25 Apr 2008 12:47:30
SPORTfighter
Continuing obama thread

Wanted to respomd trav, but i never knew how to reply without quoting
the passage or deleting it, which is a drag.So I figured id continue
another thread, but now forget what you wrote, ok, ill just quote
orson scott card of all people.
"Obama -- Bigot or Elitist?
Barack Obama was speaking at a private fund-raising event in San
Francisco. He had, in the parlance of Supreme Court cases, an
"expectation of privacy."
He thought he was speaking to people who were "in the club." We have
to understand that context in order to make sense of what he said --
in order to know what his controversial remarks say about who Obama is
and what his presidency might be like.
First, though, let's get his words down on paper so we can look at
them together. And, like scripture, let's number the verses:

1. "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of
small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years
and nothing's replaced them.
2. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush
Administration, and each successive administration has said that
somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
3. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns
or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-
immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations."
At first, Obama tried to turn these words into an asset, insisting
that people are bitter about government failures, and that anyone who
says he's "out of touch" is far more out of touch themselves.
That didn't work for him. So more recently he has claimed that he
inadvertently "conflated" (his word) two ideas: first, that people
"who have felt abandoned by political leadership turn to their faith,
family or traditions like hunting" and second, that "politicians have
tried to distract those voters with wedge issues like homosexuality or
immigration." (These last two quotations are from the paraphrase of
Obama's remarks by Catherine Lucey in the
Philadelphia Daily News, 15 April 2008.)
"My syntax was poor," Obama said. "But as a wise older woman I was
talking to the other day said: 'You misspoke, but you didn't lie.'"

Unfortunately, it is a misrepresentation to claim that he was speaking
of politicians distracting voters with wedge issues. His list of
things that result from supposed small-town bitterness began with
clinging "to guns or religion" -- it can hardly be classed as a
misstatement when that's how he started his list.
No matter how he tries to dance around it now, Obama was showing us
who he really is -- one of those rare glimpses. He was speaking to an
audience of supposed friends -- people who presumably loved him for
having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But someone taped
it and it got to the media and now we know what Obama thinks and says
in private.
Is It Racism?
Let's look again at verse 1 to see whom he's talking about. Who lives
in small-town Pennsylvania and "a lot of towns in the Midwest"? The
demographics are pretty clear on this: It's white people. In the
South, the farther you get from the Appalachians the more small towns
tend to be of mixed races. But in the North, in the Midwest, the great
migration of blacks during the twentieth century was into the big
cities, and more recently from cities to suburbs. But not to the small
towns.

So Obama was most definitely speaking of white people. And while I'm
sure there are black NRA members, by and large the views Obama
ascribes to these small-town folks are views usually attributed to
white Americans.
For a man who clings to a racist black preacher as tightly as Obama
has clung to Reverend Wright, it's odd that he would speak of clinging
to religion as a small-town phenomenon that grew out of bitterness.
Someone might think that he's projecting his own reason for clinging
to religion onto white people, but I don't think that's what's going
on here.

That Obama harbors racial stereotypes is clear from other contexts.
After his famous speech defending his continued association with
Reverend Wright, in which he mentioned racial stereotypes his white
grandmother harbors, Obama went on a Philadelphia sports radio show
(610 WIP) and told host Angelo Cataldi, in words we will call "verse
4":
4. "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any
racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees
somebody on the street that she doesn't know [pause] there's a
reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong
way."

In the real world, of course, everyone reacts with fear to strangers
on the street who, for whatever reason, appear to them to present some
degree of peril. It would be idiotic for a lone white woman, seeing a
group of black teenagers coming toward her on the street not to feel
some anxiety. There are so many things that could go wrong. This is
not racism, this is a product of living in our times.
Please remember that Jesse Jackson, back in 1993, said, "There is
nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down
the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then
look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."

Scholar Randall Kennedy is often quoted as saying (in The New
Republic): "African-Americans -- and particularly young black men --
commit a dramatically disproportionate share of street crime in the
United States. This is a sociological fact, not a figment of the
media's (or the police's) racist imagination."
But in Barack Obama's mind, this is the attitude of the "typical white
person," not of a rational American citizen in our era.
Does this make Obama a racist? No, it makes him human. We all harbor
information we've learned and conclusions we've reached about people
who belong to other groups: Baptists think they know something about
Mormons, and vice versa; blacks think they know things about whites,
and vice versa; Europeans think they know something about Americans,
and vice versa.
Most of what everybody thinks they know about other groups is wrong,
but some of it is right, and even some of what's wrong is
understandable.
This is a fact of life. I wish we could all recognize it and stop
screaming "bigot" as soon as somebody reveals that their brain works
like an ordinary human brain. What matters is if you can learn
something new about a group that you've already categorized in a
certain way. What matters is if your stereotypes lead you to mistreat
or abuse or reject people because of those stereotypes.
We have no evidence of Obama hating or abusing or mistreating or
rejecting white people, even though he obviously harbors quite-
incorrect stereotypes about them.
Is It Elitism?
Here's the thing that most people are missing -- though for different
reasons.
We need to keep in mind that Obama was not speaking to a group of
black people; my guess is that most of his listeners at that San
Francisco fund-raiser were white. So what he said was not racially
"inside," not what African-Americans might say to each other in
private, but something else entirely.
Obama was speaking to a group of rich liberals, and he was using
language that sounded like the way leftist intellectuals speak about
the ignorant people who don't think and act the way leftist
intellectuals think they should.
I have been in countless conversations with elitists of the Left, and
this is precisely how they talk. They make sweeping generalizations
about "the middle class" or, specifically, "the white middle class."
They make mocking, disparaging remarks about "people who shop in
malls" or "WalMart shoppers."

I have heard remarks like: "I don't know how people who don't read
books can stand their lives" -- thus expressing the double assumption
that people who aren't part of the academic Left don't read books, and
that people who don't read books have lives that are not worth living;
both statements are, of course, ludicrously false.
Obama is simply one of the leftwing intellectual elite when he makes
utterly groundless assumptions that explain away the feelings and
behavior of people he thinks are inferior to him and his friends.
Small Towns
Let's look at those false assumptions. In verse 1, Obama says, "the
jobs [in small towns] have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's
replaced them."
First of all, it wasn't the people in the small towns of Pennsylvania
and the Midwest who lost jobs because of the deindustrialization of
America -- it was people in industrial cities and suburbs in the rust
belt.

The small towns lost population because of the conversion of
agriculture from the small family farm to the big factory-farm. They
also lost population because of the natural draw of the big city.
("How can you keep them down on the farm, now that they've seen
Paree?")
It's true, though, that there's been a population drop -- when the
jobs left, they pretty much stayed gone. So the small towns are
smaller. Their downtowns have been slaughtered by big box stores and
regional malls and the ease with which our cars take us there.

You can drive through these small towns and see boarded-up stores in
seedy, neglected downtowns and, if you don't live there, you can think
that people must be bitter; and, if you're an idiot, you'll think this
is something that needed to be fixed by government and must be a sign
of the failure of presidents.
Government Failure
Which takes us to verse 2: "They fell through the Clinton
Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive
administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna
regenerate and they have not."
I know of no administration that has had, as its program, the
regeneration of small towns. City centers, yes. Small towns? No. It's
beyond their power. Besides, the people who live in small towns are
not asking for that kind of "help."
(In fact, smalltown people are more likely to be praying for
government to stay away. "Please, Lord, save us from the people who
did urban renewal! Keep them away from our small town!")
Long-gone Jobs
But what Obama is clearly implying, between verses 1 and 2, is that it
is the loss of jobs twenty-five years ago that has embittered the
people now living in small towns.
This is the single stupidest part of what he said. Because, if you
have a brain, you will realize that the people who did not find jobs
in those small towns left them twenty-five years ago! That's why the
towns have shrunk!

Unlike the inner cities, where many of the poor stay on welfare as
long as they can and do drugs and crime and all the other things that
the statistics say are endemic to the inner cities, in the small towns
the people who don't have jobs move to a place where they can find
work.
There is no one in Midwestern or even Northeastern small towns who
lost his job twenty-five years ago and stayed in the small town living
off the welfare of his neighbors ever since, who is bitter about the
failure of Presidents to "save" them.

Only a Leftist intellectual is capable of such obvious stupidity --
but I will bet you that most Leftist intellectuals who read Obama's
statement saw nothing wrong with it. To these elitists, you don't
actually have to have information or logic in order to make vast
generalizations and completely explain away entire classes of people.
In fact, such false and evidence-free generalizations have been the
stock in trade of the intellectual Left from Karl Marx on.
The Results of Bitterness?
It's only in verse 3, however, that we see where Obama's absurd story
about 25-year-old bitterness is taking him. He is spinning this yarn
to explain away the concerns of white, middle-class, smalltown
Americans. And what does he see as those concerns?

guns/eligion/ntipathy to people who aren't like them/anti-immigrant
sentiment /anti-trade sentiment
In Obama's mind, these poor ignorant white people "cling to" these
things in order to "explain their frustrations."
Of course, they're not frustrated. Most people I know who live in
small towns do so by choice. They could live in the big city or the
suburbs but they don't want to. They often make deliberate sacrifices
in lifestyle or convenience precisely in order to stay in the small
town. They love it there, or at least they like it better than they
imagine they would like city life.

And isn't this a weird list to begin with?
Guns. I don't own one myself, but I grew up in a gun-totin' house. We
went target shooting and deer hunting. My dad and brothers and I
walked the desert northeast of Mesa, Arizona, with .22 rifles,
plinking at rabbits and tin cans. We weren't bitter. We weren't
frustrated. We never hit a rabbit and we didn't care. We were simply
together and being a good shot was a manly thing. (Since we killed
every can we aimed at, we attributed our failure to kill rabbits to
rabbit cleverness.)
But that is completely outside Obama's experience.
Likewise, I don't know anybody who "clings to" religion out of
bitterness. In fact, the people I know who are truly bitter invariably
become atheists. It's the people with faith and hope who cling to
religion. Surely Obama knows this from his own experience and from the
religious people in his life. Does he really think white people cling
to religion for reasons so radically different from black people?
Or is he actually admitting that while he attends Rev. Wright's
church, Obama himself doesn't actually believe in religion -- he just
knows that going to church is something a politician has to do? And
Rev. Wright was his friend, so it might as well be his church? To
explain away religious faith as, in effect, the "opiate of the people"
-- something you cling to because your life is so awful -- is a
position, not of a believer, but of the atheistic intellectual Left.

When it comes to "antipathy to people who aren't like them," my guess
is that nearly everyone in Obama's audience when he said these things
feels antipathy toward people who aren't like them -- for instance,
smalltown white Americans who cling to guns and religion.

In fact, everybody alive feels antipathy to people who aren't like
them. For instance, I have a powerful antipathy to people who molest
children, commit genocide, blow up civilians, or torture people.
I have less antipathy, but still a noticeable amount, to people who
light up a cigarette while standing in a line with people who aren't
smoking. I have antipathy toward people who litter. I have a strong
antipathy toward people who steal political signs from my lawn.

Every one of those people is "not like" me, at least to the degree
that they engage in these behaviors.
It's a favorite charge by the leftist intellectual elite that other
people, lesser people, are bigots. That they hate anyone who isn't
"just like them."
But in a small town, people are far more aware than any of these lofty
elitists that everybody is different from everybody else. Because in
small towns, you can't sort yourself out into "smart people who
believed everything their Leftist professors taught them" and
"everyone else." Outside of Ithaca, New York, most small towns don't
have enough people in the first group to form a tennis game, let alone
a club.

Small town people have to learn to get along with everybody. Yes, they
pressure people to conform to community standards -- but they're
nowhere near as vicious about it as, say, your average university
faculty, where the slightest deviation from the ideological norm is
regarded as grounds for denying tenure and expelling the "different"
person from the community.

In fact, this charge is actually the kettle calling the pot black.
(And no, you prickly politically-correct people looking for any straw
to seize on to prove that I'm really a bigot, this old saying has
nothing whatsoever to do with race -- it has to do with what happens
to the bottoms of kettles and pots when they are used over an open
fire.)
Anti-immigrant sentiment? I've seen no evidence of this in small
towns. Lots of it in suburbia and big cities, though, especially among
people who would rather die than do the kind of work illegal
immigrants do.
And it's really funny for Obama to charge small towns with "anti-trade
sentiment." After all, hasn't Obama come out against NAFTA and hasn't
he joined in trying to block the free trade agreement with Colombia
that President Bush has proposed?

Of course, Obama, like Hillary, is a complete hypocrite about this. He
thinks anti-free trade will play with the extreme Right and with the
extreme Left, which oppose free trade policies for nearly opposite
reasons. But as president, he would have no intention whatsoever of
endangering our economic prosperity by introducing tariffs or trade
barriers. That would be insane, and he knows it.
So what has happened to Obama's list? It's a phony. The ideas and
practices he attributes to smalltown Americans either do not
accurately describe them or are absolutely not caused by bitterness
over presumed job losses twenty-five years ago.

Only an intellectual could say, or even think of, something as stupid
as this statement.
Conclusions about Obama
So what have we learned about Obama?
1. That he's as full of ignorant stereotypes as anybody;
2. That he's capable of saying really stupid, thoughtless, obviously-
false things; and
3. That he thinks he's really smart for saying them.

We'll never find a candidate for president who doesn't exemplify point
1. The difference is that the ignorant stereotypes of Republicans are
never forgiven, and the ignorant stereotypes of Democrats are never
noticed -- at least by the liberal media establishment.
I worry about point 2. John McCain might stumble and say that Iran
trains and funds Al-Qaeda when he meant to say Shiite terror groups in
Iraq, but as President he would be surrounded by advisers who would
instantly correct him (as Sen. Lieberman instantly corrected him at
the time).
But when Obama makes sweeping statements like this during his
presidency, he will be surrounded by advisers who think exactly the
same things. There will be no one there to say, "Of course, you
didn't mean that, Mr. President, because every word of what you just
said is hopelessly, idiotically false." On the contrary, they will
think that he just said something smart, because they'll all be just
as ideologically pure and ignorant as Obama himself.

That will be a requirement for them to be appointed in the first
place. After all, any administration that is determined to have
fraudmeister Al Gore in charge of dealing with "global warming" has no
intention of listening to the slightest bit of real-world evidence, if
it contradicts the dogma.

Which brings us to point 3. I've been giving credit to Obama for
having the possibility of learning something. I've watched him weasel
and waffle on troop withdrawal in Iraq and I've taken his changes, not
as cynical political maneuvering, but as a sincere effort to learn
from his mistakes and correct his views.
I've taken it as hope that, if he's elected, we won't have a complete
incompetent in charge of our national defense.

But the man whose book of utterances includes the four verses I've
cited here, a man who really believes that these statements are
meaningful, useful, and true, is either amazingly stupid, equally
gullible, or is such a committed elitist that he will refuse to listen
to contrary evidence if it challenges the dogmas of the intellectual
Left.

President George W. Bush has proven, again and again, that he is
willing to listen to, and even take the advice of, people who disagree
with him on many key points. John McCain has openly accepted the fact
that sometimes he's wrong and sometimes his ideas simply are not
politically possible.
Hillary is an obvious cynic, tailoring her image -- and her Senate
votes -- to fit les sondages du jour. (I wrote "the polls of the day"
in French just to prove I'm an intellectual, too.)
Voting Record
But now we have to look at Obama's Senate voting record in a different
way. Being the "most liberal" Democrat in the Senate does not mean
that he took the liberal position on every single vote. Nobody did
that. It does mean, though, that he is "more liberal" than 95% of the
Senate.
How can he be the most liberal, and only be more liberal than 95%? I
mean, doesn't that mean there are four senators more liberal than him?
No. These scores are actually a composite of their voting record on
social, economic, and foreign policy/defense issues. (See
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)

Last year, when Obama's record was rated 86% liberal, he was only the
tenth most liberal senator.
Both Obama and Hillary climbed in 2007 -- during the fund-raising
phase prior to the primary elections. Hillary jumped from the 32nd
most liberal senator to the 16th most liberal, and Obama from the
tenth to the most liberal.

I saw this as simply an artifact of the way we do politics. You raise
your money from the extremists in your party. Republicans have to run
to the right and Democrats have to run to the left to raise money.
Even centrist McCain changed a few key positions rightward in order to
remain viable; still, he challenges the system by raising money across
party lines. And the extremists in his party hate him for it. (That's
why you hear Republicans saying idiotic things like "I'll sit out the
election rather than vote for McCain," which would only make sense if
they believed that McCain would be worse on defense or on court
appointments than Obama or Hillary, which is manifestly not true.)
But now that I've looked at these four verses from the Thoughts of
Obama, I'm not so sure. I wonder if that voting record reflects his
utter acceptance of the dogmas of the Left. I wonder if he's a true
believer in a political religion that has neither coherency nor
evidentiary support, but is rigorously enforced within the community
of the Leftist intellectual elite.
I still believe that Obama is far more personally honest than Hillary
the Cattle-Futures Queen, and that he would make a marginally better
president than she would. I will still vote for him rather than her in
the North Carolina primary in May.

But these statements of Obama are also deeply repulsive to me. My
contempt for stupidity among supposed intellectuals and for elitism
among supposed Democrats knows no bounds. Intellectuals are supposed
to be rigorous and change their minds to fit logic and evidence;
Democrats are supposed to be for the common man.
Obama's statement exhibits neither trait. Shame on him. And shame on
the Democratic Party for becoming the captive, not of smart people,
but of elitists who only pretend to know what they're talking about."



25 Apr 2008 13:40:31
travisgod@aol.cominyrface
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Apr 25, 3:47=A0pm, SPORTfighter <billamaho...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Wanted to respomd trav, but i never knew how to reply without quoting
> the passage or deleting it, which is a drag.So I figured id continue
> another thread, but now forget what you wrote, ok, ill just quote
> orson scott card of all people.

Who gives a fuck? Is this all you are reduced now to, being a clone
of hal?? If I wanted to read "OH MY GOD, OBLAMA is a RACIST" I'd go
looking for it.

Trav


25 Apr 2008 17:22:01
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

SPORTfighter wrote:

> But these statements of Obama are also deeply repulsive to me. My
> contempt for stupidity among supposed intellectuals and for elitism
> among supposed Democrats knows no bounds. Intellectuals are supposed
> to be rigorous and change their minds to fit logic and evidence;
> Democrats are supposed to be for the common man.
> Obama's statement exhibits neither trait. Shame on him. And shame on
> the Democratic Party for becoming the captive, not of smart people,
> but of elitists who only pretend to know what they're talking about."

Here bill, here's an article from a lady, a writer, who has much to say
about that speech too...
--------------------



Yes, Barack Obama, We Are Bitter
By Mary Grabar

Sunday, April 20, 2008
We know who you’re talking about, Barack Obama, when you talk about
Pennsylvania and the Midwest, about small towns where the jobs have
left. We know who you’re talking about when you talk about those who
“get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.”

You’re talking about “those people.”

You’re talking about white people who have neither the family
connections nor the racial credentials to gain entrance to the world
that you inhabit. Many of the people you’re talking about are those
whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were immigrants from
Central and Eastern Europe who came to these places to work in steel
mills, coal mines, and factories. We know the code words.

You’re talking about people whose culture is little known. We have been
pretty quiet. We never tried to impose our culture on everyone. We never
insisted on putting pictures of ourselves in our native dress into
schoolbooks or mandating that our stories and songs be part of the
curriculums.

We tried to maintain our culture without government aid, by forming our
own churches and groups, and building Polish, Ukrainian, and Slovenian
halls.

We never wore buttons declaring “Slav Power” or grouped together for
purposes of intimidation or violence.

The power we asked for was the power of the paycheck which we earned in
factories, steel mills, coal mines, or by cleaning houses. Yet, we were
taken aside and told that because of affirmative action it was no use
trying to advance off the assembly line; we were told in “diversity
workshops” that people of color had to be promoted over more qualified
white people. I know this, Barack, because I have family members and
friends who worked in factories.

We used to trudge in to work and change into work clothes, like my
father did. He began by knowing only one word of English, “Okay,” which
he found to be the most useful one in the language. When the boss man
handed him a broom or pointed to a piece to be welded, he fairly leapt
to the task. My uncles were injured in construction and mining
accidents, and went back to work.

But what did we get for that, Barack? We paid cash for our houses and
kept impeccable yards, yet saw the value of our homes plummet after
marauding hoodlums came into our neighborhoods in riots that were
celebrated by the intelligentsia in Manhattan penthouses, who saw such
violence as justified expressions of outrage over past discrimination.

We went to public schools in those same neighborhoods only to be
accosted for our skin color and the presumed “privilege” that teachers
said we had. Rather than teach us what was good and beautiful about
Western Civilization and the country to which our parents had fled,
teachers gave us Marxist nonsense, if they bothered to teach at all. Our
schoolmates saw the evening news, mimicked their elders by wearing
“Black Power” buttons and felt justified in roughing the white kid who
didn’t seem tough. Because we were “privileged”—despite washing our
fathers’ sooty work clothes while our mothers went off to clean offices
and houses in the suburbs—we were not eligible for scholarships, not
even to the Catholic schools. Teachers never cut us any slack. Guidance
counselors told us to be secretaries or work in the factory, despite our
volunteering and demonstration of academic abilities. Our brothers,
cousins, and uncles went off to fight in Vietnam, while those from your
class took up arms against their campus administrators.

True, we had our problems, as all people do, with such things as
alcoholism and family violence, but we handled those ourselves, and
never blamed “society” or a history of oppression. Still, many of us did
carry legacies from the old country, of hunger and persecution, of
watching family members and villagers murdered by atheistic regimes. So
we were grateful for the opportunity to work and buy our own little
patches of the American Dream.

We were happy to use a welding torch, shovel, or broom to get them. We
didn’t insist that we should all get college degrees. We didn’t have our
documents translated for us or get bilingual instruction. If we didn’t
know English we made sure our children did and we relied on them.

Your white friends in San Francisco, Barack, probably had cleaning women
like my mother (and me when I accompanied her and then had my own
cleaning jobs from age 12). As white people from a certain class and
with certain connections, your donors knew that their futures would be
secure because of their inheritances and the connections they could make
in the media, politics, and business. In fact, it would benefit them in
the world of “radical chic” to hang around those like you and support
your policies. (Great opportunity to be photographed next to a black
person!)

Your black friends there, like your wife, see no end to the amount that
this country owes them because of what happened to their ancestors. It
makes no difference that many of the whites in previous generations also
had experienced persecution and hunger and worked in dangerous, dirty,
and degrading jobs. Or that blacks and Native Americans were among the
slave owners.

In fact, you and those wealthy donors sneer at white people who have had
to do manual labor and who have paid for tuition at community colleges
with the money earned that way, while our classmates received special
scholarships and government grants—from our taxes.

You sneer at those like us who put our faith in God and not in those
like you who would presume to know what’s good for us and tell us what
to do with our money and our children, and leave us with no ability to
defend ourselves.

Well, Barack, coming from your Ivy League world, you would not know much
about us. You would not have learned that because we come from people
who, rather than letting their communist benefactors redistribute the
food, burned the crops in their little fields before they were forcibly
“collectivized.” In Slovenia, they fought Tito’s Partisans from the
woods and held mass at night when the Communists banned church services.
They remember what it’s like to be hungry, ill, and living in little
more than huts, while Marshall Tito and his communist cronies lived in
villas. Now you live in a Chicago mansion and sneer at those like us who
simply want to keep and defend our little three-bedroom ranches. You
don’t know what it’s like to have family members die for the right to
attend mass.

I know your liberal cronies, Barack; they make me check off my skin
color on job applications and ask me during job interviews of how I
teach multiculturalism, yet don’t know where Slovenia is on the world
map. They couldn’t care less about my culture, nor about Polish,
Ukrainian, Russian, or Lithuanian culture. Your supporters often feel
free to mock my Slovenian heritage in letters and comments on the
Internet when they disagree with me. I guess it’s like being called a
“dumb Polack”—something that has never gained quite the opprobrium of
other ethnic epithets.

See, Barack, we know the system: Some are more “equal” than others.

And we know how you really feel about the “proletariat.” We know this
from our experience either directly or as an inheritance from our
parents and grandparents. And that is why we came to America.

Addendum: Many of my non-European correspondents, like those who came
from Cuba, agree—as their letters to me indicate.


Mary Grabar earned her Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia
and teaches in the Atlanta area.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.




25 Apr 2008 17:35:19
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

SPORTfighter wrote:

> tenth most liberal senator.
> Both Obama and Hillary climbed in 2007 -- during the fund-raising
> phase prior to the primary elections. Hillary jumped from the 32nd
> most liberal senator to the 16th most liberal, and Obama from the
> tenth to the most liberal.
>
> I saw this as simply an artifact of the way we do politics. You raise
> your money from the extremists in your party.

And it's more than, money.

Here's an article today, discussing William Ayers, the 'educator' who is
a real charming shithead, former bomber of the weather underground,
and now, leftist educator.... read on

Mark
--------------


April 25, 2008
Bill Ayers and the Subversion of Education

By Ed Lasky
Barack Obama's longstanding ties to Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn have
elicited a great deal of controversy and have weakened his campaign.
Senator Obama attempted to distance himself from this dynamite duo -- as
he has distanced himself from his "sounding board" and "moral compass"
Jeremiah Wright (whom he now dismisses as just his former pastor) -- by
stating that their actions as leaders in the Weather Underground
bombings happened when he was 8 years old.

Of course, he elided the fact that they have no remorse for their
actions and Ayers publicly wished there had been more of them. Ayers
escaped prosecution on procedural grounds. In the words of Ayers,
"Guilty as hell, free as a bird -- America is a great country".

Possibly relying on connections that Ayers' wealthy father had in
Chicago, Ayers and Dohrn were able to land sinecures in academia. Thus,
Obama was able to dismiss Ayers as a "Professor of English". On his
website, Barack Obama has this to say about Ayers:

"Ayers is a tenured professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago
and a ‘respected advisor' to Mayor Daley on School Reform"

Barack Obama has been attempting to burnish Ayers' reputation by
characterizing him as a university professor -- still one of the more
honored and respected professions in America. He peddled the notion
that Ayers is an educator now and this should absolve him of the burden
of his bomber background.

However, what has Ayers done for academia? He has continued to wreak
harm -- just in a different but longer lasting way.

Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute has done masterful work over the
years commenting on the state of education in America. Two years ago, he
wrote about Ayers in "The Ed Schools' Latest-and Worst-Humbug". The
article is a revelation. Ayers may have given up on the bombs, but he
has found our nation's classrooms an ideal way to promote his
revolutionary and anti-American views. Stern returned to the subject of
Ayers' influence this week.

While attending Columbia University Teachers College in 1984 he had an
epiphany. He adopted the views of one of his professors, Maxine Greene-a
leader in the "critical pedagogy" movement. What did he take away from
the course? An ideology that he has promoted throughout his career --
and one that has very little to do with education but has a great deal
to do with radicalism. Stern writes:

As Ayers wrote later, he took fire from Greene's lectures on how the
"oppressive hegemony" of the capitalist social order "reproduces" itself
through the traditional practice of public schooling-critical pedagogy's
fancy way of saying that the evil corporations exercise thought control
through the schools.

Greene told future teachers that they could help change this bleak
landscape by developing a "transformative" vision of social justice and
democracy in their classrooms. Her vision, though, was a far cry from
the democratic optimism of the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and
Martin Luther King Jr., which most parents would endorse. Instead,
critical pedagogy theorists nurse a rancorous view of an America in
which it is always two minutes to midnight and a knock on the door by
the thought police is imminent. The education professors feel themselves
anointed to use the nation's K-12 classrooms to resist this oppressive
system. Thus Maxine Greene urged teachers not to mince words with
children about the evils of the existing social order. They should
portray "homelessness as a consequence of the private dealings of
landlords, an arms buildup as a consequence of corporate decisions,
racial exclusion as a consequence of a private property-holder's
choice." In other words, they should turn the little ones into young
socialists and critical theorists.

All music to Bill Ayers's ears. The ex-Weatherman glimpsed a new radical
vocation. He dreamed of bringing the revolution from the streets to the
schools. And that's exactly what he has managed to do.

Ayers has subsequently written a best seller used in ed-school courses
which focuses on the moral imperative of teaching social justice to
students in K-12 classrooms. He has been active in "teaching teachers"
that capitalism is a curse and imperialism is an American obsession.

Social justice is a noble sounding pursuit; one we should all applaud.
However, the devil is in the details. What precisely are the views that
Ayers is promoting?

His course description for teachers signing up for his course on "Urban
Education":

"Homelessness, crime, racism, oppression-we have the resources and
knowledge to fight and overcome these things."

"We need to look beyond our isolated situations, to define our problems
globally. We cannot be child advocates . . . in Chicago or New York and
ignore the web that links us with the children of India or Palestine."

"In a truly just society there would be a greater sharing of the burden,
a fairer distribution of material and human resources."

For another course, titled "Improving Learning Environments," Ayers
proposes that teachers "be aware of the social and moral universe we
inhabit and . . . be a teacher capable of hope and struggle, outrage and
action, a teacher teaching for social justice and liberation."

The readings that Ayers assigns are as intellectually stimulating and
diverse as a political commissar's indoctrination session in one of his
favorite communist tyrannies. The reading list for his urban education
course includes the bible of the critical pedagogy movement, Brazilian
Marxist Paolo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed; two books by Ayers
himself; another by bell hooks, a radical black feminist writer and
critical race theorist; and a "Freedom School" curriculum. That's the
entire spectrum of debate.


Ayers teaches another course, "Social Conflicts of the 1960s" that
promotes the agitprop from his and Dohrn's Weather Underground Days.
Paulo Freire was also a leading theoretician of Liberation Theology,
which advocated that schools be used to promote revolutionary fervor and
actions among the "oppressed" -- which in Freire's view included most of
the world. Liberation theology is also advocated by Pastor Jeremiah
Wright, which he has promoted through his pulpit for decades. While the
liberation theology pushed by the Pastor has its roots in the work of
James Cone, which fuses liberation theology with the cause of
African-American liberation and activism, the work of Freire and Cone
draw upon the same conceptual foundations.

Instead of educating teachers to prepare their students for the real
world, and to acculturate immigrant children into the civic culture of
America, Ayers is helping to create a cadre of teachers who will promote
a view that is radically at odds with the mores of most Americans and
that is divorced from the traditions of education in America.

A little over 10 years ago, Ayers and Greene were able to get a series
of books on education published. Ayers was editor and Green served on
the editorial board (with Rashid Khalidi -- a supporter of the
Palestinian cause, the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at
Columbia University. Khalidi also has ties with Barack Obama that have
been widely reported when journalists cover Obama's extensive support
for the Palestinians, most recently in the Los Angeles Times "Allies of
Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama").

How should teachers teach science, for example? According to one of the
books, Ayers and Greene approved for publishing,

"The marriages between capitalism and education and capitalism and
science have created a foundation for science education that emphasizes
corporate values at the expense of social justice and human dignity."
The alternative? "Science pedagogy framed around social justice concerns
can become a medium to transform individuals, schools, communities, the
environment, and science itself, in ways that promote equity and social
justice. Creating a science education that is transformative implies not
only how science is a political activity but also the ways in which
students might see and use science and science education in ways
transformative of the institutional and interpersonal power structures
that play a role in their lives."

Similar gobblygook applies to the teaching of math. Eric Gutstein
teaches with Ayers and, according to Stern, is a Marxist ideologue. He
has politicized his math classes and proudly notes that his course has
made -- and will make generations of students -- more aware of the
injustices built into capitalist society. One way of doing this is by
using unequal wealth distribution to teach fractions.

Stern admirably reports on the growth of this "social justice" based
educational system throughout America. Sixteen of the top educational
schools in America -- that shape the leaders of our educational system
-- are heavily influenced by this type of "teaching", Education is
replaced by agitprop.

Courses that taught young children to feel good about being Americans
are being replaced by a system that teaches them to be ashamed of being
Americans. Spreading out from the schools that teach our teachers, the
ideology that is promoted by William Ayers is revolutionary and
anti-American. Ayers has entered his sixties, his lust for violence
seems to have diminished, but his revolutionary ardor has not. Instead
of planting bombs, he has been a key force in harming our schools and
our children.

Ayers was a subversive when he was with the Weatehr Undergound. He is
still a subversive, but does his work behind the scenes and with a
broader canvass to draw upon. He no longer may lead small gang of
bombers but is reaching and shaping a much larger number of people that
capitalism is not only bad, but should be fought.

All this courtesy of the taxpayers who might otherwise be assuaged by
Barack Obama's assurance that Ayers is a "respected educator".

Does Barack Obama respect Ayers views and goals?

Barack Obama has campaigned as a man who will help reform and improve
education in America. As President he would be in an ideal position to
do so. But with friends like Bill Ayers, what type of reform does he intend?


25 Apr 2008 20:02:49
travisgod@aol.cominyrface
Re: Continuing obama thread

> =A0 =A0Yes, Barack Obama, We Are Bitter
> By Mary Grabar
>
> Sunday, April 20, 2008
> We know who you=92re talking about, Barack Obama, when you talk about
> Pennsylvania and the Midwest, about small towns where the jobs have
> left. We know who you=92re talking about when you talk about those who
> =93get bitter=94 and =93cling to guns or religion.=94
>
> You=92re talking about =93those people.=94
>


I'll snip the rest but make comment just as an aside and as a
suggestion.

If you guys seriously want to do advocacy, you need to listen to
this. This was an excellent piece UNTIL she started going into the
communism talk. Calling someone a commie is like invocation of
Godwin's Law. It just causes people to tune out.

This author was in the zone with the working class hero stuff until
she started careering off course into the communism and proletariat
shit. Working class versus elite IS marxist shit, the very thing she
is decrying. That was part of the manifesto for Christ's sake.

To be an effective advocate, you cannot just shout racist or hitler or
communist or liberal. Make the case and resist the urge to use Jesus
or any other uncommon ground. Calling Oblama out as a hypocrite and
an elitist, damning the affirmative action movement because it was
racist - these are all points which are well-made, objectively sound,
and gain traction. Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.

Trav


25 Apr 2008 23:47:03
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

travisgod@aol.cominyrface wrote:
>> Yes, Barack Obama, We Are Bitter
>> By Mary Grabar
>>
>> Sunday, April 20, 2008
>> We know who you’re talking about, Barack Obama, when you talk about
>> Pennsylvania and the Midwest, about small towns where the jobs have
>> left. We know who you’re talking about when you talk about those who
>> “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.”
>>
>> You’re talking about “those people.”
>>
>
>
> I'll snip the rest but make comment just as an aside and as a
> suggestion.
>
> If you guys seriously want to do advocacy, you need to listen to
> this. This was an excellent piece UNTIL she started going into the
> communism talk. Calling someone a commie is like invocation of
> Godwin's Law. It just causes people to tune out.

But in the interest of simply stating an eastern european descendent
tellin their story, I simply posted it in toto. It wasn't supposed to be
advocacy... it was meant to be information. That doesn't make it 'manna'
nor does it give it even advocacy charter. It's just information- part
of the equation.
>
> This author was in the zone with the working class hero stuff until
> she started careering off course into the communism and proletariat
> shit. Working class versus elite IS marxist shit, the very thing she
> is decrying. That was part of the manifesto for Christ's sake.
Sure, but she speaks of a tribe, a feeling and series of understandings
about america, that I can absorb without feeling some sense of kinship
for the self reliance..... but it doesn't mean it's anything more than
what it is... a women's story. And not a bad one at all.
>
> To be an effective advocate, you cannot just shout racist or hitler or
> communist or liberal. Make the case and resist the urge to use Jesus
> or any other uncommon ground.

Well, as you might surmise, I'm not of her tribe, but the point wasn't
to make 'believers' out of other readers, but to see how those
americans, those blue collar people think and act and in the context of
their history and their thoughts. Then, we get the obligation to sift
and winnow out what we can use for us, ours and how much we have to
stand some distance from.... hence, it's not advocacy, as much as the
reflection of those who were singled out so inaccurately in that SF
speech by a candidate and their prevailing philosophy.

Calling Oblama out as a hypocrite and
> an elitist, damning the affirmative action movement because it was
> racist - these are all points which are well-made, objectively sound,
> and gain traction. Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.

It has very little to do with me... it has to do with americans from
that group who this article gives voice too. For heaven's sake,
everyone, especially me, isn't so addicted to my way or the highway
about most things. Here, it's about presenting her, their story. That's
where it possesses information. Why would you believe otherwise.

The importance of seeing the world, as it is, seems important to me.
And more even than almost all advocacy, as such.

Mark


26 Apr 2008 07:10:29
nemo_outis
Re: Continuing obama thread

"travisgod@aol.cominyrface" <travisgod@aol.com > wrote in news:ac024d05-
3b7b-47da-9a9f-314a22889338@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

...
> Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.

As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.





26 Apr 2008 08:33:25
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

nemo_outis wrote:
> "travisgod@aol.cominyrface" <travisgod@aol.com> wrote in news:ac024d05-
> 3b7b-47da-9a9f-314a22889338@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> ...
>> Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.
>
> As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.
>
>
>
Or your jew hating 'zionazi' does for you....

Mark


26 Apr 2008 08:59:49
Herbert Cannon
Re: Continuing obama thread


"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com > wrote in message
news:Xns9A8CBF3C9026pqwertyu@64.59.135.159...
> "travisgod@aol.cominyrface" <travisgod@aol.com> wrote in news:ac024d05-
> 3b7b-47da-9a9f-314a22889338@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> ...
>> Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.
>
> As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.

Or your contribution to a terrorist organization does for you Mr. "
dangerous man."




26 Apr 2008 08:18:14
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:33:25 -0400, Mark Goldberg
<msgoldberg@optonline.net > wrote:

>nemo_outis wrote:
>> "travisgod@aol.cominyrface" <travisgod@aol.com> wrote in news:ac024d05-
>> 3b7b-47da-9a9f-314a22889338@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> ...
>>> Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.
>>
>> As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.
>>
>>
>>
> Or your jew hating 'zionazi' does for you....

recognizing the danger and evil motivating Zionist fascists does not
in any way imply racism against Jews.

Hal

>
>Mark


26 Apr 2008 12:57:46
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

hal@nospam.org wrote:

>
> recognizing the danger and evil motivating Zionist fascists does not
> in any way imply racism against Jews.

You are a marxist, with nazi sympathies, a tyranny believer and one
who wants, believes in, and supports the end of civilization of the west
with a world governance, a multiply stated hatred of jews, of Israel, of
the US, of christians, of G-d, of capitalism, who of course, then
opines, the above...... :^)

After the 1400 yr old stated evil, of the need to submit the entire
world, to submit all other belief systems, and to end those that don't
submit, and then, the one nation specifically under attack for merely
existing, in sovereighty....
Which sovereingty is outlawed by Islam, which by the way, evinces
hundreds of professed statements by those so dedicated as to the benefit
of jews living in Israel because it means they won't have to
hunt them to kill them elsewhere, throughout the world.

Oh, and one pipsqueak coward, named hal, who recently opined
'The Jews are doomed'

Of course, creating a lie about others being fascists so you can justify
your stated desire for their doom, doesn't imply anything benign about
nemo's statement.

It means your a pipsqueak, a liar, a fraud, a marxist- and a bonafide
hatefreak.

Not racism.

Mark


26 Apr 2008 17:47:12
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

travisgod@aol.cominyrface wrote:

> To be an effective advocate, you cannot just shout racist or hitler or
> communist or liberal. Make the case and resist the urge to use Jesus
> or any other uncommon ground.

Yes... I agree, and precision is important. Context, precision, building
a logical argument. Such as, the case here, where my posting this would,
on the basis of my many previous postings, would have me admit this is
advocacy, not only on the posters likely part, but certainly, also, my own.

Mark
-------------

Saturday, April 26, 2008

'Red flag' over Obama blogger – webworker flies commie banner
Campaign journalist's work appears
in 'revolutionary Marxist' journal

In the same week the Obama campaign quietly removed from its official
website a page managed by a fundraiser tied to the Islamic terrorist
group Hamas, its official blogger has come under attack as a "hardcore
Marxist" for hanging a Communist Party flag in his Harvard campus
apartment and publishing in a self-professed 'revolutionary Marxist'
journal.

Sam Graham-Felsen, a journalist-on-leave from The Nation, joined Obama
for America in March 2007 where he works for the New Media department as
the official blogger, daily presenting the campaign's public face. Now
he's under fire for his reputed Marxist sympathies from bloggers at
Common Ills on the left and Little Green Footballs on the right.

Graham-Felsen, according to a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson,
adorned one corner of his shared student apartment with "a Communist
Party flag ... bought on their trip to Russia the summer after sophomore
year."

The revelation echoes an earlier public relations problem in February
when a Houston Fox TV affiliate captured images of a volunteer in an
Obama campaign office working in front of a flag featuring the image of
Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's
executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.

At that time, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling the flag
"inappropriate" and noting that the office where it was displayed was
funded by "volunteers" and was not the official campaign headquarters.
Graham-Felsen, however, is not a volunteer, but a staff member according
to information published on the Huffington Post taken from the Obama for
America campaign 2007 second quarter report.

In 2003, Graham-Felsen participated in a labor march in France that
Associated Press reported ended in violent riots – a characterization he
disputed in The Nation. His coverage of the 2003 French protests against
a new employment law again appeared in 2006 in Socialist Viewpoint, a
journal that proudly proclaims its Marxist point of view:
The Socialist Workers Organization was formed to advance the
revolutionary Marxist political program in the United States. Our
members are long time active participants in the socialist and labor
movements. We agree with Karl Marx that society is divided into social
classes whose interests are irreconcilable. ...

Socialism, the ownership and democratic control of the means of
production by the working class, and the removal of profit from the
system of production, is the aim of Socialist Viewpoint, which reflects
the political views of the Socialist Workers Organization.

Socialism is the prerequisite for the next stage in human development
that will end class oppression and exploitation for all time.
Common Ills also took Graham-Felsen to task for a 2003 Harvard Crimson
article he wrote praising Noam Chomsky's "amazing ability to reason" and
"the power to make the left make sense," while bemoaning his
unwillingness to curb his radical rhetoric to increase his effectiveness.

"Unfortunately, Chomsky continues to squander this potential by making
decisions that destroy his credibility in the eyes of most Americans,"
Graham-Felsen wrote.

"In perhaps his most infamous move, on the day after the Sept. 11
attacks, Chomsky stated: 'The terrorist attacks were major atrocities.
In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example,
Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half
its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people.' As a
result of his poor timing and unwillingness to moderate his tone, his
message was lost to anyone not already on the extreme left. He sounded
callous and dogmatic; instead of provoking change, he provoked disgust."
Graham-Felsen's writings, wrote the Common Ills blooger, have destroyed
his own credibility:
"And exactly what is a Democratic candidate doing with a staffer who
acts as the campaign's public face when the staffer is featured in a
Marxist publications? All of the above is public information. I could
add a great deal of private information but we'll stick with the public
information and wonder exactly how Sam made it onto Obama's staff and,
considering all the above, why anyone should trust a word Sam says?
"His problem with Chomsky wasn't Chomsky's beliefs, he just felt they
could be watered down to trick people. If Sam believes, as the magazine
he published in does, that 'Socialism is the prerequisite for the next
stage in human development that will end class oppression and
exploitation for all time,' would he tell people straight or water it
down with a lot of hope and change buzz words?"
Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson was less politick,
calling Graham-Felsen "a hardcore Marxist."


26 Apr 2008 18:02:03
SPORTfighter
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Apr 25, 4:40=A0pm, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com >
wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:47=A0pm, SPORTfighter <billamaho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Wanted to respomd trav, but i never knew how to reply without quoting
> > the passage or deleting it, which is a drag.So I figured id continue
> > another thread, but now forget what you wrote, ok, ill just quote
> > orson scott card of all people.
>
> Who gives a fuck? =A0Is this all you are reduced now to, being a clone
> of hal?? =A0If I wanted to read "OH MY GOD, OBLAMA is a RACIST" I'd go
> looking for it.
>
> Trav

Gee you're a cheery guy.


26 Apr 2008 18:08:46
SPORTfighter
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Apr 25, 11:02=A0pm, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com >
wrote:
> > =A0 =A0Yes, Barack Obama, We Are Bitter
> > By Mary Grabar
>
> > Sunday, April 20, 2008
> > We know who you=92re talking about, Barack Obama, when you talk about
> > Pennsylvania and the Midwest, about small towns where the jobs have
> > left. We know who you=92re talking about when you talk about those who
> > =93get bitter=94 and =93cling to guns or religion.=94
>
> > You=92re talking about =93those people.=94
>
> I'll snip the rest but make comment just as an aside and as a
> suggestion.
>
> If you guys seriously want to do advocacy, you need to listen to
> this. =A0This was an excellent piece UNTIL she started going into the
> communism talk. =A0Calling someone a commie is like invocation of
> Godwin's Law. =A0It just causes people to tune out.

True.
But it should still be said.It is the elephant in the room that we
dare not say cause it gets tuned out.But we wll know it's true.That in
fact hillary, edwards, obama.Their lack of patriotism springs from the
fact that they are communists.And that amaerica winning the cold war
was a bad thing.
Ok, so most tune it out.I can accept that.Its still the truth.

> This author was in the zone with the working class hero stuff until
> she started careering off course into the communism and proletariat
> shit. =A0Working class versus elite IS marxist shit, the very thing she
> is decrying. =A0That was part of the manifesto for Christ's sake.
>
> To be an effective advocate, you cannot just shout racist or hitler or
> communist or liberal. =A0Make the case and resist the urge to use Jesus
> or any other uncommon ground. =A0Calling Oblama out as a hypocrite and
> an elitist, damning the affirmative action movement because it was
> racist - these are all points which are well-made, objectively sound,
> and gain traction. =A0Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.
>
> Trav

McCarthy was calling dems commies and he got ripped down for it,
micked to the point it was a running joke calling people commies.
Then the soviet union collapsed.An guess what the records show? In
fact not only were those mccarthy was after commies, but many were
soviet agents.And they were deepy involved in the hippy culture that
the mordern libelisms comes from.
Ok so they tune me out now.I dont really give a shit.I am just saying
what i belive, quoting what i think is important.I really couldnt care
less if it gets no one seeing the light.


26 Apr 2008 19:54:22
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:57:46 -0400, Mark Goldberg
<msgoldberg@optonline.net > wrote:

>hal@nospam.org wrote:
>
>>
>> recognizing the danger and evil motivating Zionist fascists does not
>> in any way imply racism against Jews.
>
> You are a marxist, with nazi sympathies,

a marxist with nazi sympathies. Now there's a contradiction...

Hal



26 Apr 2008 20:15:33
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:08:46 -0700 (PDT), SPORTfighter
<billamahoney@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Apr 25, 11:02 pm, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>> >    Yes, Barack Obama, We Are Bitter
>> > By Mary Grabar
>>
>> > Sunday, April 20, 2008
>> > We know who you’re talking about, Barack Obama, when you talk about
>> > Pennsylvania and the Midwest, about small towns where the jobs have
>> > left. We know who you’re talking about when you talk about those who
>> > “get bitter” and “cling to guns or religion.”
>>
>> > You’re talking about “those people.”
>>
>> I'll snip the rest but make comment just as an aside and as a
>> suggestion.
>>
>> If you guys seriously want to do advocacy, you need to listen to
>> this.  This was an excellent piece UNTIL she started going into the
>> communism talk.  Calling someone a commie is like invocation of
>> Godwin's Law.  It just causes people to tune out.
>
>True.
>But it should still be said.It is the elephant in the room that we
>dare not say cause it gets tuned out.But we wll know it's true.That in
>fact hillary, edwards, obama.Their lack of patriotism springs from the
>fact that they are communists.And that amaerica winning the cold war
>was a bad thing.
>Ok, so most tune it out.I can accept that.Its still the truth.
>
>> This author was in the zone with the working class hero stuff until
>> she started careering off course into the communism and proletariat
>> shit.  Working class versus elite IS marxist shit, the very thing she
>> is decrying.  That was part of the manifesto for Christ's sake.
>>
>> To be an effective advocate, you cannot just shout racist or hitler or
>> communist or liberal.  Make the case and resist the urge to use Jesus
>> or any other uncommon ground.  Calling Oblama out as a hypocrite and
>> an elitist, damning the affirmative action movement because it was
>> racist - these are all points which are well-made, objectively sound,
>> and gain traction.  Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.
>>
>> Trav
>
>McCarthy was calling dems commies and he got ripped down for it,
>micked to the point it was a running joke calling people commies.
>Then the soviet union collapsed.An guess what the records show? In
>fact not only were those mccarthy was after commies, but many were
>soviet agents.And they were deepy involved in the hippy culture that
>the mordern libelisms comes from.
>Ok so they tune me out now.I dont really give a shit.I am just saying
>what i belive, quoting what i think is important.I really couldnt care
>less if it gets no one seeing the light.

hey you stupid piece of shit, don't look under your bed. There's a
commie monster hiding under there waiting to eat your children.


Hal


26 Apr 2008 22:27:14
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

hal@nospam.org wrote:

>> You are a marxist, with nazi sympathies,
>
> a marxist with nazi sympathies. Now there's a contradiction...
>
> Hal
>
No... and you are it.

Mark


26 Apr 2008 19:43:36
travisgod@aol.cominyrface
Re: Continuing obama thread

> > Who gives a fuck? =A0Is this all you are reduced now to, being a clone
> > of hal?? =A0If I wanted to read "OH MY GOD, OBLAMA is a RACIST" I'd go
> > looking for it.
>
> > Trav
>
> Gee you're a cheery guy.

Dude, all this bullshit political cheerleading is boring as shit.

I mean, who fucking cares? Oblama is a racist...wow. Thanks for the
revelation.

Trav


26 Apr 2008 19:45:16
travisgod@aol.cominyrface
Re: Continuing obama thread

> > Veering off onto commie talk makes you look loony.
>
> As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.

This from the guy who hates "USians"?

I'm not doing advocacy pieces, am I, moron?

Trav


26 Apr 2008 19:56:01
travisgod@aol.cominyrface
Re: Continuing obama thread

> True.
> But it should still be said.It is the elephant in the room that we
> dare not say cause it gets tuned out.But we wll know it's true.That in
> fact hillary, edwards, obama.Their lack of patriotism springs from the
> fact that they are communists.And that amaerica winning the cold war
> was a bad thing.
> Ok, so most tune it out.I can accept that.Its still the truth.

Patriotism? Communists? Is this still the 80s? There was no fucking
cold war, there isn't a communist threat...it's all just theatre to
play to rubes.

They rile people like you up by wrapping everything in the flag while
they shove the very socialism you say you're against down everyone's
throats. Raygun and Busch were HUGE elitist, socialist, statist
Presidents. Yet, you seem to identify only the Demoncraps as guilty
of it.

This nation is no longer what the Founders built, because in part of
people like Raygun, who wrapped his whole mountain of shit in the flag
and got you dogs salivating with this evil empire shit. Now, you'd go
to war even if doing it means our own destruction, just to prove how
"patriotic" you are, beating your jingo sticks. Get real, man.

> McCarthy was calling dems commies and he got ripped down for it,
> micked to the point it was a running joke calling people commies.
> Then the soviet union collapsed.An guess what the records show? In
> fact not only were those mccarthy was after commies, but many were
> soviet agents.And they were deepy involved in the hippy culture that
> the mordern libelisms comes from.

Modern conservatism is as much as or MORE STATIST even that hippy
liberalism, you fool!

The CIA, NSA, and FBI that people like Busch and his neocon patrons
envisage would make ANY hardcore KGB operator cream his jeans. What
liberties has this administration NOT tried to restrict in the name of
phony "security" from ever more nebulous boogeymen?

So what if the Demoncraps were operatives of the communist
party...communism has always been a joke. But the joke is on US
because of what your idols in government have done while they
pretended to be patriots.


> Ok so they tune me out now.I dont really give a shit.I am just saying
> what i belive, quoting what i think is important.I really couldnt care
> less if it gets no one seeing the light.

What light, bill? I'm honestly interested in how you could honestly
believe that the party on the other side of the aisle is any better.
This country is on a steady path toward totalitarianism. No, it's not
in any way close to, for example, China, YET. But if you went back 50
years and compared it to now, you'd probably not recognize this
country and what it has morphed into.

Government is now the biggest employer...is that NOT communism? The
State has its hands in literally EVERYthing...is that not communism?

How in the fuck is this so different? The only difference is that
they got TWO candidates from the communist party and we get two
candidates pretending to represent different things.

Trav


26 Apr 2008 20:47:36
SPORTfighter
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Apr 26, 10:56=A0pm, "travis...@aol.cominyrface" <travis...@aol.com >
wrote:
> > True.
> > But it should still be said.It is the elephant in the room that we
> > dare not say cause it gets tuned out.But we wll know it's true.That in
> > fact hillary, edwards, obama.Their lack of patriotism springs from the
> > fact that they are communists.And that amaerica winning the cold war
> > was a bad thing.
> > Ok, so most tune it out.I can accept that.Its still the truth.
>
> Patriotism? =A0Communists? =A0Is this still the 80s? =A0There was no fucki=
ng
> cold war, there isn't a communist threat..

Their sure is.
How does communism start? Pople like barack, hillary, the whole dem
party they use class envy to get power.What is communism at the core?
it is lazy morons wanting your shit.
They want the government to take everyones shit and divide ity
evenly.Hell if that was a referendum question it would pass.And there
is no way you are dumb enough to not see thats exactly what the
radical fringe of the dem party that has recvently taken the party
over doesnt have this as its ultimate goal.Of course they wanna be in
power dividing the wealth.But they know the poor who vote for them
expect others shit.Th dems are the top and bottom of the country
economically.When thsose two ends agree communism is almost
inevitable.Of course practically what it means is taking the middle
classes wealth(the conservatives) and dividing it up.Its what they are
doing right now and want to do more.Of course it's a threat, it will
ALWAYS be a threat.

=2Eit's all just theatre to
> play to rubes.
> They rile people like you up by wrapping everything in the flag while
> they shove the very socialism you say you're against down everyone's
> throats.


Wow, I'm really surprised you dont get it.

=A0Raygun and Busch were HUGE elitist, socialist, statist
> Presidents. =A0Yet, you seem to identify only the Demoncraps as guilty
> of it.

They sure arent what i am, flat tax, non goverment meddling in
buisnesses, or at least almost none.But they are better that barack
hussein obama.Heck if the dems were gobe you bet your ass id be
ranting against bush and mccain.They are not real conservatives.Not
even close.But the dems are here, and where some repubs are really
socialists, the GOOD dems are socialists.The rest communist.

> This nation is no longer what the Founders built, because in part of
> people like Raygun, who wrapped his whole mountain of shit in the flag
> and got you dogs salivating with this evil empire shit.

Evils not a word Id use.But communism doesnt allow much freedom at
all.
Evil is relative.Next to the soviets america is very much a force of
good.

=A0Now, you'd go
> to war even if doing it means our own destruction, just to prove how
> "patriotic" you are, beating your jingo sticks. =A0Get real, man.

I was an isolationist years ago.But it was naive.The world has around
7 billion.In a generation it will double.The world has grown way too
small for any country to be anti war to the point they ignore the
others.And im only for any war the usa fights to the best of it's
ability.

> > McCarthy was calling dems commies and he got ripped down for it,
> > micked to the point it was a running joke calling people commies.
> > Then the soviet union collapsed.An guess what the records show? In
> > fact not only were those mccarthy was after commies, but many were
> > soviet agents.And they were deepy involved in the hippy culture that
> > the mordern libelisms comes from.
>
> Modern conservatism is as much as or MORE STATIST even that hippy
> liberalism, you fool!
>
> The CIA, NSA, and FBI that people like Busch and his neocon patrons
> envisage would make ANY hardcore KGB operator cream his jeans.

You been listening to air america again? Thats about the dumbest thing
i ever heard.
If this was 1980 and we were in russia would you be posting that shit
without sweating it? Of course you wouldnt cause youd be dragged
away.The FBI and CIA couldnt care less what you do.You can call the
president a moron, call the country inherently evil.Hell you could
yell it in front of the white house and if anything youd be asked to
move on for disturbing the peace.And you compare us to the soviet
union? Youve grown so soft and weak you got no idea how great we have
it.Thats the issue with all the america hating shit.
Yeah I love the usa.
You know why? I work 20 hours a week, always got money in my pocket,
house to live in, heat in the winter, air conditioned summer.Reliable
car, a job i chose and really enjoy.
Why not love america? Compare to most the world and my father and his
father running back to the stoneage i got it PRETTY FUCKING GOOD.
So do you.You are just too fucked up to see it.

=A0What
> liberties has this administration NOT tried to restrict in the name of
> phony "security" from ever more nebulous boogeymen?

Oh turn off john stewert and shut up.Cheney and bush dont give a rats
ass about you.They just want to get terrorists.Anfd if it means you
being worried some fed will hack into your computer and see the kiddie
porn you just gotta deal with it.I could write a book ripping bush and
the repubs walk through DC selling it to passerbys and no one would
give a shit.Grow up.

> So what if the Demoncraps were operatives of the communist
> party...communism has always been a joke.

A very effective one.As it killed millions.

=A0But the joke is on US
> because of what your idols in government have done while they
> pretended to be patriots.

What idols would that be?

> > Ok so they tune me out now.I dont really give a shit.I am just saying
> > what i belive, quoting what i think is important.I really couldnt care
> > less if it gets no one seeing the light.
>
> What light, bill? =A0I'm honestly interested in how you could honestly
> believe that the party on the other side of the aisle is any better.

thats what people who arent smart and try to sound it say.The parties
are opposed on most every issue.Abortion, guns, criminality, war on
terror.EVERYTHING.
> This country is on a steady path toward totalitarianism.

Yes.And as with china, russia and nazi germany, it is the LEFT that
will bring it.In the end it is cause they worry alot more about what
other people think.You can hear it in obamas recent rant.
=A0No, it's not
> in any way close to, for example, China, YET. =A0But if you went back 50
> years and compared it to now, you'd probably not recognize this
> country and what it has morphed into.

Yes thats right.THANK YOU SEXUAL REVOLUTION.And its leaders.The
communist party.

> Government is now the biggest employer...is that NOT communism?

No.It isnt.Its a bad sign.But not there yet.
=A0The
> State has its hands in literally EVERYthing...is that not communism?
>
> How in the fuck is this so different? =A0The only difference is that
> they got TWO candidates from the communist party and we get two
> candidates pretending to represent different things.

The difference is you can vote for whoever you want.A real
conservative, or even a libertarian.



27 Apr 2008 03:50:13
nemo_outis
Re: Continuing obama thread

"travisgod@aol.cominyrface" <travisgod@aol.com > wrote in news:e42426d5-
a078-4680-8056-2ab44e0b9b2c@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

>> As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.
>
> This from the guy who hates "USians"?

It's criminal USian foreign policy (and its perpetrators) which I hate, not
USians.

> I'm not doing advocacy pieces, am I, moron?

In your bumbling inept way you do whatever you can to promote racial
hatred. But, as with all racists, it backfires and just makes look an even
greater fool.

Regards,


27 Apr 2008 07:55:15
Mark Goldberg
Re: Continuing obama thread

nemo_outis wrote:
> "travisgod@aol.cominyrface" <travisgod@aol.com> wrote in news:e42426d5-
> a078-4680-8056-2ab44e0b9b2c@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> As your imbecilic racist ranting about "niggers" does for you.
>> This from the guy who hates "USians"?

>
> It's criminal USian foreign policy (and its perpetrators) which I hate, not
> USians.

How many died in china since the great leap....? How many milliions?
How many died in all those marxist lands.....? How many million?
How many utter lies did it take to erase all that humanity...?

But, as with all racists, it backfires and just makes look an even
> greater fool.

But, as will all marxist would be homicidists, it just backfires and
just makes you look an even greater want to be homicidist.

Mark


27 Apr 2008 08:50:03
Re: Continuing obama thread

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:27:14 -0400, Mark Goldberg
<msgoldberg@optonline.net > wrote:

>hal@nospam.org wrote:
>
>>> You are a marxist, with nazi sympathies,
>>
>> a marxist with nazi sympathies. Now there's a contradiction...
>>
>> Hal
>>
>No... and you are it.

you're emotionally equivalent to a seriously disturbed 12 year old.

Hal



>
>Mark


01 May 2008 09:37:44
Herbert Cannon
Re: Continuing obama thread


> hey you stupid piece of shit, don't look under your bed. There's a
> commie monster hiding under there waiting to eat your children.

Are you comfy there?