Forward!

#1

utvolpj

Bandwagon Mod
Staff member
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
93,781
Likes
65,439
#1
New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism - Washington Times

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word "Forward" with the "O" having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign's official beginning.
Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."
Forward (generic name of socialist publications) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication "Vpered" (the Russian word for "forward") in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as "Forward, Soviet" (though also and more literally as "Stride, Soviet").
hard to believe this was completely unknown to everyone in the Obama admin. If so it's pretty unfortunate. If not...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4
#4
#6
#6
I will give them a break; just like I gave the Romney campaign a break when he said "America for Americans".

Marion berry borrowed the slogan for his campaign to keep out the "dirty Asian shops"
 
#7
#7
Visual:

Forward-300x189.png
 
#10
#10
Better.
 

Attachments

  • FOREWARNED.jpg.png
    FOREWARNED.jpg.png
    4.8 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:
#16
#16
So his second term is for real this time, now he's going to implement complete government takeover of industry and take everybody's guns away?

LOL @ citing Washington Times. Barely a step above gs' nuttier-than-**** blogs. It's Faux News in print.
 
#17
#17
are you denying the article has any truth or just feel the need to ignore that and move to bashing the source? I don't believe I read any opinions in there directly tying it's use to any other publication. Seemed pretty obvious to me that they either made a mistake or made a conscious decision to use it.

as for govt takeover, that's already happened and I don't believe it's a secret how the left feels about the 2nd. Thankfully there's enough opposition to their goals
 
#18
#18
are you denying the article has any truth or just feel the need to ignore that and move to bashing the source? Seemed pretty obvious to me that they either made a mistake or made a conscious decision to use it.

as for govt takeover, that's already happened and I don't believe it's a secret how the left feels about the 2nd. Thankfully there's enough opposition to their goals

I'm already voting for Gary Johnson at this point, but let's call a spade a spade.

If government takeover of industry was in Obama's crosshairs, it would have happened by now. Given the economic climate when he took office along with Dems running the show from top to bottom, he could have gotten away with damn near anything he wanted. That didn't happen, we aren't any more "socialist" now than we were then, and saying otherwise is tin-foil-helmeted idiocy.

What Obama has done has been to perfectly follow the legacy of the Bush administration. His rhetoric counts for nothing, look at what he's actually done. The military continues to expand while civil liberties continue to decrease. Allowing gay people to openly serve is great and all, but it's window dressing.

As for gun stuff, stop that nonsense. Every major group I know of that lobbies for stronger regulation on firearms has given the Obama administration a failing grade, and most of them are not giving him their support this go-around. Unfortunately we've got that moron Wayne LaPierre out there telling the world that voting Republican is the only way for people to keep their guns.

Obama sucks. But most of the criticism leveled against him on this board is meaningless, nonsensical rhetoric.
 
#19
#19
So his second term is for real this time, now he's going to implement complete government takeover of industry and take everybody's guns away?

LOL @ citing Washington Times. Barely a step above gs' nuttier-than-**** blogs. It's Faux News in print.

not quite.

What do you consider reputable new sources?
 
#21
#21
I'm already voting for Gary Johnson at this point, but let's call a spade a spade.

If government takeover of industry was in Obama's crosshairs, it would have happened by now. Given the economic climate when he took office along with Dems running the show from top to bottom, he could have gotten away with damn near anything he wanted. That didn't happen, we aren't any more "socialist" now than we were then, and saying otherwise is tin-foil-helmeted idiocy.

What Obama has done has been to perfectly follow the legacy of the Bush administration. His rhetoric counts for nothing, look at what he's actually done. The military continues to expand while civil liberties continue to decrease. Allowing gay people to openly serve is great and all, but it's window dressing.

As for gun stuff, stop that nonsense. Every major group I know of that lobbies for stronger regulation on firearms has given the Obama administration a failing grade, and most of them are not giving him their support this go-around. Unfortunately we've got that moron Wayne LaPierre out there telling the world that voting Republican is the only way for people to keep their guns.

Obama sucks. But most of the criticism leveled against him on this board is meaningless, nonsensical rhetoric.

two words: lame duck
 
#23
#23
are you denying the article has any truth or just feel the need to ignore that and move to bashing the source? I don't believe I read any opinions in there directly tying it's use to any other publication. Seemed pretty obvious to me that they either made a mistake or made a conscious decision to use it.

as for govt takeover, that's already happened and I don't believe it's a secret how the left feels about the 2nd. Thankfully there's enough opposition to their goals

The theme of the article is "Oh, the socialist takeover is really going to happen THIS time around!"

The Washington Times is yellow journalism at its finest.
 
#25
#25
not quite.

What do you consider reputable new sources?
I go for BBC world service, NPR depending on the time of the day (some of it is decent, other parts are crap) and other than that I use my own RSS feed with about 40 different sources.

two words: lame duck
Means nothing. Politicians are beholden to the people who get them elected in the first place and continue to be beholden after they leave office. Politics doesn't just stop after one is no longer a congressman, senator or president. Obama will have influence in Washington until the day he dies, and there will be people strapped with cash looking to buy some of that influence.
 

VN Store



Back
Top