As Tom explains:
Note: This is the first of what will be 13 posts on why Barack Obama is a dangerous, objectionable, and objectively unfit candidate to be president of the United States (while many of the other candidates are not).
The daily videos involved will be from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring.
His first post, part of the HOPE ON (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now) project, details Obama's participation in the current financial crises, including how Obama is clearly part of the problem when it comes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
I'll link to other HOPE ON posts as they are added.
10 comments:
It's a shame when your talk show host mentality gets in the way of reality.
And what do you mean by that, Chili Dog?
Obama has gotten more money than all other members of Congress, except Dodd, from Fannie/Freddie in terms of campaign donations. He worked with ACORN to sue at least one bank over the issue.
Those facts are a reality.
If you want to provide documentation of how this is not reality, then we'll talk. But, as this is my blog, if you're just going to resort to a personal attack on me, your comment(s) will be deleted.
Your choice.
Reality is you use the words "dangerous, objectionable and objectively unfit" in a post regarding Barack Obama while attempting to pin the current crisis on Obama.
Reality is that there are many causes and neither Obama nor McCain nor Bush nor the Democrats in Congress or the Supreme Court can take full responsibility.
Reality is the words you use are meant to inflame not inform.
Chili Dog - the words you attribute to me are not mine. They are Tom's from Bizzy Blog. I properly identify that they are his words, and then I italicized them AND put them into the 'quote format' I use on all such references.
For you to attack me because of what someone else says is not appropriate.
If you don't like the words Tom has used, you are free to visit his blog and make your comments about his choice of wording there.
I will agree that there are many causes of the financial crises, but I place the most blame on the people who wrote the rules under which so much of this happened - that's the Dems in Congress who not only pushed through the programs, but vehemently rejected any reform or additional oversight of Fannie/Freddie - and the people who took the most money from the lobbyists for Fan/Fred as well.
That means OBAMA! That's the fact and no amount of 'share the blame' can change it.
As an aside, I find any politician (from any party) who advocates socialism to be dangerous and objectionable. How would you describe such politicians?
government taking over private banks, as w proposes, seems about as socialist as you can get.
now that i have re-read your words, i cannot say in complete confidence that you subscribe to Tom's opinions regarding Obama.
so if you disagree with Tom, I please accept my apology.
but if you are posting his words because you agree with him, then his words and yours are essentially one in the same, and your posting them only lends credence to them.
chili dog - taking over the banks is wrong. I disagree with that and the bailout.
I don't know that I would have used the same words Tom chose, but I do agree with the premise.
Again I ask you, if 'dangerous and objectionable' are not good words to describe politicians who advocate socialism, what is?
To quote Adam Smith, the father of market capitalism......
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Hardly socialism to tax higher incomes at higher rates.... We've been doing that since there was an income tax. Unless you think we have been socialistic ever since.
While I have my issues with progressive taxation - this isn't about how - or even how much.
This is about taxing me in order to give to others - not to pay for the mandated duties of government.
Please provide a reference in the Constitution that says it's okay to tax people in order to provide charity.
Read "not yours to give" and pay attention to the quote about charity not being a function of government.
Socialism is in the use of the funds which are not for things like the national defense or other mandated duties - but in order to give to someone who 'has not' just because some government official thinks they're more deserving of my hard-earned money than I am.
I guess I have been living in a socialist country my entire life without knowing it.
So every President who has submitted a budget since at least LBJ was a socialist.....
Interesting.
Chili Dog - no. You're using fallacious logic in an attempt to argue your point.
Presidents who sign bills that Congress passed which are not part of the statutory authority of either branch are not, necessarily, socialists. They may be other things, but not every bill that's been signed into law that also has no authority in the Constitution is socialism.
However, some of them are. Yes, the whole 'new deal' is considered by many to be the start of socialism in this country, because it benefitted some at the expense of others. This leads into the whole 'common good' argument which the founders clearly did NOT intend to be used as an excuse to do anything.
But I notice that you don't answer my questions:
Again I ask you, if 'dangerous and objectionable' are not good words to describe politicians who advocate socialism, what is?
Please provide a reference in the Constitution that says it's okay to tax people in order to provide charity.
Post a Comment