Marxist Show Their True Feelings

What is being suggested by the op and in the example is what is considered the combination of a military coup and a dictatorship showing who has the final power and say when it comes to government.
While currently, the federal government is ultimately turning out to be a joke at best, criminal at worst, it is still a government for all intents and purposes of, for and by the people. The problem is that many people no longer think of the issues or what is good for the country. The mindset is what is in it for me now and how can I benefit. The problem is that the long term consequences are not thought about or even considered when the government is, as it has been, reactionary to what the public wants right then.
Most of the laws that many thought was a good idea at the time is starting to become a nightmare to the general population, to the point where it is starting to erode on our very freedoms and cross into conflict with the very ideas that founded this country. And the real shame is that we the people did this to ourselves, and yet no one wants to admit that.

We keep electing the same people to office, time and time again, without thought that this is part of the problem. Politicians who are elected over and over to the same position begin to think that they are untouchable and it takes a major scandal just to remove them. Perhaps if WE the People, were to cast and elect a new person to those positions, rather than the same ones over and over, that would be the change that we need. Government was never supposed to be a career choice, but a duty that the person elected did not want to go, but did it cause it was the correct thing to do. If you look at the past acceptance speeches of presidents, there was at one point in time, where they showed that they were humbled, thankful and regretful that they made it into office. Today being elected means parties and a joyful time instead of the dread of being there. Perhaps we need to put that fear and dread back into the federal government, to where one goes there, but does not seek to remain.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That would make the author a Leninist, wouldn't it?

Do you see any difference from the preacher suggesting a military coup?

links234
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

That would make the author a Leninist, wouldn't it?

Maxist-Leninist, but I would have to know more about their beliefs to make that determination. It is clearly evident in their article though, they are all for the use of force of Government to ensure that their ideology remains in power.

Do you see any difference from the preacher suggesting a military coup?

No so why would you ask? What indication have I ever presented that would suggest I don't? The thing is, this writer I highlighted has a much wider and broader audience than an obscure preacher.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


There is something wrong with the understanding of Marxism among some members here. Either that, or those same members are deluded beyond belief.

There is not, nor has there ever been, any actual Marxism in the government of the United States of America. Nor has there been any socialism, or communism. If the rampant consumerism and the fallacy of the growth based economy were actually challenged in the USA, by policies which contained even the barest element of any of these other ideologies, then the entire political system would collapse under the weight of the irony.

Honestly, it's like some people around these parts do not know what these terms even MEAN!

TrueBrit

There is not, nor has there ever been, any actual Marxism in the government of the United States of America. Nor has there been any socialism, or communism.

Except this is about a writer and no one in the government. On that note though, there have been avowed members of the Communist Party that have been elected to office.

If the rampant consumerism and the fallacy of the growth based economy were actually challenged in the USA, by policies which contained even the barest element of any of these other ideologies, then the entire political system would collapse under the weight of the irony.

Honestly, it's like some people around these parts do not know what these terms even MEAN!

You didn't even read the article did you?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Sure I did. The article detailed the events of 1993 in Russia under Yeltsin, as an oblique prod at the USAs current position, as if to say, what next Obama. Pretty crap article, pretty crap veiled motivation for the articles being written at all, and nothing what so ever to do with anything remotely current, despite being used to refer to it.

The implication, and inference are as clear as they are retarded.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Fair enough. A known publication runs an article that makes pseudo suggestions that to get the other party to break, we should do as Yeltsin did. That is how I read it. Rubbish for sure, but do you think the writer wrote it tongue in cheek? Or did they write it with full intentions of what they thought?

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I would love to believe that they wrote it with the intent of showing all the "Gawd damn liberals and democrats are just socialists and commies" crowd just how utterly moronic they sound, but I am pretty sure that this was written as a dig against the president and his policies, and in response to the shut down.

The main reason I get angry when people confuse Obama, or for that matter any powerful politician in the US, with socialist or communistic views. The ones that get high places, do not hold such views, and that is just how it is! No one in the US that isn't actually from Russia, North Korea, or any other currently or formerly communist nation, has the faintest idea what the concept actually means in real terms, and therefore has no way to know what they are talking about when they bash it all day, having never tried it, or even trialled it among friends for a laugh.

I am a socialist. I think that what is best for the people, is more important than what is best for rich men's bank accounts. I think that the weak must be upheld by the strong, and that a failure on the part of the strong to do their duty to the weak, is treason against mankind. And all the bastards that inference like that found in the article would appeal to.... Well, if they woke up in a country run by me, they would take Obama back in a heart beat, because none of them have the balls or brains to live a decent, kind, generous life.

TrueBrit
I would love to believe that they wrote it with the intent of showing all the "Gawd damn liberals and democrats are just socialists and commies" crowd just how utterly moronic they sound, but I am pretty sure that this was written as a dig against the president and his policies, and in response to the shut down.

While definitely in response to the shut-down, I am unsure how you can equate this to a dig; espcially if you read past articles from Mrs. Julia Ioffe. Maybe it was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe she really believes we need a president who can actually lead (may it be left or right wing; just....lead). I do however find the parallels that she connected to be dangerous. Just as dangerous as a poster pointed out a couple of posts before about a pastor who made the same calls.