You see, Clarence Thomas chose his friends carefully also, even his wife.

Obama is no Uncle Tom!

He will propose some Socialist laws. We already have many of them.

He will try to drag ignorant, ill-educated, and poor people into at least the working class. That will cost a lot of printed money!
If it isn't done soon, we will have a WATTS situation all over again, somewhere---maybe everywhere.

I still won't vote for Obama however. McCain will by accident allow congress to do some more socialism for him, but at a slower pace.

A combine democratic, capitalistic, socialistic society does work best.
Armies, foreign relations, Interstates, waterways, parks, justice, health, food control and quality, must all be under a socialistic management.

Making widgets at a factory in PTC should be capitalistic as long as they don't poison us doing it.

Universities must be free to manage their curriculum.

The press must be able to print.

That quote obviously proves Obama is a Marxist. Though it really doesn't matter, in what context is the quote, just for clarification? Is this him as a student at a university, a professor...him at a coffee shop last week?
I've spoke a lot about bias on this subject, and I'd say that nice picture you have next to your name on every post says something about your willingness to explore this subject without bias.
I will be the judge, and, by the power of Greyskull, I say this quote does little for any argument for Obama being a Marxist. What's a structual feminist anyway?

To avoid me having to read Obama's book, could you please explain whether you meant that he deliberately chose or didn't choose: "politically active black students, Marxist professors, and structural feminists (whatever they are) as friends?

Or, did he choose them to fool them into thinking he was one of them so as to get along with them?

You didn't make it clear, I'm afraid.

I'm not voting for Obama anyway, but this would be interesting to know if he is that dumb!

So, thus far, we have two arguments: 1) Guilt by association (if you buy the premise that Obama hangs out with and was influenced by "Marxists") and 2) He has very LIBERAL proposals for the economy.

1) Even if one concedes that a select few of the many, many people in Barack Obama's life MAY have extremely socialistic/Marxist views you still can't say that makes him a Marxist. What about all the other people around who have no Marxist/socialist tendencies at all? Are they not evidence against your argument on your on terms?
2) Fyt uses Obama's liberal beliefs as evidence that he is a Marxist. This argument, no less than argument #1, is devoid of all thought besides those thoughts spawned from partisanship and bias. Liberal ideas and beliefs are no more a sign of a Marxist than conservative beliefs are a sign of a fascist. This bias is obvious in the belittling language often used by those who disagree with liberal's ideas and beliefs ("simple minded").

These arguments don't need work, they need to be tossed out the window for ones not filled with and based on fallacies. Those who claim that Obama is a Marxist should be able to point to his publicly expressed beliefs and legislative proposals to prove their point. The fact that they can't is telling evidence, along with empty arguments like the ones above, that what they claim is not true. Obama supporters aren't the ones ignoring the truth.

You make this rather asinine comment that we can't prove that Obama is a Marxist and then complain when we don't answer. Rather typical of liberals to both change the premise of the question in order to make a point, and then to complain no one answered it.

No one has said Obama is a Marxist, per se. Nor a racist, per se. Nor a terrorists, per se. Nor a anti-Semite, per se.

Obviously Barack knows that he could never get elected if he were an avowed Marxist, anti-Semite etc. So he's chosen to live a rather orchestrated and clandestine life.

For example, Rev. Wright is quoted as saying over a year ago, long before Youtube started running his sermons, that he and Barack had talked, and that they both agreed that at some point Barack would have to distance himself from Wright. Barack agreed that that day might come and regretted that. It wasn't what Wright said that made him "distance" himself, per se, it was that eventually people would find out and he would then have to repudiate him, publicly. Until then, he would enjoy the benefits of Wright's association. Does this sound like leadership to you?

In his votes both in the State House and in the U.S. Senate, Barack has explicitly avoided voting on many issues which might corner him into a position. He's instead hidden his real opinions from the view of the public. He has one of the highest "abstaining" votes in the State House. In the U.S. Senate, well, he's been all over the place. I for one, would love to have read his thesis from college. Strange that it turned up missing, and Barack failed to keep a copy of it. If you read his wife juvenile attempt at writing, you'd find some of her core beliefs in the racial "chip" she keeps on her shoulder. Its easy to find her thesis on the internet. Even his wife is an example of the kind of views that Barack keeps hidden. His wife admits to never being proud of being an American. I wonder why he hasn't disavowed her yet.

So to be able to prove Obama has these tendencies is going to be very difficult since he has lied to try to hide the evidence that proves where his leanings are.

His own book talks about the "influence" that "Frank" had on his life in Hawaii. Strange that he would "forget" Frank's full name. No doubt it had nothing to do with the fact that Frank's Marxist speeches and writings could be used against him. He just didn't anticipate that others could figure out who "Frank" really was.

So to be able to really figure out what makes Obama tick, we can't use his past votes as a way to understand the man, he either hasn't been around long enough, or he abstained on key votes. (Many of his associates have admitted, that Barack was deliberately avoiding key votes so that no one could pin him down. He had a group of comrades that protected him and his votes.) He certainly won't admit it publicly. Therefore, we have to use the very standard that Barack gave in one of his speeches. Who is Barack Obama, according to Barack Obama? ""You want to know who I am,'' Obama added softly, then retold his personal story of being raised by a single mother and his grandparents, then working his way to become a lawyer and senator."

Obama seems to think that you can judge him by those who have influenced him. His mother, grandmother and grandfather are trumpeted as being so very important in who he is. Because they taught him so very much and influenced his life. He asks us to judge him by those experiences.

But when we see that his "uncle" and Reverend for 20 years, is such an avowed anti-American. When we see that his religious teachings stem from the Marxist writings of the Black Liberation Theology. When you see his own first book is entitled the "Audacity of Hope," which is the title of a Rev. Wright sermon, then its not that difficult to connect the dots.

When you see he sought advice from Bill Ayers, a real terrorist. Or had business dealing with Rezo (sic), etc., then even an average person of average intelligence would have to wonder, what the *)^* was he thinking?

So, the answer to your question is no, we don't have a signed affidavit from Obama that he is an avowed racist, Marxist, terrorist, or anti-Semite. What we have is a duck. He walks like one, talks like one, by more importantly, he identifies with ducks, associates with them, admires them, and then finally, when the media pressure highlights those relationships, he throws them under the bus with his typically white grandmother.

The fact is Travis, you didn't want an answer, you hoped no one would. The fact is you know what we say is true. You just keep raising the bar of evidence and then scoff when no one is willing to try and clear it. This will be my final post to pointless blog, because its tiresome in trying to explain the truth to those who have already given their life over to their lord and savior, the Messiah Boy King, Barack Hussein Obama.

As my favorite fictional Colonel once said, "You can't handle the truth!"

Hopefully, there are others who will read your excellent blog. But, as for Travis and afew others, your last line said it all.

I think it is just adorable that Hobbes has his own little yes-man. USArmybrat, you have failed to ever post anything worth reading. Reading the things you post make it painfully obvious that you are completely incapable of articulating anything you believe above the level of catch phrases and name calling. You just come up with the best half-funny-to-someone-who-believes-the-same-thing-you-do line you can muster at the moment. At least Hobbes can make his own points instead going around to other people's post being a cheerleader.

Travis does not approve of my posts! I have failed to live up to his exalted standards...my life is over! Seriously, Travis, what is wrong with posting my thoughts about another blogger's post? He had a great post and agreed with it. Maybe what he and I said about you "handling the truth" hit a little too close to home?

posts...

"Dream on Jcarter. Richard's got you."

Our messianic world?

Army, you're going a little BPRs with Barack... honest. If I was a doctor, which I am not, I'd say you need to drink some water and test the color of your urine. You *conservatives get perty worked up at times because people DARE TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE.

That's kind of troublesome in the big scheme of this whole representative democracy thing. But you won't get any apologies for us proudly supporting our guy.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Is that someone I respect has to resort to comparing me to a blogger that everyone on here thinks is a LOON. And hasn't anything better to add than to discuss the color of my urine(?!?) I believe you and I both have the right to support any candidate we choose. I just don't understand yours.

for comments like this:

"Submitted by USArmybrat on Sun, 08/10/2008 - 1:50am.
You, in your delusional messianic world, probably have no idea. But, you will, one day, though I doubt you will be man enough to admit it."

Armybrat, I don't get it. I look at these blogs like a conversation across a kitchen table. When you are lead by Richard to claim we Obama supporters are in some type of cult-like worship of a man, along with the media, and the Germans, and whoever else likes him, i wonder where you are coming from; honestly. Your arguments aren't even arguments at this point. You are telling us you dislike both candidates, but you dislike McCain less. You talk about Barack destroying America, but you give no argument as to how (I think I know why you give no argument as to how). I want my old "let's have a conversation and possibly even heated debate Armybrat" back.

Sorry about the BPRs thing. On second thought, that IS a pretty low blow.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Here are just a few of the reasons why I think that Obama would be a terrible president and would probably destroy our country:

1.He is a socialist. Any President who is in favor of taking, by force, the profits of publically held companies as a vote buying scheme and saying that the money would be used to help the poor is a Socialist.
2.He would give our nations sovereignty away in order to appease Europe and the UN. Case in point – the “Global Poverty Act”, which would force America to adopt the U.N.’s “Millennium Development Goals” as official U.S. policy. This means outsourcing to the United Nations all important decisions concerning the use of U.S. foreign aid dollars. Not only that, but the fee for allowing the U.N. to play the “middle man” in our global war on poverty would be a tax of .7 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product. The U.N. has been proven to be so corrupt, only a man with little moral character would give hand over that much wealth and power over to them. He made it obvious that he wants to give other countries a say in how much energy our countries consume when he said this: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” Spoken like a true “Citizen of the World”.

3. He is stupid, or thinks that Americans are so stupid as to believe this statement that he made: "We could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much." Wow. No need to drill in ANWR or the OCS. Barack actually thinks that inflating our automobile tires and get regular tune-ups would save the equivalent amount of oil that drilling would produce. Then, he as the audacity to ridicule people that called him on that absolute falsehood by calling them ignorant: “"So I told them something simple. I said, 'You know what? You can inflate your tires to the proper levels and that if everybody in America inflated their tires to the proper level, we would actually probably save more oil than all the oil we'd get from John McCain drilling right below his feet there, or wherever he was going to drill.'" So now the Republicans are going around - this is the kind of thing they do. I don't understand it! They’re going around, they're sending like little tire gauges, making fun of this idea as if this is 'Barack Obama's energy plan.' Now two points, one, they know they're lying about what my energy plan is, but the other thing is they're making fun of a step that every expert says would absolutely reduce our oil consumption by 3 to 4 percent. It’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant.” First he said we would save the equivalent amount of oil that drilling would produce if we inflated our tires, then he changes the reduction to 3-4 percent, and he’s calling Republicans ignorant? Why didn’t he just admit that he misspoke like he should have instead of calling the people that called him on his lies as the ones being ignorant?

4. He unjustly accuses some people of being racists: “They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?" along with the "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills" comment. I’m not sure who “they” are, but he was probably referring to his detractors. I think that in essence, he was trying to say that if you disagree with him, you’re a racist. If he is elected President, we’ll never hear the end of it. Frankly, I think anyone who had Jeremiah Wright as a close friend and mentor for 20 some years is probably a racist.
I don’t think he and his wife think that America is a great country. Some of their recent statements: “America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.” “Sometimes it’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America.” “Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.” Michelle Obama’s broad assessment of life in America in 2008: and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day. Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime.” How dare Michelle refer to America as mean, slothful, and complacent. Is she some sort of clairvoyant that knows the heart and mind of every American?

How could anyone such as Barack, who has such obvious contempt for America lead it?

These are just some of the reasons why I think Barack Obama would make a terrible President and would probably end up destroying our country. I could go on and on.

1. Your definition would include any taxation of corporations making every politician since the founding of the United States a socialist.

2. Obama doesn’t have to adopt the UN’s Millennium Development Goals. Bush already did it 6 or 7 years ago. He’s given lots of speeches about it. Here’s one of the USAID reports on it.

millennium development goals

3. Obama is absolutely right about the tire pressure thing, which even McCain now admits. As does the White House and virtually everybody else.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that at least a quarter of drivers are cruising around on under-inflated tires. In April, the Rubber Manufacturers Association, the Auto Club, the California Highway Patrol and Yokohama Tire Company used those statistics, along with Department of Transportation and Automobile Association of America data, to extrapolate that 2.8-billion gallons of gas are lost every year due to under-inflation of tires.

According to the latest assessment from the Minerals Management Service, the mean estimate of undiscovered technically recoverable crude oil in the Outer Continental Shelf areas that are currently under moratorium is about 18-billion barrels. The agency estimates that if the moratorium were lifted production could start by 2017, and by 2030, oil companies could be producing 2.4-million barrels of oil instead of 2.2-million. That’s 200,000 more barrels per day.

After refining, a barrel of oil can produce up to 19.5 gallons of gasoline, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. So that’s 3.9-million more gallons of gasoline per day, or 1.4-billion gallons of gasoline per year.

McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb dispute these numbers, citing a Government Accountability Office letter of Feb. 9, 2007 that says tire inflation wastes 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline instead of the 2.8 billion estimated by the Minerals Management Service. Goldfarb’s letter said: "The Department of Energy’s designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on under-inflated tires."

So even the McCain campaign is quibbling about a small percent in the accuracy of the numbers of gallons saved; gallons more than made up for by the engine tune-ups Obama mentioned.

An analysis by Time magazine reporter Michael Grunwald said: “The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 [barrels] per day by 2030, We use about 20 million [barrels] per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.”

Nor did Obama misspeak. Split the difference between what Obama claims and what the McCain people are claiming and it’s still in the 3-4% range. Obama may have even underestimated but given that these numbers are industry and government estimates, he was right on target.

So, if you don’t like Michelle then fine, but your other reasons don’t hold water.

Name one President of the U.S. who has targeted the profits of one single industry for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution.

This is what Barack Obama wants to do, because he is a socialist at heart.

The tire pressure thing has been around for many, many years. It never mattered much for gasoline usage when gas was less than a dollar a gallon, so everyone either followed the auto manufacturer's tire pressure recommendations (most of the time---some don't ever check it) or they used even less pressure thinking the car didn't spin in ice as badly, or rode smoother! Tuning the engine is an even worse offender for about 60% of the vehicles on the road. If a car will run at all, it is run.

Now the shocker: Those 22-30 PSI for tires recommended by auto manufacturers are inadequate for gasoline efficiency.
Ever see what tractor-trailers use in their tires? Before you say, they are bigger, think!

There is money to be made by tire companies and auto sellers if owners use inadequate tire pressure and inadequate engine tuning!! Do you get it? (just like loans to broke people)

This is another of those things like turning your thermostat up or down 3-4 degrees more than usual to save energy----it works.

As to the barrels we may get from Alaska and in shallow ocean drilling, compared to savings available with autos, all I can say is that in 10-20 years after the drilling starts, if China hasn't already bought all the oil available, maybe they can use that oil also!

I can assure you that oil will certainly not be cheaper for us individuals in 20 years due to any oil drilling left to do.

We have at least two more "oil wars" to fight also between now and then, burning up any new oil we may get. (By the way Georgia has the pipe line loading pumps that Russia wants, should we get into that one also?)

Get off of the oil thing!!!
It is a dead resource for the future due to cost!

I am simply amazed at our dumbness and lack of long term thought anymore.

No one's called Obama a Marxist? You have.

Rev. Wright? I've never heard him call for the overthrow of the capitalist system in replacement for a classless economic and political world where everyone is equal. The Rev. may be influenced by a Marxist interpretation of theology in some respects, but he is no Marxist. Even if he was, Obama could easily have a relationship with him spiritually without believing everything the Rev. believes, and you know that.

Of all the people Obama admires and has associated with, what percent did you just mention as evidence? A fraction of a percent...maybe. You must recognize that your argument is: he hangs with and admires "these people" thus he's just like them. If you are going to use these people as evidence of who he really is you must use everyone else with whom he associates with and admires. You're unwilling to do that because, in this case, it would ruin your argument.

I didn't raise the bar of evidence, I simply pointed out your argument is an extrapolation of facts that prove nothing. What you have is a conspiracy theory. So, for you, Obama has been waiting, patiently, to run for the president so he can turn it over to the proletariat. That's a story, a fiction you and others believe for what ever reason. You have a set of facts and a leap of faith. I really did want you to answer so that your argument is laid out and people can see how flimsy it is and how much it resembles a bad movie.

My question wasn't "Is Obama a Marxist?", my question was, “Can anyone one of the many people who often post that Obama is a Marxist please give me a working definition of Marxism and then tell me how Obama is a Marxist?” That answer seems to be no.

I pose this, can you prove Obama is not? You just keep believing what you read on his website; I thought Richard and I gave you answers to your challenge,however,as stated many times before: you liberals can't handle the truth and turn your heads when you see it! You obviously remain hypnotized by his speeches. I suggest you do some more research into the subject; after all this is a Presidential election and not America's Got Talent!

Unlike you, I am able to prove my point(s) without labeling or name calling: I spoke to your argument in saying that you can't call Obama a Marxist by association due to the fact that most of the people he associates with and admires aren't Marxists by any stretch of the imagination. To use the few people you cite as evidence that he is a Marxist without uses all the other people he associates with and admires as evidence against that claim is intellectually dishonest and gives the rest of the world a valid reason not to believe the things you say.

I also spoke to your argument by saying that the fact that Obama has liberal policy positions is no proof that he is a Marxist. If you don't know why what I just said is true then you need to rethink your bias towards the issue.

As I have stated before, you, Hobbes, and the rest of the conspiracy theorists can continue to strip anyone who thinks that Obama isn't the anti-Christ of their free will by saying they are hypnotized by his speeches (or what ever you can think of at the time). In the mean time, I'll let you keep your free will and still tell you that you are wrong, wrong, wrong... and use basic logic to prove you wrong. What you say is fantasy and you have no means to prove otherwise.

Obama's website doesn't say he's not a Marxist, his record does. People like you call him a Marxist because you don't know the meaning of the word. To call Obama a Marxist is hyperbole, pure and simple. So, keep hiding behind labels and name calling, keep hiding behind your illusion that no one who supports Obama could possible have any free will, and keep living in that fantasy world where what you say is true.

You and Hobbes both gave answers to my challenge; however, neither you nor Hobbes has put forth an argument that could be considered intellectually honest. All you have is faith in a belief.

You’re arguing logic against Richard. Why would you do that? Do you imagine that there is any fact or any combination of facts that would change Richard’s mind? Richard is playing from the Rove playbook; never discuss an issue, turn the argument somewhere else. Richard insinuates that Obama is an anti-Semite. Do you think that if he read this pool taken in Israel where they support Obama that it would change his mind?

New Poll: Israelis Prefer Obama

Of course not! Facts are irrelevant. The object of the game is to divert the argument away from substantial issues while playing the classic Republican smear tactic at which they are so good.

Take this: “…its tiresome in trying to explain the truth to those who have already given their life over to their lord and savior, the Messiah Boy King, Barack Hussein Obama.”

Is there any rationality here at all? Of course not, it’s all degrading slurs and innuendo, insinuating that you worship Obama as the Messiah or a Boy King and then ridiculing you for doing so; while completely ignoring the fact that you never even remotely expressed any opinion that comes close to his accusation.

You made me laugh when you wrote this: “…neither you nor Hobbes has put forth an argument that could be considered intellectually honest.” Like, DUH! You were not seriously expecting intellectual honesty now were you?

Those voters out in real America don’t think Obama is a Marxist, a terrorist or an anti-Semite. The accusations are so far out on the fringe as to be irreverent to the real campaign. It’s a ploy, a tactic to avoid discussing issues. Why do you think they make the Paris Hilton ads? Moses parting the Dead Sea? The cute little tire gauges? It’s all diversion. Let Richard froth. Point him out to other people as an example of a McCain supporter. Let them decide whether they want to be with McCain/Richard or you/me/Obama. You’re playing the winning hand.

Richard has you...call it what you will...he HAS you! He is no more a McCain supporter than I am. To us, McCain is like a burger compared to spoiled steak. One is just ok but the other is enough to really tear your guts apart!!

What you're talking about? Richard has me? Have you ever really had a serious political discussion where people are calling Obama a Marxist, terrorist anti-Semite? Maybe you have but it doesn't happen in the real world. It's so far on the fringe it's not seriously considered. As for y'all nominating a hamburger candidate which you don't support, that's really not my problem. I like my guy as do millions of others. We'll see in November. I kinda like them both; too bad you and Richard don't have a candidate in the race.

You, in your delusional messianic world, probably have no idea. But, you will, one day, though I doubt you will be man enough to admit it.

Richard writes, “No one has said Obama is a Marxist, per se. Nor a racist, per se. Nor a terrorists, per se. Nor a anti-Semite, per se.”

Uh, have you seen Richard’s avatar. Scroll up to his comment, the avatar is about a half-inch above it. I says: “Terrorists, Marxists, racist Obama Blot”. Then he complains because we are complaining because he and you can’t show us a shred of evidence that Obama is a Marxist. Well, I can’t show you a shred of evidence that McCain is a racist which is why I don’t make the charge. For some us, basic honesty requires that there be some foundation for scurrilous accusations. For others it’s just your modus operandi.

Richard claims that Obama is an anti-Semite. I reference polls from Israel that show he has widespread support. Are you and Richard claiming to be able to read the entrails or whatever you do to produce your “facts” and “voila” you can magically ascertain and judge anti-Semitism better that the Israelis? Of course not! My point is that it simply doesn’t matter to either of you. Need a “fact”? Make it up. Get called on it? Deny you said it, even if it’s right there in print. Or whine that our requests for proof are “asinine”.

Or even better, make a ridiculously stupid charge about Obama then claim that the reason you can’t prove it is because, as Richard says, “...he's chosen to live a rather orchestrated and clandestine life.” So orchestrated and clandestine that in reality there is no backing to the charge visible to ordinary people so we must trust you and Richard to show us the light!

Then, when you and Richard utterly fail to make you case because there are no facts to help you out, what is the response? Here’s Richard again doing exactly what we expect, making scandalously false accusations for which there is not a shred of evidence. Poor Richard, he can’t convince us, quote, “…because its tiresome in trying to explain the truth to those who have already given their life over to their lord and savior, the Messiah Boy King”.

Pure crap.

But for you and Richard it beats arguing about an issue, any issue, doesn’t it?

I appreciate what you say and your problems with an Obama Presidency. What I fail to see is the difference between what you fear with Obama and the government that we have been living under for the past 7+ years. In both cases, it speaks of a government dictating to the people what they should do, think, how they should act, etc. The only difference that I see is that. with the current group (and McCain by extension), the benefactors of government action are a very small, very select group of industrialists. With Obama, the benefactors would be spread out among a much larger, much more needy number of citizens. This certainly does not please true conservatives because it does not address the basic problem (as they see it) of government. It does bring government back into line of serving the people rather than the corporations. keep the faith/

Democracy is not a spectator sport

I'm not a fan of the last several years or the Bush presidency at this point. Maybe in time I'll look back later and appreciate it more, but I think overall this presidency and Repub congress when it was under their control has earned a "D" grade and didn't resemble something called "conservative."

The Repubs are about to take a real beating in the Fall in congressional elections on down(and maybe presidential)because they abandoned conservative principles. Whether everyone agrees with these principles or not, the way Repubs forgot about them hasn't sat well with their own base nor with independent voters. They lost their soul and principles and are about to pay for it by being sent packing.

I've read a lot of Marx and I would like to say that he calls more for an economy controlled by those who work in the economy and not a powerful totalitarian state to control all aspects of life. The basic outcome of this is a very powerful state, but not a totalitarian state by definition. Capitalism was only evil because he saw inequality, vast, glaring inequality, as an unavoidable byproduct of the system.
Thanks for thinking about your post before you wrote it. I hope to see you around more!

he just another liberal like this guy.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.