Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 07:51:57 AM
That logic is right out of Hitlers mouth.

You questioned our claim that Hussein is a Marxist, that being raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists has no bearing on who, or what he became.
So I thought you might find this a bit enlightening as to how he sees himself as a "New Marxist", one that does not need to use violence to succeed in the goals of Marx.
Fabianism is the New Marxist movement.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/fabian-societhy/

Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 08:16:17 AM
You questioned our claim that Hussein is a Marxist, that being raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists has no bearing on who, or what he became.
So I thought you might find this a bit enlightening as to how he sees himself as a "New Marxist", one that does not need to use violence to succeed in the goals of Marx.
Fabianism is the New Marxist movement.

http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/fabian-societhy/

Driven by this sort of rhetoric, a conviction has taken hold among many conservatives that the president is actively hostile to the very idea of a market-based economy. That's a much different charge than the one Obama seemed likely to face just a few months ago — not that he was too hostile to capitalism, but that he was too accommodating of it. Obama's indulgence toward the big Wall Street banks after the financial crisis once appeared to be his greatest vulnerability. Some Democrats in Congress can even pinpoint the date on which they believe the American public turned against them and the president, driven by disgust over Wall Street's unchecked excesses. It was March 15, 2009, when the news broke that executives at AIG would receive millions of dollars in bonuses.

For Obama, the danger of this latter, now mostly forgotten, line of attack is that unlike the current one, it is true: He took a hands-off approach to the banks as part of a larger strategy to stem the crisis, a choice that he has never been very good at explaining, and thus has the potential to hurt him. His administration's strategy depended on private markets, rather than on the government, and entailed propping up the same banks that had wrought the damage.

When the administration came into office, the economy was shrinking at frightening speed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and several of his colleagues had dealt with the financial crises in Mexico and Asian during the 1990s and believed they knew how best to stop this one. Along with fiscal stimulus and looser monetary policy, they considered it imperative to recapitalize the banking sector and get it lending again.

Traditionally, after a financial crisis, the government has furnished that money — lots of it. Research by the Cleveland Fed puts the typical cost of such a bailout at 5 to 10 percent of GDP, which would have left US taxpayers on the hook for as much as $1.5 trillion. Obama's plan (really, Geithner's) was to persuade private investors to come up with that money. The "stress tests" applied to the largest banks were meant to demonstrate that the banks weren't about to fail.

http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2012/02/why_its_dumb_to_call_obama_a_socialist.html

I hesitate to discuss issue with someone who relies on racist remarks and other labels, such as lib, leftist, etc to make points. 

All one has to do is look at the finanial contributions to Obams two terms.  They are overwhelmingly from the banks for starters, who he then went on to staff his entire whitehouse.

Obamacare is a private system, one in which he rejected the public option as a means to compte against it despite overwhelming public support.

During his term in office, 95 PERCENT of the post recession gains have gone to the top one percent.  The wealthier are doing better then ever.  Its the poor and middle class whoa re still suffering.



You are a joke and nobody outside this site would take you seriously.  The fact that a mentor of Obamas, a product of 60s, held socialist beliefs is a pathetic piece of evidence that he is a comunnist when his tenure in power shows nothing of the sort.

You dont know what a communist is, you dont know how it differs from marxism.  Is a public school communism?  A publci road?  The public military?  Did you know Obama is pushing to privatize the VA? 

Just the mere fact that you are equating communism with marx in the manner you are is idiotic to say the least. 

The president who oversaw the greatest increase in fedeeral power was President GWB.  If you dont know that then thats your problem.

How about the demands of CUba that in order to get certain rights they must liberalize their economy?  How about withholding food supplies in HOnduras by Obanma until liberlaization polcies took place?

How about this free trade agreement whcih is being written by corproate lawyers and gives companies the right to sue governemnts?

You are an uneducated bigot.

Quote from: Solar on May 13, 2015, 12:22:26 PM
You have to take anything the UN says about the US, with an overdose of skepticism.
They hate us, there is no other way to put it.

As to TEA, we are, just that Taxed Enough Already. TEA is about returning govt to the people, shrinking the Hell out of it and returning it to the States, where it belongs.

And to defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 17, 2015, 11:13:15 AM
And to defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The constitution included clauses preserving slavery.  Defending those?

You worship a 200 plus year old document written by a bunch of slaveholders and genocidal monsters?

Pathetic.

Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 08:16:17 AM
You questioned our claim that Hussein is a Marxist, that being raised by Communists and mentored by terrorists has no bearing on who, or what he became.
So I thought you might find this a bit enlightening as to how he sees himself as a "New Marxist", one that does not need to use violence to succeed in the goals of Marx.
Fabianism is the New Marxist movement.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/library/fabian-societhy/

Good save, Solar. Thanks for posting it.

Some years ago, when Islam started to really become a problem in England, I got on a discussion board from UK. There was a scholar well versed in the Fabians. His writing style was not quite like this fellow, but the messages were similar. Tony Blair was PM at the Time, and George Bush President.  So, yes, this is a flashback.

The man got to be a little too much for the moderators, so they kicked him off. Not me. I wish I had gotten his name; but of course that was impossible. All names were screen names.

Socialists, Fabians, Communists, national socialists, Bolshevists, they all share the same aim. On that board, we had children who think this is a big word game, like a kitchen argument, too. It is not.  Just as an aside, George Bernard Shaw, revered as a wit and playwright, favored mass sterilization of "inferior" intellects. He wanted to engineer the gene pool.  How many people would ever make the association of socialists with master race Nazis?  Not many, I'd wager.

Quote from: red_dirt on May 17, 2015, 01:20:58 PM
Good save, Solar. Thanks for posting it.

Some years ago, when Islam started to really become a problem in England, I got on a discussion board from UK. There was a scholar well versed in the Fabians. His writing style was not quite like this fellow, but the messages were similar. Tony Blair was PM at the Time, and George Bush President.  So, yes, this is a flashback.

The man got to be a little too much for the moderators, so they kicked him off. Not me. I wish I had gotten his name; but of course that was impossible. All names were screen names.

Socialists, Fabians, Communists, national socialists, Bolshevists, they all share the same aim. On that board, we had children who think this is a big word game, like a kitchen argument, too. It is not.  Just as an aside, George Bernard Shaw, revered as a wit and playwright, favored mass sterilization of "inferior" intellects. He wanted to engineer the gene pool.  How many people would ever make the association of socialists with master race Nazis?  Not many, I'd wager.

The German socialists hated communists and referred to them as subhuman animals doing the bidding of Jews.  Hitler referred to the west in general as stooges of Jews and communists.  Germany was not so much socialist as right win facist nationalsits who used re-armament for economic growth.

Anyone who allows their worldview to be determined by one source, especially like this one, is ridicous.

You know we can see and read about whats happening within the white house when nobody is around.  Wikilieaks, etc.  These things make plain that referring to Obama as a marxist is so off balance that it literally in a real discussion with scholars and experts would ruin your credibility for good.

It is plain for me to see that none of you had read Karl marx.  If any of you had, you would know there was never such thing as a Marxist government. 

I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?  Why did he staff the white house with corpate insiders?  Why did 95 percent of his economic growth go to the top  1 percent?  Why did he let health care companies write the bill for Obamacare?  Why is he letting corprate lawyers write the free trade agreement in secret?  Why does he withold aid from latin aermican coutnries who refuse to privvatize certain economic areas?

These are real direct questions that none of you answer. 

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 08:36:52 AM
Driven by this sort of rhetoric, a conviction has taken hold among many conservatives that the president is actively hostile to the very idea of a market-based economy.

He is, in a major way.

QuoteThat's a much different charge than the one Obama seemed likely to face just a few months ago — not that he was too hostile to capitalism, but that he was too accommodating of it.

Where was this charge, and by who?  Link to the, or any, source, please.

QuoteObama's indulgence toward the big Wall Street banks after the financial crisis once appeared to be his greatest vulnerability.

That isn't capitalism.

QuoteSome Democrats in Congress can even pinpoint the date on which they believe the American public turned against them and the president, driven by disgust over Wall Street's unchecked excesses. It was March 15, 2009, when the news broke that executives at AIG would receive millions of dollars in bonuses.

Your evidence for Hussein being pro-capitalism is he didn't take their bonues?

QuoteFor Obama, the danger of this latter, now mostly forgotten, line of attack is that unlike the current one, it is true: He took a hands-off approach to the banks as part of a larger strategy to stem the crisis, a choice that he has never been very good at explaining, and thus has the potential to hurt him. His administration's strategy depended on private markets, rather than on the government, and entailed propping up the same banks that had wrought the damage.

How is government interference and subsidizing letting the private markets work?  Please explain this one.

QuoteWhen the administration came into office, the economy was shrinking at frightening speed. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and several of his colleagues had dealt with the financial crises in Mexico and Asian during the 1990s and believed they knew how best to stop this one. Along with fiscal stimulus and looser monetary policy, they considered it imperative to recapitalize the banking sector and get it lending again.

Why not let the free market take care of it?

QuoteTraditionally, after a financial crisis, the government has furnished that money — lots of it.

No kidding, genius.

QuoteResearch by the Cleveland Fed puts the typical cost of such a bailout at 5 to 10 percent of GDP, which would have left US taxpayers on the hook for as much as $1.5 trillion. Obama's plan (really, Geithner's) was to persuade private investors to come up with that money. The "stress tests" applied to the largest banks were meant to demonstrate that the banks weren't about to fail.

This is getting even better....

Quote
http://www.businessweek.com/politics-policy/joshua-green-on-politics/archives/2012/02/why_its_dumb_to_call_obama_a_socialist.html

I see where you quoted this idiocy from.  Josh Green has never done anything in the business world, except write about it.  He is a moron, and should have stayed writing for the Onion.  Another great source you picked.

QuoteI hesitate to discuss issue with someone who relies on racist remarks and other labels, such as lib, leftist, etc to make points. 

You don't understand the issue in the first place to discuss it.

QuoteAll one has to do is look at the finanial contributions to Obams two terms.  They are overwhelmingly from the banks for starters, who he then went on to staff his entire whitehouse.

How does that show he's a capitalist?  Who are on the boards and exec positions of these companies?  Have you even done this homework?

QuoteObamacare is a private system, one in which he rejected the public option as a means to compte against it despite overwhelming public support.

Just to be clear, you're saying the ACA scam is a private, market-based system?

QuoteDuring his term in office, 95 PERCENT of the post recession gains have gone to the top one percent.  The wealthier are doing better then ever.  Its the poor and middle class whoa re still suffering.

That is proof he isn't a capitalist.  You really don't understand economics.  This will be comical.

QuoteYou are a joke and nobody outside this site would take you seriously.  The fact that a mentor of Obamas, a product of 60s, held socialist beliefs is a pathetic piece of evidence that he is a comunnist when his tenure in power shows nothing of the sort.

Every time he opens his mouth, pieces from the Communist Manifesto pop out.  He is a full blown, out of the closet Marxist.

When did he convert from not being a Marxist?  What time period?  If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to tell us when.

QuoteYou dont know what a communist is, you dont know how it differs from marxism.  Is a public school communism? A publci road?  The public military?  Did you know Obama is pushing to privatize the VA? 

Which of these are a means of production?

QuoteJust the mere fact that you are equating communism with marx in the manner you are is idiotic to say the least.

Oh, do explain...

QuoteThe president who oversaw the greatest increase in fedeeral power was President GWB.  If you dont know that then thats your problem.

Point?

QuoteHow about the demands of CUba that in order to get certain rights they must liberalize their economy?  How about withholding food supplies in HOnduras by Obanma until liberlaization polcies took place?

Your professor really loaded you up for the weekend, didn't he?

QuoteHow about this free trade agreement whcih is being written by corproate lawyers and gives companies the right to sue governemnts?

You are an uneducated bigot.

Sorry.  We have real world experience.  You don't, just like Josh Green.  You've never had to deal with the effects of government and the market first hand, where you're business is at the mercy of it.  You get to parrot what your professors tell you and get a gold star.  You don't know what it's like to feel real economic pain and reward.  You are a child, plain and simple, and way out of your league on this topic.

Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 01:38:08 PM
He is, in a major way.
Where was this charge, and by who?  Link to the, or any, source, please.
That isn't capitalism.
Your evidence for Hussein being pro-capitalism is he didn't take their bonues?
How is government interference and subsidizing letting the private markets work?  Please explain this one.

Why not let the free market take care of it?

No kidding, genius.
This is getting even better....
I see where you quoted this idiocy from.  Josh Green has never done anything in the business world, except write about it.  He is a moron, and should have stayed writing for the Onion.  Another great source you picked.
You don't understand the issue in the first place to discuss it.
How does that show he's a capitalist?  Who are on the boards and exec positions of these companies?  Have you even done this homework?

Just to be clear, you're saying the ACA scam is a private, market-based system?

That is proof he isn't a capitalist.  You really don't understand economics.  This will be comical.

Every time he opens his mouth, pieces from the Communist Manifesto pop out.  He is a full blown, out of the closet Marxist.

When did he convert from not being a Marxist?  What time period?  If you know what you're talking about, you should be able to tell us when.

Which of these are a means of production?
Oh, do explain...

Point?
Your professor really loaded you up for the weekend, didn't he?

Sorry.  We have real world experience.  You don't, just like Josh Green.  You've never had to deal with the effects of government and the market first hand, where you're business is at the mercy of it.  You get to parrot what your professors tell you and get a gold star.  You don't know what it's like to feel real economic pain and reward.  You are a child, plain and simple, and way out of your league on this topic.

I told you yesterday...I will not respond to people who refuse to discuss evidencev and real world situations.

"Your proffesors have been loading it up on you this weekend huh"

Thats not an argument and a waste of time.  Breaking an entire paragrpah into one line segments is absolute moronic.

I will await a serious answer from you or will continue to ask....why did the top one perent get 95 percent of the wealth since he took office?  Cause my proffesor said so?

Joke.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:32:09 PM
It is plain for me to see that none of you had read Karl marx.  If any of you had, you would know there was never such thing as a Marxist government. 

I have.  You haven't.

Quote
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?

Because ultra wealthy are the ones with money, dummy.  Marxists are the ones who want to be on top.

QuoteWhy did he staff the white house with corpate insiders?

Because he's a Marxist.

QuoteWhy did 95 percent of his economic growth go to the top  1 percent?

Because of the stifling of free market capitalism.

QuoteWhy did he let health care companies write the bill for Obamacare?

You mean insurance companies, and because they don't want to operate in the free market.

QuoteWhy is he letting corprate lawyers write the free trade agreement in secret?  Why does he withold aid from latin aermican coutnries who refuse to privvatize certain economic areas?

Because he's a Marxist.

Quote
These are real direct questions that none of you answer.

Wrong.  He's a radical Marxist who is trying to bring our system down.  If I wanted to bring down a country as Marx wanted, I would put Hussein in charge.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:43:04 PM
I told you yesterday...I will not respond to people who refuse to discuss evidencev and real world situations.

"Your proffesors have been loading it up on you this weekend huh"

Thats not an argument and a waste of time.  Breaking an entire paragrpah into one line segments is absolute moronic.

I will await a serious answer from you or will continue to ask....why did the top one perent get 95 percent of the wealth since he took office?  Cause my proffesor said so?

Joke.

You can't discuss this topic, because you are not intellectually equipped.  You're not going to ignore.  You will answer questions and prove your assertions, per our policy on this forum.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 12:59:58 PM
The constitution included clauses preserving slavery.  Defending those?

You worship a 200 plus year old document written by a bunch of slaveholders and genocidal monsters?

Pathetic.

hhmm....  I think if you hold the U.S. Constitution in such contempt..... you are probably on the wrong forum.

This "200 year old document" is all that stands between us and tyranny!  And, it is the most brilliant document every written at the founding of a Nation.  It has kept us free and prosperous for more years than most nations have endured.  It is only when we breech the guidelines of the Constitution that we are endangered as a Nation.

I bet you think you are smart enough to "improve upon" our constitution.  But.... you are not!

I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?
Because ultra wealthy are the ones with money, dummy.  Marxists are the ones who want to be on top.



The CEOs of Banks and Wall street are Marxists?

If so, then ROmney was a Marxist and so was Mccain.  Because the companies funded both candidates figuring whoever wins they win.

So CEOS, Romney, Obama and Mccain are Marxists?   Bush then I'd assume too.

I have laid out my assertions and i will not respond until you answer then proving your assertions.

The below is not a counter-argument.  Its just something that makes me laugh.

I say why does he withdraw aid to latin America unless they liberalize their econonomy and you answer...."cause hes a marxist"  Really hes threatening to withhold food from countries unless those coutrnies stop their socialist policies of giving land to farmers and you refer this as Marixim? Bahahahahahahahah



"
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?
Because ultra wealthy are the ones with money, dummy.  Marxists are the ones who want to be on top."

That is not a counter-argument.  Its just something that makes me laugh.  You make me laugh.

Quote from: kroz on May 17, 2015, 01:49:56 PM
hhmm....  I think if you hold the U.S. Constitution in such contempt..... you are probably on the wrong forum.

This "200 year old document" is all that stands between us and tyranny!  And, it is the most brilliant document every written at the founding of a Nation.  It has kept us free and prosperous for more years than most nations have endured.  It is only when we breech the guidelines of the Constitution that we are endangered as a Nation.

I bet you think you are smart enough to "improve upon" our constitution.  But.... you are not!

He's anti-American, like we pegged from the beginning.  These guys come in and reak of disdain for our country, and they run around and act like we're misrepresenting them.  He is an anti-American Marxist, plain and simple.  What he doesn't know is that his attempt to try and steer away from Marxism, using complete idiocy that is 99% of the time spoonfed from Marxist academia, completely outs him as a Marxist.  Crap like "Hussein isn't a Marxist" is always #1 when identifying these idiots.  Unfortunately, he decided to pull this crap in a forum that happens to have experience, in life and in the business sector, where his crap will get squashed.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:32:09 PM
The German socialists hated communists and referred to them as subhuman animals doing the bidding of Jews.  Hitler referred to the west in general as stooges of Jews and communists.  Germany was not so much socialist as right win facist nationalsits who used re-armament for economic growth.

Anyone who allows their worldview to be determined by one source, especially like this one, is ridicous.

You know we can see and read about whats happening within the white house when nobody is around.  Wikilieaks, etc.  These things make plain that referring to Obama as a marxist is so off balance that it literally in a real discussion with scholars and experts would ruin your credibility for good.

It is plain for me to see that none of you had read Karl marx.  If any of you had, you would know there was never such thing as a Marxist government. 

I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?  Why did he staff the white house with corpate insiders?  Why did 95 percent of his economic growth go to the top  1 percent?  Why did he let health care companies write the bill for Obamacare?  Why is he letting corprate lawyers write the free trade agreement in secret?  Why does he withold aid from latin aermican coutnries who refuse to privvatize certain economic areas?

These are real direct questions that none of you answer.

Are you really surprised that wealthy people have influence in government? Hate to tell you this but that is not really uncommon or confined just to this really rotten country you speak of. Men with money usually have more influence that men who have none.   

Quote from: kroz on May 17, 2015, 01:49:56 PM
hhmm....  I think if you hold the U.S. Constitution in such contempt..... you are probably on the wrong forum.
This "200 year old document" is all that stands between us and tyranny!  And, it is the most brilliant document every written at the founding of a Nation.  It has kept us free and prosperous for more years than most nations have endured.  It is only when we breech the guidelines of the Constitution that we are endangered as a Nation.
I bet you think you are smart enough to "improve upon" our constitution.  But.... you are not!

I hope you guys will excuse me for chuckling, but I scanned those posts and when I saw that rant on the "200 year old piece of paper," my thought was, "Oh, Boy, wait'll Kroz gets a load of this!"   Was I mistaken?