Another example of how media bias cuts against its beneficiaries. If the MSMers were really doing there jobs Barack would have never won IA as the facts in that early Rolling Stone piece would have sunk him if only they were known to the electorate. The MSM endeavors to protect Dems from the truth. They overestimate their abilities.

Does Ms. Obama really think the US economy is a zero-sum economy?

How removed from reality is this person?

I would imagine that a Communist legislator would seek to pass Communist legislation. To my knowledge, Obama never sought to introduce or pass legislation nationalizing property and outlawing religion. Also, he made a pile of money and kept most of it. So, to answer your question CY: No he's not a Communist since he doesn't practice Communism. However, since it's impossible to prove a negative, I suppose you should go right on peddling innuendo. Or, you could try to provide a thoughtful evaluation of the issue as to exactly what Obama's politics are without pulling a Joe McCarthy. How bout it?

It's rather obvious that he is not openly running as a communist, but then, he isn't openly running on much of anything, is he? He's running on rhetoric and a pretty face, which is my complaint, if you read the post.

His few known positions and philosophies are all far leftist in nature (just like his voting record) and his campaign proposals will ad something around $287 billion dollars to the federal budget deficit, which I think doubles what even Hillary proposes in new entitlements (MCain's proposals added just $5 billion, which still stinks, but which is a godsend comparatively).

As for what he proposes legislatively, it hasn't been much of anything, for his entire brief career. He's advocated the confiscation/ban of private property in the form of firearms and refuses to recognize an individual right to self defense, which are totalitiarian positions.

Communist? I think that argument can be made.

He hasn't yet tried to nationalize corporate property, but promising to take money (also property) from you for the common good is the same thing in my mind. That is certainly a statist philosophy. Is it communist? Marxist?

I'd like to know. Perhaps if the media did their jobs, we'd know. I've tried to contact the Obama campaign for comment on a past article for Pajamas Media, but they refused to answer back.

Barack Obama isn't running on his record, he's running despite having one, and he owes it to use to display it before we consider voting for him.

Or would you rather we vote first, and find out about his beliefs later?

Of course he's not running as a "communist." The communist motto is "communism for thee but not for me." Therefore it's not surprising he kept his money. He just wants to take it from other people.

I wonder, since McCarthy was proven right, if people like Craig get embarrassed when making such intellectually dishonest remarks?

Craig sd:
" Also, he made a pile of money and kept most of it. "

Where have you been for the past 60 years?
Communism is for the hoi-poi not the elite. That is why Castro has a personal wealth of over 100 million dollars and the Politburo in the USSR shopped at their own shopping centers not those of the peons.

You don't honestly expect Michele Obama to share her income, hell, she is crying because she can't make it on 400K a year. Liberals\Leftist are so stupid, everyone of them expects everyone else to "give up their share of the pie" but not themselves. Ever wonder why Rockefeller, Kennedy, Cozine, or Pelosi have not given away most of their families fortune while pushing socialist\communist policies for decades on the rest of America?

As for Obama, it is apparent that he is leftist nut who would be hanging out with Sheehan and Codepink in Berkerly except some Democratic bigwig heard one of his speeches. His belief and policies are the same as the morons you see marching in the protests with paper-mache puppets on their head only he came in a package which the MSM thought they could guilt America into voting in office. Only the liberals of the Democratic party are that stupid.

Questioning what his policies/politics are is fair and appropriate. But filling the void with suppositions that the guy is Communist/Marxist/ethnic-cleansing-islamist-coddling is quite another. You did both in your post; yes, I read the whole thing.

As to Communism, you say "promising to take money (also property) from you for the common good is [Communism] in my mind. That is certainly a statist philosophy. Is it communist? Marxist?" By any accepted definition (look it up), the answer is: No, it is not the same. But beyond that, take a hard look around and tell me that you'd do away with all of the services provided by the government (fed and state) that are paid for by taking (i.e. taxes) from you and me for the common good. For example, police, fire, roads, utilities, military, air traffic control, and so forth. Assuming there's at least one tax-paid gov't service you won't live without, you're a Commie under your definition. Obviously, you're not and neither is Obama just because he may want certain things paid for by taxes. Likewise, you want the Iraq war that is paid for by my taxes, and thus are taking from me for the alleged good of the Iraqis, but you're not a Commie because of it.

Bottom line is that 99.99% of us accept the Social Contract to one degree or another. What separates so-called liberals and conservatives is where the line is that delineates the amount of freedom we give up for an orderly society. 99.99% are together up through utilities, police and fire, military, food and drug regulation, and so forth. Then both liberals and conservatives branch off in ways that are not straight-forward or predictable. Lefty issues today blend more freedom from gov't intrusion (no gov't eavesdropping, gov't out of private decisions like abortion and life support) and less (health care mandates, environmental regulations). Righty issues likewise blend more freedom (less taxes, less overall regulation) with less freedom (abortion regulation, Terry Schiavo, eavesdropping, prayer in school). Lots of folks on the right like to forget the extent to which they are, in fact, willing to pay for the collective good. Disagree? Try to imagine how free you would feel if you had to defend your property full time, put out your own house fire, pave your own road, barter for all goods, and never know if your Viagra had been through Level III clinical trials. There are people like this, but they live off the grid in Alaska, and it is hard work with little time left over for blogging and posting smart-alecy comments. J.

Cap-Inf: C'mon, man. Take my arguments head on, or don't waste the key strokes. An argument, btw, is not where you call me "intellectually dishonest." Rather, it's where you do this or something similar: "A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Craig is a big stupid dummy head because A=D and D does not equal B or C, and thus his argument fails."

Cap-Inf and LogicalSC: I take your points to be that lack of proof of Commie legislation and ideology does not mean that he may yet try to enslave us all in Communism; meanwhile, he'd be living the high life. First, a true believer in Communism would practice "pure" Communism, and there's no evidence Obama is or was a practicing Communist. As to whether he would later advocate it but live a non-Commie lifestyle, is a separate issue...but is also completely far fetched and lacking in any factual basis. I can imagine Obama doing this as well as I can imagine McCain doing this. The only thing I can't imagine is a 4-sided triangle. Doesn't mean it's probable.
Look, don't vote for Obama if you don't want to. In the meantime, however, don't just make stuff up out of whole cloth because you want McCain to win. That, Cap-Inf, is intellectually dishonest because you are basing arguments on made-up premises or barely couching them in something like "I'm not saying he does, but how can we be sure he doesn't eat Christian babies?"

I doubt that Obama is a communist. However, he has certainly surrounded himself over the years with a whole array of individuals whom he has characterized variously as "mentors," "advisors," and/or "close associates." Following are some observations that capture the essential point of this post, namely, "Exactly who is Obama and what does he stand for?"

"Democrats should now ask themselves how a party of supposed racial transcendence inevitably ended up with primaries predicated along hardening racial lines, and a unity, trans-racial candidate who for twenty years was intimate with a pastor and spiritual advisor who seems to have derided almost everyone and everything, from America, to Italians, to Jews and Israel, to whites and moderate blacks, with serial slurs worthy of a Don Imus or Michael Richards."

The virulent anti-Semitism among some of Obama's supporters, beyond just Wright, is especially troubling. This excerpt from one of the official Obama campaign websites is illustrative:

"Obamanism is the cure for Clintonitis that has devastated America and I hope Jews all over US rally around Obama and support him to win both the nomination and the Presidency because after he wins, he would help the Jews and Israel as well as settle the Middle East problems.

"However, if Jews betray Obama and he loses, Africans worldwide would consider it a betrayal to the whole African people and will never forgive world Jewry.

"In retaliation, (eye for eye, remember!) Africa would consider expelling all Jews from Africa who have been mining African Gold and Diamond and enriching themselves for many centuries."

The post from which the above comments were extracted has been removed just today, after being on that site since early March. The issue remains: Just who is Obama, and what does he personally believe?

You don't need to surmise based on folks he has associated himself with what his politics are. All you need to do is look at his record. On abortion, he is simply a radical. He is not only in favor of partial birth abortion but he has gone so far as infanticide in the Illinois Senate.

On the borders, he is in favor of any open borders policy and he has a close relationship with the radical group La Raza.

On the second amendment, he is on record as now being against conceal carry permits. He is in favor of D.C.'s gun ban and in 1996 was against gun ownership entirely.

These are all radical positions and they are of public record.

Obama is a blank sheet of paper. So how would you fill it out describing the man?

By his actions? 20 Years or so in the public arena and can anyone here provide me with a resume complete with accomplishments? complete with 130 votes of "Present" in the Illinois State Legislature. Didn't think so.

By his words? Give me a break. Everybody here sees Politicians as someone who will say anything to get a vote. Look at Hillary and her Bosnia Fable. Obama himself has to answer to the NAFTA question.

By his writings? JFK accepted a Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles in Courage" Except JFK did not write the book. Next!

By his acquaintances and friends? Bingo! If you got nothing else to judge the character of a person, he is a mirror image of who his friends are. And Obama has some very strange friends for someone who claims he represents the main stream.

If I am wrong, correct me. Show me how we can fill out the blank piece of paper called Barrack Obama and i will be glad to do so. Until then, I remain skeptical of the man, his wife, his politics and his intentions.

Craig, when you flat out lie there really isn't any reason to respond. You lose all credibility

I've been calling him a commie from nearly day one. It was much in jest (or so I thought) until the Wright controversy came out and I learned Trinity was based more on Black Liberation Theology than what is expected from a COC. BLT is itself based on Liberation Theology. They both use Identity Politics and MARXIST political theory. In Essence, It Is Communism with God added and Atheism removed.
So if he really believes the tenets of his theological mentor, he is, whether he admits it to himself or anyone else, a communist.

yeah, I forgot about the Black Panthers, and their little red books of Mao.
But Mao knew true communism didn't work, but it works great to get one's self into a position of power. Is Obama trying that route? Use the teachings to form platitudes in order to ingratiate himself into peoples minds, and get himself elected into positions of power?
I don't think he'll get as far as he'd like if that is true.

Is Obama a capital C communist? I doubt it, nobody but FBI Agents have joined the CPUSA since Obama was about two years old.
Is Obama of the far left? Certainly. So, Obama isn't a Communist. He will do, though, until a Communist comes along.

Cap, you actually expected an Obama defender to tell the truth? If one of them told me stone was hard I'd try out a rock as a pillow.

Good to know that citizens of a country with a Communist government own the companies they work for. I wonder if comsympinko ever lived (not visited as a tourist) in a Communist country! When Communists confiscate (steal) private property, the new owner is the state. No individual owns stocks in any company - they do not have a stake in companies as he says - how ignorant can you be! They don't even own the house they live in. I have lived under Communism. Thanks to the Communists, the Cuban workers now earn an average of less than US$20.00 per month.

Craig thinks that he can fool you. Obama is rated as the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate. When Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba, he lied as to what his real plans were. When he consolidated power, he confessed to the population that he was a Communist. If Obama agreed with Communism, he would not tell the American public that those were his feelings. He would lie, as all Communists do, until they consolidate their power. As far as the difference between socialists and conservatives; the socialists confiscate your properties (in many cases they do not even pay for them, they steal them!). The Socialist countries have ration cards to buy goods. You can only buy what you are allowed to buy, nothing else (that is if you are lucky to find those goods). The government is the owner of all the means of communications; you only get government propaganda 24 hours a day. The Socialist governments do not like gays. Individuals with HIV are placed in concentration camps so that they cannot spread the disease. Most Socialist countries have what in Cuba is called the CDR, which is the block government spies (every block has a government spy). If you disagree with the government, you could possibly be put in jail for several years. This is real freedom. I could go on. But is this the liberalism / socialism some of you are yearning for? This is what Vladimir Lenin used to call the "useful idiots of the West". All of you socialists are going to say that Health and Education are two things that have really improved in Cuba. If you know anything about this subject, you would know that this is a lie - but no matter what the facts are, those of you that endorse socialism will believe whatever Castro or our mainstream media says.

It is pitiful to see individuals give opinions on subjects that they know nothing about.

This is really funny. As if calling someone a communist still had any meaning. Talk about living in the past! Maybe calling him a terrorist or a traitor or something might be more effective - that seems to be the Rovian thing to do lately. But communist? That's, like, Nixonian.

I think Confederate Yankee needs to stop hyperventilating, take a DEEP breath, and calm down.

C. I.: it is clearly unfair to refer to how communists *actually* act; you must behave as if they hold to their ideals, and nothing else.

After all, no Republican ever supports pork, no Christian ever sins, no environmentalist flies around in private jets and no "free thinker" ever copies their view whole-sale from someone else.

No in his own words he is a 'collectivist'. Well in the end Yes he is a communist.

First paragraph:

You don't need to surmise based on folks he has associated himself with what his politics are.

Next paragraph:

and he has a close relationship with the radical group La Raza.

Awesome. You guys really are the tops.

By the way weren't liberals "fascists" just, like, last month?

And Craig is right up and down the line in his post. Calling him a liar, when what he writes is plainly obvious to anyone with a pulse, really makes y'all look like hillbillies.

Wow, that is jaw droppingly stupid.

You will certainly be one of the first to the gulag in January when Comrade Obama wins. Personally, I can't wait for an increase in our vodka rations!

Dont know if he a communist, but he sure is an idiot, a rascist and a liar.

You know, "COMMUNIST!!!", "LEFT-WING EXTREMIST!!!", and "SCARY BLACK MAN WHO GOES TO SCARY RACIST BLACK CHRISTIAN CHURCH....WHO IS ALSO A SECRET MUSLIM!!!" are all very substantive and thoughtful ways to attack Obama....but, shouldn't you, I don't know, think of something better?

Do you think this kind of thing is going to win McCain the election? Hyperventilation about how scary and extremist Obama is? The guy's been in politics a while now; if he was really a Communist, don't you think we'd know by now? Or are you saying he's possibly a Manchurian candidate? Gotta watch out for those Manchurian candidates...especially scary black ones...

Stock options? Profit sharing? Employee ownership? Never heard of 'em.

Oh, and when those last 3 comments disappear, cosmy, it will be because of your potty mouth, not your truthyness. Just to be clear.

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 04/10/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

All you all making fun of CY - you DO know that communists are still around, right? Code Pink has ties to a Maoist group called The World Can't Wait, for example, and I think there are a few more avowedly communist groups in the peace movement these days.

If you read CY's post, you might note that he is pointing out that Obama's major associates range from radicals to hard-core communists, and that he has not given much indication where he stands along that spectrum. Given that, it is not inappropriate to wonder if he may indeed be a communist of some sort, though I doubt it. That he has sympathies with hard-core communism I find extremely likely.

"You don't need to surmise based on folks he has associated himself with what his politics are. All you need to do is look at his record. On abortion, he is simply a radical. He is not only in favor of partial birth abortion but he has gone so far as infanticide in the Illinois Senate.

On the borders, he is in favor of any open borders policy and he has a close relationship with the radical group La Raza.

On the second amendment, he is on record as now being against conceal carry permits. He is in favor of D.C.'s gun ban and in 1996 was against gun ownership entirely.

These are all radical positions and they are of public record."

Posted by: Mike Volpe at April 9, 2008 03:30 PM

So, because Obama voted against an outright ban on partial birth abortion, a very rare procedure performed only to save the life of the mother, he is pro-infanticide? Mike, point us to the "public record" where Obama states "I support legalized infanticide." Calling someone who supports Dialation and Extraction abortion procedures being available to doctors when necessary to save a woman's life and early term abortions in general a supporter of infanticide is completely, well, infantile.

I have no doubt that Obama does not agree with the Minutemen and Michelle Malkin, but, again, please show us this "public record" statement of support for the "radical" La Raza organization.

Finally, being against conceal and carry gun permits and supportive of the DC gun ban is hardly "radical." It might be controversial, but it is a position held by many Americans. Supporting tougher restrictions on gun ownership is certainly no more controversial than pre-emptive war theory, which apparently both Clinton and McCain supported and continue to support. Obama would be radical to support a total ban on gun ownership in America considering the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution and our history of gun ownership rights, but in 1996 Obama answered affirmatively to a question as to whether he supported a total ban on hand-gun ownership - not all guns - a position he has long since disavowed anyways.

"Of course he's not running as a 'communist.' The communist motto is 'communism for thee but not for me.' Therefore it's not surprising he kept his money. He just wants to take it from other people.

I wonder, since McCarthy was proven right, if people like Craig get embarrassed when making such intellectually dishonest remarks?"

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 9, 2008 01:11 PM

OK, Cappy, I'll bite - what is your source for McCarthy being "proven right"?

This is laughable. It's also ignorant. Not stupid -- ignorant. Calling Obama a communist is a wonderful masturbatory excess that probably makes the writer feel better (temporarily), but it accomplishes little and illuminates nothing. You goobers sit by and passively accept the wholesale corruption of the Bush administration, and then argue whether Obama is a Communist?

Jeez, Louise.

Is he a communist, like his mentor Davis, his father, his ethic-cleansing, Islamist-coddling cousin, and even his own wife Michelle Obama, who insisted just yesterday the thought that, "someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

People have been giving up pieces of the pie so that others may have more in America for a long time. Of course, it's usually been people at the bottom of the income scale who are doing the giving up, and people at the top who are getting fat off all those extra helpings of dessert, but whatever.

jlo -
Partial birth abortion cannot be performed to "save the life of the mother" because it is identical to birth in every way except for the feet coming out first and the abortionist punching a hole in the baby's skull *just* before full birth and vacuuming out the brain-matter.
Also, the bill he objected to was for when PBA fails-- and there is simply a birth. The bill recognized that the child who was just born is, despite the failed attempt to kill it, a human with full rights.

Apparently, you are also ignorant about the files that Russia released that said "yes, we were trying to take over your county from within. Yeah, X, Y and Z really *were* on the payroll."
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/senator-joe-mccarthy-charges-proven.html

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant-- there are many things I don't know-- but you might want to research a little before you start trying to attack based on that ignorance.

What's so laughable about this, is the inattention paid to the real, demonstrable, and current threats to our civil liberties posed by the present Administration. Does anyone understand that 'convervation' means to preserve? Can anyone explain how signing statements and Gitmo conserve and protect the principles enunciated in the Constitution?

awgee,

I say let them keep it up. All this bloviating about Obama the _____ist while ignoring the fiascos of the worst presidency of our lifetimes just goes to show how intellectually bankrupt the modern conservative movement is.

I look forward to the massacre in November.

Desmond, no need to talk about Carter, we're talking about Obamas' communist leanings.

mianola, I dated a girl who came from Russian when she was 21. I guess that would have been 1989. The thing she says amazed her the most were the grocery stores. She couldn't believe how much food there was. She said she didn't recognize over 90% of the food. In Russia "grocery stores" were one room with 4 shelves. You had to get there at 3am if you wanted to get your ration of meet. If you wanted "fresh" bread you had to stand in line for at least 3 hours. She also couldn't believe how much food she could by with what little money she had. I learned so much from her, a great person to talk to.

Quite telling, Desmond.

You Obama supporters don't profess any interest at all in what he stands for, only that he stands against a man that isn't even running, on the condition he wouldn't have voted to start a war as a state senator, based upon intelligence he did not have access too, meaning he was making his decision based upon deep levels of ignorance. Do any of you realize how daft that is?

Obama supporters are a sad lot, professing a messianic faith in a man they know nothing about, who has done nothing, and who promises nothing... except "change."

As for the November massacre, I'm looking forward to it. McCain is presently up 51%-40% over Hillary and 48%-42% over Obama, and if McCain paired with Condie Rice, they'd even take the bluest of blue states, New York, no matter who the Dems run against them.

Be he communist, Marxist, or just the most radicalized liberal member of the Senate, Barack Obama's pending loss might make McGovern's defeat look good. Should be fun, and perhaps a teachable moment for you guys the next time around: vet your candidates before you decide on them. Ironically, it may end up proving the superdelegate system fatally flawed: wasn't it created to prevent another McGovern?

This from the far left CNN, even though the leftist news agency still attempts to smear McCarthy the article itself proves McCarthy right.

"In fact, more than 350 Americans secretly worked for Soviet intelligence during World War II -- when the United States and the Soviet Union were allies. A number of them served in very high positions in the U.S. government. Harry Dexter White was assistant secretary of the Treasury and played a key role in creating the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, pillars of the postwar world monetary structure. Lauchlin Currie was one of a half-dozen special assistants to President Franklin Roosevelt. Laurence Duggan was in charge of U.S. relations with Latin America.

All of these spies were uncovered in the Venona decryptions in the late 1940s. But the spies uncovered by Venona were only part of the security problem faced by U.S. counter-intelligence agencies. Fewer than half of the Americans mentioned in the Venona cables were able to be identified; the others were hidden behind cover names that the FBI could not penetrate. Who were the other 150 Americans who worked for the KGB? Had they remained in the government or the military? Were they scientists still working in Los Alamos?"

You can read the article here

Yankee, I know quite well what Obama stands for, thank you very much, and thankfully, he does not stand for idiotic and unjustified invasions of other countries. The only "ignorance" here was thinking that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would lead to a favorable outcome.

It astounds me how you guys continue to attack anti-war people with words like "ignorance", even though they were completely vindicated, and you were completely and resoundingly wrong.

And if you think a poll here or there means ANYTHING at this point, I really have to question your intelligence. Just for the record, the RCP average of polls has Obama LEADING McCain. Check for yourself:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Of course, this doesn't mean anything until the general election campaign starts.

Desmond -
You keep on accusing the current government of being hugely horribly dangerous and taking away so much...

Please, give news links to real Americans who have REALLY been attacked.

Of course, I don't expect you to have any decent evidence-- if evidence meant anything to you, you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense about the Iraqi war.

Well, I'm not Desmond, but I'll jump in. There's a German of Lebanese ancestry who was picked up in the Balkans and shipped to Afghanistan. He was held for a good while then released. The Bushies hid behind the states secrets provisions so he's starting to seek justices in interntional venues. It's all over the news today, so you should be able to find it without trouble, Foxfire.

Of course, he's not an American, so maybe he's not entitled to basic human rights, is that what you're saying, Foxfire?

Foxfier, what the hell are you rambling about?

I didn't say anything about the current government being dangerous. If you ask me, the main problem with the Bush administration is how outrageously incompetent he and his administration have been.

But that they are ALSO "dangerous" is clear when you consider that they are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq for no good reason, that they have bankrupted the entire country, that they have broken the army and become pinned down in a quagmire in Iraq, and that they have eroded civil liberties and approved the use of torture.

But I guess you don't mind illegal spying, illegal detentions, and illegal torture of innocent people as long as they have Muslim names, right? They aren't "real Americans" right?

Cap-Inf: I loved the Yakov Smirnoff spiel. "In America, you catch a cold. In Russia, cold catches you!" "Good person to talk to"?!?!?!....don't you know loose lips sink ships? She was probably a Commie spy and told her KGB handlers all about you, son.

And, oh yeah, Foxfire,

There's the case of that taxi driver in Afghanistan that died in American custody. They made a movie about it -- called Taxi to the Dark Side. Won an Oscar, I believe.

You could go see it, maybe. That is, if you were really interested in learning something.

But then, he's not an American, is he? Guess he doesn't count either.

CY-
Just want to point out that your man said the following in a speech today:
"Let me make it clear that that in these challenging times, I am committed to using all the resources of this government and great nation to create opportunity and make sure that every deserving American has a good job and can achieve their American dream."

Commies, Commies everywhere.....Taking "ALL THE RESOURCES" of this Great Nation to redistribute so that everyone can achieve their American Dream (or have their appropriately-sized slice of the pie). I'm sure we'll all be entertained when you try to square McCain's unvarnished words with what you said about Obama's (unsubstantiated) plans to use the State to take and redistribute.

Craig, don't you get it? Obama is a SCARY BLACK MAN who "ignorantly" opposed the Iraq war and whose wife supports the redistribution of pies, and therefore cannot be trusted. While McCain is a honorable hero, maverick, straight-talker, and foreign policy expert who will only wast trillions of dollars and illegally invade other countries when it's absolutley necessary.

idiotic and unjustified invasions of other countries isn't scary and/or bad?
Noted, Desmond.

By the way...are you just going to set there yelling how you think Obama is scary and all, being half-black, or are you actually going to engage in arguments?
We really don't care what scares you about political leader's DNA....

Awgee- if I got my news from movies, I might be swayed....
Details of his death have not been made public by the United States Army, which said simply that Mr. Dilawar had coronary artery disease and had died of a heart attack.
So...we cause heart disease? Dang... Learn something new every day.

Laughter always.

Foxfier, you crack me up. That movie I mentioned is a pretty decent documentary. Pity you haven't seen it. You might learn something. Or maybe you'll even become curious. Like, why hasn't the Army relased "details of his death?"

As far as Obama being a communist, I'll go back to my original comment: Jeez, Louise. Ignorance unbound.

What are Barack Obama's politics?

He has a website you know. It's pretty much all right there. You'll note a lack of reference to ethnic cleansing, socialism or Marxism.

Awgee- I will admit you have a great deal of opportunity to experience ignorance. Steel-bound, even.

Xanthippas- you mean the one that had a link to the Black Panther Party until it was mentioned on talk radio?

Foxfier:

I see that your reading comprehension and research abilities are limited to what is spoon-fed to you by right-wing blogs, talk radio, and Fox News. Actually finding out what Obama's positions are is just too difficult a task for a fella like you. Too many big words to wade through.

Calling him a COMMIE! or SCARY RACIST BLACK PANTHER RADICAL! is so much easier, and requires much less brainpower.

Desmond- my final response to you:
you might want to be careful on that "research" pride... I'm a woman.

Yankee, I know quite well what Obama stands for, thank you very much, and thankfully, he does not stand for idiotic and unjustified invasions of other countries.

Desmond, Desmond, Desmond... you really gotta stop sticking your head so far up your backside... we're gonna have to start pumping oxygen in your navel to permit you to breathe.

Now, please read this article--specifically the first paragraph--before you make any more silly and asinine comments about invasions of other nations.

Unless, of course, you want to display your absolute (but hardly shocking, given whom you are defending) lack of knowledge about what's going on.

Foxfier said:
"you might want to be careful on that "research" pride... I'm a woman."

And I was supposed to know that...how, exactly? Congratulations, you're a woman. More power to you.

CCG:

Obama has NEVER, to my knowledge, advocated "invading" Pakistan. He has advocated taking action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan if there is actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government cannot or will not act. Not the same thing as invading Iraq, overthrowing its government, and occupying the country for years and years.

Desmond, I am very sorry, I haven't received the latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, so I dunno what you Obamamaniacs are using for a definition of "invade." Heck, I don't even know what you think the definition of "is" is, nor do I give a flying fig.

In the non-Obama world, however, "invade" includes sending troops into Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda without the permission of the Pakistani government.

Now, if you truly want to try to argue that such action would not constitute an "invasion," then feel free... you'll just make yourself look like even more of a clueless dunderhead than you do now.

I'm sorry, when has Obama advocated "sending troops into Pakistan"?

He has advocated striking terrorists in Pakistan by unspecified means (presumably airstrikes), but by that definition, Bill Clinton "invaded" Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998.

Hey Foxfier, I'm back!

So, you think it's cool to pull innocent folks off the street and shove them into an internment camp, without charge and holding them indefinitely?

Or are you of the school that whomever the US picks up (or has handed to them by foreign nationals in the pay of the US) is OBVIOUSLY guilty of something and deserves to be salted away to await a show trial at the convenience of some military commission?

Hmmmm???

What's so laughable about this, is the inattention paid to the real, demonstrable, and current threats to our civil liberties posed by the present Administration.

Yeah, why are we even talking about Obama anyway? We all know Bu$hitler is going to cancel the elections and declare himself King. Hell, y'all been telling us that for 7 years now. Don't lose faith now.

I see you've chosen the clueless dunderhead approach, Desmond. That's to be expected, given whom you are defending.

Intelligent people know what an invasion is, and we also know what chance airstrikes have of getting Al Qaeda members. Remember, we launched numerous airstrikes in Afghanistan in the early part of the war, and there were still many members of the Al Qaeda leadership that had to be taken out the old fashioned way, by a human being with boots on the ground, looking down the barrel of his (or her) rifle. Not to mention Saddam being missed by the hundreds if not thousands of airstrikes against Iraq.

You--and your Obamamessiah--show your appalling ignorance of military matters by assuming that airstrikes are a stand-alone means of taking action. They are not, and never have been. Boots on the ground are still needed.

So, you think it's cool to pull innocent folks off the street and shove them into an internment camp, without charge and holding them indefinitely?

Or are you of the school that whomever the US picks up (or has handed to them by foreign nationals in the pay of the US) is OBVIOUSLY guilty of something and deserves to be salted away to await a show trial at the convenience of some military commission?

You seem to be of the school of whoever the US picks up is innocent and held without charge. Project much?

Yeah, why are we even talking about Obama anyway? We all know Bu$hitler is going to cancel the elections and declare himself King. Hell, y'all been telling us that for 7 years now. Don't lose faith now.

Good point... and that is, of course, after his black helicopters take out Obama and Clinton.

Obama has NEVER, to my knowledge, advocated "invading" Pakistan.

Your knowledge needs fixing.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

See page two of that piece, where Biden, Edwards, Richardson and Dodd reel him in.

Pablo and CCG:

Nothing you've posted shows how Obama wants to "order troops into Pakistan". Pablo, that was the Washington Post's interpretation of his remarks, but I'm still waiting for someone to quote OBAMA HIMSELF announcing his intent to "order troops into Pakistan". All I've seen is vague implications about taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Pakistan, or ordering "strikes" on Al Qaeda in Pakistan, which usually translates into airstrikes.

And CCG, airstrikes are OFTEN a standalone means of taking action. Look at Reagan with Libya, or NATO with Kosovo. Don't tell me that in your limitless knowledge of military affairs (as opposed to my "apalling ignorance") you were unaware of those campaigns?

Desmond, please.

"The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

We're already doing air attacks in Pakistan, so what do you suppose that means? Are you trying to tell us that Dodd, Edwards, Richardson and Biden all misread him? Really?

If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

What on Earth do you think that means, other than that we'll send troops in after them? You may be the only person on the planet that thinks it's something other than that.

Desmond, the same nut-case is in charge in Libya now as was in charge in Reagan's era... so how did his airstrikes change anything?

As for Kosovo, the bombing was in 1999, and fighting broke out again in 2004... and NATO still has a large force there, of which US troops are the fourth largest contingent--out of 24--as of February 2008. (see this PDF.) So the US still has to have boots on the ground, even after your marvelous air war.

Once again, you try to look smart and end up looking even stupider. Do yourself a favor and stop digging that hole you're in before you come out in the Olympic stadium in Beijing.

"It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) said in a statement.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, in a telephone interview, said that Obama's threat, if acted upon, could inflame the entire Muslim world. "My international experience tells me that we should address this issue with tough diplomacy first with Musharraf and then leave the military option as a last resort," he said.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama's threat misguided. "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."

There are all people who endorse Obama.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

"Act"? Against "high-value" terrorist targets? Why not do what the Israelis do and stick a missile up their asses? It seems to work pretty well for them. Isn't that "acting"?

And FYI, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson and Biden were all Obama's rivals for the nomination. My God, wouldn't it be SHOCKING if they took his words out of context? Those dastardly Democrats! *rolls eyes*

"Desmond, the same nut-case is in charge in Libya now as was in charge in Reagan's era... so how did his airstrikes change anything?"

GASP! Are you criticizing St. Ronnie? BLASPHEMY! To the dungeons with you!

Desmond, we on the right don't deify our leaders, unlike the Obamamessiah. Reagan was wrong on other occasions, as well... like when he granted amnesty to illegal aliens.

Now quit trying to change the topic. You got proven wrong about Obama's invasion plans, admit it and slink back to DailyKOS.

And here I thought I'd stay out of the fray...Oh well.

Desmond,

This is one of the MAJOR differences between R-supporters and D-supporters. We actively criticize "our" guys. Your side practically NEVER see "your" guys in any bad light.

Reagan was wrong on other occasions, as well... like when he granted amnesty to illegal aliens.

And when he turned tail from Lebanon, and sold arms to Iran.

When he was right, he was right. When he was wrong, man was he wrong. Then again, he was human and not a deity.

"Act"? Against "high-value" terrorist targets? Why not do what the Israelis do and stick a missile up their asses? It seems to work pretty well for them. Isn't that "acting"?

We're already doing that (ask Adam Gadahn), but it isn't quite as effective in Waziristan as it is in Gaza. But Obama tells us that it isn't enough, and that he's going to go get it done. How, if not what we're already doing? Troops, that's how.

"Desmond, we on the right don't deify our leaders, unlike the Obamamessiah."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So Commander Codpiece ISN'T a strong, unwavering, decisive and fearless leader? Ronald Reagan DIDN'T singlehandedly win the Cold War? Next you're going to tell me that McCain isn't a maverick straight-talking war hero. Interesting revelations are these....

For the record, I think what Obama said about Pakistan was stupid, but it didn't amount to advocating an "invasion", no matter how you try to spin it. Nor is it feasible in real-life (as opposed to political rhetoric) to piss off Pakistan.

Wrong again, Desmond. I've never really been that enthusiastic about McCain, and even criticized him on more than one occasion.

Have you dug your way through to Beijing yet, Desmond?

And of course, CCG speaks for EACH AND EVERY conservative, so that's conclusive proof right there. *rolls eyes again*

No, I speak only for myself. But if you'd bother to look around, you'd find many conservatives that have had problems with McCain.

But you'll never do that... you're too afraid of being proved wrong, again.

Why don't ya just go back to your lefty echo chamber on DailyKOS?

Ah, willful ignorance. No point in bothering then.

I buy your criticism of McCain. I know you guys don't like him too much. Which doesn't surprise me, since he's like the least crazy of the whole bunch.

"But you'll never do that... you're too afraid of being proved wrong, again."

I'm sorry, I'm still waiting to be proven wrong ONCE.

"Why don't ya just go back to your lefty echo chamber on DailyKOS?"

Why the hell would I post on Daily Kos? Freakin' echo chamber is right, and half of them are REAL left-wing nutjobs. Riling you guys up is much more fun, especially when dealing with such nonsensical subjects as "Is Barack Obama a Communist?"

Nor is it feasible in real-life (as opposed to political rhetoric) to piss off Pakistan.

Therefore, Obama is bulls*itting us for political purposes regarding how he'd use military power. Check.

Guys, I admire your stamina and skill, but this D dude is a dud.

He will not listen to facts, logic, reason or anything else that is outside of his echo chamber.

The ghetto beatdown you all gave to Desmond is a sight to behold. You beat him as if he stole something. And the intellectual nitwit keeps coming back for more.

"Desmond, we on the right don't deify our leaders, unlike the Obamamessiah."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So Commander Codpiece ISN'T a strong, unwavering, decisive and fearless leader? Ronald Reagan DIDN'T singlehandedly win the Cold War? Next you're going to tell me that McCain isn't a maverick straight-talking war hero. Interesting revelations are these....

Notice that in Desmond's caricature, he's using things about those mentioned that refer to actual events and verifiable characteristics. Obama? For him, there's only faith, because there is no record.

But back on topic, and while we're talking about associations, see Rashid Khalidi:

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama's unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund's board of directors.

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

Wow, my last post just got deleted. That's how you guys deal with dissenters, huh? Got your own thought police, do you? Yet OBAMA is the Communist...

no, Desmond, thats how we deal with petulant children that can't rein in their profanity and act like a mature adult.

Amazing, Desmond. It's almost as if my April 10, 2008 01:29 AM post wasn't sitting right here on this very page.

So, is Bob a commie or can Desmond not read? You make the call. I'll take the latter.