Yup. He’s a Socialist....

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Removing health care "for profit" will give us communism. Obamacare already reeks with greater centralization and bureaucratic overhead.

No, it will be not for profit.

Not communism.

Hell the, for profit insurance companies can still exist like they do in
all the European countries.

Originally posted by RELDDIR
No mention of GOD from DNC Platform.

Exclusive: Democrats Drop 'God' From Party Platform by David Brody
blogs.cbn.com...

Sorry you missed the three minute prayer

after the FLOTUS spoke. The DNC Prayed

for you too.

reply to post by daskakik


Not wealth redistribution? How do you think communist and socialist pay for their programs? I would love to be schooled on your idea of what a socialist is. I personally think history has well established both along with the end results. DO you by chance have a college degree? If so, what was your major, may I ask?

reply to post by ANOK


WHY? Why would nationalism and socialism be confused? Look up what NAZI stands for. You can be a nationalist and not be a commie or socialist. But when the government forces you to give them your own earned wages so they can give "spread the wealth nationaly" That, would be socialism. And uncostitunional according to the laws of our Republic. Taxes are to fund the government not programs. "Provide for the general welfare" did not mean then, what it does now. Back then men were expected to be men. Not..... well nevermind.

Originally posted by dogstar23
Do people not read, or learn from talking with others anymore, amd instead just pick up all their knowledge from bloggers and radio hosts who don't know the first thing about forms of government, and what is going on in the world around them? Seriously, anyone who calls Obama a Socialist is an embarrassment to members of the human race who consider themselves to be sentient beings.

I noticed, at least on ATS, since the whole tea party thing, there's been a very large influx here of these neo-conservative leaning, far right political tribalists, extreme, myopic, impermeable to facts and other evidence which would potentially disrupt their world view...and I don't mean the libertarian-leaning part of the right, which libertarians tend to be well read and overall very intelligent IMO, but I mean the types who associated with the tea party in it's re-incarnation as a Koch funded corporate shill (after RonPaul sort of stopped associating). I kind of stopped coming around here right around that time because it was just plain frustrating as hell trying to talk to people who don't respond to basic logic/evidence/fact. Circular logic was in every thread, i.e. "the bible says so, the bible is the word of god = I'm right! Go suck an egg you stupid commie socialist obama loving muslim abortionist!" People would proudly post links from World Net Daily and conservapedia like it's totally normal (people still do). I remember literally watching 20 birther threads get started in the span of only a couple hours. For a site whose motto is "deny ignorance", I had never seen such a fetid pool of ignorance so concentrated in one place...youtube and 4chan have got nothing on these guys. It was kind of sad, because I remember many good people who I used to like reading their posts, and who would post very well thought out, carefully sourced threads, who have since left. I rarely see any of these thoughtful, objective, well researched and carefully sourced threads any more.

As far as understanding it all, I can recommend one source that helped me...Now, I have always been a registered independent, I didn't vote for Obama last election, nor did I vote for either the republican or democrat in the previous election, I'm wary of people to proclaim unwavering dedication to political parties...however, I do think there is a certain segment of the population which tend to have trouble with reality and facts when those fact tend to disprove their beliefs or political dogma (and for many it's easier to disregard fact and reality, than to revise one's world view), again the "low information" types who also tend to revert to a preferred authority figure when getting their information (i.e. talk radio, Breitbart.com, FOX, etc.) rather than try to do objective research on their own. There is a very good paper by Bob Altemeyer called "The Authoritarians" and it examines authoritarian thought as it pertains to political ideology, it answered a lot of the questions I had, such as "how can someone believe so strongly in something that is obviously false and have been disproved by science/fact/reality time and time again?". The guy is actually an old white dude who said he is registered Republican and wrote the paper with help from one of Nixon's advisers John Dean, so it's hard to accuse him of being biased, the data he collects is real and the studies were done over many years to interesting results. I highly recommend it for insight into the political "thought process" (it's free online: home.cc.umanitoba.ca... )

So ya, sorry about that rant...you hit the nail on the head and I just had to chime in my 2 cents. Sorry 'bout that, and I don't mean to offend any body in particular by complaining about people's ignorance (Hey, we all, get stuff wrong occasionally, myself included), but I totally agree with you, that some of the stuff I've been seeing is another level of ignorance entirely and it really bothers me when people can not get even basic civic concepts such as simple definitions (i.e. socialism, communism, fascism) that can be looked up in the matter of minutes in an online dictionary or Wikipedia. Frustrating.

reply to post by murphy22

In a nutshell, socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. This can exist under a government controlled economy or in a market economy.

Just like free markets, it has actually never really existed, except for small scale and for short amounts of time.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

 

You say Obama wants tax payer funded abortions? Where has he ever said that?

Just look at the lineup at the DNC.... Sandra Fluke who wants contraception paid for, NARAL which is the most extreme radical Pro Choice organization, and Planned Parenthood which already uses funding. Taxpayer funded abortions are in the works via Obamacare. It's not the first time the Left demanded their abortions paid for with taxpayer money. Obama is pro UN which uses American funds to pay for abortions and sterilization in third world countries.

The pro-abortion crowd is very aggressive. NARAL is doing all it can to get President Obama re-elected. And, Planned Parenthood is pulling out all stops to challenge a growing number of states that have decided that it's time to put a halt to sending taxpayer funds to the nation's largest abortion provider.

Your argument holds up all they way except for one bitter truth. Obama, Mr. Socialist Obama, has consistently sold out those to the left of his party and those even farther along the curve. Ask them. Ask them.
They will tell you they have been betrayed just like all those to the right of Romney know he will do to them.

Just because he uses the support of people easily believed to be socialists does not make HIM a socialist. It may certainly make him a valued political tool in the building of this NWO, but not a socialist.



aclj.org...

Follow the breadcrumbs Hansel

Oops second post, deletedeletedelete

Originally posted by murphy22
WHY? Why would nationalism and socialism be confused? Look up what NAZI stands for. You can be a nationalist and not be a commie or socialist. But when the government forces you to give them your own earned wages so they can give "spread the wealth nationaly" That, would be socialism. And uncostitunional according to the laws of our Republic. Taxes are to fund the government not programs. "Provide for the general welfare" did not mean then, what it does now. Back then men were expected to be men. Not..... well nevermind.

Those terms were around a long time before the Nazi Party.

Just because someone put those two terms together, doesn't change their definition.

The Nazi Party was right wing fascist not socialist, study some history. Nazi Germany did not have a worker owned economy, it was a nationalist economy with some capitalism. He put socialists in the camps.

Hitler used the term socialism for political reasons, not as a description of their economy.

Spreading the wealth nationally is not socialism, socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production. Nationalism and socialism are two different types of economic systems. National socialism is not even a real political ideology, it was just a term Hitler made up. It was a mixture of Mussolini's fascism, and old Prussian traditions. The party was made up of mostly WWI veterans. It was not a workers party in any shape or form. To think Nazism was socialism is to simply show your complete misunderstanding of European history.

National Socialism

Originally posted by crankySamurai
Pretty cocky for someone talking out of their as$.

Scuse me but if you bother to take a look, everything I say can be verified.

Nationalism is most definitely a type of socialism. Public ownership of the means of production is the very definition of socialism. Nationalizing any enterprise is the process of socializing the economy.

Hence national healthcare is a socialist policy.

No, national socialism is not a type of socialism, it is a type of fascism. See my last post. Hitler did not redefine those terms. 'National socialism' is an oxymoron, made up, meaningless. It ONLY refers to ONE political party, that of Nazi Germany during WWII. It was not a real political ideology before then, and really isn't even now. It was a mixture of fascism, and old Prussian traditions. Nothing to do with the traditions of socialism.

Nationalism is nationalism, as socialism is socialism. Nationalizing the economy is nationalizing the economy, taking industry into the hands of the state. Socialism is when industry is taken into the hands of the workers.

Before you call someone an ass you need to educate yourself. Cocky? I just know what I'm talking about mate.

Hitler said this in 1939, "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."

Obviously trying to re-write history to suit his agenda. Of course socialism was anti-property (in it's use to exploit workers), that is what it is based on. It all came from Proudhon's 'What is Property'.

www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...

Hitler was not a socialist.

did not know, did not care, only popped in to say, so?

i dont care if a system works, the only problem is, NO F ING SYSTEMS WORK!! lol, we need a mixture of all the systems to make it work, and everyone in every country is always hell bent on their VISION of the system, morons all of them. well puppets more like it, but the people behind the puppets are bigger morons lol.

Originally posted by freemarketsocialist
I knew who you were talking about.

I knew because I assumed you were one of the millions of Americans that do not understand socialism and parrot right wing hysteria.

Obama is no socialist. You are insulting socialists all over.

Does the SEP support Obama? No.

Perhaps you are too uneducated to know that there are many branches of socialism... Socialism isn't just about what YOU want... and yes, Obama is a socialist/fascist.

And you must be one of the millions of people who has never experienced socialism yet want to claim YOU know what it is all about and everyone else's experiences and voices are just "rightwing propaganda"... Which is what uneducated, ignorant socialist wannabes always say when they don't like to hear the truth about their ideology...

Free market socialism... that's the biggest oxymoron there is in the world...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


But I thought socialism was a happy land where we all get to pick daisies and screw whoever we want.

Say it isnt so.

Originally posted by ANOK

No, national socialism is not a type of socialism, it is a type of fascism. See my last post. Hitler did not redefine those terms. 'National socialism' is an oxymoron, made up, meaningless. It ONLY refers to ONE political party, that of Nazi Germany during WWII. It was not a real political ideology before then, and really isn't even now. It was a mixture of fascism, and old Prussian traditions. Nothing to do with the traditions of socialism.

Yes National SOCIALISM is a type of SOCIALISM, and HItler wasn't the only SOCIALIST to implemtent fascism... In fact Mussolini, a lifelong socialist, invented fascism, and in his "fascist manifesto" you find, and I quote:

...
The manifesto thus combined elements of contemporary democratic and progressive thought (franchise reform, labour reform, limited nationalisation, taxes on wealth and war profits) with corporatist emphasis on class collaboration (the idea of social classes existing side by side and collaborating for the sake of national interests; the opposite of the Marxist notion of class struggle).
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ANOK
Nationalism is nationalism, as socialism is socialism. Nationalizing the economy is nationalizing the economy, taking industry into the hands of the state. Socialism is when industry is taken into the hands of the workers.

And you keep on lying, like you always like to do... Socialism is when THE STATE owns and controls the means of production... Under nationalism the people have a strong identification with a nation, which doesn't go against socialism in the least, hence national socialism can exist, and has existed...

This claim by new socialists that the "workers control everything under socialism" is the SAME OLD LIE which brought socialism to the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Myanmar, etc, etc, etc...

Originally posted by ANOK

Before you call someone an ass you need to educate yourself. Cocky? I just know what I'm talking about mate.

Oh yea, YOU know what you are talking about... BTW, before you tell someone to educate themselves you should do it first. So far you haven't learnt your lesson, and I know you never will because YOU, like so many other egotistical socialist egomaniacs want to claim YOU know better when history, and facts tell a different story to your exagerations and lies...

Originally posted by ANOK
Hitler said this in 1939, "Our adopted term ‘Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."

Again, there are many forms of socialism, and when they do not seek to abolish all private property they seek to heavily restrict, and or ban certain forms of property... Hence why there are MANY branches of socialism... They all have DIFFERENT ideas on what is the best form of socialism, which all of them suck...

Originally posted by ANOK
Obviously trying to re-write history to suit his agenda.

It is what ALL socialists do, including yourself... As i recall you had been glorifying the "RED TERROR" of Spain when socialists, and leftwingers in general took over and murdered tens of thousands of people, including thousands of clergy, because they would not swallow the "socialist soup" new socialists like you want people to swallow...

Originally posted by ANOK
Of course socialism was anti-property (in it's use to exploit workers), that is what it is based on. It all came from Proudhon's 'What is Property'.

Yet Hitler MANDATED all infraestructure, and businesses in Germany "to do what the country and people needed" which was mostly war equipment, clothing for soldiers etc... It is what "socialists do"...

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

But I thought socialism was a happy land where we all get to pick daisies and screw whoever we want.

Say it isnt so.

i know right? That's what old and new socialists/communists keep claiming despite the fact that EVERY TIME their ideologies were fully implemented socialist dictatorships emerged all over the world...

I knew you meant Obama because that is the word used by the right to describe him for a while now. Had you said foreign born, or secret Muslim, I would have guessed the same. We have all heard the propaganda, its just that some believe it and some do not. Apparently its socialistic to have decent health care available to all at reasonable cost. If that's the case, I guess I'm a socialist. I'm also a small business man and have been for decades. Doesn't that make me a capitalist? I care about clean air and water. So, an environmentalist or tree hugger, right? I believe our government has been going downhill for years and seems to be run by corporations, bankers, and corrupt politicians to a large extent. So maybe I'm an anarchist too? Or just frustrated with the lack of common sense in our country. I don't want religion in politics and I do want our borders under our control. Liberal? Conservative? I believe in a strong military but understand the cost overruns which were well planned out before hand by defense contractors is outrageous. Allowing bankers to regulate banking and lobbyists to write laws for congressmen who are too lazy or too busy raising money to do anything worthwhile. So who am I? Other than cynical, I'm not even sure myself.

reply to post by ANOK

Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx presented the concept of the vanguard party as solely qualified to politically lead the proletariat in revolution; in Chapter II: "Proletarians and Communists" of The Communist Manifesto (1848), they said:
The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The purpose of the vanguard party is to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat; supported by the working class, the vanguard party would lead the revolution to depose the incumbent Tsarist government, and transfer government power to the working class. The change of ruling class, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, makes possible the full development of socialism.[1]

good day to you
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by TerryMcGuire


You should have adjusted your post. Rght now it looks like I said stuff that you said. It's probably way too late to edit, but I thought I would point it out.

My point is you can be a left Hegelian and still be a tool for the NWO. And that is Obama. Yes, he did make his left base mad by not closing gitmo, but he sure is holding to his ideals of promoting plenty of leftist goals, not the least of which is the process of nationalizing the health and auto industries. The fact that he is using Fabian tools should be taken into account, as incrementalism is a handy thing when trying not to boil a frog too fast.

reply to post by Propulsion


So much BS in your OP.

Ther is OBVIOUSLY a middle ground. Obviously. The Founding Fathers thought so as well, which is why some argued for free state funded education paid for with taxes... but maybe you know more than they do?

Europe ALSO has found a way to have a social safety net without turning into the Soviet Union.

It's YOUR hardcore, and delusional, ideology that's the issue.

You don't know history and you want us all to conform to YOUR ideal, which has NEVER existed, except maybe in places like Somalia.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

 

You should have adjusted your post. Rght now it looks like I said stuff that you said. It's probably way too late to edit, but I thought I would point it out.

My point is you can be a left Hegelian and still be a tool for the NWO. And that is Obama. Yes, he did make his left base mad by not closing gitmo, but he sure is holding to his ideals of promoting plenty of leftist goals, not the least of which is the process of nationalizing the health and auto industries. The fact that he is using Fabian tools should be taken into account, as incrementalism is a handy thing when trying not to boil a frog too fast.

edit on 5-9-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Ridiculous. You're making these judgements based on your ability see the future. Hardly a wise starting point.

Obamacare isn't the state running the healthcare really... I wish it was, but it isn't.

It's close to making people buy auto insurance.

We've had that rule for decades and the US isn't a boiled frog...