It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by abeverage
He presided over the biggest move to socialize medicine in the US since Medicare and SS. What were you expecting?
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.
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
The new way is a way that has no constitution or law.
Obama said that AK's do not belong in the hands of citizens but on the hands of soldiers in a battlefield. A few months after signing into law that America is a battlefield.
Thats why Im voting him out in November.
Originally posted by crankySamurai
reply to post by freedomwv
There are no capitalist leaders...
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by inverslyproportional
Thats BS... Have you ever tried to eat without a dime to your name?
After 4 years of rampant unemployment and underemployment (for which he/they did nothing to make an atmosphere in which there was work–and often the opposite), I’m gathering Obama & friends’ blatant coming out with socialist ideology means they think the time is finally ripe that people will gladly accept their fundamental change of America.
Originally posted by longlostbrother
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)
Originally posted by MikhailBakunin
Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by inverslyproportional
Thats BS... Have you ever tried to eat without a dime to your name?
good point... it's not hard at all here in America... restaurants even have a rule that if a homeless man walks in and eats off the buffet... it's against the law to tell him to leave. Not sure many people know this law or it would be exploited.
But yes... anytime I'm hungry and around town... I never pay unless I have extra cash on hand... deli's anywhere hand out food for this very reason... much food is wasted and they don't really care about letting you walk around and eat..... I've taught this to buddies of mine in touring bands who live off nothing but gas and booze money... sleeping in parking lots... playing shows along the east coast. They thanked me the last time they saw me for the easy food issue fix. Any walmart or grocery store with a Deli... tell'em what you want ... they slap a price tag on it and you're free to walk around and eat or pay for it.... it's cheap product and overpriced... welcome doormat.edit on 5-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: adding some personal experience to the repertoire
living's easy... it's the dying part that gets their minds bogglededit on 5-9-2012 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
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]
Beginnings
The founders of both Anarchism and Marxism all came out of the dissolution of the Young Hegelians in the 1840s, during the revolutionary upheavals that swept across Europe and destroyed the “Old Order”. Both Mikhail Bakunin and Frederick Engels were present at the December 1841 lecture by Friedrich Schelling denouncing Hegel, representing two of the plethora of radical currents that sprung out of that conjuncture. Also with their roots in the Young Hegelians were Max Stirner, a founder of libertarian individualism, one of the targets of Marx’s The Holy Family, Proudhon, the founder of theoretical anarchism and Bakunin’s teacher....
Bakunin was won over to socialism by the influence of Blanqui, and Bakunin was notorious for his propensity to form secret organisations fomenting rebellion. Bakunin regarded Proudhon however as his foremost teacher and recognised Proudhon as the founder of anarchism.
In the worldwide movement for social justice, many young people are attracted by the ideas of anarchism - even if they don’t call themselves anarchists. Anarchists seem to stand for the same thing we Marxists do - a classless society, a self-organized and self-managed society - what we often sum up with the phrase ‘workers’ power’. Like us, many anarchists say they stand for revolution. No bosses, no police, social equality, no rich and no nuclear bombs. People not profit.
If we stand for the same goal, the same objectives as them, what’s the difference? Why the hostility between Marxists and anarchists?
There are two fundamental differences. The first is the party, the second is the state. Anarchists are against forming a political party; we say the working class needs a political party to lead the struggle against capitalism. Why do we insist on the formation of a revolutionary political party?...
Originally posted by Kali74
Mussolini WAS a socialist UNTIL the end of WWI.
....The Act did not define "conscientious objection", but a government Circular issued under the Act referred to those whose "objection genuinely rests on religious or moral convictions". In practice many were Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers or other Christian denominations, who simply saw the taking of life as wrong, while others objected to the war on political grounds such as socialism or international brotherhood. Conscientious objectors ("COs" or "conchies") were generally unpopular with the public, the press and the authorities, who saw them at best as unpatriotic shirkers and at worst as subjective revolutionaries....