Savage Pacer - Farrakhan - Comments

Socialism? First, thank you

Savage Guy — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:40:36 -0600

Socialism?

First, thank you Shawn, I appreciate your entry and have appreciated your participation in this blog.

The dictionary defines Socialism as follows:

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Obama promised to give 95% of us a tax cut. The way he plans to accomplish such a feat is to take money from the other 5% via higher taxes. In effect, he is advocating the "vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production (of the rich)....in the community as a whole (via wealth redistribution). That planned wealth redistribution is one basis for me and a lot of other people accusing Obama, Pelosi, and Reid of trying to make the USA a Socialist country.

More thoughts on this subject to come..........

To start, I appreciate your

shawn hogendorf — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:35:41 -0600

To start, I appreciate your passion, Savage Guy.
But I would be willing to bet that if you were to ask Obama, he would agree that the occurance of an abortion is, without question, a sad day.
Abortion is a sensitive, yet heated issue that is debated with unparalleled passion on both sides.
But passion aside, here is what Obama has said about abortion: www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm.
Next, I just don't see the socialist nation argument as valid. Please, explain what is meant by this.
As far as 48 percent of people polled saying Obama wasn't ready to be president...
Riddle me this:
If 48 percent of the people polled thought Obama wasn't ready to be president the day before the election, and 53 percent of Americans voted for Obama as president the next day, that is 101 percent, right?
What is that, a 1-percent margin of error?
I would say that poll was quite accurate, considering it was reported that 53 percent of people voted Obama into office.
That's a majority, which also translated into an electoral college victory.
So, you're right, Savage Guy.
We do get the governemnt we deserve, just as we got the government we deserved for the last eight years and will get the governemnt we deserve every four years from here on out.
That's the beauty of a democracy.
If people don't like it, they can vote the leaders out of office, which is essentially what happened this year, in 2000 and in 2004.
I think it will be interesting to see what happens during this presidency.
Will the campaign be a bunch of empty promises?
Will Obama deliver on the "change" he gained a quite a bit of support on?
What will be done with health care?
Education?
Iraq?
Afghanistan?
The economy?
Will Obama be able to get politicians to work together for the good of the country?
Or will things remain polarized and partisan in Washington D.C.?
Without question these will be interesting topics to watch over the next four years.
As a president elect who disagrees with so many of the current administration's policies, I can't wait to see how much (if anything) can actually be changed in four years.
With the current state of the country being in two wars, economic trouble and a health care system a lot of people see the need to reform on both sides of the political spectrum, I wonder what will really take priority.

On a side note, where was the John McCain who gave the concession speech all campaign long?
I thought that was an unbelieveable speech.
I thought he gave a good speech at the RNC, but his speech from Arizona was one of the best I have ever seen him deliver.
I think people can take a lot from that speech about working together to improve the US, which is what it should be all about: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96631784&ft=1&f=1012.

It's a sad day for the

Savage Guy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:43:49 -0600

It's a sad day for the unborn.

It's a sad day for those who don't want the USA to become a socialist nation.

48% of people polled across the USA the day before the election did not think Obama was ready to be President and yet he wins the Presidency.

Thus, we get the government we "deserve".

Now we will see if Obama the President is any different than Obama the most liberal non-reforming Senator; the least experienced candidate for President in 100 years. He ran as a reformer, something he never was in any of his political positions previously.

The one positive aspect of Obama's victory is he is a person of color. We as Americans can celebrate that we have come a long way as a nation, and have beaten back the scourge of racism to the point that a person of color could win the highest office in our land. I would have chosen a different person of color (i.e. Powell, Rice, etc.), but it is significant for our progress away from racism that Obama won.

This blog will continue to examine the question of whether Obama is the hope of the entire world. For those who have no voice (the unborn), he clearly will not be. For the rest of us, time will tell.

Looks like the question

Nancy Huddleston — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:43:26 -0600

Looks like the question asked in the title of this long-running blog has been answered -- NBC has just declared that Obama won.

Obama on abortion I watched

Savage Guy — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:09 -0500

Obama on abortion

I watched the debate and the previous post by Mr. Hogendorf correctly captured Obama's words. Those words clearly illustrate that Obama wants women and their doctors to continue to have the right to kill unborn children before they have their chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (their constitutional rights as human beings), and he will only select judges who agree with him. So when he says he won't impose a litmus test he is lying.

When he was a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted against protecting babies who had survived abortions. Those babies were left to die even though they were outside the womb. That is how extreme Obama is in his abortion beliefs.

The Wall Street Journal is one of the few newspapers of national significance that has a conservative bent, so I will never apologize for turning my readers to it. They get heavy doses of liberal bias from the Red Star locally and almost every other major city newspaper in the country.

Well, you can rely on

shawn hogendorf — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:39:21 -0500

Well, you can rely on information from an opinion editorial in the "Wall Street Jouranl" or you could listen to what they said during the debates.
This was in the third debate.
Here's what Obama said:
"Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.

And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.

Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.

But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.

So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through."

The entire debate is available at www.debates.org/pages/trans2008d.html.
I, too, hope people pay attention right up to the election, so they can make an informed decision on whatever candidate stands for what they believe in.
But that said, I hope people consider their source and the bias included when gathering the information to make those decisions...

Obama on judges More

Savage Guy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:14:09 -0500

Obama on judges

More chilling stuff on the Wall Street Journal opinion page today.

According to the article, Obama made the following statement while speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

Now you might ask "what's wrong with Obama's criteria?". Funny you should ask! As the article goes on to say, "Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most."

Because the press has not properly vetted Obama (because most of them want him to win), this kind of radical thinking by Obama has not seen the light of day. One can only hope that people are paying attention right up to election day.

Better late than never. I

Savage Guy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:54:17 -0500

Better late than never. I promised in an earlier post to read "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso and share excerpts.

Here is excerpt #1 from pp 109-111.

"In "The Audacity of Hope", Obama offers numerous insights into his policy positions......In many cases, Author Obama is not as shy about is liberalism as is Orator Obama.....Through affirmative action, Obama writes, the federal government should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race when awarding college scholarships. Although he sends his own children to an elite private school, Obama opposes school choice through vouchers or tax credits that can be used toward education......[again in his book], he acknowledges that "if you have a conversation with...liberals about the potential costs of regulation to a small-business owner, you will often draw a blank stare." He goes on later in his book to offer the literary equivalent of the liberal's "blank stare" when he writes that "government policies can boost worker's wages without hurting the competitiveness of U.S. firms.""

On that last point, really?!? How is that possible when that forced increase in wages is inevitably offset by the same businesses laying off workers to recoup the forced cost increase?!? Will he then try to get a law passed forcing employers to employ a certain number of workers?!? Either way, we are talking about Obama-led socialism in a free market economy. Unbelievable.

Well Savage Guy, what I do

shawn hogendorf — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:06:17 -0500

Well Savage Guy, what I do think changes is the context, which changes the meaning of what he said. Obama said this during an hour-long conversation in 2001, which the producer of the show, Josh Andrews, has said Obama put aside his politics and talked academically about the evolution of the right to vote, politics of electoral redistricting and the relationship between slavery and the constitution in early America.

I'm happy to review the

Savage Guy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:59:51 -0500

I'm happy to review the entire interview. It doesn't change what he said: that we should legislate wealth distribution because we haven't done it effectively enough through the courts. Wealth redistribution is part and parcel to Socialism, and that is the direction Obama would take this country. If you want Socialism, move to one of many countries around the world. The USA is a republic that uses free market principles, not a socialist country.

Almost everyone does better

Savage Guy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:54:51 -0500

Almost everyone does better under McCain's health plan.

This article illustrates the truth of this argument in spite of Obama and the media's best efforts. While McCain's plan would tax employer based benefits, the graph in the following article shows that everyone is better off anyway because the $5,000 tax credit would exceed the value of the employer paid benefits being tax free.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506862956370705.html

Bottom line, McCain's health plan will be a better deal for you!

Gird your loins against Joe

Nancy Huddleston — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:59:09 -0500

Gird your loins against Joe Biden! Can someone post that video? It's great.

Cut and splice, Savage

shawn hogendorf — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:35:12 -0500

Cut and splice, Savage Guy...
If you want real information, and want to hear the entire interview without a youtube hack job, visit www.chicagopublicradio.org/audio_library/od_raapr01.asp.
I believe the interview you are referring to is from April 23, 2001. See, this way you can hear the entire interview...

Obama the wealth

Savage Guy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:39:00 -0500

Obama the wealth redistributor, circa 2001.

As this video presentation of a radio interview from 2001 illustrates, Obama has long been a proponent of wealth redistribution. This presidential election gives us a fundamental choice; we are at a fork in the road. Do we continue to embrace capitalism within the framework of our republic, or do we cast aside our Constitution and embrace socialism and go the way of European countries?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Obama the purchaser of the

Savage Guy — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:51:50 -0500

Obama the purchaser of the presidency and promise breaker.

Once again, supporters of a Democratic presidential candidate don't care that he lied. First President Clinton got re-elected in 1996 after lying to the American people (and under oath we would later find out) even though everyone (including those who voted for him) knew he lied.

Now, Obama has lied twice about fundraising. First, he promised he would stick to federal fundraising limits in the primary and then reneged on that promise in order to overcome Mrs. Clinton's overwhelming experience advantage with cold hard campaign cash.

Then, Obama promised to submit to federal fundraising limits in the general election campaign and then (once again) reneged on that promise and as a result, may be our first president to purchase the office. As the following article illustrates, Obama's fundraising advantage is sizeable and makes it amazing that the race is as close as it is. When all is said and done, Obama will have spent somewhere north of $600 million to purchase the office of the presidency.

If he couldn't keep his promises during the campaign, what makes you think he is going to keep his promise about cutting your taxes (or rather redistributing the wealth)?

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/25/state-of-the-money-race...