What did Liberals do that is so offensive to the Republican party?

[Sid9]

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?

I'll tell you what they did.
Liberals got women the right to vote.
Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
of poverty.
Liberals ended segregation.
Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
Water Act.

What did conservatives do?

They opposed them on every one of those things � every one.
So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
won't work,

Senator.

Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Lawrence O'Donnell, jr
--
Ziggy's law, "For every complicated problem there's usually a simple
solution and its always wrong!"

[Bret Cahill]

> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> I'll tell you what they did.
> Liberals got women the right to vote.
> Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
> Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
> of poverty.
> Liberals ended segregation.
> Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
> Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
> Water Act.
>
> What did conservatives do?
>
> They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one.
> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
> won't work,
>
> Senator.
>
> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
>
> Lawrence O'Donnell, jr

Good post. This needs to be repeated.


Bret Cahill

[Christopher Helms]

On Jun 12, 9:41 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> I'll tell you what they did.
> Liberals got women the right to vote.
> Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
> Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
> of poverty.
> Liberals ended segregation.
> Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
> Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
> Water Act.

What offends Republicans to the core of their being is that liberals
tend to be people who work for a living. Despite all their lying talk
about the value of hard work, the right holds people who work for a
living in this country in open contempt. If you work for a living,
they bitch about how you're overpaid, they bitch about unions, they
bitch about overtime pay, they complain about the minimum wage and
they want to kill overtime pay. The same Republicans who think its
disgraceful that "lazy" unemployed people can get government
assistance until they find work (When Sunglass Hut is hiring) insist
on holding financial carrots out on the end of a stick to encourage
your employer to pack your job off to some third world shit hole. They
whine about a mysterious "35% corporate tax rate" that no one pays and
which ends up sounding more like Bigfoot than an economic fact, and if
you're retired they're almost foaming at the mouth to kill your Social
Security, replace your Medicare with a coupon and give the saved money
to dumb rich assholes like Mitt Romney in the form of still more tax
cuts. Romney never really explains how cutting his own taxes "on day
one" is supposed to help anyone other than Mitt Romney.

They love the working class like the cops loved Rodney King.

[Sid9]

"Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:7e1f48f4-83cb-4fd5...@googlegroups.com...
> Legislating is authoritarian which is the complete opposite of liberal.
> One can't legislate caring. Nor can effort be decreed. People in this
> country have become less caring and millions get money for no effort. Now
> the country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future.
> http://www.EndIt.info

Our country is not bankrupt.
If you believe that you are brainless,

You and the Republican party are bankrupt of ideas

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jr928m$909$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> "Werner" <whet...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:7e1f48f4-83cb-4fd5...@googlegroups.com...
>> Legislating is authoritarian which is the complete opposite of
>> liberal. One can't legislate caring. Nor can effort be decreed.
>> People in this country have become less caring and millions get money
>> for no effort. Now the country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future.
>> http://www.EndIt.info
>
> Our country is not bankrupt.

Bankruptcy


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Bankrupt)

Bankruptcy is a legal status of an insolvent person or an organisation,
that is, one who cannot repay the debts they owe to creditors


SO tell us sidney when will the debt be repaid? At the current Obama rate
of debt accumulation that answer will be NEVER. And yes the republican
share part of the blame as do the dems so do don't go off on one of your
illogical rants about one party having all the blame It just show how out
of touch with the real world you are



.

[jane]

On Jun 12, 11:33 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message

You cherry picked data. You seemed to forget that it was a Republican
president who freed the slaves.

You also seemed to forget that democrats held the civil rights act
hostage; you failed to mention that your beloved Democrat KKK Byrd
filibustered the civil rights act; you also failed to mention that the
filibuster was broken with the support of republicans:

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

you also failed to mention that a higher percentage of republicans
voted for the civil rights act than democrats:

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Don't get me wrong; on issues of personal liberty, I am a liberal.
HOWEVER, I can not call myself a liberal because liberals are opposed
to economic liberty.

[Sid Sucks 9 Dicks]

Economic Nightmare In ObAmerica
How's That Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out For You?
The Average American's Net Worth Has Fallen 40% Since Obozo Became The
Presidunce
Read the whole shocking article here…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/fed-americans-wealth-dropped-40-percent/2012/06/11/gJQAlIsCVV_story.html
-----
Bad News For America Is Bad News For Obozo

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7a99e8f-03f3-4dac...@b21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> On Jun 12, 11:33 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Werner" <whetz...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7e1f48f4-83cb-4fd5...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Legislating is authoritarian which is the complete opposite of liberal.
>> > One can't legislate caring. Nor can effort be decreed. People in this
>> > country have become less caring and millions get money for no effort.
>> > Now
>> > the country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future.
>> >http://www.EndIt.info
>>
>> Our country is not bankrupt.
>> If you believe that you are brainless,
>>
>> You and the Republican party are bankrupt of ideas
>>
>> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>>
>> I'll tell you what they did.
>> Liberals got women the right to vote.
>> Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
>> Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people
>> out
>> of poverty.
>> Liberals ended segregation.
>> Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
>> Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
>> Water Act.
>>
>> What did conservatives do?
>>

>> They opposed them on every one of those things � every one.

>> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
>> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from,
>> it
>> won't work,
>>
>> Senator.
>>
>> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of
>> honor."
>
> You cherry picked data. You seemed to forget that it was a Republican
> president who freed the slaves.
>
> You also seemed to forget that democrats held the civil rights act
> hostage; you failed to mention that your beloved Democrat KKK Byrd
> filibustered the civil rights act; you also failed to mention that the
> filibuster was broken with the support of republicans:
>
> Cloture in the Senate:

> Democratic Party: 44�23 (66�34%)
> Republican Party: 27�6 (82�18%)

>
> you also failed to mention that a higher percentage of republicans
> voted for the civil rights act than democrats:
>
> The Senate version:

> Democratic Party: 46�21 (69�31%)
> Republican Party: 27�6 (82�18%)

>
> The Senate version, voted on by the House:

> Democratic Party: 153�91 (63�37%)
> Republican Party: 136�35 (80�20%)

>
> Don't get me wrong; on issues of personal liberty, I am a liberal.
> HOWEVER, I can not call myself a liberal because liberals are opposed
> to economic liberty.
>

The "Republican " president who freed the slaves would not be a Republican
today.
If you do not understand that then you are stupid beyond belief

The "Democrats" who obstructed civil rights legislation are today's
Republicans.
If you do not understand that then you are stupid beyond belief

[jane]

On Jun 13, 9:36 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >> They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one.

> >> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
> >> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from,
> >> it
> >> won't work,
>
> >> Senator.
>
> >> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of
> >> honor."
>
> > You cherry picked data.  You seemed to forget that it was a Republican
> > president who freed the slaves.
>
> > You also seemed to forget that democrats held the civil rights act
> > hostage; you failed to mention that your beloved Democrat KKK Byrd
> > filibustered the civil rights act; you also failed to mention that the
> > filibuster was broken with the support of republicans:
>
> > Cloture in the Senate:

> > Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)

> > Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

>
> > you also failed to mention that a higher percentage of republicans
> > voted for the civil rights act than democrats:
>
> > The Senate version:

> > Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)

> > Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

>
> > The Senate version, voted on by the House:

> > Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)

> > Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

>
> > Don't get me wrong; on issues of personal liberty, I am a liberal.
> > HOWEVER, I can not call myself a liberal because liberals are opposed
> > to economic liberty.
>
> The "Republican " president who freed the slaves would not be a Republican
> today.

And JFK wouldn't be a democrat today.

JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do
for your country"
Barack [Ask what your country can do for you] Obama, "...government
investments ... have made this country great.”

> If you do not understand that then you are stupid beyond belief
>
> The "Democrats" who obstructed civil rights legislation are today's
> Republicans.
> If you do not understand that then you are stupid beyond belief

Sorry, but you are wrong; the guy who filibustered the act remained a
democrat until his death in 2010.

[Sid9]

"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:333d3005-cde8-4655...@m8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

>> >> They opposed them on every one of those things � every one.

>> >> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it
>> >> were
>> >> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away
>> >> from,
>> >> it
>> >> won't work,
>>
>> >> Senator.
>>
>> >> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of
>> >> honor."
>>
>> > You cherry picked data. You seemed to forget that it was a Republican
>> > president who freed the slaves.
>>
>> > You also seemed to forget that democrats held the civil rights act
>> > hostage; you failed to mention that your beloved Democrat KKK Byrd
>> > filibustered the civil rights act; you also failed to mention that the
>> > filibuster was broken with the support of republicans:
>>
>> > Cloture in the Senate:

>> > Democratic Party: 44�23 (66�34%)

>> > Republican Party: 27�6 (82�18%)

>>
>> > you also failed to mention that a higher percentage of republicans
>> > voted for the civil rights act than democrats:
>>
>> > The Senate version:

>> > Democratic Party: 46�21 (69�31%)

>> > Republican Party: 27�6 (82�18%)

>>
>> > The Senate version, voted on by the House:

>> > Democratic Party: 153�91 (63�37%)

>> > Republican Party: 136�35 (80�20%)

>>
>> > Don't get me wrong; on issues of personal liberty, I am a liberal.
>> > HOWEVER, I can not call myself a liberal because liberals are opposed
>> > to economic liberty.
>>
>> The "Republican " president who freed the slaves would not be a
>> Republican
>> today.
>
>
> And JFK wouldn't be a democrat today.
>
> JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do
> for your country"
> Barack [Ask what your country can do for you] Obama, "...government

> investments ... have made this country great.�

>
>> If you do not understand that then you are stupid beyond belief
>>
>> The "Democrats" who obstructed civil rights legislation are today's
>> Republicans.
>> If you do not understand that then you are stupid beyond belief
>
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong; the guy who filibustered the act remained a
> democrat until his death in 2010.
>

You do not understand then you are stupid beyond belief.

[Mr. K]

In article <jr8ul6$o9a$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:

> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> I'll tell you what they did.
> Liberals got women the right to vote.
> Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
> Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
> of poverty.
> Liberals ended segregation.
> Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
> Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
> Water Act.
>
> What did conservatives do?
>
> They opposed them on every one of those things � every one.
> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
> won't work,
>
> Senator.
>
> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
>
> Lawrence O'Donnell, jr

Yes, that should clear some things up.
now , if liberals would just renounce war.
--
Karma, What a concept!

[Sid9]

"Nathan Bedford Forrest" <N...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5cait79j84q3pmvsv...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:41:40 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>>
>>I'll tell you what they did.
>>Liberals got women the right to vote.
>>Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
>>Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
>>of poverty.
>>Liberals ended segregation.
>>Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
>>Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
>>Water Act.
>
>

> Eight ridiculous lies. Would you care to furnish proof of your
> statements ?
>
>
> I didn't think so !

>
>
>
>>
>>What did conservatives do?
>>
>>They opposed them on every one of those things � every one.
>>So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
>>something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from,
>>it
>>won't work,
>>
>>Senator.
>>
>>Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
>>
>>Lawrence O'Donnell, jr

Find someone else.
I have no time for the KKK

[emoneyjoe]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:01:08 -0400, Nathan Bedford Forrest <N...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:41:40 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>

>>What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>>
>>I'll tell you what they did.
>>Liberals got women the right to vote.
>>Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
>>Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
>>of poverty.
>>Liberals ended segregation.
>>Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
>>Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
>>Water Act.
>
>

>Eight ridiculous lies. Would you care to furnish proof of your
>statements ?
>
>
>I didn't think so !

And the republican party does not find all of
those laws offensive, that is the biggest lie.


I don't know when the word liberal became
associated with the democrat party, but I don't
remember seeing it used until the Clinton BJs.

>>What did conservatives do?
>>
>>They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one.
>>So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
>>something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
>>won't work,
>>
>>Senator.
>>
>>Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
>>
>>Lawrence O'Donnell, jr

Another case of placing many different people
and opinions into one group and saying the words
or actions of one person are those of the whole
group.

Being a liberal is not a badge of honor, and
being a socialist or communist liberal is being a SSOB.

[clairbear]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in news:jrbd28$350$1...@dont-email.me:

So what you are saying is you cannot prove you baseless lies

[Oglethorpe]

"Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jr8ul6$o9a$1...@dont-email.me...

> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
>

Liberals destroyed the economy, hurt the poor and blacks, hurt school
students, engaged in fascist economics.

[bobo fizmarkian]

On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:01:08 -0400, Nathan Bedford Forrest wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 22:41:40 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

>>What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>>
>>I'll tell you what they did.
>>Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the
>>right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of
>>elderly people out of poverty.
>>Liberals ended segregation.
>>Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals
>>created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
>>Act.
>
>

> Eight ridiculous lies. Would you care to furnish proof of your
> statements ?
>
>
> I didn't think so !
>

<snip>

Would you care to furnish proof they're lies?

[Bret Cahill]

> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> I'll tell you what they did.
> Liberals got women the right to vote.
> Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
> Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
> of poverty.
> Liberals ended segregation.
> Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
> Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
> Water Act.
>
> What did conservatives do?
>
> They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one.
> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
> won't work,
>
> Senator.
>
> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
>
> Lawrence O'Donnell, jr

The reason rightards are so upset with Democrats today is somewhat
different than before. While they are still trying to sound like they
are the Koch Brothers on taxes, etc. they secretly want Democrats to
save mom's Social Security.

When they attack from the left it's _supposed_ to be seen as just
insincere posturing and being ironic but that can easily morph
seamlessly into sincere support for the left.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> >Liberals destroyed the economy, hurt the poor and blacks, hurt school
> >students, engaged in fascist economics.
>

> Well--at least in your alternate universe you dream in.....

Rightards are mostly posturing as anyone with an IQ above single
digits knows Obama and the Democrats never disturbed BushCo's economic
policies and that the financial disaster and recession, a much greater
event than 9/11, happened on Bush's watch.


Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/14/2012 10:22 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>>
>> I'll tell you what they did.
>> Liberals got women the right to vote.
>> Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
>> Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out
>> of poverty.
>> Liberals ended segregation.
>> Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
>> Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean
>> Water Act.
>>
>> What did conservatives do?
>>
>> They opposed them on every one of those things ­ every one.
>> So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were
>> something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it
>> won't work,
>>
>> Senator.
>>
>> Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
>>
>> Lawrence O'Donnell, jr
>
> The reason rightards are so upset with Democrats today is somewhat
> different than before. While they are still trying to sound like they
> are the Koch Brothers on taxes, etc. they secretly want Democrats to
> save mom's Social Security.

And phase it out of existence to free the American people from their
Slavery.


--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

-Kum bay ya- ☠

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/15/2012 4:55 PM, Barry Bruyea wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:59:02 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>> Well--at least in your alternate universe you dream in.....
>
>

> The democrats have done some good work over the years, after all LBJ's
> 'great society' doubled the welfare class in the U.S.



they save me from myself all the time like Bloomburg saving me from
drinking too much Soda in a cup bigger than 16oz

I just don't know how I would have lived this long without a Liberal
here to tell me how to live.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:


>
> they save me from myself all the time like Bloomburg saving me from
> drinking too much Soda in a cup bigger than 16oz
>
> I just don't know how I would have lived this long without a Liberal
> here to tell me how to live.

Good thing you never tell people how
they should live or who they should vote for.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Never, I just tell you the real facts and I leave it there. You can
vote for *THE HARVARD VILLAGE IDIOT* and I don't tell you do or don't
but I have to laugh, I can't hold back.


I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why I
tell you Obama is a Socialist and that Socialism is a failure..... I
tell you Obama is the Harvard Village Idiot but I don't tell you, you
can't vote for a village idiot, if they represent your place in humanity.


By all means feel free to vote for the village idiot if that's what best
represents your demographics and beliefs. I would NEVER force you to
believe in, what I believe in.


But I will laugh at you....

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> By all means feel free to vote for the village idiot if that's what best
> represents your demographics and beliefs. I would NEVER force you to
> believe in, what I believe in.

By all means feel free to drink as much sugar water as you want.
There is really nobody stopping you no matter how much you pretend
there is.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
me what I can and can't do.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 6/15/2012 9:30 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> By all means feel free to vote for the village idiot if that's what best
> >> represents your demographics and beliefs. I would NEVER force you to
> >> believe in, what I believe in.
> >
> > By all means feel free to drink as much sugar water as you want.
> > There is really nobody stopping you no matter how much you pretend
> > there is.
>
> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
> me what I can and can't do.

How is that different than you?
They would never force you to
believe in what they believe in.

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

<...>

> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why I

> tell you Obama is a Socialist...

Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the word really
means.

Pretty bird.

Jim

[Clave]

"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
message news:4FDBEAF...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

<...>

> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
> me what I can and can't do.

Like who you can marry? What you can't do in the privacy of your own
bedroom? What books you're allowed to find at the public library? Whether
you can be forced to be pregnant? Collectively bargain for better working
conditions?

The GOP *consistently* opposes social freedoms. The only "freedom" you're
interested in is the freedom to benefit from society without paying anything
back into it.

Yours are the politics of a three-year-old, ScottyLoon.

Jim

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:59:34 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

It means evil egotistical dictator wannabe.

[Robert Fitzgerald]

The simple fact is, words can have multiple meanings.

Learning the meanings of words can happen from looking at a dictionary,
or talking with people.

Plus, some may have very individual meanings of words.

What is your meaning/definition regarding "socialism" ?

Perhaps, a meaning that would work for the peoples? Something that might
advance society?

If you don't tell us, we won't know. You might be held responsible in
the next life... If you do tell us, people might adopt some of those
ideas.. Investigate, approve, see the value...






--
Bobby

[Bret Cahill]

> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?

Thinking?


Bret Cahill

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:22:28 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>message news:4FDBEAF...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>
><...>
>
>> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
>> me what I can and can't do.
>
>Like who you can marry? What you can't do in the privacy of your own
>bedroom? What books you're allowed to find at the public library? Whether
>you can be forced to be pregnant?

Stupid. Even rape may not do that 20 days
out of 28.

What you are saying is to hell with morals,
anything is ok, laws are unfair, be like animals.

>Collectively bargain for better working
>conditions?
>
>The GOP *consistently* opposes social freedoms. The only "freedom" you're
>interested in is the freedom to benefit from society without paying anything
>back into it.
>
>Yours are the politics of a three-year-old, ScottyLoon.
>
>Jim

You have it backwards.

[Clave]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:fo7ot7h2m5m6vuv6h...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:22:28 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>message news:4FDBEAF...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>
>><...>
>>
>>> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
>>> me what I can and can't do.
>>
>>Like who you can marry? What you can't do in the privacy of your own
>>bedroom? What books you're allowed to find at the public library?
>>Whether
>>you can be forced to be pregnant?
>
> Stupid. Even rape may not do that 20 days
> out of 28.
>
> What you are saying is to hell with morals,
> anything is ok, laws are unfair, be like animals.

You prove my point. Republicans want their morality enforced on everyone
else.

Jim

[Clave]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message

news:ro2ot7ldi5is45cvo...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:59:34 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>
>><...>
>>
>>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why I
>>> tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>>
>>Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the word
>>really
>>means.
>>
>>Pretty bird.
>

> It means evil egotistical dictator wannabe.

I didn't need you to reinforce my point for me, but thanks, I guess.

Jim

[Clave]

"Robert Fitzgerald" <rob...@fizmarkianbobo.com> wrote in message
news:ELWdnfem54Cwj0HS...@giganews.com...

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:59:34 -0700, Clave wrote:
>
>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>> message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why I
>>> tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>>
>> Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the word
>> really means.
>>
>> Pretty bird.
>

> The simple fact is, words can have multiple meanings.

<...snip long-winded nothing...>

It's incumbent on the accuser to make his case.

Jim

[Robert Fitzgerald]

I wasn't accusing....

You're the one who said he didn't understand the meaning of "socialism"...

I only was asking what your definition of "socialism" is... and added,
there can be infinite meanings....

If you want people to know what you mean, you should deign to enlighten
them... We might benefit.. who knows?

Or, perhaps you feel the common folk are so below you, you just leave
them with puzzles they can never solve.. I don't know..

Not very good if you're a Democrat I'd think, or person of the left,
liberal... More in line with the abominable Repugnants, who only care
about profit...

THIS is why I have trouble voting Democrat... Really, a bunch of
elitists..



--
Bobby

[Ned Gerblansky]

I worry the Democrats are pushing the common people to the Republicans..

--
Ned Gerblansky - one liners even before twitter.com existed

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:23:49 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

Within the law, yes, is there a problem with that,
it isn't "their" morality, there are reasons for all the
traditional morals.

How many abortions would there be if there was
no pre-marital intercourse?
How many would have died of AIDS if there was
no male homosexuality?


Don't assume I am a goody-goody person, it
is just that anything can be carried too far.

I don't know much about Jewish tradition,
but I think they frown on bread with yeast in it,
and after a colonscopy diagnosis of diverticulosis,
the hospital gave me a pamphlet that said that
the US is the only country that has a problem
with it, and that bleached white yeast bread
is the major cause.


There are a lot of absurd traditions, like a
man raised in eastern Europe during the
1930s and 1940s said, and apparently still
followed the practice, that drinking 4 oz of
urine every morning "reconstituted the system".

There may be a lot of double standards
in some things, people saying one thing,
and doing another, usually to put on a
better appearance.
Which is probably good, in keeping
young children "innocent".

Why should morality be a political issue?
It is obvious the Atheist factor brings it up,
but some things like monogamy are not
just human morality issues, birds and
some animals pair off for life, and there
is probably good reasons for a lot of
these things that are not obvious.


The spread of many different STDs is
really a good indication that morality is good,
some of the newer diseases are really bad
with no cures even if they are not fatal or
debilitating.


I don't see too much difference between
the two party platforms, it is the fringe elements
that are wild and obscene on the left, and too
hard nosed on the right.

I feel children are born with only a few
natural tendencies and have to learn all
the rest, just what do you think a young
girl be taught?

[emoneyjoe]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:24:42 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

And what, you are one?

[Clave]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message

news:8lfot7pflesur5k1i...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:23:49 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>>news:fo7ot7h2m5m6vuv6h...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:22:28 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>>message news:4FDBEAF...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to
>>>>> tell
>>>>> me what I can and can't do.
>>>>
>>>>Like who you can marry? What you can't do in the privacy of your own
>>>>bedroom? What books you're allowed to find at the public library?
>>>>Whether
>>>>you can be forced to be pregnant?
>>>
>>> Stupid. Even rape may not do that 20 days
>>> out of 28.
>>>
>>> What you are saying is to hell with morals,
>>> anything is ok, laws are unfair, be like animals.
>>
>>You prove my point. Republicans want their morality enforced on everyone
>>else.
>

> Within the law, yes, is there a problem with that,
> it isn't "their" morality, there are reasons for all the

> traditional morals....

<...snip the usual fundie nut horseshit...

Good lord, you make my point better than I could hope to.

You want smaller government, except when it comes to making everyone else
behave like you think they should.

You're insane.

[Clave]

"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message

news:71hot7td2t5fndi1h...@4ax.com...

> And what, you are one?

Is that what you really need to believe?

Do any of your thoughts go past oh, a bumper sticker in complexity?

Jim

[First.Post]

Robert Fitzgerald <rob...@fizmarkianbobo.com> wrote in

news:VeCdnT10Iv4etUHS...@giganews.com:

Yeah yeah, sure sure, That's why there are virtually no wealthy democrats
right dumbass?
Meanwhile Republicans consistently give so much more to charities than
the so called compassionate left that talk the talk but always fail to
walk the walk.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They pass laws and regulations to make me buy insurance or wear a seat
belt, and so I can't buy a BIG-GULP, use salt or smoke.


That is micromanaging my life and they do it with MY personal economics
too.... trying to force me to live as they want to live.... that's
Liberal-Socialism for you.

[Topaz]

This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm

The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call the sodomites
"gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.

The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.

Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize prostitution,
drugs, greed, etc.

The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because sodomites practice their perversion on the beach. When the
liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they are
talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they want
most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are talking
about being free to do things that many people object to and want
outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, would
not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red lights.
Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery store
shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy would
result in chaos and degeneracy.

Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.

The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.

Old fashioned rightists care about the future. Libertarians only
care about the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare
future like Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are
not interested and insist that nothing is more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as selfish as they want.



http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/16/2012 12:22 AM, Clave wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4FDBEAF...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>
> <...>
>
>> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
>> me what I can and can't do.
>
> Like who you can marry?

NO but telling us what marriage is and was and that already defines what
the word means. Redefining the word and using wrong is tell me that it
means what "YOU" want it to mean and NOT what is has meant for thousands
of years already.

I know what it means and you Liberals try to tell me that it means what
you "WANT" it to mean.

> What you can't do in the privacy of your own
> bedroom?

Libertarians generally, short of killing the other person, don't care
what you do in your bedroom. But then I personally don't want a blow by
blow description of your sex life or to see you in a naked gay parade
down main street.....

Two percenters like gays don't really deserve or get that much of my
time or interest.

> What books you're allowed to find at the public library?

I personally fight "ANY" censorship of internet/Library books or other
material that is NOT violating others individual RIGHTS.

> Whether
> you can be forced to be pregnant?

That is a choice, just as you suggest buying health insurance is a
choice. You should at lest try to be consistent and NOT act like such
a hypocrite.

> Collectively bargain for better working
> conditions?

Government workers are "bargaining", with themselves when you have a
government workers bargaining with other "Government workers". It makes
no sense and the government already sets laws that we voted on so having
unions is overriding the voters and that makes the unions a violation of
the constitution as it steals my right to vote and replaces it with
union usurping my votes.

> The GOP *consistently* opposes social freedoms.

I don't defend or belong to the GOP.... Their platform is NOT mine.
But I have to say I like the GOP restrictions better than the Liberal
restrictions. Liberals are really just Fascists.

> The only "freedom" you're
> interested in is the freedom to benefit from society without paying anything
> back into it.

What is society and where in teh constitution is it part of the
Government and is supposed to be paid for allowing me to have what I own?

>
> Yours are the politics of a three-year-old, ScottyLoon.

NOT very original or true...


>
> Jim


Liberal-Socialists are sad sad people.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:



>
> That is micromanaging my life and they do it with MY personal economics
> too.... trying to force me to live as they want to live....

Sounds like you are a basket case with
big "kick-me" sign on your butt.
nobody is doing any of that to anybody that I know.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Socialism will do that. That's why they hide the Socialism until they
think they have overpowered all their opponents. Remember "WE ARE ALL
SOCIALISTS NOW" that was code to all Democrats in the Democrat party.


the trick is to subvert the definition of Socialism so that you can
avoid it applying to you, people remember the reality of Socialism....
most people here have ancestors that were mistreated by totalitarian
regimes and dictators and many of those were connected to Socialism in
some way.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

> It means evil egotistical dictator wannabe.

Are we defining the word "Obama"

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/16/2012 12:54 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> Thinking?
>

YES, thinking they could "LIE" and we were all so stupid that we would
believe the propaganda from the Liberals.


That was offensive to people with character so I'm sure you Liberals
can't grasp that concept.


>
> Bret Cahill

[BeamMeUpScotty]

To help you decide, google "THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD" look it up and see
what Socialism means when Mao discusses it.


NOW put that into the context that Obama's Regime has appointed people
that like Mao and Obama and they quote Mao and have adopted "FORWARD" as
their election slogan.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Well, I believe you have no friends...


Go drink your under 16oz soda and eat your government mandated salt free
food.



Did you know Roman soldiers were once paid with salt... hence the
saying "you aren't worth your salt" and it fits here too.


Does this mean the law banning salt is a wage control in the wage and
price controls of Socialism? Much like controlling the money and gold,
the Socialists like to control everything of value.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:48:38 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>

Wrong, nobody wants government involved in morals,
that is the point.

You had to snip the things you don't want to have
to answer. You post strange stuff, like you are faking
being a liberal democrat.

I'm pretty sure my marriage licenses were issued
by the city, not the state or federal government, and
most other things like that are covered by state law.

Same gender marriage seems to legalize sodomy,
I don't hear of just friends wanting to get married.


If you don't think the world is sliding into the
sewer, just listen to the news.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 01:51:46 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>

wrote:

>"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>news:71hot7td2t5fndi1h...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:24:42 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"emoneyjoe" <emon...@iglou.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ro2ot7ldi5is45cvo...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:59:34 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>>>message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>><...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why I
>>>>>> tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>>>>>
>>>>>Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the word
>>>>>really
>>>>>means.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pretty bird.
>>>>
>>>> It means evil egotistical dictator wannabe.
>>>
>>>I didn't need you to reinforce my point for me, but thanks, I guess.
>>
>> And what, you are one?
>
>Is that what you really need to believe?
>
>Do any of your thoughts go past oh, a bumper sticker in complexity?
>
>Jim

My only bumper sticker is "Vote 'em ALL out".

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/16/2012 12:40 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:54:54 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
>>>> me what I can and can't do.
>>>
>>> How is that different than you?
>>> They would never force you to
>>> believe in what they believe in.
>>
>> They pass laws and regulations to make me buy insurance or wear a seat
>> belt, and so I can't buy a BIG-GULP, use salt or smoke.
>

> Cost to "you" for people who have no insurance, don't wear seat belts,
> and eat badly is more than you can calculate.

Where is that cost? Calculate it for me.


>
> If the ONLY person affected was you---Your argument would be valid

So because I am breathing you have power over me? You need to regulate
my breathing so that it doesn't cost you?


> "You" are not the only affected.

> Taxpayers must pay for what you cannot,

Where is that written?

The constitution says Tax payers pay for what they vote for.

*NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION*

We pay for what we can afford is what you Liberals tell us.


You have a choice..... isn't that what you do when you kill a baby in
the uterus, so making a choice that won't pay for someone from Mexico to
get elite medical care is just the same kind of choice isn't it.

You want to take away MY choice, I'm pro choice and you are trying to
take away my right to my body. You scum sucking Liberal hypocrite.



> pay more for insurance for
> what you draw (if applicable), and end up paying for services you
> cannot afford.
>
>
> IDIOT "loonytarian" nonsense.

Moron Liberal logic is based on fantasy utopian theory.

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> On 6/16/2012 11:19 AM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> That is micromanaging my life and they do it with MY personal economics
> >> too.... trying to force me to live as they want to live....
> >
> > Sounds like you are a basket case with
> > big "kick-me" sign on your butt.
> > nobody is doing any of that to anybody that I know.
>
> Well, I believe you have no friends...
>
> Go drink your under 16oz soda and eat your government mandated salt free
> food.

As far as I can tell, I am able to get
as much sugar water, salt and tobacco as I
could ever possibly want. Are you writing from
prison?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

It's supposed to be Land of the free, and Home of the Brave.... But it
does sound more and more like a GIANT PRISON. The more Liberalism we
have, the more it sounds like a prison.

*I CAN SEE WHY YOU MIGHT BE CONFUSED*



More Liberalism creates less individual freedom.

[David Hartung]

On 06/15/2012 10:59 PM, Clave wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty"<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>
> <...>
>
>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why I
>> tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>
> Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the word really
> means.

What word? Socialist? Why don't you define it for us?

[Clave]

"David Hartung" <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message
news:NpadnVOO3uIurEDS...@giganews.com...

Why? Are you really that stupid?

DYOFH

Jim

[David Hartung]

I asked a civil and rational question and you choose to respond by
acting like an ass. From this I conclude that you are unable to answer
my question.

[Clave]

"David Hartung" <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message

news:OuydnZ-zfvT8qEDS...@giganews.com...

> like an ass...

You asked a stupid, snotty question, one that you could answer yourself if
you were actually inclined toward learning. But no, you're a modern
conservative.

Anyone who seriously believes Obama is a Socialist a) doesn't know what the
word means, and b) thus has no credibility in pretty much any other
political matter.

Jim

[jim]

BeamMeUpScotty wrote:

>
> It's supposed to be Land of the free, and Home of the Brave.... But it
> does sound more and more like a GIANT PRISON.

Yes, if anybody was listening to you

[First.Post]

David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in

news:OuydnZ-zfvT8qEDS...@giganews.com:

Not fer nuthin', the whole "define socialist" argument is merely
semantics and in the mind of the individual these days. Just as liberal
can mean anything from moderately left to insane far left, socialist also
encompasses a broad range of ideaology depending on who you ask.

In the current context, whether you want to call Obama a socialist or a
far left liberal, it all bopils down to the same implication.
What he is is a mixture of socialist, totalitarian with a dash of
fascism. He believes that the state should control everything, sees the
public as subjects and is most definitely anti capitalist.
Call him whatever you like and it still equates to something undesirable.

[Leon Manfredi]

On 6/16/2012 12:22 AM, Clave wrote:
> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in

> message news:4FDBEAF...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>
> <...>

>
>> Yet Liberal-Fascist-Democrat party voters are continually trying to tell
>> me what I can and can't do.
>

> Like who you can marry? What you can't do in the privacy of your own
> bedroom? What books you're allowed to find at the public library? Whether

> you can be forced to be pregnant? Collectively bargain for better working
> conditions?
>
> The GOP *consistently* opposes social freedoms. The only "freedom" you're

> interested in is the freedom to benefit from society without paying anything
> back into it.
>

> Yours are the politics of a three-year-old, ScottyLoon.
>

> Jim
>

THRU THE EFFORT OF UNIONS, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD....LIKE OR NOT.
WE HAVE ALL BENEFITED BY NOT BEING KEPT IN THE DARK AGES, BY THOSE
WHO FEAR US MOST..... MONEY BAGGERS.......!!!!

[Leon Manfredi]

On 6/16/2012 8:12 AM, First.Post wrote:
> Robert Fitzgerald <rob...@fizmarkianbobo.com> wrote in
> news:VeCdnT10Iv4etUHS...@giganews.com:

>
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 23:57:17 -0500, Robert Fitzgerald wrote:
>>

>>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 20:59:34 -0700, Clave wrote:
>>>
>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty" <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote

>>>> in message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>
>>>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why
>>>>> I tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>>>>
>>>> Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the
>>>> word really means.
>>>>

>>>> Pretty bird.
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>
>>> The simple fact is, words can have multiple meanings.
>>>
>>> Learning the meanings of words can happen from looking at a
>>> dictionary, or talking with people.
>>>
>>> Plus, some may have very individual meanings of words.
>>>
>>> What is your meaning/definition regarding "socialism" ?
>>>
>>> Perhaps, a meaning that would work for the peoples? Something that
>>> might advance society?
>>>
>>> If you don't tell us, we won't know. You might be held responsible
>>> in the next life... If you do tell us, people might adopt some of
>>> those ideas.. Investigate, approve, see the value...
>>

>> I wasn't accusing....
>>
>> You're the one who said he didn't understand the meaning of
>> "socialism"...
>>
>> I only was asking what your definition of "socialism" is... and added,
>> there can be infinite meanings....
>>
>> If you want people to know what you mean, you should deign to
>> enlighten them... We might benefit.. who knows?
>>
>> Or, perhaps you feel the common folk are so below you, you just leave
>> them with puzzles they can never solve.. I don't know..
>>
>> Not very good if you're a Democrat I'd think, or person of the left,
>> liberal... More in line with the abominable Repugnants, who only care
>> about profit...
>

> Yeah yeah, sure sure, That's why there are virtually no wealthy democrats
> right dumbass?
> Meanwhile Republicans consistently give so much more to charities than
> the so called compassionate left that talk the talk but always fail to
> walk the walk.

>
>
>
>
>>
>> THIS is why I have trouble voting Democrat... Really, a bunch of
>> elitists..
>>

WELL DON'T GO AROUND BRAGGING ABOUT IT...... BRAGGER...

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:39:45 -0500, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com>
wrote:

And will always be a socialist ass?

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:12:25 -0500, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

When did you switch from a financial expert to
a political drone?

[Leon Manfredi]

On 6/16/2012 12:54 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican party?
>
> Thinking?
>
>

> Bret Cahill

FIGHTING TO GET THEM TO PAY THEIR EQUAL SHARE..... !

[David Hartung]

Yo make much sense.

[Clave]

"First.Post" <OccupierDum...@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:XnsA074DC460F22...@88.198.244.100...

<...>

> In the current context, whether you want to call Obama a socialist or a

> far left liberal, it all bopils [sic] down to the same implication.

Yes, that you're a drooling idiot GOP hack if you believe either.

Jim

[BeamMeUpScotty]

They never will and when they try to do it they put in silly impossible
markers so they can exclude themselves from being Socialists.... They
know that Socialism has been so badly discredited all over the world
that they need to pretend to be anything but Socialist if they want to
gain control. And boy do they want control.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Your mistake was you expected Liberals to be civil and rational in their
answers.....

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 6/16/2012 10:39 PM, First.Post wrote:
> David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in
> news:OuydnZ-zfvT8qEDS...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 06/16/2012 08:29 PM, Clave wrote:
>>> "David Hartung"<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message
>>> news:NpadnVOO3uIurEDS...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 06/15/2012 10:59 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty"<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>> wrote in message news:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology. That's why
>>>>>> I tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>>>>>
>>>>> Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the
>>>>> word really
>>>>> means.
>>>>
>>>> What word? Socialist? Why don't you define it for us?
>>>
>>> Why? Are you really that stupid?
>>
>> I asked a civil and rational question and you choose to respond by
>> acting like an ass. From this I conclude that you are unable to answer
>> my question.
>>
>
> Not fer nuthin', the whole "define socialist" argument is merely
> semantics and in the mind of the individual these days.

We need to be able to know WHO we are talking about, in order to be on
the same page....


It is necessary to have a real definition that isn't changing on a daily
basis, if you don't supply it then it will continue to be a wide variety
meanings and include those people you claim are NOT socialists.

Your plan to help your cause by NOT defining Socialism in it's real form
is actually causing you more problem since people can lump you
Socialists together with those few crazy people that are NOT quite
Socialists.

[David Hartung]

Perhaps, but I am an eternal optimist.

[Mitchell Holman]

BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
news:4FDE0634...@blackhole.nebulax.com:

If only liberals were as civil as conservatives.



"Go fuck yourself"
Dick Cheney on the Senate floor, June 25, 2004


"You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you
wrote. We're not going to forget this."
-George W. Bush to writer and editor Al Hunt,
in front of his wife and kids, 1988

[wy]

On Jun 17, 5:41 am, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 06/16/2012 09:39 PM, First.Post wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>  wrote in
> >news:OuydnZ-zfvT8qEDS...@giganews.com:
>
> >> On 06/16/2012 08:29 PM, Clave wrote:
> >>> "David Hartung"<da...@hotmaiil.com>   wrote in message
> >>>news:NpadnVOO3uIurEDS...@giganews.com...
> >>>> On 06/15/2012 10:59 PM, Clave wrote:

> >>>>> "BeamMeUpScotty"<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com>
> >>>>> wrote in messagenews:4FDBCD8D...@blackhole.nebulax.com...

>
> >>>>> <...>
>
> >>>>>> I don't support people, I support policy and ideology.  That's why
> >>>>>> I tell you Obama is a Socialist...
>
> >>>>> Proving only that you have no interest in ever learning what the
> >>>>> word really
> >>>>> means.
>
> >>>> What word? Socialist? Why don't you define it for us?
>
> >>> Why?  Are you really that stupid?
>
> >> I asked a civil and rational question and you choose to respond by
> >> acting like an ass. From this I conclude that you are unable to answer
> >> my question.
>
> > Not fer nuthin', the whole "define socialist" argument is merely
> > semantics and in the mind of the individual these days.  Just as liberal
> > can mean anything from moderately left to insane far left, socialist also
> > encompasses a broad range of ideaology depending on who you ask.
>
> > In the current context, whether you want to call Obama a socialist or a
> > far left liberal, it all bopils down to the same implication.
> > What he is is a mixture of socialist, totalitarian with a dash of
> > fascism.  He believes that the state should control everything, sees the
> > public as subjects and is most definitely anti capitalist.
> > Call him whatever you like and it still equates to something undesirable.
>
> Yo make much sense.

Yo make much sense? Are you falling into black speak, Hartung?

Of course First Post makes sense - to someone with an 80 IQ agreeing
with someone else with a matching IQ. Go up a few dozen notches and
you can easily see how goofy he sounds and how goofier you are to go
along with it. To call Obama anywhere remotely near a socialist is to
deny all the things that he's done to date that have been disturbingly
right wingnut to a greater extent than any Democrat president
should've done. Obama is probably the most right wingnut liberal
president that I can ever recall.

"It was clear to anyone who was paying close attention that Barack
Obama is a lover of conservative policy. His demonization of the 60s
and its supposed excesses, his paeans of praise to Ronald Reagan, and
his love of a so-called consensus with Republicans were proof that the
idol of progressives didn’t have a progressive bone in his body."

http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-obama-perfects-right-wing-policy

And this summarizes it in a nutshell:

Newt Gingrich called Obama the most radical president in US history.

Senator Marco Rubio called him the most divisive figure in American
history.

Michelle Bachman said Obama is the most radical president we’ve ever
seen in the history of the country.

John Bolton said Obama just doesn’t care about national security.

Honestly, there are Mexican drug mules who don’t pull this much stuff
out of their ass.

And my question is, how can the same guy, Barack Obama, make these
people feel that America has changed so completely, and yet make me
feel like it’s barely changed at all? I travel all over the country
doing stand-up and since Obama has been president … what? It’s still
the exact same Kentucky Fried country it’s always been. I see it.
People driving their cars to the mall buying their stupid shit,
stuffing their faces, taking pictures, the only difference is that we
bump into each other a lot more because we’re all texting. We haven’t
lost our freedoms. I’m pretty sure that all Obama has killed was bin
Laden and Donald Trump’s last shred of dignity. If Obama were as
radical as they claim, here’s what he would’ve already done: pull the
troops out of Afghanistan, given Medicare for us all, ended the drug
war, cut the defense budget in half and turn Dick Chenevy over to the
Hague. Here’s what Obama actually did: He cut taxes and spending,
look at this graph:

Slowest speending in decades
Annualized growth of federal spending

Reagan ’82-85 – 8.7%
Reagan ’86-89 – 4.9%
Bush 1 ’90-93 – 5.4%
Clinton ’94-97 – 3.2%
Clkinton ’98-01 – 3.9%
Bush 2 ’02-05 – 7.3%
Bush 2 ’06-09 – 8.1%
Obama ’10-13 – 1.4%

These [bars] show the growth in federal spending for each president.
Obama is at the bottom. Yes, the black man’s is the shortest.

He didn’t go on a spending spree. He didn’t break up the Too Big to
Fail banks. They only got bigger, and failureiler. That’s not what
liberals wanted, that’s what conservatives wanted. At the ’08
Convention Sarah Palin chanted “Drill, baby, drill.” Under Obama
there’s more drilling than ever. That’s not what environmentalists
wanted, that’s what conservatives wanted. Obama spent most of last
year conceding the Republican premise that government needed cutting.
That’s not what progressives wanted, that’s what the Tea Party
wanted. The Dow was at 7949 when he took office, now it’s 12,000 and
over, corporate profits are at thier highest ever. If he’s a
socialist, he’s a lousy one. He could not be less threatening if he
was walking home with iced tea and Skittles.

So the question remains, how can you guys be so unhappy with Obama,
when I’m so unhappy with Obama? You think you got coal in your
stocking? I wanted single payer health care, a carbon emissions bill,
gun control and legalized pot. If you get to carry around all that
outrage over me getting that shit, shouldn’t I have gotten it? So,
just admit it, this isn’t about what Obama is, it’s about what you
need him to be, because hating him is what gets you up in the
morning. You don’t have to fear what happens if the Democrats get re-
elected because they don’t have any ideas anyway. I can understand
your paranoia that they have a secret plan because they sure as shit
don’t have a public one. Can anyone tell me what the Democrats want
to do? The best I can come up with is, elect us, we’re lame but the
other guys are nuts.

[David Hartung]

Below is the text of the article to which you linked. Please point out
where this article even mentions the tripe you wrote above:

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

“The president is happiest when John Boehner and the Republicans come to
the negotiating table but that is when the rest of us are most at risk.”
In his quest for a Grand Bargain with the GOP, Obama has declared war
against every progressive principle and betrayed every core constituency
of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, “thanks to his success in
marketing himself as an agent of change, and the complete capitulation
of black voters and other progressives, Obama is free to do as he
pleases in America and around the world.”



Freedom Rider: Obama Perfects Right Wing Policy

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

“Nothing sticks to him, no matter how awful his actions.”

Conservative pundit William Kristol had this to say about Barack Obama,
a man he lauded as a “born again neo-con.” “What’s the joke – they told
me if I voted for McCain, we’d be going to war in a third Muslim
country? I voted for McCain and we’re doing it.”

It was said that Ronald Reagan had teflon, that is to say, nothing stuck
to him. If Reagan had teflon, then Barack Obama has patented a brand
new, space aged non-stick material, because nothing sticks to him, no
matter how awful his actions. Thanks to his success in marketing himself
as an agent of change, and the complete capitulation of black voters and
other progressives, Obama is free to do as he pleases in America and
around the world.

He is showing his true self, and the portrait is an ugly one. Obama has
been able to follow his predecessor George W. Bush in spreading evil
intent and action around the world.

It was clear to anyone who was paying close attention that Barack Obama
is a lover of conservative policy. His demonization of the 60s and its
supposed excesses, his paeans of praise to Ronald Reagan, and his love
of a so-called consensus with Republicans were proof that the idol of
progressives didn’t have a progressive bone in his body.

Being a smart man with conservative leanings, Obama had only to ponder
how he would get away with the worst right wing behavior and still get
Democratic love. In foreign policy it is very simple. Make a case for
saving people and don’t get any Americans killed.

“Obama, the idol of progressives, didn’t have a progressive bone in his
body.”

If Obama, makes the case for war and terror even after having consulted
with Bill Kristol and his ilk, most progressives will go along with
whatever he says without question, complaint, or protest. If as in the
case of Libya, the dirty deed is done without a loss of American lives,
as the president bragged after Gaddafi was killed by a raging mob, then
so much the better. “Without putting a single U.S. service member on the
ground, we achieved our objectives, and our NATO mission will soon come
to an end.”

Americans love wars if they are short and sweet, don’t result in coffins
covered by Old Glory, and are waged for what they consider to be noble
motives. Obama got the evil tyrant routing down perfectly, and helped
people who think of themselves as do gooders to justify their support
for the horror inflicted upon Libya.

In domestic policy, Obama continues on this path of making what used to
be unacceptable suddenly palatable. The budget deal, rightly called “a
Satan Sandwich” has resulted in Democrats outdoing Republicans in their
pledges to cut the budget. Social Security is no longer the third rail
of politics because Obama put it on the table along with earmarks and
every other government expenditure. Republicans can breath a sigh of
relief as even the lowest hanging fruit stays on the tree.

Obama policy making is worse than Bill Clinton’s cynical triangulating.
Obama’s plans for grand designs are meant to change politics forever by
making the most fundamental principals of the Democratic party
irrelevant. The president is happiest when John Boehner and the
Republicans come to the negotiating table but that is when the rest of
us are most at risk.

“Social Security is no longer the third rail of politics because Obama
put it on the table.”

Naïve Democrats may excoriate him for caving to the Republicans or for
not having a backbone but their observations are wildly off the mark.
Obama has plenty of backbone. This very perceptive man sought out the
job that requires him to do the bidding of corporate interests and the
dictates required of an empire. He is certainly not naïve, he is very
ambitious and a true believer in the right of the state and corporations
to exert their influence over the rest of humanity.

The result is that Republicans are winning whether they are in power or
not. If Obama succeeds in being re-elected in 2012 he will probably be
followed by a Republican in 2016. Having discredited nearly everything
that Democrats claim to want, right wing ideology will have emerged
triumphant, perhaps permanently.

It seems that every Democratic president pushes American politics
further to the right. Triangulation is followed by a budget super
committee and Republican wars are followed by Democratic interventions.
Clinton may have said that the era of big government is over, but Obama
agreed to across the board budget cuts and refuses to protect entitlements.

Perhaps it isn’t surprising that the man who is president at this
momentous point in history would be a person who changes politics in
such a negative way. The influence of money, the death of black
politics, and the end of the financial system as we know it combine to
insure that the person who emerges at the top of the political heap will
be an unmitigated disaster. The question is, will we rise to the
occasion and call him what he is.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is
widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as
well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New
York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at
Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.com.

[wy]

> >http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-obama-perfects-rig...

I know what the article said. What tripe are you referring to?
You're always short on specificity, like a good Repugnant always is.

> well as athttp://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New

[kady]

Agreed.

IIRC, the "grayness" of the term "Socialist" started with the European
social democracies. When they were going great guns, real socialists
wanted to define them as "socialist" because their success (such as it
existed) gave the term credibility; if you're a socialist, you don't
want to have to point to the Cuba and North Korea as your greatest
successes.

Problem is, Europe was never "socialist" in the textbook sense, e.g.,
"Ownership of the means of production". Some Eurozone countries dabbled
in this more than others, but for the most part, they were wise enough
to leave the private sector to itself. Although they had indeed adopted
some socialist programmes (especially as pertains to Health and Human
Services) they remained free market economic engines. Thus, the only
difference between the European countries and the US in this regard is a
matter of some degree; both were and are free market engines with
differing levels of socialist programmes in the HHS area, and limited
meddling elsewhere in the economy (although as in 2008, some of that
meddling proved disastrous).

So, although the US HAS, to a larger extent most of us are comfortable
with, assumed the ownership of SOME means of production (AIG, GM,
Chrysler, and some banks) I personally don't see any signs that the
Administration really WANTS to assume more ownership positions; they've
unwound their TARP positions in the banks (at a nice profit), sold their
position in Chrysler to Fiat, and are still holding a BOA position (why,
I'm not sure) and still hold rather large positions in GM and AIG,
almost certainly for political reasons rather than ideological (nobody
wants to have to tell the taxpayers that they've taken a bath in mid
tens of billions of dollars --- it screws up the "The GM Bailout was a
Success" narrative.

That all said, I'd have to agree that BO is not a textbook-definition
socialist. However, he's clearly not a capitalist, either, since
capitalists believe that free market capitalism, as unhindered as
possible, is the only way to permanently raise the standard of living of
all actors in the free market. From the text of Obama's speeches made
since the Kansas address, it's clear that he does NOT have this belief,
and thus cannot be correctly considered a capitalist.

What he clearly has, however, is an unusual bias towards the largest
corporate entities in the market. This is very unusual for a Democrat,
who (if capitalist) are generally biased towards small business rather
than large; and it's a bit counterproductive, since the way out of our
employment dilemma is to shift the competitive balance towards the job
creators (small biz) rather than the large (who grow slowly, if at all,
because of their ability to outsource).

Thus, I'm not too sure if anything CAN be concluded about his views from
his behavior towards business, other than what is is NOT. The
possibility exists, I suppose, that it's all crony capitalism all the
time, where the best donors get the preferential treatment, but just as
likely is the possibility that he overestimates his own knowledge of
economics, is ignoring his advisers, and is flying what turns out to be
an economically irrational course based on what seems right at a given
moment in time.

Anyway, to conclude what turned out to be too long of a post: BO's
probably not a socialist, but definitely not a capitalist, either. Nor
do I think it really matters how he's defined; such definitions only
matter in times of plenty. When the economy's running the way it is
today, people don't care about what "-ist" you are; they only care about
outcomes.

Kady

[emoneyjoe]

It took that many words to say "wannabe"?

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Last week it was their "FAIR" share.



Why is it suddenly an "EQUAL" share?

[Capt. Justice]

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Such is the problem of NOT having a realistic definition, because we
already discussed that government says you can be the owner and NOT have
title or deeds in your NAME.


So the government also can be Socialist without having titles or deeds
in their name, all they need do is what the MAFIA and the DRUG DEALERS
and others that the IRS says own property and yet have no title to it
are doing. They use proxy owners as does today's Socialist....

I discovered this by looking at the Mafia and the Socialists and the
UNIONS..... They are all becoming very much alike.

> Some Eurozone countries dabbled
> in this more than others, but for the most part, they were wise enough
> to leave the private sector to itself. Although they had indeed adopted
> some socialist programmes (especially as pertains to Health and Human
> Services) they remained free market economic engines. Thus, the only
> difference between the European countries and the US in this regard is a
> matter of some degree; both were and are free market engines with
> differing levels of socialist programmes in the HHS area, and limited
> meddling elsewhere in the economy (although as in 2008, some of that
> meddling proved disastrous).
>
> So, although the US HAS, to a larger extent most of us are comfortable
> with, assumed the ownership of SOME means of production (AIG, GM,
> Chrysler, and some banks) I personally don't see any signs that the
> Administration really WANTS to assume more ownership positions;

NO.... JUST MORE CONTROL.

Most Socialists tell you you don't own anything. You have use of it
until you die. Which is why they loathe the idea of inheriting money
and property.

> they've
> unwound their TARP positions in the banks (at a nice profit), sold their
> position in Chrysler to Fiat, and are still holding a BOA position (why,
> I'm not sure) and still hold rather large positions in GM and AIG,
> almost certainly for political reasons rather than ideological (nobody
> wants to have to tell the taxpayers that they've taken a bath in mid
> tens of billions of dollars --- it screws up the "The GM Bailout was a
> Success" narrative.
>

But it gives them control until they have other means of control, it is
a transition....

> That all said, I'd have to agree that BO is not a textbook-definition
> socialist.

Maybe a bit of Fascist mixed in.... And no definition says that purity
is or an all or none test will be useful.

> However, he's clearly not a capitalist, either, since
> capitalists believe that free market capitalism, as unhindered as

Great I'll go around calling Obama "NOT A CAPITALIST" but then we see
that well enough what are the alternatives to being a Capitalist.

Socialist Fascist Communist Marxist...... and the list gets long with
only the few I mentioned fitting him comfortably.

> possible, is the only way to permanently raise the standard of living of
> all actors in the free market. From the text of Obama's speeches made
> since the Kansas address, it's clear that he does NOT have this belief,
> and thus cannot be correctly considered a capitalist.

That is true.... but I said it 4 years ago.

>
> What he clearly has, however, is an unusual bias towards the largest
> corporate entities in the market.

Fascist or is it just a tactical approach to getting Socialism in place?

> This is very unusual for a Democrat,

NOT really.

> who (if capitalist) are generally biased towards small business rather
> than large; and it's a bit counterproductive, since the way out of our
> employment dilemma is to shift the competitive balance towards the job
> creators (small biz) rather than the large (who grow slowly, if at all,
> because of their ability to outsource).

Obama is interested in "Obama" we have seen all the ME, ME, ME, and I,
I, I, speeches so we already know Obama is all about Obama.

This interest could be as simple as survival.

> Thus, I'm not too sure if anything CAN be concluded about his views from
> his behavior towards business, other than what is is NOT. The
> possibility exists, I suppose, that it's all crony capitalism all the
> time, where the best donors get the preferential treatment, but just as
> likely is the possibility that he overestimates his own knowledge of
> economics, is ignoring his advisers, and is flying what turns out to be
> an economically irrational course based on what seems right at a given
> moment in time.
>

Any of the above are just as lethal to our economy.

> Anyway, to conclude what turned out to be too long of a post: BO's
> probably not a socialist,

And I say he was at the beginning and still is, look at his friends and
family from Frank Davis marshal to his Professors and father and his
actions and his words.... all of them tell us he's a Socialist and
probably a full fledged Marxist.

> but definitely not a capitalist, either. Nor

SO he's half white and half Socialist?

Can you separate the cells by race... can you separate the ideologies
by his feelings?

> do I think it really matters how he's defined; such definitions only
> matter in times of plenty. When the economy's running the way it is
> today, people don't care about what "-ist" you are; they only care about
> outcomes.
>

Wrong and very wrong, when people get hungry is when it matters most,
because one "-ist" is NOT the same as all other "-ist" and being hungry
can create irrational people. When you irrationally choose the wrong
"-ist" like Communist, you are doing so under duress and that is when
you make serious mistakes and like a drowning man reaching for anything
to grab, do you really want to drown your own wife or child so that you
can keep your head above the water or is it just a reaction to panic?


> Kady

[BeamMeUpScotty]

did you mean you're the sucker that's born every minute?

[kady]

The proxy issue is most interesting when it comes to the proportional
ownership offered by the public equity markets. The matter is quite
simple when Chavez nationalizes an industry; not so simple when stock is
acquired on the public markets. Is ANY equity stake in a public company
"socialism"? If not, at what point DOES it become socialism? When the
government is the largest shareholder? When they have a controlling
block? > 50% of the outstanding shares?

>
> I discovered this by looking at the Mafia and the Socialists and the
> UNIONS..... They are all becoming very much alike.


>
>
>
>
>
>> Some Eurozone countries dabbled
>> in this more than others, but for the most part, they were wise enough
>> to leave the private sector to itself. Although they had indeed adopted
>> some socialist programmes (especially as pertains to Health and Human
>> Services) they remained free market economic engines. Thus, the only
>> difference between the European countries and the US in this regard is a
>> matter of some degree; both were and are free market engines with
>> differing levels of socialist programmes in the HHS area, and limited
>> meddling elsewhere in the economy (although as in 2008, some of that
>> meddling proved disastrous).
>>
>> So, although the US HAS, to a larger extent most of us are comfortable
>> with, assumed the ownership of SOME means of production (AIG, GM,
>> Chrysler, and some banks) I personally don't see any signs that the
>> Administration really WANTS to assume more ownership positions;
>
> NO.... JUST MORE CONTROL.

That they want coercive control over corporations is obvious. That's an
element of fascism, not socialism.

>
> Most Socialists tell you you don't own anything. You have use of it
> until you die. Which is why they loathe the idea of inheriting money
> and property.
>
>
>
>> they've
>> unwound their TARP positions in the banks (at a nice profit), sold their
>> position in Chrysler to Fiat, and are still holding a BOA position (why,
>> I'm not sure) and still hold rather large positions in GM and AIG,
>> almost certainly for political reasons rather than ideological (nobody
>> wants to have to tell the taxpayers that they've taken a bath in mid
>> tens of billions of dollars --- it screws up the "The GM Bailout was a
>> Success" narrative.
>>
>
> But it gives them control until they have other means of control, it is
> a transition....
>
>
>> That all said, I'd have to agree that BO is not a textbook-definition
>> socialist.
>
> Maybe a bit of Fascist mixed in.... And no definition says that purity
> is or an all or none test will be useful.

Agreed.

>
>
>> However, he's clearly not a capitalist, either, since
>> capitalists believe that free market capitalism, as unhindered as
>
> Great I'll go around calling Obama "NOT A CAPITALIST" but then we see
> that well enough what are the alternatives to being a Capitalist.
>
> Socialist Fascist Communist Marxist...... and the list gets long with
> only the few I mentioned fitting him comfortably.

"Not a capitalist" is enough. We have 250 years of case law wiring
capitalism into our legal framework. A president who is "not a
capitalist" is incapable of governing, as the legal tools of governance
assume that the politicians and the executive will support its basic
principles.

>
>
>
>> possible, is the only way to permanently raise the standard of living of
>> all actors in the free market. From the text of Obama's speeches made
>> since the Kansas address, it's clear that he does NOT have this belief,
>> and thus cannot be correctly considered a capitalist.
>
> That is true.... but I said it 4 years ago.

Everyone who understood him did.

>
>>
>> What he clearly has, however, is an unusual bias towards the largest
>> corporate entities in the market.
>
> Fascist or is it just a tactical approach to getting Socialism in place?

If I had to take a guess, what we're seeing is not an definable ideology
as much as it is a reactionary distrust of free enterprise. The easiest
logical fallacy to fall into is the one that states "If I think X is
bad, then the opposite of X must be good." In fact, both X AND its
opposite can be bad.

>
>> This is very unusual for a Democrat,
>
> NOT really.

Never seen this level of corporatism before in a Democrat. Clinton
certainly didn't have it, Carter didn't have it, LBJ didn't have it.
Perhaps Kennedy, but we're going back a few years, now.

>
>> who (if capitalist) are generally biased towards small business rather
>> than large; and it's a bit counterproductive, since the way out of our
>> employment dilemma is to shift the competitive balance towards the job
>> creators (small biz) rather than the large (who grow slowly, if at all,
>> because of their ability to outsource).
>
> Obama is interested in "Obama" we have seen all the ME, ME, ME, and I,
> I, I, speeches so we already know Obama is all about Obama.
>
> This interest could be as simple as survival.

Yep.

>
>
>> Thus, I'm not too sure if anything CAN be concluded about his views from
>> his behavior towards business, other than what is is NOT. The
>> possibility exists, I suppose, that it's all crony capitalism all the
>> time, where the best donors get the preferential treatment, but just as
>> likely is the possibility that he overestimates his own knowledge of
>> economics, is ignoring his advisers, and is flying what turns out to be
>> an economically irrational course based on what seems right at a given
>> moment in time.
>>
>
> Any of the above are just as lethal to our economy.

Correct, which is why I think the discussion is largely academic. In a
bad economy, we're outcome based.

>
>
>> Anyway, to conclude what turned out to be too long of a post: BO's
>> probably not a socialist,
>
> And I say he was at the beginning and still is, look at his friends and
> family from Frank Davis marshal to his Professors and father and his
> actions and his words.... all of them tell us he's a Socialist and
> probably a full fledged Marxist.

His demonstrated corporatism is the opposite of socialism, however.

>
>> but definitely not a capitalist, either. Nor
>
> SO he's half white and half Socialist?
>
> Can you separate the cells by race... can you separate the ideologies
> by his feelings?
>
>
>> do I think it really matters how he's defined; such definitions only
>> matter in times of plenty. When the economy's running the way it is
>> today, people don't care about what "-ist" you are; they only care about
>> outcomes.
>>
>
> Wrong and very wrong, when people get hungry is when it matters most,
> because one "-ist" is NOT the same as all other "-ist" and being hungry
> can create irrational people. When you irrationally choose the wrong
> "-ist" like Communist, you are doing so under duress and that is when
> you make serious mistakes and like a drowning man reaching for anything
> to grab, do you really want to drown your own wife or child so that you
> can keep your head above the water or is it just a reaction to panic?

The point, simply put, is that defining him doesn't make him go away;
voting him out does. If you think you can get the average American
interested in his "-ist", good for you, but I think the time is better
spent talking about the economic stats.This month or next, we could very
well be back into negative job growth, and that's not a particularly
good thing to have happen, whatever his "-ist" is.


Kady

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Still thinking inside the box.... the Government doesn't need ownership
of stocks or any type of "legal" ownership, it needs only Regulations
and NOT even direct and obvious regulations but they could use any
regulation that simply allows the government politicians to apply
leverage over the owners or workers of those Corporations.

The idea being that a veiled threat could be counted as forcing the
corporation to do as the government wished rather than doing what is in
the corporation owners best interest.

>> I discovered this by looking at the Mafia and the Socialists and the
>> UNIONS..... They are all becoming very much alike.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Some Eurozone countries dabbled
>>> in this more than others, but for the most part, they were wise enough
>>> to leave the private sector to itself. Although they had indeed adopted
>>> some socialist programmes (especially as pertains to Health and Human
>>> Services) they remained free market economic engines. Thus, the only
>>> difference between the European countries and the US in this regard is a
>>> matter of some degree; both were and are free market engines with
>>> differing levels of socialist programmes in the HHS area, and limited
>>> meddling elsewhere in the economy (although as in 2008, some of that
>>> meddling proved disastrous).
>>>
>>> So, although the US HAS, to a larger extent most of us are comfortable
>>> with, assumed the ownership of SOME means of production (AIG, GM,
>>> Chrysler, and some banks) I personally don't see any signs that the
>>> Administration really WANTS to assume more ownership positions;
>>
>> NO.... JUST MORE CONTROL.
>
> That they want coercive control over corporations is obvious. That's an
> element of fascism, not socialism.

Totalitarian government of all forms. Socialism is just one of the many
that use force and coercion to get their people to do as they wish.
Socialism owns or controls.... coercion is just another form of control
and ownership isn't it? That's what the IRS says when they use the
RICO act or the PATRIOT ACT to confiscate money and businesses and property.

>> Most Socialists tell you you don't own anything. You have use of it
>> until you die. Which is why they loathe the idea of inheriting money
>> and property.
>>
>>
>>
>>> they've
>>> unwound their TARP positions in the banks (at a nice profit), sold their
>>> position in Chrysler to Fiat, and are still holding a BOA position (why,
>>> I'm not sure) and still hold rather large positions in GM and AIG,
>>> almost certainly for political reasons rather than ideological (nobody
>>> wants to have to tell the taxpayers that they've taken a bath in mid
>>> tens of billions of dollars --- it screws up the "The GM Bailout was a
>>> Success" narrative.
>>>
>>
>> But it gives them control until they have other means of control, it is
>> a transition....
>>
>>
>>> That all said, I'd have to agree that BO is not a textbook-definition
>>> socialist.
>>
>> Maybe a bit of Fascist mixed in.... And no definition says that purity

>> is an all or none test, will be useful.

>
> Agreed.
>>
>>
>>> However, he's clearly not a capitalist, either, since
>>> capitalists believe that free market capitalism, as unhindered as
>>
>> Great I'll go around calling Obama "NOT A CAPITALIST" but then we see

>> that well enough, so what are the alternatives to being a Capitalist.

>>
>> Socialist Fascist Communist Marxist...... and the list gets long with
>> only the few I mentioned fitting him comfortably.
>
> "Not a capitalist" is enough. We have 250 years of case law wiring
> capitalism into our legal framework. A president who is "not a
> capitalist" is incapable of governing,

True enough, but there is the linkage of Socialism and "NOT a
CAPITALIST" to Mao and his fiasco of "THE GREAT LEAP FORWARD" and NOT a
capitalist understates what Mao did and what Socialism is.

Mao was much more than "NOT a Capitalist" and so is Obama.

Is Obama as dangerous as Mao? I'd say yes but thank goodness this is
America where it's less likely Obama can violate the constitution and
institute a plan that will kill 40 million people.

> as the legal tools of governance
> assume that the politicians and the executive will support its basic
> principles.

I don't really want to bet the store that "NOT a Capitalist" explains
Obama clearly enough to give someone else the understanding of the
gravity and the danger of someone that is MORE than just "NOT a
Capitalist" they need to know what he is as well as what he is NOT.

>>> possible, is the only way to permanently raise the standard of living of
>>> all actors in the free market. From the text of Obama's speeches made
>>> since the Kansas address, it's clear that he does NOT have this belief,
>>> and thus cannot be correctly considered a capitalist.
>>
>> That is true.... but I said it 4 years ago.
>
> Everyone who understood him did.

I've NOT found that to be very many people. A good reason to become a
squeaky wheel.

>>> What he clearly has, however, is an unusual bias towards the largest
>>> corporate entities in the market.
>>
>> Fascist or is it just a tactical approach to getting Socialism in place?
>
> If I had to take a guess, what we're seeing is not an definable ideology
> as much as it is a reactionary distrust of free enterprise. The easiest
> logical fallacy to fall into is the one that states "If I think X is
> bad, then the opposite of X must be good." In fact, both X AND its
> opposite can be bad.

Obama has a lifetime of study and indoctrination to
Marxism/Communism/Socialism

>>
>>> This is very unusual for a Democrat,
>>
>> NOT really.
>
> Never seen this level of corporatism before in a Democrat. Clinton
> certainly didn't have it, Carter didn't have it, LBJ didn't have it.
> Perhaps Kennedy, but we're going back a few years, now.

I was going to point to Kennedy....

Probably our last real Democrat. Since then they have been pseudo
Socialists or the real thing.

Germany was diddling with Socialism and elected the NAZI party, which
morphed into the Fascists. Castro was NOT communist.... until he won
and then he was a communist. Some change their spots over night.

>>
>>> but definitely not a capitalist, either. Nor
>>
>> SO he's half white and half Socialist?
>>
>> Can you separate the cells by race... can you separate the ideologies
>> by his feelings?
>>
>>
>>> do I think it really matters how he's defined; such definitions only
>>> matter in times of plenty. When the economy's running the way it is
>>> today, people don't care about what "-ist" you are; they only care about
>>> outcomes.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong and very wrong, when people get hungry is when it matters most,
>> because one "-ist" is NOT the same as all other "-ist" and being hungry
>> can create irrational people. When you irrationally choose the wrong
>> "-ist" like Communist, you are doing so under duress and that is when
>> you make serious mistakes and like a drowning man reaching for anything
>> to grab, do you really want to drown your own wife or child so that you
>> can keep your head above the water or is it just a reaction to panic?
>
> The point, simply put, is that defining him doesn't make him go away;
> voting him out does. If you think you can get the average American
> interested in his "-ist", good for you, but I think the time is better
> spent talking about the economic stats.This month or next, we could very
> well be back into negative job growth, and that's not a particularly
> good thing to have happen, whatever his "-ist" is.
>
>
> Kady
>

I think we need both, Point out Obama's personal failure and link it to
the ideology that is responsible for it. Whether Obama claims to be
Socialist Marxist or Communist is irrelevant, but what he does that is
Socialist, Marxist or communist and fails... gives you a pattern of
failure and or Socialism and that will get Obama tossed out for
following a failed ideology, and not just for being the
*HARVARD VILLAGE IDIOT*


Then when future Socialists or those espousing the Socialists
ideological dogma will be more easily pushed away from seats of power.

[Robert Fitzgerald]

What if to end slavery they'd made laws that gave the sleeves freedom
half the time? Still slavery? Or the government kind of owned them,
half the time, and rented them out to whoever wanted to pay....

Or, free the slaves, but require them to do jury duty. Require them to
pay taxes. To render aide at the scene of an accident. To register for
the draft, etc.

Or, a company is required to only offer drinks up to 12oz... etc. etc.
etc.

I'd say it's just a term, and what matters is the substance. A matter of
degree, and doing careful accounting to come up with what percent
"socialism" (or really maybe, "government control", a better term?)

Different accountants would differ in their opinions... but still might
come up with ballpark figures.

A lot of companies lease buildings, but still control the buildings
despite that they don't own them. The various governments have some
control of the buildings too, some power/ownership/rights..




--
Bobby

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Interesting, a little pregnant is really "all the way" as a little
Socialism is really all the way.....

How do you get a little pregnant or live as a partial slave? And how is
government a little Socialist? When discussing some things we don't
allow measured levels, they are all or none.

>
> Or, free the slaves, but require them to do jury duty. Require them to
> pay taxes. To render aide at the scene of an accident. To register for
> the draft, etc.
>
> Or, a company is required to only offer drinks up to 12oz... etc. etc.
> etc.
>
> I'd say it's just a term, and what matters is the substance. A matter of
> degree, and doing careful accounting to come up with what percent
> "socialism" (or really maybe, "government control", a better term?)
>
> Different accountants would differ in their opinions... but still might
> come up with ballpark figures.
>
> A lot of companies lease buildings, but still control the buildings
> despite that they don't own them. The various governments have some
> control of the buildings too, some power/ownership/rights..
>

And if the company is paralyzed by the government control, then it is
essentially the government that has control.... for instance the
government or even ACORN via the government regulations can stop the
company from any expansion of their markets. Obviously the government
has enough power to be considered the control of NOT only production but
also distribution.

[emoneyjoe]

It doesn't take negative job growth to create
a depression or extreme numbers of people in
poverty.

Surely in the last 4 years there has been an
increase in the civilian labor force of at least
8 million, and a loss of at least 4 million jobs
at present, plus no telling how many people
went out of business.


What liberals claim as success is what the
problem is, too many social programs with
not enough planning and funding.


But no matter who is in office next year,
things are going to be tough, federal tax
revenue is not going to increase much,
and more people over the age of 16 will
be unemployed.
That is what hard times mean, more
people without jobs, don't expect that
to show up in the BLS announcements,
the survey polls may only change the
contact list of households once before
election day.

[kady]

That's the entire point of defining socialism, so you can say "THIS is
what socialism IS, and THIS is what it is NOT." Definitions are
essential for effective communications. To define something like
"socialism" is to agree upon what is "in the socialism box" and what is
outside it.

... the Government doesn't need ownership
> of stocks or any type of "legal" ownership, it needs only Regulations
> and NOT even direct and obvious regulations but they could use any
> regulation that simply allows the government politicians to apply
> leverage over the owners or workers of those Corporations.

> The idea being that a veiled threat could be counted as forcing the
> corporation to do as the government wished rather than doing what is in
> the corporation owners best interest.

I agreed with that already, but simply pointed out that it's not
socialism. You're describing fascism, in which the same objective
(government control of the corporate entity) is reached, but in a
different manner.

In socialism, the government owns the corporate entity; in fascism, the
government coerces it into doing what it wants. Same result, different
"-ism".

>
>
>
>>> I discovered this by looking at the Mafia and the Socialists and the
>>> UNIONS..... They are all becoming very much alike.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Some Eurozone countries dabbled
>>>> in this more than others, but for the most part, they were wise enough
>>>> to leave the private sector to itself. Although they had indeed adopted
>>>> some socialist programmes (especially as pertains to Health and Human
>>>> Services) they remained free market economic engines. Thus, the only
>>>> difference between the European countries and the US in this regard is a
>>>> matter of some degree; both were and are free market engines with
>>>> differing levels of socialist programmes in the HHS area, and limited
>>>> meddling elsewhere in the economy (although as in 2008, some of that
>>>> meddling proved disastrous).
>>>>
>>>> So, although the US HAS, to a larger extent most of us are comfortable
>>>> with, assumed the ownership of SOME means of production (AIG, GM,
>>>> Chrysler, and some banks) I personally don't see any signs that the
>>>> Administration really WANTS to assume more ownership positions;
>>>
>>> NO.... JUST MORE CONTROL.
>>
>> That they want coercive control over corporations is obvious. That's an
>> element of fascism, not socialism.
>
> Totalitarian government of all forms. Socialism is just one of the many
> that use force and coercion to get their people to do as they wish.
> Socialism owns or controls.... coercion is just another form of control
> and ownership isn't it? That's what the IRS says when they use the
> RICO act or the PATRIOT ACT to confiscate money and businesses and property.

Of course. Again, before we drift afield, we're agreeing that BO wants
to force corporate entities into doing what HE believes is in the best
interests of the country. If you want to add some more "-isms" to the
mix, "totalitarianism" and even "monarchism" are not horribly off the
mark, although according to textbook definitions he is neither.

I agree; what we don't know is what his "not capitalism" would be if he
were to completely free of legal and Constitutional constraints. I
personally believe it's more of the fascism and not the socialism, but I
could be wrong.

>
> Is Obama as dangerous as Mao? I'd say yes but thank goodness this is
> America where it's less likely Obama can violate the constitution and
> institute a plan that will kill 40 million people.

Agreed.

>
>
>
>
>> as the legal tools of governance
>> assume that the politicians and the executive will support its basic
>> principles.
>
>
> I don't really want to bet the store that "NOT a Capitalist" explains
> Obama clearly enough to give someone else the understanding of the
> gravity and the danger of someone that is MORE than just "NOT a
> Capitalist" they need to know what he is as well as what he is NOT.

This is where we disagree. "They" have our legal framework resident in
their DNA. If you accuse somebody of something, you have to have
irrefutable proof of it or lose credibility. Call him a socialist if you
like, but there has been no consistent program to nationalize
industries, the failed "green" investments that have been made have been
loans, not equity positions, and certainly not controlling positions in
return for equity. Outside of actions during the crisis itself, there
have been no behaviors that a socialist would take.

This works both ways, btw. In their efforts to poison the Tea Party
well, the Dims have never been able to make the "racism" label stick in
the minds of Americans, because they have never been able to offer
anything but the most circumstantial of evidence for the charge.

>
>
>>>> possible, is the only way to permanently raise the standard of living of
>>>> all actors in the free market. From the text of Obama's speeches made
>>>> since the Kansas address, it's clear that he does NOT have this belief,
>>>> and thus cannot be correctly considered a capitalist.
>>>
>>> That is true.... but I said it 4 years ago.
>>
>> Everyone who understood him did.
>
> I've NOT found that to be very many people. A good reason to become a
> squeaky wheel.
>
>>>> What he clearly has, however, is an unusual bias towards the largest
>>>> corporate entities in the market.
>>>
>>> Fascist or is it just a tactical approach to getting Socialism in place?
>>
>> If I had to take a guess, what we're seeing is not an definable ideology
>> as much as it is a reactionary distrust of free enterprise. The easiest
>> logical fallacy to fall into is the one that states "If I think X is
>> bad, then the opposite of X must be good." In fact, both X AND its
>> opposite can be bad.
>
> Obama has a lifetime of study and indoctrination to

> Marxism/Communism/Socialism.

Exactly. Despite all that, he's not behaving like either of those. This
leads me to the conclusion that he's developed his own sort of -ism,
which for lack of a better terms is a variant of Fascism. Ego driven
individuals are always convinced that THEY can come up with something
unique, and reject "there's nothing new under the sun" logic.

>
>
>>>
>>>> This is very unusual for a Democrat,
>>>
>>> NOT really.
>>
>> Never seen this level of corporatism before in a Democrat. Clinton
>> certainly didn't have it, Carter didn't have it, LBJ didn't have it.
>> Perhaps Kennedy, but we're going back a few years, now.
>
>
> I was going to point to Kennedy....
>
> Probably our last real Democrat. Since then they have been pseudo
> Socialists or the real thing.

Dunno. I'd agree to the extent that the current version of Dims can't
seem to coalese around a governing philosophy; this is why BO gets
blasted by some of them as too liberal and others as too conservative.
The real hypocrisy, however, is that the economic record that
CLintonomics devised was pretty good; Clinton used incentives (rather
than regulations) to get the private sector to do what he wanted and
understood that the budget needed to be in something close to balance,
which as a *governing philosophy* is workable and populist enough to
appeal to Dems.

BUT, the current Dems ended up throwing him under the bus, apparently
because they prefer a more confrontational approach and negative posture
towards business, and the idea of balanced budgets is antithetical to
their goal of government control. So, they point to him and his record
to "prove" that they are good financial stewards of the eoconomy,
without mentioning that they have no intention of ever using his
governing philosophy again.

So, to some extent, I think that Clinton was, for the most part, a "real
Dem" at least from standpoint of economics. On other issues, perhaps
less Kennedyesque, though.

Some do. Fortuanately, you'd have to toss over the Constitution to have
that sort of change here.

Let's just win 2012. Winners write history, and the BO chapter can quite
easily be written. We'll just take the text already written about
Carter, change the factoids as appropriate, and add some nice text about
how it is impossible to govern under US case law if you don't believe in
the private sector and free markets. (Then you can stick in some "-isms"
as appropriate.

Kady
>

[kady]

Yea, good point. Definitions never allow for these sorts of grey areas;
thinking people have to account for them in the discussion.

In this case, what if BO had nationalized the banks, but nothing else?
Socialist or not? And, even if he had done so (and there were even some
nonpartisan econs who were recommending it) but had a stated plan to
divest in X years, still socialist?

Did NCLB or Med Part D make Bush a socialist? How about TARP? Nobody
accuses Bush of being a socialist, but you could make a circumstantial
case for it, using those datapoints.

>
> Or, free the slaves, but require them to do jury duty. Require them to
> pay taxes. To render aide at the scene of an accident. To register for
> the draft, etc.
>
> Or, a company is required to only offer drinks up to 12oz... etc. etc.
> etc.
>
> I'd say it's just a term, and what matters is the substance. A matter of
> degree, and doing careful accounting to come up with what percent
> "socialism" (or really maybe, "government control", a better term?)

Yes. Arguments in these areas seem to resolve down to matters of degree,
which is the entire point of having definitions.

Not to be redundant, but when Europe was doing fine financially, US
socialists used to claim that Europe was proof that socialism was good.
They wanted to adopt the social democratic model as 'socialism' for the
sake of credibility, even though for the most part, the Euro nations
left their private sectors alone and in many cases, regulated them less
than we did. (France is a notable exception to this general rule.)

But, no amount of big government social programming can make a social
democracy into "socialism".

>
> Different accountants would differ in their opinions... but still might
> come up with ballpark figures.
>
> A lot of companies lease buildings, but still control the buildings
> despite that they don't own them. The various governments have some
> control of the buildings too, some power/ownership/rights..

Sure, and that's the real danger zone, here --- when corporations start
doing what the Admin wants them to do because they're afraid of the Admin.

Kady