« From "Paredon!-Paredon!"--to "Please send me remittances!" | Babalu Blog - Main Page | Your my.barackobama.com quote of the day »

Mr. Gomez:
Great advice. Does this mean you're going to vote for the RINO? I hope so...;)

Who would Stalin vote for??

Commie Obama DOT com.

Stalin wouldn't "vote" – he'd shoot you.

Henry, you're a smart guy and I enjoy arguing with you, but this is the silliest thing you've ever posted. By that logic, I can't vote for Ros-Lehtinen in November because she belonged to a party that courted Batista, Pinochet, the Contra "freedom fighters," and a president who lifted not a finger for five years while hundreds of thousands died of AIDS. Moreover, I've seen disgusting comments on this website without my thinking it's representative of the Cuban-American GOP.

Finally, there's Obama's books, official positions, and his economic philosophy to disagree with (he says nice things about Reagan!). Now that President Bush has embraced most of Obama's positions concerning Iraq, there's a lot less difference between McCain and Obama than we originally thought.

You're going off on a tangent and mischaracterizing what I am saying. But to make it clear to you, it's obvious that:

A) The radical left wing in this country (people that admire Stalin, Marx, Etc.) support Barack Obama.

B) He isn't even slightly embarrassed that they post such things on his web site.

C) He will not call them out because they are the backbone of his support.

We try to police the comments here to make sure they are relevant, our biggest concern is not letting communist propaganda on our server (something Obama apparently has no qualms about). Besides, we're not running for president nor do we claim to speak on behalf of the "Cuban-American GOP".

Lastly about your remark about AIDS and Reagan. Why is it that the responsibility for curing diseases now lies with the Federal government? Does it make you a cruel and unfeeling person if you believe that maybe private companies and researchers in both the private sector and local public sector should be doing that? Today HIV is treatable and the life expectancy of people exposed to the virus is much higher than in the 80s. Are you actually attributing that to anything the Federal government did after it "saw the light"?

Dealing with epidemics – which AIDS surely was by 1985-1986 – lies under the purview of the federal government ("promoting the general welfare"). In 1986, almost 12,000 people died, nearly double the previous year's figures. We already knew that the virus was transmitted via unprotected sex and intravenous drug use. We knew our blood supply was unscreened and contaminated. How did this not warrant a federal response?

The radical left are gonna be in for a shock when they read the NYT Mag story I sent you. Besides, admirers of Karl Marx aren't enemies of the Republic.

Duke,

You evaded the point once again. What did the Federal government do that got us to the point we are today with regards to HIV? Which of the drugs that successfully treat HIV today were developed with federal funds that Reagan withheld? Please, sir. Don't embarrass yourself. That old line is weak. It's like saying Republicans are against education because we want to abolish the Federal department of Education. It's a way to obscure the real debate which what the role of the federal government should be.

As for the blood supply, that's a different argument. Was Reagan explicitly against making the blood supply safe? Did he do anything that prevented the blood supply from being safer or was this lag time a result of (surprise) an inefficient slow government? We've had epidemics before, and they are usually not cured during one administration or by the Federal government.

And admirers of Karl Marx are people who are in favor applying a Marxist model in our country. That's enough for me. Call them enemies or not, the policies they advocate would destroy America as we have come to know it.

You evaded the point once again. What did the Federal government do that got us to the point we are today with regards to HIV? Which of the drugs that successfully treat HIV today were developed with federal funds that Reagan withheld?

I didn't evade the point. The record is clear: after Surgeon General C. Everett Koop declared AIDS Public Enemy No. One (after fighting with Reagan for months), the CDC got thousands in federal research dollars. It funded non-profit ad campaigns. Suddenly, as the cliche goes, the gloves came off. Once he woke up, Reagan recognized the role of the federal government to support continuing research and, almost as important, expunge the lies and misinformation floating around since 1981.

And there's plenty to admire about Karl Marx besides his economic theories! He was an exceptional literary critic and historian, with an unusually lucid style for a writer of German in the nineteenth century.

AIDS became as large an epidemic as it was because basic health protocols weren't followed
for left political reasons; particularly the closing of the bath houses. The book and the film
'And the Band Played On" details this rather substantially. Even the first name of the disease
RIDS was changed as to not cause offense.

Marx may have a decent writer but his exposition of events in the English phase of the Industrial Revolution; was as shallow as Michael Moore. Consequently, his solutions were also flawed.

Yes, there was opposition from the gay community at first -- a decade's worth of societal acceptance was on the line -- but as the impact of the epidemic manifested itself in 1982 and 1983 (also documented in Shilts' book) the bathhouses started to close, and local education, in large part sponsored by the community efforts without which this sort of enterprise is impossible, took over.

To take issue with Marx's economic theories is one thing; to compare him to Moore is insulting. That's like comparing Edmund Burke to Sean Hannity.

You're not following me. "The gloves coming off" didn't speed up the development of treatments for AIDS by one day because the Federal government doesn't cure diseases. If the key to gaining control of the epidemic was publicizing a behavioral change, why would the Federal Government's involvement be needed.

When my twins were born we knew to not lay them on their stomachs because there's a lot of literature and knowledge about SIDS. I'm pretty sure the government wasn't responsible for any of it.

As for the merits of Karl Marx, the world would have been a much better place without that particular literary critic.

"Finally, there's Obama's books, official positions, and his economic philosophy to disagree with (he says nice things about Reagan!). Now that President Bush has embraced most of Obama's positions concerning Iraq, there's a lot less difference between McCain and Obama than we originally thought. "

He says nice things about Reagan?

Gasp! How embarrassing for Obama! Go and quote those nice things at Dkos, Huffpo, or Barackobama.com. I'd LOVE to see what happens.

But, wait, are you saying that Obama set the policy on Iraq and Bush then followed it?

For real? PLEASE, add that to the list of things to quote about Obama. He's got the same policy on Iraq as BUSH!

It is to laugh.

There's a lot less difference between McCain and Obama?

Besides all the accomplishments by McCain and lack thereof by Obama? Well, they're both Senators! Score! How about all the questionable associations with Obama? Raines, Johnson, Ayers, Rezko, Daley, Wright, Acorn, etc... Lets do a head to head list McCain questionables versus Obama questionables. How different are they now?

What a hoot.

Why is the content of the quote not taken into consideration?



Chomsky's quote is "State's are not moral agents, people are, and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions."



Frida Kahla stating "I am not sick. I am broken, but I am as happy as long as I can paint."



Ho Chi Minh stating "a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles."



What's wrong with any of those? Noam is pointing out the limits of government, Frida is elevating art, and Minh is stating the obvious value of the press. He's doing it in reference to revolution, perhaps, but it's still a poignant quote that can even be taken as advocating nonviolence.



"I urge you to reject Barack Obama, reject his questionable friends, and reject his followers who admire the most violent and evil people the world has produced in recent history."



The author is now equating citing a historical figure with admiration. By this logic, John McCain supports Mao Zedong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w)



"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."

You got it right Henry. Thinewhiteduke is a little confused. Seems to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between "right" and "Wrong--LEFT--"

Dveg said: Why is the content of the quote not taken into consideration?

Here's why. When you murder a few, a few hundred, a few thousand or a few million of your fellow human beings even your clever phrases should not be praised.

Let me ask you something bright guy: If some McCain supporter posted a reasonable sounding quote from Franco, Mussolini or Hitler on McCain's web site would it not be seen inappropriate?

Please sir, you are making a fool of yourself.

Sr. Gomez -

Your series on the quotes used by the denizens of 'mybarackobama.com' has not made the "Cover of the Rolling Stone" - IT HAS MADE - the Anti-Idiotarian equivalent of the Early 21st Century - A BlogPost on the LGF - Donde yo soy Dr. Shalit tambien.

-S-

Duke baby,

Bush 43 has actually pledged more money to fight AIDS in Africa and the third world than any other leader or country in history.

you lefties and your lefty media don't even report it cause it makes him look good. It takes Geldoff and Bono to call the press on their bias.

puh-lease .....

Why was this post reprinted?

Bush deserves lots of kudos for his AIDS efforts, and have told anyone who would (and wouldn't listen). I'm not sure why you keep mistaking me for a liberal. A liberal in 2008 believes that government is the first resort for solving problems; I say it's the last, reluctant resort.

Henry:
"Let me ask you something bright guy: If some McCain supporter posted a reasonable sounding quote from Franco, Mussolini or Hitler on McCain's web site would it not be seen inappropriate?

Please sir, you are making a fool of yourself."

Let me ask you something, did you read my whole post? McCain quoted Mao Zedong in a speech, there's a youtube video of it. Using your argument, what he did was hugely inappropriate.

I mean really what you're saying is that if someone quotes someone who has done something you disagree with, the person quoting must agree with what you disagree with. That's clearly logically fallacious. Many very evil people were also very brilliant. So no, quoting Mussolini or Hitler on McCain's site isn't wrong because evil people can say intelligent things. Unfortunately, evil isn't synonymous with stupidity. If it was, genocides would be much more rare than they actually are.

And please, don't be condescending with your readers. I don't appreciate being told I'm making a fool out of myself and neither does anyone else. If you feel what I'm saying is foolish, then make me look foolish by proving me wrong.

Was McCain quoting him as an "inspiration"? You talk about "context" but the context of these douchebags quoting Marxists is clear. They are quoting them as sources of inspiration. If you have a link to McCain quoting Mao admiringly I suggest you post it otherwise kindly shut the fuck up.

P.S. Dveg douchebag, do you simply disagree with Joseph Stalin? Do you think I despise Joseph Stalin because of his "beliefs"?

Idiot.

Duke, this post was republished because we got links from some major web sites and I also updated it to include the latest losers that I've highlighted.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: