Do we really want to elect a Communist?, page 1


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 07:03 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Wotan



Several of his mentors were card carrying members of the communist party of the US.
As for socialism, yes, most Americans despise it. This country was founded on the principles of working hard to get ahead, not working hard so that someone who doesn't work hard, can benefit from your work. It does not mean that we don't believe in helping those, who through no fault of their own, are in dire straights. However, in the US, there are millions on welfare, because they are simply too lazy to work.
In addition, Obama's ideas are at best naive, at worst dangerous. Disarming a nation, in hopes that regimes like Iran and North Korea will follow, is extremely foolish. Yet, that is exactly what Obama wants. England, of all countries should understand that. Just look at Chamberlain and what his "peace in our time" lead to. Fortunately, a great man, Churchill stepped onto the stage to save the day.



reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 08:21 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Wotan





When has North Korea or Iran ever been a threat to the US?

Well, let's see, there was the Korean War. You know, that "police action" by the UN which took over 36,000 US lives, over 8,000 MIA's and over 90,000 wounded Americans.
Then there was the Iran hostage crisis, when Iran held over 50 of our citizens for over 400 days.
Of course, there are the Iranian arms and bombs that are being smuggled into Iraq to kill American (and British) soldiers.
If the modern English all hold the same ideas as you seem to, I don't think that you'd be able to withstand an invasion from some belligerent country. Your ideas do disservice to those British solders that fought so valiantly to give you the freedom of speech that you still enjoy. Had they not succeeded, you might not even exist. An England under Nazi rule would have had no use for Socialism, Communism, or free speech. By the way, if Socialism or Communism is so great, why did Russia and most of Eastern Europe throw it away? It seems like they're the smart ones.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 08:25 PM by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by jerico65



Amen. I feel the same way. People that work hard for their money shouldn't have to give it to some slackers that don't work, because they know people like Obama will give them whatever they need, to get their vote.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 09:01 PM by ANOK
Obama is NOT a socialist...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives.

Source

Socialism was and is a movement for the people by the people.

You have believed the lies from those who live by exploiting your labor for their own gains, and I bet none of you have ever questioned what you've been told. Your culture is so full of lies and you just believe it no question, no checking of the facts.

Those in power in the West are paranoid about socialism, they are the ones who will lose, the people (you and me) will only gain from socialism. So it is in their interest to spread lies and myths about what socialism is.

C'mon ATS members, you are supposed to be good researchers yet you all fall for the biggest lies from your right wing fascist government. You all claim to not trust government yet you fall for their lies.

The ruling elites don't care about socialism, or fascism, or left or right, those labels are there to control and divide you. The powers that be will use whatever method of control they can.

Socialism doesn't have to be right or left, it can be libertarian...

It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

Source

Libertarian, a system based on non-authoritarian principles.
Socialism, workers ownership of thier means of production.

The private ownership of production is what keeps us exploited and poor. If the workers equally owned the company you work for, we would all be better off (collectives, COOPS). The wealth created by you wouldn't go to someone else, it would be yours. The harder you work the more you would make, a direct effect, instead of hoping your 'boss' gives you a raise once in awhile.

So does Obama fit this picture? I don't think so. It will be capitalism and exploitation of labour as per usual.

Social services is not socialism.
Social engineering is not socialism.
Hitler was not a socialist (yes some people do think this).
Russia, not socialist (or communist either).
China, not socialist (or communist either).


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 09:11 PM by solo1
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
Barack Obama was born of Communist activists, mentored by a communist writer and activist, spent his college days hanging around radical activists, worked as a radical community organizer learning the radical tactics of Alinsky, kept contact with radicals through the years, attends a radical church, and today lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists, and has radicals working on for his campaign.

Obama and his commuinist background

Obama is more than a left-wing liberal. Please take a few moments to peruse the above link. It is a frightening chronicle of his communist activities over the years. His trip to Europe, and his proposals there, leave no doubt that if elected, he would become the first communist president, at least in spirit and philosophy, if not in membership.


Mcain is a communist Obama is a communist Clinto is a communist

Do Americans really want to vote for Communists?

I guess the Asnwer is going to be yes they do


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 09:14 PM by TheRepublic
reply to post by solo1



most americans i talk to arnt even really intrested in voting. i think everyone is finally realizing this election we get to choose from two diffrent used car salesmen.

...no thanks.

ill stay at home on voting day.


reply posted on 27-7-2008 @ 09:57 PM by Cthulwho
reply to post by jerico65



It's actually the capitalist system which creates the need for welfare. In a true socialist economy there is no need for welfare. Take a look at the current housing crisis, it's capitalism that allowed this to happen, and now many people (and some companies) require the help of welfare.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Give Obama a Break! He Isn\'t All That Bad.
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags
Congress Is Fired
  Posted 13 days ago with 8 member flags
Why are Americans so scared of different Politcal Ideology
  Posted 7 days ago with 8 member flags
Mitt or Barack? - Give me a break!
  Posted 4 days ago with 3 member flags
What Happens When Taxpayers Strike?
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags