BlogHer - 401K - Comments

In the interest of disclosure

Elisa Camahort — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:07:13 -0500

"the administration here obviously considers it non-partisan to include posts from Michelle Obama and Jill Biden with no representation from equally well-known conservatives."

FYI: While our invites to Cindy McCain and Sarah Palin to either blog or be interviewed for the site have yet to accepted, we have had Liz Mair, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Carly Fiorina and Jo Ann Davidson among our prominent conservative women working on the McCain campaign who have blogged and been interviewed.

So yes, our outreach has been absolutely omnipartisan. And we are happy to take the representation that both campaigns have offered us in response to that outreach.

Elisa Camahort Page
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.com

My BlogHer profile truly shows you everything I do online...Check it out!!

Liberalism, social ism and Marxism

NOfreelunch — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:42:13 -0500

Thanks, Uppity Redhead. I couldn't agree with you more and I love your blog. ThatCoolBroad, I think you're beautiful inside and out and love the perspective you added to the discussion. I know what you mean about sometimes feeling in the minority with your political opinion--including on this website. In these last critical days before the election, the administration here obviously considers it non-partisan to include posts from Michelle Obama and Jill Biden with no representation from equally well-known conservatives. If you go to Uppity Redhead's website, she has a great list of conservative blogs. Like Melanie said, they're out there.

I wish all people who are voting on November 4th would read as much as possible before then to be familiar with all sides of the issues, not just their own. I have encountered Obama supporters where I live who think they are adequately informed just by occasionally watching/reading the (vastly left-leaning) mainstream media and reading Obama's website, a Netland o' Warm, Fuzzy Inclusiveness in which everyone has everything they've ever needed or wanted for absolutely free. All they have to do is work a quick, part-time gig or sit around all day and BAM--education, free healthcare, free checks from Obama in the mail, free mani/pedis, you name it. Speaking of Obama's web presence, it isn't a shocker that Obama's official campaign blogger was also a devotee of Marxism.

Crunchy Carpets, thanks for being a good sport about my last post and for your kind words about America. It meant a lot. I'm glad that we can banter back and forth without attacking each other. Although we have fundamental disagreements on the issues, I'd still buy you a drink if you were around. I'm sure one thing we could agree on is that when you get as fired up about politics as we do, civil discourse sometimes can be challenging. Occasionally you have to count to ten before posting, right Crunchy? I know I do. I want to respond to a couple of your statements, not to single you out but because I've heard the same from others and I'd like to address it.

"The fact that Nazism and Social ism AND Marxism are being bandied about to me is insane."

I didn't bring up Nazism in my prior arguments, and I'm going to continue to leave it out. What I want to know is have you ever read Karl Marx? Marx, along with Engels and others, believed that social ism was the bridge between democracy and communism. He considered communism to be the complete evolution, or solution to the problems of government and society. So when you and others say you can't believe the terms Marxism and social ism are being discussed in political forums or applied to Obama, you've lost me. As has been mentioned, there are already examples of social ism present in our democracy in America. The topics of social ism and Marxism are intrinsically entwined. Social ism is an economic philosophy in which wealth is redistributed, and that's just one of the offensive things (to me) that Obama plans to do heavily in an already bad economy. How are the terms social ism or Marxism being mentioned here even a stretch, much less considering their mention insane? To me, it's like having a forum about popcorn and saying it's insane if someone brings up butter and salt.

Moreover, anyone who is in support of Obama and doesn't acknowledge his Marxist, social ist leanings hasn't read anything about Obama's past, including his own books. Obama's past has been unbelievably ignored in the mainstream media, and to me it's very important. Obama said in his book "Dreams About My Father" that he sought out Marxist professors. In high school he picked a member of the Communist party as one of his school counselors. He also talks about the "social ist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union" while at Columbia University. He mentions in his book how he considered it important that he "chose his friends carefully." Two of those friends were domestic terrorists and Marxists, in whose home Obama decided to launch his political career. These were William Ayers (who said in 2002 "I am a Marxist"), and his wife, fellow domestic terrorist and Marxist Bernadine Dohrn. In fact, for a man who wanted to choose his friends so carefully, Obama has surrounded himself with Marxists throughout his life. Obama was born to a Marxist, his father. This is a man Obama idolized, to whom he dedicated his book and about whom the quest for knowledge helped form his sense of self. In his book Obama said he felt like he had something to prove to his father. Michelle Obama asserts in one of her posts here that the Obamas are all about caring and inclusiveness for all. Yet despite that assertion, the Obamas sat in a church for 20 years in which divisiveness, hatred and anger was spewed from the pulpit in sermons by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. This is a man who said Hillary Clinton wasn't experienced enough to be president (as Obama was) because she had never been called the "N" word. Wright blamed America for the attacks on 9/11 because of our support of Israel. Of course I'm sure everyone has heard the much quoted "God Damn America" sermon of the Rev. Wright. Look for Wright's speeches on You Tube or find their texts online if you don't want to take my word for it or think I'm taking words out of context. The Obamas have claimed that every time Wright had said these hugely inflammatory things in church, they were not present. Does anyone believe that statement from the Obamas is honest? Some argue that what a Reverend says his parishoners cannot be held accountable for and shouldn't be "tied to." But the fact is, the Obamas enlisted Wright in some of the most special and important moments of their lives. They had the Rev. Wright marry them and baptize their children. In my opinion, anyone who is willing to believe that the sheer number of radical people--hateful racists, domestic terrorists, Marxists, radical social ists, or far-left extremists--Obama has surrounded himself with throughout his life were there because of some strange coincidence is extremely naïve. They must be wearing some bizarre form of political rose-colored glasses. It's only in Obama's campaign for President that he's not too keen about anyone bringing up the people he's so "carefully chosen" with whom to surround himself. Obama is not your mother's Democrat. He's not a Bill Clinton or a JFK. He's by far the most radical Democratic candidate for president we've ever had, not to mention having little experience and already proven bad judgment about the economy, the military and national security issues.

No Crunchy Carpets, I don't find it "strange" that Canadians want to help people and their country's welfare in general via their taxes. Although you seem to sympathize with me in a way, since according to your comment you "hate" handing over money that in your opinion is too highly taxed. Your comment says "WE want to help." As if Americans don't want to help? As if we don't already pay taxes and the sum not lost to government waste isn't used to better our country? As if we have some objection to paying taxes in general? It's only the 40 percent of the American population who don't pay federal income taxes at all that are not "helping." Now under Obama, they are set to get a check in the mail, to boot. You say,

"While I do get the fear of letting your government have too much power.....we are seeing that in action right now are we not?"

No, actually not anywhere near as much as if Obama was in office. Now we have a Republican (sort of) President and a majority Democrat Congress. With Obama in office and with a majority in Congress, that is what's called letting your government have too much power.

In fact, under the guise of liberalism and even with our Constitution, we are subject to all kinds of losses of our personal freedoms. Most liberals (and sadly, even a few liberal Republicans) want what is referred to as "nanny states," in which legislation is put into place that practically screams "Hey public, you're too stupid with regard to issue ‘xyz,' so we're going to take away your right to choose what to do altogether." For example, witness the legislation to ban trans fats in California restaurants. The nanny state thinks the public doesn't have the right to decide whether they want to ingest foods with trans fats. They make unnecessary, repugnant legislation so that not only does the public lose the right to choose what they eat, but restaurant owners lose the right to choose the foods they want to serve in establishments they own. You might think an argument in favor of an artery clogging fat is ludicrous, but it's a matter of principle. If the government can decide for you what you can eat, then what else are they going to randomly choose to force upon you if enough of them think it's "good for you?" Now THAT, again, is letting government have too much power. By a large majority it is far-left liberals like Obama that are in favor of big government nanny state laws.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt social ism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the social ist program until one day America will be a social ist nation without ever knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas, American Social ist Party

What she

Headless Mom — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:32:29 -0500

What she said!

Nofreelunch, you need a public blog.

Liberal BlogHer Administration Deep Cyberspace!

Denise — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 06:12:18 -0500

Sorry, I just made my way to the spam filter for the morning and released your comment, which was trapped due to the spam filter problem. Cialis is a peddled by spammers and so blocked strongly by our software.

I've addressed your questions regarding Michelle Obama and Dr Biden, via email, but will address them here again publicly since you've raised them again.

BlogHer is a non-partisan company but its contributing editors and members are not. Both the Obama and McCain camp have been invited to blog on BlogHer and both have taken us up on our offer. The campaigns decide who blogs, we do not decide. We have not turned away any posts from either campaign. We also do not set the publishing schedule for either campaign. They blog when they feel like blogging, just like most bloggers do.

The Democrats have sent Dr Biden and Mrs Obama to blog here. The Republicans have sent many, many bloggers: Liz Mair, Nancy Pfotenhauer, Jo Ann Emerson, Jo Ann Davidson (I could go on but you get the picture.)

Surf through the BlogHer Election 2008 content, you'll actually find more posts from the McCain camp than from the Obama camp - not that I'm counting. :-)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

BlogHer is non-partisan but our contributing editors and members may not be - you can find coverage from all sides in BlogHer Election 2008.

Flamingo House Happenings

S-word

Maria Niles — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:37:04 -0500

Automatically triggers comment moderation because the center of the word contains the name of a drug for men often pitched in spam. You've misspelled it here so it should be OK. Your other comment will have to wait for review by a human.

BlogHerAdmin?

NOfreelunch — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:30:17 -0500

Where is the lengthy comment I just posted entitled "Liberalism, socialsm and Marxism"? It appeared on the home page "recent comments" section for about 15 minutes without showing up in the thread, and then even the recent comment reference to it disappeared.

Did it just fall into Liberal BlogHer Administration Deep Cyberspace or what?

Re: Hey

NOfreelunch — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:52:35 -0500

Thanks so much for your kind comment, Headless Mom. When I read your comment I was totally cheering you on as well.

The only blogs I've ever kept so far have been private thoughts and
essays that are filtered for friends only. That's pretty much why I've
never posted here. I suppose at this point I'm somewhat of an
"internet recluse." I've been considering starting a more public foray
into the blog world, but I haven't as of yet. Maybe that technically
labels me as a BlogHer "cheater," but I'm just here to try to have
civil debates with people in these last days before what I believe to
be the most important election of my lifetime.

(edited to add) I'm worried about him being able to do some significant damage in the next four years, though. I fear that without any checks and balances of Obama's policies (since he has a majority in Congress full of socialists like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi) he could do a fair bit of damage in that time, especially to the economy and the medical system. And what if four years turned into eight years? *involuntary shudder*

Glad you're here!

Melanie Nelson — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:12:42 -0500

I'm so glad you took a chance and chimed in. Conservative bloggers are out there and we appreciate the support. Thanks!

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101
Bloggy Giveaways
Don't Try This at Home

You think I'm beautiful? (swoon)

thatcoolbroad — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:05:34 -0500

Seriously, NoFreeLunch...your post was so right on the money and incredibly well articulated. Maybe you should come out of your "reclusion" and start bloggin'!

To be honest, it's so refreshing (and somewhat unusual) to find like-minded women in the blogging community. I could be wrong, but it seems like most bloggers are liberal (or maybe they're just the ones that make the most noise) and as a result, I've learned to keep my politics to myself. I happened upon this post accidentally and decided to take a chance and speak out...and I'm really glad I did.

NoFreeLunch...

Elise — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:36:43 -0500

Just wanted to say thanks for your great post! Many, many great points. I keep seeing people (not just here) say things like- "Oh dont worry, he cant do TOO much damage in 4-8 years"... doesnt that scare the hell out of you?

Now with the video/audio of Obama talking in depth about his beliefs on redistribution of wealth, its quite clear who he is and what he stands for. If the polls are correct, Socialism is what the "majority" of voters want. As for me, Im sick to my stomach over it.

Uppity Redhead

Canadian political scene

Wyliekat — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:35:22 -0500

Hi Melanie,

Just wanted to provide you with a bit of insight into Canada. Here, as a political science major in university, I did a great deal of studying what Canada is not, by comparing it to what our closest neighbours (US and UK) are.

The US will never "go the way of Canada and England", because Canada was founded on entirely different principles. Good government versus the rights of the individual. It's buried in our Charter of Rights, the same way as it is in your Constitution.

Additionally, as our countries have evolved, there has been an ever increasing trend in Canada towards giving us freedom "from" things (violence, persecution, poverty, ill health). In your country, the founding principles and the continuing decisions have been geared more toward freedom "to" do things - bear arms, for example.

You could spend a great deal of time and energy examining these differences and trying to discern if one is better than the other. Hells, I spent four years in university doing just that.

Obama is one man. He cannot turn a country socialist, even if he wanted to. Even if it were possible, given the laws and lays of the land down there. Your system of government as it is now is far too entrenched to be changed by any one person.

That said, I hope he does win. I'd like to see a little note of "my brother's keeper" down south. But that's your government, not mine. All I can do is watch from my bird's eye view.

First of..I want to apologize if my citizenship has made it look

Crunchy Carpets — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:02:41 -0500

like I am a nosy neighbour sticking her nose in.

As a citizen of a country that is SATURATED in Americana..we watch all the same shows, cable, news etc....

Our economy is dependant on the US economy

We are waaaay smaller than you guys etc etc.

....I am fascinated by American politics. I am also fascinated by just how different we really are. As I said..for two nations who eat the same fast food, watch the same tv, listen to the same music, buy all the same stuff.....the differences between us are totally amazing.

And I don't mean that in an offensive way.....I am not saying we are better...No way.

And the reactions to this campaign have been absolutely amazing to me.....from both sides.

The fact that Nazism and Socialism AND Marxism are being bandied about to me is insane.

I am sorry...it boggles me that people fear that Obama is going to turn you into some sort of communist nation...by adjusting taxes?? by making sure some basics needs are looked at???

Do you really think he is going to take all the money from the rich and give to the poor...that he some sort of Marxist Robin Hood?

Come on....

Do you really think that the modern western socialist countries...like Australia, Great Britain, Portugal, etc etc.....heck include us even under our Conservative Government is considered socialist by you...do you really think these countries have stripped the money through taxes from the wealthy? Do you really think we are all living on welfare just waiting for the government to take care of us?

It is this extreme mentality that I don't get....It doesn't exist. Canada is a highly taxed nation...my province is one of the highest...we hate it...but we are not starving nor are we all in food lines.

Employment was at an all time high...that has been spoiled by this financial mess.

Yes we have welfare...but we ain't all wanting to be on it. We WANT our taxes to go to better care for the homeless. We want our taxes to help people get of drugs and of the streets. WE want to help. Through our taxes.

Do you find that strange?

We all work hard and we all save and we all hope to have good homes and perks. Just like everyone else. And we don't feel like the government is taking that away.

I don't get the Fear.

I don't get the extreme and improbable examples you are shelling out.

While I do get the fear of letting your government have too much power.....we are seeing that in action right now are we not?

So then why do people not demand more control over their politicians and representatives...why are people not telling the parties what they want....accountability....is this not true?

Instead of being afraid of change should you not be demanding it?

From either candidate....

So while yes..I am sticking my nose in other people's business by posting here...it is only because i truly do not get where the thinking comes from and am keen to learn.

I love hearing what the American people are dealing with and struggling with....You are our neighbours. I have many many American friends. I travel to the states all the time.

Canada loves you guys!

I honestly do not think either candidate is going to make huges differences...there is a LOT to clean up and deal with....

And only four years to do it.

Maybe it is time for change.

Remember....if it isn't working..the people have a right to speak out.

Government is supposed to listen to you.

Is that not what democracy is all about?

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com

Cos Canada is full of people laying around living of other

Crunchy Carpets — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:13:36 -0500

people...

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com

On wealth and its redistribution

NOfreelunch — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:14:28 -0500

I'm new here and I'm not familiar with most of the people posting or their blogs. Crunchy Carpets, I went to your blog out of curiosity because I couldn't understand how an American could become so disillusioned with our great country as to make this thoroughly hopeless statement:

"Why should the wealthy stay wealthy if there is no chance for other people to get wealthy?"

I thought to myself "No chance for people to get wealthy? In America? How could an American possibly make that statement? No chance AT ALL for people to get wealthy? Wow." So I go to your blog and I see that you aren't even an American-you're a Canadian. So then, how can you make a statement as broad and fatalistic as "there's no chance for other people to get wealthy" here? Because on American soil, from where I'm writing to you in this thread addressing American politics, I see plenty of chances for anyone-of any race, religion, gender or sexual orientation--not only to get rich, but to get FILTHY STINKIN' RICH. That's what is so great about this country--our citizens are blessed with more freedom and opportunity than anywhere in the world. Does it take someone so very cool (and beautiful) as That Cool Broad-who has an idea from her mom of what it's like in a country with few freedoms at all-to be so unspoiled and realistic as to see the opportunity and freedom our citizens enjoy? Sometimes it seems it does, when many Americans are ready to "throw in the towel" to an outright Marxist politician. We are so spoiled in this great democratic country that many don't understand the concept of socialism (what Obama wants to do via "wealth redistribution"), and its slippery slope of the eventual loss of our individual rights over time. Rights such as some of the awesome comments in this thread are highlighting: the right to choose how our money is spent in a charitable fashion.

I don't understand how anyone can justify making a statement such as "there's no chance for other people to get wealthy" here. I don't mean to attack you Crunchy, but I find it absolutely offensive. Take a person like Cesar Milan, aka the Dog Whisperer. Out of desperation, he snuck into this country illegally. Without even a formal education or a green card, he was able to work his ass off and parlay his charisma and natural talent for working with animals into a multimillion dollar business. His show is a huge success. He sells books, makes personal appearances and trains other peoples' dogs for BIG DINERO. Now after marrying his American wife, he's a citizen and rolling in dough. Only in America, people. But that's why they call this "the land of opportunity."

Crunchy Carpets, in your blog you were talking about your child's classroom. You were angry at his teacher and the way she was teaching him about Thanksgiving. You said not only was she educating him in the wrong way about Thanksgiving, but you were angry that the information was based on American history. Well imagine this scenario. Imagine that your son was a college student of voting age, and some way his teacher lived in the northernmost part of America and commuted to Canada to teach his class. Imagine the American teacher aggressively giving her opinion of Canadian politics to him and trying to persuade him who to vote for in Canada. Would that make you feel even a little pissy? Imagine an American telling your son that he had no chance in Canada of ever being wealthy--even if he worked his butt off, got a scholarship to an excellent college and put all his time and focus into having a business of his own. Might you feel like she had no business making your son feel hopeless about his future? Wouldn't you be miffed even if a Canadian teacher did that same thing? Obviously this is a public forum and you have the right to say what you want. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how our economy affects yours. But at the end of the day, you sleep on Canadian soil and are living with the Canadian economy. Let's say our fragile economy tanks way worse because Obama is overtaxing those who actually make the economy stronger and generate jobs. It tanks even harder because he's also handing out money--not only to some disadvantaged people who may work hard and aren't getting "wealthy," but also to plenty of people who are not working hard at all. Or not even working. Or they are drug addicts. Or they are lazy and sit around playing video games, blogging, and eating Fig Newtons all day. The bottom line is, as a Canadian, you are not going to be in a depression that was created because people felt ENTITLED by their government to be handed money regardless of the effort they are putting out to try to earn it. Whether people are trying or not, they will be given that money in an Obama administration. People who have fledgling small businesses and are working their fingers to the bone trying to live their own American dream will be taxed heavily. The money that they are working so hard for--with barely a free minute to kiss their kids at night--will be taken from them and possibly given to people with no kids who sit around getting high and playing World of Warcraft all day. Does that seem like "fair distribution of wealth" to you? It doesn't sound fair to me at all. Just from reading your blog and your comments and getting a sense of your feistiness, I get the feeling that you would be downright furious in that situation. But that's just a hunch.

I'd like to discuss one more of your statements. (In fact, I'd like to discuss every one of them if I had the time right now).

"The majority of the UBER rich in the US are not wealthy because of their hard work...they have inherited their wealth."

Imagine you and your husband worked your tails off, started a business and made it to being fairly wealthy. Let's say you made so much money that even with many charitable donations you could never spend it all. Of course in your wills, you would want your children and family to inherit that money and be able to benefit from all your hard work, right? That's one of the things foremost in a parent's mind when they work hard: the support of their family. Wouldn't you think after all your hard work that your kids had the right to inherit that money and to choose the ways in which it was spent? Wouldn't you be angry if after you died the remainder of the money you worked so hard for was heavily taxed and given to people who had not worked nearly as hard as you had, or maybe never worked at all? Wouldn't you want your children to be able to allocate the funds partly to their kids and partly to your family's favorite charities? Charities that you knew from experience were going to spend the money wisely, instead of it being wasted by the government? How can you say that the wealthy are not there because of their hard work? Maybe they are there because of their parents' hard work, but didn't someone in their family have to work their tail off to make it?

FYI I have linked this

Headless Mom — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:12:46 -0500

FYI

I have linked this article on my Multiply (you can get there from my homepage).

Thanks NoFreeLunch!.