are you ok with Ron Paul saying Obama is not a socialist? In fact, he labled Obama as a capitalist?I was like a lot of people who claimed Obama to be a Socialist, but upon further reasearch, I don't think he really fits the bill as a straight up Socialist. As far as Obama being a Capitalist, it's possible he could have some Capitalist views. But then O'reilly comes along with this Social Justice-Anti Capitalist Label, one I've never heard of before. No, Iam not opposed to Obama being labeled a Capitalist.Originally Posted by CJ7
- acp5762
- 11-27-2012, 11:44 AM
- CJ7
- 11-27-2012, 11:55 AM
I was like a lot of people who claimed Obama to be a Socialist, but upon further reasearch, I don't think he really fits the bill as a straight up Socialist. As far as Obama being a Capitalist, it's possible he could have some Capitalist views. But then O'reilly comes along with this Social Justice-Anti Capitalist Label, one I've never heard of before. No, Iam not opposed to Obama being labeled a Capitalist. Originally Posted by acp5762
views?
the healthcare law does nothing BUT support business for profit ... the epitome of capitalism
Insurance Co's
Hospitals
Dr's
pharma co's
and everything associated with the medical industry makes profits
he reduced taxes on small businesses over a dozen times to help them increase profits and stay in business during the recession ... another proof positive of capitalism
pretty strong "view" imo
- Guest050715-1
- 11-27-2012, 12:24 PM
Well I understand that Pravda is Russian for Fox... Originally Posted by Yssup RiderNo, it's more Russian for State news. Fox and MSNBC are echo chamber news organizations just like Pravda is they just aren't State run.
Mostly to me calling Obama a communistic is just a way to insult him in a State run, Russian news organization. Putin is trying to re-create the Cold War. You can take the boy out of the KGB, but not the KGB out of the boy. Obama isn't a communists. He's a social democrat. Some, like me, think that's bad. Others don't. It's a matter of opinion.
This, can't be argued with though IMHO:
Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya and Syria. He plans his next war is with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.
- acp5762
- 11-27-2012, 01:40 PM
Social justice does not require Socialism or Communism. The majority of the Bible is concerned with social justice, is the Bible a commie book acp?You really didn't answer my question but thats ok. So I'll just simply elaborate on what you asked. No the Bible isn't a commie book. It's message in terms of Social Justice rely on the moral compass of society. Social Justice for the sake of this thread politically is a bit different. In order to even out the paying field between the very rich and the poverty stricken and anything inbetween is achieved fundamentally through taxation. So what would the Anti-Capitalism label mean according to O'reilly, well he really didn't elaborate on that point. Anti-Capitalism in the strict sense is the replacing of Capitalism with another system.
O'reilly didn't define his "anti capitalist" term very clearly, but he did say that it was not equivalent to being a socialist or a communist. That was his whole point.
Any other questions? Originally Posted by markroxny
- CuteOldGuy
- 11-27-2012, 02:16 PM
Really, he is more of a fascist, police state tyrant, if you want to get technical.
- Blubbster
- 11-27-2012, 02:54 PM
Note that the author of that article is not Russian. Could they really recognize a real communist? Just saying.
- A Russian Guy
- A Russian Guy
- Guest050715-1
- 11-27-2012, 03:01 PM
- BigLouie
- 11-27-2012, 05:04 PM
I cannot believe that anyone is taking this mindless ramblings as having a shred of truth to it. This is just old school Cold War nonsense warmed over. I am surprised he did not throw in "running dog lackey". So tell me, why does no one have an issue with his claim that communist have taken over public education and are turning our children into communist?
- fetishfreak
- 11-27-2012, 06:42 PM
Excerpt below is from the communist manifesto as translated to english.
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html
My Comments are in Blue
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
do we have any economically insufficient and untenable measures?
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Obama supports raising taxes on upper class.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Obama supports the Estate Tax aka Death Tax
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Currently this is limited to the war on Drugs but expansion into war on piracy is coming
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
multiple attempts have been made to regulate the internet.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
This is being done by both the Republicans and Democrats
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
Department of Education
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
This is where the Russians went astray the proletariat swept aside the bourgeoisie only to have it replaced with the politburo.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
I would say the reason that Obama can not be classified as a socialist or a communist or a capitalist is because he does not fit any of them. He adopts measures of all schools of thought in order to gain support. This being said he is best described as a populist.
Populist: pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html
My Comments are in Blue
The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
do we have any economically insufficient and untenable measures?
These measures will of course be different in different countries.
Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Obama supports raising taxes on upper class.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Obama supports the Estate Tax aka Death Tax
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Currently this is limited to the war on Drugs but expansion into war on piracy is coming
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
The Federal Reserve
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
multiple attempts have been made to regulate the internet.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
This is being done by both the Republicans and Democrats
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.
Department of Education
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
This is where the Russians went astray the proletariat swept aside the bourgeoisie only to have it replaced with the politburo.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
I would say the reason that Obama can not be classified as a socialist or a communist or a capitalist is because he does not fit any of them. He adopts measures of all schools of thought in order to gain support. This being said he is best described as a populist.
Populist: pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice
- acp5762
- 11-27-2012, 08:11 PM
Really, he is more of a fascist, police state tyrant, if you want to get technical. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuyThats pretty much it. Obama is more of a Facist than he would be a Socialist or a Communist. It really blows my mind how the Liberals in here danced around the issue of this thread. It surprises me how little they really know about Obama who they diligently supported.
- Guest040616
- 11-27-2012, 08:15 PM
Thats pretty much it. Obama is more of a Facist than he would be a Socialist or a Communist. It really blows my mind how the Liberals in here danced around the issue of this thread. It surprises me how little they really know about Obama who they diligently supported. Originally Posted by acp5762I just looked up the word 'Idiot' in the dictionary. The only definitions listed were:
acp5762 and/or I B Lying & Crying
Draw your own conclusions!
- I B Hankering
- 11-27-2012, 08:33 PM
. . . and Stalin blamed the Kulaks, Mussolini blamed the communists, and Hitler blamed the Jews.
Populist: pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who were together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice Originally Posted by fetishfreak
- acp5762
- 11-27-2012, 08:43 PM
- fetishfreak
- 11-27-2012, 08:55 PM
We did draw our own conclusion. Obama is a Facist and your're a dumb sniveling jackass, that really doesn't know shit. Originally Posted by acp5762Facist
A subculture of racism, instead of classifying people by race, the facist judges people by how attractive he/she finds the face of other people. It is not to be confused with "fascist" which is extreme idiotic loyalty to an imaginary state which may or may not exist.
A: Dude, that guy is really cool.
B: No, i don't like how he looks, he must be dumb.
A: B, you are so facist.
Sorry couldn't resist.
- fetishfreak
- 11-27-2012, 09:02 PM
Fascist is such a lousy word to describe anyone. It truly has no clear definition. Fascism is based on 10 principles. It combines right wing and left wing agendas. In reality it takes the worst concepts from both and uses them to control the population.
Here are the 10 principles:
1) Corporate Dominance of Law and Society
2) Military Supremacy in Funding and Policy
3) Reckless Nationalism in Foreign Affairs
4) Suppression of Organized Labor
5) Unification By Fear and Hatred
6) Expansion of Prisons and Prison Sentences
7) Usurpation of Power and Authority
8) Abuse of Human Rights at Home and Abroad
9) Religious Zealotry in Government and Military
10) Alliance with a Tightly Controlled Mass Media
If you look at the above list you could find that both Republicans and Democrats can easily be found to agree with many on the list. That is why I say that he is a populist.
Here are the 10 principles:
1) Corporate Dominance of Law and Society
2) Military Supremacy in Funding and Policy
3) Reckless Nationalism in Foreign Affairs
4) Suppression of Organized Labor
5) Unification By Fear and Hatred
6) Expansion of Prisons and Prison Sentences
7) Usurpation of Power and Authority
8) Abuse of Human Rights at Home and Abroad
9) Religious Zealotry in Government and Military
10) Alliance with a Tightly Controlled Mass Media
If you look at the above list you could find that both Republicans and Democrats can easily be found to agree with many on the list. That is why I say that he is a populist.