Now the Democrats Want Your 401(k) too?

"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 ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) truly shows you everything I do online...Check it out!!

What she said!

Nofreelunch, you need a public blog.

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. ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=6579... )

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

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.

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 ( http://www.blogher.com/special-events/election-200... ).

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

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?  

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 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

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.

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 ( http://uredhead.blogdrive.com/ )

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. 

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 ( http://www.wetcoastwomen.com )

people... 

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

FYI

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

Thanks NoFreeLunch!. 

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*

You have made many excellent points. Thank you for your thoughtful and truthful entrance into our conversation. I cringe when I think that some lazy low life will get the money that I worked so hard for. I'm happy to give a hand up, but never a hand out. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that that is what we are in for for the next 4 years. Luckily, there is only so much damage that can be done in that amount of time.

BTW-I tried to find a link to your blog. Do you have one?

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?

it doesn't fix the bigger picture.

It doesn't give people jobs.

It doesn't pay bills

It doesn't give people education

The brand of 'socialism' that you are all so afraid of is merely making sure that the MAJORITY of people get a fair chance by having the bare bones basics covered.

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

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

They inherited HUGE companies.

Fair tax is not discrimination of the rich

You are building or have built a world similar to the situation pre revolutionary France...and the people sure did get tired of the status quo.

I cannot imagine Obama being able to make any radical changes in the four years he could be given.

He is not a dictator nor does he have the military behind to roll in and walk all over you.

The most he will manage is minor adjustments to taxes and you will all keep squabbling over healthcare and how to clean up Iraq.

And your 401K was destroyed by the buy out....yep...it trashed every other countries retirement plans too.

Thanks.

But you know what...the buy out didn't do that....letting greedy corporations have free reign over your own money is what did that.

And why did that happen? Because America LIKES BIG BLOATED COMPANIES WITH LARGE AND POWERFUL LOBBY GROUPS AND DONATIONS.

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

Sorry hon, but I am with Melanie. I have stood by and watched by 401K go right down the tubes by HALF because democrats were stupid enough to pressue banks and loaning institutions into giving sub prime loans to people who had no business having them, and that in turn has crashed the economy and the real estate market.

I scrimped and saved and put money into my 401K for 30 years and now that I've lost half of it the democrats have the gall to try and take the rest through taxation and snatching away from me what my employer freely gives because they feel that other people don't have the same opportunity.  TOUGH BEANS.

If they DARE to implement this stuff, I can assure you that even if Obama gets elected he will be out of there faster than Jimmy Carter.  

How dare you critize someone and arrogantly explain to them that you plan to "take away" what they worked for?  

I heartily agree about our choices being taken away. I give to charity to help those less fortunate and I like to be able to choose how much money I give and where I will donate it. A huge proportion of the money the government receives is wasted.

Our community has a charity based health center for the uninsured. I don't think the government could draft a plan for a health center with the amount of money that it takes to run this charitable center for an entire year.

I think people are putting a lot of misplaced faith in government no matter which party is in charge if they're thinking that expanding govenment is the solution to anything.

Tina Tobin

Website: http://www.luvemorleavem.com

Blog: http://luvem-leavem.blogspot.com

Obama's plan to tax 5% of the people who live in this country and redistribute it to the remaining 95% is a socialist ideal.  I don't know how much more specific I can get.  If you're a socialist...fine.  It IS a free country after all and we DO have the right to our affiliations and opinions.  But with family still living in Latvia (before, during, and after its Soviet occupation), I can tell you firsthand...it ain't better over there.  It's better here.  

Without entering this not-so-nice debate, I absolutely agree with everything that you've said. I would like to keep my money and do with it what I wish. If I lose it in the stock market or 'whatever' that's my problem. I and my husband have worked hard for what we have and I'm tired of hearing about the redistribution of wealth. Whe did America lose it's faith in hard work? I'm happy to help my neighbor if they run into hard times but allowing the government to do that for me is not what we signed up for. I know what's best for me.

What socialistic ideas? If your Mom is worried, then there must be specific issues with Obama's platform that she dislikes. Obama's platform is online and is quite detailed. Which specific platform issue does your mother consider to be "socialistic"?

Let's see..we've had Obama indirectly linked to the Nazis, Mussolini, and now Argentina. Now, we're bringin in the Soviet Union.

Really, I don't think my comment about drinking the blood of babies on All Hallow's Eve is all that far off the mark, considering the progression of these statements. But oddly enough, I've not seen anything concrete put forth. 

I wouldn't mind hearing what specific platform issues of Obama's are reminiscent of the Soviet Union. In fact, I'm all agog with excitement waiting the answer.

Lets just call it what it is. I have reached the point where I believe that Obama and team are no longer even trying to hide who he is. He is a socialist. His policies are Socialist and some even lean toward Communism. Now some people dont think there is anything wrong with that and thats their right. I happen to disagree. Thats not what has made this country the greatest in the world.

Sadly, I think that the Bush administration has done such a bad job over the last 8 years that the masses are just TIRED. Every 20+ years or so people get tired and are ready to give up free thinking and decision making on their own in order to have things GIVEN to them.

I think we are there as a country and I hate it.

I suspect Obama will win on the 4th and the voters will get exactly what Obama has promised them. Just dont be shocked when it happens. He was quite clear about who he is and what he wants to do with this country.

I have to say that recent blog posts have me scratching my head. What on earth are you doing putting Canada in the same league as Nazi Germany and Argentina? My husband has an American employee who works for him (here in Canada). He loves it here. He loves the fact that he can go to the doctor and not worry about paying for it. He starts sentences with "Back when I didn't have insurance..."

Why is "redistribution of wealth" a bad thing? Do you know that redistribution of wealth is the ONLY real purpose of modern government? People will say that "the only role of government is to provide common good (army, law enforcement, infrastructure, fire departments etc.), but all of those things predate modern nations (specifically in the U.K, where you had fifedoms). The only new thing that the government does is redistribution of wealth. Everything else was provided privately before the modern state existed (and less efficiently, might I add).

So why are we so afraid of the government helping people out? Why are we afraid of the government actually ensuring that people don't die old and destitute? And not only that, the taxpayer will not have to PAY for those people who don't consider their retirement. Isn't that a win-win???

Thank you Crunchy Carpets. It's rarely when I have anyone come to my defense. I found it very pleasant, and I appreciate it.

"I think that while the baby blood drinking was a bit over-the-top, and clearly not going to receive a good response..."

Too true, but it just seemed to fit the natural progression these accusations have been going. 

The high quality of respectful discourse from all points of view is something I cherish about the BlogHer community. I hope we can maintain it despite how contentious this election has become.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer )
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ )

Melanie, Nofreelunch, Antique Mommy - thank you. 

Not every opinion opposite of the left is inflammatory or uninformed. That perspective needs to change or we'll run in circles for forever. Every civil viewpoint is just as worthy of consideration as the next. It seems ironic to discuss how to help and serve the country in a hostile fashion, you know?

This?

If we can't learn from others' mistakes, we're doomed to repeat them. Scare tactics? No. Scary? Yes.

Brilliant. Agreed. 

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk

I think Maria makes a very good point - these discussions are shutting down before they can start up.  Maria's criticism is very constructive here.  I have yet to see her respond to anyone - including people she disagrees with - with anything but fairness and respect.

I thought her comment deserved a response.  Here's mine: Well said, and thanks for trying to keep it civil.  It's what holds this community together when these discussions unravel into hostility.

Atena

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

My mother immigrated to the U.S. from Latvia (by way of Germany) when the Soviets invaded her small country and seized and subdivided her family's farm. She worries about an Obama administration and its socialistic ideas and is afraid that if Obama and the Democrats get their way, America, as we know it, will be gone forever.  We live in the freest country on Earth.  Let's keep in that way.

I have to agree with CrunchyCarpets.  I've been following this thread and there's a lot of seemingly unnecessary vitriol.  I think that while the baby blood drinking was a bit over-the-top, and clearly not going to receive a good response, personal attacks on someone's mental health status are out-of-bounds as far as I'm concerned.

I often think that BlogHer ladies are exceedingly polite and nicey-nicey, but there's a middle ground between nicey-nicey and outright disrespectful.

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

how the tone of the more conservative here has been coming across...not to mention how narrowminded..but again....all we here  is 'how downtrodden and picked on the conservatives are ' how ' picked on you are'....all people here have asked for is to REALLY really think about the examples that are being used. 

I also love how the more lefty lot are being accused of personal attacks when we get stuff like this..

"ShellyP, all your blathering on about "fairer" distribution of wealth, the supposed downtrodden and underpaid in society is hilarious, considering that you could actually get a second job and support a disadvantaged family of six with all of the time and effort you spend at this website alone spewing out vitriol against anyone with a political stance that doesn't fall in line with yours. Talk about fascism! As a fellow St. Louisan, frankly I'm a bit uneasy to inhabit the same city limits with ShellyP, who literally sounds as if she has a personality disorder that suddenly erupts when others use their right to free speech."

Mind you, this seems to reflect the parties too and what is good for the goose is not so for the gander

I would also like to ask how you would get a second job when they no longer exist? 

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

I'd like to commend and thank Melanie Nelson, Dana Loesch and other bloggers who eloquently represent the Conservative viewpoint on this website. I would also like to voice my appreciation of others who may have an opposing point of view yet are careful, thoughtful, and respectful with their replies.

While reading the responses to Dana Loesch's post "Of socialism, racism, and honest discussion," some of the comments actually made me queasy. However, the classy way that BackPacking Dad, Nordette and others defended Dana against the reprehensible comment made by "jenniferhansen" restored my faith a bit in humanity. Sort of. In between ShellyP's seemingly constant commentary.

ShellyP, all your blathering on about "fairer" distribution of wealth, the supposed downtrodden and underpaid in society is hilarious, considering that you could actually get a second job and support a disadvantaged family of six with all of the time and effort you spend at this website alone spewing out vitriol against anyone with a political stance that doesn't fall in line with yours. Talk about fascism! As a fellow St. Louisan, frankly I'm a bit uneasy to inhabit the same city limits with ShellyP, who literally sounds as if she has a personality disorder that suddenly erupts when others use their right to free speech.

Why is it that I seem to encounter so many people on the left--who claim to be less bigoted, unfair, judgmental and apathetic toward the human race than conservatives--apparently filled with so much bitterness, hatred and bile toward people who think differently than they do?

Karoli did an entire post

http://politics.drumsnwhistles.com/2008/10/will-de...

"he short answer is NO. But if you follow news about 401k plans, you might find some pretty scary headlines like this one or this one, where the writers contend that the Democrats want to take away the tax incentive out of 401k plans and force a mandatory pension savings of 5% on employees.

Let’s put this in perspective. Testimony was given to the House Education and Labor Committee by Professor Teresa Ghilarducci. And it was dramatic testimony, no doubt. She proposed to eliminate all tax incentives for 401k plans and shift to a universal government-sponsored program with mandatory minimum savings rates per worker of 5% with a government-subsidized match of $600/year for lower-income workers. (As an aside, this time of year is generally when House Committees hear testimony on pension and tax reform, so it’s not unusual to have such testimony given).

Drastic. And it will not happen in this way, in this form. I cannot stress this strongly enough. This is certainly one proposal presented in testimony, and I suspect it got the press play because it is also the most drastic testimony I have heard about. However, others have testified, proposing milder and far more necessary reforms."

I would highly recommend you read her entire post

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

"As for what I said about Argentina, I only included that reference
because of comments you have left on other conservative threads
suggesting that it's OK to let Obama’s policies lead us to the ways of
England and Canada. My argument is if it's OK to move toward those
societal norms, what is holding us back from moving toward something
similar to what Argentina is experiencing?"

How's this for size: a completely different country, with a completely different culture, and a completely different political system.

No one said, no one, that we want to be just like England or Canada or any other country. All we said is there are certain aspects of their governments that seem to work really nicely, and that are based, loosely, on a social democratic form of economic system. I would hope that as a country of intelligent people we  would learn to absorb those aspects of other country governments that work well, or that solve problems we have. 

From there you've extrapolated out that we're one foot shy of loosing all of our 401(k)s. And you're basing it on a casual conversation with a couple of congressman. 

Jeez, we had Republican congressional members in the last eight years who have been condoing torture. I don't extrapolate from this that the Republican party wants to embrace a fascist regime. I don't take what a couple of people say in the Republican party to represent the entire Republican party. Why don't you try to do the same when it comes to the Democrats.

And, if you want to have a discussion on socia-ism, modern day versions of the same, examples from countries, good and bad, then separate it from the political argument. It just doesn't apply. And you know something else? It's not scaring anyone around here, either. 

However, your space. Or at least, the space Blogher gives you. Hopefully someone else will come along and start up a real conversation about economic philosophies and impacts on governments and societies.

(Y)ou live in a society of people. This may scare the heck out of you, but being part of society doesn't always mean that you can take, and never give back.
This does not "scare the heck out of me". I am quite in tune with my community. I made no reference of taking and not giving back. Where did that come from? My issue is that the current proposal is to take something (else) from me. Are we done with the personal attacks yet?

There are always going to be circumstances in which you won't have a choice, in order to ensure that society still functions and doesn't degenerate into chaos.
How does taking control of my 401(k) ensure that society doesn't degenerate into chaos? Talk about a scare tactic. If you are going to accuse me and other conservatives of using scare tactics, it's best not to use them in your own responses.

(Y)ou're taking things completely out of context, or attempting to put things into a worse possible light, so much so that it lessens the credibility of what you're saying.
I did not take anything out of context. I may not have evaluated it the same way you might, but that is not what you've written. You and I are coming from two separate political bases and how we interpret information may be impacted by that base. To say that I am wrong because I disagree with how you interpret it is inaccurate.

As for what I said about Argentina, I only included that reference because of comments you have left on other conservative threads suggesting that it's OK to let Obama’s policies lead us to the ways of England and Canada. My argument is if it's OK to move toward those societal norms, what is holding us back from moving toward something similar to what Argentina is experiencing? The quote I used from WSJ sounds a lot like what I'm hearing in the news these days. To dismiss it would be irresponsible. If we can't learn from others' mistakes, we're doomed to repeat them. Scare tactics? No. Scary? Yes.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

My sentence perfectly complements a post titled, "Now the Democrats want your 401(k) too", and that leads off with a news item from Argentina.

When I see a thoughtful post, I respond thoughtfully. When I see flame bait, guess what.

Melanie,  you live in a society of people. This may scare the heck out of you, but being part of society doesn't always mean that you can take, and never give back. There are always going to be circumstances in which you won't have a choice, in order to ensure that society still functions and doesn't degenerate into chaos. 

As I just mentioned, employers are eliminating their own contributions in 401(k)s. Many smaller companies never had employer contributions. Still, you can invest in your 401(k) -- it just won't get a tax subsidy if, and big if, this plan were to actually get made into a law. It's nothing more now than just general Congressional chit cat. 

You also did the exact same thing Dana did in her post, you're taking things completely out of context, or attempting to put things into a worse possible light, so much so that it lessens the credibility of what you're saying.

Dana goes, "When I think of socialists I think of Nazis", and you're pointing out Argentina and a move this country is making, and tying it into something _some_ Democratic congressional representatives are chatting about and going, "See? That's what will happen to us if the nasty socia-lists get control!"

What? Who? What will happen? Who was that masked man? 

If you really want to have a discussion on these topics, you need to consider splitting them off from your moves to make the Democratic party into some new scary thing, and have the discussion about the issues, generally. I think you'll find you'll have a better time with comments, then if you continue going "booga booga!" 

Antique Mommy www.antiquemommy.com ( http://www.antiquemommy.com/ )

When you open your comment with "You sure you all don't want to mention how Democrats drink the blood of little babies on All Hallow's Eve, too, while you're at it?" there's  not much chance of having a rational intelligent discussion. An important topic such as this deserves better than that.  So much for civil discourse. So sad.

I'll tell you what my problem is. This idea is one more way the government is taking away my personal choice. It's one more way the government is taking over something that is my own responsibility. If I had the choice of opting out of this obligated pension plan, it may be more palatable. That's not how it's being presented. Even if it were, my gut and my beliefs tell me that I don't want more government whether it's optional or not.

If I want to invest my money in Wall Street, it's my choice. No one can make a choice for me better than I can.

You said: forgot to mention that the 5% that a person invests earns a return, and that the monies invested would be available at retirement.

No I didn't. It's there in the quoted text from the article. As much as you like to call others out for not having the facts, I would have thought you'd read more closely. As for it being guaranteed, we'll see. Social Security isn't working out so well and hasn't been for some time. Is this how they plan to rescue a program that was never meant to be permanent?

I did not say this was a done deal. I stated this is an idea the Dems are floating. I doubt they could possibly do anything like it unless Obama wins. If that happens, my opinion is that we can kiss our money good-bye in favor of what one party perceives as fair. In my eyes it's redistribution of wealth and government control. I will not condone that.

Melanie
Blogging Basics 101 ( http://www.bloggingbasics101.com )
Bloggy Giveaways ( http://www.bloggygiveaways.com )
Don't Try This at Home ( http://www.donttryit.com )

before it even starts is to use the word "Democrat" when "Democratic" is appropriate. ( http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005 ) This insidiously subtle form of diminishing and showing disrespect for those who do not share your party affiliation ensures that I will be turned off from hearing your argument. When you choose to take a stance of belittiling my point of view from the get go it's difficult.

The ungrammatical conversion of the noun "Democrat" to an adjective was the brainchild of Republican partisans, presumably an attempt to deny the opposing party the claim to being "democratic" -- or in the words of New Yorker magazine senior editor Hendrik Hertzberg, "to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation."

You write of (and tag) "Democrat policies." How would you feel if a Democrat wrote of "Republic policies?" I'm disappointed to see this form of discourse. I do believe it is possible to forcefully express your views without being disrespectful.

Additionally, commanding readers to do their homework suggests that one cannot be informed and disagree with your point of view. That rhetorical tactic limits discussion to agreeing with you or appearing to reveal yourself as uninformed. I hope you'll be more open to engaging a range of viewpoints in the future.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/maria-niles )

You sure you all don't want to mention how Democrats drink the blood of little babies on All Hallow's Eve, too, while you're at it?

 First, this is just one of the things Congress is contemplating. Contemplating, only. 

Secondly, it's not a bad option. The plan would put more senior investment money in safe government guaranteed bonds, rather than the incredibly risky Wall Street. And, all you free market people should like this, it would stop government subsidies of 401(k). 

Considering how much the investment management charges as a fee on top of the 401{k}, I'd rather have this plan where the government pays in a set amount, and the fund is given a guaranteed return and slow, but steady growth.

Employers are now eliminating their matching funds into 401(k)s, which was the big seller of these in their time. Add this to the high management fees  paid by the fund participants, and that the investment amount would be both protected and given a guaranteed return--exactly what is your problem?

Oh by the way, how interesting that you completely forgot to mention that the 5% that a person invests earns a return, and that the monies invested would be available at retirement. 

But then you make this sound like a done deal, when the few reports on this say this is nothing more than one thing Congress is looking at based on a proposal submitted to Congress by a respected economist.

Scary, isn't it? It is emphatically not a scare tactic; it's a fact. I could never be comfortable with such a system.

Dana Loesch
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )

Host and executive producer, "The Dana Show" ( http://www.971talk.com/dana/index.aspx )
on Fox News affiliate KFTK 97.1 FM Talk