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.

 

Yup. He’s a Socialist....

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
I never claimed that socialism was any type of solution. I only pointed out that Obama is, by definition, a socialist.


But he isn't a socialist by any socialist definition. Not at all. He is a classic liberal.

To be a socialist he would have to be working toward worker ownership. If he ever suggests worker ownership as a way to fix our economy, then you might be on to something. And we would all be on to a good thing.


It's not like no one has tried...


DETROIT -- A group of current and former Chrysler LLC workers who have long sought to have employees buy the auto maker are appealing to the Obama administration's auto task force in a longshot bid to win support for the idea...


Chrysler Workers Urge Obama to Support Ownership Push

They have been trying since 2007 without much luck. Oh yes Obama is a socialist




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Oh I must have missed that part too, while you were busy bashing America as the most Capitalist country. I've read your posts in other threads and you always seem to be against Capitalism.

I never bashed America. I said that it is the most capitalistic, to date.


A bit of reading about the whiskey rebellion shows that there was conflict among the Founders but that doesn't mean that the Constitution is wrong or that the Founders were hypocrites. Hamilton seems to have been wanting a stronger centralized govt, and by then Washington was President and had to be a leader. It is typical of the more liberal minded to criticize Washington. Indeed it has been a sport among liberals to bash Washington and all the Founders.

I never said the constitution is wrong, just that from the onset they were looking for ways to circumvent it.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Redistribution of income isn't the only definition of course. Statism and Centralization of power is certainly another definition. You always suggest that worker ownership is the true definition, yet no socialist country has ever operated without centralization of power. Lenin and Marx as much admitted that to enforce the system, there had to be an elite rulership, so basically it is bs when you pretend otherwise.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


Sorry ANOK, forgot the not in "not a socialist".



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


You did not say that. You keep changing your tune. Are you just unwilling to be honest about your socialist leanings?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


To date.

But you do realize that the US is not capitalist right now? Right?

I have every much problem with the US gov interfering as you do.

You do understand that right?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mkoll
You're right. Obama isn't a socialist.

He does things more along the lines of fascism, really.


Yes yes yes, he does doesn't he? Kind of makes you wonder as the last republican president did the same thing or at least laid the ground work for that to continue.

You have to take the money out of politics for there to be an honest go at our government...and money corrupts.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 

What does this have to do with how things have played out? Fighting in wars financed by those who control the markets just means you're family was duped.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 

It is capitalist even if not in accordance with your personal definition.

Things are done to capitalize profit even if others loose out.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by daskakik
 


You did not say that. You keep changing your tune. Are you just unwilling to be honest about your socialist leanings?

I actually have no leanings. I could care less what a government cares to call itself, they always end up acting the same. That is my tune.
edit on 4-9-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


I dont know, but some 20 million were holocausted in WWII. That goes without saying what happened in the war of 1812 or civil war, but we were there. My grandfathers, both of them freemasons and fought WWII.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by daskakik
 


You did not say that. You keep changing your tune. Are you just unwilling to be honest about your socialist leanings?

I actually have no leanings. I could care less what a government cares to call itself, they always end up acting the same. That is my tune.
edit on 4-9-2012 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


Then why are you blaming all the problems on robber barons and capitalism? That is what socialists and Marxists do. Pretending you don't have those leanings won't do anything to mask your argument.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


That's a straw man.

It doesn't change that fact that those with the means control what happens in the world.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


No, those who control the money change the world.

Those with the means, kick those peoples asses and put them in their place.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 

Because that is where the blame lies. I have no problem with it. Its the natural order but to say that anything else has been really tried is a lie.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 

Those who have the money have the means.

Your argument is invalid.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


By your logic were all screwed then.

No.

The ones who kick the most asses take the most names.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 

And those are the ones who can pay for the best army.

Your argument is still invalid.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


Nope sorry. Have you ever heard about guerrilla warfare?

Even from here I could kick your ass seven ways from sunday.

Thats how the revolution was won.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by thehoneycomb
 


Me either
. I still believe in the "old" American system though, it has provided the highest standard of living in the history of man, why would anyone think that isn't a win?

Even the very poor in America live better than the rich in most countries, remeber that commies.


So..America has provided the highest standard of living in the history of man..and the poor live better than the rich in most countries....but there is countries with free healthcare + LOTS of paid vacation time for anyone working as well


Sorry, America is screwed up with a HUUUUGE low income/middle class living off their credit cards and building up their debts, many people having no healthcare, entire families going bankrupt because of health related costs etc.

Obviously, we have a different opinion what "the highest standard of living" is supposed to be.

Also..LOL at the OP with his "EU/USSR/UN model"...i like how he mixes the USSR "model" with the EU/UN..as if it has anything in common.
edit on 4-9-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join