Socialism

[richard_daily]

bong bong bong...

Hey lustopia, you do realize that George Orwell was a SOCIALIST!!!!!! OMG WTF????, don't you?

 

[lustatopia]

Hey lustopia, you do realize that George Orwell was a SOCIALIST!!!!!! OMG WTF????, don't you?

You really don't bother reading the thread do you moron? Every post you've made recently has been totally RTFM.

Of course I know Orwell was a socialist. Duh. For God's sake i've posted here that I WAS a socialist once my bleeding fucking self! Read, moron, READ! And all shall be revealed. What is it about Americans that they don't read shit? I'll bet if this thread was a reality Teee Veee show, Richy would be up on who is going to get voted off the island...

In fact, I'll bet that I'm the only asshole on this whole fucking thread who has ever been a member of a self-proclaimed socialist party. OMG WTF???

 

[lustatopia]

Evolution, biological and cultural is what makes the world go around:
http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af126/rastatropic/cat_social_1.jpg

 

[lustatopia]

http://i1000.photobucket.com/albums/af126/rastatropic/bflycap1.jpg

 

[Peregrinator]

The real fucking question is can any one of you show that Obama is NOT a socialist???

Can anyone here prove a negative? No. That's a logical impossibility.

I have a friendly amendment to your challenge: Suppose we do this? We post examples of the things he's done. That way, we'll all be able to see what you mean by socialist. We'll have a concrete list of acts performed and principles espoused that we can use as a sort of baseline to see what lustatopia sees as socialist.

Work for you?

 

[off2bed]

Can anyone here prove a negative? No. That's a logical impossibility.

I have a friendly amendment to your challenge: Suppose we do this? We post examples of the things he's done. That way, we'll all be able to see what you mean by socialist. We'll have a concrete list of acts performed and principles espoused that we can use as a sort of baseline to see what lustatopia sees as socialist.

Work for you?

I'm sure our court system finds that a bit problematic. Accuse someone of a crime, the defense has to prove him not guilty. The rest of your post invites the prosecution to present evidence.

However, you don't get to write the rules of evidence. "Things he's done" aren't the only allowable evidence, though there have already been "things he's done" presented.

 

[Peregrinator]

I'm sure our court system finds that a bit problematic. Accuse someone of a crime, the defense has to prove him not guilty. The rest of your post invites the prosecution to present evidence.

However, you don't get to write the rules of evidence. "Things he's done" aren't the only allowable evidence, though there have already been "things he's done" presented.

Uh...

No, it doesn't. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. This is why the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is so important. There are a few other phrases you might want to think about, too, like "reasonable doubt."

Who's writing rules of evidence? Wtf are you talking about? I asked a question, made a suggestion for the conversation in the thread I started. Also, are you too dumb to make sense of the phrase "principles espoused," or did you just not read my post before responding?

 

[off2bed]

Uh...

No, it doesn't. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. This is why the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" is so important. There are a few other phrases you might want to think about, too, like "reasonable doubt."

Who's writing rules of evidence? Wtf are you talking about? I asked a question, made a suggestion for the conversation in the thread I started. Also, are you too dumb to make sense of the phrase "principles espoused," or did you just not read my post before responding?

I haven't read this whole thread, but surely there's some shred of evidence you've read, somewhere, anywhere, that makes you wonder if Obama is a Socialist. Or do you just shrug and say, "It was on Fox News so it's false"?

 

[off2bed]

Is belonging to a Socialist political party evidence for you?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78945

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

 

[richard_daily]

You really don't bother reading the thread do you moron? Every post you've made recently has been totally RTFM.

Of course I know Orwell was a socialist. Duh. For God's sake i've posted here that I WAS a socialist once my bleeding fucking self! Read, moron, READ! And all shall be revealed. What is it about Americans that they don't read shit? I'll bet if this thread was a reality Teee Veee show, Richy would be up on who is going to get voted off the island...

In fact, I'll bet that I'm the only asshole on this whole fucking thread who has ever been a member of a self-proclaimed socialist party. OMG WTF???

So... how many insurance companies have been taken over by the government again?

 

[lustatopia]

Can anyone here prove a negative? No. That's a logical impossibility.

I have a friendly amendment to your challenge: Suppose we do this? We post examples of the things he's done. That way, we'll all be able to see what you mean by socialist. We'll have a concrete list of acts performed and principles espoused that we can use as a sort of baseline to see what lustatopia sees as socialist.

Work for you?

Good point, Perengrinator. I concede that much.

This is not a trial. Being a socialist isn't a crime. Playing the victim card is weak piss.

Obama can't admit to being a socialist, perhaps even to himself. No joke. People have to convince themselves of their own deceit before they can sell it on down the line. Self-delusion is a fairly normal psychological condition for many people.

So don't bother cherry picking the few items that the president had to do in order to convince himself and America that he was a full on with the American program of prosperity and the pursuit of happiness. Obama can only be one of two things. Either he's a blathering idiot or he's a scheming socialist. Everyone says he's a bloody genius, so I'm going with the scheming socialist meme.

You should be first required to answer to the basic questions of Obama's political philosophy as defined by:

1. His enduring friendship, until he was require to toss them under the bus, with members of the weather underground an unreconstructed paleo-Marxist or perhaps more correctly Maoist American terrorist group. What did Obama have in common with these people? Hey, maybe they just like to play bridge together. I don't know. You tell us.

2. Years spent in the God-Damn-American church. Hard to defend. Why someone would subject their children to that sort of hatred, unless, unless, you hated America?

3.What's with the czar shit? Van Jones believed that Bush and Cheney blew up the WTC? And he was a committed Socialist? Explain that away...

4. Then the Education Czar tells school kids that her favorite philosopher is Chariman Mao on video? How many commies do you need in an administration to admit the guy hiring swings that way????

5. Obama's father was a communist and hated whites. Pfft. Probably didn't effect the child much even though he idolized his father. What do you think?

6. Obama father had some interesting theories about emasculating the west into order to end imperial colonization of the "third world." This is a fairly arcane topic to Americans, but something I know I bit about. Maybe we'll get to it later.

7. Four words. Spread the wealth around. This is the very crux of socialism. You been begging for a fucking definition of socialism. Well there it is. From the horse's mouth. "Spread the Wealth around!" The man with power told the common plumber.

A morally superior agent with a gun takes money from one group of people and gives it to another whom he deems more worthy. Oh, and he skims off the top whatever he pleases for his services. "We're from the government and we're here to help." Please explain this???

Let's save the best for later....

 

[richard_daily]

1. His enduring friendship, until he was require to toss them under the bus, with members of the weather underground an unreconstructed paleo-Marxist or perhaps more correctly Maoist American terrorist group. What did Obama have in common with these people? Hey, maybe they just like to play bridge together. I don't know. You tell us.

Obama was a friend of the Weathermen during their hayday? He was 8 years old in 1969. He must have started early.

2. Years spent in the God-Damn-American church. Hard to defend. Why someone would subject their children to that sort of hatred, unless, unless, you hated America?

How does this make someone a socialist?

3.What's with the czar shit? Van Jones believed that Bush and Cheney blew up the WTC? And he was a committed Socialist? Explain that away...

Czar's started under reagan... I'm sure you know that. YOu also know what it stands for, or is a shortened version of... unless you're a moron.

4. Then the Education Czar tells school kids that her favorite philosopher is Chariman Mao on video? How many commies do you need in an administration to admit the guy hiring swings that way????

Site your source.

5. Obama's father was a communist and hated whites. Pfft. Probably didn't effect the child much even though he idolized his father. What do you think?

Obama's father was a communist? Please cite your source.

6. Obama father had some interesting theories about emasculating the west into order to end imperial colonization of the "third world." This is a fairly arcane topic to Americans, but something I know I bit about. Maybe we'll get to it later.

So anti-imperialism is socialism? How so?

7. Four words. Spread the wealth around. This is the very crux of socialism. You been begging for a fucking definition of socialism. Well there it is. From the horse's mouth. "Spread the Wealth around!" The man with power told the common plumber.

Obama has given tons of tax breaks to weathy individuals, and even more to corporations... How has the "wealth been spread around"? Please detail any points that you can make as to what wealth has been "spread around"... or even more importantly, any that has been "redistributed".


Also, how many insurance companies have been nationalized?

Please answer the question.

 

[Peregrinator]

I haven't read this whole thread, but surely there's some shred of evidence you've read, somewhere, anywhere, that makes you wonder if Obama is a Socialist. Or do you just shrug and say, "It was on Fox News so it's false"?

You're missing the point. What is your definition of socialist? It's not about whether I think he is or not. It's about people who are more or less constantly flinging the term around defining it.

Is belonging to a Socialist political party evidence for you?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78945

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Is he still a member? Lustatopia posted that he used to be a socialist. Cap'n has posted that he used to be a liberal. I've drifted right myself just in the time I've been posting here.

Maybe you didn't know this, but everyone who's ever worked on an election or advocated for a candidate has found himself with strange bedfellows. Some folks will do anything it takes to get elected. That makes them whores, not necessarily socialists.

In answer to your question, yeah, I think Obama is further left than I am, closer to a true socialist. That's one of the primary reasons I didn't vote for him and never will.

 

[richard_daily]

In answer to your question, yeah, I think Obama is further left than I am, closer to a true socialist. That's one of the primary reasons I didn't vote for him and never will.

Obama is to the right of Clinton, who was a moderate statist/centerist during his presidency.

If you look on the political spectrum of his actions (tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, willingness to fight 3 or 4 wars at once, support of Telcoms over public interests, failure to close guantanamo, his support for coal and other non-sustainable power sources, and a host of other issues.

Left doesn't make one a Socialist, any more than Right makes one a Nazi.

 

[Peregrinator]

Lust, I appreciate your post. Dick asked all the questions I would have.

Thing is, I'm not really arguing that Obama is not a socialist. I'm examining the arguments that he is. I'm taking the skeptic role here, trying to see what merit the case has.

 

[off2bed]

You try to explain away everything as "well, he only pretended to be a Socialist to get along."

Grow the fuck up.

Don't forget Frank Marshall Davis, either.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Socialism has nothing to do with opinion...

...it has everything to do with government control and regulation.

"Control and regulation"? No, sir, it has to do with ownership. The FDA, EPA, OSHA, EEOC, are no instances of socialism.

 

[richard_daily]

Where did lustopio go? Was he late for his McCarthyism For Dummies book club?

 

[KingOrfeo]

You try to explain away everything as "well, he only pretended to be a Socialist to get along."

Grow the fuck up.

Don't forget Frank Marshall Davis, either.

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of all the threads in this thread . . . who was it who "pretended to be a Socialist to get along"? Settings outside Communist countries where pretending to be a socialist would help you get along are . . . rare.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Is belonging to a Socialist political party evidence for you?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78945

That bullshit again? I was in the New Party myself while it lasted and it was not a socialist party. (I have also been a member of the Socialist Party USA and it ain't hard to tell the difference.) It was, rather, a progressive (right of socialist, left of liberal) party, like its more-or-less successor the Working Families Party.

And what difference does it make now? Obviously Obama ain't no progressive neither. He barely qualifies as a liberal.

 

[Liar]

3.What's with the czar shit?

What czar shit?

 

[Peregrinator]

Obama is to the right of Clinton, who was a moderate statist/centerist during his presidency.

If you look on the political spectrum of his actions (tax cuts for the wealthy and big business, willingness to fight 3 or 4 wars at once, support of Telcoms over public interests, failure to close guantanamo, his support for coal and other non-sustainable power sources, and a host of other issues.

Left doesn't make one a Socialist, any more than Right makes one a Nazi.

I've seen you post that a few times. I'm interested to know why you think so. I see the examples here, obviously. What else?

You try to explain away everything as "well, he only pretended to be a Socialist to get along."

Grow the fuck up.

Don't forget Frank Marshall Davis, either.

What is your definition of socialist? It's not about whether I think he is or not. It's about people who are more or less constantly flinging the term around defining it.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

 

[off2bed]

That bullshit again? I was in the New Party myself while it lasted and it was not a socialist party. (I have also been a member of the Socialist Party USA and it ain't hard to tell the difference.) It was, rather, a progressive (right of socialist, left of liberal) party, like its more-or-less successor the Working Families Party.

And what difference does it make now? Obviously Obama ain't no progressive neither. He barely qualifies as a liberal.

They fooled you, too.

The New Party was established in 1992 “by union activist Sandy Pope and University of Wisconsin professor Joel Rogers,” USA Today reported on November 16, 1992. The paper wrote that the new party was “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic.’”

Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.

Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Obama and the New Party.html

 

[off2bed]

What is your definition of socialist? It's not about whether I think he is or not. It's about people who are more or less constantly flinging the term around defining it.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Now you're moving the goal posts.

You are a fool. Busybody is right about you.

 

[Sean]

Now you're moving the goal posts.

You are a fool. Busybody is right about you.

Says the retard using WND as a source. The same WND that last week had one of their senior staffers admitting that they deliberately post lies to fit in with their political agenda.