Blogs 4 Brownback

April 14, 2008

Obama and Marx: Even Joe Lieberman Can’t Tell the Difference

Filed under: Barack Obama,Democrats — Psycheout @ 8:41 pm
Tags: , , ,

Che ObamaWe’ve pointed out before that Barack Obama is likely a closet communist and a gay homosexual crackhead, and now Senate colleague Joe Lieberman even admits that he’s unsure whether the boy Senator is a Marxist. Frankly, I don’t blame him. Who can tell?

Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) if Obama is “a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case?” “I must say that’s a good question,” replied Lieberman, before stepping back to say that he would “hesitate to say he’s a Marxist.”

Wow, if even a Senate co-worker is unsure whether Islamobama is a Marxist, how are the voters supposed to tell? It’s just not worth the risk. It’s high time that elitist snob Barry Obama comes clean with the American people, or at the very least disavow communism and go on record to state clearly and under oath that he was never a member of the Communist Party. He should also inform the American people that Marx was wrong.

Barring that, he should go run for President of Russia. Fair enough? What say you?

— Psycheout

41 Comments »

  1. Maybe you need to take some ESL classes, ese. Lieberman stated that he doesn’t believe Obama is a marxist. Joe’s obviously horribly right-wing, so saying Obama has stances to his left is like saying Cookie Monster vaguely enjoys cookies. McCain is left-wing, compared to Lieberman.

    But hey, gotta spread that anti-black hate, right?

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 14, 2008 @ 9:06 pm | Reply

  2. I want a Che Obama tee-shirt.

    Comment by A. Wench — April 14, 2008 @ 9:57 pm | Reply

  3. Did you know that, if you put your mind to it, you can super-glue your foreskin to a Smart car and drag it for at least 5 yards.

    Comment by Pervy Gnome — April 15, 2008 @ 7:15 am | Reply

  4. If Bill Kristol is saying this you can take it too the bank. Bill is about one of the most perceptive pundits out there and has been on target with everything he has said so far. Even if Obama doesn’t label himself a Maxist the secular humanist agenda of Communism is a natural all of the totalitarian theocracy advocated by Islam.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — April 15, 2008 @ 11:53 am | Reply

  5. BJ, for everyone’s sake, grammar check your posts before you hit ‘submit.’ I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 15, 2008 @ 12:30 pm | Reply

  6. 3/10

    Next time, make it less obvious, troll.

    Comment by eBaums Fag — April 15, 2008 @ 1:35 pm | Reply

  7. Obama could solve all questions about his intentions if he actually said something of substance. Out of the three peons “officially” remaining in the presidential race (as determined by our media overlords), he brings the least to the table (in terms of an agenda). In a lot of ways, he reminds me of Khrushchev and his de-Stalinization efforts in post WWII Russia (Big on talk, small on action). Obama speaks of great change but can’t be the catalyst as he is in too deep to the established DC political machine. He will ultimately prove to be a huge disappointment if he gets elected since his lack of a clear agenda will lead to huge expectations from the public. This of course is assuming the write in campaign for the Most Honorable Senator Brownback fails…and thats just silly…

    Comment by Diablo — April 15, 2008 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

  8. I agree Diablo, that’s why I am a McCain backer; we need the calm steady hand of John McCain at the helm of the ship of state in the rough seas we are in now thanks to two years of Democratic misrule. The last thing we need is a leader prone to emotional outbursts like a spoiled child.

    Comment by BJ Tabor — April 15, 2008 @ 2:46 pm | Reply

  9. “This of course is assuming the write in campaign for the Most Honorable Senator Brownback fails…and thats just silly…”
    What’s silly? The failure, or the idea that a write-in campaign will ever work for anyone besides Chuck Norris?

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 15, 2008 @ 3:34 pm | Reply

  10. Actually, I don’t agree.

    Obama has written more than 64 pages about his policy and it’s a proven that he’s had a better track record in the senate than Hillary or mcCain. This is clearly a republican talking point which has been something I call a “mind virus”. It’s catchy to say Obama isn’t of substance, and people buy it as a result. They don’t even do their research.

    In fact, after reading about McCain’s economic plan, I’ve been even less a supporter of McCain. I do appreciate the fact that McCain has balls, but in the end, McCain is really the one with the lacking policy.

    Think ’08.

    Comment by angie — April 15, 2008 @ 4:49 pm | Reply

  11. PS. anyone who believes in the trickle-down effect is obviously a fail in my mind. Gas-tax cuts aren’t going to redistribute wealth to the middle clss, they’re only going to redistribute it within companies. Anyone at business school would agree with you, but I do realize that theres a deep anti-intellectual sentiment here. Anti-critical thinking. If that’s your case, just admit it. That’s fine too.

    Comment by angie — April 15, 2008 @ 4:52 pm | Reply

  12. This of course is assuming the write in campaign for the Most Honorable Senator Brownback fails…and thats just silly…

    Amen, Diablo! Right on the money.

    Comment by Psycheout — April 15, 2008 @ 6:51 pm | Reply

  13. Even if Obama doesn’t label himself a Maxist the secular humanist agenda of Communism is a natural all of the totalitarian theocracy advocated by Islam.

    Too bad you’re an idiot, and Obama happens to be Christian. Oh, that’s right, wasn’t there controversy over some stuff his PASTOR said?

    Get back to your crack, tweaker.

    Obama speaks of great change but can’t be the catalyst as he is in too deep to the established DC political machine. He will ultimately prove to be a huge disappointment if he gets elected since his lack of a clear agenda will lead to huge expectations from the public.

    You’d be surprised at the willpower of the people. Or did you forget how the democrats took over congress?

    His agenda is nothing like Kerry’s. Obama actually has plans, and plans with LOGIC, to boot. Hilary has nice pipe dreams(health insurance for all, sudden day-one troop pullout), but they’re just that. None of her plans call for any sort of economic logic, they just call for ideals. Obama himself said that although it would be nice to have health insurance access for all, it’s just unrealistic. He opts for the children because they matter the most– they are the FUTURE, something the religious right never seems to understand. McCain just barely gets the idea that the environment needs to be protected, and Hilary can’t shut up about how great she is, too busy to even draw anything.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 15, 2008 @ 10:55 pm | Reply

  14. Dio, your setting yourself up for disappointment. Your just buying into a media image rather than a candidate. Its all smoke and mirrors just like the democratic take over of the congress. What exactly have they done with their mandate from “the People”? Troops totals actually increased and they continue to rubber stamp the goals of a lame duck president. Nancy Perlosi has to do down in history as one of the worse speakers of the house. This last session has been a joke. As for willpower of the people…the Nazis had the willpower of the people. Dio, Obama is just a person, not the godlike figure, to look to for inspiration, that you’ve made him out to be (that should be the Most Honorable Senator Brownback). And judging from the fact he is a member of congress, most likely Obama has done some terrible things in the past and is morally dead inside. For example, I heard that he likes hookers to lay in ice for a while and then lie on a bed, perfectly still…almost deathly still, has he chokes himself and masturbates onto a stuffed animal. Considering how many members of congress have gotten in trouble for sick stuff in the past, this wouldn’t be a shocker to anyone (although it’s safe to assume the media would give him a complete pass on “Dead Hooker-Gate”.

    Comment by Diablo — April 16, 2008 @ 5:35 am | Reply

  15. Do any of you agree that Daphne (from the Scooby Doo show) could fit at least a pint of chocolate ice-cream up her poop-chute before it started to dribble out a bit ?

    Comment by Pervy Gnome — April 16, 2008 @ 7:31 am | Reply

  16. “For example, I heard that he likes hookers to lay in ice for a while and then lie on a bed, perfectly still…almost deathly still, has he chokes himself and masturbates onto a stuffed animal”
    Around these parts, “I heard” equates to “I’m making this up.”

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 16, 2008 @ 8:45 am | Reply

  17. That’s petty much how our pathetic national media currently operates. I should call CNN and get me a job….

    Comment by Diablo — April 16, 2008 @ 12:16 pm | Reply

  18. “That’s petty much how our pathetic national media currently operates.”
    Doesn’t mean you can get away with it. Cite your claims or don’t claim at all.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 16, 2008 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

  19. Ha ha ha…Seriously EB, you are priceless. The 4th branch of our government (the media) is arguably just as critical or more so than any of the others. Without the media, we would be living in a much more oppressive world. Sadly our media is getting attacked from all sides. Lack of interest, higher operating costs, big business ownership and the numerous scandals involving journalistic integrity have all taken a toll on this vital tool of the people. Or, if your a complete idiot like EB, I am to blame. EB, this site isn’t a newspaper. The people that comment on this page do not have to operate under the same requirements or guidelines as journalists. I don’t have cite my claims, nor did I make any claims as I merely repeated a rumor that I heard. Furthermore, I repeated it and stated it was a rumor. I should not have to explain things this simple to an adult. Seriously dude, either think before you type or at least try not to sound like a petulant, uneducated child. I don’t go all stupid on you every time you refuse to refer to the Most Honorable Senator Brownback by his proper title.

    Comment by Diablo — April 16, 2008 @ 2:22 pm | Reply

  20. “The people that comment on this page do not have to operate under the same requirements or guidelines as journalists.”
    But it sure would be great if they did. It could be an important baby step in returning personal accountability to America.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 16, 2008 @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  21. Its all smoke and mirrors just like the democratic take over of the congress. What exactly have they done with their mandate from “the People”? Troops totals actually increased and they continue to rubber stamp the goals of a lame duck president.

    First off, play less Metal Gear Solid 2. Second, although the Democrats have majority, they don’t have 2/3rds majority. That means that the president still has the most influence. The dems aren’t stupid– they’re not going to starve the troops and let them die just to make a point to Bush.

    As for willpower of the people…the Nazis had the willpower of the people.

    Godwin’s Law. Also, there was TONS of anti-semetic rhetoric floating all over Europe back then. Two Jewish men were the ones to greenlight every crippling strike on Germany after World War I, which didn’t help any. So yes, that was indeed the will of the people.

    You know what else was driven by the will of the people? The Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the Orange Revolution, the Renaissance…

    EB, this site isn’t a newspaper.

    Yet the site operators act like B4B is THE informative news source(and parade it around as such).

    I don’t have cite my claims, nor did I make any claims as I merely repeated a rumor that I heard.

    Then don’t expect anyone to believe you. And don’t get upset when I relay rumors I’ve heard– like how you like to kidnap babies, boil them alive, and then have sex with them.

    I don’t go all stupid on you every time you refuse to refer to the Most Honorable Senator Brownback by his proper title.

    His title is “Senator”. THAT is his proper title. He’s not a judge.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 16, 2008 @ 10:18 pm | Reply

  22. The dems aren’t stupid– they’re not going to starve the troops and let them die just to make a point to Bush.

    What’s really sad and pathetic is that they’d really love to. Thankfully troop supporting Republicans won’t let them. I bet it just eats Democraps like you up inside.

    Comment by Psycheout — April 16, 2008 @ 11:12 pm | Reply

  23. What’s really sad and pathetic is that they’d really love to. Thankfully troop supporting Republicans won’t let them. I bet it just eats Democraps like you up inside.

    Right, and that’s why they voted to continue supplying troops.

    P.S.: I’m not a Democrat, so go blow yourself.😀

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 16, 2008 @ 11:58 pm | Reply

  24. Brownback is married, isn’t he ? Do you know if his wife can shoot a ping-pong ball out of her tuppence ?

    Praise be to Richard Dawkins

    Comment by Pervy Gnome — April 17, 2008 @ 6:57 am | Reply

  25. Dio, come on. Your telling me that President Bush is basically holding the democrats hostage with their majority in Congress. Stop drinking the kool-aid for a second and think for yourself. That logic makes as much sense as the democrats that voted for the President to send troops to Iraq, trying to say they never thought the president would actually send the troops. The democrats are scared to do what they were voted into office to do, which is end this war. Heck, they are barely even voicing an opposition to the war anymore and this is hurting their party significantly. If they actually took a stand, and voted either yeah or nay on this war, a lot of the infighting between Obama and Hillary supporters would go away. No longer would they refer back to when the war vote was first voted on, and who supported what, but on a new, current vote. Clearly this would lessen the differences between the two and make a potential ticket with both on it that much easier for their perspective supporters to swallow. But even though that would make sense, it requires a unified party with clear goals. I know you don’t like my opinions but you have to admit, I’ve got a point here.

    Comment by Diablo — April 17, 2008 @ 12:56 pm | Reply

  26. “The democrats are scared to do what they were voted into office to do, which is end this war.”
    Every legislation they’ve tried to pass gets vetoed. If it’s going to be a waste of red tape, why bother?

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 17, 2008 @ 2:13 pm | Reply

  27. What the heck?!?! Its too hard to do their job so they aren’t expected to listen to their voters? How do you even get motivated to vote if you don’t expect your elected officials to do a darn thing unless its easy? EB, some of the stuff you type is just sickening….

    Comment by Diablo — April 17, 2008 @ 3:09 pm | Reply

  28. So rather than wait until they can make a difference, you want them to continue trying to pass legislation that will get vetoed by a corrupt president that couldn’t possibly care what the people want? With the Republicans in Congress to prevent them from having 2/3 majority, I’d rather they wait until the next election before they use our tax dollars.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 17, 2008 @ 3:52 pm | Reply

  29. Dio, come on. Your telling me that President Bush is basically holding the democrats hostage with their majority in Congress.

    Ah, I see now. You’re an idiot. You need about 2/3rds of the vote in both the House and the Senate to override a Presidential veto.

    I know you don’t like my opinions but you have to admit, I’ve got a point here.

    Unfortunately, you seem to think that you don’t need the 2/3rds command power to override a veto. Right now, all the dems can do is try and block whatever the president introduces. I’m not sure if you missed the original two points of the dems’ flood, but here they are:

    -The overwhelming majority of Republican seats that were up for grabs, were lost to Democrats.

    -Appointment of the first female Speaker.

    Everyone knew it was primarily symbolic. However, there are a number of Republicans that are more moderate in their stances, hence why there was fear within the conservative ranks. Ah, but at the same time, not all of the Democrats who were there to begin with, or came in, are liberal. There are a number of moderate(and in Lieberman’s case, conservative) Democrats, too.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 17, 2008 @ 7:57 pm | Reply

  30. Dio and EB…I realize that the Dems have no hope in over riding a presidential veto. The fact that are not even willing to try bothers me and I believe a growing number of their supporters. I don’t think they would be wasting any money (especially since they get paid even when they don’t bother to show up to vote) on putting on paper their willingness to either stop this war or continue with the status quo. A symbolic victory can be just as important as a true victory. I think a vote would serve to consolidate democratic support in the general election. Instead, the democratic party has done little to show a difference from the Republicans which I believe is one of the causes of the vicious infighting between Obama and Hilary supporters. They are literally fighting over semantics as opposed to real differences.

    Side note: I’m proud of Nancy making it to speaker of the house. She has gotten farther than any other person from my city (Baltimore) other than Agnew(before he stepped down for tax issues). I just feel that the democrats are wasting a opportunity to actually be a catalyst for change in this country.

    Comment by Diablo — April 17, 2008 @ 9:16 pm | Reply

  31. Oh, I know the Dems are mostly battling themselves. However, I think most of them have actually began to make up, thanks to all the battling between Clinton and Obama. I support Obama in part because unlike Hilary, he actually yearns to listen to everyone. Every time Clinton speaks, it leads back to ME ME ME ME ME I AM SO GREAT ME ME ME. McCain’s certainly better than that(though he seems a bit reluctant to paint himself as ultra-conservative, since he totally isn’t), and Obama leads things into “we, together, both parties”.

    Nonetheless, without that 2/3rds power, the Dems can’t be blamed for all of what’s going on. No one’s stupid enough to starve the troops just to punish the President, but no one wants some endless war, either.

    I mean, if Bush wants to fund something like Outer Heaven, then he needs to just do so, but not with the money of the taxpayers.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 17, 2008 @ 10:14 pm | Reply

  32. I am not blaming them for not stopping Bush from doing what he wants. I just think that it is complete BS for democrats in office to say to the people that voted for them, that they can’t stand up to Bush because they don’t have the 2/3rds majority. Its a cop out and a way for them to do as little as possible and blame the other side for their inaction. I don’t see how the national democratic party can expect its supporters not to be disappointed with this current congress.

    Comment by Diablo — April 17, 2008 @ 10:55 pm | Reply

  33. It’s not BS. It’s literally impossible, due to checks and balances. But they can be as vocal as they want, while doing their best to shoot down anything he sends them(outside of the obvious like SHOULD WE STARVE OUR TROOPS).

    I’m not terribly satisfied with the Dems, but I have hope for Obama’s ability to bring together. Hell, on voter turnout alone, he’s done an amazing job.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 18, 2008 @ 12:21 am | Reply

  34. Let me put it to you this way, Diablo. Who would you prefer: a Republican who has the whole party behind him and manages to mess up our country to a point we thought unattainable, or a Democrat who barely makes the party nomination but ushers in a better age, or at least unf*cks the country after the last asshat president?

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 18, 2008 @ 1:17 am | Reply

  35. I would prefer a Republican that lived up to conservative principles or a democrat that lived up to their liberal principles. Instead we have candidates that you could drop into either party and they would be towing the same line. Thats why we need the Most Honorable Senator Brownback to break the log jam in DC.

    Comment by Diablo — April 18, 2008 @ 8:14 am | Reply

  36. But Brownback would ignore the voice of the people in favor of the Religious Right minority. That’s not a leader.

    Comment by Elephant Bones — April 18, 2008 @ 10:19 am | Reply

  37. Thats why we need the Most Honorable Senator Brownback to break the log jam in DC.

    The Most Horrible Senator BrownbacKKK dropped out and won’t be back either.

    Comment by MoxoM — April 18, 2008 @ 11:02 am | Reply

  38. Thats why we need the Most Honorable Senator Brownback to break the log jam in DC.

    Amen!

    Comment by Psycheout — April 18, 2008 @ 1:27 pm | Reply

  39. I doubt Brownback is as far-right as Mike “Eat the babies” Huckabee, but he still wouldn’t cater to the whole of the people. He’d just cater to his financial backers and extremist Christian groups.

    Comment by Dio Brando — April 18, 2008 @ 2:06 pm | Reply

  40. You know, I am thinking that this pervy gnome fellow makes posts of far more impact than anyone who contributes to this blog.
    That is a good point, sir Gnome, although I have only ever seen that particular act portrayed in a movie often referred to as simply “Priscilla”.

    Comment by Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu — April 18, 2008 @ 11:56 pm | Reply

  41. We who protect America,call upon obama to withdraw from this contest, he is associated with terrorist, and that disqualifies him from this contest,he also should resign from the senate and a special independent council should investigate completely obama and his past. To Hillary and bill , you both have sworn to protect America,you must win this contest, the far left houses terrorist in the democratic party, the elections in south Carolina and north Carolina, and Indiana were fixed from the beginning, in Indiana you won that by 12 points,however when the results came in after 1;00 a/m in the morning,that was done to shave the amount needed to reduce to a low percentage to reduce votes and del agate count, same was done in north Carolina, she won that by a small margin,but when the votes came in they were out of bounds, to give obama the vote count for popular vote and to add del agates to obama,that count was the most corrupt, pure fraud and south Carolina the same. They mean to win and they are being dishonest.

    Comment by dd — May 7, 2008 @ 4:28 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: