You mean the Ayers-Obama connection? Did they really? You really can't trust any American news source these days, the only news organization I put a bit of faith into is the BBC, because they don't have any reason to be biased to the left or right when it comes to reporting US news.
As for the whole Bill Ayers thing...not that big a deal in my opinion. I'm sure that might irk you, but despite the Weathermen's total and complete soiling of the principles of anarchism, I really don't think just be assosciated with a former member reflects poorly on Obama. I'm sure if we dug deep enough we could find unsavory connections in virtually every politician's past.
But you find bomb makers in every politicians past. I think the Ayers connection was the most important unreported story. The Rev. Wright thing was a problem for me, but in the end no one can control a preacher with a vendetta. That's what they do, by definition, preach. The Ayers connection is a problem though. The guy admits to bombing the Capitol and I think it was the NYPD. He didn't get his way, so he moved onto politics, and handpicked his candidate to go overthrow the capitalist "pigs." I see that connection as fishy, at best, and detrimental at worst.
If George Bush's political career had been started and funded by Neo-Nazis, that would have been front page news, and Keith Olberman would have been jacking off while reading the nightly story.
I'm not shocked at all that PBS is biased, very left-leaning network. I don't read the Journal, mainly because I'm not exactly a business buff.
The Journal is good at reporting beyond business. USA today is a newspaper with a fairly extensive Business section, whereas the Journal is a business paper with a fairly extensive News section.
LOL, come on man! Don't do that! There's no evidence to support that claim at all. First off, and this is something that gets lost every time in the whole "Obama is a Commie" thing, is that theres a very large difference between communism and socialism (make up your mind neo-cons, first he's a socialist, then a communist, now a fascist?).
I love political word bingo. I can count on the left to bring up Coulter and Limbaugh, and they can count on us to say commie and secularist. And communism or socialism both seem like bad ideas to me. I think we should let the market control our economy. Let these companies fail. There would be enough out of work millionaires to start some new businesses and hire all those who lost their jobs.
Furthermore...contrary to the slogan of modern conservatives, small bits of socialism being introduced to our government is NOT a bad thing.
The first quasi-socialist move was backing Freddie and Fannie. The home loan industry was semi-socialist. The government got to set the rules, and in returen, backed all the loans. That didn't work too well. It was the first industry to collapse, and brought down the rest of the house of cards with it. Both sides got to try and run Freddie and Fannie, and both sides failed miserably.
Forget all the taboo negative connotations surronding the world "socialism", one or two socialist policies is not going to enslave the American people to a Stalin-esque leader who will set up gulags around the country. We could take some serious cues from some of the socialist policies of countries like Sweden.
I would like to take our cues from Reagan. Cut taxes on corporations, allow them to use this extra money to a. hire people, b. innovate, c. give raises, d. pay higher dividends to shareholders, or, e. expand.
It's not even the control that bothers me. It's that the American government has an unmatched record of inefficiency, and having them run industry seems like quite an expensive task. Who gets to shoulder this expense? Us! And it will manifest through higher taxes, or if they want to be sneaky, higher prices. Obama can take control, and lower taxes to pander. Instead, he can raise prices, slightly, on all goods to compensate, while taxing the rich out of pure spite.
But honestly, I'm not sure I understand the actual argument of how Obama is a "communist". I'm not trying to be confrontational, but could you please explain to me why you believe he is a Communist?
Socialist, Communist just provides more punch. I don't think you can deny his socialist tendencies.
But come on man, calling all liberals in power communists is just absurd.
Calling Nancy Pelosi anything negative is not absurd. She is a liar, she is an unrepentant hypocrite, and frankly, I do not like the idea of her having any power at all.
You're saying that every member of the Democratic party is actually a member of a giant underground Communist conspiracy to take over our nation and turn it into a Communist dictatorship?
Just Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Clinton, and the top people. I like some democrats. And besides, giving the UAW 20% of Chrysler can easily be interpreted as the beginnings of a socialist workers party.
Do I even have to point out how ridiculious that sounds?
You already did. ^^^^^^
Actually quite the opposite, they are exactly the actions of a responsible capitalist democracy. The entire reason those CEO's were fired and those banks were taken control of was to try and put our capitalist economy back on track.
I think it would be more responsible to let those companies fail. I think you save the top banks, and let the FDIC pay out the other accounts. I have trouble thinking that the Auto companies would have gotten bailouts if Union members voted Republican.
Obama isn't doing these things so he can roll out a wealth redistribution plan, he's doing these things because he honestly thinks they can put our economy back on track. Whether or not he succeeds in that attempt is unknown, we'll just have to wait and see.
I disagree. Wealth distribution has been a central tenant of his policies since day one. Once again, he gave 20% of Chrysler to the UAW. How does that happen in a truly capitalist society? Congress' job is to regulate interstate commerce through taxation and law enforcement, not to decide who profits from that interstate commerce.
I won't touch on my personal opinions about capitalism however, that's a debate for another day.
Love it or hate, it's what we've got.
I'd hardly call two or three examples a correct representation of "every aspect of our life".
The banking industry is a very all-encompassing entity. Ordering Wells Fargo to reduce dividends, firing GM's CEO, not allowing businesses to advertise how they wish or have conferences, or limiting salaries. All of these push the best and brightest out of the private sector, and into government jobs. Every time a bureaucrat gets a parking spot, a true capitalist dies a bit inside.
I'll wait for your reply kind sir on how you believe Obama is sending us towards communism.
See above.
Also, forgive me, but I don't quite understand how you jumped from national health care to inflation and economic issues.
The other guy blamed Bush and Reagan for all of our economic troubles, while glossing over how Clinton gave China MFN trading status and doubled our trade deficit. I am willing to blame Bush for a lot, but I won't do it while glossing over the way Clinton set the economy on fire and played his fiddle as it burned under Bush.
Blame me for the trainwreck.