While I’m sure (?) it was . . . unintentional . . . I’m also sure it’s close to the truth!
New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism
By Victor Morton
The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.
Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”
“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.
The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.
The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.
More at the link; hat tip to Gretchen for the article.
Вперёд is Russian for “Forward,” and was the name of the publication started in 1905 by Vladimir Ilich Lenin, after his break from the Mencheviks. That the silly leftists in the United States would use it is, well, silly, but with “traditional” American liberalism having failed so badly, some seek wisdom not with sensible conservatism, but by going further left. From 
City Braces for New Protest
By JESSICA FIRGERNew York City police and financial institutions are bracing themselves for a citywide protest Tuesday that many see as a test of whether Occupy Wall Street’s strength and popular appeal will reignite after a dormant winter.
Occupy organizers say they plan to “shut the city down” with pickets throughout Midtown and a union-backed march that is expected to draw thousands. But the group’s ambition comes with a risk: a fizzled event could signal the end of its ability to draw mainstream support.
The loosely organized group has called for a popular strike, a goal that isn’t supported by its allies in labor, which must comply with a host of laws and internal rules governing walkouts. New York unions have marched for the past several years on May Day.
“What happens is anyone’s guess,” said Occupy organizer Drew Hornbain, 25 years old. He said many insiders are galvanized by a popular perception that “Occupy has been a series of failures.”
Tuesday is May Day, the traditional Communist/socialist “Labor Day,” in which the valiant leftists protest against the very people and organizations which allow workers to convert their labor into an exchangeable medium.
Of course, those dedicated protesters will be there, in their corporate-produced clothes, traveling there in their corporate-manufactured cars, powered by their big oil refined gasoline, hanging on to their corporate produced iPods and iPhones, snacking on corporate-produced, and corporate-delivered, and corporate-prepared foods, bathed (maybe) while using corporate-produced soap and shampoo and (hopefully) corporate-manufactured deodorant, and yelling and screaming and being just generally incoherent (and inchoate). Biting the hand that feeds them hardly seems to cover it.
Perhaps the reader has an idea of just how much respect the Editor has for the Occupods?
Obama, or whatever his name is, has a long history of socialism and marxism by his own admission.
I believe we should congratulate President Obama–not condemn him. At LAST, he is keeping his promise of transparency by associating his campaign with a known Socialist/Marxist code word, “Forward.”
There is no way the Community Organizer-in-Chief, who was mentored by the likes of Frank Davis Marshall and Jeremiah Wright, would be unaware of the connotation of “Forward” as a rallying cry for his reelection efforts.
Candidate Obama promised us transparency…now–finally–President Obama is delivering on that promise.
Barack Obama reading his own book for an audio book version of his biography “Dreams of My Father”.
Some wonder why Barack Obama surrounds himself with people who love Communist mass murderer Mao Tse Tung (Mao Zedong) like Anita Dunn, Van Jones, and Ron Bloom, well you have to look no further than who Obama seeked out when he was in college.
In his book Barack reads that he used to carefully seek out Marxist friends:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”
This is from his own words. Barack sought out fans of Marxist murderers. He said he chose his friends carefully…those who loved communists…maybe that is why he has them in his administration?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4EHmzslKLw
OK, Gretchen, I get your drift, Obama deserves congratulations for revealing an element of his hidden agenda, an important element. And, you’re right again, both he and his closest comrades, down for the struggle each and every one, are fully aware of the special meaning Forward holds for all those committed to achieving one world government under the dictatorship of an enlightened socialist leader (think Obmam might have someone in mind?).
It’s clear, although when he took office Barack Obama swore to uphold the Constitution, it seems he has other fish to fry, and he isn’t shy about dropping a few hints as to his real intentions. As if it wasn’t clear as a bell right from the get-go.
BTW, two small matters: a correction and an observation. It’s Frank Marshall Davis, and is it just me, or do Barack Obama and Malcolm X share a consanguineous resemblance?
When I slide York’s horizontal scroll bar to reveal the man half hidden, it looks like Obama’s daddy.
Gretchen, ropelight and Yorkshire are too far gone, and our editor is well on the way there as well, but you seem like a reasonable person, even though we disagree on some basic issues. But that’s OK! However, where ever does this idea that President Obama is a Marxist-Leninist come from? Just because of his use of one word, we are to make this conclusion about his politics? Just because some folks disagree with his politics in general, we are to make this conclusion about his foundation and motivation? This is crazy insane!
This rhetoric is extremist in the extreme, if I could put it that way, and is reminiscent to me of the attitude of the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose similar accusations at the time were dismissed forthrightly, and whose reputation will forever be in infamy.
It is radicalism like this which needs to be pushed back, which is why I endure the daily attacks by the radicals on here, who make no bones about their radicalism, and who have little concept about how radical their ideas really have become.
I am talking about those on this blog who are perfectly happy to see the wealth of this nation being moved purposefully from the middle and the poor to the upper 1%. And worse, with said wealth accumulation, these people are seeking total control of our political system and of our government by buying an election. All this is happening in front of your eyes, Gretchen. So I ask you, aren’t you very concerned about this?
PS: Most remarkable of all to me about this power takeover by these powerful extreme oligarchs-to-be, is that some obviously intelligent regular contributors to this blog support and defend this behavior, to the detriment of their own freedoms and liberty and well being. Not only have they bought into the propaganda, they actually promote it here on a daily basis, which is really weird and bizarre.
I think the logo/saying is more akin to MSNBC’s, wich makes perfect sense, of course.
Rope:
BTW, two small matters: a correction and an observation. It’s Frank Marshall Davis, and is it just me, or do Barack Obama and Malcolm X share a consanguineous resemblance?
When I slide York’s horizontal scroll bar to reveal the man half hidden, it looks like Obama’s daddy.
Yeah, York, the eyes, the nose, the chin, the facial expression – it sure looks to me like a pretty close match. We might be lookin’ at a rather curious family resemblance with more than a few disturbing and potentially serious complications.
If she was still alive Stanley Ann might have some ‘splainin’ to do.
When you are afraid that becoming a Democrat means moving to the right, you are truly a far-left whacko!
Whether President Obama is truly a socialist or not, the leaders of the Occupods certainly are.
ropelight says:
May 1, 2012 at 11:08 (Edit)
Yeah, York, the eyes, the nose, the chin, the facial expression – it sure looks to me like a pretty close match. We might be lookin’ at a rather curious family resemblance with more than a few disturbing and potentially serious complications.
If she was still alive Stanley Ann might have some ‘splainin’ to do.
Who’s ya daddy?
Well, don’t worry, Perry. As long as there are Democrats, the Abortion Lobby, the Trial Lawyers, the government unions, the Feminazis, and the environmentalist wackoes will REALLY be the ones running the country!
Thank you, Ropelight,for the correction on Obama’s Communist mentor’s name.
I challenge anyone who is reading this blog to find a single instance where the “Forward”-thinking President Barack H. Obama has spoken a single word in opposition to the Occupy Movement, in general, or today’s Workers’ Day Protests.
The same president who was quick to speak to the nation as he interfered in a Bay State matter that was between a local policeman and one of Obama’s pals and the same president who made of show of calling a college coed to comfort her when she was called a name by a big, bad radio host and the same president who stood before cameras and microphones and before a national audience stirred the flames of racial unrest when he announced that had he had a son that son would have looked like Trayvon Martin…has, somehow, found himself speechless as the warriors in his 99% vs. 1% contrived Class Warfare destroy property, shut down commerce, block streets and spread their filth and their trash for others to clean.
Can it be that this “Forward”-thinking POTUS, who sneers every time he utters words he deems foul–words like “banks,” “corporations,” “oil companies” and foulest word of all, “profits”–agrees with his tacitly supported friends from Occupy Oakland?
http://strikemay1st.com/
There is no question in my mind that Barack Obama and his campaign staff knew exactly what they were doing when they dubbed his reelection campaign FORWARD.
If Barack Obama had a son, he’d most likely look like Malcolm X, unless Michelle was his mother, then he’d look an awful lot like Lt. Commander Worf.
I’m taking this on face value as a fun and wishful thinking article. Believe, or don’t believe it, I don’t care. But I have heard this off and on for the last three years. It would too, too good to be true, so take it as you see it and how your political persuasions take you. But it will take you on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride from DisneyWorld.
http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?page_id=284
York, thanks for the link. Although it’s thought provoking and squares with the obvious visual clues noted above, the information is dated to shortly before the 2008 election, there’s been a lot of water under the bridge in the ensuing three and a half years.
Please keep an eye out for a more current account of Obama’s provenance and I’ll do the same. The true story hasn’t come out yet however Obama’s now in a much better position to cover up his background more effectively than ever before. Thanks again.
Additionally, York, I’d be remiss if I didn’t observe that some of the speculations do seem a bit far fetched. I suspect you share that sentiment.
This is like a TV game show from the late 50′s to early 60′s. A panel of four questioned three people and in doing so they had to Identify the real person who was introduced along with two imposters. The panel could select 1, 2, or 3. And at the end the moderator would ask the real Mr. Smith to stand up. Generally they would get the right person, and occasionally one of the imposters was so good to throw them off.
This has been like the Obama Follies: Will the real Barack, Barry, Obama II, or Soerto stand up along with Stanley Ann Dunham and really who’s your daddy and where were you born?
I’ve been aware of every President from Ike to Obama. I have never seen any of this hide and seek, and whack a mole from IKE, to JFK, then LBJ, to RMN bowing out to Ford, not a Lincoln, to Massah Jimma, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton (but his drama was small potatoes comparatively), Bush 2, and now BO. JFK was assinated and questions still happen today, and Carter was just inept. But all the drama of all these guys together, is less than all the Drama of BO.
Gretchen says:
What would you expect him to say about these events, all of which are folks exercising their free speech rights?
The flames of racial unrest had already been stirred by the Right who decided to politicize this event, thus inflaming the country, many of whom viewed this as the beginnings of a miscarriage of justice, which has since been remedied, fortunately. The President’s comment was his attempt to relate to the parents and calm the nation down, just as he does for all the parents of our soldiers who are lost in the service of their country.
Regarding OWS and May Day events, clearly it is up to the local authorities to enforce the law if broken. Again, free speech rights were being expressed.
This is pure bullpucky, Gretchen, but of course it is your right to think and express your thoughts as you wish, as I am sure that President Obama would have exactly the same attitude.
People are going to respond when they see the gross unfairness of wealth moving from them to the 1%. It was only a matter of time until some chaos would erupt over this issue, as I have been saying for a long time. And it will only get worse as people feel themselves in more desperate about earning enough money to support their families when there are not jobs available or when the wages are at the poverty level or below.
I detect that you have no empathy for these people. That’s on you, Gretchen.
PS: And by the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong if some folks want to form a party called the CPUSA and hold rallies and run candidates in elections, is there? Just what is it that you fear, Gretchen?
PPS: This was not one of your well-reasoned posts, Gretchen, in my view. Instead of being afraid, let us form policies and laws to address these issues, with a Congress willing to work together, which your party has been unwilling to do for far too long.
Obama to GOP: ‘I Won’
By Mary Lu Carnevale January 23, 2009, 2:32 PM
Jonathan Weisman reports on the White House.
The top congressional leaders from both parties gathered at the White House for a working discussion over the shape and size of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan. The meeting was designed to promote bipartisanship.
But Obama showed that in an ideological debate, he’s not averse to using a jab.
Challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the new president, according to participants, replied: “I won.”
The statement was prompted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona , who challenged the president and the Democratic leaders over the balance between the package’s spending and tax cuts, bringing up the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government check.
Obama noted that such workers pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and sales taxes. The issue was widely debated during the presidential campaign, when Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, challenged Obama’s tax plan as “welfare.”
With those two words — “I won” — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .
Democratic and Republican aides confirmed the exchange. A White House spokesman said he wasn’t immediately aware of the exchange. The aides who heard the remarks stressed that it wasn’t as boldly partisan as it might sound.
Still, other Democrats echoed the sentiment. As he left the White House, House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina was asked about Republican complaints that Democrats aren’t listening to what their GOP colleagues have to say. “We’re responding to the American people,” he said. “The American people didn’t listen to them too well during the election.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/01/23/obama-to-gop-i-won/
With the attitude BO has, it’s no wonder there is very little cooperation. In the first meeting, BO all but said STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DOESN’T SHINE. Sorry WW, BO DOES NOT want Republican input, so why bother.
Perry, can you name any position of the Communist Party USA or the American Socialist Party that you are against? I don’t think you can. Everything they support, you do, too. Including your incessant and intentional violation of the Final Judge’s Tenth Commandment, and your demand that everyone else intentionally violate the Final Judge’s Tenth Commandment. That egregious sin is yours, and you’re wallowing in it, proudly so.
This is absolute and complete sophistry. It was those on the right who kept saying “let the system play out.” It was people like SINP, racial demogogues like Sharpton and Farrakhan, and most especially the nitwits on MSNBC which politicized the Trayvon Martin incident and rendered a verdict before all the information became available.
Yeah, Gretchen. Maybe you can get your own blog set up, give it a ridiculously hypocritical title, say, like “Bridging the Gap,” and then write posts which have absolutely nothing at all to do with said gap bridging and working together to solve the nation’s problems. Indeed, you can just copy and paste the latest Daily Kos/Democratic Underground talking points there.
WW wrote:
Yup!
Oddly enough, I don’t remember the TEA Party protests smashing windows or destroying property or making a general mess of things. Oh, well, maybe it’s my memory that is faulty.
Mr Hitchcock, that you think or label me a Communist or a Socialist does not make it so, nor is it so.
Your objective is simple: Instead of debating various issues with me, your objective is to defame me, because that’s who you are.
Moreover, your brand of social and political conservatism places you on the extreme right fringe, because you are completely intolerant of all those who do not accept your religious interpretations, and political views as well. You are not interested in debate, instead all you do is vilify certain of those who disagree with you, like myself.
To illustrate, here is one of your recent anti-Wagonwheel rants.
Let your words here speak better than mine of your mental state of mind.
Sounds precisely like you, SINP. After all, who always uses terms like “wingnuts,” “unpatriotic” and “un-American” to describe those with whom he disagrees?
Oh gosh — SINP is caught yet again being a stone-cold hypocrite.
Do you watch Politics Nation with Al Sharpton, koolo. I doubt it, because if you do, and if you are honest about it, you would have observed the Rev being very careful to note that all he wanted was justice to take its course. At first, this was not happening, as the alleged perp was set free without charges the following day. We now know that charges have been made, and we now know that the Police Chief has been replaced. The racist Right was intent on putting the blame on the victim, without sufficient evidence to do so. Fortunately cooler heads finally prevailed. And maybe now, koolo will finally be “honest about it”.
Regarding my critique of Gretchen, this is a good example of wishing to “bridge the gap”, which went over your head. Instead, you chose to criticize my blog, which has nothing whatsoever to do with my Gretchen critique. I guess you had to find something to say, so you stretched. On my blog, one cannot bridge the gap until the various sides are revealed and discussed, which was the intent of my latest entry on Romnesia.
Hardly hypocritical, koolo. Those characterizations are tied to specific points, unlike the typical rants by your close friend and cohort, John Hitchcock. And by the way, how is it that you have not ever called him out? Talk about hypocritical, there it is right there, repeated by omission time after time after time. That’s on you, koolo!
Uh huh. And when I put up some of his beyond “wanting justice to take its course” rants, you’ll say …? And how is it that MSNBC gives a guy his own show when he’s actively pursuing a specific outcome? Oh, and did you hear the other day where good ‘ol Al said he still stands behind Tawana Brawley? Remember, SINP, this is the guy who you held up as a paragon of racial justice in here! LOL!!
You always have a tired, pathetic excuse for your epithets, while always those of others are “offensive.” No one buys that tired garbage anymore, SINP. The fact is that you’re just a lying a hypocrite.
Called him out on what? For treating you just as you treat others in here? Why in the world would I do that? You never called PIATOR out now, did you? (And no — saying “I don’t agree with his tone” or some other such nonsense doesn’t count.”
In conclusion, our Editor stated:
True enough. But I have yet to hear about yesterday’s demonstrators packing heat like some of the TEA Party demonstrators, especially at some of the President’s rallies. Moreover, demonstrations are messy regardless of what group is doing the demonstrating.
There it is again — “true BUT …”
There is absolutely NO comparison between the Occupy movement and Tea Party when it comes law-breaking, manners, and number of arrests. Keep your head in the sand, SINP. We’ll all have a good laugh.
Well, of course the Occupods would claim that it wasn’t themselves, wasn’t the good, honest, well-intentioned protesters who started the fight, but a bank customer trying to use the ATM. Yeah, I can totally see how and why a lone customer would pick a fight with a crowd.
I missed that one. If it was Monday, that’s my poker night, 6-9pm. But I would have to hear the context of that statement, because I’ve learned that you are prone to taking things out of context.
First of all, speak for yourself koolo, instead of arrogantly assigning yourself as the spokesman for the rest of us on here. Secondly, you gave no examples to back up your criticism. So your tired “lying hypocrite” comment goes right back to you with your constant pot kettle.
You are kidding, right koolo? For a school teacher, your severely distorted partisanship is an obvious handicap against being effective in teaching critical thinking skills. You ought to think about that.
By the way, I’m curious, what subject do you teach?
Actually, I have called Piator out; but I can understand your not thinking that, because you cannot imagine such a thing. So that’s also on you, koolo. I will say about Piator, when Dana called for civility, he complied to the letter, contrary to many others on your side who did not, Hitchcock being the worst violator of civility of all, and still is. And you come in second, koolo, lacking even one kind work in your active vocabulary on here!
Two arrested out of a crowd of thousands, and you are going to make an issue of this, Mr Editor, in order to defame the entire protest?
Come on, Mr Editor!
The context wouldn’t matter to you anyway. It never does. You’d respond as “Yes, BUT what about [insert some conservative/Republican] …”
Why would I be kidding? I know you refuse to accept your own faults in here; it’s always someone else. That must be why you like Obama so much. You live a parallel world, SINP. Facts and truth do not matter. You’ve outed yourself in this regard to your Trutherish/Birtherish belief that the 2000 and 2004 elections were “stolen.” You’re not out in left field, SINP — you’re in the back end of the parking lot outside the stadium.
Citation please!
Actually, that would third — behind you, then Hitchcock.
You mean like you did with the Tea Party?? Do we really have to repost all the arrests, acts of violence and DEATHS associated with the Occupy movement … AGAIN??
Referring to the New Zealand librarian “T”, author of the Walking with Ghosts blog who wrote under the pen name “Phoenician in a time of Romans”, and who recently engaged in acts of identity theft in order to access this blog (though he was in no way officially banned) Perry writes:
If you did condemn his frauds, I never saw it Perry.
Could you cite where you supposedly addressed this issue?
My comment was on civility, not on fraud, DNW. But not that you bring up fraud, of course I condemn it! But I also condemn putting PiatoR in moderation. Why should he be singled out for that?
Koolo, you simply cannot hide your blatant and dishonest duplicity and false equivalencies, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly. And it’s really funny that you toss around the hypocrisy epithet, when you are as guilty of it, probably more so.
On the false equivalency topic, I note that you do not distinguish between a protester or two who broke a window or two, and a few TEA Party members who would show up at an Obama rally packing heat. That’s another one on you. What a chicken you are!
And I note that you did not say what course(s) you teach. What is it that you fear, koolo? You are as paranoiac as Hube is. Come now, settle down! You are full of fear for no legitimate reason!
Do you really want to contrast and compare the Occupiers and the Tea Party? Why do you want to look magnitudes more foolish than you regularly do?
No legitimate reason? Like you threatening others in here? That “no legitimate reason?” Why do you care what I teach? Why don’t you post your home address in here? What about your daily schedule? What is it that you fear, SINP?
“Packing heat”? What are you a New York crime boss? So you’re saying that people were armed and caused zero problems but somehow they are worse than occupiers destroying other people’s property while unarmed?
BTW, when we had lunch I was “packing heat”. I had a 9mm Baretta on my hip and a Walther PPK .380 on my ankle. Nobody got shot, did they?
And, I’m sure you legally carried that firearm, correct? Was that Tea Partier arrested for “packing heat?”
Wagonwheel says:
Then it is settled: you condemn Phoenician in a Time of Romans for impersonating one of the authors of this blog in order to gain access to it.
Because he engaged in impersonation and fraud for access. It may not have gotten him any money, but it provides one hell of an insight into that particular New Zealand librarian’s mind and his lack of trustworthiness and moral character.
You mentioned playing poker. You gladly tolerate card cheats in your game I suppose?
More self righteous moral judgment from Mr Moral Relativity!
In Arizona, where it is perfectly legal to carry an unconcealed firearm. So let’s put this to rest, shall we?
So, Perry, are you going to object to Pho for posting under false pretenses?
Koolo, I have a carry permit and have for 25 years. And I always wear a gun.
Like I have said before, there would be no threat if you were clean; so apparently you have something to hide!
Packing heat at an Obama rally is meant to intimidate, don’t you think, koolo? Would you do that too? I guess carrying a weapon or two makes one feel big, like Hoagie.
Exactly, Eric! I prefer honesty to mythology.
I did a few minutes ago, Eric, right here.
I wasn’t thinking of legality, Eric, I was thinking of using good sense. These folks were displaying visible firearms. Perhaps you have an explanation for it. I think it is intimidation.
Wagonwheel: I detect that you have no empathy for these people. That’s on you, Gretchen.
You got that one right, WW. I do NOT have empathy for the anarchists, the avowed Communists, the destroyers of private property, the too-damned-lazy-to-do-a-day’s work, the twenty-something wusses who view dependence on the largesse of their mommies and their daddies and/or the largesse of the very taxpayers whose businesses they are protesting, trashing and denigrating with their bricks and stones and their Marxist-oriented signs as worthy expressions of their angst.
To empathize with those dregs of society is to drag oneself to the gutters where they are poisoned by the class warfare rot that increasingly characterizes the Obama Administration. My empathy is with the hard-working Americans who are doing their best to better this country, in spite of the efforts of those whose disgusting behavior you seem to celebrate.
You really are clueless, aren’t you? If what you say is true, then why did Editor suspend you? You know — the extremely nice and generous Editor who, for reasons beyond me set you up with your very own blog to espouse your conspiratorial nonsense? You seriously do not think threatening to contact someone’s employer — or implying in a public forum that someone is cheating on their taxes — does not constitute a threat? Merely because you disagree with them and/or do not like their behavior (which just happens to mirror your own)?
Yeah, I’m sure one guy at a rally who’s legally carrying a firearm will “intimidate” dozens of Secret Service agents.
Yeah, like threatening people over the Internet makes one feel “big.” Like you, SINP.
“I guess carrying a weapon or two makes one feel big, like Hoagie.”
So carrying a weapon is all about how it makes one “feel”? Typical leftist, all feelings no brains.
I began carrying when I was in the restaurant business amd made large cash deposits late at night. Not to protect the money, not to “feel big” but to protect myself. They can have the damn money but sometimes they also want your life. And if a threat would ever present itself Wagonwheel, who would you rather be next to, me “packin heat” or you with your putz in your hand?
He was put in moderation at the outset of this blog, DNW.
As far as I know, we don’t have any cheats. We’re just a collection of old geezers/friends, but we do take our poker very seriously, let me tell you.
Would it have have made any difference if those firearms were concealed? Well, other than the fact that you wouldn’t have known they were there, which would have deprived you of one more issue to whine about?
PS Hube (I believe) nailed it. There are tons of Secret Service agents and armed cops at these rallies. Intimidation simply wasn’t an issue.
Perhaps I’ll regret it someday, Hoagie, but I’ve never felt the need to carry a concealed weapon. In fact, I’ve never even owned a weapon more powerful than a bb gun!
Well then the reason escapes me, Eric. To me, it makes no sense.
A little late. I mean, you obviously never objected to it when he was doing it. Now, only when he is gone (hopefully for good) do you say anything.
And that’s perfectly fine Wagonwheel. Some people are not comfortable around guns, I understand that. But as my daddy used to say: “it’s better to have one and never need it than to need one and not have it”.
Doesn’t matter. Point is, what they were doing was:
1. Perfectly legal.
and
2. Was not a threat.
I think we can now declare this matter put to rest.
ROTFLMAO, Perry says he prefers honesty to mythology.
Help me, Rhonda!
Honesty implies such a thing as Truth. Relativists don’t believe in Truth, or any other form of absolute.
By the way Perry. In responding to your moderation remark, I was responding as to a hypothetical. I have no idea as to whether the author of the “Walking with Ghosts” blog was sent into moderation as a matter of course or not.
My recollection is that the Editor” expressly stated that Phoenician in a time of Romans was not banned and that the name did not trigger a quarantine.
As an example, Perry, where are these imaginary guns being carried at a TEA Party?
Your myth, or can you prove it?
Wagonwheel says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:13
Odd how you won’t tolerate a cheat in a petty game, but are willing to foist the real life costs of them on your fellow citizens.
As for your “put in moderation at the outset” remark, I would have no way of knowing, not having (nor wanting) authorial access.
However, I believe the “Editor” has more than once denied that that was the case.
In my opinion, there was no threat, except in the perception of folks like you who are steeped in paranoia and perceive non-existent threats. Like you are not even willing to say what subject(s) you teach, due to said paranoia. Is it that you are not proud of your behavior on here, that your administrator might not take to well to it. If you behave in your class room like you behave on here, there is good reason to look for an administrator to have a look. I would also expect that you would have some parents with legitimate complaints about your bullying tactics, because that is exactly what you do on here.
You know, koolo, it is practically impossible to have a civil and reasonable conversation with you, who comes back with an attack at the drop of a pin. You are constantly pecking away like a woodpecker on a tree, at everything! This is not true with others on here except Hitchcock, the two of you being in the same pod. Lighten up a little, will you, and allow some nice qualities to surface, as I assume you have some?
I also note that when our Editor was monitoring our behavior, you had more than your share of deletions. So stop setting yourself up as some sort of an angel, when you are as hypocritical as the worst of us are on here. Use our Editor as your model, which would do you a hell of a lot of good. Maybe it is just that you take yourself too seriously!
It’s true, ropelight. I recall at least one instance. But that, hilariously, was a black gentleman, whose face was cut off by MSNBC in its report so as not to show just that — just the fact that a Tea Partier was carrying a gun.
This topic has had much discussion on here with little resolution due to a lack of agreement on the application of the word “cheat”.
But of course it’s your opinion! YOU made the threats! And the rest of your comment above shows precisely that you DID make threats! Given your penchant for hyperbole, exaggeration and outright lying, why wouldn’t someone be wary of you contacting someone’s employer? It’s a perfectly reasonable reaction to be so wary. It’s not at all paranoid. What is paranoid is believing in the election conspiracies that you do. Nevertheless, I’ve nothing to fear from anyone based on my comments here — especially when taken in context. Y’know, you like context. Any reasonable person examining any of my comments here in reaction to yours would have little hassle with their content.
Tell you what — send me your address and your daily routine when you’re out and about on a daily basis. If you won’t, why not? Are you paranoid? What are you afraid of?
Not at a TEA Party, but at a campaign rally, is what I was referencing, ropelight.
It’s all a question of using good judgment:
Perry, my challenge stands. You are incapable of providing positions which the Communist Party and the Socialist party have that you oppose. Had you been capable of opposing Communist and Socialist positions, you would have done so, because the Communists and Socialists, while having a large number of Democrat power-brokers among their ranks, are the fringe and are radicals. Your outrageously passive-aggressive bovine biproduct was old back in 2009. Your hate-filled and radical Leftist brainwashed attack speech has nothing to do with the civility you hypocritically demand of everyone not of the Left. Your site is absolutely dishonestly named because you have no interest in “bridging” any “gap” between Socialism and the Founders’ vision.
I already proved, Perry, that Socialism, Communism, Progressivism, Fascism are all leaves from the same tree. And they are all in direct violation of national sovereignty, the Founders’ vision, the Constitution (which gets in their way all the time), and the Almighty Creator’s Laws.
Again, Perry, run through the list of goals the Communists and Socialists have and show us how you oppose their goals, or finally admit to yourself and everyone else that you’re a Communist. Because everyone that reads your hooey knows you are.
I wrote an article back on the 4th of July last year (that the Editor approvingly linked to on his previous site) proving that Socialists, Communists, Progressives, Fascists are all leaves of the self-same tree. It was a rather long-winded article, complete with links, extended quotes, and everything. I’ll be republishing it here.
The fact of the matter, Perry, is you cannot distinguish your positions from the anti-American Socialists and Communists, thus, you have to do what you love doing: attack the messenger and play passive-aggressive liar. Because that’s really all you’re good at.
I read your comments and hear “You M-Fers need to be more M-F’n civil and quit your M-F’n games, you F’n A-Holes!!!!! Why can’t your raaaaacist M-Fers look at people’s skin color like I do? Why can’t you rich-loving M-Fers violate the Tenth Commandment like I do with every waking breath? Why can’t you Constitution-loving M-Fers hate the absoluteness of the US Constitution like I do? And why can’t you stupid, M-F’n Free-marketeers be more F’n civil when talking to people like me who demand you feed the leeches?” That’s what I see every time I read something you write, Perry. But rest assured, Perry, your message is getting out loud and clear. Unfortunately for you, it only serves to reinforce the Conservative view of “Progressives” like you. It does nothing to swing us to the anti-progress view of “Progressives”.
It most certainly is paranoid, just as is your unwillingness to answer a simple question like: What subject do you teach?
Finally admit it, koolo, you are definitely paranoid.
This is not an equivalent scenario, koolo, and you know it. We all know that it would be foolish to give out this level of personal detail, because one does not know know what a deranged person out there might do.
Koolo sez:
It’s worse than that, Koolo. PMSNBC intentionally cut his head off because the story they were telling, and using him to tell, was of white raaaaacist gun-lovers who hated blacks were running the show at TEA Party rallies, and this headless man in this state with Open Carry Laws was proof of white racism who hated blacks and wanted to intimidate blacks.
Except it was just another PMSNBC lie, since it was a black man at a TEA Party rally, and welcomed by TEA Partiers. The whole PMSNBC lie (which they always do, multiple times a day, lie that is) crashed down as soon as the full photo hit the internet.
Perry writes:
Are you referring to the danger which his Internet behavior might pose to your little buddy Iowa Lib’s Mike Ganzeveld’s hopes for a career outside of the bait shop? To the motive for Iowa Lib Jeromy Brown’s attempts to distance himself from his fulminating, barely sane screen persona by adopting the pen name ‘Henry Whistler’?
Or might you be referring to the “Walking with Ghosts” blogger and Internet troll who goes by the name “Phoenician in a time of Romans”? What if ethically responsible persons in NZ gained insight into his real character?
You are referring then to raving lunatics, and Internet impostors of that kind, who as potential employees, administrators responsible for the safety of the public and the integrity of their institutions might justifiably look askance at?
Mr Hitchcock, you are one sick dude!
Oh, look at that, Perry who lied about never trying to get personal information out of his enemies (such as the personal information he has tried multiple times to get out of me, and looking like the complete ass he is when his assumptions about me made him look like an ass when he demanded I never served in uniform, and such as his demands from DNW, and from his subsequent demands from me, and his many other demands of multiple other people) is now demanding Koolo give out even more personal information about himself. And then he has the gall to say
when I issued him a very simple question. My simple question: show me how Perry is opposed to Communist Party and Socialist Party goals. Perry couldn’t do it, and tried (unsuccessfully) to make it all about me, instead of his dishonest, hypocritical, deceitful self.
Perry has two rule books. One rulebook says he can say and do anything he wants and nobody can challenge him on nuttin. The other rulebook says everyone has to live by his rules, and he’ll make them up as he goes along.
John Hitchcock says:
May 2, 2012 at 13:06
Koolo sez:
It’s true, ropelight. I recall at least one instance. But that, hilariously, was a black gentleman, whose face was cut off by MSNBC in its report so as not to show just that — just the fact that a Tea Partier was carrying a gun.
It’s worse than that, Koolo. PMSNBC intentionally cut his head off because the story they were telling, and using him to tell, was of white raaaaacist gun-lovers who hated blacks were running the show at TEA Party rallies, and this headless man in this state with Open Carry Laws was proof of white racism who hated blacks and wanted to intimidate blacks.
Except it was just another PMSNBC lie, since it was a black man at a TEA Party rally, and welcomed by TEA Partiers. The whole PMSNBC lie (which they always do, multiple times a day, lie that is) crashed down as soon as the full photo hit the internet.”
They did the same thing with coverage of gun shows: Cutting out black attendees and editing footage of “militaria” paddlers so as to make these generally harmless (if in some instances a bit goofy ) folks appear to be displaying swastikas as an act of identification.
Which is why I advised Hoagie not to share personal information with you. He found out soon enough what it could mean when you began to make sly noises about the IRS.
DNW, here is the problem all of us bloggers face, which is the essentially one-dimensionality perspective which we obtain on here. With very few exceptions, to form a firm conclusion about any one of us characters is hazardous to one’s health, therefore not recommended.
Perry, you specifically mentioned TEA Party demonstrators packing heat today @09:37
YAAAWN. As I said, given your emotional unbalance, any detail given to you is one too many. Why do you even need to know what subject I teach? What does it matter? Again, where do you live? What’s your daily routine? What’s the matter — are you paranoid about that, aside from the GOP “stealing” elections?
Precisely why I won’t divulge any information to you. So, thanks for making the reasons so plain!
DNW, it is a well known fact that people use overseas bank accounts to avoid paying US taxes. Hoagie hyperventilated at such a suggestion, which I can understand, and learned to be more careful.
Incidentally, I think Mitt Romney will have to do some explaining to do on this issue, since we now know that he has multiple overseas bank accounts which as a candidate for President will find himself having to explain.
And, obviously, those “exceptions” are those for whom SINP has formed a firm conclusion. Every exception applies to SINP — there are rules for everyone else, and then different rules for SINP.
Perry, I issued you a challenge. That you cannot rise to meet that challenge speaks a lot about you. Note: unlike your many challenges to multiple people, I did not ask you for any personal information whatsoever, but rather for your own philosophical positions. There is a difference. That you are wholly incapable of seeing said difference speaks volumes about you and about your character.
Actually, you stupid pissant, that was the last straw for the Editor. After you were warned about your threatening behavior toward Koolo, you unleashed that threatening behavior toward Hoagie. You should have had your hate-filled, threatening ass rightly banned from this site permanently, but the Editor showed grace and only suspended you for 15 days.
That you have not, in any way measure or form, learned from your suspension proves a point I make regularly. Conservatives have Personal Responsibility, while radical fringe Leftists like yourself have absolutely none.
What an ass you are, Perry.
Oh come on, koolo; again there is no equivalence between the two scenarios we have discussed, meaning that there is no rational reason why you should shun asking such a simple, unthreatening question about what subject you teach.
In fact, your refusal to answer raises suspicions not only of paranoia, but that you might have something to hide.
And if you want to talk about emotional stability, I have to wonder why you and Hitchcock are fixated on calling a person a liar simply if they have the gall to disagree with something you have said. Have confidence in your statements instead of having to resort to the epithet.
And then you let this go by without comment! Man, you are both sick dudes! Can you imagine if I wrote a rant like that? You would be back at me in a flash. Just goes to show!
I’m outta here.
Citation please!!!
Perry, who absolutely refuses to show where he opposes the Communist and Socialist agenda, sez:
Perry left his irony on high and turned on, as is always the case. No need to explain (for those who actually read).
Wagonwheel wrote:
Did the TEA Partiers use firearms?
What do we have: some TEA Partiers may have been armed, but never used firearms, versus supposedly unarmed Occupods, who nevertheless managed to find plenty of rocks and bricks and start breaking things. To me, it sounds as though it was the TEA Partiers who were behaving responsibly.
And no, demonstrations are not always messy, “regardless of what group is doing the demonstrating.” Mr Hitchcock posted previously, on CSPT, and I have copied here, in at least one of the comments, pictures of two demonstrations in our nation’s capital, one Glen Beck’s Restoring Honor (I think that was the title) and the other a leftist organization, deliberately trying to counter Mr Beck’s demonstration, and the photographic evidence is stark: the conservatives were mostly clean, and carried out their trash, while the liberals left a huge mess. I’m at work, and can’t take the time, now, to look up those pics, but you know that they’re there, and if Mr Hitchcock is on now, I’m sure that he’ll retrieve them for you.
Mr Editor, your gullibility is overwhelming.
Where was the proof that the pictures Mr Hitchcock posted were authentic. As I recall, I raised the same point on your blog at the time.
Regarding the throwing of bricks to which you referred, that was done by someone on a roof throwing objects down on the protesters. We neither know his/her identity, affiliation if any, nor motive. Yet you want to make this person’s behavior associated with the protesters. That’s not kosher.
Moreover, I pointed out in my earlier objection to your comments that they were anecdotal, yet you wanted to characterize the entire May Day protests by this anecdotal behavior. That’s not kosher either.
Finally, showing up with exposed firearms at a campaign rally. If that is not intimidating, and inappropriate, I don’t know what is.
Gotta go!
Perry, do you want me to dig into my email folder? The one where multiple people were spamming your site after you got suspended so they could find out if you wrote about it? The one where important people said you weren’t going to write about it because it would only draw attention to your very bad behavior and only embarrass you more? Do you really want me to publish and republish all that material showing how much of a threatening ass you are and why you got your ass suspended for 15 days? Are you really serious?
Because if you are, I’ll make about 10 email messages, give or take, and attempt to obtain permissions to publicly air email messages to the email address I have that doesn’t have the “I’ll publish your shit” disclaimer. And then, to borrow from “Save the Last Dance”, I’ll air out all your dirty laundry.
And be careful what you wish for, Perry, because I have those emails and I know a person or four who would give me permission to publish their emails. Of course, I would only publish it on my site (which only has a daily readership which often surpasses your monthly readership), but it would be there in all its glory to challenge Delaware Libertarian’s 2009 article proving you to be an absolute hyperpartisan liar.
Again, Perry, I’m more than willing to publish all the email I got surrounding your threatening behavior on this site and your suspension on this site and the fact you did not write an article on your leech site about it (but multiple people were scanning your site for it). I expect of all the people I got email from, only one would absolutely not allow me to publish it, and another might have rules regarding the publishing. The others? Game on, baby.
Mr Editor, I am online and looking. My Google (and on-site search) skills are teh suck.
Of course, the Occupods were out there protesting a dearth of jobs, remember? They were (mostly) college students who were somehow unable to find jobs after graduation, something that some people might have attributed to them being the least employable of their generation, but, nevertheless, they were very concerned about a lack of jobs. Of course, it seems that they weren’t all that concerned about other people’s jobs:
Well, that was just so last year, but this year, the Occupods are creating jobs . . . jobs for people who repair broken windows and pick up trash and fix pulled down signs and just generally repair the aftermath of the May day demonstrations, which created a mess because, as we were told, demonstrations are messy, “regardless of what group is doing the demonstrating.”
You are indeed one really sick person, Mr Hitchcock!!!
WW wrote:
Mr Hitchcock was not the only person writing about the mess left by the liberals at their rally; many other conservative bloggers mentioned it. What I did not see — though you are certainly free to try to research it — were stories from our friends on the left which documented just why such photographs as Mr Hitchcock, and others, posted to show the difference, were somehow fakes or phonies or misrepresentative.
One point which even you would (probably) concede: the TEA Partiers tended to be older than the Occupiers, and older means, overall, generally more mature. The TEA Partiers were homeowners, were people with jobs, were people who were already responsible for keeping their own homes and businesses clean; to stay reasonably neat during a demonstration was natural for them.
The younger liberals? Too privileged and too used to mom and dad or some janitorial service cleaning up after them. And, of course, probably too stoned as well.
You may not wish to believe that the pictures were authentic, but that isn’t due to any actual evidence, but your own desire to somehow obscure the evidence, because it is not favorable to your side.
How many freakin’ times do I have to say it? It’s been proven here (and at CSPT) that you cannot be trusted with anyone’s personal information. It’s that simple. Based on your repugnant track record, why would I possibly want to give you any personal information, however innocent you deem it?
Once again, you speaking of paranoia is like Mao speaking about the greatness of capitalism. And you’re right — I do have something to hide … from you. Information in an enemy’s hands like yours can turn out to be quite dangerous.
I found it. And I really need to learn how to romp with html and suchlike. So much to know. The site is on CSPT, with the counter-rally, which had maybe one percent of the total people of the Glenn Beck rally, absolutely filth-ridden while the Glenn Beck rally far more than 100,000 was pristine after the event. But here’s the Glenn Beck rally aftermath.
There’s plenty to see of the far-fewer-attended counter-protest and the absolute garbage pile they left behind, if you follow the link.
In fact, every “Earth Day” event that supposedly loves Gaia leaves the land absolutely garbage-strewn, while every 8/12 rally, every TEA Party rally, every Promiskeepers rally, every Conservative rally leaves the place pristine. Perry’s view that every rally or protest is messy is because the vast majority of protests are from Leftists who have absolutely no sense of Personal Responsibility. Just look at which protests involve violence, public indecency, vandalism, threats of violence, disease, death. And then look at the protests and rallies which are crime-free, disease-free, violence-free, trash-free. The differences could not be more stark.
My impression is similar. My objection was to the guns, and also to their attempt to drown out speakers.
As I recall, I did not question the authenticity, but I did question whether they were representative of the entire event, since I would not put it past Mr Hitchcock to be selective and/or deceitful.
Perry, you can shit out your mouth all you want, and you can fornicate with the exclamation mark all you want. It won’t change the fact that all reasonable people know you’re shitting out your mouth and fornicating with exclamation marks.
Poppycock, Mr Hitchcock. Citation please!
Forget the garbage language, Mr Christian fundamentalist, produce the citation.
Perry, since you have a very long track record going back at least to the beginning of 2009 and Delaware Libertarian of lying out your ass, everyone who has taken any time at all to read your rants knows you lie. Since I have a very long track record going back at least to early 2009 of being proven right via citations you have demanded and subsequently ignored, I have a very long track record of being truthful.
It is you who are dishonest and/or hyper-partisan with nearly every breath you take. And it is I who am honest to the extreme.
But we all know you will continue your abject hyper-partisan dishonesty, just like you will continue with your refusal to accept the truth of all those cites you demand and subsequently ignore.
Perry, quit being a threatening, hyper-partisan, lying ass. If you do that, maybe, perchance, you might learn to grow up and to pull your head out of your ass.
DNW says:
May 2, 2012 at 12:41 (Edit)
He was put in moderation at the outset of this blog, DNW.
“You mentioned playing poker. You gladly tolerate card cheats in your game I suppose?”
As far as I know, we don’t have any cheats. We’re just a collection of old geezers/friends, but we do take our poker very seriously, let me tell you.”
Odd how you won’t tolerate a cheat in a petty game, but are willing to foist the real life costs of them on your fellow citizens.
As for your “put in moderation at the outset” remark, I would have no way of knowing, not having (nor wanting) authorial access.
However, I believe the “Editor” has more than once denied that that was the case.
No one wins or loses at WW’s poker. They throw all their money in a pot, and divide it according to their needs. Afterall, if one person won it all, it would be unfair.