Title: Allen West (R-FL): ‘Marxist’ Obama Intentionally Destroying Economy Source:
Breitbart TV URL Source:http://www.breitbart.tv/allen-west- ... entionally-destroying-economy/ Published:Sep 29, 2011 Author:950 radio Post Date:2011-09-29 08:24:52 by Happy Quanzaa Keywords:Allan West, Obamanomics in Action, sabotage Views:37892 Comments:59
"It's intentional because that's who this President is. The President is a Marxist who believes in the separation of classes."
"It's intentional because that's who this President is. The President is a Marxist who believes in the separation of classes."
Yeah, same old crap. The self-proclaimed elite and socialist administrators abscond with all the wealth and leave all the dupes in the socialist utopia in abject poverty. Good grief, this has been the only fate of any socialist utopia in human history, why are there still enough dupes who keep falling for this scam and destroying societies with their stupidity.
There's something about the air in Alaska that makes people terminally confused.
. . . . says the resident of a state which first elected Ahhhnold then Jerry Brown as governor, and has a dingbat named Boxer masquerading as a US Senator.
. says the resident of a state which first elected Ahhhnold then Jerry Brown as governor, and has a dingbat named Boxer masquerading as a US Senator.
Soo?? There's not one state that hasn't had a similar history.
Ahhnold was sold by the state Pubbies as the antidote for Grey Davis when it was the oil companies and Enron creating their energy shenanigans. Later we actually found that Davis did less damage than Ahnold, who also made sure Prop 286 would never be resurrected.
How can one be pro-life for criminals, yet pro-death for babies? I know, I know - being pro-death for babies is a requirement to be a D.
Do you think that is an honest statement of his position or are you parroting right-wing hyperbole?
Interesting you should ask.
I'm going to be completely honest with you here. Your question - "is it just because he's a D" - was actually a legitimate one.
Being an east-coaster, I'll have to admit I didn't know a lot about Brown other than he'd been gov. of California once before, and that he'd dated Linda Ronstadt. And somewhere along the line he'd acquired the moniker "Gov. Moonbeam."
I did know he had a Jesuit background, so when you asked your question I thought - "well maybe there's some chance he IS pro-life (for babies)." If that had been the case, I would have been put on the spot (and rightly so.)
I need not have worried - apparently he (like every other major D) values that more than any ikky moral conviction he may once have held. A simple search showed that - yes - he indeed is in favor of killing innocent babies.
Just to be fair - I did another search to see if he was at least CONSISTENT in his state-sponsored death views and was in favor of capital punishment.
No way!
So no, what I said was an honest statement of his position from my viewpoint.
Lib, I think my viewpoint changed about ten years ago - there was a case of a man who had been serving time for rape. He had always maintained his innocence of course, but it turned out that DNA proved that he in fact did not commit the crime.
But he had already served a lot of time in prison - and where do you go to get your life back?
I don't necessarily equate innocent little babies with hardened criminals - I guess I just look at it as simply a "state taking the life" issue.
It boils down to this - I don't like giving "the State" that much power.
One caveat though is this - I'd also do away with country club prisons. In my little scenario, a criminal sentenced to life without parole is going to be doing some hard time.
Four walls, three meals a day, maybe one hour in the exercise yard (if he's earned it) and the rest in solitary. I think that's a harsher punishment than death.
Most people don't see it this way, and I understand that. But that's just where I'm coming from.
