Obama's New VP: Joe Biden, a self proclaimed zionist. (video)

outstanding, I wish I was kidding, or that I could just pass it off as some unfounded conspiracy theory, but Joe Biden is in fact a zionist, and happy to be one.

Will we ever have someone who isn't a religious nut in the highest levels of government? Even worse, Zionism is basically a statement of stubborn arrogance and aggression.

Even zionists have to admit deep down, the only resolution for all the bloodshed is to give up their land. Israel is just another mini US in the middle east.

reply to post by scientist


The ObamaNuts don't understand that the people that their savior has surrounded himself with are just as Neocon-ish if not more so then the scum over at the Mcain camp.

We have nothing but a two headed neocon monster that has been trout out to the American people, so one could be elected.

America has the choice of:

1) Corporate Welfare Neocon

or

2) Socialist Welfare Neocon

This country is in the toilet, we are just waiting to be flushed into oblivion.



[edit on 23-8-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway




Socialist welfare neocon, really?

Is that anything like a commie-nazi?

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Socialism and Nazism (or fascism) are two sides of the same leftist coin. Where Communism/Socialism the State controls the means of production. In the case of Fascism the means of production are controlled by a select FEW that is sanctioned by the STATE, wherein competition is completely eliminated or heavily restricted. In either case you can say the STATE controls or dictates what or who is involved in the marketplace. Both are anti-capitalistic philosophical viewpoints.

Are you saying Mcain is not a corporatist, or are you saying that Obama is not a socialist? In either case both are anti-capitalists, that is for sure.


As for your question regarding Neocons it is neither New nor Conservative but a remnant of a leftist Troskyist philosophy. Neoconservatives should crawl back under its socialist rock from where it came. More importantly Neoconservativism is a view that see foreign intervention as a necessary tool in order achieve their desired goals. Both Mcain as well as Obama think FOREIGN intervention is a necessary tool that ought to be used in their foreign policy, ergo both Mcain and Obama are Neocons.


[edit on 23-8-2008 by Gateway]

reply to post by Gateway


If one's interpretation of capitalism is some sort of free market darwinism, essentially an anarchic non-regulated free for all, all coins and their sides are going to seem unsatisfactory.

Let me however correct you on one issue. It is not correct to equate fascism to nazism. The Nazis were but one kind of fascists. There have been plenty of non-nazi fascist military junta dictators and governments.

As to the rest of your argument, it is an interesting one in the context of an abstract political thought class at Bard college, it is more that a little far fetched and not imho very relevant to our current situation. Both these candidates, so far as I can tell, are as far away from neocon reach as possible.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by schrodingers dog]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

If one's interpretation of capitalism is some sort of free market darwinism, essentially an anarchic non-regulated free for all, all coins and their sides are going to seem unsatisfactory.

It would only seem unsatisfactory to those that prefer mercantilism, corporatism or outright socialism to capitalism. By the way, this country has not technically seen capitalism since the 1850's. We have continually seen in this country more and more regulation limiting competition, increases in subsidies, and more taxation. It is only that through sheer perseverance of the entrepreneur despite these hampers into the marketplace that they have made great leaps and strides in our standard of living.

Let me however correct you on one issue. It is not correct to equate fascism to nazism. The Nazis were but one kind of fascists. There have been plenty of non-nazi fascist military junta dictators and governments.

Point taken. Although Nazism and its antisemitic views is an element inherently leftist as well, since people are viewed as a collective an not as individuals. Be they the great Aryan nation (Collective) which must be preserved or the Jewish people (Collective) which must be eliminated. There not need be the element of RACISM for Fascism to exist, although its not very difficult to cross this very thin leftist line.

As to the rest of your argument, it is an interesting one in the context of an abstract political thought class at Bard college, it is more that a little far fetched and not imho very relevant to our current situation. Both these candidates, so far as I can tell, are as far away from neocon reach as possible.

What is a "Neocon" philosophy but a belief that a STRONG central government is necessary in order to affect foreign and domestic policy in order to achieve its desired goals. Both Mcain and Obama have not made any rhetoric that would prove contrary to the Neocon philosophy. They both would like to increase the size of federal government here at home. Granted, it is only semantics in just how they wish to achieve it. Mcain wants to increase Military spending to protect evils that he believes effects this country (ie Russia, War on Terror, Iran..etc) his economic policies dictate that corporations at home continue to feed at the D.C. trough.

Obama on the other hand also wishes to increase the size of Federal government, through the increase of social outlays, as well as to continue a policy of intervention where "HE AND HIS REGIME" will see it as a necessary tool. (ie Russia, Iran, War on Terror) Then we have Obama's economic policy. Here he shifts the subsidies from going to the Oil corporations to the Biofuels (You may like them, but they are subsidies nonetheless and no different than Mcain's doctrine) Obama also feels there is no need in cutting our subsidies to other corporations that have contributed to his campaigns, see the Farming industry, and the Medical Industry.

So you may not see the relevance of pointing out these facts that pertain to your candidate, regardless of whether you are pro-obama or pro-mcain. But, the fact of the matter is that both are Neconservative in every sense of the word. Their rhetoric and the people that they have elected to surround themselves with point to this fact. Whether you choose to see the writing on the wall or not, is up to you.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Gateway]

THis is how I see it:

McCain is aggressive, and will (ab)use the powers already in existence to further stomp on our freedoms, while possibly creating more, but under extreme scrutiny of the entire democratic party.

Obama is less aggressive, but perhaps more naive (a grand assumption, I admit). While he may not use or abuse the existing powers, he will most certainly expand on them, and create new massive laws that expand the government's role in many private industries. It could be for the greater good perhaps, but once someone else comes into office that's not as "hopeful," or well-intentioned (*cough* McCain *cough* cheney *cough* bush, etc.) it puts us ever further under oppression.

So really, it's lose/lose between the headline candidates.

reply to post by Gateway

The ObamaNuts don't understand that the people that their savior

And here on a website dedicated to 'denying ignorance', do we find some of the most ignorant quotes. You and your pathetic attempt at insulting and somehow rising above this mythical Obama cult you've created in your head are clear demonstrations at how people will only believe what they want to, and look for only biased info to support your claims.

It's not possible that the vast majority of people who support Obama simply like his policies better than the alternative, is it? No, not in your made up world of 'Obama nuts' and Obama 'savior'-ness.

I suggest that the next time you feel the need to insult others or feel insecure to the point of feeling that you need to show to others how much more aware you supposedly are in your own head, you keep it to yourself.

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by Gateway

 

The ObamaNuts don't understand that the people that their savior

And here on a website dedicated to 'denying ignorance', do we find some of the most ignorant quotes. You and your pathetic attempt at insulting and somehow rising above this mythical Obama cult you've created in your head are clear demonstrations at how people will only believe what they want to, and look for only biased info to support your claims.

It's not possible that the vast majority of people who support Obama simply like his policies better than the alternative, is it? No, not in your made up world of 'Obama nuts' and Obama 'savior'-ness.

I suggest that the next time you feel the need to insult others or feel insecure to the point of feeling that you need to show to others how much more aware you supposedly are in your own head, you keep it to yourself.

Obamanuts...

Are supporters that have created a myth-like status symbol around their candidate, there is a clear "cult status" that is being pushed by either his supporters, the media, or both. In either case it is an image people especially leftist are buying into and perpetuating. This "image" is not being created and pushed on others by the Mcain camp, so the image that you and I know exist, yet you deny is a very real image that the left has picked-up and continues to promote.

These uninformed supporters think they are voting for the "anti-establishment guy", their "anti-war candidate" so to speak, when he clearly is not. This is the image portrayed and the image fed to the masses through the MSM. Obama supporters buy into this haphazardly, without any research and so usually have absolute "zero" knowledge or understanding of what the guy politically, economically, and socially stands for. It appears you are a carbon copy of said supporters, because instead of debating me on the points I made above regarding Obama and his clear ties to the Neocon philosophy, you jump down my throat and accuse me of being an intellectual bully.

It is one thing to rightly point out, "I will vote for Obama because the government needs to step-in and involve itself and expand Education, Medical spending, Welfare, and other social issues, as well as to continue a Strong Military presence in 135 countries around the world; and that Iran, and Russia are clear threats to the American people, and so we must continue to the path of supporting Israel no matter what its policy. That the Federal reserve is a needed institution and has nothing to do with inflation and the decline of the dollar".

Originally posted by bigbert81
the vast majority of people who support Obama simply like his policies better than the alternative

I agree 100%, and that's the scary thing - he IS the best of both evils, but it's still a horrible choice.

Not like we've ever really had many great choices, in the history of politics

reply to post by Gateway


Hmm.. everyone throws around Neocon

What does it mean?

I have seen Liberals called it, Conservatives called it, Socialist, fascist all called it..

It's a blanket term to describe those who support policies certain individuals don't like..

Me? I call them Bastards.

reply to post by Rockpuck


I've posted this before but I'd rather re-post it then type it, my hands hurt...anyway, there are tons of books on the history of the Necons and its roots, and their rejection of the old right conservatism of smaller government and non-interventionist policy.

Originally posted by Gateway
Neo-Conservative = New Conservative. NeoConservatives derive their philosophical roots from Marxist leftist ideology, they were followers of Trotsky's philosophical view of foreign intervention through perpetual "revolutions". These, leftist ideologues (particular Jewish intellectuals) left the Democratic party because they perceived the Liberal democrats were loosing their tastes for more pro-active involvement throughout the world in foreign intervention.

Thus, these leftists ultimately slithered their way into the Republican party and started to refer to themselves as Neoconservative. Where they combined their policy of larger Federal Government to effect both domestic and foreign. These Neoconservatives have kept to their original beliefs, i.e. larger and proactive federal government in both domestic and foreign affairs to achieve their desired goals. And thus rejected the old conservative philosophy now referred to as paleoconservativism, which was small Federal government and non-interventionist policy.

The Democrats have to some degree always been more proactive with a larger central government. They've always believed in a STRONG and huge federal government, and also apply this philosophy to their foreign policy. Leftist believe, as in their domestic policy of intervening and correcting what "IT" perceived is wrong, and duly apply this belief in their foreign policy. So, when I refer to Neoconservative leftists I'm accurately describing the likes of, Pelosi, Obama, Lieberman, since all, are clamoring for further foreign intervention, and thirsting for Russian blood.

Bellow here on the wikipedia is a brief discussion of Neoconservatives.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even the CFR, has a brief article on the subject matter:

Trotskyism to Anachronism: The Neoconservative Revolution

www.foreignaffairs.org...

Personally, I would rather you not get your education from pedestrian resources, such as Wiki. I recommend these books, as a good starting point:

www.amazon.com...

or

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219014355&sr=8-2

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Gateway]

Thanks mate, great description and best I have yet read of "what is a neoconservative" .. which I guess means they are not conservative at all. Or necessarily Liberal. I suppose a title unto themselves ..

Would you say then both parties candidates are Neocons?

reply to post by Rockpuck

No problem,

Yes to be precise, the current candidates are two slightly different versions of Neocons.

Remember to be a Neocon you just basically have to have belief in a strong central government to influence domestic and foreign policy. The foreign policy is THE key ingredient. There are social, democracies like Sweden and Germany or Spain or several other nations across Europe that believe in a strong central government to guide domestic policy. But they do not use this strong central government to affect their foreign policy. You never really hear of Norway, threatening other nations if they don't change their government to its liking. Granted this may change with the abomination known as "European Union", unfortunately now we are beginning to hear rumblings from a Central State known as the EU trying to influence other nations to "change its ways". This I believe is wrong, regardless of the good intentions, nations must be allowed to change from within. The people of Venezuela or Cuba or Iran or Saudi Arabia are and should be the only participants to change their nation state to how they see fit, not the U.S. not the E.U.

Now as far as Obama goes:

Obama wishes to maintain a large Federal Government to influence both domestic and foreign policy. He see nothing wrong with promoting democracy around the world, regardless of whether the world wants it or not. They also would like to maintain the status quo on the "War on Terror", although Obama would like to keep killing Afghans, rather than Iraqis; All of this without acknowledging that it is our own foreign policy of meddling which has created the resentment around the world, in the first place. Obama also feels that Iran is a threat to Israel and must be dealt with. Obama wants to increase social spending here at home, which means either 1) Monetize the debt (or in other words have the Fed buy up U.S. treasuries, this is fancy talk for printing the dollars to pay for his social programs, which leads to inflation and the decline of the value of the dollar) or 2) Tax (I don't know who he is going to tax, regardless its bad. If you tax, you don't create wealth you just redistribute it.) 3) Or have Foreigners loan us the money, that we don't have, increasing our debt.


Mcain also wishes to maintain a large Federal Government to influence both domestic and foreign policy. Although he doesn't want to increase the size of government programs per se, but rather the Military, in either case the SIZE of government here is STILL increased nonetheless, just like Obama would like it, but re-arranging it in another form. He certainly sees nothing wrong with our attack of Iraq, furthermore he thinks we should continue "our war on terror", and if need be prepare stop Iran from acquiring weapons. Mcain also faces the same problems that Obama's policy will create in that: 1) Monetize the debt (or in other words have the Fed buy up U.S. treasuries, this is fancy talk for printing the dollars to pay for his social programs, which leads to inflation and the decline of the value of the dollar) or 2) Tax (I don't know who he is going to tax, regardless it's bad. If you tax, you don't create wealth you just redistribute it.) 3) Or have Foreigners loan us the money, that we don't have, increasing our debt.

So as you can see, here in the U.S. not much will change. We will have a larger government and a foreign policy that continues to meddle in other nation's affairs. Why do we meddle? Simply because it is in the interest of a few elite here in the U.S., particularly on behalf of large multinational companies.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Gateway]

I think it's also important to note that Biden is strongly opposed to online freedoms, and will most likely reduce the number of freedoms we all take for granted right now.

gizmodo.com...

• He asked Congress to spend $1 billion to monitor peer-to-peer activity. (In fairness, much of this is to prevent child pornography, but the tactic is apparently a little blunt.)

• Two Biden bills have been explicitly anti-encryption, because you know, encryption makes it hard for the FBI to read people's e-mails.

• He has expressed support for internet taxes and internet filtering in schools and libraries.

• The RIAA seems to be one of his best buddies: Biden sponsored a bill that would restrict recording of songs from satellite and net radio, and another one that would make it a felony to "trick" a computer into playing back unauthorized songs or running bootlegged videogames. That latter one died when Verizon, Microsoft, Apple, eBay and Yahoo all argued against it.

• Biden was one of just four senators invited to attend a celebration of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hosted by the MPAA's Jack Valenti and the RIAA's Hillary Rosen, two of American file-sharer's most wanted.

• When he was asked in 2006 about proposing net-neutrality laws, he said there was no need, since any bit-filtering violations would provoke such a huge public ruckus they'd have to hold congressional hearings anyway--and they'd be standing-room only.