Debunking Obama As Anti-Business Socialist

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No they weren't socialists, they were capitalists... state capitalists if you want to be specific.

State Capitalism: A political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.

This is what the dictators you named above were, this is what the USSR was, what China is, what N.Korea is.

I can call geese, ducks... my entire life. Some people might even believe me. The fact that I believe or convince others that geese are ducks does not change the fact that they are geese not ducks.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by seabag
 


No they weren't socialists, they were capitalists... state capitalists if you want to be specific.

State Capitalism: A political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.

This is what the dictators you named above were, this is what the USSR was, what China is, what N.Korea is.

I can call geese, ducks... my entire life. Some people might even believe me. The fact that I believe or convince others that geese are ducks does not change the fact that they are geese not ducks.


No such thing as state capitalism. All it is is a clever attempt to project that which is fascism onto capitalism and quite obviously an oxymoron. Furthermore you need to read what Mussolini said about his comrad socialists to the north.


edit on 23-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


There is such thing as State Capitalism, very clearly. You seem to have no idea what Fascism is and have only read cherry picked anecdotes from the history of Mussolini.

Early in life Mussolini was a Socialist, a strong supporter of Labor Unions. He began changing as Italy fell during WWI, he began believing that Socialists were too weak, that it was their fault Italy fell, their fault that the military wasn't strong enough.

This wasn't immediately apparent, from his work with Labor Unions he had a supportive base to become a leader and he got quite far that way (can't recall exactly what position he was in when he betrayed Socialism and Unions. He began meeting with Capitalists and the King of Italy. They formed an alliance. Mussolini would win the people, the King would maintain the illusion of sole Power, the Capitalists would be an open ended source of funds for building a much stronger military in exchange for being the true power, the writers of Law.

As the Italian army grew in strength, Labor Unions started getting dismantled... brutally. Union meetings busted into and members slaughtered. Laws banning anything Union were written, leaders rounded up and murdered.

Mussolini was no longer a Socialist, he had become a Nationalist... convinced of the superiority of Italians, driven by fear Italy couldn't protect itself.

What made Italy Fascist was that the Capitalists funding the army were above the law and in fact wrote the law.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


You people are so comical. You try to disprove me and through your screed/history lesson you inadvertently reinforce my argument.

Thank you



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


Do tell.
How did I manage to do that?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


Do tell.
How did I manage to do that?


I believe that I could get you to answer your own question by having you find the answer to these questions.

So... given that there is a variance in the stated goals of fascism, communism, and socialism... Why are the end results very much the same?

What are the odds?

Why were the socialists and fascists in a death match with the communists when in the end they all look roughly the same (just different body counts)?



edit on 23-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 




So... given that there is a variance in the stated goals of fascism, communism, and socialism... Why are the end results very much the same?


Your questions make no sense because there is no end result of Socialism/Communism to judge, we have never seen Socialism/Communism as an economic/political system.



Why were the socialists and fascists in a death match with the communists when in the end they all look roughly the same (just different body counts)?


How can Socialists be in a death match with Communists? The two words are interchangeable. Death match with Fascists? Absolutely.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455
 




So... given that there is a variance in the stated goals of fascism, communism, and socialism... Why are the end results very much the same?


Your questions make no sense because there is no end result of Socialism/Communism to judge, we have never seen Socialism/Communism as an economic/political system.



Why were the socialists and fascists in a death match with the communists when in the end they all look roughly the same (just different body counts)?


How can Socialists be in a death match with Communists? The two words are interchangeable. Death match with Fascists? Absolutely.


Apparently you used the information already in your head which was demonstrably wrong in the first place. This requires time, research, and contemplation.

And your ending comment..... You are wrong because that is very very much counter to history.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by 11235813213455
 


So demonstrate how I'm wrong.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
I’m not advocating no government but only limited government within its TRUE Constitutional limits
edit on 22-1-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Constitution does not limit government. It says nothing about it.
Its stance on capitalism is ultimately let it happen, however, part of the governments job is to build a structure to help it along and take measures to make sure its regulated for health reasons (see commerce clause).



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Ugh *facedesk* The socialism debates on this site kill me. Ask anyone who has ever lived in a country with ACTUAL socialized medicine (aka any country in the western world that is NOT the United States) if what the US is going to have soon is Socialized Healthcare. I can assure you they will laugh in your face.

Obamacare = being forced to PURCHASE healthcare from FOR PROFIT COMPANIES

Socialized Healthcare = a small portion of everyone's income tax (they also use the sales tax from things like cigarettes) is used to fund the healthcare system for every citizen. The entire system is non-profit. There are no deductibles or co-pays, or "patient responsibility" costs. The only thing you pay out of pocket is prescription costs, which where I lived were cheap anyway. And the percentage of taxes taken out of my check in Canada was LESS than what is taken out in the U.S.

Each country is different, obviously. Canada for example the healthcare system does not cover podiatry or dentistry, or vision. However, because businesses do not have to pay for healthcare for their employees that is what the benefits package is made up of. I got EXCELLENT dental and vision through my job. 100% coverge on dental up to $1500 per year, and one pair of glasses every year.

People calling Obamacare socialized medicine have no idea what they are talking about. However, I will agree that Obamacare totally sucks. The only healthcare system worth a damn to society is ACTUAL socialized medicine.
edit on 1/23/13 by Malynn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


Private insurance yes. But also lobbyists. The only companies that will be compete would be huge corporations like blue cross blue shield and companies similar to that. He's pretty much forcing people to buy only certain insurance companies, reducing competition with the smaller businesses, and creating a monopoly. In the end, the government will lose money to pay these companies fees for people who can't afford it. At first the prices will be low, but when the competition is gone, you can be 100% sure that the fees will rise. All he's doing is giving people a false sense of prosperity/hope, but in the end all the big wigs in the insurance business will sit on golden eggs.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 


As I see it the Oligarchy is using the government to allow them to siphon all of the wealth out of our country.

If any of you understood business at least bankers and corporations they are more powerful than our government. They use government as a tool to keep us controlled and to mandate that we use the products and services they peddle.

We are all forced to have insurance health and auto, we are all expected to have education, try not sending your kid to school and see what happens.

As a business man I would love it if the government mandated that people had to buy my product or service and if it helped me kill my competition.. Even if you did not buy it directly but with taxes. Which is essentially what is going on.

I really do not understand how people do not realize that government has no power over big businesses. If you piss off the right industry they will just fake a crisis till the government plays ball.

If the people manage to have the government lets say for the sake of conversation, tax businesses too much they either pass that increase off to the employee or the consumer.. they take no hit at all. Worst case they leave the country for greener pastures and continue to conduct less costly business in our country.

Corps are required to benefit the investors regardless of the cost. That means they have no loyalty to the environment, the common man, nor their own country. If you think you are an investor you are delusional. No matter how much stock you own it means dick to the true share holders.



The bottom line is, that our government works for the corporations. They do not work for us. If it was true communism it would work for the people but that will never happen.



OBAMA = FASCIST

PERIOD

edit on 23-1-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by votan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by WaterBottle
 





you look there are advertisements trying to convince you to buy things you don't need.


Even so, there is still a difference between an ad selling a product and a law forcing you to buy it. Enter OBamacare.

Obama is Socialist, Marxist, Globalist, NWO, UN stooge. What else needs to be said?





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join