What Do We Know About Obama?

The election is three days away.  It's time we ask ourselves - what do we know about the guy who is slated to become the next President of the United States?

By JASON RAEDE

______________________________

What do we really know about Barack Obama?

We know that he spent 20 years listening to a racist, America-hating preacher, renouncing his membership only when it became a scandal, and still lists the man as one of his mentors.

We know that he is great pals with PLO hotshot Rashid Khalidi, unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, and convicted felon and swindler Tony Rezko.

We know that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from AIG, Lehman Bros., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and his party voted against reforms proposed by John McCain that would have prevented this mess.

We know that he thinks the fundamental flaw in the constitution is that it doesn't provide any means for the redistribution of wealth.

We know that he blames white people for the poor socioeconomic situation of black people.

We know that he wants to sit down and talk to one of the most irrational, hate-spewing men to walk the face of the earth since Adolf Hitler. (We all know how appeasement went with that bastard)

We know he wants to raise capital gains taxes in the face of the greatest economic recession since the Great Depression.

We know that he has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, which renders his pledge of "bipartisanship" very questionable indeed.

Obviously he's going to bring change.  But from his speeches, associations, tendencies, and other characteristics, he's going to bring the wrong kind of change.  He's going to implement socialist policies in line with Franklin "I hate the economy" Roosevelt.  He's going to try to please everyone and their mother, and will get taken advantage of in international diplomacy worse than Kennedy did.  He's going to hold the United States hostage to foolish international agreements like the Kyoto Protocols and foolish international organizations like the U.N.  He's going to sit back and pretend Iran is harmless and then watch as the Mullahs start World War III.  He's going to tax the country into another Great Depression.

I'm not so much scared of all this as I am curious.  Curious as to how any rational person can bring himself or herself to vote for this guy when the only positive thing I've heard about him is that he was a "community organizer."

So put aside your irrational fears of "gun-toting" Sarah Palin and "Bush 2.0" John McCain, and think to yourself - what do I know about this guy that justifies me giving him my vote? "Hope" and "change" are just words.  Actions speak louder than words.

Comments

[Trotsky]

"My point was not that homogenous societies--which scandanavian countries tend to be--could be socialist. My point was that they tend to conform more readily than heterogeneous societies due to (as I stated) cultural expectations and such."

Where but in your own confused mind is proof of this bizarre assertion that homogeneous societies "conform more readily than heterogeneous societies?"

"Therefore your inference that socialism is working in scandanavian countries is incorrect."

I've still never asserted that. I merely asked, when Dan the genius insisted that socialism always failed everywhere, if he was taking Sweden and Denmark into account.

"Conformity doesn't mean success. It just means people don't bitch about it."

Proof of this assertion, please.

"Another example is Japan or, indeed, some Middle Eastern countries where the type of gov't might not be beneficial to that society (i.e. beacuse of the lack of women's rights, etc) but is culturally accepted as norm."

Japan? What are you babbliing about here? That Japan is socialist? Or that the Japanese don't like their government? Do you even know what you're saying?

"Acceptance doesn't correlate to success."

Define success, please.

"As for same sex marriage. Well no. I don't believe gays should marry in the church because of church rules etc."

Which church would that be? Or are you unaware that many churches condone and perform gay marriage? Which must mean that your are for gay marriage in those churches? Or do I know you and the way you think better than you're willing to admit?

"But I have no problem with civil ceremonies. I guess you think that because I am conservative that I am homophobic as well."

Your ranting speaks for itself.

"Ditto-that, asshole. lol"

You're twelve, right?

-Trotsky

[liberty]

"homogenous: n.composed of parts or elements that are all of the same kind; not heterogeneous: a homogeneous population."

Read my lips, I did not mean white. I meant homogenous. I put the definition up there for you to educate yourself on a word you apparently don't know.

I know what you are trying to do. Your small pathetic brain can't get past the whole race issue so you assume EVERYONE thinks the way you do. Sorry, I'm not playing that game. You might use "code" words to mean things, but I can assure you I don't. (please read definition again).

BTW, you are the one who brought up Scandanavian countries. Or have you conveniently forgot that little fact so you could fit me into your narrow view of conservatives which I must say is very bigoted of you??

And again, you were so convinced of your own ridiculous conclusions about who you think I am that you obviously didn't read what I wrote. My point was not that homogenous societies--which scandanavian countries tend to be--could be socialist. My point was that they tend to conform more readily than heterogeneous societies due to (as I stated) cultural expectations and such.

Therefore your inference that socialism is working in scandanavian countries is incorrect. Conformity doesn't mean success. It just means people don't bitch about it. Another example is Japan or, indeed, some Middle Eastern countries where the type of gov't might not be beneficial to that society (i.e. beacuse of the lack of women's rights, etc) but is culturally accepted as norm. Acceptance doesn't correlate to success.

As for same sex marriage. Well no. I don't believe gays should marry in the church because of church rules etc. But I have no problem with civil ceremonies. I guess you think that because I am conservative that I am homophobic as well. Wow you really are prejudiced and a bigot. I hope you know that.

Ditto-that, asshole. lol

***

[Trotsky]

"Look, Trotsky, genetically native europeans generally tend to be white so who gives a rats."

Aside from being beside any conceivable and meaningful point, your argument is reductive to the point of silliness and undercuts your own point. If European countries are "homogeneous" (common, tell the truth, you meant "white"), than according to your own logic, any mostly white country could have a sustainable socialist government as do the mostly white Scandanavian countries. You're all tangled up in your own confusion.

"Scandanavians are native to the Scandanavian countries just as Kenyans are native to Kenya and Japanese are native to Japan--which is another fine example of the conformity of homogenous countries."

So than any of these could be socialist. I know: we should just send everybody home, and then every country could be socialist.

"That is not a generalization and it's not rocket science."

Umm, look up the meaning of "generalization." At least you got the rocket-science part right.

"If you don't understand my argument about how largely homogenuous countries tend to be more conforming, then I'm sorry I don't know what to say to you."

Please use a spelling checker. Spelling counts. And it isn't that I don't understand your argument. It's that your argument is stupid (no surprise there). It's not an argument, it's a tautology (you should look that up too). You're saying that largely homogeneous countries are largely homogeneous.

"Go read a sociology book or something."

Been there, done that, didn't buy the t-shirt.

And you haven't answered either of my two questions: Which Scandanavian country did you live in, and how do you feel about same-sex marriage (remember, you're Mr. Live-And-Let-Live)?

"What does race have to do with it? You appear to be trying to bring race into it which it is not."

Actually, nothing. You're the one using the code-word "homogeneous." Hitler called it "Aryan."

"And, are you seriously trying to say that because someone else brought up the failure of socialism and you threw in the Scandavian countries as a retort that you were not trying to use the Scandanavian countries as an example of a successful socialist society???"

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. Finally you've had an insight. How does it feel?

"You seem to want to argue for argument's sake. I guess it makes you feel more superior or something. I just find it annoying..."

Of course you do. All you ditto-heads prefer preaching to the choir. But if you really don't like it, hey, vote with your feet.

-Trotsky

[liberty]

Look, Trotsky, genetically native europeans generally tend to be white so who gives a rats. Scandanavians are native to the Scandanavian countries just as Kenyans are native to Kenya and Japanese are native to Japan--which is another fine example of the conformity of homogenous countries. That is not a generalization and it's not rocket science. If you don't understand my argument about how largely homogenuous countries tend to be more conforming, then I'm sorry I don't know what to say to you. Go read a sociology book or something. You're Einstein, right?

What does race have to do with it? You appear to be trying to bring race into it which it is not.

And, are you seriously trying to say that because someone else brought up the failure of socialism and you threw in the Scandavian countries as a retort that you were not trying to use the Scandanavian countries as an example of a successful socialist society??? You seem to want to argue for argument's sake. I guess it makes you feel more superior or something. I just find it annoying...

[Trotsky]

"Benjamin Disreali is credited with saying, "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics." You remember...the quote you used to assert your intellectual superiority over Dan because he put two M's in Clemens."

As usual (for a Conservative), you are attributing to me assertions I never made. Though this practice makes it easier for you during your intellectual circle-jerks to nod in agreement with each other, it sadly does nothing to further the discourse.

"You threw the Scandanavian countries out there as examples into the part of the debate about socialism. I am assuming you meant them as examples of socialism working."

Again, you're not reading carefully (no surprise there). I threw nothing out there as an example of anything. Dan the (other) genius spewed something about the blanket failure of socialism. The assertion was his. I was simply asking for clarification (although it would not surpries me if he'd never heard of Sweden or Denmark).

"Homoegeneous meaning mainly Scandanavian because NEWSFLASH all diversity doesn't mean BLACK. It is easier for the more homogeneous countries to run smoothly and be more civilized about it due to similar cultural need and expectation."

Lordy, lordy, a very broad (and unsubstantiated) generalization, this. Please define "Scandanavian" as you're using it here, because I'm thinking "predominantly white" is goint to be part of that description.

"The more diverse a country gets, the more difficult it is to assimilate all the cultural needs and expectations of the greater population into the core policies of a gov't hence less satisfaction and more civil unrest."

Please point me to something (anything) that substantiates this, because, every offense intended, it sounds like a load of typical (and typically mindless), conservative socio-babble.

"This is one of the reasons conservatives advocate smaller government and less governmental intrusion. The fewer rules and regulations in a country as diverse as the US means fewer intrusions into the lives of people. Therefore, there is a lesser chance that cultural expectations will be intruded upon. Live and let live."

Hmm. And how do you feel about same-sex marriage, you old "live and let live" guy you?

"In other words, a country like Finland could have a basket weaving based government and it would be easier for them to conform. That doesn't mean they would like it."

Well, gee, Finland having a democrtitic government, if the people didn't like it, they could change it, couldn't they?

"Also, people in countries such as the Scandanavian countries have been culturally conditioned over the centuries to be accommodating and to not make a fuss--the English are another example of this."

Ahh, I see. They don't overthrow this government they don't like because they're brain-washed? Do you ever think about what you're saying before you say it?

"Just because on the surface the Scandanavian countries have socialism and their countries aren't falling apart does not mean that socialism is inherently successful."

Guffaw. Our country is quite literally falling apart. Perhaps socialism would be a better alternative. Or in your fevered imagination does my asking this make me a socialist?

"It is a far more complex issue than that."

Oh, do please extrapolate on this. No, seriously, please. I need a good laugh.

And say "Hi" to Rush for me. Or is it Bill? Or Dr. Laura? Or whomever it is you're getting your addled opinions from today.

-Trotsky

[liberty]

Benjamin Disreali is credited with saying, "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics." You remember...the quote you used to assert your intellectual superiority over Dan because he put two M's in Clemens.

You threw the Scandanavian countries out there as examples into the part of the debate about socialism. I am assuming you meant them as examples of socialism working.

Homoegeneous meaning mainly Scandanavian because NEWSFLASH all diversity doesn't mean BLACK. It is easier for the more homogeneous countries to run smoothly and be more civilized about it due to similar cultural need and expectation. The more diverse a country gets, the more difficult it is to assimilate all the cultural needs and expectations of the greater population into the core policies of a gov't hence less satisfaction and more civil unrest.

This is one of the reasons conservatives advocate smaller government and less governmental intrusion. The fewer rules and regulations in a country as diverse as the US means fewer intrusions into the lives of people. Therefore, there is a lesser chance that cultural expectations will be intruded upon. Live and let live.

In other words, a country like Finland could have a basket weaving based government and it would be easier for them to conform. That doesn't mean they would like it. Also, people in countries such as the Scandanavian countries have been culturally conditioned over the centuries to be accommodating and to not make a fuss--the English are another example of this.

Just because on the surface the Scandanavian countries have socialism and their countries aren't falling apart does not mean that socialism is inherently successful. It is a far more complex issue than that.

On another note:

God, will these Obamatrons EVER just give up the chant that everything revolves around OBama being black? what small, closed brains they have.

**

[Trotsky]

"And further more, it was Disreali that said that quote about statistics.."

And you're referring to what, exactly?

"And I would proudly debate you anytime any place on communism which is ten-times worse."

And you're referring to what, exactly?

"Another intellectual poseur trying to make us believe socialism is this great successful experiment."

As usual, you morons argue against a position I never took. Makes it easier for you, I guess, since responding to anything I actually said would require you to know something instead of mindlessly and endlessly repeating Rush Limbaugh's talking points.

"They always bring out the scandanavian countries. Uh, I believe many of the scandanavian countries have some of the highest levels of suicide in the world, Twatsky."

So you judge a government's success by the suicide rate? Just out of curiousity, would you compare Sweden't suicide rate with the USA's?

"Not to mention they are relatively homogeneous."

What are you babbling about now? Homogeneous? Meaning what--they're white? Socialism works where the population isn't multi-cultural? That's about the level of rational discourse I've come to expect from you dipsticks.

"I lived in a socialist country for ten years and I can say without hesitation that socialism sucks."

Which country was that? And what exactly about it sucked? Just what are your benchmarks for success? Was its health system a complete disaster (like ours)? Was its economy in cardiac arrest (like ours)? Was its infrastructure collapsing (like ours)? Were people in that country losing their homes in huge numbers (like ours)? Did that country get itself mired in a pointless and expensive war from which it gained nothing and from which it can't honorably extract itself (like ours)?

"Put that in your opium pipe and smoke it..."

Good one.

-Trotsky

[liberty]

And further more, it was Disreali that said that quote about statistics..

[liberty]

And I would proudly debate you anytime any place on communism which is ten-times worse.

[liberty]

Another intellectual poseur trying to make us believe socialism is this great successful experiment. They always bring out the scandanavian countries. Uh, I believe many of the scandanavian countries have some of the highest levels of suicide in the world, Twatsky. Not to mention they are relatively homogeneous. I lived in a socialist country for ten years and I can say without hesitation that socialism sucks.

Put that in your opium pipe and smoke it...

[Trotsky]

"Wait what? did I read the name under which you post correctly?
Did I see what comment youv made?"

Gee, where to start?

Stephen, as a friend, I want to tell you that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression. All I get to see of you is the you that your writing presents, and sadly that one is illiterate. I most respectfully suggest you take a refresher course in basic grammar and spelling, with special emphasis on the use of the apostrophe.

"Im sorry but my jaw just dropped."

It doesn't surprise me that a conservative would be slack-jawed. You probably chew your food that way.

"Conservatives are morons... coming from somebody who posts under the name Trotsky? Merely the name under which you post is a clear indication as to your level of intelligence."

So according to you, the name under which I post determines whether I'm intelligent? If I instead posted the same comments under the name "Robertson" (as in Pat) or "Norquist" (as in Grover) would you think my comments were intelligent then? I see you post under the name "Harper." Does that make you a ferry? (Look it up.)

"If after a century of socialist failures you are not able to understand that the system will NEVER work... then you need to open a history book."

Huh. First, Trotsky wasn't a socialist; he was a communist. Second, to which socialist failures are you referring? Sweden? Denmark?

As far as I can tell from the conservative drivel-level displayed here, it isn't necessary for conservatives to actually know anything in order for them to have strongly held opinions on all sorts of topics. After all, you get your opinions fully formed from Fox News and talk radio.

"And just because you lack moral values, religion, a culture and a sense of belonging, doesnt make those who have all of that morons ;)"

I don't think being a conservative makes you a moron. I think it's the other way around.

Conservative talk-show stupidity--What a Rush!

-Trotsky

[Stephen Harper]

"The diatribes here confirm what I've always suspected. Conservatives are morons."

Trotsky

Wait what? did I read the name under which you post correctly?
Did I see what comment youv made?

Im sorry but my jaw just dropped.
Conservatives are morons... coming from somebody who posts under the name Trotsky?

Merely the name under which you post is a clear indication as to your level of intelligence. If after a century of socialist failures you are not able to understand that the system will NEVER work... then you need to open a history book.

And just because you lack moral values, religion, a culture and a sense of belonging, doesnt make those who have all of that morons ;)

[uh-duh]

hey kimmy7....learn how to spell rebuttal if you want to try insulting others' intelligence LOL

[Trotsky]

"hey heres an obvious 1.... he's a african man he shouldn't be elected but then look at him now he's elected just because everyone just voted for him cuz he was black like all of the people who voted for him a few whites voted for him also but they at least had a real reason"

I rest my case.

-Trotsky

[John]

hey heres an obvious 1.... he's a african man he shouldn't be elected but then look at him now he's elected just because everyone just voted for him cuz he was black like all of the people who voted for him a few whites voted for him also but they at least had a real reason.

[Trotsky]

"I added an extra M in Clemens so i guess that makes me stupid."

The first step on the road to wisdom is to realize your limitations. Congratulations.

-Trotsky

[Kimmy7]

"So partial birth abortion is an extreme religious view now. Sieg Heil Baby, what part of Germany are you from?"

Typical GOP bull. I love how you you take issue with abortion, but not with the killing of other "innocent" lives brought about by your administration. Like the 93,000 Iraqis civilians killed to date or better yet the 4,000 americans. You love the double standard. We can kill innocents if it's in the best interest of our country, but god forbid someone takes an innocent here. Give me a break. I call that extreme. Didn't the Nazis have the same double standard?

"I do not know what you are talking about I have never mentioned race once. Alan Keyes I would vote for in a minute."

The comment wasn't specifically directed at you, knuckhead.

"Biden your VP choice doesn't even know the articles of the constitution as it pertains to Executive and legislative powers. Roosevelt wasn't President when the stock market crashed and he didn't appear on TV."

How about the conversation with the guy in the diner which closed 20 years ago which he had just a while ago (He claimed)

Is this suppose to be a rebuttle to my Palin comment? Good one.

"You are a dolt of the highest order. "

You sound german to me.

[Kimmy7]

"And Kimmy7, thanks for the citations. It's always nice to have statistical backup, but really all you have to do is listen to know that "conservative" is a synonym for "idiot.""

Yeah, not really helping the cause are they?

[Dan]

Kimmy7 wrote:

"So the doom and gloom, the extreme religious views, the spewing of the racial hatred, the unqualified VP choice and the drinking of GOP campaign Kool aid you are ok with? It's the uneducated comment that really gets you worked up, huh?

You have just proven my point Mr. Magna Cum Laude."

So partial birth abortion is an extreme religious view now. Sieg Heil Baby, what part of Germany are you from?

I do not know what you are talking about I have never mentioned race once. Alan Keyes I would vote for in a minute.

Biden your VP choice doesn't even know the articles of the constitution as it pertains to Executive and legislative powers. Roosevelt wasn't President when the stock market crashed and he didn't appear on TV.

How about the conversation with the guy in the diner which closed 20 years ago which he had just a while ago (He claimed)

You are a dolt of the highest order.

[Dan]

The Washington times was founded by Sun Myung Moon of the Unification church. You know Moonies

I added an extra M in Clemens so i guess that makes me stupid. The quote fit though didn't it loser.

[Trotsky]

"Wow what a news flash Kimmy7, the Washington times thinks liberals are smarter. Such an unbiased paper like the NY Times."

The Washington Times is as conservative a paper as you'll find, so I'm not sure what you're saying here Danster. But then you're not either.

"Because I am a simpleton I will quote Clemmens 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.'"

Um, do you mean "Clemens?" Just keep talking, Dan. Please.

And Kimmy7, thanks for the citations. It's always nice to have statistical backup, but really all you have to do is listen to know that "conservative" is a synonym for "idiot."

-Trotsky

[Kimmy7]

That's your rebuttle? An obvious statment about the NY Times and a quick Google search for a statistics quote. You're wasting my time.

[Dan]

Wow what a news flash Kimmy7, the Washington times thinks liberals are smarter. Such an unbiased paper like the NY Times.

Because I am a simpleton I will quote Clemmens "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

[Kimmy7]

Trotsky,
A couple of interesting articles about the correlation between education and party affiliation. Of course you realize that I'm generalizing a bit, but you can't argue with statistics. I do understand your reaction though. I'd hate to be lumped in there as well.

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/005153.html

http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/09/are-democrats-more-educated-than-republicans/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/the-changing-impact-of-higher-education/

[Kimmy7]

So the doom and gloom, the extreme religious views, the spewing of the racial hatred, the unqualified VP choice and the drinking of GOP campaign Kool aid you are ok with? It's the uneducated comment that really gets you worked up, huh?

You have just proven my point Mr. Magna Cum Laude.