View Full Version : Last ditch effort that will fall woefully short...
redsox39
11-03-2008, 03:37 PM
These are the words of Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture in the Eisenhower Administration. Talking about Bits and pieces of Socialism creeping into our way of life...which is my main problem with Obama.
“It may surprise you to learn that I was host to Mr. Kruschev for a half day when he visited the United States, not that I’m proud of it. I opposed his coming then, and I still feel it was a mistake to welcome this atheistic murderer as a state visitor. But, according to President Eisenhower, Kruschev had expressed a desire to learn something of American Agriculture — and after seeing Russian agriculture I can understand why. As we talked face to face, he indicated that my grandchildren would live under communism. After assuring him that I expected to do all in my power to assure that his and all other grandchildren will live under freedom, he arrogantly declaired in substance:
“ ‘You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.’
Just interesting. And No, I don't think Obama is a Russian plant, don't be stupid.
For what it's worth I agree farm subsidies are stupid.
Of course farm subsidies continued through said Republican Eisenhower administration, which was really rather silly as they were supposed to be a temporary fix to drive the country out of Depression and not a permanent thing.
BIG PIZZLE
11-03-2008, 03:44 PM
It's interesting to note that Obama's tax plan is very similar to Bush Sr.'s and nobody called him a socialist. Also, nobody considered calling Obama a socialist until a couple weeks ago after that word started popping up at Palin rallies. Finally, they said the same thing about MLK.
Yelram
11-03-2008, 03:46 PM
It's interesting to note that Obama's tax plan is very similar to Bush Sr.'s and nobody called him a socialist. Also, nobody considered calling Obama a socialist until a couple weeks ago after that word started popping up at Palin rallies. Finally, they said the same thing about MLK.
When you start promising poor people that you are going to take away someone elses money and give it to them, it is your own fault. What he claims his economic plan is, and what it actually is, are two different things.
redsox39
11-03-2008, 03:48 PM
For what it's worth I agree farm subsidies are stupid.
Of course farm subsidies continued through said Republican Eisenhower administration, which was really rather silly as they were supposed to be a temporary fix to drive the country out of Depression and not a permanent thing.
All True.
But name a government program that was supposed to be a "Temp Fix" or a "Saftey Net" that ever went away or is used as it was written...
Just a spoon full of "socialism" helps the medicine go down...
And to Big Pizzle's point...
A lot of use have been calling Obama "socialist" for over a year now. Especially on the Ron Paul and Bob Barr side...
and finally, if you can't see the difference between Obama's tax plan and Bush's tax plan (not that I am a fan of either), you probably shouldn't be in here...
When you start promising poor people that you are going to take away someone elses money and give it to them, it is your own fault. What he claims his economic plan is, and what it actually is, are two different things.
Because you say so.
Again, lets all remember that apparently socialism lies in the 3% increase on those making $250k+. Who knew, I don't remember that from The Communist Manifesto.
redsox39
11-03-2008, 03:50 PM
Because you say so.
Again, lets all remember that apparently socialism lies in the 3% increase on those making $250k+. Who knew, I don't remember that from The Communist Manifesto.
Which is exactly the point I was making:
"you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism"
BIG PIZZLE
11-03-2008, 03:50 PM
But it's OK to subsidize poor people's mortgages?
Edit: And I was talking about Bush SR. not jr. If you can tell the difference between the two, maybe you should stop starting bullshit trolling threads.
redsox39
11-03-2008, 03:52 PM
But it's OK to subsidize poor people's mortgages?
Nope.
All True.
But name a government program that was supposed to be a "Temp Fix" or a "Saftey Net" that ever went away or is used as it was written...
Every single New Deal program besides Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which all dealt with a more permanent economic situation the US had come to as people began to live longer)? Eisenhower's increased education spending to create a generation of scientists?
Just a spoon full of "socialism" helps the medicine go down...
I still fail to see how a 3% increase on the top earners, which would only return us to Clinton levels of taxation basically (not many folks call him a socialist), is socialism.
A lot of use have been calling Obama "socialist" for over a year now. Especially on the Ron Paul and Bob Barr side...
Yeah, but they think even hardcore nutjob Republicans are lefty whackjobs. When you start talking about eliminating Social Security (a la Paul) you're on your own special wing of the "extreme" wing.
Which is exactly the point I was making:
"you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism"
But that's a stupid point and you're stupid for making it if in fact that's what you mean. Socialism is a full on process of the redistribution of wealth. Obama's economic plan is a more balanced and fair system of taxation, presidents have been altering tax code on the margins basically since the country's founding (and certainly since the 16th amendment giving the federal government an income tax to play with). They are not the same thing.
redsox39
11-03-2008, 03:57 PM
Every single New Deal program besides Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which all dealt with a more permanent economic situation the US had come to as people began to live longer)? Eisenhower's increased education spending to create a generation of scientists?
I still fail to see how a 3% increase on the top earners, which would only return us to Clinton levels of taxation basically (not many folks call him a socialist), is socialism.
Yeah, but they think even hardcore nutjob Republicans are lefty whackjobs. When you start talking about eliminating Social Security (a la Paul) you're on your own special wing of the "extreme" wing.
Social Security was deveolped to be a saftey net, not a Living wage.
As far as Ron Paul thinking "right wing crazies" are too far left, on the economy, they are. And on social issues, they are too, because they want Big government to have a say so in Abortions, Gay marriage, Blue Laws...
There is nothing "right wing" about government control over personal decisons. So on those points, I have to agree with the Ron Paul types.
cAsE sEnSiTiVe
11-03-2008, 03:57 PM
It's interesting to note that Obama's tax plan is very similar to Bush Sr.'s and nobody called him a socialist. Also, nobody considered calling Obama a socialist until a couple weeks ago after that word started popping up at Palin rallies. Finally, they said the same thing about MLK.
I've been calling him a commie for some time now. Simply calling a spade, a spade....to coin a phrase.
Social Security was deveolped to be a saftey net, not a Living wage.
As far as Ron Paul thinking "right wing crazies" are too far left, on the economy, they are. And on social issues, they are too, because they want Big government to have a say so in Abortions, Gay marriage, Blue Laws...
There is nothing "right wing" about government control over personal decisons. So on those points, I have to agree with the Ron Paul types.
I didn't say right wing, I said extreme wing. Because that's where Ron Paul lies. Feel free to keep supporting him, good for you getting involved and everything, but if you think:
A. The crazy economic policies proposals Paul puts out would work if implemented AND that
B. The American people would ever let them be implemented
You're crazy.
Yelram
11-03-2008, 04:03 PM
Because you say so.
Again, lets all remember that apparently socialism lies in the 3% increase on those making $250k+. Who knew, I don't remember that from The Communist Manifesto.
Okay, since you havent read the Obama site I take it.
Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families:Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.
Socialist
Improve Transition Assistance: To help all workers adapt to a rapidly changing economy, Obama and Biden will update the existing system of Trade Adjustment Assistance by extending it to service industries, creating flexible education accounts to help workers retrain, and providing retraining assistance for workers in sectors of the economy vulnerable to dislocation before they lose their jobs.
Socialist
Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law.
Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws.
Protect Striking Workers: Obama and Biden support the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. They will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods.
Socialist
Create a Universal Mortgage Credit: Obama and Biden will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom earn less than $50,000 per year
Socialist
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama and Biden will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. They will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.
Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave: As president, Obama will initiate a strategy to encourage all 50 states to adopt paid-leave systems. Obama and Biden will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs and to help states offset the costs for employees and employers.
Socialist
Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit: The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit provides too little relief to families that struggle to afford child care expenses. Obama and Biden will reform the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit by making it refundable and allowing low-income families to receive up to a 50 percent credit for their child care expenses.
Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination: Workers with family obligations often are discriminated against in the workplace. Obama and Biden will enforce the recently-enacted Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on caregiver discrimination.
Expand Flexible Work Arrangements: Obama and Biden will create a program to inform businesses about the benefits of flexible work schedules; help businesses create flexible work opportunities; and increase federal incentives for telecommuting. Obama and Biden will also make the federal government a model employer in terms of adopting flexible work schedules and permitting employees to request flexible arrangements.
Socialism again, trying to steal more money from businesses.
You start demanding these businesses require these things, hire certain people, and then raise their taxes. BRILLIANT, that will fix the fucking economy. Come on now. 4.3 trillion in spending, and you guys are bitching about the war in Iraq, this is ridiculous.
BIG PIZZLE
11-03-2008, 04:03 PM
I've been calling him a commie for some time now. Simply calling a spade, a spade....to coin a phrase.
Yeah, thanks. You seem credible.
smahoo
11-03-2008, 04:05 PM
i have to say, i admire your passion yelram...your politics i differ with but you at least hold your ground....
however, fucked up it is
Do people really believe Obama is gonna win?
Yelram, altering the tax code is not socialist, that is.. Ya know... Being president. McCain proposes cutting taxes, can I call him an anarchist?
The closest things to socialism about Obama's policies are:
-The protections of striking workers you outlined. Of course the right to organize (assemble) has been around since our country's founding
-The bailout (which let to actual state acquisition of private banks). Of course McCain supported this as well, so hardly wants to harp on this as socialist.
Yelram
11-03-2008, 04:11 PM
Yelram, altering the tax code is not socialist, that is.. Ya know... Being president. McCain proposes cutting taxes, can I call him an anarchist?
The closest things to socialism about Obama's policies are:
-The protections of striking workers you outlined. Of course the right to organize (assemble) has been around since our country's founding
-The bailout (which let to actual state acquisition of private banks). Of course McCain supported this as well, so hardly wants to harp on this as socialist.
The right to union labor has been around since the country was founded? You do realize the unions are large corporations that produce nothing right? When you fund the unions VERY well, and supplant the companies, all you are left with is THE GOVERNMENT, and THE UNIONS. Wow that sounds familiar, kinda like SOCIALISM. Or even the Big C word.
http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/grijalva.htm
And I dont have a problem calling Mccain a socialist too. If Palin wasnt on the ticket, I could see Mccain drifting left if he wins.
Do people really believe Obama is gonna win?
www.electoral-vote.com: 353-185 Obama
www.realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data): 278-132-128 (toss-ups are that 3rd number) Obama
www.pollster.com: 311-145-85 Obama
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com: Won't load but I know has it heavily for Obama, with a 90+% chance of an Obama win
Hell, even CNN (which is going to have the most drawn-back possible calling of states because they want a horserace and don't want a repeat of 2000) have it 281-157-90 for Obama
redsox39
11-03-2008, 04:12 PM
I have all but given up on Obama not getting elected, hence the title...
The right to union labor has been around since the country was founded? You do realize the unions are large corporations that produce nothing right? When you fund the unions VERY well, and supplant the companies, all you are left with is THE GOVERNMENT, and THE UNIONS. Wow that sounds familiar, kinda like SOCIALISM. Or even the Big C word.
http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/cpproject/grijalva.htm
The right to assemble has been around since our country's founding, yes, and the right to organize a union lies within the right to assemble. You honestly see nothing wrong with McKinley-era unionless corporations?
Individual unions can of course be corrupt like any other organization, but that is an individual problem not an institutional one. Unions produce advocacy and negotiating power, just like a political party or any other interest group. One steel worker has basically no power, so barring government protections (which you seem to imply are also socialist) that worker is entirely at the will of the company as to conditions, pay, and hours. A steel workers UNION on the other hand makes the negotiating table fair.
Yelram
11-03-2008, 04:15 PM
www.electoral-vote.com: (http://www.electoral-vote.com:) 353-185 Obama
www.realclearpolitics.com (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data): 278-132-128 (toss-ups are that 3rd number) Obama
www.pollster.com: (http://www.pollster.com:) 311-145-85 Obama
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com: Won't load but I know has it heavily for Obama, with a 90+% chance of an Obama win
Hell, even CNN (which is going to have the most drawn-back possible calling of states because they want a horserace and don't want a repeat of 2000) have it 281-157-90 for Obama
And yet they pretend like the "undecideds" arent voting for Mccain. In almost every poll, if 3/4 of the undecideds go for Mccain, tomorrow night is gonna be a long one.
When the pollsters call me, I say I am voting for O-bamma. Just to fuck up the poll.
If KFC would have an all you can eat for free day tomorrow....Obama might lose
Yelram
11-03-2008, 04:19 PM
The right to assemble has been around since our country's founding, yes, and the right to organize a union lies within the right to assemble. You honestly see nothing wrong with McKinley-era unionless corporations?
Individual unions can of course be corrupt like any other organization, but that is an individual problem not an institutional one. Unions produce advocacy and negotiating power, just like a political party or any other interest group. One steel worker has basically no power, so barring government protections (which you seem to imply are also socialist) that worker is entirely at the will of the company as to conditions, pay, and hours. A steel workers UNION on the other hand makes the negotiating table fair.
I am in favor of a union consisting of EMPLOYEES of ONE company. Not separate companies that come in and influence existing companies. The larger the union, the less effective, and the more chance of being corrupt. If we can arrange unionized labor to HELP companies, instead of HURT them, we can really make some grounds economically. I think there should be a system of checks and balances, a Constitution of sorts, that prevents the employees from cutting too deep into a companies bottom line, and prevent the company from abusing its employees. That is something I am in favor of. Quasi-political corporations that have no use within a business other than what money they make from dues is a failed policy.
And yet they pretend like the "undecideds" arent voting for Mccain. In almost every poll, if 3/4 of the undecideds go for Mccain, tomorrow night is gonna be a long one.
Huh? WTF are you talking about man. If McCain suddenly convinced people in the last 2 days, to the tune of 75% breaking for him (which would be unheard of levels, like McCain suddenly turned into Reagan and FDR's double-clone) yes it would be close (but Obama would still win Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico at least which puts him over 270).
freegood
11-03-2008, 04:23 PM
While you retards are screaming socialism by Obama, the most Republican administration in the last 30 years has taken over Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG all while giving away hundreds of billions to banks, which subsequently give their employees fat paychecks, also in the billions.
Yelram
11-03-2008, 04:27 PM
Huh? WTF are you talking about man. If McCain suddenly convinced people in the last 2 days, to the tune of 75% breaking for him (which would be unheard of levels, like McCain suddenly turned into Reagan and FDR's double-clone) yes it would be close (but Obama would still win Iowa, Colorado, and New Mexico at least which puts him over 270).
The answer to your question is this. Polls are always atleast 3 points biased towards democrats. Add to that the mysteriously large amount of "undecideds", and you get... duh da da duhhhhh, a bunch of people didnt want to admit they were voting for Mccain as to not look racist. But when they get in that polling booth, things are going to change. The republicans that have been hoping they werent going to have to vote for Mccain are going to hold their nose, and get it done.
The answer to your question is this. Polls are always atleast 3 points biased towards democrats. Add to that the mysteriously large amount of "undecideds", and you get... duh da da duhhhhh, a bunch of people didnt want to admit they were voting for Mccain as to not look racist. But when they get in that polling booth, things are going to change. The republicans that have been hoping they werent going to have to vote for Mccain are going to hold their nose, and get it done.
You are an absolute retard. Polls are "always biased at least 3 points towards Democrats"? HUH? Now there's a liberal polling bias to go along with the liberal media bias?
And the Bradley effect would have to be huge, hit multiple regions of the country (generally only applies in the South) and doesn't really apply here in the first place since the original Bradley effect applied when there was no qualified opponent to the black guy (so there was no legitimate answer to the poll OTHER than the black guy). Here the people who don't want an African American to be president have already said McCain in polls because that's a legitimate choice.
Here the people who don't want an African American to be president have already said McCain in polls because that's a legitimate choice.
I said Obama in a poll even though I hope he dies in a fire before tomorrow. Polls are fucking stupid and I lie every time.
redsox39
11-03-2008, 04:35 PM
While you retards are screaming socialism by Obama, the most Republican administration in the last 30 years has taken over Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG all while giving away hundreds of billions to banks, which subsequently give their employees fat paychecks, also in the billions.
Yeah... a lame duck president and a Huge Congressional Majority for Pelosi and pals.
Pretty damn Republican.
Go back to playing games and talking about something you know, like Metroid.
redsox39
11-03-2008, 04:36 PM
I said Obama in a poll even though I hope he dies in a fire before tomorrow. Polls are fucking stupid and I lie every time.
lol, me too.
Plus, the one time I said McCain...the poll ended up lasting 20 minutes while they asked me all the "why" questions and pretty much tried to get me to change my mind.
I think that is called a Push poll. In any case, there was a ton of those...
redsox39
11-03-2008, 04:38 PM
The answer to your question is this. Polls are always atleast 3 points biased towards democrats. Add to that the mysteriously large amount of "undecideds", and you get... duh da da duhhhhh, a bunch of people didnt want to admit they were voting for Mccain as to not look racist. But when they get in that polling booth, things are going to change. The republicans that have been hoping they werent going to have to vote for Mccain are going to hold their nose, and get it done.
I agree. here at work we have a few people saying they are voting for Obama in public, but have told me they are voting McCain. They said they are telling people "Obama" to avoid an argument and not sound racist.
While I still have all my money on Obama winning this thing, I bet you it gets very interesting, and alot closer than the "experts" think...
freegood
11-03-2008, 04:42 PM
And if you're wrong, are you still an "expert"?
Archangel
11-03-2008, 04:51 PM
Yeah... a lame duck president and a Huge Congressional Majority for Pelosi and pals.
Pretty damn Republican.
Go back to playing games and talking about something you know, like Metroid.
Um, I'm pretty sure that freegood here is among the five smartest and best educated people on these boards.
yea, but Redsox39 is numero uno.
Archangel
11-03-2008, 04:53 PM
I thought EG had that title.
A lot more qualified political scientists than anyone who posts on this board have done work on this and concluded anywhere from a potential reverse Bradley effect (I read this one awhile ago, seems unlikely) to at most a slight one. And Obama is not winning this one slightly in the polls.
Yelram
11-03-2008, 05:09 PM
You are an absolute retard. Polls are "always biased at least 3 points towards Democrats"? HUH? Now there's a liberal polling bias to go along with the liberal media bias?
And the Bradley effect would have to be huge, hit multiple regions of the country (generally only applies in the South) and doesn't really apply here in the first place since the original Bradley effect applied when there was no qualified opponent to the black guy (so there was no legitimate answer to the poll OTHER than the black guy). Here the people who don't want an African American to be president have already said McCain in polls because that's a legitimate choice. So the "bradley effect", only happens in the south? News to me since the guy its named after was running for governor of California. I have never seen a poll done by a major polling agency that didnt lean democrat by about 3 points. You can use the past 2 elections to confirm this if you want, but its pretty much a given. But listen, if Barack earns my trust in the first year of his presidency, I will become his greatest advocate. I was one of the first republicans on here to endorse him originally. He has just lost my trust since then. His inconsistencies may be nothing more than the norm you'd expect from someone consolidating his support to run for president, but to me, it shows a broader range of manipulation. I'd much rather have this happen than watching Mccain get eaten alive in the media for the next 4 years, but i'm not confident enough in it happening to vote for Obama. And with the two houses of congress leaning dem, I cant take the chance.
So the "bradley effect", only happens in the south? News to me since the guy its named after was running for governor of California.
I didn't say only, I said tends to. Most of the non-Southern examples (Bradley in CA, Dinkins in NY, Washington in Chicago) were from the 80s, race relations have advanced since then. The more modern examples (ie, what I think matter for today) are in Virginia, Tennessee (though Ford's race was already basically pegged a tossup in 06), Texas, Louisiana, etc. And again, as a Poly Sci person will tell you, the Bradley effect is much more about there not being a socially acceptable alternative to pick. Racists can freely say McCain without any confrontation from pollsters, he's a legitimate choice, so why would they feel this mysterious need to say they'd vote for the black guy?
I have never seen a poll done by a major polling agency that didnt lean democrat by about 3 points. You can use the past 2 elections to confirm this if you want, but its pretty much a given.
No, you can't. In both 2000 and 2004, incredibly close races, polls had it as exactly that (incredibly close races). RCP's poll average of Ohio in 2004? Bush +2.1%. Result? Bush +2.11%. RCP of PA in 04? Kerry +0.9%. Result? Kerry +2.5%. (in anything that's 1.6% off in the Republican's favor) RCP Iowa? Bush +0.3%. Result? Bush +0.6%.
But listen, if Barack earns my trust in the first year of his presidency, I will become his greatest advocate. I was one of the first republicans on here to endorse him originally. He has just lost my trust since then.
No, you won't, I 100% guarantee it.
Da Raider
11-03-2008, 07:18 PM
While you retards are screaming socialism by Obama, the most Republican administration in the last 30 years has taken over Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG all while giving away hundreds of billions to banks, which subsequently give their employees fat paychecks, also in the billions.
:(
How fucking embarassing.
Da Raider
11-03-2008, 07:19 PM
If Virginia goes Obama's way, this election will be over before I get home from work...
redsox39
11-04-2008, 10:06 AM
Um, I'm pretty sure that freegood here is among the five smartest and best educated people on these boards.
Then he hit his head earlier...if this is Republican Power right now, I am TERRIFIED even more to see what the new Super Majority Democrats will do.
PS- The Democratic controlled congress has a 8% approval rating now...
But they will still get all re-elected...just bizzare...
redsox39
11-04-2008, 10:10 AM
While you retards are screaming socialism by Obama, the most Republican administration in the last 30 years has taken over Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG all while giving away hundreds of billions to banks, which subsequently give their employees fat paychecks, also in the billions.
Lol, if you really are supposed to be so brilliant...then you know better than to throw the FM&FM at this administration...how many times did they try to get this fixed in the last 6 years only to have the Dem's throw a fit, cry "racisim", and block it?
While I am 100% against the bail out...this problem was addressed by the right and rejected numerous times by left.
If Virginia goes Obama's way, this election will be over before I get home from work...
Basically. Either a lot of those 7 PM states will get called and PA won't matter, or PA will get called and that will decide it.
BusterPortugal
11-04-2008, 12:40 PM
PS- The Democratic controlled congress has a 8% approval rating now...
But they will still get all re-elected...just bizzare...
Why is it so bizarre? Generally, people like their own congress people and dislike all the others.
Gasp! They can only re-elect their own congress people!