A scary thought

[teancum79]

I had a rather scary thought this morning which I felt I should share with you.

Our good comrade Obama is planning on a lot of high cost programs if he gets elected.

The economy is not doing all that well. He has promised tax cuts for the “less well off”. While he still has the “well off” to tax into the poor house that will never be enough to fund his programs.
There is a flow of money in this nation that has gone almost free of political tinkering and taxation for a very long time, Churches.

Churches are by nature tax exempt most employ a pastor and a support person or two. In addition to offering the good word in one form or another many also provide charitable relief to the poor counseling services and worst of all hope.

I think Obama will try to tax the churches. It would provide him access to a large revenue stream, it would result in the closing of many churches (remember Communist and Nazi’s have no use for them except as something to rob). The closing of churches would place more people directly in the care of government welfare programs. It would also result in far fewer unauthorized sermons being delivered.

It would be a hard sell at first, but Obama is a skilled salesmen. It would fundamentally reduce the 1st amendment to a nice memory. With it the 2nd amendment which he has no respect for out of the way he will be free to make surf’s of the entire nation. After that those pesky details like votes term limits, jury trials, probable cause etc. can all be removed safely.

This November vote like it’s your last chance it very well could be.

[cenk]

Interesting but how do you know that Obama will tax churches? Sounds like speculation to me.

[teancum79]

Yes it is speculation, but it is based on a few known facts.

1. A large amount of Obama's policies come straight out of Marx's political play book.

2. Marx hated religion.

3. The Obama camp has written checks (made promises on policies and programs) that the current tax structure can't cash.

4. charitable donations in particular churches is the only major movement of money that is not currently being taxed.


I've yet to meet a Liberal who likes the idea of things happening without the Government taking their cut. I'm saying that he will for sure tax them, but I think it is a significant possibility.

[teancum79]

my family emialed this link to me.

Disclaimer I don't like the way they portray the middle east all that well. I have issues with terrorist and I'm not about to convert to Islam, but this video goes to far in the implantation that everyone in the middle east hates America and likes to bomb us.

That said I think it does bring up a lot a vary valid issues of Obama's plans and connections in an entertaining way.


‘Link’

[Amalcas]

Don't have time to watch a video at the moment, but some quick remarks:

Marx was not a communist, nor did he invent communism. Communism is a system of oppression and centralized, dictatorial control that calls itself Marxism as an excuse. Stalin dreamed up what would be known as "communism" (though the term has been muddied enough now to refer just as well to Marxism; the specific term is "Stalinism") to solidify and justify his dictatorial powers and establish a personality cult; he was no Marxist-Leninist, for all he claimed. If you want proof, look at the history of what happened after the Russian Revolution, particularly with Stalin vs. Trotsky, or alternately Castro vs. Guevara; it's the same story: the idealist behind the "communist" movement leaves (or is thrown out), and the thug establishes dictatorship. There has never been an actual Marxist nation, and the communist nations are in many ways further from Marxism than the capitalist nations.
Now, that's admittedly a bit tangential, but worth pointing out. More directly, Marx's works were all fairly purely economic in nature; they did not deal especially with politics or religion (beyond criticizing the existing systems). More importantly, Marx's economic theory can be extracted rather cleanly from his individual prejudices; implementing any of Marx's economic ideas is completely unrelated to affecting any of his views on religion.

Finally, every campaign I have ever seen has made promises that it can't keep. This is not because all politicians are lying scumballs who will do anything to get elected; this is because your average American is completely ignorant of politics and how the government actually works, and thus isn't going to be very pleased with a politician that honestly says that he can't provide every service you (and everyone else) wants from the government, and lower taxes too. Pile on top of this that there _are_ corrupt politicians who would make the empty promises anyway, and it puts honest politicians in quite a predicament.

[teancum79]

Everyone puts their own twist on any theory, but I've not seen to many neo Nazi's who happen to be Jewish as well. The 2 value systems clash a great deal. Yes there are some "gay Christians", but they are few and far between again the value systems clash. Marx's theory base lead to Communism just as surly as Jesus's teaching lead to Christianity. Even if some details where altered the bulk of the message stayed.

Most campaigns do promise more than they can deliver, but it is most often like a dating site where you give yourself a 10-20% better than yourself report. Obama is promising things that can not be delivered even if congress and the American people were behind him 100%.

[Amalcas]

I'll agree that he's maker a bit bigger promises than usual (though I'd disagree with only 10% inflation on promises on average, and that his promises are all too much bigger; I think he, more than anything else, is simply phrasing them differently). I think he is doing so in order to build up enough political capital to enact one or two big changes, though precisely what I can only guess (though for the record, socialism, much less communism, is a lot more changes than that capital could buy).

And I don't think you got my point about Stalin and communism. My point is that only the "message" of Marxism stayed. There was no actual Marxist governance in Soviet Russia; "Marxist" reforms and movements were only instigated as they would benefit Stalin (or whoever else was in power), a distinctly un-Marxist situation.
As to whether despotic communism follows inevitably from Marxism, I will admit you have a point there. While Marxist theory itself would generally condemn dictatorial rule, the practical implementation of Marxist ideas requires a high degree of centralizaiton (though communism took it farther than is, I think, strictly necessary--but that was the point, really), which lends itself to exploitation. In essence, it is not that Marxism is inherently "wrong;" it is simply rather utopian. That is, it presents an ideal world for cooperators, but implementations are weak against "defectors" (terminology from the prisoner's dilemma). One "bad apple" ruins the whole bunch and inherits the nominally Marxist structure of governance, twisting it to his will. Any highly centralized form of government runs this risk. However, the degree of centralization needed for socialist governance does not approach this boundary, which is, as I understand it, the intention.

All this aside, even if Barack Obama intended such radical changes as you claim possible, he would not be able to implement them. The federal government operates on a brilliantly contrarian system, compared to the parliamentary systems of many other countries; it is extraordinarily difficult to pass measures that drift towards either extreme, and more likely than not said measures, if enacted, will be repealed within the next eight years (Barack Obama is, in many ways, the cancellatory swing of the pendulum to the policies of the Bush administration; I would not be surprised at all if the next president is in turn more right-leaning).

[teancum79]

I like a lot of what Marx has brought to the world as far as his contributions to sociology go he is amazing. What bothers me about his approach is that it violates a fundamental right. The idea of people sharing and everyone being rich ya da ya da is a great goal a beautiful thing if it is done right. Human intimacy is a beautiful thing two people sharing themselves with each other. Rape on the other hand is a very ugly thing when one takes by force what should only be had when offered freely. If the rich guy wants to give his money to help the poor fine that is his choice. When a Government takes by force or threat of force the property of one to give to another it is the equivalent of rape.

The scary thing with Obama and part of this is due to his high level of charisma is that he is planing on enacting laws that undercut the constitution. Hate crimes laws have been used in other countries to effectually shut down Christian churches that do not alter their beliefs on sexual sin. Granted some of them are rather rude about it, but if they want to teach that homosexuality is a sin that is there right if they want to teach that women only left handed gay women who are of Asian and African decent will go to heaven it is there right to do so. When the government steps in and arrests or creates a civil liberality environment many churches have to change to meet the approval of the masses or close. This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. There is also talk of the "fairness doctrine" which lets the federal government require balance in the views and time of talk radio. It is a de facto direct government control over free speech. Once these things are in place it becomes very hard for people with views contrary to that of the government to get their message out.

On a side note Bush was a putz as far as being on the right we need someone like Ron Paul who thinks the constitution is something to follow not look for loop holes in to get this country back on a track that keeps us free.

[teancum79]

My brother foward this to me in an email. As far as I can tell it is accurate

Do you know who I am?

I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grew up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career, organizing people.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in war. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a peoples campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.


Who am I?







Adolf Hitler

Bet that's not who you guessed, right?