Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.

  

Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below

***

Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude

 

Alumni:
Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1

 

KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

Powered by Squarespace
« LIVE: Final Presidential Debate of the 2012 Election - Open Thread & Post-Debate Wrap-up | Main | I Went to a Fight and an Open Thread Broke Out »
Sunday
Oct212012

International Socialists Endorse Obama

WASHINGTON TIMES

Apparently socialists and communists agree worldwide....Obama's their man.

Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, Russia's former KGB official and defacto dictator, Vladamir Putin and dictator Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela Castro all have endorsed U.S. President Obama for re-election.

“I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” Mariela Castro said during a cable news interview. ...

Now, if the founders would have given us a socialistic government, that would have been one thing...but they didn't. They gave us a republic.

Many of us knew of Obama's proven ideology in 2008 and sounded the alarm, but most closed their eyes to this obvious reality and defended his inconsistencies and lies. Perhaps now, we'll open our eyes. Perhaps.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (40)

But I thought the 2012 election was already over...
I thought Obama won it on Friday...
and yesterday too.

(seriously... w... t.... f....)

October 21, 2012 at 23:17 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Gray, you shouldn't do that to our Dear Leader. Calling him a favorite of the commies and socialists means you're a racist, a homophobe, and a jingoist. Or something. Better check with Winston to be sure.

Skinny, that test graphic is a wonderful indicator of the mindset at leftie media outlets, and what they hope will happen. But never mind; there is no media bias, you know. We're totally paranoid to think that the little reporters and reporterettes of the MSM are anything but objective and even-handed.

October 22, 2012 at 05:47 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

This is one of the most concise explanations yet of the Benghazi timeline. It outlines our intelligence and military capabilities that night of which Obama did nothing. I dare anyone to read this and tell me Obama doesn't have blood on his hands.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331125/first-aid-living-bing-west#more

October 22, 2012 at 06:10 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Don't forget that Iran is in Obama's corner.

Oh, and since Obama is welcoming the interference of United Nations "monitors" during the election, let's put the dictators, thugs, and assorted scumbags who run the UN in Obama's corner as well.

What thinking person could possibly vote for a destructive thug like Obama? Answer: None.

October 22, 2012 at 07:15 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Well he's already accepting donations from foreign entities...
... So why wouldn't he accept free site monitors for free as well?

After all, he can't position Black Panthers at every voting location.
The size of the B.P.P. oin Montana isn't quite what you'd call "prevalent".

October 22, 2012 at 09:42 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

SOOOOOOOOOOSHULIST! SOOOOOOOOOOSHULIST!Did anyone tell these guys the Soviet Union is dead? SOOOOOOOOOOSHULIST!

First off, I love that my voice lives in your head, Redneck.

Second, it’s quite striking how throughout months of Presidential campaigning wingers have virtually nothing positive to say about their GOP’s nominated candidate. Oh sure, the Eddie Munster nitwit gets them a little juiced, but for all the effort they put into extolling the front-runner's vision, values, policies, platform, and promises, the guy may as well be a flaming brown paper bag of dog shit on a bed of insects. Their only real interest is amping up hysteria over the Kenyan Muslim Hawaiian Devil Baby. That’s the only thing that really gets their seats moist.

SOOOOOOOOOOSHULIST!

October 22, 2012 at 09:47 | Registered CommenterWinston

SOOOOOOOOOOSHULIST!

I'm assuming the phrase "New Party" doesn't ring any bells with you.

What's sad (and you probably hate hearing) is how many mainstream media outlets CNBC, Forbes, Business Week, Fox, Bloomberg (oh wait, no... that was REAGAN they called a socialist... sheesh), etc... still questioning his socialist roots almost 4 years into his one (and hopefully only) term. Obviously with that list he's not looked at as a shining example of Capitalism.

The problem at this point really is nothing more than either a) your complete and utter denial of the socialist molds that helped shape Obama or b) know full well of his socialist root, support them and feel you need to lie about everything associated with it until election day.

I'm going with 'B'.

I'd also wager that if Obama won, you along with the rest of the worshipers at the First Church of Barack Obama would out there trying to convince everybody that he ran as a socialist all along, like every day of his life, and his re-election clearly proves that Americans feel that socialism is the right path for the county... just like every other gun-shy, militant, leftwing extremist out there.

Hope and Change!!

October 22, 2012 at 10:03 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

The fact that a "flaming brown paper bag of dog shit" is a legitimately better leadership option than President Empty Chair should tell you something.

October 22, 2012 at 10:07 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

I'm not sold the picture above wasn't photo-shopped.

October 22, 2012 at 10:09 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Now, if the founders would have given us a socialistic government, that would have been one thing...but they didn't. They gave us a republic.

Socialism in an economic system, a republic is a form of government. A republic form of government simply means people vote for their elected representatives, and and in doing such, if they elect representatives who enact socialist policies, it in no way contradicts the constitution.

And to add a little more history to the matter, in the times of the founders the Federal Government owned almost all the land in this country, especially after the Louisiana Purchase enacted by a man named Thomas Jefferson. You may have heard of him.

From the Northwest Ordinance, to the Louisiana Purchase, to the Land Grand Colleges, to the Lewis and Clarke Expidition to the Homestead Act, to the Intercontinental Railroad and on and on, much of the larger initiatives in Government in the 80 years following the passage of the Constitution was devoted to figuring out how to use the enormous resources of the Federal Government in order to best enable moderization of our nation and economic growth.

But, you guys have heard this all before and have made a willful decision to be ignorant of the reality, instead prefering a fictionalized version of American history. Very strange indeed.

October 22, 2012 at 11:06 | Registered Commenterkwawk

So kwAwk, are you saying you're ok with Obama's commie and socialist thug endorsements? Or are you just trying to change the subject?

October 22, 2012 at 11:48 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Professor Kwawk of the Howard Zinn school of American History has it wrong yet again. The Framers considered property rights to be the corner stone of liberty.

October 22, 2012 at 11:49 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

That's funny Mach. Half of the founders were fighting for the right to keep people as property. So much for liberty.

October 22, 2012 at 12:23 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Red - I don't give a crap about who Hugo Chavez endorsed. I'm willing to bet Obama neither sought nor accepts the endorsemet of Hugo Chavez. He has no control over who endorses him.

October 22, 2012 at 12:24 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Apparently Mitt Romney was endorsed by porn star Jenna Jameson. That must mean Mitt is a pornographer!

And he was endorsed by both Hulk Hogan and Vince McMahon! Proof that he is fake as a three dollar bill! Mitt Romney, king of kayfabe!

October 22, 2012 at 12:33 | Registered Commenterkwawk

I smell desperation...

:: sniff sniff ::

Obviously pornstars are only allowed to endorse Democrats? They should not be allowed to vote if they prefer the Republican. In fact, let's take away their right to vote if they endorse anybody but Democrats, or scrutinize them publicly until they have a change of heart. Welcome to the USSofA!

The MSM = Pravda

October 22, 2012 at 12:47 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

What's funny is all of those individuals kwawk listed above are successful business people, job creators, entrepreneurs, etc... while those Obama attracts are socialists, communists, marxists... says a lot about both men, doesn't it?

(p.s... our nasty girl is wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy hotter than yours)

October 22, 2012 at 12:50 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

That's funny Mach. Half of the founders were fighting for the right to keep people as property. So much for liberty.

Actually, it's rather sad how Democrats have gone from fighting to keep other people as propert, to fighting for themselves to become property of the State. The concept of Liberty seems to be lost on them.

October 22, 2012 at 12:58 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Obviously pornstars are only allowed to endorse Democrats? They should not be allowed to vote if they prefer the Republican. In fact, let's take away their right to vote if they endorse anybody but Democrats, or scrutinize them publicly until they have a change of heart. Welcome to the USSofA.

Quite an outbust of hysteria there Skinny. I was simply using the porn star angle to illustrate the absurdity of judging candidates using un-solicited endorsements. It must have stung you a bit.

October 22, 2012 at 13:05 | Registered Commenterkwawk

And my next point was that all of them are capitalists... Obama's, not so much.

Your turn.


(also, is it a hysterical outburst if your side is actually saying such extreme things?)

October 22, 2012 at 13:08 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Except...if you look at the people who've endorsed Obama you should find many people who meet your defintion of capitalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2012#Business_people

Even got the port star vote 3:1.

Yes, if someone on my side ever says about anyone...oh so XXXXX's are only allowed to endorse Democrats? Then you have my permission to label them as hysterical.

October 22, 2012 at 13:17 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Mach - Are you familiar with the concept of negative liberty?

October 22, 2012 at 13:24 | Registered Commenterkwawk

"(CNSNews.com) – First Lady Michelle Obama encouraged her husband’s supporters to vote early, because you may find your “toilet overflowing” on Election Day."

I hear Barack Obama seeks Michelle’s consultation on issues........BRUTAL

October 22, 2012 at 13:52 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Your problem is you have to dance around with associations... are you aware the Socialists and Communists in the U.S. endorse Obama, and I'm sure since he went after the Marxist support as far back as 1996, pretty safe to assume he'll secure those votes from that extreme left fraction as well.

Obama is the choice for those who hope for a more extreme agenda than the first term.
Now if only they can find enough people to fool into thinking he's NOT that person...
.... that's the kicker.

October 22, 2012 at 14:01 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

"(CNSNews.com) – First Lady Michelle Obama encouraged her husband’s supporters to vote early, because you may find your “toilet overflowing” on Election Day."

Or worse... you could find yourself to be buried in a graveyard, a convicted felon, moved out of your house, an illegal immigrant, having undergone a name change, etc... so many reasons one could/should vote early (even though some I mentioned apparently "don't exist").

October 22, 2012 at 14:13 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

Mach - Are you familiar with the concept of negative liberty?

Freedom from ______ (negative) vs. freedom to ______ (positive). It's a meaningless distinction.

October 22, 2012 at 14:15 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

It's a tragic condition that leads some people to seek out status as wards of the state.

October 22, 2012 at 14:38 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

"Half of the founders were fighting for the right to keep people as property."

And the other half conceded because they were trying to "create a more perfect union." As imperfect as it may have been they could not afford the "luxury" of resolving the slavery issue at that time. And they were proven to be wise and prudent men come 1861. You don't fight a war for independence and then start warring with that half of the country that helped you win your independence. Old King George would have been laughing his ass off and likely taken advantage.

But then life isn't as simple and easily lived for the rest of us as it is in the world of moonbats.

Hardly any comparisons to make here with soshuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulists.

October 22, 2012 at 14:53 | Registered CommenterTijuana

"Government is the only group we all belong to."

October 22, 2012 at 14:54 | Registered CommenterMachiavelli

Your problem is you have to dance around with associations... are you aware the Socialists and Communists in the U.S. endorse Obama, and I'm sure since he went after the Marxist support as far back as 1996, pretty safe to assume he'll secure those votes from that extreme left fraction as well.

I don't really have to dance around anything. I'm educated enough about what the reality is that I'm not affected by all of the dirt the right likes to throw in the air about socialism or marxism. I'm aware that almost every country in the world has a mixed socialist/capitalist economy, and that no successful country on earth has a pure capitalist system.

The dancing is more on your side really, if you somehow equate retirement beneifits or basic access to healthcare with Leninist/Stalinist socialism.

If you want to have a dancing contest though, perhaps we should conduct a poll of storm front members or KKK members to see if they support Romney vs Obama?

October 22, 2012 at 15:27 | Registered Commenterkwawk

Freedom from ______ (negative) vs. freedom to ______ (positive). It's a meaningless distinction.

It isn't so meaningless if you fill in the blanks.

Freedom from starvation vs freedom to starve.

Freedom from becoming a serf vs freedom to make people serfs.

Freedom from discrimination vs freedom to discriminate.

October 22, 2012 at 15:29 | Registered Commenterkwawk

If you want to have a dancing contest though, perhaps we should conduct a poll of storm front members or KKK members to see if they support Romney vs Obama?

Liberals already equate all white, non-Obama voters to them anyway, so what's your point?

The dancing is more on your side really, if you somehow equate retirement beneifits or basic access to healthcare with Leninist/Stalinist socialism.

If you somehow consider ObamaCare only "basic access to healthcare" , therein may lie most of your problem in grasping the reality of the situation kwawk.

October 22, 2012 at 16:11 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

My point is that I'm mature enough to understand that being a conservative doesn't inherently make someone a racist but rather people who are racist gravitate towards conservatism because it gives them cover for their beliefs. Being a states rights fetishist is a great cover for those who were angry that the Federal Government stepped in and ended slavery and Jim Crow.

As far as Obamacare goes it was the insurance industry who were pleading for the right to sell insurance across state lines. Or at least it was conservatives who took up that case in the name of lowering insurance costs. When that happened did you really think we were just going to toss out a century's worth of state level regulation and not replace it with something else?

October 22, 2012 at 16:31 | Registered Commenterkwawk

My point would also be, that we could have elected to President pretty much any Democrat in this country and your rhetoric about socialism and communism would have been pretty much the same.

It's not really an arguement about Obama, it's a label that carries meaning to you, and gives you comfort somehow that you wield against anybody who doesn't believe in the same things as you.

October 22, 2012 at 16:34 | Registered Commenterkwawk

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."

So said John Adams, as strong a foe of slavery as any man has been.

No wonder that kwAwk and his leftist cohorts feel the need to trash the Founders at every turn.

October 22, 2012 at 17:09 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Technically I tend to stick with the opinion that Obama as a Marxist...

Obama's choices in life (New Party) is what draws that conclusion from me, not some fantasy fiction like the one you put forth that pits voter ID laws in the same light as racial segregation. Only in the sick mind of liberals who's fleeting attempt to hide their own racist history from within their own party would ever be so desperate as to try to make a direct correlation between the two. It doesn't have to make sense, it just needs to sound really bad.

I understand you feel shame and guilt from the despicable history Democrats left in their wake back in the 60's (you can thank Republicans who pushed it through whenever you find the courage... we won't hold our breath waiting). If I was a Democrat I'd be ashamed too.

As for voter ID laws, after working as a contracted pollster (part time on weekends), I do indeed have a negative opinion of the system... particularly that of the absentee ballot process. Every day that I knock on doors compiled from a list of registered voters I stumble upon multiple houses that are empty, mail overflowing from the mailbox, phone book sitting in a bag at the doorstep (probably for months). Most houses have more than one registered voter still listed as a resident there. If I wasn't an honest man I could probably steal countless votes by myself without much trouble. What's scary is that I know there are other people out there with the same list... no guarantees any of them will be as honest (and there's hundreds in my area alone... thousands across the state... lord knows how many nationwide).

It doesn't even take an individual to commit the act of fraud either. When contracted out you're not reporting findings that people have moved to the state or local government... you're reporting them to those who've contracted you out. I've worked for the Republicans, Democrats, 3rd-party groups... who's to say they'll be honest with the findings?

You leftists offer up a lot of trust in regards to the integrity of the vote, trust that is in no way earned by either party or it's most determined support staff. It's those same corrupt individuals that would be quickest to belittle the restructuring of the system, primarily to distract. Call anybody crazy that points out the obvious flaws... maybe that'll make all the problems go away.

October 22, 2012 at 17:26 | Registered Commenterskinnydipinacid

And socialists/communists gravitate to the democrat party skwawk. Thing is, they don't even use it as a cover. Why? There is no cover to be found there. They could re-name the party Communist Democrats and nobody would even notice since there is no difference in the two anymore.

October 22, 2012 at 17:57 | Registered CommenterTijuana

I understand you feel shame and guilt from the despicable history Democrats left in their wake back in the 60's (you can thank Republicans who pushed it through whenever you find the courage... we won't hold our breath waiting). If I was a Democrat I'd be ashamed too.

Considering I wasn't even alive in the period you refer too, I don't feel any shame about that era. I was born after the era where the dixiecrats left for the Republican Party as were most people in this country I'm sure. I've lived my whole life in the era of Republicans being the home of the disgruntled southern racist demographic.

You know why you don't do what you're referring to Skinny? You know why most anybody would not do that? Because in most electoral cycles 100 votes wouldn't be enough to sway an election for city council. And if you stole 100 votes odds are that half of the votes you stole would have voted for the person you wanted anyways.
And on top of that for that 50 vote gain you'd be running the risk of violating election laws and mail fraud laws. You'd be risking decades in prison for your miniscue vote gain. On top of that, if you voted 100 absentee ballots that weren't yours, the only thing that would be required for you to be caught is to have just one person show up to polls whose vote you cast. One person.

We have plenty of laws to protect our elections already. If you don't think so, go ahead and try your voter fraud scheme and see where it leads you.

October 22, 2012 at 17:58 | Registered Commenterkwawk

I've lived my whole life in the era of Republicans being the home of the disgruntled southern racist demographic.

Ah, yes. Chrissy KwAwk Matthews, at it again.

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed when you retreat from intellectual debate and reach low for that sort of garbage? Apparently not.

October 23, 2012 at 05:01 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Aren't you the least bit embarrassed when you retreat from intellectual debate and reach low for that sort of garbage?

Let me help, I speak Winger. "Retreat from intellectual debate and reach low for that sort of garbage" is Winger for "cite well-known and well-established historical facts that are beyond dispute."

October 23, 2012 at 07:52 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>