Is Obama the most pathetic "socialist" ever??

reply to post by FlyersFan

The stats quoted from Daily Kos in the OP were misleading and inaccurate.

So you say.
Care to show how?

Originally posted by Kali74
So you say.

So the TRUTH says ...

Care to show how?

Someone already did on page one

reply to post by FlyersFan


I don't find that to be biased. That is how employment is measured. Should the measurement standard be changed? Absolutely. But it is the same standard used under Bush, Clinton, Bush... not sure how far back that goes.

Originally posted by Kali74

Marxism halted in the craw of the State, where did I say anything about the State? You seemed to have missed that the point of my post wasn't about me proposing solutions, it was about outlining what a Socialist President might actually look like.


What a tricky bastard that guy is, acting complete opposite of Socialist in order to fool the people... that will ensure his next election... oh wait... Unless you're suggesting that he is going to illegally take a 3rd term as POTUS, what's he hiding for? Do yourself a favor and wash the rhetoric out of your brain. Obama is at the least a crony capitalist, and I personally feel he is Fascist light. And please tell me that I don't have to explain how Fascism and Socialism are polar opposites.

Oh My God... you have to be one of the most agonizingly ill informed knee jerk reaction posters on this site..

Fascism and Socialism are demonstrably and historically NOT polar opposites.

I'll couch that because trying to explain that to you is like me trying to have a conversation with a brick and convince it not to be a brick.

Fine.. YOU were laying out what YOU would do if YOU had power and not Obama. As far as I can tell there are exactly as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists so Obamas socialist agenda is his and not yours.

Frankly what you propose scares the hell out of me and would burn the world down. I would choose Obamas socialism over yours any day of the week.

I guess that this shows that most people have no idea what a real socialist is. Especially those cretins in the Tea Party - which I see is finally sinking from view.

reply to post by 11235813213455

Oh My God... you have to be one of the most agonizingly ill informed knee jerk reaction posters on this site..

Gosh, I feel unloved

Fascism and Socialism are demonstrably and historically NOT polar opposites.

Really? Apparently there's at least one poster more agonizingly ill informed than myself.

Mussolini's own words:

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).

I'll couch that because trying to explain that to you is like me trying to have a conversation with a brick and convince it not to be a brick.

Ouch, my feelings!

As far as I can tell there are exactly as many definitions of socialism as there are socialists

No, there is only one correct one... you mentioned it already.

Frankly what you propose scares the hell out of me and would burn the world down.

Some people are scared and need Nannies, I understand.

I would choose Obamas socialism over yours any day of the week.

Naturally. Why should a Capitalist be un-agreeable to a Capitalist?

reply to post by Kali74


Hardly the hyperbolic "polar opposites" as you put it. And yet... right in line with National Socialism.

If anything they're competing ideologies of totalitarianism.

reply to post by 11235813213455

Hardly the hyperbolic "polar opposites" as you put it.

Yes they are polar opposites. Fascism requires a State, worships it even. Socialism doesn't and in fact ultimately is anti-state.

And yet... right in line with National Socialism.

National Socialism is NOT Socialism. It is Fascism with a racial/cultural supremacy twist. Hitler greatly admired Mussolini and modeled quite a bit after him.

If anything they're competing ideologies of totalitarianism.

No. Socialism falls under Libertarianism. I know it is difficult to reconcile decades of misinformation and propaganda.

Capitalism depends on exploitation, increasing profit no matter what. Socialism demands that each individual work for what they have on their own merit, not on their ability to be sociopaths who can say you don't get to eat so that I have enough to feed the 5 generations that come after me.

Many people always misinterpret the sentiment behind my last sentence to mean, capping profit or income. That isn't the case. There is nothing wrong with getting rich it isn't something that should be punished or placed under limitations. There is however something wrong with how many people get rich, exploiting people, land, resources is not work... if you do this, you haven't earned your wealth, you stole it from someone else.

Another post from misinformed, sore loser, Limbaugh-wanna-be sensationalist, vapid, boring tea party zombie.
Look at that, DOW is up over 14k, highest ever..yay for socialism. No, sorry you have to blame that on Obama, because EVERYTHING else gets pinned on him.

By the way, the simple answer is NO to your lame question...yawn.

Next time spend the few wasted minutes looking up the definition of socialism.

reply to post by Lever1


I think you missed the sarcasm of the OP and the blog.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Hardly the hyperbolic "polar opposites" as you put it.

Yes they are polar opposites. Fascism requires a State, worships it even. Socialism doesn't and in fact ultimately is anti-state.

And yet... right in line with National Socialism.

National Socialism is NOT Socialism. It is Fascism with a racial/cultural supremacy twist. Hitler greatly admired Mussolini and modeled quite a bit after him.

If anything they're competing ideologies of totalitarianism.

No. Socialism falls under Libertarianism. I know it is difficult to reconcile decades of misinformation and propaganda.

Capitalism depends on exploitation, increasing profit no matter what. Socialism demands that each individual work for what they have on their own merit, not on their ability to be sociopaths who can say you don't get to eat so that I have enough to feed the 5 generations that come after me.

Many people always misinterpret the sentiment behind my last sentence to mean, capping profit or income. That isn't the case. There is nothing wrong with getting rich it isn't something that should be punished or placed under limitations. There is however something wrong with how many people get rich, exploiting people, land, resources is not work... if you do this, you haven't earned your wealth, you stole it from someone else.

Oh! I was mistaken.. geez! I've probably heard that explanation a million times and its never made sense to me. Now I get it! I'm on your side now....

Hmmm.... Now where did I put that Guy Fawkes mask.....


Seriously though.. You'll have to forgive me if I follow the description of socialism that is Sowell, Hayak, VonMises and Friedman rather than your myopic little definition.

reply to post by 11235813213455

Seriously though.. You'll have to forgive me if I follow the description of socialism that is Sowell, Hayak, VonMises and Friedman rather than your myopic little definition.

Aww your ego leaked a little. Here's a mop... a little hard work won't kill ya.

No forgiveness required, your ignorance doesn't harm me one bit.

Every President has been a victim of past Presidents since George Washington. He was the only perfect President ( by all accounts) because he had no predecessor. I don't know what Obama truly is. It is reported that he joined "The New Party" . The fact is, we know so little about him it is very curious how he became POTUS in the first place.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Seriously though.. You'll have to forgive me if I follow the description of socialism that is Sowell, Hayak, VonMises and Friedman rather than your myopic little definition.

Aww your ego leaked a little. Here's a mop... a little hard work won't kill ya.

No forgiveness required, your ignorance doesn't harm me one bit.

edit on 2-2-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Funny.. a socialist talking to me about hard work.

Ironic thing is I'm probably paying for your Internet connection thus giving you the ability to type that bull.

reply to post by 11235813213455


Sorry to disappoint you but I work for a living, despite your delusions that is what Socialism is about, working, just at the end of the day you own the work you did, no one else... I know that must be frightening to a person that either likes to say yes sir/m'am a lot or hear yes sir/m'am a lot from a person you're deliberately not paying the worth of their contribution.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Sorry to disappoint you but I work for a living, despite your delusions that is what Socialism is about, working, just at the end of the day you own the work you did, no one else... I know that must be frightening to a person that either likes to say yes sir/m'am a lot or hear yes sir/m'am a lot from a person you're deliberately not paying the worth of their contribution.

Ok so.. In "your" socialism.. Are there any share holders? Any stock holders? Can proprietorships exist under your model?

reply to post by 11235813213455


Property is limited to personal such as your home, currency, transportation etc.
And I guess you could look at shareholding as limited to workers only.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Property is limited to personal such as your home, currency, transportation etc.
And I guess you could look at shareholding as limited to workers only.

Thats not what I asked. Your confusing what proprietorship means and running the risk of looking like you havent thought your ideology through sufficiently enough to answer a few simple post capitalist business questions.

Shareholders was an easy one so what about the other 2? What about proprietorships and stakeholders?

reply to post by Kali74


I vote you for presidency.

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg
I guess that this shows that most people have no idea what a real socialist is. Especially those cretins in the Tea Party - which I see is finally sinking from view.

No it is not. You just haven't seen them on the streets protesting. They are doing stuff behind the scenes now. I hope that makes your day.

And just because you hate true Patriots who do not want to see this country go down in flames of Socialist Marxist Progressive Nanny Statism and bankruptcy does not mean that they are cretins. It's just an interesting sounding word you can attach your hatred to and sound all smart.