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.

And I suppose you have never learned about all the blood that was shed to free those slaves.

Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 02:05:12 PM
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.

No, but the fact that you call him by his middle name is a joke.

Still waiting for some sources from you and not just bloand boring comments.

Quote from: s3779m on May 17, 2015, 02:12:17 PM
And I suppose you have never learned about all the blood that was shed to free those slaves.

Of course I have.  What does that have to do with the constituiton and the people who wrote it?

Americans, as in the people not the government, fixed the constituion.

The feminist moevment, child labor movements, union movements, anti-slavery movements, the bill of rights, these things fixed the constitition and they were done by the american people.  Not rich off well to do officials.

Those are the people I remember most fondly.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 02:15:47 PM
Of course I have.  What does that have to do with the constituiton and the people who wrote it?

Americans, as in the people not the government, fixed the constituion.

The feminist moevment, child labor movements, union movements, anti-slavery movements, the bill of rights, these things fixed the constitition and they were done by the american people.  Not rich off well to do officials.

Those are the people I remember most fondly.

Without the protections of they constitution none of those movements could have happened as quick. The men who wrote the constitution were no more perfect than we are, but I don't think there is a better document to form a country on.  One quick question, is it wealth or america that you despise so much?

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 01:54:36 PM
I ll ask again.....why did the utra wealthy fund obama's candicacy?

Those that donated to Hussein do not want to operate within the bounds of the free market, so hope Hussein will continue to crash any free market we have left.  Also, a good portion of board members and executives got their positions because of their time in government.  If you aren't familiar with how corporations collude with government, then you really need to do some research.  You want to obfuscate reality by taking the position that Marxists hate money, when they love it more than anyone else.  The working for it part they really hate.  Marxists always want to be the ones on top.  None of them say "I love Marxism.  I can't wait until we're standing in bread lines."

QuoteThe CEOs of Banks and Wall street are Marxists?

Not all of them.

QuoteIf so, then ROmney was a Marxist

Not all CEOs are Marxist.  No, I don't think Romney is a Marxist.  It would be very hard to do what he's done in his life and be a Marxist.

Quoteand so was Mccain.

McCain is a Marxist, correct.

QuoteBecause the companies funded both candidates figuring whoever wins they win.

Correct.  Don't forget about foreign money (obama.com, etc)...

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

No, not all CEOs are Marxists.  Jeff Immelt, Eric Schmidt, for example, yes.  John Mackey, no.  One thing you don't understand, since you don't have experience in business, is that sometimes it is wise to donate to a candidate you don't support, just so you won't be on their shit list if you do get elected.  There is strategy that comes into play for political donations, so I would take each one on a case-by-case basis.  A small local example of this is when you buy a car sticker that shows you donate to the police department.  Whether it works or doesn't work is not relavent, but it's the feeling that it may to put you at some ease.

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

You are again, on this topic, saying something stupid, like Hussein isn't a Marxist, when he is, and trying to use anti-capitalist behavior by government to justify that he really isn't.  You need to understand that you're not smart enough to try and obfuscate and deceive us here.

Quote
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

Link?

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

Wealthy make political donations.  I'm sorry to be the one to break this news to you.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 02:12:24 PM
No, but the fact that you call him by his middle name is a joke.

Still waiting for some sources from you and not just bloand boring comments.

You made the claim that Obama is not a Marxist.  Post a link to anything that shows he's pro-free market and pro-capitalist.  Bailing out Wall Street isn't proof of that.

Please prove it.

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.

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 are an uneducated bigot.

Why are you afraid to learn something, when it was you that claimed you came here to learn?
All I see is name calling out of ignorance and the fact that I have exposed the party you held dear for so long, causes a reaction solely based out of an emotional response.

Read this and comment, that's all, but read it, I want to hear what you have to say.

"In 1883, the year in which Karl Marx died, a group of restless English intellectuals formed a new socialist organization.  The group called itself the LONDON FABIAN SOCIETY . . . the Fabians are committed to achieving socialism gradually by passing new laws.  Thus, the Marxists are revolutionary socialists, while the Fabians are evolutionary socialists . . . . The key element in all of the ideas [ of the group ] is environmentalism -- the belief that man was not created by God but is the product of his
surroundings and that to change man, one must simply manipulate the economic, political, and social environment."

"The early Fabians were all vehement in their denial of God and their rejection of the historic Christian faith, although they were not above using liberal Christian ministers to advance their cause . . . . The Fabians chose POLITICS, EDUCATION, and the PRINTED WORD as the primary media through which they would persuade the people of the need for change.  Leading Fabians were to penetrate the political parties, the labor unions, the government offices, the schools, the press, and Parliament by securing key positions in these institutions."

"The first changes in English life were made in the schools.  Because of its Christian culture, Victorian England had viewed education as a way to train each individual to use his God-given abilities for the glory of God . . . Fabianism, in common with liberalism, progressivism, and the other new philosophies of the 20th century, called for a new philosophy of education.  [They ] espoused PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION (education that adjusts the student to society in order progressively to bring in a new world)."

"Education was now viewed as the most advanced phase of the social evolutionary process; thus, the goal of the new education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of the welfare of the society. . . EDUCATION BECAME A MEANS OF DESTROYING TRADITIONAL BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES in order to prepare the British people for socialism . . . Accordingly, education began to be centralized, and curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit the goal of SOCIALIZATION."

Examples of Fabian members are:  Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes.

"The English British Labour Party formed in 1906 . . . and it adopted for its permanent party platform a Fabian study entitled LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER. It proposed what it termed  -- The Four Pillars of the House :

(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.

Many of these aims were incorporated into the League of Nations and later the United Nations."

"Few Americans describe themselves as socialists; European socialists, however, point out that in America -- LIBERALISM -- means the same as socialism in Europe. . . .

Liberalism is rooted in the desire of fallen human nature to be freed from the shackles of established authority and accepted norms. . . . The primary value of practicing liberals, therefore, is a liberty divorced from moral absolutes, which often becomes licentiousness. . . . Robert Niesbet, a respected scholar from Columbia University, points out that there is another side to the liberal mindset:  a desire for centralized political power."

Americans who have supported liberal ideals are:  John Dewey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, B.F. Skinner, Betty Friedan, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov.

QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:

A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71).  Its title is "1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism".

Article's ABSTRACT in USC's library database: 

     "Sidney Webb's Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today's almost universal subservience of the individual to the state.  Based on Bismarck's Prussian model, Webb's concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere."


EXCERPTS from the article:

     ". . . Fabianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed many other illusions.  In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, FABIANISM BECAME ASSIMILATED BY LIBERALS, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to so-called social and economic rights.  This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom."

"Between 1890 and 1990 an age of imperialism has given way, not to an age of self-determination, but to an age of almost universal subservience of the individual to the state." 

AUTHOR:   Maurice W. Cranston, Professor of Political Science, LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.

Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 03:00:36 PM
Why are you afraid to learn something, when it was you that claimed you came here to learn?
All I see is name calling out of ignorance and the fact that I have exposed the party you held dear for so long, causes a reaction solely based out of an emotional response.

Read this and comment, that's all, but read it, I want to hear what you have to say.

"In 1883, the year in which Karl Marx died, a group of restless English intellectuals formed a new socialist organization.  The group called itself the LONDON FABIAN SOCIETY . . . the Fabians are committed to achieving socialism gradually by passing new laws.  Thus, the Marxists are revolutionary socialists, while the Fabians are evolutionary socialists . . . . The key element in all of the ideas [ of the group ] is environmentalism -- the belief that man was not created by God but is the product of his
surroundings and that to change man, one must simply manipulate the economic, political, and social environment."

"The early Fabians were all vehement in their denial of God and their rejection of the historic Christian faith, although they were not above using liberal Christian ministers to advance their cause . . . . The Fabians chose POLITICS, EDUCATION, and the PRINTED WORD as the primary media through which they would persuade the people of the need for change.  Leading Fabians were to penetrate the political parties, the labor unions, the government offices, the schools, the press, and Parliament by securing key positions in these institutions."

"The first changes in English life were made in the schools.  Because of its Christian culture, Victorian England had viewed education as a way to train each individual to use his God-given abilities for the glory of God . . . Fabianism, in common with liberalism, progressivism, and the other new philosophies of the 20th century, called for a new philosophy of education.  [They ] espoused PROGRESSIVE EDUCATION (education that adjusts the student to society in order progressively to bring in a new world)."

"Education was now viewed as the most advanced phase of the social evolutionary process; thus, the goal of the new education was to adjust the individual to his environment and to control the child for the sake of the welfare of the society. . . EDUCATION BECAME A MEANS OF DESTROYING TRADITIONAL BELIEFS, ATTITUDES, AND VALUES in order to prepare the British people for socialism . . . Accordingly, education began to be centralized, and curriculum, discipline, and teaching methods were revised to fit the goal of SOCIALIZATION."

Examples of Fabian members are:  Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Sir Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, John Maynard Keynes.

"The English British Labour Party formed in 1906 . . . and it adopted for its permanent party platform a Fabian study entitled LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER. It proposed what it termed  -- The Four Pillars of the House :

(1) a national minimum wage and state-financed social welfare programs
(2) government control of land, utilities, transportation, mining, and heavy industry 
(3) abolition of private savings and private investment through confiscatory taxation
(4) disarmament, an international court, international economic controls, international social legislation, and an international One-World authority.

Many of these aims were incorporated into the League of Nations and later the United Nations."

"Few Americans describe themselves as socialists; European socialists, however, point out that in America -- LIBERALISM -- means the same as socialism in Europe. . . .

Liberalism is rooted in the desire of fallen human nature to be freed from the shackles of established authority and accepted norms. . . . The primary value of practicing liberals, therefore, is a liberty divorced from moral absolutes, which often becomes licentiousness. . . . Robert Niesbet, a respected scholar from Columbia University, points out that there is another side to the liberal mindset:  a desire for centralized political power."

Americans who have supported liberal ideals are:  John Dewey, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, B.F. Skinner, Betty Friedan, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov.

QUOTES FROM A BRITISH PROFESSOR:

A recent article has appeared in the journal called, SOCIETY, (v. 27 Jan./Feb.1990 p. 71).  Its title is "1890-1990: up from Fabian socialism".

Article's ABSTRACT in USC's library database: 

     "Sidney Webb's Fabian Essays, published in England in 1890, purged socialism of its romantic elements and paved the way for today's almost universal subservience of the individual to the state.  Based on Bismarck's Prussian model, Webb's concept of bureaucratic planning and management for public welfare, known as FABIANISM, NOW THRIVES IN ENGLAND, THE UNITED STATES, FRANCE, and elsewhere."


EXCERPTS from the article:

     ". . . Fabianism flourished when the double impact of WWI and the Great Depression had destroyed many other illusions.  In spite of its claim to be a form of socialism, FABIANISM BECAME ASSIMILATED BY LIBERALS, as liberalism took on the ideas of state regulation of the economy, bureaucratic planning, income transfers to relieve poverty, and the subordination of civil and political rights to so-called social and economic rights.  This is as true of American as of English liberals, despite America's deep traditional attachment to economic freedom."

"Between 1890 and 1990 an age of imperialism has given way, not to an age of self-determination, but to an age of almost universal subservience of the individual to the state." 

AUTHOR:   Maurice W. Cranston, Professor of Political Science, LONDON School of Economics and Political Science.

I scrolled down and read it was from a professor.  You constantly berate me for regurgitating the views that alleged proffessors ram down my thought.  Youve made that allegation numerous times.

Now you dare cite a professor after you use that fact to diminish multiple opinions I expressed.

I will not read it sir.

Quote from: taxed on May 17, 2015, 02:40:20 PM
Those that donated to Hussein do not want to operate within the bounds of the free market, so hope Hussein will continue to crash any free market we have left.  Also, a good portion of board members and executives got their positions because of their time in government.  If you aren't familiar with how corporations collude with government, then you really need to do some research.  You want to obfuscate reality by taking the position that Marxists hate money, when they love it more than anyone else.  The working for it part they really hate.  Marxists always want to be the ones on top.  None of them say "I love Marxism.  I can't wait until we're standing in bread lines."


Not all of them.

Not all CEOs are Marxist.  No, I don't think Romney is a Marxist.  It would be very hard to do what he's done in his life and be a Marxist.
McCain is a Marxist, correct.
Correct.  Don't forget about foreign money (obama.com, etc)...
No, not all CEOs are Marxists.  Jeff Immelt, Eric Schmidt, for example, yes.  John Mackey, no.  One thing you don't understand, since you don't have experience in business, is that sometimes it is wise to donate to a candidate you don't support, just so you won't be on their shit list if you do get elected.  There is strategy that comes into play for political donations, so I would take each one on a case-by-case basis.  A small local example of this is when you buy a car sticker that shows you donate to the police department.  Whether it works or doesn't work is not relavent, but it's the feeling that it may to put you at some ease.
You are again, on this topic, saying something stupid, like Hussein isn't a Marxist, when he is, and trying to use anti-capitalist behavior by government to justify that he really isn't.  You need to understand that you're not smart enough to try and obfuscate and deceive us here.
Link?

Wealthy make political donations.  I'm sorry to be the one to break this news to you.

I am starting to think we dont disagree as much as I thought we did.

It seems to me what you call marxism is some sort of idea where a group blocks the free market in order to preserve their pre-existing wealth.  IE the banks.

I agree that is what happened.  However, I just wouldnt term it Marxist while admittedly, I now undertsnad somewhat why you are calling it that.  You are right, and I agree, Marxists love money too.  Or more specifically, communsits.  I am not sure Marixst thought has ever translated into a government.  But a comunist yes Loves money.  Stalin didn't live like a peasany.

But I dont think its communism.  I think its as simple as there is a huge wealthy elite, like the banks for example, who because they are wealthy, are able to control both parties.

Like Chase bank donated to both sides in both 2008 and 2012.  I think they are in effect buying the outcome either way.

Obama has clearly made the wealthier more wealthy.  Nobody is debating that I dont think.   It seems you think its cause he believes in essentially communist thought of cornering the market for those already in the have.  I think its cause wealth buys decision making in democracies. 

Take Bush.  The second.  He also was corrupted by threse interests.  Farm subsidies for example.  Huge tax subsidies for oil companies.  The airline industry is saved essetnailyl by govnerment industries.  100 percent of pharmaceutical drugs come from governemnt research and are then handed to private company.  The internet, gps, the microchip all are foudnations of govenremnt research then handed to private companies.

I say that because I beleive your view takes this as a partisan issue.  That Obama is unique to this or the dermocrats are unique to it.  I think its bi-partisan.  WHich is why I came to learn of the Tea Party. 

Both parties are funded by major economic power.  So I dont see it as a Obama mindset issue.  But an acorss the poltical spectrum virus.

The free market will never be free while wealthy companeis can buy poltical decision making.  That is bi-partisan.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:06:09 PM
I scrolled down and read it was from a professor.  You constantly berate me for regurgitating the views that alleged proffessors ram down my thought.  Youve made that allegation numerous times.

Now you dare cite a professor after you use that fact to diminish multiple opinions I expressed.

I will not read it sir.

I see, it's attack the messenger, ignore the message?
I asked you to respond o what was written, is that too hard?

How about this piece, or will you once again ignore the evidence and attack the author as well?

Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/07/obama-caught-lying-again-he-was-member-of-new-party-says-kurtz/

Taxed, I think it's time to drop Drew a line.

Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
I see, it's attack the messenger, ignore the message?
I asked you to respond o what was written, is that too hard?

How about this piece, or will you once again ignore the evidence and attack the author as well?

Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/07/obama-caught-lying-again-he-was-member-of-new-party-says-kurtz/

Taxed, I think it's time to drop Drew a line.

Your kidding me right?  Are you seriously kidding me?

If entry of him temporaily in a socialist party is evidencve of him being a socialist, then entry intot he democratic partry is evidence of hime not being one. 

Nor is this source remotely reliable...look at the subtext..not credible journalist outfit would print a title like that.

Why are the wealthiest Americans doing better under him?  WHy has the wealthy gap inccreased? Point to the communist policy?

Please answer these seriously.

Quote from: Solar on May 17, 2015, 03:16:04 PM
I see, it's attack the messenger, ignore the message?
I asked you to respond o what was written, is that too hard?

How about this piece, or will you once again ignore the evidence and attack the author as well?

Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/06/07/obama-caught-lying-again-he-was-member-of-new-party-says-kurtz/

Taxed, I think it's time to drop Drew a line.

Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was.   They are alll marixsts. 

In our society wealth buys the outcome.  Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact.  The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do.  You misunderstand our system.

Stastically signifncat research shows this.  Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected.  Thats oligarchy, not marixsm.  Thats how it its.  Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.

You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy?  You are nuts.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:14:51 PM
I am starting to think we dont disagree as much as I thought we did.

I disagree.

Quote
It seems to me what you call marxism is some sort of idea where a group blocks the free market in order to preserve their pre-existing wealth.  IE the banks.

Marxism is pretty defined.  As confused and economically illiterate as Marx was, he didn't leave a lot of doubt as to his beliefs.  Executing it, that's a different matter.  If you read Marx, you would have an understanding of what it is.  For example, Marx wanted redistribution of wealth (not his wealth, of course).  That is a foundation of Marxism.  Hussein also believes that.  He believes in the redistribution of wealth.  Since he is of a lower intellect, he is suceptible to that idiocy.

QuoteI agree that is what happened.  However, I just wouldnt term it Marxist while admittedly, I now undertsnad somewhat why you are calling it that.  You are right, and I agree, Marxists love money too.  Or more specifically, communsits.  I am not sure Marixst thought has ever translated into a government.  But a comunist yes Loves money.  Stalin didn't live like a peasany.

They need to bring the system down so it can be overthrown.   And, yes, Marxism has made it into government.  You're talking about the banks, while Marx wanted credit nationalized?  Centralization of communications and transportation?  A heavy progressive income tax?  Equal liability of all labor?  Are you being serious right now?  No, we're not totally taken over, but we have some de-Marxin' to do.

QuoteBut I dont think its communism.  I think its as simple as there is a huge wealthy elite, like the banks for example, who because they are wealthy, are able to control both parties.

Please define the "wealthy elite".  That is a propagandist talking point, so in order to disect it, we need to define it.  Please define it.

QuoteLike Chase bank donated to both sides in both 2008 and 2012.  I think they are in effect buying the outcome either way.

Follow the money.  This shell game can't go on forever.  A free market economy would force banks, and other government-favored organizations, to compete in the private sector.

QuoteObama has clearly made the wealthier more wealthy.  Nobody is debating that I dont think.   It seems you think its cause he believes in essentially communist thought of cornering the market for those already in the have.  I think its cause wealth buys decision making in democracies. 

You have to understand what that means.  Just because wealthier got wealthier, doesn't mean he is pro-Capitalist, or not a Marxist.  For example, look at the incomes of Congressmen and Senators who had great increases in personal wealth while in office.  That's not the free market at work.  That is a Marxist society, where there are a small few on top, and the rest of us are standing in bread lines.

QuoteTake Bush.  The second.  He also was corrupted by threse interests.  Farm subsidies for example.  Huge tax subsidies for oil companies.  The airline industry is saved essetnailyl by govnerment industries.  100 percent of pharmaceutical drugs come from governemnt research and are then handed to private company.  The internet, gps, the microchip all are foudnations of govenremnt research then handed to private companies.

Bush was responsible for a lot of bad stuff.  Nobody disputes that.

QuoteI say that because I beleive your view takes this as a partisan issue.

You believe wrong.  I want John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, etc., in prison, right next to Hussein.  Open your mind.

QuoteThat Obama is unique to this or the dermocrats are unique to it.  I think its bi-partisan.

He's not.  This movement has been happening before Hussein was even born.

QuoteWHich is why I came to learn of the Tea Party. 

Both parties are funded by major economic power.  So I dont see it as a Obama mindset issue.  But an acorss the poltical spectrum virus.

We agree.

QuoteThe free market will never be free while wealthy companeis can buy poltical decision making.  That is bi-partisan.

Don't focus on wealthy itself.  Focus on _how_ and _who_ are becoming wealthy.  If government wasn't allowed to collude with the "private" sector, many of those "wealthy elitests" would have to operate within the bounds of the natural free market, like the rest of us.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was.   They are alll marixsts. 

In our society wealth buys the outcome.  Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact.  The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do.  You misunderstand our system.

Stastically signifncat research shows this.  Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected.  Thats oligarchy, not marixsm.  Thats how it its.  Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.

You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy?  You are nuts.

http://peoplesworld.org/a-radical-third-party-i-agree/

Quote from: steve folkster on May 17, 2015, 03:52:22 PM
Man there are a lot of marixists in England, France, SPain, etc, and all of Europe if joining a socilaist party for a day, which is not true anyway but even if it was.   They are alll marixsts. 

In our society wealth buys the outcome.  Different factions form behind differnent parties and the ideology is meant to distract from this obvious fact.  The leaders are chosen for their choices and are funded for what they will do.  You misunderstand our system.

Stastically signifncat research shows this.  Read Thomas ferguseo a scholar who choses, stastically speaking, that the more moeny you have the more your view is reflected.  Thats oligarchy, not marixsm.  Thats how it its.  Thats why elections are billion dollar affairs. Wall street, big pharma, big oil, dfense contractors, and right on down the line.

You think this amazing mass of wealth is letting their itnerests be suboridanted to marixst policy?  You are nuts.

Let a Fabian explain why money in the hands of the few, creates an atmosphere for revolution, then maybe you'll understand what Hussein is doing.

Four men, viz.: Gould, Astor, Vanderbilt and Rockefeller, practically control, and, what is more important, are rapidly absorbing the wealth of this 50,000. The day is not so very far distant, and a sociologist can predict almost its exact appearance, just as an astronomer calculates the date of an eclipse of the sun, when, if no structural change in society takes place, these four men will be the sole owners of the United States. I think that, if such a state of affairs should come about, no one would differ with me when I say that it would force a reconstruction of society. In other words, the sixty odd millions of people in the United States may now rest undisturbed, and allow a plutocracy of 50,000 to own their country; but when it shall come to having only four own it, patience will cease to be a virtue.