• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems at risk of losing Obama's old Senate seat

Councilman

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,657
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Dems at risk of losing Obama's old Senate seat :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Lynn Sweet

Could this be a harbinger* of things to come?

November 15, 2009

BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
WASHINGTON -- About a year ago, thousands jammed Grant Park in Chicago to celebrate Barack Obama's election to the White House, a communal civic defining moment. But those giddy days are long gone as Democrats in Illinois face the potential of losing the Senate seat President Obama once held next November.

The Illinois primary is Feb. 2, and the Democrat and Republican races are ripening, with the deadlines to file or withdraw nominating petitions now passed.

Democratic Party leaders in Washington -- and the Obama White House -- failed to recruit a candidate strong enough to scare Rep. Mark Kirk -- the Republicans' best bet -- from the race. The only luck they had was the decision by Sen. Roland Burris -- appointed by now-indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Obama's remaining term -- not to run to keep the seat.

The chairman of the Democratic Party of Illinois -- Michael J. Madigan, the speaker of the Illinois House -- is the father of Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who rebuffed Obama and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee when they wooed her for the Senate. Papa Madigan, more concerned with keeping his state House majority, doesn't really care who the senator is.

A look at the leading Democratic and GOP Senate candidates:
Click to expand...

Looks like Obama's going to be spending a great deal of time in Chi-town before the special election. I wonder if he has an ACORN or just run of the mill Radial Communist in mind to back. The people they are talking about might not fit that mold Obama likes best.

One thing for sure it's going to be a bumpy ride.

harbinger*; anything that foreshadows a future event. I felt I should include this for the less fortunate as a gesture or kindness.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
Dems at risk of losing Obama's old Senate seat :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Lynn Sweet

Could this be a *harbinger of things to come?



Looks like Obama's going to be spending a great deal of time in Chi-town before the special election. I wonder if he has and ACORN or just run of the mill Radial Communist in mind to back. The people they are talking about might not fit that mold Obama likes best.

One thing for sure it's going to be a bumpy ride.

*harbinger; anything that foreshadows a future event. I felt I should include this for the less fortunate as a gesture or kindness.
Click to expand...

FYI, asterisks go after the word in question*


*like this.
 
I think it'd be rather funny if that sent went to the GOP.
 
Councilman said:
Looks like Obama's going to be spending a great deal of time in Chi-town before the special election. I wonder if he has an ACORN or just run of the mill Radial Communist in mind to back. The people they are talking about might not fit that mold Obama likes best.
Click to expand...

At least it isn't the azimuthal communists, now they mean trouble;). In all seriousness though, communists would probably rather see both capitalism and the federal government collapse; Pres. Obama's policies haven't really been playing to communists.
 
Last edited:
Helte/2Skelter said:
At least it isn't the azimuthal communists, now they mean trouble;). In all seriousness though, communists would probably rather see both capitalism and the federal government collapse; Pres. Obama's policies haven't really been playing to communists.
Click to expand...

You forget, the working definition of Communism/Marxism/Socialism on this forum is "Whatever the hell I don't like."

Very few people here actually understand those three. You can count them on two hands on good days.
 
How can you say that? That makes no sense at all.
 
obvious Child said:
You forget, the working definition of Communism/Marxism/Socialism on this forum is "Whatever the hell I don't like."

Very few people here actually understand those three. You can count them on two hands on good days.
Click to expand...
then how about authoritarian then? Obama clearly believes increasing the size of government is a good idea, and he may not be controlling the means of production, but he sure wants to control what happens after something is produced.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
then how about authoritarian then? Obama clearly believes increasing the size of government is a good idea, whether it's control over what you produce, or how you distribute what you produce.
Click to expand...

Would you say they're more authoritarian than any recent president?


It'll never happen. The state is too blue and Obama is too popular.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
then how about authoritarian then? Obama clearly believes increasing the size of government is a good idea, and he may not be controlling the means of production, but he sure wants to control what happens after something is produced.
Click to expand...

Increased government size does not necessarily mean that government is authoritarian. It is reasonable to think that the reaches of democracy could expand in society as well.
 
Helte/2Skelter said:
At least it isn't the azimuthal communists, now they mean trouble;). In all seriousness though, communists would probably rather see both capitalism and the federal government collapse; Pres. Obama's policies haven't really been playing to communists.
Click to expand...

I think some people don't seem to get the meaning and proper use of double speak a language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, and it is used for deception. Some one for example tells you the most important thing to him or her is Health Care. Okay so you go along with it, but in doing so you're not thinking about the consequences which are to destroy the economic system.
Or you are told that the economic system is going to collapse if you don't go into massive debt to save it when in fact what is happening is you are helping to push the system closer to collapse and won't see it until it's too late.

If you read Cloward and Piven you will understand where Obama learned about another ploy to bring about one of Marxisms primary goals. Redistribution of wealth. Which leads us to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Carl Marx

Socialism/Marxism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society.

So what all this means is once the economy of and industry is destroyed the government steps in takes over control for the people (collective) and you have Communism, while all the time you were being told by the use of double speak that what was going on was only to help.

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism". Nikita Khrushchev

Pres. Obama's policies haven't really been playing to communists.
Click to expand...
Oh really? Guess again!
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
If you read Cloward and Piven you will understand where Obama learned about another ploy to bring about one of Marxisms primary goals. Redistribution of wealth. Which leads us to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Carl Marx
Click to expand...

If anything, redistribution of wealth quells the masses from overthrowing capitalism. Redistribution of wealth does not equal socialism nor communism. Socialism and communism change how wealth is distributed such that redistribution is not necessary for stability. It is Karl with a K by the way.

Socialism/Marxism as "a social and economic system (or the political philosophy advocating such a system) in which the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people. Many socialist ideas come from Marxism (more commonly, "communism"), which essentially calls for a reversal of what we know as the structure of society.
Click to expand...

The means of production are owned by the workers and not necessarily the people. The bourgeois and proletariat collectively owning the means of production is not a sufficient condition for socialism nor communism. Scholarly works tend to do much better defining ideology than dictionaries or encyclopedias, etc. Marxism is a theoretical school of communism but communism is not necessarily Marxism. Socialist and communist ideas preceded Marxism.

So what all this means is once the economy of and industry is destroyed the government steps in takes over control for the people (collective) and you have Communism, while all the time you were being told by the use of double speak that what was going on was only to help.
Click to expand...

Communism occurs with the absence of government. The above quote is inconsistent with the ideology. The above sounds like coordinatorism, something true socialists and communists would be largely opposed to.

Oh really? Guess again!
Click to expand...

No guessing.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
You forget, the working definition of Communism/Marxism/Socialism on this forum is "Whatever the hell I don't like."

Very few people here actually understand those three. You can count them on two hands on good days.
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter since the people that rule those sorts of government don't seem to care about the definitions either. Nevertheless, those forms of government aren't us, never were, and should never be. So anyone who promotes them is anti-American, anti-consitutional republic and something the American people don't like or want. So you may carry on with this line of thinking, but we don't care because we know what we mean.
 
the makeout hobo said:
It'll never happen. The state is too blue and Obama is too popular.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that Chicago is the original home of the living dead.

Seriously, does anyone think that the state stupid enough to send Carol Mosely Braun to the Senate, and later the Messiah, is going to change direction?

Chicago is synonymous with corruption, and that's not changing anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
chicago, yes

but statewide---

if new jersey can go red, the land of lincoln can too, most assuredly

the tide is that tall
 
The Prof said:
chicago, yes

but statewide---

if new jersey can go red, the land of lincoln can too, most assuredly

the tide is that tall
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Chicago metropolitan area is about 2/3 of the entire state's population, so Chicago rules and the rest of the state suffers. That's why Daley is more powerful than the governor... and more corrupt.
 
Crunch said:
Not according to the CNN, ABC, and NBC polls. :lamo
Click to expand...

He is at about 50% approval and still going down. This trial and healthcare and caps and trade could be his political death.
Connie_threaten.gif
 
ptif219 said:
He is at about 50% approval and still going down. This trial and healthcare and caps and trade could be his political death.
Connie_threaten.gif
Click to expand...

One can always hope....... and I surely do.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
then how about authoritarian then? Obama clearly believes increasing the size of government is a good idea, and he may not be controlling the means of production, but he sure wants to control what happens after something is produced.
Click to expand...

Bigger government doesn't make you any of those. Government expanded vastly under Bush to a size unseen since WWII. Did that make him a Marxist/Communist/Socialist?

No.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom