Jump to content


Photo

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2008 - 10:39 PM

So when Barack Obama says he's for change, he's not messing around. Question is how far is he gonna change it? No need to write much of an article as this clearly hits on many items.

Right now the Democrats hold a magority of the US Legislative Branch. Now add on the idea of electing the most far left President EVER by the democratic party. There is also speculation of Republicans losing enough Senate votes that Democrats will have a 60/40. In simple terms, filabuster proof.

Filabuster is something that minority parties use to make sure things don't get TOO out of hand. Balance. But I fear just as much of a far right monopoly as I do a far left monopoly. There must be some kind of balance of power.

A far left President Obama (as opposed to a moderate Clinton,) Nancy Pelosy (FAR FAR left) leader of the House of Representatives, Harry Reid (Far left) as majority leader WITH a filabuster proof 60/40 vote.

If I was a democrat, I'd be afraid of that being alittle TOO much unchecked power from the FAR left. Not just moderates.

That would be the equivelent to Pat Robertson as President, Pat Buchanon as Senate Majority leader, and Ann Coulter in charge of the House of Representatives. Extremists of any kinda scare me, anyone who takes themselves that seriously is to be feared on some level.

When you paint it like that, that would be scary no matter who you are...

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.


http://elections.fox...s-college-days/

#2 Phil

Phil

    Force Majeure

  • Network Leaders
  • 7,976 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Projects:Revora, C&C:Online
  •  Thought Police
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Network Leader
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:23 PM

I honestly do not understand what problems America has with socialism, but obviously it's something very deep culturally. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a sarcastic remark this time, it's just something I genuinely cannot understand. Maybe someone here can enlighten me.

The way and intensity socialism and communism is labelled as "evil" reminds me of the polarisation Hitler used before he seized power, but obviously times have changed since then. I guess one might link this to the Cold War, however I had the impression the US were strictly anti-socialist even before the Soviet Union was created. I'm glad for anyone who shares his opinion on this so that I can broaden my horizon.

revorapresident.jpg
My Political Compass

Sieben Elefanten hatte Herr Dschin
Und da war dann noch der achte.
Sieben waren wild und der achte war zahm
Und der achte war's, der sie bewachte.


#3 MadHQ

MadHQ

    Killer of all things!

  • Project Team
  • 1,435 posts
  • Location:The dark carnival
  • Projects:Kinky Spam bath's!
  •  This is the blue text!

Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:37 PM

Because Americans are stupidly greedy, And in socialism you cant get rich... like in terms of American rich... (fat, spoiled, lots of worthless material goods...)
Zomba Productions - Click here!
Posted Image

#4 mike_

mike_

    Student of Homer.

  • Global Moderators
  • 4,323 posts
  • Location:Gulfport, MS
  • Projects:The Peloponnesian Wars Mod.
  •  There are no heroes, no villains - only decisions.
  • Division:Community
  • Job:Global Moderator

Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:40 PM

Actually, to my understanding, it's more like we don't want to see some fat bastard getting the same amount of pay as someone who works his ass off every day.

#5 Phil

Phil

    Force Majeure

  • Network Leaders
  • 7,976 posts
  • Location:Switzerland
  • Projects:Revora, C&C:Online
  •  Thought Police
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Network Leader
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:48 PM

You realise though that this is basically the status quo, right?

Anyway, it must be more than that. If people just said "hmmm, no thanks" (like I do, for example), Obama would certainly not face that many allegations of being an evil socialist and expressions like redistributing wealth wouldn't get that much attention.

revorapresident.jpg
My Political Compass

Sieben Elefanten hatte Herr Dschin
Und da war dann noch der achte.
Sieben waren wild und der achte war zahm
Und der achte war's, der sie bewachte.


#6 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 28 October 2008 - 11:52 PM

America has a historical fear of socialism because of socialism's need for a large government in order to be effective. From the creation of the Constitution up to the modern day, it has always been the little man who feared a government that is too large to counter and/or one that mettles in the affairs of people directly. Socialism by nature mettles in peoples lives.

It does so by playing too large of a part in the everyday life of the individual. Socialism focuses on the community and works its way backwards to the individual. This counters natural human instinct. Humans "feel" by being the individual first, than part of their family, than community, than nation.

Also money spent in the hands of the government spends less wisely than in the hands of the individuals. Because of bureaucracy needed to handle the money. There is a cost to have people receive and spend my taxes without my ability to control where those costs are being spent.

Bush was a bad example of a Republican, he mettled in others affairs, he spent money we didn't have. He wasn't really conservative in the traditional sense. One does not buy things it cannot pay for.

As a european, you only know socialism since you've been born. So it's hard to understand as it was for people back when the US was formed. Less government is the best government. There is also a reason why the worlds economy rotates around the US. Because it's the most prosperous formula to date on generating wealth in a large population.

Wealth distribution?! Why would people take money from people who earned it and give it freely to people who haven't earned it? We already have enough social programs in place to provide for those who were born under privilaged. I don't mind understanding I have a need to help my fellow countrymen, but how far does that go? We are already the most prosperous nation on the planet with the most rights and religous freedoms and such.

What appears to be normal for some people outside the US is idiotic to alot of the people who live in the US.

When the world entities are cheering for Obama, than US citizens have to ask what is in the best interest of US citizens, not the world. Populations vote, not world entities. Hence Chirac being replaced with Sarkosy in France and Horst Koehler in Germany.

World entities may try to move farther to the left in order to increase the size of government control, populations put on the brakes and say "hold on just a minute."

#7 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 29 October 2008 - 01:48 AM

Redistribution of wealth does not mean taking your cash and handing it to some other guy. It means if you're a banker who earns upwards of $1 million a year you will be taxed more heavily than someone who earns $25000. Fair, wouldn't you say? It's not like you can't afford it, whereas the poorer man probably can't in all truth. The higher taxes paid by the rich will cover the cost of universal healthcare, education and various other public services, so you won't have to pay for police callouts, and you won't have to sign your house over before the fire brigade stops it burning down.

DLotS, I'm with you. I simply cannot understand America's innate hatred of all forms of socialism. There was a massive uproar when Vermont elected an openly socialist Senator in 2006, and Vermont is, I believe, considered something of a wayward state. Why is the concept of paying taxes and getting services in return such a big deal for most of America?

We are already the most prosperous nation on the planet with the most rights and religious freedoms and such.

And the most debt. Don't forget that. Oh, and, can you explain America's idea of religious freedom to me? I think it differs from mine somewhat.

World entities may try to move farther to the left in order to increase the size of government control, populations put on the brakes and say "hold on just a minute."

You make it sound like Big Brother. Government control is not necessarily a bad thing. If the government had had control of the stock market, it's quite possible the recent economic damage could have been averted. Control of the population is something the government is elected to perform. What are laws for if not to control the population? Admittedly, some try to push it too far, but why, then, are Americans not so deeply against right-wing politicians too?
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#8 Rob38

Rob38

    Believer of Hope

  • Hosted
  • 3,567 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Projects:Helm's Deep Last Hope
  •  One who is not afraid of new challenges

Posted 29 October 2008 - 04:30 AM

Actually, having things like universal health care would be so much more cost effective than our current private system. We currently spend on average $5267 per person. Countries like the UK and Canada spend half per person. One would think that spending all that money means better health, right? Afraid not... both the U.S. life expectancy and infant mortality rate is slightly worse to equal compared to countries with universal health care. So yeah, our current system is pretty crappy right now.

I'm don't see socialism as a bad idea or anything. I mean there comes a point where the government should not determine things in society, such as the job I wish to pursue. But having a mixture of some socialistic policies with the current U.S. system would help America imo. Now, this is something that won't and shouldn't happen overnight. Oh, one thing I can't stand is the argument that socialism "gives money to people who don't deserve it." In other words, you are saying that the poor are unworthy and are just "taking advantage of the system". Being poor is absolutely horrible, and nobody I have ever talked to has ever enjoyed being poor or enjoyed receiving services just so that they don't have to work. There's so much involved in being poor and the idea that "they are poor because they are lazy" is such crap. It is quite humiliating to try and get services to help feed your family, and there are so many rules and complications that many don't even take advantage of the services. If you are rich, the least you can do is pay more taxes. In the end, you will actually benefit society and perhaps even your own life. If you look at it from a pure functional and economic standpoint, the poor are people who are underutilized and aren't allowed to reach their full potential. By giving them the resources to provide food for their family and helping them get a solid job through training and education, you are benefiting the entire economy and tax revenue. Personally, I don't mind paying more taxes for a social cause, and I am by no means ever going to be rich.

signature_group1.gif

 

16821.png


#9 m@tt

m@tt

    #######

  • Project Team
  • 4,056 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:The Dwarf Holds
  •  T3A Chamber Member

Posted 29 October 2008 - 03:43 PM

What is spreading the wealth? As far as I can see, it is having higher earners paying a higher rate of tax compared to lower earners. In that case, in order to not have wealth spreading, everyone should pay the same fixed rate. Any country that doesn't do that is therefore spreading the wealth, surely?

Whilst people who earn a higher wage/salary usually deserve it, imo it is fair for them to pay a bit more, because (usually) they can afford it more than others.

If Obama gets elected, the USA is not going to turn into a socialist country, and the wealth is not going to be spread in ridiculous amounts (it's being adjusted slightly, not equalled out!), so people should stop worrying about it, and worry more about which candidate is more likely to fix the economy and govt spending.
Posted Image

#10 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 29 October 2008 - 03:57 PM

Well, that's hardly in question, is it? Obama actually has an economic plan. I still don't know what McCain intends to do. I've heard him say that something needs to be done, and that he will do something, but what that is he seems to have no idea. Obama has a distinctly outlined and well-formed economic plan, and has proven so on several occasions, and he has the backing of many professional economists. So, yah, Obama.
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#11 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 29 October 2008 - 04:09 PM

And your government isn't large enough already hostile from the so called "conservatives" that run your country. Mccain will continue to expand government size the very same. Obama and Mccain = the same.

#12 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 29 October 2008 - 08:43 PM

Meh, what the hell is marxsism anyway? Considering where I come from I apparently should know and worship it. but, surprise surprise, I don't.

People that earn alot of money can live with more taxes, their income is going to dwarf the average joe anyway. The day that every person gets 100k no matter what job they got, then we can talk "marxism"/"socialism" in the perspective that US stereotypes got.

Nice info about private healthcare costing more than public. makes sense, less money wasted on commercials for insurance companies, less money wasted on insurance companies trying to avoid payout to sick patients, less money wasted on bureaucratic paperpushing between hospitals and insurance companies.

"Are you from [this/that country with public health insurance]? okay lets cut him up"
Instead of
"are you insured? which insurance company? wait while we call them and check if they want to pay for your surgery. They don't want to, want to hire a lawyer that specializes in suing your insurance company? He says it will take some time, do you have the 'I need a room until my lawyer can get me the money for my heart-operation surgery' insurance? oh you shouldnt have put that in the same insurance company as your health-insurance you silly goose."

Edited by duke_Qa, 29 October 2008 - 08:44 PM.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#13 Rob38

Rob38

    Believer of Hope

  • Hosted
  • 3,567 posts
  • Location:USA
  • Projects:Helm's Deep Last Hope
  •  One who is not afraid of new challenges

Posted 30 October 2008 - 02:09 AM

"are you insured? which insurance company? wait while we call them and check if they want to pay for your surgery. They don't want to, want to hire a lawyer that specializes in suing your insurance company? He says it will take some time, do you have the 'I need a room until my lawyer can get me the money for my heart-operation surgery' insurance? oh you shouldnt have put that in the same insurance company as your health-insurance you silly goose."

Yep, that's America for you. :p It's funny, several years ago, my brother needed to have a major surgery on his back. He had a horrible case of scoliosis and needed the surgery to prevent him from becoming crippled and spending the rest of his life in a wheelchair. The problem was that the surgeon who specialized with the back worked in a hospital that was not covered by our health insurance. So after fighting with the insurance company for weeks on end, they finally said they would cover it. Of course, a week or so after the surgery, we were sent a bill of over $100,000 with the insurance company saying they wouldn't pay it. That scared the living crap out of us because we by no means had the money to pay that. After a long legal battle, we finally got the insurance company to comply and pay our coverage. It was already a stressful enough time to have one of your family members have a life-saving surgery, and the last thing we needed was a fight with the insurance company over our coverage.

signature_group1.gif

 

16821.png


#14 Spectre

Spectre

    Rampant AI

  • Hosted
  • 1,240 posts
  • Location:Texas
  • Projects:Worldbuilding
  •  The Undead

Posted 30 October 2008 - 02:15 AM

So when Barack Obama says he's for change, he's not messing around. Question is how far is he gonna change it? No need to write much of an article as this clearly hits on many items.

Right now the Democrats hold a magority of the US Legislative Branch. Now add on the idea of electing the most far left President EVER by the democratic party. There is also speculation of Republicans losing enough Senate votes that Democrats will have a 60/40. In simple terms, filabuster proof.

Filabuster is something that minority parties use to make sure things don't get TOO out of hand. Balance. But I fear just as much of a far right monopoly as I do a far left monopoly. There must be some kind of balance of power.

A far left President Obama (as opposed to a moderate Clinton,) Nancy Pelosy (FAR FAR left) leader of the House of Representatives, Harry Reid (Far left) as majority leader WITH a filabuster proof 60/40 vote.

If I was a democrat, I'd be afraid of that being alittle TOO much unchecked power from the FAR left. Not just moderates.

That would be the equivelent to Pat Robertson as President, John Buchanon as Senate Majority leader, and Ann Coulter in charge of the House of Representatives. Extremists of any kinda scare me, anyone who takes themselves that seriously is to be feared on some level.

When you paint it like that, that would be scary no matter who you are...

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.


http://elections.fox...s-college-days/

From the way You conveyed it, I see your a Republican, who hates Obama and wishes McCain to win, even though hes as far right as Obama is left.

#15 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 30 October 2008 - 09:14 PM

I don't hate Obama and McCain is a moderate Republican. Don't allow yourself to be brainwashed into thinking McCain and Bush are even remotely similar. But I'm sure by your comment you lump anyone on the right to be FAR right. There is a difference between right and far right in US politics.

#16 Banshee

Banshee

    One Vision, One Purpose!

  • Network Admins
  • 9,045 posts
  • Location:Rio De Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
  • Projects:PPM, PPM: Final Dawn, OS SHP Builder, OS Palette Editor, OS W3D Viewer, VXLSE III, etc...
  •  Retired Network Leader
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Maintenance Admin

Posted 30 October 2008 - 10:42 PM

Damn, Hostile. Do you really know what socialism is? For starters, socialism is when you abolish private property. Obama will not do that. He is not crazy to do that in the USA. It wouldn't make sense and his party, as well as other institutions such as the congress and even the media wouldn't allow anyone to do such thing either.

Now, get something straight for once and for all: left, center and right wings are terms that defined the political view (more specifically economic) of the people during the french revolution. Right wings are those who wanna conserve the system. So, those who support the current neoliberalism are right wing. Center wing are reformist. They want to change the current system without destroying it. Left wing are the revolutionaries, and a revolution is something that will destroy the current system replacing it with an entirely different one (i.e.: socialism or comunism). Obama defends changes in his campaign, but he will not destroy the system. He defends the capitalism, he defends the private property as well he defends that people get paid for the market value of what they produce. Therefore, Obama is not left wing at all. Obama defends some state intervention at certain subjects, specially on financing the research of alternative energies (without stopping any third party from doing the same), having a public health care system, etc. While he promises change, he'll barely change the system that much. For him, the market will still be in charge of moderating the system and the govern will only intervene when the situation is critical (like now). So, we can conclude that USA will still be a neoliberalism with Obama, which is a system that he will still support. So, buddy, Obama is right wing, with a little tendence to the center, when compared to John McCain, who is far right. That's all. And when you say that these democrats are far left wing, I'm sorry, but I take it as a joke, as well as all your absurd fears about the junk that people tell you about Obama.
Project Perfect Mod

Command & Conquer Mods, Mods Support, Public Researchs, Map Archives, Tutorials, Tools, A Friendly Community and much more. Check it out now!

Posted Image

#17 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:21 AM

'charges' of Socialism? lol. All I can say.
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#18 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 31 October 2008 - 07:43 AM

Bansee's graph of right vs left is pretty spot on. theres a reason that most of europe would prefer obama, and it probably is because his politics are closer to the moderate/semi-left politics of our countries, and by the looks of it, it has worked fine for the last 15 years and will probably work fine in the future.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#19 Vortigern

Vortigern

    Sumquhat quisquis.

  • Division Leaders
  • 4,654 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England.
  • Projects:Workin'...
  •  ...like a workin' man do.
  • Division:Role-Playing Games
  • Job:Division Leader

Posted 31 October 2008 - 01:41 PM

Whereas America is not open to any form of change, even to a system that has got countries all across the world NOT being in tremendous debt.
I hope I am a good enough writer that some day dwarves kill me and drink my blood for wisdom.

#20 Romanul

Romanul

    title available

  • Hosted
  • 2,461 posts
  • Location:Romania,Bucharest

Posted 31 October 2008 - 07:42 PM

Honestly,I think America should need an great menthalithy change,as I don't think that they know,but in some places of this planet,people are starting to learn 3 different foreign languages,as they just get bored(to give you an clue about what I talk,I recomend visiting Indonesia),whilst other start smoking,at the same age,of 13,thing which I can't say I didn't saw.

Honestly,americans will see that an small bit of equality could help them,as this so-called "crysis" could be solved with an bit of change in american spirit.


But hell yeah,its better to vote Obama than McKane.Honestly,somebody who likes to sing "bomb,bomb,bomb Iran" doesn't look qualified in being an president,in comparison with somebody who does look like he knows what he does.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users