Interview: Obama Had Marxist Vision For US At Occidental College

[OLE442]

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/interview-obama-had-marxist-vision-for-us-at-occidental-college/

 

[H D]

I'm not touching this one. I urge voters to read as much info about both candidates as they can and come to a conclusion that matches their beliefs.

 

[LaRue Medlin]

I believe "They are BOTH crooks!"

 

[Richard L]

I agree with Hugh. Reading up on each candidate is the best way to find out more about them, however...Remember that what you read may not be true, only partially true, or just a blatant lie. That's the problem with the Internet, and news media...They should be providing unbiased information, but that has not been the case for a very long time.



A good example appeared this morning on NBC's Today Show. Mat Lauer reported that Paul Ryan had stated in some interview that he had ran a Marathon in something over 2 hours? Of course some reported did an investigation and claims that Paul Ryan had only run in on Marathon and completed the race in a little over 4 hours? So my question is, who is lying, or who has the fact wrong?



Did Paul Ryan's claim that he ran the Marathon in over 2 hours discredit him, was it a misquote, a misstatement, or did he run some other Marathon that the reporter was not aware of and assume he had all the facts? So who is lying? Does the fact that Paul Ryan may have lied about the time he ran the Marathon, make him less credible to be a Politician or VP, or was the reporter biased in his investigation and having found only one Marathon that Paul Ryan ran, was sufficient evidence to call Paul Ryan a liar?



Again, I agree with Hugh, I just don't know a reliable source for the truth when the Internet and the media are completely biased and unreliable.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



To a politician "a little over 4 hours" and "something over 2 hours" are the same thing, and, technically, a little over 4 hours truly is some time after 2 hours...but then again, so is 10 hours, or 3 hours, or 2 hours 5 minutes.



TJR

 

[H D]

Well, one of them does have a resume. Who cares about marathons? Let's consider credentials.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I agree that politicians will always puff up their credentials with statements that are often misleading, but still have some basis in truth or even border-line truth.



Hugh is correct that the ability to run a Marathon in 2 hours or 4 hours is really not the issue, but it goes a long way to prove how far the media and the politicians can steer the public from the issues and provide misleading information...regardless of who is correct.



The point of resumes is well taken, but often are just as misleading. Anybody, with the right choice of words, can make themselves sound great in a resume, and do it without lying. That seems to be the biggest skill the politicians have....Misleading us to believe they were the driving force on some issue when in reality they had an insignificant influence on that issue.



...Rich.

 

[H D]

Obama's lie would be that he had a resume. If he's using his experience as president, well, that certainly speaks for itself.

 

[Gavin Allan]

Hugh +1

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

Your point about Obama's experience as President would certainly show he was very ineffective and unable to deliver on the many promises he made to get elected. But then, most skilled politicians can put a very different spin on it. Obama's spin would be that he faced a do-nothing (Republican) Congress who blocked much of what he promised to deliver.



If you are a Republican, you would agree that the Congress needed to block almost all of Obama's proposals and when Republicans offered an alternative plan, Obama promised to veto the Republicans proposals without even seeing or knowing the details. If you are a Democrat, you would agree that the mean-spirited Republicans denied Obama a chance to succeed and refused to cooperate with Democratic proposals.



That's why Politicians and truthful resumes is an oxymoron. Tbe devil is always in the details and politicians never discuss details...Almost everything they say or do is vague and always provides them an escape route if things go wrong...:grin:



...Rich

 

[Mark K 2]

What turned me off to Paul Ryan were all the ridiculous ultra-conservative bills he co-sponsored in the House. Personhood? Really. Sorry, but you'll never convince me that a nonimplanted zygote is a person.



If those gut-reaction politicians knew what they were proposing, their heads would explode. Most zygotes and fertilized eggs don't implant. They're quietly passed and end up in the toilet or in tampons....as many as 95% of them.

 

[Robert Thomas]

From the comments included with the posted article.

"The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are

outnumbered by those who vote for a living."

or there is always.

Captain, Road Prison 36: "What we got here is... failure to communicate"

Cool Hand Luke

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Mark K, agreed on the non-implanted zygote wording.



Heck, Paul Ryan has pretty much stated that the only abortion "aid" (read: funding of an abortion in part or whole by taxpayer dollars) he would back would be in examples where the mother's life is threatened.



He has also tried to pass laws that would limit such aid to "forcible rape" only, which wouldn't cover incest or statutory rape, and would place a burden of proof on the rape survivor as to the type of rape she endured. In addition, Ryan and others have worked to remove the taxpayer support for the public availability of several forms of contraception, including the unfortunately controversial "morning after pill" which gets confused by politicians with the "abortion" pill; the former preventing a pregnancy, the latter terminating one.



Personally, I don't like Ryan's politics when it comes to a woman's reproductive rights. He scares me. But only to the point that I think he could influence these things if elected VP...hint, he can't, unless there is a tie vote in the Senate, which I guess is possible. Still, I don't worry too much about that. I guess I should.



As sad as I think some of the Romney-Ryan positions are, I think most of those are conservative posturings (abortion, gay marriage, etc), and I don't see those things changing at all if they are elected...and I'm leaning more towards them than another 4 years of Obama.



TJR

 

[Bill Koonce]

If you believe anything you read on the Internet, you're a fool. I tried to find any credentials for freedomoutpost.com and found none. This isn't a news site.



Remember that freedom of speech also protects lies as well.

 

[Kevin Lang]

If you believe anything you read on the Internet, you're a fool. I tried to find any credentials for freedomoutpost.com and found none.

Where were you looking for credentials? I mean, if you were looking for them on the internet, well... :grin:



Why would I want to condone tax dollars being used for abortions? Whether or not we consider them to be morally wrong, I don't think that we should ever be forcing the American people to pay for them.



Also, one of the emoticons here seems eerily appropriate IMO for Mark K's post. I'm surprised it isn't there.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL,



So if a poor 13 year old girl from the inner cities with no real parental support (financial or otherwise) is raped and pregnant and goes ot planned parenthood, or her local hospital for an abortion should she get turned away because taxes won't pay for it, or should she have the child and go on welfare? What other choices are there?



I'd gladly have my tax dollars to go abortions for what would be welfare babies...or for that matter for welfare mom contraception, sterilization, etc.



As a taxpayer I am "compelled" (note I did not say forced) to pay taxes in many forms, and in almost every form of tax I pay there are examples of things where those tax monies are used that I don't agree with. I don't look at that as "forced to pay for XYZ", but simply the nature of paying taxes. The best that I can hope for that is the spending is not foolish.



Using tax money to abort an unwanted child that would be a financial burden to taxpayers throughout its life, to me, is a wise use of my tax dollar...financially, not morally, speaking.



TJR

 

[H D]

Romney/Ryan's positions on abortion, gay rights, or any other social issue should be the last of anyone's worries. Obama's campaign focuses on those because they are the only controversial part of their platform, even though they're really not a part of the platform.



If anyone seriously believes Romney would waste any of his political capital for political suicide issues such as those when there are real, immediate threats to our union, i.e. the economy, deficit and debt, then you ARE the brainwashed, malleable sheep we all like to claim we are not.



Look at the real threat to the U.S. and consider who has the credentials to tackle such issues. Obama may be a great ambassador for social issues (I'll argue that he is on some issues even if he goes about it the wrong way) but should we be revisiting the abortion issue that was essentially settled 30 years ago and given over to the states for the rest of it or tackling gay rights as legislative priority when there are already cases in the courts on track for the Supreme Court or medical marijuana when...you get my point.



IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!



I can't build that; they won't let me! Believe me, we're trying.

 

[H D]

For the record, I stated long ago I would not vote for Romney. I'm still wrestling with that. I disagree with Romney on many things. I cannot vote for reelection of the worst president since Hoover, though.



On the other hand, Romney is the most qualified person to run for president since Eisenhower.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh, I agree. Roe v Wade isn't going away. Gay marriage will be recognized as a federal right soon, and in all states sometime thereafter. These things are as they are and aren't changing. Lip service by Obama or Romney campaigns to the contrary, or in fear of the contrary aren't genuine.



Which president will help balance the budget, pay down the deficit and spur the economy in some meaningful way? Obama has had 4 years, and has at best held a tourniquet in place.



TJR

 

[H D]

has at best held a tourniquet in place.

I'd argue he put a tourniquet on a paper cut and sliced the jugular instead.