- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

« News Home

Looking in vain for a ‘socialist’

Published: Wed, October 24, 2012 @ 12:00 a.m.

Looking in vain for a ‘socialist’

The continuous accusations of socialism against the Obama administration’s policies are based on deception and ignorance.

Socialists oppose war. This president has escalated military aggression and the reckless slaughter of civilians. His health reform policy mandating coverage is nothing less than a giveaway to insurance providers. The “Obama phones” given to the poor allow cellular companies to profit at the expense of the tax payer. The stimulus package created by the Bush administration and continued by this president rewards and encourages the dishonest practices of Wall Street. A socialist would have bailed out the state governments, not the executive bonuses.

The Obama administration’s policies can more accurately be described as “corporatism.”

Despite the rhetoric, I don’t see the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both allow enormous amounts of private money to manipulate the electoral and political processes. They may as well be called Republicrats.

We have the socialist movement to thank for the 40 hour work week, the end of child labor, slave-like working conditions and much more. This president hasn’t proven worthy of being called a Socialist.

John Isabella III, Struthers


1jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

Hey observant, it takes ne to know one.

The man was expressing his opinion in a gentlemanly manner. Why don't you do the same?

Suggest removal:

2Woody(469 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago


Obama is a Marxist. His parents were Marxists, his grandparents were marxists (they sent him to a high school that was know for its teachings on communism, socialism, and marxism), everyone he sought out in college and life were marxists. Birds of a Feather John, Birds of a Feather.

Suggest removal:

3Sensible(118 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

You wrote: "This president has escalated military aggression and the reckless slaughter of civilians."
Who are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Are you living in this world or some alternate universe?

If anything "this president" has scaled back on military agression. Just ask John Mcain.

Suggest removal:

4redeye1(5107 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

When you got people like John and gdog who are blinded by BO (Blame Others) for all the free stuff that they probably get . It's really tough on them to see the whole truth when its smacking them in the face, They are worried with Romney the free ride will be over. They might have to work for things that they want..

Suggest removal:

5jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

gdog don't get it. According to him all Repubs are liars.

The biggest liars are those who swept the execution of 4 Americans, in Libya, under the rug. Evidence just discovered proves that the State Dept knew what was gonig on while it was going on. Yet Obama knew & that female who is our rep to the United Nations also knew.

Even in Watergate no one was executed. It was merely a lie that was covered up. The Libya situation, was also a lie coverup, but 4 Americans were killed.

No bigger liars than the Whitehouse & that State Dept.

Suggest removal:

6jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

A new undercover video from James O’Keefe and Project Veritas shows Pat Moran, son of longtime incumbent congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) and field director for his father’s re-election campaign, instructing a supporter in how to use fraudulent documents to cast a hundred illegal votes:
Note that Project Veritas prominently includes the unedited raw footage of this encounter, to counter the usual whines about false editing. There’s not much question about what happens here. An undercover operative posing as a very enthusiastic supporter says he’s got a hundred names of people who probably aren’t going to vote, and he wants to cast their ballots for them.
Moran is “initially lukewarm about the idea of voting on others’ behalf,” as narrator O’Keefe puts it, suggesting that a legitimate “get out the vote” effort would be a better investment of effort… but he’s quite willing to give some helpful advice for evading the flimsy existing voter identification procedures. He’s even got tips for making sure that the prospective targets for ballot theft are truly “inactive” voters, rather than people who already voted early. It’s obviously a subject he’s given some thought to. And by the end of the conversation, he’s a lot less “lukewarm” about the idea. In fact, he thinks it’s pretty funny.
Time for some more New York Times editorials about how vote fraud never happens, better voter identification is unnecessary, and anyone who cares about protecting the integrity of our electoral system is just a racist who wants to suppress the minority vote!
Project Veritas has already gotten a high-ranking Obama campaign employee fired for her willingness to engage in vote fraud. Is Jim Moran going to fire his son now?

Suggest removal:

7jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

Hey blah, that's a beautiful editorial. What does it mean?

Suggest removal:

8jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

White House e-mails blow up its Libya cover story
By Jennifer Rubin
President Obama is playing the media and, in turn, the American people for fools on the Libya scandal. Reporters and columnists who carried his water have been hung out to dry. The White House cover story — namely that CIA got it all wrong and the White House (in urging us to believe the murder of four Americans was the result of a video riot gone bad) was telling us what it knew, when it knew — has been severely undercut. Three e-mails sent to the White House within two hours of the attack identify it as a terrorist operation and inform the White House that local jihadists with al-Qaeda connections claimed responsibility. Reuters reminds us:
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a “terrorist” attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.
Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film
This was false. And we know now the White House knew better. Three separate e-mails were sent to the White House on Sept. 11:
The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time — or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began — carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”
The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”
The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”
A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.
A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”
The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”
Yet the president and his advisers repeatedly told us the attack was spontaneous reaction to the anti-Muslim video and that it lacked information suggesting it was a terrorist assault.

Suggest removal:

9jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

Comments (1)Charlie Rose interviewed former National Security Advisor General Jim Jones on Tuesday and heard something that contradicts the President’s opinion of our foreign policy record, especially in the Middle East.

During last Monday’s final debate, the president stated that his policies in the Middle East were working and progress was being made in the region. Beyond the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama also claimed that al-Qaeda has been significantly diminished, and extremism was waning. Romney countered with the obvious mention of the embassy attacks in Libya and Egypt, plus the prolonged unrest in Syria and North Africa.

For the record, Ret. Gen. Jones served as National Security advisor for the first two years of the Obama Administration from 2008-2010. When Jones retired, President Obama praised his work in a Rose Garden ceremony saying:

“Serving as national security adviser is one of the most difficult jobs in government. But through it all, Jim, like the Marine he has always been, has been a dedicated public servant and a friend to me.”

Here’s what Gen. Jones has to say about the current conditions of our foreign policy:

The whole set up for analyzing the world we faced was based on an initial premise that we need to take, us, size up the problems, talk to the people that were historically causing us difficulties, and see if there were some way to proceed ahead. We now know, in some cases, we made some progress. I would cite the START Treaty as a successful couple of years of hard work with the Russians. On the other hand, with the Middle East and Iran, we’re probably right back where we were three or four years ago.

Suggest removal:

10jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

If Obama wins this election, just think of the mess he will inherit.

Suggest removal:

11valleypoboy(218 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

People who oppose what they think is socialism are simply saying "I've got mine and the hell with you". If your vision of a country is one where we have no vision of common good, no vision of how a rising tide raises all boats, and wish the poor and disadvantaged would just go away, then you can keep that country. Please move south, you'll find like-minded people there and some of us can have a country with a soul as well as a profit motive.

Suggest removal:

12jojuggie(1607 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

Human Events BlogFigures… “Democrat of the Year” Convicted of Stealing Checks From 71 Year-Old Blind Woman with Cerebral Palsy
By: Jim Hoft
10/27/2012 02:42 PM

Print14Estelle Carson was named “Democrat of the Year” while she was under investigation for stealing from a partially blind, developmentally disabled 71 year-old woman with cerebral palsy.
The “Democrat of the Year” faces up to nine years in prison.

Suggest removal:

13jeepers(127 comments)posted 2 years, 9 months ago

To observant-great thoughtful post.

Suggest removal:


HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2015 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes