am aware there is a small fraction of thinkers out there who think they are similar or in the same family. ;-) I just happen to think that there are far too many differences and not enough similarities. Like I said, the notion of Private Property is probably one of the bigger, more obvious ones. Socialism does not include any such notions.

i know what you mean, and of course there are many major differences in the theories especially when examining their actual applications. i'm just stating the primary difference during their formative period was little more than nomenclature. it was the overlaying politics, nationalism, and general distrust between the nations that brought the amendments to their definitions later on. i'd find a good book on this but its certainly been a while.
b
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.