Dear Rupert Murdoch,
The list of those that leave this world alive is very short (count 0). You will leave here just like us, the great unwashed, with just your scrawny bare butt. All that money? Your government wins, doesn't matter how many elected officials you think you own.

Dear Rupert Murdoch,
You will be held responsible for your lies and bushit ! EVERYONE GETS TO PAY FOR THEIR SINS AND YOU ARE NO EXCEPTION !

OMG, hey Frank! You're A #1 in my book!

God smiles upon you for exposing the hypocrisy.

You and Al Grayson have a lock on the balls of steel dept.

I am reminded by the quotation by VOLTAIRE: "Those who have been made to believe absurdities, can be made to commit atrocities." Well, here we are folks, hundreds of thousands of innocent dead human beings. Why? WMDs? Or "saving" the Iraqi people? Gee, alot of people made alot of money, didn't they? Rupert Murdereroch is part of the windfall. Bastard!

Mr. Schaeffer,

That letter is the most nonsensical pile of lies, hypocrisy and lunacy that the left has produced within the last...oh, 48 hours or so. Glenn Beck is, at worst, a little bit conspiratorial, but he does not foment racism or hate. I am thankful that his voice is out there, whether I agree with him or not.

And get something straight: The left in America can't lecture a single human being about hate.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

Want to talk about fomenting hate, pal? Have you ever seen these "kill Bush" protest signs? Keep this in mind, too: Remember when Vice President Cheney was in Afghanistan and the military had to stop an assassination plot while he was there? You had commenters at sites like the Huffington Post that were pissed off because the plotters didn't succeed. You even had Bill Maher dreaming on-air how much better life would be if Cheney had been murdered.

Hey, if something had happened to either Bush or Cheney, would you have blamed Air America? Or Keith Olbermann? And have you ever heard any of the filthy, disgusting crap spewed on-air by Mike Malloy - the left-wing yakker that Friedman fills in for sometimes?

Mr. Murdoch, thank you for supplying us with the voice that is Fox News. And thank you for hiring Glenn Beck. Keep him.

Are you against those photos, Damail? Or are you in favor of signs calling for the murder of Bush and Obama? I'm not. But you seem to be, for some reason.

And if you think that Frank Schaeffer is a product of the "left", um, clearly you don't know who Frank Schaeffer is. Feel free to go inform yourself (HINT: It won't happen on Fox "News").

"Are you in favor of signs calling for the murder of Bush and Obama? I'm not. But you seem to be, for some reason..."

Huh? I didn't make this clear enough for you? Maybe I need to type slower.

Anybody who advocates for the assassination of President Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush the elder, or Carter) should get a not-so-friendly visit by the Secret Service. The author of that Zombietime article made that clear on his blog, too.

By the way, I just heard Gore Vidal on the Joy Behar show fantasize about murdering Bush - and Behar didn't bat an eye.

An anonymous comment (even if it has a name, it's still anonymous frankly) on Huffington Post, is not the same as an FCC frequency allocated, Station ID exploiting transmitting intelligence (an fcc term) across the public frequency spectrum via psyop crap coming from the pentagon, mixed with spin, disinfo, and blacklisted topics.

I also take offense to being labeled "left wing" or "liberal." You don't know a god damn thing about me. If your packed in a box of oranges don't be trolling for apples.

While I am glad your not personally calling for assassination of anyone. It's sad, you have to clarify, such things now. (I'm actually on your side here.)

With that said though, the KEY to all this is the FCC, the public, and station's public file. The public files for stations who transmit intelligence across public broadcast spectrum need to be made available online and made to have real consequences when they rub the public the wrong way. e.g. Transmitting intelligence which is not in the public interest and generates thousands of complaints should lose their frequency allocation/and station id.

It's not illegal in the United States to fantasize or dream up shit yet. However dreaming up a cartoon, or a motion picture, or an indy film, or anything really isn't the same as broadcasting intelligence which contains threats from a licensed station who calls itself news.

Hopefully we all agree here.

Brad, did you see that Grayson link I put up?
Broun, R-kooksville, was trying to shove some de-funding rule about ACORN in a bill...look at it, best defense of ACORN I've seen yet in congress!

mary apple heart obama letterman weird? lol

Damail said:

Anybody who advocates for the assassination of President Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush the elder, or Carter) should get a not-so-friendly visit by the Secret Service.

Good. So we agree. So you're calling for such a visit from the Secret Service to folks like Ann Coulter, right? And to folks like Bill O'Reilly for inciting and encouraging violence against doctors who perform abortions, etc, right?

Floridiot asked:

Brad, did you see that Grayson link I put up?

I did, Flo. Saw it before you had posted it (another reader had tipped me off to it). Will be posting it here later today as part of another related piece that I put together a few days ago, but haven't yet had the chance to run. Thanks!

Not that murdering anyone is a good idea, but the results of Bush in office, is the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

The continuation of the Afghanistan war will be Obama's blood stain, on our flag, compliments of the military industrial complex.

Rupert Murdoch's media monopoly exemplifies:
BBC World News Commentator: "One of the Iraq war's major casualties, is the credibility of the American media. Nobody takes it seriously."

Well... and thank goodness for that !

"So you're calling for the Secret Service to visit Ann Coulter...?

Yes. I know all about her assassination jokes, and I think they were disgusting. So I have no problem with that visit.

"...and to Bill O'Reilly for inciting violence..."

Lie. O'Reilly never called on people like George Tiller to be killed.

But didn't he call for San Francisco to be nuked?????

Something like that?

And we do have him on tape calling Tiller all kinds of horrific and incendiary things.... While he probably thought he was just jacking up his anti-abortion base to keep voting Republican, sitting back and listening to himself might have given him a clue that he was also jacking up the MILITANT anti-abortion crowd. That should have been plain enough even to him.

I mean, while just because a psychopath is psychotic, doesn't mean he or she is stupid. Eventually some of them figure out that this voting thing doesn't work, that the polemic is stoked just to keep everyone at each others' throats, and if they want something done, they figure, they have to do it themselves.

Clearly, even very intelligent people, who are NOT psychopaths, just keep falling for this SHOW BUSINESS being perpetuated by BOTH sides, while the evil bastards running this world just cackle and continue to pillage... continue to ruin ALL our lives.... Some of them even pay to keep this going, but they get a LOT of it free from the liberals fuming and freaking in knee-jerk response....

Damail said:

Lie. O'Reilly never called on people like George Tiller to be killed.

Cool. So you're okay with my going on the air every night on the most-watched cable "News" outlet, posting your photograph, telling everyone where you live and calling you a killer and mass-baby-murderer every night (even though you never broke a single law?)

Let me know, because I'm going on air tonight in San Francisco, and while I don't have your full name, I'm sure I can find it and put it out there so long as you've got no problem with it. It's only your politics I object to, so no problem with my targeting you on a tiny little radio station, right?

Damail,

When was the last time any Democrat had to show fealty to those sign carriers or Air America/Green960/Progressive talkers? Give up? Never. In fact, the Democrats fall all over themselves to be the first to put forward a Congressional resolution to condemn such things, in some idiotic effort to show people who hate them how pathetic they can be. MoveOn, ACORN, etc. Never a repudiation from Republicans of the extremist right no matter how disgusting. The Republicans celebrate and bow their heads to extremists.

The Republican party picks up and propagates far right conspiracy theories from birtherism to death panels to socialism and communism. In fact, you would have a very difficult time finding a voice on the extreme right that was not echoed by the republican party. The Republican conversation is no different from the most pathetic and vicious of rightist extremists.

When's the last time you heard a Democrat argue a point from the Communist Party of America? From the Earth Liberation Front? From the Animal Liberation Front? Why isn't Noam Chomsky ever referenced by democrats? Would the majority in this country even know who he is? Why is Soros the only billionaire political funder this nation talks about when there are a hell of a lot more on the right?

Now compare that to the voice heard on the right and echoed by the national Republican party. Not even freakin' close to being as moderate or timid in ideology as the opinions supported by Democrats. You could go to Stormfront or any other militia/right wing extremist group right now and find Republican talking points and conspiracy theories being promoted almost word for word by those sick morons.

What voices are represented in the media? Chomsky and those sign carriers? No. Strange for a "liberal media", no? Deathers and gun carrying morons and Orly Taits? Yep. So save your ridiculous comparison. You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

An example of how extreme the Republican/Conservative perspective has become, I often quote Eisenhower, a Republican (!) "Beware the influence of the military industrial complex...threat exists and will persist" and I'm considered an "extreme" leftie. By the way the military industrial complex owns the media, and Rupert Murdoch is part of it.

"You have no idea what the hell you're talking about..."

Yes, I do. You're making this too easy. Stormfront and others spouting Republican talking points?? Sorry, Charlie, but Stormfront, the KKK, Aryan Nations and all the other nuts hate both Republicans and Democrats. No Republican I know that has any name recognition spouts birther crap or any other conspiracy theory.

Lib democrat lunacy? Maxine Waters has been spouting CIA theories ever since I can remember. Nancy Pelosi has said she was a fan of "disruptors" - until the town hall meetings and tea party protests, that is.

Socialists? Bernard Sanders.

Hell, the veteran CIA are saying those things that Maxine Waters is saying. Poor Damail. You are actually quite oblivious.

"Socialst"...(communism?)..gasp.....you mean like those other countries, like Canada, that have fallen into chaotic tyranny...? France? You think they will change their government and start doing things like.....torture? Spying on their own citizens? How about controlling news outlets? Thank-you George W Botch..Bush.

Here's a few gold nuggets historic icons have left us:

JAMES MADISON: "The growing wealth acquired by them (corporations) never fails to be a source of abuses."

ALBERT EINSTEIN: "The minority the ruling class at present, has the schools, and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumbs. This enable it to organize, and sway the emotions of the masses, and it makes tools of them." in a letter to Simond Freud, July 30th, 1932.

Gee, who pays the mainstream media? Oh, corporations! Who has to kiss ass? Oh, the media!

Who makes the most money, and when? Oh, all about war, defense. Hmmm, who are some people that own defense? Carlyle Group? Yeah, GWB's Daddy is one of Carlyle Groups' daddies too. Old timer in it. It is worth researching, believe me!

Oh yes, more quotations:

JAMES MADISON: "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

WILLIAM COLBY, former CIA Director: "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

JOHN STOCKWELL, former CIA official, and author: "It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable, and to propagandize, and teach the people to hate, so we will let the Establishment spend any amount of money on arms."

One more thing:

http://warisaracket.com/

Thanks Brad...SteveA #17 hit it just about right except for one he missed, the Pukes use fear as their main political wedge, and I mean Koresh/Manson/Jones style apocalyptic fear to suck in the sheep to their flock, like Frank talks about.

They are Satans minions IMO.

Good article about these phony crooks

Tentacles of Rage

Damail,

"Stormfront and others spouting Republican talking points??" - You assume, as do all cons, that talking points evolve from the top down - as it conforms to the basic authoritarian tendencies of cons. The talking points are from the slithering community of filth that Stormfront represents. The talking points fester and bubble up from there to the national conversation via the Republican party and its members and its media operations.

"No Republican I know that has any name recognition spouts birther crap or any other conspiracy theory." - You must not know any republicans, then, and throwing in the caveat "that has any name recognition" is a pathetic hedge. Let's see - Grassley - "kill grandma". Inhofe - climate change is "a conspiracy". Liz Cheney - "enemies list". Lamar Alexander - "enemies list". Romney - Public Option ‘Is Absolutely Death...Across This Country’. Palin - "death panels". Shadegg - ‘We’re getting full on Russian gulag, Soviet-style gulag healthcare.’ Should I continue? Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh...there is no end to the lunatic crap that is promoted by cons and their media establishment.

"Maxine Waters has been spouting CIA theories ever since I can remember." - 1. Maxine Waters is hardly a major Democratic party leader (using your "logic"). 2. CIA "theories" do not suggest any Democratic or Republican plot, nor attacks on any political party member. 3. There is abundant evidence of CIA wrongdoing, both past and present. 4. Democrats do not have a entire media establishment devoted to promoting conspiracy theories and partisan attacks, unlike Republicans.

"Pelosi has said she was a fan of "disruptors" - until the town hall meetings and tea party protests, that is. " - (That is hate or conspiracy talk, how exactly? lol) Typical con nonsense. Assuming you actually saw the video of her statement, she was referring to political leaders as "disrupters", not crowds, as is evident from the video. Looks like you need a new talking point, hack.

The vast majority of republicans are birthers, as is evident from polls. And the national republicans do not want to alienate the only freaks they have left. There is no comparison at all to the shit storm of crazy that comprises the republican party and their media operations.

DEMAIL, you've never heard of Michelle Bachman?

Yes, Fox News does have a conservative leaning bias. There, I've admited it..but its no more to the right, than NBC,ABC,CBS,PBS, MSNBC(by the way,how are they still on the air?), and CNN are to the left. Not to mention the non-news channels out there, Bravo, Green, HBO, Shotime, Lifetime, WE, etc...What do we conservatives have? Fox, talk radio, and the Speed Channel(lol)!! So please, let us tune in our crystal am radios, and enjoy are 2 TV channels! Being that the idealogical breakdown of the contry is about 40% conservative and 20% Liberal/Progressive(whatever you guys conider yourselves nowadays), and the rest in the grey zone, somehow it doesn't seem bout right to me..but whatever, just please don't let the White House come after the Speed Channel next!!

RAY,

The "liberal media" accusation is a joke. The media is no more liberal than Fox is trustworthy. And Fox is so far to the right that white supremacists feel at home there. Hell, the talking points are the same. You and the rest of the cons need to stop confusing cultural bias for ideological bias. There is no liberal media bias whatsoever. None. The overall narrative and direction of traditional media is right wing.

Two examples - the NY Times held back the report on bush admin spying until after the 2004 election - at the request of the bush admin - and then only put it out because the reporter was going to publish a book involving the story. Take the regressives favorite target, MSNBC. Before the aggressive invasion of Iraq started, MSNBC, the "liberal" network, fired Donohue, its number one program, because he had on anti-war voices. The network demanded that he put on at least two pro-war for every anti-war, but even that was not enough. So they fired him. Their number one program. Not even money was enough for MSNBC to be liberal when it mattered. So save the typical con whining that confuses lack of gun toting fundamentalist Christians reading the news for a liberal bias. There ain't one and the media is overwhelmingly conservative, in narrative and ideology.

Cons love to point to an outdated survey of political opinion involving reporters as somehow being proof of bias. Irrelevant. All reporters could be Marxists and it wouldn't make a difference to the conservative bias in the traditional media. Ever hear of editors, assignments, and owners? Unless you think employees get to tell their bosses and company owners the direction their company will take and what it will produce... I'd like to see the paranoid con argument for that. Evil unions, maybe?

Democrats do better on every single economic issue other than inflation. Especially gov deficits. Didn't know that did you - look it up. Better on the stock market. Better on job creation. Better on wealth creation. Yet republicans continuously get away with the "fiscally responsible" bs talking point. Every time. For decades. Some liberal media. It can't even dispense with myths that take five minutes on google to disprove. Yet, republicans get away with it every time. The media completely ignores the "starve the beast" financial destruction - a con policy of destroying the government by bankrupting it. Started with con god Reagan - look it up.

And the country ain't conservative. It is misinformed. Like you are.

HAHAHA(exerated knee slap)! Hey man, its your lie, tell it how you want. I don't care...I'm curious to know somethin tho; If you knew for a FACT, that Obama was a Marxist..would it matter to you?...

Marxist. Putting massive amounts of public money into private hands. Right. Do you even know the meaning of Marxist? Like "liberal media" you have your "FACTS" reversed. If Obama were a Marxist/socialist/communist/whatever slur the right needs to use because they are too stupid to have an informed discussion so just yell out words they think are sufficiently "evil" - he would have, at the very least, nationalized the banks. He would have stopped our state capitalism in which the government foots the bill for everything from war to infrastructure to research then hands the results of the public investment into private hands. He would have stopped the insane process of privatization, especially that of war, that takes the public money and puts it into private hands for basic functions of government. (Hint: that would be the opposite of Marxist. Don't tell your rightist buddies, though - let them keep their precious myths. Like "liberal media")

Seriously, are you even aware of how ridiculously stupid the talking points of the rightists are? Does the evidence of rightist media bias, including the examples I cited above, even register or are you too far gone to even acknowledge fact? Are your illusions so precious, and you so desperate, that you will cling to the narrative and con "solutions" after they fail again and again and again? How many failures of the right, in propaganda and action, does it take for a rightist to stop believing in his easily refuted illusions?

So...was that a yes or a no?

Seriously, are you even aware of how ridiculously stupid the talking points of the rightists are?

Steve, they make them as ridiculously stupid as possible for the express purpose of exasperating their enemies into doing what their base hates the most; to wit: sounding like smug elitists. The constant derision of their stupidity binds them more securely against putting their energies against the real enemies, our common enemies.

Works like a damn charm every time. We NEVER resist the temptation to accuse these people of ignorance and idiocy and racism and homophobia... ad nauseam. Our side is getting played as badly and as easily as theirs.

Steve, I still havnt heard an answer? Yes or no?

Ray, I think Steve's point was that, no, Obama is not a Marxist because he's doing exactly the opposite of what Marxists do.

I should also point out that since he's not trolling this thread, he may well not answer you further than he already has.

You might benefit from studying up on Marxism. Since Obama is avidly bailing out Wall Street at Main Street's expense and increasing private contractor presence in our military adventures in the Middle East and failing to get relief for the people going jobless, homeless and hungry, there is just no basis for accusing him of being a Marxist.

All you have to do is get Marxism straight in your mind, and this will be readily apparent to you.

Ray - I think the question you mean to ask is: "If Obama violated the constitution in any way, would that matter to you?"

Because that's the oath he took and that's the measure of whatever he does, no matter what school of thought you've deluded yourself to believe it comes from.

With that in mind then, I'll ask you two questions:

1) If Obama violated the constitution in any way, would that matter to you?

2) If Bush violated the constitution in any way, would that matter to you?

I suspect I'll have some followups if I remember to check back on this item again, after I hear your answers. Actually, I'll ask one now:

If the answer to either question is YES, then what do you think should be done about it in order to demand accountability for such a violation of his oath and the U.S. Constitution he's sworn to protect?

No and No...No agent99, I did not ask Steve if he THOUGHT Obama was a Marxist. I simply asked him, "If he KNEW, for a fact, that Obama WAS a Marxist, would it matter.."..And Brad, with all due respect, I asked exactly what I ment to ask. Please dont patronize me, and ill afford the same due respect in kind...Im simply looking for an answer to a very simple question: If you KNEW for a FACT, that pres Obama was a Marxist, would it matter...Im fairly shocked that ive now recieved responses from 3 seperate people,637 words in all, multiple definitions of what a Marxist is, statements about Bush, Wall st, Main st, how stupid the rightests are, how stupid the leftest are for falling into the rightest trap, the middle east, joblessness, homelessness, etc... and still no one will answer my question..So, now its out there to all of you..Please, just step up to the plate and be a MAN(orwoman), and give me YOUR personal yes or no answer..

I guess your question just doesn't compute, Ray, because, love them or hate them, NO Marxist would behave as Obama has. Your question was so asinine it seems none of us could figure a way to answer it.

It doesn't even work as a hypothetical. What? You think he has hidden this leftist ideology away for his entire adult life, gets into office, begins appeasing fascists just as hard as ever he can, and at some unspecified future date he will pipe up declaring himself a Marxist and all this fascistic stuff was just a fake-out?

Oh. No. Wait. If you don't understand Marxism, you probably don't understand fascism either. Some people prefer to use the term "corporatism". In any case, he's transferring what's left of our wealth to the plutocrats at an astonishing clip, and the correct answer to your psychedelic question is to stress that he's not a Marxist. There isn't anything remotely Marxist about him. He has not done one even vaguely Marxist thing.

EVERYTHING HE DOES IS DISTINCTLY ANTI-MARXIST. Very plainly extremely anti-Marxist and no Marxist, even a secret one, could be Barack Obama.

So there is NO basis even for a hypothetical. Even if he harbors a secret love for Marxism, which he surely doesn't, NONE of his actions comport with it... and... even if he suddenly began acting like one, what the hell difference would it make?

It would so totally rock if he could just declare the nationalization of Goldman Sachs! Or the oil companies. Or, or, or HALLIBURTON! Yay! We'd get a bunch of our money back!

He's kept up with Bush's privatization of profit and socialization of loss, though....

Still not a yes or no. Amazing.

Spot on...Please forward to all major newspapers and Network News stations.

Then on to Roger and Ruppert, Glenn B, BillO, Sean H,Rush L, Ann C, Michelle M, Laura I, Dick Cheney and his progeny and the rest of the spin masters.

ray

It's not a well-formed question --- not genuine, not a question but a device, a mindfuck, a game. All you can say by answering it is that you're okay with Marxists or not okay with Marxists or okay with Obama or not okay with Obama, and no one, not even you, could tell which of those four things were being answered. It's impossible to answer two of them together with a yes or no because of all the reasons stated and responses you've gotten. That question is designed to give a negative impression of the person who answers "yes" and a positive impression of the person who answers "no" to people party operatives want to dupe into getting up and causing a stir... against their own best interests.

Obama is the best Republican you've had in office to date. His "healthcare reform" is actually "mandatory health insurance" and will make the insurance companies billions more than they make already. So why is it necessary to whip the minions up with ideas like "Obama is a Marxist" and "death panels" and "no birth certificate", etc.? Two reasons: [1] it gives the president and congress good political cover for not delivering on their promises; and [2] sets up the possibility that Republicans can get back into position to receive all those millions in bribe money and other means of personal profit built into our system.

Our government is broken. Corrupt bastards are running interference for plutocrats, and fighting over which group gets to play majority, which gets the White House, which gets to do the bidding of the criminally insane.

Your question can be seen as dirt ignorant blather, or evil mindfucking by criminal geniuses. It's both.

Anyone who equates the word Marxism with "bad" will hate a "yes" answer and want to get rowdy to defend our anti-Marxist country, and far from being satisfied with a "no" answer, they will only feel they have scored a point against Obama by making someone say they wouldn't be okay with him being a Marxist.

Even somebody who loves Marxism can't answer that question without helping to heap delusion on poor manipulated saps who are all riled up to ruin their own lives... recently referred to as "teabaggers" and "village idiots"... which also only serves the plutocrats because it reinforces the enmity they have worked to create. It's a lose/lose for the people, and a win/win for the plutocrats. It's a black hole.

IT ISN'T KIND TO GIVE YOU A YES OR A NO.

Good job agent99, someone finally got the point. Gold star for you..See, it wasnt that hard to tell me. Your all beyond liberals, and pres Obamas not nearly Left enough for you guys..So now that I no the answer to my 1st question, I got another: What do each of you (or collectively) consider yourselves? Your not Democrates, and I dont think liberals either. Actual Marxists? Socialists? Collectivests? I really dont know. Please tell me.. Im NOT a Republican. Id call myself a Conservative with libertarian leanings. I dont believe in God, but have no problem what so ever with people of faith(actually, I think its nessary, and we need more of it. Kinda keeps people in line). Im pro choice, but I believe It is a child in there, I just dont really care if a Woman doesnt want it and want to kill it. Fine with me. And I hated 90% of Bushes policys, and believe theres not a whole heck of a lot of difference with him and Pres Obama..There, thats me. What are you guys?

Ray, you pretty much described my view on those issues, except for the part about thinking that more people of faith would make us better off.

The problem most of us have with the right-wing faux news attacks on Obama is that they're completely ludicrous and untrue. Just because we point out how ludicrous and non-factual the hate-news about Obama is, doesn't mean we're Obama diehards. Agent 99 listed a TON of reasons I don't like Obama, and there are more: corporate bailouts, suspension of habeus corpus, covering for bush/cheney torture policies, catering to the insurance industry over the citizenry, etc.

But the bottom line remains: Obama isn't a racist, he isn't a socialist, he isn't a communist, he's not a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. He IS, however, another in a long line of presidents that backs corporate interests before the interests of the people.

Hey! Some actual dialog, not just tired talking points! Thanks Disillusioned! So, then is there a particular politician or party, or just even a person out there that espouses views or an idealogy that you agree with, or just closely relate to? Im goin to assume that im a fairly lone voice on this site, but I dont really care. I like to try and see how and why the polar opposite of my own views thinks..Im not gonna be able to change anyone heres mind, so I dont try. Thats why I dont respond to the majority of the comments and statements posted to me. Therefore, please dont try and tell me why im wrong on issues; you wont change my mind. People come to their own belief and conclusion on their own. So ill respect yours and please respect mine. thx.

Ray @ 37 said:

No and No...

Meaning "No and No", in response to my questions? It wouldn't matter to you if either Obama or Bush violated the Constitution??

Surely you're answering someone else's question, right?

I did not ask Steve if he THOUGHT Obama was a Marxist. I simply asked him, "If he KNEW, for a fact, that Obama WAS a Marxist, would it matter.."..And Brad, with all due respect, I asked exactly what I ment to ask. Please dont patronize me, and ill afford the same due respect in kind...

"Patronize" you? I was trying to help you, since your question, about Obama being a "Marxist" is absolutely meaningless, unless you are willing to define what the hell a "Marxist" is. And even then, whether Obama is or isn't a Marxist (which he clearly isn't) doesn't actually matter one way or another, since being a Marxist (whatever that is) is not against the law. What IS against the law, is defying the Constitution and, in the bargain, breaking ones oath of office which clearly Bush has done in spades. One could even make an argument that Obama has done same, if they liked, though you didn't as far as I can tell.

But I fail to see what it matters as to whether he, or any other President, fits into your vague, red-baiting label or not, even though Obama clearly doesn't.

So to answer your question, no, it wouldn't matter. What matters is whether he keeps his oath of office and follows and protects the Constitution, unlike his predecessor (who, if your answer "No and No" applies to the question I asked you, clearly you don't seem to care about, which makes you far more dangerous to our nation than a "Marxist", whatever that is).

Im fairly shocked that ive now recieved (sic) responses from 3 seperate (sic) people,637 words in all, ... and still no one will answer my question..

You're "shocked" nobody wanted to answer your phony, red-baiting question? Really?

When did you stop beating your wife, Ray?

Wow Brad. Seriously?...Ok, Ill talk slow for you(lighten up Francis, its a lil joke). My no and no was not an answer to your questions(ive already explained this, but..). My first "no" was to agent99's post before yours, becouse he still thought I was somehow calling Pres Obama a "marxist",which I was not, but his whole post was based on the wrong assumption that I was, hence the "NO"(It was even explained in the first sentence). The second "NO", WAS to you B-R-A-D, but it wasnt an answer to you questions(I didnt answer your questions becouse you presented them from a misunderstood basis). The "NO" simply ment that "NO", I ment to ask exactly what I did, not what you assumed(which yes Brad, I do understand that that was just a cute n clever way of spinning)I did (again, that was explained in the first sentence)..Brad, I think your brighter than your letting on here, but you cant help but to try and attack and belittle.. Agent99 sorta got the point, and even explained it in his own way.. At least I finally got a true answer outta you(had to pull teeth but..). You answered "no" it wouldnt matter to you if he was a Marxist. Good for you for finally being true, I at least respect that....Oh, and Brad, Ive never been married. Thats just really childish, and kinda makes you look immature..

So you're not just a red-baiter, but also irony impaired?

You were asked about when you stopped beating your wife, because it's the same type of phony, trick question as "Would you care if Obama was a Marxist". Apparently you missed that point?

So, again, I ask my questions, for the third time, since you've avoided answering in five different comments since, 733 words in all. Here's what was asked and you've avoiding answering ever since:

1) If Obama violated the constitution in any way, would that matter to you?

2) If Bush violated the constitution in any way, would that matter to you?

I suspect I'll have some followups if I remember to check back on this item again, after I hear your answers. Actually, I'll ask one now:

If the answer to either question is YES, then what do you think should be done about it in order to demand accountability for such a violation of his oath and the U.S. Constitution he's sworn to protect?

Thanks for answering both the two questions and the follow up question below it.

Hey Brad. Im sorry for taking up any of your time here. I was merly trying to have a "conversation", as you guys like to say, with people of a differing opinion than mine. I can now see that thats not acceptable here, so Ill go away. I really do enjoy a good political discussion/debate from the other side, but I get tired of the same old name calling, belittling, psychological intimidation tactics, and talking points again and again and again. Ive heard it all a million times..I think there were a few posters that I could tell wouldnt mind engaging in a discussion with me, but I think were hessitant becouse thats a no-no here..So, Its no biggie to me, ill find another thread somewhere else..Good luck in life to all-
Ray

Sorry, didnt know you were right there, so one last one before I go away...Yes , I got your point on the wife beating Bradley. My question was for real though, just to try and figure out the type of politics on this site. I really had no idea(I did no that it wasnt conservative tho,lol!), to what extent you guys and gals were. Ive never been here before and never heard of you, so I honestly had no idea. I wasnt calling Obama a Marxist, I simply wanted to know if you wished he was...So, to answer your 2 question, and your follow up; Yes it matters to me on both. Im a strict constructionist, so of course it matters to me..and Ive already told you that I didnt agree with 90% of Bushs politics, so that doesnt work on me. Now, to your follow up. This is a much much more difficult question to answer in a quick simple format. Im also a presidential historian, and EVERY president all the way back to Washington, in one form or another violated the constitution. The degrees to which greatly vary, but make no mistake, they ALL did it. Some claimed they did it to save the Republic (eg Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Bush), others do it becouse they feel their cause is so just, that it has to be done(eg Roosevelt,LBJ,Carter). Others for more nefarious reasons(Teddy Roosevelt,Nixon,Clinton). Now, the hard part; whats to be done about it?...Your not going to like my answer, but, I dont know...

The majority of folks here tend to be progressives. That could be conservative progressive or liberal progressive or a mix of both. They also tend to be constitutionalists (once a conservative value, but apparently no more).

You have gone on to belittle others and then claim that you are being belittled. In the bargain, you whine about it and tell us you are facing "psychological intimidation tactics, and talking points again and again and again" (ironic, given your original crusade to get someone to answer whether they felt Obama was a "Marxist", a generally belittling label, as used in this country, that you refused to define for anybody).

We have many types of readers, however, from all sorts of political persuasions and they are all welcome to discuss anything openly here, so long as they don't violate our few rules for posting comments.

You have now played your martyr card, and even insisted that this is not the place for discussion, so you must run along. That, despite have such a discussion, but apparently being disappointed that the readers here were too smart to fall for your silly Hannity-style tricks.

Now you announce, as Hannity would be proud to hear, that you are a "strict constructionist", which I presume refers to a strict reading of the constitution as constructed by the founders. If so, I imagine you've come up with some reason to ignore their construction of that document as stating that African-Americans equal just three-fifths of a white man. But, more to the point, you say you don't know what's to be done about Presidents who violate their Constitutional duties.

So a hint for you --- one that you should not need as a self-proclaimed "strict constructionist" and "presidential historian" --- the answer to that question is found in the very document you claim to be a "strict constructionist" of. So, if you "don't know" the answer, I suspect you may not be so "strict" or "historian"-like after all.

Go read your Constitution, and feel free to get back to us with an answer to the question, if you wish.

If you remained silent for the last 8 years on that question, however, during the most severe and dangerous case of Constitutional shredding this country has ever seen, then your new-found interest in the rule of law and the Constitution will find little purchase here.

I suspect there are other sites, however, who have the type of politics you imagine we have here. Perhaps you'll have more luck with your red-baiting and martyrdom there than here, where people actually believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, and not just when Fox "News" instructs us to.

That right there, is the problem with our side. That guy "Ray" was actually trying to engage in a healthy discussion. He even put out an olive branch and tried to find common ground to agree with us on, and you agressivly shut him down. He wasn't calling Obama a Marxist, explained that he wasn't, and even now your still twisting his words. This is why whenever we get some poilitical momentum in our favor, we shoot ourselves in the foot, time and time again! Hostility and agression is not the way to win hearts and minds.

"Our side"? What side would that be?

Ray was not "shut down", he simply failed in his attempt to push his predictable wingnut nonsense on the crowd here who is smarter than to fall for it, as I suspect you know (since I suspect you may well be "Ray" trying yet another dishonest tactic to save face after such an embarrassing showing here).

And no, he wasn't "trying to engage in a healthy discussion" or "find common ground", as I suspect you also know.

The only "common ground" he was interested in, is the "common ground" that "you" (a suddenly first time poster here) and "Ray" were able to find together. Go figure.

Another fail. You/Ray, however, are both welcome to try selling your bullshit at another site. Might I suggest a wingnut site? They'll fall for anything at such places.