Obama/Marx

On 2008-06-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Eh? I have no intention of voting for Obama - but not because I believe he
is a Marxist, which he does not appear to be by my understanding of the
definition of that term. I will be voting Libertarian. (I'm guessing if
Obama were elected his policies would be similar to those of the Clinton
administration.)

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Obama.

Either Obama or McCain will be elected. Voting for someone else will simply
take votes away from the candidate of the two that you might find more
acceptable.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (got it!)

Jay Maynard wrote:
A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Obama.

Either Obama or McCain will be elected. Voting for someone else will
simply take votes away from the candidate of the two that you might
find more acceptable.

Circular reasoning. When performed by persons untrained in logic in IMC a
graveyard spiral will result.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Yeah, god forbid the elderly, the sick and the weak shold be looked
after.

Nobody is stopping you from looking after them Bertie.

Put yer money where yer mouth is. Where is your mouth anyway?? hahaha

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:43:48 -0500, Jim Logajan
wrote in :

Jay Maynard wrote:
A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Obama.

Either Obama or McCain will be elected. Voting for someone else will
simply take votes away from the candidate of the two that you might
find more acceptable.

Circular reasoning. When performed by persons untrained in logic in IMC a
graveyard spiral will result.

But, if you hadn't voted for Nader, who would be president now?

Recently, Jay Maynard posted:

On 2008-06-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Eh? I have no intention of voting for Obama - but not because I
believe he is a Marxist, which he does not appear to be by my
understanding of the definition of that term. I will be voting
Libertarian. (I'm guessing if Obama were elected his policies would
be similar to those of the Clinton administration.)

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Obama.

Either Obama or McCain will be elected. Voting for someone else will
simply take votes away from the candidate of the two that you might
find more acceptable.

A vote for a candidate that you don't want is a wasted vote. One's vote is
their "hat in the ring", and it should represent their point of view. In a
situation where none of the candidates that one wants is likely to be
elected, the worst choice is to misrepresent one's point of view.

In article , Jay Maynard
says...

On 2008-06-25, Jim Logajan wrote:
Eh? I have no intention of voting for Obama - but not because I believe he
is a Marxist, which he does not appear to be by my understanding of the
definition of that term. I will be voting Libertarian. (I'm guessing if
Obama were elected his policies would be similar to those of the Clinton
administration.)

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Obama.

Either Obama or McCain will be elected.

Before Obama can be elected he has to live through Election Day

Voting for someone else will simply
take votes away from the candidate of the two that you might find more
acceptable.


--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

Maxwell luv2^fly99@live.^com wrote in
:

In article , Bertie the
Bunyip says...

Benjamin Dover wrote in
:

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news_r_fairbairn-
:

Here is a link to the Obama/Marx story (and it is pretty damning):

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289


Isn't it amazing that the only bulwarks of Communism and Marxism
left today are Cuba and the Democratic Party of the United States.
Even "Communist" China is more capitalist today than Obama,
Hillary, and the DNC.



Well, that just isn't true in so many ways it's ridiculous.

I'm not a fan of either Hilary or Obama, but they,re defintiely
capitalists in every sense of the word.
And the second part of that statement is complete crap as well. There
are many many very socailist, and very wealthy socialist countries,
BTW whose policies even the most liberal democrat would steer well to
the right of.

This country has forgotten what 'conservative' means.

I agree.Your post proves that perfectly.

Dubya is a liberal wimp.

Except in comparison to the thinly disguised socialists of the
Dimocraptic party.




Yeah, god forbid the elderly, the sick and the weak shold be looked
after.

Send 'em off to sea floating on an ice floe


--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"

In article , Dan Luke
says...


"Orval Fairbairn" wrote:


Here is a link to the Obama/Marx story (and it is pretty damning)

Old fashioned Red-scare paranoia.

Ludicrous.

Dan, have some more Kool Aid!

Not the kind you're drinking; it's psychedelic.

I believe the word was 'Electric'

--

"Tis an ill wind that blows no minds"