Quote of the Day

On the election:

This election brings us what is probably one of the worst match-ups in presidential history.  We’re running a conservative democrat against a Marxist, and for some reason I can’t seem to get real excited about our options here.

Read the whole thing.

17 thoughts on “Quote of the Day”

  1. Read the whole thing.

    why, so i could find out just how badly ignorant mr. Correia is about what actual Marxists are like? no thanks, i’d prefer to retain at least some tiny shred of respect for the man.

  2. That’s what scares me. Step back for a minute and look. We are at war. The GOP is running a war hero. The Dems are running a … how to say this nicely, eh, why bother … effete, prissy, snooty guy with no experience who wants to kissy kissy with every dictator on the planet and pass the biggest tax increase in the history of the US. The White House in 08 should be ours to give away, and I’m starting to think that’s exactly what we’re going to do. But I’m sure we’ll all feel really good about being so principled when we have socialized medicine, won’t we?

    This time around, the politicians aren’t the reason they call the GOP the stupid party. The pundits are.

  3. Except the “Conservative Democrat” is so far gone on women’s rights, the environment, corporate bailouts, and believes in teaching Creationism in public schools.


  4. I don’t know, McCain seems pretty Democrat on the environment. He opposes drilling in ANWR, and supports a cap and trade system.

  5. there’s more to being a Democrat than being pro-environment. that bit helps, but it isn’t anywhere near sufficient.

  6. (sigh.)

    no, Obama’s not a communist, either. he has not once agitated for the dictatorship of the proletariat, nor for any measure that would even indirectly lead to same. i’ll leave it to someone much further right-wing than me to defend why McCain is not a fascist.

  7. Nomen,

    Just because Obama doesn’t use Marx-speak doesn’t mean he’s not a Marxist. It just means he’s smart enough to phrase himself correctly. What part of his fundamental philosophy really differs from Marxist thought.

    He’s in favor of government control of everything. He wants government to run your healthcare. Government to decide who gets what. Government determines what is allowed. He’s against capitalism, and is in favor of penalizing companies that are profitable. How far of a streatch is it from penalizing to destroying?

    Listen to every speech he gives, they’re all variations on “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” None of his talks are about taking care of yourself, rather they’re about the government taking care of you.

    I don’t really care how little respect you have for my opinions. But I’d just positively LOVE to hear about how Barack differs from Marx’s basic philosophy.

  8. Larry, i’d have to get myself a blog of my own to expound on that matter — there’s no way it’d fit in these comments, and besides, after a few dozen kilobytes i’m sure Sebastian would get pretty tired of me.

    and i’d have to go on for that long, because reading what you just said, i doubt you’d begin to be satisfied with any less of a drubbing about the head with the facts. or even with that much of it. don’t take this the wrong way, but you just now reminded me of discussing with radical feminists — there’s that same feeling that the person i’m reading isn’t writing, or reading, the same English i am. there’s just no way you could interpret anything Obama’s ever said in the way you claim to interpret it, unless you either have some very deeply set prejudices against the man’s politics that i would be unlikely to ever talk you out of; or else, you’re interpreting language somehow differently, parsing words in ways that most everybody else simply doesn’t.

    (that last bit is why i was reminded of feminists… i hope i’m wrong on that point regarding you, but either way, i don’t think i could convince you of anything; more likely we’d end up exhausting one another and agreeing to disagree. that wouldn’t be a useful exercise.)

  9. and, Larry, FWIW — i care whether i respect you or not. i’d like to read MHI one of these days without having the experience ruined by some irrational yet unshakeable distaste for your person or your politics. as it is, i’m already having to check out any further Orson Scott Card titles i might want to get through from my local library due to knowing too much about the man’s personal opinions; i’d rather not wreck another author before i even get started on his work.

  10. Wow. Nomen, you are one patronizing motherfucker.

    Oh, I’d explain it, but it would take too long, and you wouldn’t agree anyway due to your fundamental flaws, so let’s just skip the argument mkay? I’ll be sitting over there being right if you need me.

  11. hey, if my choice is between being patronizing in your eyes, or else being a goddamn bore going on forever about politics nobody here agrees with and still not bloody likely convincing anybody of anything other than me being an egocentric twat for bothering y’all with it endlessly…

    for an extra bonus, i’ll be a stuck-up snobby arsehole too. like this: once you’ve been on these intertubes for enough many years, you learn to recognize situations where successful communication is basically not possible, and to cut your losses by not going there.

    now, i could demonstrate just why it’s frigging ludicrous to call Obama a marxist, if i bothered to get my own wordpress account and spend a while typing — but if you seriously think Larry, or just about anybody as convinced of their points as he seems to be, would bother spending their time reading it and change their minds about the matter, then you’re greatly overestimating my communications skills. against such dead-set conviction as he possesses, all i could realistically do would be to write an encyclopedia-length diatribe which would convince him merely to avoid talking to me for the sake of saving himself the time and effort. that would not be useful to anybody, not even you.

  12. “i could demonstrate just why it’s frigging ludicrous to call Obama a marxist”

    Well no, you could not, because there is nothing ludicrous about it — unless your understanding of Marxism is so superficial and shallow that you are incapable of seeing that any instantiation of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is Marxism, and nothing but Marxism. And Obama is, if we are to believe what he says, nothing more or less than a Marxist.

    However, I’m getting extremely sick of this, since every comment is coming into my inbox. Mr. Nescio, either put up or shut up. Address the man’s points, or go away. I find your inflated ego tiresome, and to be frank, I just don’t have the patience to put up with your pompous nonsense.

  13. I’ll leave the labels to others, however, it is clear who would put anti-personal freedom supreme court judges on the bench. These appointments have decade long influences. Where do you see the Heller vs DC case going if Clinton had picked the last two judges?

Comments are closed.