Click HERE to watch that episode. His interview with Brian Moore begins at 7:06 in. And I also recommend you watch his interview with the author Sherman Alexie, which is really funny stuff.
Obama is a capitalist.
Enough the red-baiting bullshit.
17 comments:
Good material from Mr. Colbert.
You are correct, I believe that Obama capitalist. He is still going to let private companies run their businesses - He is just going to tax them more and others in order to pay for programs.
Ex: Health Care subsidies
Forget to add I agree that the Rep. Campaign as well as the media has gone overboard on the socialist lable.
Although I agree I still think it is a topic that should be discussed - Just needs to be toned down a bit closer to reality and get on track with some clear examples.
It's the politics of fear.
You had the GOP campaign talking about him "palling around with terrorists" when it was simply a meeting that former officials under Reagan attended too. Ayers is fairly well known school reformer. I don't know if I agree with his pedagogy, but he's worked on educational issues in IL for some time.
In Obama's Dreams of My Father, the Senator doesn't have many good things to say about the Chicago school system, so I can imagine he looked for any input he could get from people about how to get the Chicago public system somewhat functional with the constant strikes from the AFT and so on.
And now you the McCain campaign channeling Joe McCarthy.
While I still think the race is tight, I find it amusing that one of the main points of support that some Republicans are using now is that we shouldn't have one party dominating both the White House and the Senate. That's a feeble argument.
Ayers is fairly well known school reformer.
William Ayers is a terrorist who tried to kill police and military to make a political statement. And then his organization turned to murder and robbery.
He has never renounced those acts, indeed he has said "we didn't go far enough".
Ayers can die in a grease fire as far as I am concerned.
Obama shows poor judgement by choosing to associate himself with such a person in any capacity, let alone aligning himself politically with an unrepentant terrorist.
If meeting with people you don't agree with or people that you find some of their acts abhorrent, we're all guilty by association.
Obama and other people at that meeting, including Reagan's old advisors, didn't know about Ayers' past.
It's not like Ayers is his campaign manager or a close advisor to him on educational matters.
If Obama is guilty of poor judgment for that meeting, McCain is really guilty of poor judgment in a lot of ways, especially since he's one of the "Keating Five."
The campaign's politics of fear attempts to stimulate in citizens' minds that Obama = Terrorist.
Leave the conspiracy theories and fear-mongering to Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
If Obama is guilty of poor judgment for that meeting....
It was not a single meeting. It was a close and continuing relationship over a long time that indicates apparent ideological agreement.
If Obama had met with Ayers once or twice and happened to live in the same neighborhood, then it would not have any impact on my opinion of Senator Obama.
I have never said that Obama is a terrorist. What I believe is that our national interests will be much more likely to be threatened if he is elected.
I think Obama thinks that his proposed foreign policy will keep us safer. He is wrong.
On the Keating 5 issue.......
McCain was cleared through formal investigation and testimony under oath.
I would enjoy watching a formal investigation of Obama in regards to Ayers, Wright, and Rezko.
McCain was said to have exhibited "poor judgment" like another one of the 5.
"It was a close and continuing relationship over a long time that indicates apparent ideological agreement."
I've had a continuing relationship with both of you for long time, but that does not indicate ideological agreement, obviously. Apparently I'm palling around with conservatives. Lord, have mercy on my troubled soul!
Just because two people are "correlated" in some way doesn't mean there's some specious causation of ideological beliefs.
I bet you agree with everything your priests have said, huh Kenson and Travolta?
"Every sperm is sacred; every sperm is good."
I've had a continuing relationship with both of you for long time, but that does not indicate ideological agreement, obviously.
It would indicate ideological agreement if we worked together for a political foundation, blurbed each others books, attended dinners toasting a PLO spokesman, and I launched your political career in my living room.
I bet you agree with everything your priests have said, huh Kenson and Travolta?
Nope, but then again my church doesn't espouse "White Liberation Theology" because that would be racist.
"Every sperm is sacred; every sperm is good."
"...we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice."
"That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted."
Please do not fully lump me in that Conservative Pile……..I am Liberal on multiple issues (women’s choice w/ restrictions, canibus, gay marriage (not definition of marriage though), stem cell research). I have really always thought of myself as a Dem. but I just can not seem to do it this year. I am neither Dem. nor Rep…………I am Neo-Kenson Conservative :) !
Speaking of suprises…………I am astonished at you Mr. Q. I really was not aware of how Liberal you are. Also I do not see the interest that you have in making government even larger and more regulatory in some areas.
Also you have pulled a card from the politicians "bay of tricks" (Roy M. reference - Lord rest his soul) on not ever really addressing my retort on the Donut Hole Approach & the economy that I brought up within the Oct. 21st posting of "Well North of 50".
Oh, I'm liberal in some ways and conservative in some ways.
In regard to your assertion of more corporate taxes being assessed, I'm fine with that. Closing loopholes and giving incentives for growing and developing businesses in America is ok with me.
Ask Greenspan about how more regulation might have helped. His recent testimony should sober up free market fundamentalists.
Actually, it's more like I'm predominantly liberal/progressive but conservative on a few issues.
If you look back on one of posts on Immigration, that view isn't going to be embraced by either party.
The two-party system is dumb. Four or five or six different parties would more accurately reflect Americans' political/social views.
Regardless of asking Mr. Greenspan about regulation..........We can put some of the "blame" of the current economic sitaution on Mr. Greenspan's shoulders.
Also some of the blame of the economic crisis can be put on the shoulders of the American Glutney Factor
Gluttony and housing values pumped up by steroids, sure.
The two-party system is dumb. Four or five or six different parties would more accurately reflect Americans' political/social views.
If I remember my Poli Sci 101 correctly, the simple ballot and first-past-the-post practically guarantee a two party system. Instant runoff voting would promote "third" parties.
If there were multiple viable parties I imagine it would settle into four major parties hitting liberal/conservative sides of social/fiscal policy with maybe a sub-party or two based on foreign policy divisions within the four big ones.
Post a Comment