Thursday, December 6, 2012

Russian Paper Compares Obama's Fools to Stalin's Fools

Courtesy of Pravda Ru News

"He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so.

How shrewd he is in America.

His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion.

Reading Putin’s speech without knowing the author, one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America. The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative. Vladimir Putin went on to say:

“…we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy.

That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.”

I would have to admit I never thought I would agree with a Russian Newspaper or website, but in this case I do. They have lived it and know what it's like living under a cruel dictatorship and we are headed that way, in my opinion, under the Obama administration.  

There is only one objection I have to this article and it's calling people, "fools" people are just either misinformed, have misjudged or lack the ability to think for themselves, or blinded by lies by propaganda. They believe everything they are told by the media and sadly, most that live that way, do not know the Lord as their Savior or God Almighty as their Creator, otherwise they would understand the perspective and anger of  why Christians are relentless in trying to lead them to the truth. Lies and deceit lead to only one conclusion, destruction, but the truth will always set the captive free. That's my goal. 

Yes, I can be wrong, but I will openly admit it. I am far from perfect. But there is one irrefutable fact I STAND on the Word of God, and I will wield it as a burning and fiery sword to the bitter end. I don't hate anyone, including Obama, I just strongly disagree with him, his policies and truthfully, how he is a HUGE sympathizer of Muslims.

However, I digress.... 

I am fully aware that liberals LOVE to call me or others that disagree with them every vile name in the book, including the word, "Fool." But I will not do the same. 

Nuff said.

REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR!! DECEMBER 7TH, 1941.  A day in history we shall never forget!



Silverfiddle said...

People who wait for delivery by a political hero are fools.

We've been here before, many times in human history...

But it will work this time!

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, you just cited about the silliest tabloid in the entire world.


Leticia said...

Silver, exactly! And the only one I trust in is God, period.

Jersey, it's all over the net and was sent to me. So, I felt compelled to post it. Silly to you, reality to me. We are all entitled to our opinions.

dmarks said...

Jersey: Not as silly as the Washington Times, anyway.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

Call it like it is, there are plenty of fools out there.

Anonymous said...

Most of them are here with their simple minded host.

Leticia said...

dmarks, it's a Russian News article, so now they are flakes, too?

MK, nah... we are way better than that. We aren't fools, just know the truth.

Anon, proves my point, lovely how liberals are so like-minded. LOL! Funny, how you would be the first to insult on this post and yet never reveal yourself. You hide behind your cowardice.

dmarks said...

No, Leticia. I said nothing was as silly as the Washington Times, which is a money-laundering scam by a criminal cult which was founded by a jailbird who told underage girls that having sex with him was the way to Jesus and salvation.

Jersey McJones said...

Leticia, think about what's being said in that tabloid. It's just nuts. Do you know what Stalin did over the course of his life? The history of Russia and the USSR? To in any way compare Obama to Stalin is silly. It's just plain silly. I don't know how else to say it.

And dmarks, WOW! Where did that come from? The WT spouts the same stuff you usually do? Got something against Moonies in general or just the Reverend? LOL!


dmarks said...

And where did THAT come from, Jersey? I've mentioned this before. Moon's criminal record is well known. The WT is not even a real newspaper business.

It being conservative does not make a difference for me. i.e. if the Colorado "Batman" theatre shooter had been spouting off about how great Reagan was while shooting his victims, it would gain me 0 sympathy for him.

Always On Watch said...

More than any other single factor, it was the mainstream media that got BHO re-elected. Behind that factor, we also find the factor of what the school systems have done to ruin critical thinking abilities.

Gullibility always leads to misery. And utopias always fail.

Always On Watch said...

California: another utopian failure in the works.

dmarks said...

There is some good news. Barring outrageous violence by anti-democratic (small "D") protesters, Michigan will become a Right To Work state within a few days. The balance of power will tilt toward the workers.

I have seen no good arguments against it. I read a big editorial that called anyone who earned honest pay/compensation without unions is a "freeloader". Such contempt for working people is at the heart of opposition to right-to-work.

EzzZee said...

Deal with it dmarks and admit it, your a racist and you've always been one....
So now you're blaming Obama for your being a racist? Might as well blame him, you guys have been blaming him for everything else.
You can take your KKK hood and robe out of your closet now!

christian soldier said...

We must never forget-
Patton gave a warning- no one heeded his warning about an attack on Pearl!

to a lighter note-
Dec 8
Go ARMY- Beat Navy

dmarks said...

Ez: Show one single racist statement from me. Can you meet my challenge? No. I am not a racist of any kind.

As for the KKK, that is more likely for you, as you passionately defend racist smear words as "appropriatte". This is well documented. Any instance of racism from me isn't documented at all, since I detest racism in all its forms and am consistent.

Anonymous said...

Not logical.

We all know that Pravda will say something to attack America and thus by attacking Obama as being communist will mean that he most certainly is not.

It is rather like having your product faked in China, it is a sign of success, such as a Rolex watch or a Gucci handbag.

Personally ANYONE who considers Obama and his administration to be communist, marxist or the like is simply either an idiot or a political-windbag and doing themselves a disfavour.

I would go even further and say that the current Admnistration is not even socialist and there never has been a Democratic administration that fits that bill.

For those of us that have lived with real Socialist parties and that even have real communist members, the difference is huge.

Centre-right is not socialism.

So far the only marxist element I have seen here is when dmarks showed his red-stained inner self by declaring that American Presidential salaries and conditions should be offset by their private income.

For someone bent on challanging others, he has yet to comply to two given to him. He has yet to show a quote from me on another thread (and thus remains a liar) and I see no evidence that he has pillaged the American people for his own private wealth.

dmarks lies: 0
challengers: 2

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

"Centre-right is not socialism"


Centre-LEFT is not socialism

Fabian the Rocket Scientist said...

Pearl Harbor. A few hours that changed the world.
It seems like every year that passes, less and less is said about that day. Don't want to upset our new friends, I reckon.
Fuck 'em. I don't need a newspaper article to remind me to honor our fallen warriors.

And with Obama in Office, the same will be true about September the 11th.

dmarks said...

Damien, the person who demanded that bloggers be registered so they can be controlled and disappeared by the government at will, said:

"dmarks lies: 0"

For once, that is accurate math. The total is indeed 0.

Also, not wanting to give millions of dollars worth of unearned welfare goodies to millionaires is sound public policy. Not Marxism. I believe welfare/charity should be given to the poor, and not wasted on the wealthy.

dmarks said...

Another correction: a center-left person can be a socialist if they advocate socialist policies. Mr Obama, for example, favors Stalinizing the American healthcare system with "single payer". That is a big step in the direction of socialism (i.e. economic fascism). In instances like this, where Obama wants the elites to have more control and the people less, he can be called a socialist. But I agree that it is highly debatable to call him a socialist overall.

We will have to see what the next 4 years bring. Hopefully, he will not earn the full-on "socialist" label by amassing more central power at the expense of the people.

Lisa said...

eezee you're such a freak

Leticia said...

dmarks, got it! Sorry, I didn't mean to sound accusatory.

Jersey, I see things through a biblical aspect and I can see the correlation.

AOW, yes that is so true. Soon, people will know that we have not just been spewing lies and hate, but the truth.

Ezz, your obsession with racism is getting a wee bit out of control, try and reel it in. Or you going to hurt yourself.

Carol, AMEN!

DC, I see it differently from you. I have read and studied out and research Obama's ideals and what he has planned for this nation and it is a socialist nation. You need to wake up and realize you are defending the wrong side.

Anonymous said...


I beg to differ, please provide evidence (other than your own gut feeling) any reference to 'a socialist nation" as planned by Obama. You will, and that is obvious, find none.

Frankly speaking, so far your gut feelings as to what Obama is has proven to be rather false. Evidence is so far not on your side and you have a tendancy to jump the gun and make rash pronunciations and judgements that turn out to be wrong.

I am not defending anyone, I am pointing out factual errors. I judge people, governemnts and people like Obama based on their actions not on rumours, presumptions or even trends.

Obama has made some questionable judgements that I personally disagree with (gay marriage for example), I agree with his foreign policy which I think is a breath of fresh air, his stance on Israel is exactly as it should be, I agree on his process as per Iran.

Though I am economically conservative he has shown (and the people agreed) that his direction should be followed and frankly it is proving to be correct (ie jobless figures).

Leticia, you may see things differently and that is fine, but I see no evidence on your part that you have enough knowledge of what is real socialism and how it works in real life when pushed.

To create a socialist state is IMPOSSIBLE in the United States without major constitutional changes let alone the fact that anything remotely "red" would be rejected by even the most liberal Americans. It is simply not in your psychie to allow nationalisation of enterprise, state-controlled markets, guaranteed unelected representation in Congress by union officials.

Big government with tight control and oversight over a multitude of business and decision making is not socialist or even socialism, it is simply state-technocracy.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


I refer to my comment to Leticia above about what is impossible in America and my previous comment that anyone using words like Stalinist is simply a fool or has some strange agenda.

As per lies, please (yet again) provide a quote/link to my saying that "bloggers be registered so they can be controlled and disappeared by the government at will"

Obviously a liar/fraud/idiot on your part has no longer credibility. Are you perhaps still in junior highschool?

Damien Charles

Shaw Kenawe said...

"They have lived it and know what it's like living under a cruel dictatorship and we are headed that way, in my opinion, under the Obama administration." --Letitia

Letitia, could you give us a concrete example--evidence--of exactly how we are headed in the direction of a dictatorship?

"They believe everything they are told by the media and sadly, most that live that way, do not know the Lord as their Savior or God Almighty as their Creator, otherwise they would understand the perspective and anger of why Christians are relentless in trying to lead them to the truth."--Letitia

It is very nice that you and others who are like-minded believe that. It must give you comfort. However, there are approximately 7 billion people on Earth, of which Christians [all sects] number about 1.2 billion. IOW, your beliefs are assuredly a minority. People of other faiths and of no faith will seek their own paths to the "truth."

"Lies and deceit lead to only one conclusion, destruction, but the truth will always set the captive free. That's my goal." --L.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." A. Gide

"Yes, I can be wrong, but I will openly admit it. I am far from perfect." --L.

Yes. We who come here and read your blog are fully aware of this.

"But there is one irrefutable fact I STAND on the Word of God, and I will wield it as a burning and fiery sword to the bitter end." --L.

Oh we do so hope that will never be necessary.

"I don't hate anyone, including Obama, I just strongly disagree with him,"--L.

And part of that disagreement is shown by referring to the President of the United States of America as a "scumbag?"

"...his policies and truthfully, how he is a HUGE sympathizer of Muslims." --L.

Does the fact that President Obama doesn't denigrate the Muslim faith [or any faith for that matter] mean he's a "HUGE sympathizer? I'd like to try to understand how you arrive at your opinion, since you give us no hints in your opinion.

Opinionated Me said...

And now we are finding that there are Chemical weapons in Syria. Well imagine that! Chemical weapons in Syria, who would have thunk? I wonder how Syria got Chemical weapons with Barack Obama the Great One not knowing about it? Or, maybe, just maybe, George W. Bush was right all the time and Iraq DID have Chemical weapons that were shipped off to Syria as was first thought! And maybe, just maybe Bush didn't lie after all!
If you remember as I do,Bush listened to the democratic critics on Iraq,and he kept postponing the invasion, waiting for UN sanctions, and for those famous UN Inspectors and approval for the invasion. That gave Saddam Hussein more than enough time to ship the weapons to Syria.
Of course President Bush was right about Saddam´s WMDs -- but the Liberal media decided on the motto "Bush lied people died"

So now the truth is coming out and President Bush should be vindicated....
WE desperately need some real Men in the White House, not a Chicken Shit Liar....
And now Syria has weapons of mass destruction
Merry Christmas President and Mrs. Bush and a Happy New Year.

But the left in this country will never ever be able to admit that Bush was correct.
Shame on the naysayers and the sheep who believed them. Shame on the liberal press and the Democratic swine who were willing to smear George Bush. And Shame on those voted to give this Socialist another 4 years to further destroy America.

Anonymous said...


you hit on some very important points here that I try and point out and consistantly have them ignored, side-stepped or twisted.

the main gripe I have here is facts (or lack there of) and double-standards. Both are a clear sign of being radical or extremist.

Obama is neither a Muslim or a 'Muslim sympathiser' and those that say it are basically liars or ignorants, full stop. Obama is a church-goer, drinks beer, eats pork and cannot even correctly pronounce words that even a recent Muslim-convert can do. End of story. That he decided not to give blind-unquestioning support for Israel at the expense of relationship with the greater Middle-East does not make a 'sympathizer' nor does his effort to bring common sense instead of 9/11 emotive hang-ups that these people seem to have here, make him a 'sympathizer'. In fact the word does not even make any sense or is context here.

Also, as you can tell in my previous email to Leticia, phrases like socialist and Dictator are huge exagerations that have no place in any forum except perhaps on SNL, factually there is no such thing or no such chance.

What I find hard to tolerate here and pushes my limits (and my button) is Evangelical 'cr*p' (yes, Leticia hard words but that is it in a nutshell). I reject your claim to speak on behalf of the All Mighty as I know that the world and even here there are many faithfull (including myself) who can believe what they like and not claim it is God's words to prove their own personal viewpoints. I consider, in fact, your use of such phrases as in fact using the Lord's name in vain because if I disagree with you, you are thus using His name to overide my view. Shame on you!

The world is, unfortunately, full of people with double standards.

Leticia condemned Obama for not going to Israel as President but going to Egypt instead. She forgot that GWB did not go until his second term and that Reagan NEVER did. She also forgot that Obama did go whilst as a candidate.

The 9/11 trajedy is a good example of double-standards as well. Still you hear condemnations of the ignorants in many places like Pakistan and Afghanistan who danced when they heard about the attack. They ignorantly believe that America is at war with Islam. But then 26 per cent of Americans (almost two-thirds of them Conservative Evangelical Christians) believe that Obama is a Muslim. They are also ignorants, yet they are more educated and have better access to facts.

What a bunch.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

Opinionated Me,

firstly I should point out that I am not from the Left.

The Bush Administration got mixed intel that there was WMDs still present (and that the UN-backed inspectors did not destroy them all a few years earlier). As former British PM Tony Blair pointed out with that "chance" that they had some it was a no-brainer that they must assume there was.

However, there were none and it did leave a legal question about the formal declaration to go into conflict (at least for Britain it breached some laws).

I think they did the right thing but having said that, inquiries and investigations show that there was a very poor level of inter-agency communication when it came to Intelligence and that they could have known better. That, is a separate issue though.

As for Syria, everyone knows that they have the largest stock of Chem Weapons in the region. You can even read up on it in Jane's Defence. That is a sure thing, they have purchased bulk from the former Soviet Union stockpile a d from Romania before it had it's revolution.

A last comment, see my above reasons for pointout at that anyone even thinking that Obama is a "socialist" really has no grasp on reality.

Damien Charles

Opinionated Me said...

The Idiot who calls him or herself Anonymous
is the demented on on this thread.
The Idiot who is to cowardly to even use a phoney name wrote
"The world is, unfortunately, full of people with double standards.

Leticia condemned Obama for not going to Israel as President but going to Egypt instead. She forgot that GWB did not go until his second term and that Reagan NEVER did. She also forgot that Obama did go whilst as a candidate."

Hey Moron, when in YOUR demented mind is the "Bush" term going to expire and will Obama own-up to his lies and failures?
You Liberals and the Liberal press Kiss Obama's Ass like lap dogs!
I seem to recall a President named Bush whose administration stated that Iraqi chemical weapons had been moved to Syria. Well wake up and smell the Napalm ..
Bush was right!

Opinionated Me said...

Oh Lord! We´re surrounded by idiots!

Namely Damien Charles

Shaw Kenawe said...

Mr. Damien Charles,

As you can see, those who have no counter arguments resort to name-calling. This is what losers do.

Your points are well taken. But, I fear, are lost here.

Anonymous said...

Opinionated Me,

Tsk, tsk, for someone who's own blog says "I'm just always right", i think that tells it all.

Base your comments on facts for start and then, and perhaps then, you can join in a logical debate.

I find it laughable to say the leasst when you think your a Conservative and you call others Lefty or Liberal because they do not agree with your views, or in this case wild rants.

For a start I am tradionalist paying Conservative Party member and have been so for just over 30 years.

Secondly, I supported the War on Terror and the invasion on Iraq, if you bothered to read what I wrote (you can read can you?), I accepted the logic that Tony Blair gave (even though he is a Labour Prime Minister, that means Socialists assuming you do not know that either).

No, Syria had Chem Weapons before Iraq and Iraq was not a friend of Saddam Hussein's regime even though they are both Baathist. Go read your political history (that is if you do read).

...When one wishes to call another an idiot one should first refrain from making infantile blunders or risk looking like a "poop"...
- BlackAdder (Rowan Atkinson)

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


"Iraq was not a friend of Saddam Hussein's regime "

should read

"Syria was not a friend of Saddam Hessein's regime "

Fabian the Rocket Scientist said...

Damien Charles, if Shaw Kenawe agrees with you then I know your head is NOT screwed on straight.

Anonymous said...


based on your Pearl Harbour comment I would check the stitches keeping your own head in place, seriously you believe this conspiracy, appeasment, sympathy BS?


Anonymous said...

Fabion Yes
Dameon No!

dmarks said...

The link demand is a bogus tactic. Your blogger registration scheme is all over the place. The last time you demanded a link, the previous discussion where you did this was only a couple of posts previous to that one. And then in that very discussion you repeated your support for the scheme to have government control and stifle dissenting bloggers. I suppose you will expose yourself as an extreme fascist again in this post by again supporting your scary registration plan for bloggers. Insteas of demanding links for what is right there staring us in the face, why not instead become more civically informed and drop support for your very extreme plan?

dmarks said...

Damien: as an American place name, the second part of "Pearl Harbor" does not have an unnecessary letter "U" added to it. Incorrectly spelling a proper name like this intentionally as you are doing (and it does not look like a typo) is as bad as when Americans leave out the "U" in the name of Britain's Labour Party. Although from an objective point of view, it makes little sense to add the "U" into such words, as it adds nothing to them and is not pronounced.

dmarks said...

There is a better word for big government with tight control and oversight over decisions which should instead be left to the people, Damien. That word is "fascism". And when this big government controls industry (the "means of production") instead of leaving this to the people, that is by definition "socialism". The two of course are very closely related.

dmarks said...

Damien:The "blind support for Isreal" term used by you is a code word from antisemites whe denigrate support for the rights of Isrealis to live. I have yet to see anyone who uses such terms who doesn't have a vicious hatred of Jewish people.

That is always what is at question here: whether or not Isrealis should be allowed to live or not. It is unfortunate that you seek more "balance", between the interests of the Isrealis, who wish to live, and the wishes of its opponents in the Middle east , who officially do not recognize the rights of Israelis to exist, and want them eliminated. Genocide is evil in my view, and I apologize if you find my view quaint, rigid, and "blind". It is unfortunate to give way to the idea of giving balanced consideration to the idea of genocide just because it is demanded by Iran, the Palestinian government, the new Egyptian terrorcrats, and others.

My support and that of others of Isrealis to live as opposed to merely being ashes scraped out of industrial ovens is not blind at all.

Fabian the Rocket Scientist said...

SCREW Damien and the Horse he rode in on, and the country that he comes from, and the President of that country as well..

Anonymous said...


you can interpret what you "wish" terms mean.

though you do not merit such respect, here is what intelligent people consider the meaning.

That Israel used to recieve support "no matter what" and at the "expense" of its neighbours. In the past it even included ignoring obvious abuse.

That is simple. Immediately claiming anti-semitism and making references to ovens only makes you look like a mindless drone and a supporter of a different type of genocide, which perhaps you are.

To use your terminology, I also supprot Israel and that they live in peace and prosperity, but not based on a platform of illegalality and exceptionalism.

If you watched former Secretary of State James Baker last night on CNN you will have noticed that he (a man respected on both sides of the partisan divide) said that Israel has to now make a choice of being a "Democratic State or a Jewish one" meaning that if they continue to push settlements that make a Palestian State non-viable then they can no longer be a Jewish State but must both incorporate the Palestinians and give them equality and democracy within it. He considers the Settlements and the occupation as an invalidation of Israel's claim to justice, peace and prosperity.

I know it is hard for you to be logical but give it a try.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


it does not take a rocket scientist to know that boldfacing your text to whatever degree does not alter the invalidity of a statement.


Anonymous said...


two points:

1. squirm as much as you like, you lied and you simply do not have the b*lls to admit to it. Trying to recreate the subject and then alter your argument changes nothing, I did not say what you claimed and your "interpretation" alters nothing.

2. to be honest, i made an error with the spelling of Pearl Harbor and your harping/making an issue is just another smoke-screen to 1. above.


dmarks said...

Your demand for the registration of bloggers is the only thing that is a problem here. You have done so in repeated comment in different posts, and are likely to do so again.

You did exactly what I called you on, and I did not "interpretation". I just followed the logical conclusion of the major fascistic over-reaching of squashing free dissent in this fashion.

There is a way out of this: change your mind to respect the basic human right of dissent. Until then, I will continue to tell the truth about it.

Despite your denies of it, which in fact are the only lies concerning it.

Anonymous said...


your speaking cr*p and your lack of self-respect by skirting the subject only makes you look all the more an idiot.

This is the last time I will repeat my view which I most certainly have stated on a number of occassions.

I believe there should be a regulated internet with liability for those that break laws. Full stop. Laws should include defamation, incitement to violence, blatant racism and threats of violence/death.

The best way to regulate is registration, ie when you create a website you and the webhoster must identify and complete registration of the owner. That registration can be kept confidential BUT when there is a complaint it can be looked into and if a breach of the law was found, legal action can be created.

The advantages are enormous, accountability does not exist in much of the web and laws that exist for you and me on the street, in newspapers and other forms of media are now equally valid on the internet.

Also, when someone says something is the truth the public will more clearly know that it is an opinion and/or the truth and not some made-up bullsh*t by some blogger based on their assumption that they will never be identified.

The only losers in such a system are hate-blogs and political-hacks who like to create scandals, smeer-campaigns and lie for an agenda.

It does not breach freedom of speech and in more totalitarian regimes around the world, they are monitoring it anyway.

Now, if you want to make things up and wish that this is fascism or a call to allow the government to round up bloggers - please do us all a favour and show us or simply be an adult and shut the f*ck up.

Damien Charles

dmarks said...

I've not skirted around the issue, ever, I've dealt with it directly.

The advantages are 0. In extreme circumstances like this already, the government can already find out who does stuff and catch up with them.

"ccountability does not exist in much of the web"

Real world translation of Damien's Big Brother Speak: people on the web are able to say stuff the authorities might not want them to.

There is no need for any registration, which has a chilling effect on free discourse. It places a license on the First Amendment. And such registration is easily abused, and is always a pre-cursor to much more draconian efforts.

"Also, when someone says something is the truth the public will more clearly know that it is an opinion and/or the truth and not some made-up bullsh*t by some blogger based on their assumption that they will never be identified."

Whether or not it is the truth or made-up bullsh*t should not be for the government decide. It's clear from your paragraph that you want this regulation in order to censor facts and opinions that you do not want expressed and consider to be "bullsh*t".

"The only losers in such a system are hate-blogs and political-hacks who like to create scandals, smeer-campaigns and lie for an agenda."

You make the entirely falae assumption that the only people who benefit from free speech are the real scumbags. This is a dangerous and very scary view on your part. The real losers? Anyone who wants to be able to express an opinion that the government or other authorities might not like.

If you want a strictly regimented and controlled society like in North Korea, Damien, well, then I agree with your point of view that the basic human right of free speech should be carefully controlled.

"Now, if you want to make things up..."

I haven't. Nor do I need to make things up. Your idea is scary as hell.

"wish that this is fascism"

Your idea is a major step in the direction of fascism and away from basic human rights whether I wish it is, or describe it as such.

"a call to allow the government to round up bloggers"

The government can do this at will, under what you want. But if we do it my wage and protect this basic human right, it is a lot harder.

"losers are...political-hacks who like to create scandals, smeer-campaigns and lie for an agenda."

The worse of these are found in government. And they are far and away the most destructive. Your plan would give them power to control it when others object.

"please do us all a favour and show us or simply be an adult and shut the f*ck up."

If anything is immature here, it is your megalomaniac plan. It is ill considered and highly destructive. Not surprising: one can even see the hatred of open dissent in your last sentence.

And thanks for proving again that my summary of your plan to censor and control bloggers is correct.


Damien, it is clear that you hold the human rights protected in the United States Constitution in contempt. So I won't go into that. But lets check the UN Declaration of Human Rights for the section your idea conflicts with:

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Registration and control is a clear impediment to this. Not only that, your censorship scheme is oddly inconsistent. It would require people in blogs to register, but not those who write or contribute to newspapers. This violates the requirement for freedom through any media.

Anyway, Damien, your jackbooted kick aimed at the throat of free dissent would fail anyway. Most likely any law would have some technicalities, like "blogs" and people would get around it using Twitter and other means. As I hope they would. Free speech finds a way.

dmarks said...

Continuing: Damien's blogger-control idea... a global perspective.

Lets check out such ideas and see how they have been adopted and pushed in other countries.
Googling the idea of a proposal to register bloggers brings up this link first:

Malaysia: Proposal to register bloggers.

It is on a free speech advocacy site, which makes it clear that they oppose this idea.

The opening lines contain this: "According to Rais, registration was one of the measures the government was considering to prevent the spread of “negative” or “malicious content” on the Internet."

which very well fits in with the ideas that Damien mentioned.

And, as I have pointed out many times, the goal of this is not to prevent real crimes, but to end free speech. One of the reasons given for enacting this idea is as follows: "blogs were one of the key factors that caused the current administration to lose its usual two-thirds majority in the recent elections."

Yes, the government believes that blogs must be controlled, because blogs can be too effective at advocating change.

Malaysia is one of the main countries to/trying to make Damien's idea into reality.

How do they figure on other indicators on free speech?

Malaysia was ranked 131st out of 175 nations by Reporters Without Borders... very low.

From Sept, 2012: "Amnesty International has called on Malaysia to stop the "harassment" of a human rights organisation that has accused the government of corruption."

And Damien wants the people that do this sort of thing to have a much better control and ability to stifle the Internet and hunt down those who offend. Mere activists, not the extreme racists and defamers he mentions.

This is one of the countless "smoking guns" connecting Damien's idea to its usual result: government harassment of dissidents.

And there are many other indicators that Malaysia ranks very low in free speech and press freedom. Is there a coincident with this, and them being at the forefront of wanting to register bloggers? Of course not. The blogging registration idea is part of a pattern of hostility toward open dissent.

Also, Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of adopting Damien's idea:

Saudi Arabians Will Soon Need A License To Blog

The quote from a representative of this authoritarian, repressive government is almost identical to Damien's own wording:

"Al-Hazza claimed that the measure will cut down on libel and defamation and is not intended to limit freedom of speech."

Damien's idea overall is such a "great" one that the bottom-tier countries in terms of human rights and freedoms are quick to adopt it, while the civilized, free world rightfully rejects his his paranoid, megalomaniac idea of a command-and-control Internet.

Damien's blogger registration is in fact suited for the countries that are only slightly less bad than those that ban the Internet outright.

And registering bloggers would show hostility to open dissent even in the most free countries.

dmarks said...

And a news story from Egypt puts a face on the issue. on the issue, contradicting Damien's claim "The only losers in such a system are hate-blogs and political-hacks who like to create scandals, smeer-campaigns and lie for an agenda."

Click here to read of Alber Saber, a blogger in Egypt harassed by the government there. No doubt he ran a hate blog, created scandal, smeered, and lied for an agenda. OF course he did. The Egyptian government will readily tell you that. Why would a government lie? Especially a democratic government like in Egypt?

Anonymous said...


you just made a lot of wind that equates to zero substance.

Let me put you straight (not that you could yourself).

I stated that governments can (and often do) watch, sensor and "round-up" as they see fit. Registration makes no difference in that matter, never has and never will make it easier or harder.

Thus, your point and attempting to give examples in countries is futile.

Again you put your own words in my mouth "Real world translation of Damien's Big Brother Speak". Since you are not me you have thus made it up, the beginning of another lie on your part because later you will condemn based on what you said, not what I did.

In fact you are totally wrong anyhow in your assumption. People should be free and I support freedom of speech. What I said AND in all that lengthy waste of time you totally ignored the point, I say that the internet should be treated as a public forum or newspaper with the same laws.

Thus it is simple. I cannot in a newspaper defame and thus I should not be able to defame on the net. I can be liable for action for lies in any other public forum thus I should be also on the net. If I publish texts I should be accountable for the content and thus I should be also on the net.

All the rest, about being rounded up, cutting free speech etc, is your own bullsh*t, not mine.

A country that does give freedom of speech is going to abuse their people anyway, this does not change anything.

Having said that, the countries that do, it will PROTECT the innocent which you obviously do not.

In fact I should be exactly like you. So below is in your style.

dmarks is a two-faced closet-fascist with huge anarchist impulses. Accourding to him, the media needs to be accountable but in the name of free-speech all accountablity is to be excluded and you can harass, lie, smeer and collectively call for violence, intimidation and death for anyone you do not like. Publish names, addresses, breach copyright and other intellectual property rights because it is the internet. dmarks openly supports Al-Qaeda websites calling for the murder of Jews, westerners in general and the destruction of Israel and America. Wikilleaks should continue to the point of publishing any leaked instruction manuals for nerve-gases, biological weapons and how to make a car-bomb.

dmarks is also a supporter of peadophilia as it is anyone's rights to publish the photos of pre-teen naked boys and girls and they should not be harassed as it is their right under dmarks version of freedoms.

When dmark's home address and photos of his family are published on the net, he will sit home and smile.

Now we know you, right?

Damien Charles

Leticia said...

Shaw and DC:
College & Church

*Admittedly sought out ‘Marxist’ professors

*Admittedly attended ‘socialist conferences’

*Began attending a Marxist church – led by pastor Jeremiah Wright (attended for 20 years) (Link)


*Tragedy of the Warren Court: No redistributive change

*Voted for TARP

*$787 billion stimulus redistribution bill

*Healthcare bill admittedly about ‘redistributing the wealth’

*Single Payer Healthcare proponent

*President Obama now also President of GM & Chrysler

*President Obama seizes control of insurance giant AIG

*President Obama is leading America to single payer healthcare

*President Obama seized control of Student Loan industry in order to ‘cut out middle man’

*President Obama seizes control in massive land grabs

*Repeatedly vilifies ‘the rich’

*Obama believes race problems can be solved through redistribution of wealth… he said "race is still an enormous factor in our society. But economics can overcome a lot of racial division."

*Trying to regulate the Internet via FCC

*Forces mortgage co’s to cover people who aren’t paying mortgage

*Extends unemployment benefits to 99 weeks

*Told Joe the plumber ‘it’s better when you spread things around’

Family, Friends, Advisors & Administration

*Wife Michelle Obama said “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

*Jim Wallis, Obama’s spiritual advisor & forced redistribution of wealth advocate

*Van Jones, disgraced Green Jobs Czar & Communist

*Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar & anti-free market

*John Holdren, pro-redistribution of wealth

*Andy Stern, SEIU President & redistribution of wealth fan

*Anita Dunn, fan of Chairman Mao

*Mark Lloyd, FCC ‘Diversity Czar’

*Carol Browner, socialist

*Robert Creamer, socialist

Leticia said...

dmarks, God bless you, but no matter what you say, or how much truth are in your comments, these people will continue to call us liars, misinformed or whatever.

Fabian, yes, so many people forgot December 7th. And we must keep that alive. Many men and women died that day. I'll never forget. So much was lost. Damien isn't even an American but claims to know how our policies work, and so forth, and defends Obama like a tiger. We can give him detail after detail and he will always have a rebuttal.

And tend to insults the intelligence of those that do not support Obama.

dmarks said...

The fascist views are yours not mine, Damien. If the government can get people whether or not they are registered, why bother with your scary scheme at all unless the whole point is to chill dissent?

At least this idea of yours has no chance in the free world. As I have proven, it floruishes in authoritarian countries instead.

And damien, you should learn some things and stop using words with no regard to meaning, such as your use of "anarchist" to describe my defense of basic human rights.

And your pedophile, Al Quada etc claims are entirely invald and pointless : lawbreakers won't obey your registration system anyway. The only people who would obey it, and be chilled by it, would be those who engage in lawful civil dissent.

Face it, Damein. Your idea isn' fit for a free society.

dmarks said...

And you completely miss the point on newspapers. People in newspapers aren't required to register with the government for the privilege of free speech and of the press. You demand this of bloggers, Damien. Are you consistent? Do you demand this for newspapers too?

What of book authors? Or singers whose MP3's might get out onto the Net and might be bad because the lyric content criticizes those in power?

Do you want this registration regime to control and chill everything? Or just blogs?

Your point on pedophiles and bomb makers is doubly invalid, since your plan calls to register and threaten every single blogger, not just the tiny minority that engage in the behavior you mention. As the people punished under your plan are as a group 99.9% innocent, your plan to clobber them all as well as the 0.01% bad guys is a no starter, and raises bright red flags with anyone concerned about civil liberties.

Revise your plan to go after the bad guys and place no burden at all (including registration) on the rest of us, and you might get somewhere

Anonymous said...


I looked at your list. Do you make this stuff up or did God tell you? Simply looking at it from a factual and logical point of view, most of your comments are either nothing or nonesense. Seriously, how can you put your name to it??

You learn from everyone, including even Marxist professors, one of my law professors was not only a leading British Marxist but was proud of the fact that he married Lenin's niece!

Going to ‘socialist conferences’ teaches you about socialism.

Jeremiah Wright is probably by definition of a Socialist, he is not athough Marxist by any stretch of the imagination.

A $787 billion stimulus redistribution bill is one form of economic strategy it is not Socialist.

The term ‘redistributing the wealth’ is in regards to access of medical or social services and constantly refocusing were the Government should focus its money, not your salary Leticia.

President Obama is not the President of GM & Chrysler. GM is majority owned by the people of the United States but the board of GM choses their President. Chrysler is majority owned by FIAT in Italy and has nothing to do with Obama or the Administration. Get your facts straight please.

The government took control of the failing insurance giant AIG to ensure that their clients did not lose out (and the economy). AIG was one that the country could not afford to collapse.

President Obama most certainly took-out the "middle-men" in the Student Loan industry to get rid of profiteers and speed up the slow and failing processes.

Obama makes politics, of ‘the rich’ because there is still a number of wealthy Americans whom think that they tell others what to do because they have money.

President Obama is correct saying the obvious by saying that "But economics can overcome a lot of racial division." The facts remain the same, three quaters of all black males in the US do not get the same chances in life, they are ignored, often forgotten, side-lined and stereotyped and that problems start at the state-school and thus must be fixed there.

Obama should be trying to regulate the Internet via FCC, I think that is intelligent.

Wife Michelle Obama correctly said "someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” Your eduction and health care systems are bad. Your private systems are the best because of private money but your state-run systems are ranked 18 and 24th in the world respectively. Since the bulk of Americans require the state-run system, your failing.

Just because WorldNetDaily, Fox News and Glenn Beck says Van Jones is a Communist does not make him one. In fact if WND says it you can be sure he is not.

Anita Dunn said she considered Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa as her favourite philosophers. She neither said that she was a Maoist. Again, if Glenn Beck says something does not make it facts. I am a fan of a number of philosophers and politicians from all walks of life.

Carol Browner is not a socialist, she was even a capital investment advisor for goodness sakes. Do you pull names out of a straw hat?

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...

dmarks, so you obviously like kiddie-porn ....


Anonymous said...

Leticia said "Damien isn't even an American but claims to know how our policies work, and so forth, and defends Obama like a tiger"

I will take you to taks on a number of points Leticia.

You are not a Muslim but you rant on about them so often, so how dare you comment about them! (using your logic).

You are not a Democrat, how dare you comment about Obama! (using your logic).

I comment about obvious facts or errors and I point them out (like the reply to your long sad list of conspiracy theories.

It is not that I defend Obama but rather I reflect your own words. I am not a Democrat and I am not from the Left so I have no advantage in defending Obama the man. I am a true Conservative and I dispise PRETEND Conservatives like yourself whom I believe makes us real Conservatives feel dirty because like a bad smell, your tainting us. Far-right Evangelical Christians are the Salafists of American politics whom claim God is on their side and have no capacity to negotiate, compromise or even reflect the will of the people. The word Democracy is used but in reality is ignored.

I have admitted that Obama has given America the best option, not because I support him but because the Right in America is not up to the job. I have also said that I think his foreign policy is superior and if the GOP had similar it would not infringe on Conservative values at all.

If you had asked me I will tell you that there is a better fiscal process than his but no will to do it. That I reject his lack of support for traditional family values and that though he is in the right direction on Immigration he is in fact handling it wrong and is not fixing the causes or the real problem. As a Catholic I feel obliged to even say that his social welfare process is flawed from the base and thus ultimately will change nothing.

I do not defend Obama, I oppose your views.

with respect

Damien Charles

Leticia said...

DC, no I am not a Muslim nor have I ever claimed to be, but I have worked them and have friends that are and I have read the Qur'an and I have also seen real footage of what the radicals do that is not shared by the media.

And for your information, I used to be a hardcore Democrat! Gotcha! But once I accepted Jesus my whole view point on life, issues and so forth changed dramatically.

My information is sound and done by research through several sites, including The Blaze. I point out facts which you continually dispute regardless. Tell me, where do you get your information since you demand to always want to know where I get mine?

And another thing, I also used to be a Catholic and many of things that you support are not biblicaly sound or follows Catholicism.

So, I do know what I am talking about and I am informed. I don't just throw stuff out without researching. That's not my way. I love researching a subject that interests me, and that is definitely politics, humor, books and well just about anything.

dmarks said...

GM is owned by the government of the US, not the people.

You make a lot of good points, Damien. But I will disagree with you strongly on the student loan one. It is even more slow and failing after the Obama admin's sneaky power grab. The "profiteer" smear can be used by any socialist to justify eliminating an any entire private sector industry. The Stalinization of student loans by the Obama administration is one of the most socialist things it has done.

dmarks said...

More fact-checking on Damien:

"Just because WorldNetDaily, Fox News and Glenn Beck says Van Jones is a Communist does not make him one. In fact if WND says it you can be sure he is not."

Actually, Wikipedia explains and sources how Jones is a Maoist. So not only is he a communist, he is a member of the deadliest group within this overall genocidal and brutal movement.

Jones is a maniac who believes in a system, if, which applied to the US, would make it something like Pol Pot's Cambodia, with many tens of millions executed. You really need to research these things sometime, Damien, without resorting to mindless knee-jerk "It's on Fox so it's not true" reactions which you type without giving a second of thought or research to it.


"dmarks, so you obviously like kiddie-porn ...."

I presented many good arguments against your frequently-announced plan to have bloggers be registered with governments so the governments can disappear and otherwise oppress bloggers at will. And all you respond with is a lame insult.

I see your point, though.... and it is completely invalid. When I click "next blog" in Blogspot, I find countless knitting blogs. And none of kiddie porn. You'd be more accurate accusing me of being a knitter. Far more accurate. And your plan goes after far many more bloggers who knit, bake cookies, and talk about Daleks than it does after kiddie pornographers. Just repeating the very good point about your plan being so bad in that mostly goes after people who engage in such innocent activity.

IMHO said...

Damien Charles = IDIOT, KOOK, MORON, PRICK!

Anonymous said...


You allow yourself the freedom of talking about Muslims becuase 'you used to know a few' yet you condemn my discussing America and American politics because I am not American. That is a double-standard since I travel there regularly, have close family in both San Diego and in Anapolis Maryland. I am exposed to articles, media, tv, internet as well as my travels and I discuss on three blogs American politics and Philosophy with Americans regularly.

My information sources are from the various media groups (main stream left, right and centrist) as well as four different bloggers both well known and not. From legal publications that touch on political matters and any other source that I care to seek out or note. I do not stick to one single source but I never make a viewpoint until I find at least three supporting sources of credibility.

No Wikipedia does not say Jones is a Moaist but it mentions the accussation. I really sujest you be careful assuming from one source that is not confirmed. By the way, there are those that read Mao's philosophy becuase it shows an entire generation of views based on passed abuse. Being interested in reading such material does not make you one.

As for Catholic values, please do pray tell what values did I espouse that is not theologically sound to my faith? I dare say none.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


please not that my comment about Jones was to dmarks not directed to Leticia.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


not my comment about Jones above.

I see you are prone to hysteria and gross exagerations and that may be a valid excuse for your past and baseless assumptions that I have said something that in fact I did not. It may have something to do with ADHD, have you had that checked?

You know if you published in a real journal an item claiming that Jones seeks a government like that of Pol Pot and thus the elimination of the educated class and millions of deaths, simply put you will be in court and probably quickly destitute as you will be liable for large damages. You will have deserved it to.

I wonder how you can go by such pure foolishness. Does Jones ever say he wishes to have millions of his fellow Americans killed, that Pol Pot was right or a good leader? Of course not, it just your amazing ability to mouth off for some self-pleasure similar to your desire to allow kiddie-porn to flourish on the net.

No longer do I have any doubts that your anarchist (with hidden marxism) tendancies is now just a cerebale reflex.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


your detailed and typical level of intelligent responses yet again makes the impact that it merits.

I personally like your sarcastic spoof by pretending to be a child with those allcaps, that worked well!


Anonymous said...


my cousin's kids (twins of both genders students in Baltimore) told me the exact opposite. That the system stank and was slow and they are now getting much better service without a broker profitting for no-reason.

Your comment is well noted though and yes even appreciated.

As for GM, is not the Government the representative of the people and thus GM in fact owned on behalf of the people?

Damien Charles

dmarks said...

Its a representative government. Control by the ruling elites who are supposed to represent the people (but in reality do their own thing) isn't the same as direct popular control.

I suppose GM could be said to be owned by the people if everyone owned shares of stock themselves, as one possibility to meet that requirement, but the reality is nothing like this.

dmarks said...

The problem is with Jones' Maoism and your knee-jerk "refuse to research it, and instead say what sounds good" reaction. Not with my accurate description of his views and the necessary result from implementing them.

There are no exaggerations. Check into Maoism. I have. Apparently you have not and show ignorance of it to all here.

You have no evidence that I am Marxist or anarchist. Your use of theese terms comes across like a typed form of Tourette's syndrome.

dmarks said...

Damien's plan would punish knitting blog operators, and leave kiddie porn operators alone (since they operate in the shadows anyway and won't comply with blog registration requirements). Given my opposition to his plan to punish and control such innocent bloggers, he would be a lot more accurate to insult me for being in favor of knitting.

Anonymous said...


I base my comments on what he said about two months ago on Fareed Zakaria's GPS program on CNN. Fareed pushed him on this very issue.

He stated that though he was a member of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM) which was technically a socialist group or collective, it was more to do with the activism versus police brutality that existed at the time. He condemned the "political hacks" that keep on harping on the issue as trying to gain political capital and enjoy making scandals.

His comments were logical.

Damien Charles

Anonymous said...


with all the respect, I suggest you look at your own postings before you start mentioning invectives and throwing words like fascist, marxist or wanting to "put people away".

Apart from that, non-registered blogs would be easily identified as being suspect and can be filtered or have their plugs pulled. What you forget is it has nothing to do with government (which I suspect is your fascination if not fetish), it has all to do with the individual who has a recourse and capacity to stop abuse (ie personal attacks, affected by bigots or abuse of privacy). Perhaps in tyring to look at the big picture you missed the point.

Damien Charles

dmarks said...

I fully support registering bloggers who engage in kiddie porn/etc. So your point is completely deflated. But unlike you, I oppose harassing and registering innocent knitter bloggers.

I did look at my own postings. I use words with care to meanings. Unlike you who called me Marxist for opposing massive welfare gifts to millionnaies

Leticia said...

DC, point taken, but I still disagree, but that's fine. We can agree to disagree. I have no problem at all with that. If we got into a debate about Catholicism it would take us both days to get through it all. So, I am going to just leave it at that. How's that sound?

Anonymous said...

Leticia, agreed.


Leticia said...

DC, bless you my friend. :)