to turn this into a mailer, eh?

... that warm, caring smile:

Am I the only one who thinks Bolling has drawn the most attractive and sympathetic caricature of Richard Nixon in living memory?

Both sides could have left the tax cut issue behind after Clinton. They still would have found plenty of issues to dispute. Everything would be much better now.

But, no. The Republicans just had to keep it up, because they do not understand any real issues. We in the USA are dead. No chance of statesmanship now, only suicidal tax cuts ad infinitum.

That's what the commie, pinkoes are! Unmutual!

I'm shocked McCain isn't accusing whomever decided to call the Red States Red and The Blue states blue, "A Neo-Communist" (Who Did decide this anyway?)I'm sure McCain never shared his Tinker toys, or especially his Lincoln Logs, (prime neo-republican toy), with any of the other kids.

seriously though, what scares me is not these ridiculous ads, nor this fabulous comedic commentary on these ads and inane accusations the losing, poorly prosecuted campaign, (not unlike another poorly planned Campaign that has cost more than 3000 young american lives thus far, not to mention exponentially grown our national debt, but the fact that it is assumed and possibly true that this large a portion of the national electorate is so ignorant and poorly educated that they may actually buy into any of this claptrap!)

Forget about "No Child left behind"! When a measurable portion of the voting public can be bamboozled into believing that Obama is a Muslim, or a terrorist, "An Arab"!, a Socialist, (most of the repeating mouths spewing these "facts" forth cannot even define socialism, let alone name a practicing socialist politician in the world today, let alone point out their country on a map), what about all the adults who have not just been left behind, but cannot even find the starting line? And they get to vote? And it counts the same amount as someone, on either side, who has spent hours researching their choice's stances on the issues?

Maybe the founding fathers had something when they gave the vote only to people who owned a bit of land, (which implied you were smart enough to put a land deal together, amass a fortune, or came from a background wealthy enough where you were probably privately tutored). If the vote was only given to those who passed a minimal reading comprhension/IQ test, the politics of this nation would be transformed, and smart, intelligent people, who now smartly choose to stay in the private sector, may be enticed to get out there into the halls of power out of true patriotism instead of choosing politics because they were too ugly to succeed as an actor, or are so wealthy or power hungry that their freedom to vote with their moral compass or true political beliefs are thrown out the window by the almost completely ignorant electorate they are forced to kowtow to. The whole thing is just SAD, SAD, SAD. Evem Obama, who has been forced to be somewhat vague about some his views or solutions out of worry that any comments may be twisted around to entice the ignorant into believing these obvious lies are truth, has had to succumb to the job of dumbing down his talents to appeal to the LCD of a large part of the population. To succeed at Harvard Law or law in general, is all about paying attention to extreme detail and a deeply layered set of thought processes. were he to campaign with his full intellect at the fore, he'd REALLY be accused of being "an elitist". How sad is it that people desire someone as intellectually blah as themselves instead of wanting to vote for a mind whose IQ and confidence in mindset dwarfs us all. The last thing I want is sombody only as smart as I am to run this complicated government!

Ruben, I think I love you... in a platonic, restraining-order-not-required kind of way, of course. This "he's a socialist" stuff is just such a farce.

I had exactly the same thought -- if Obama is a Socialist, then Ike was a hard-core Communist.

To use the words and actions of a public figure against them and the highlight the hypocracy of their public statements.

Bravo, Rube, Bravo!

I laughed my ass off at that one.

So true though.

"...to ensure pro-American values in the motherland."

Obviously, the writer of this memo is not right-thinking. Real Americans don't refer to "the motherland" - it's The Homeland.

Every single one of 'em gets more money back from the federal government than it pays in taxes.

COMMIES!!!!!!!

Ruben Bolling is the king of Reductio Ad Absurdum. He makes it look easy.

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.

"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.

You seem to be making a blanket assumption here that any money put towards war is by definition "good," while any money given to another person (which, keep in mind, also happens when you put money towards war) is bad. To make such a blanket, non-critical comment casts you as a warmonger. Is that your intention?

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.

What Bolling is pointing out is that most politicians, including many conservative ones, engaged in these types of policies to a far greater degree than Obama is suggesting. People have received government support in one form or another since the New Deal. Eisenhower and Marx are only different by degree. But as no one would ever call Ike a Marxist, then it's absurd to call Obama one.

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.

I don't know. Believing that Saddam was a threat to the US, that his WMDs were shipped off to Syria, and that George Bush is something other than the worst US president since Reconstruction requires some pretty stunning delusion.

They are also stingier. Conservatives already give 30% more than their liberal counterparts.

Can you support that claim?