is "what did they do with the money?" Was it used to finance a war, or did they give it to another person? It's what I refer to as a HUGE DIFFERENCE. The difference between a Marxist and a non-Marxist. You just cannot get away from "spread the wealth around" = "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". What Adam Smith actually suggested doing with the money would define him far more than the half-truth quote that Bolling offers.

The only way to deny that Obama is a Marxist is to wilfully suspend disbelief. I am convinced that liberals are better at this than conservatives. They are also stingier. Conservatives already give 30% more than their liberal counterparts. I guess liberals like it taken from them by force. Forced charity. Sounds Marxist to me. Forced giving. We can all be equal that way. Equally poor.

Then, real conservatives can take the part back. After four years of being rapidly boiled by BO and the dems (as opposed to being slowly boiled by W and the repubs), there will be a political revolution, returning us to a more constitutional form of government. That will not occur, however, without a complete dismantling of the current, so called, not even slightly conservative republican party.

It is currently brimming with arrogance, corruption, and the best way to buy into and stay in power, socialism. Too bad Ron Paul didn't moderate his message a bit. He would have been much better than either of the two liberal socialists running.

If you think the dems won't dissapoint you, however, just remember the "100 days" of doing absolutely nothing of consequence. Even I was dissapointed.

but that does not negate the fact that Obama is one too. It has been my contention that the Federal government started its slide to socialism long ago.

It is a pretty pathetic argument to sugest that because someone might be construed as "as bad" as someone else that it somehow excuses the actions of another.

Murderer: "I'm not that bad, other people have murdered too."

Me: Ok, so you're a murderer.

Obama: "By your standards Nixon, McCain, etc. is a socialist too."

Me: Ok, so you're a socialist.

BTW, I do not recall Reagan ever campaigning for socialized medicine, and I am old enough to remember.

of Pelosi, Reed, Murtha, etc. Obama is sure to inspire and please. Just kidding. He will be as big a disappointment to his supporters as the aforementioned "100 days" crusaders. If you have not figured out that the oligarchy runs the show by now, then you're just plain stupid. 700 billion dollars (so far) stupid. And remember the dems voted for that little pat-on-the-back to the bankers, just like the repubs.

The only real effect that BO may have is to shame the republicans into becoming a tiny bit more conservative, but not really enough to matter. I don't know why you loving, tolerant liberals seethe with so much hatred for Bush (or anyone/anything else for that matter - Doesn't that go against your central values of love/peace/tolerance... Ha, ha, never mind. Just ignore this parenthetical digression), after all, he presided over the most liberal government to date. Remember, the biggest entitlement program in many, many years is the Medicare drug program. You should love the guy. He has spent more of your tax dollars than just about anyone, and you know how liberals love the government spending programs.

Equality for all! Whether they actually deserve it or not. Two cars in every driveway, and a big screen TV in every living room! SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND, BABY.

"Given their angst and frustration, it is no surprise that liberals have been enjoying the loudest (and last?) laughs during our current, pioneering age of dark, ironic humor."

What, don't you remember all those SNL skits about Billy Boy? Or how about Clinton's closing remark to Lisa Simpson when she complained about his bad example: "Well I’m a pretty bad president".

If Obama wins, you can count on the laughter dying, as the realization sets in that he will be no more effective than Pelosi, Reed, Murtha, et al have been. Stop living in a fantasy world.

Yes, Stuart's ratings will fade as Michael Savage's soar. You see, conservatives welcome criticism of the republicans far more than liberals tolerate criticism of the democrats. Savage will rail and Stuart will be in a lose/lose situation. He won't be allowed to slam BO, and with a dem majority, won't be able to blame repubs. He will go the way of Air America. It's shaping up to be a boring (though Savagely manic) four years.

Looking forward to being equally poor? Spread the wealth around BO, baby (as long as it's your wealth, not mine).

I can always count on a liberal for my daily dose of profanity. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Does liberal=profane? Seems so. Just rile em up a little and out it comes. So civilized, so impressive. So adult.

The other thing liberals excel at is jumping to conclusions that support their biases. You assume that because I critique a democrat that I am somehow a supporter of republicans. If you do even the most cursory of research, you will find that I support neither, but then, that would not fit with your world view that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow your mortal enemy.

So much for the liberal credo. I have found the love/peace/tolerance line to be the biggest lie of all. The evidence that I have collected here and at other public forums is that liberals can be the most hateful, biased people I have ever encountered.

Spread the love, spread the wealth.

Remember Kathy Sierra.

Mortgage and gas paid for, everything will be oooooo kkkkkkk. But he better hurry. I got no time for political scuses.

BO has already picked a conservative bulldog as his chief of staff.