It Is Sad. Seriously, It Is.
Lifsabsurd
The world is seriously unfair. And Darwinism stinks. But there it
is. And the pitiful attempts at human social engineering are
currently completely unable to change it. In truth, they only make it
worse. Futhermore, now that so few believe in the possibility of an
after life, there doesn't even seem to be a meaningful source of real
hope left for most people. Irrespective of biblical or any other type
of religious prophecy, a Darwinian "apocalypse" of sorts could very
well be coming soon. I hope I am wrong, but the whole of human
culture seems to be irreversibly dysfunctional.
Beam Me Up Scotty
The great culling of humanity is inevitable.
But like "people knowing the meteor is coming" to destroy us, we will
create mayhem and with nothing to lose we will ignore the constraints
that have kept us moving in the same direction of improvement.
*Obama is a Socialist first and last* then he is the other things, as
they benefit him between that.
As Obama tries to rule over us he inches us closer to the Meteor moment.
With Republicans We Fail
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in
message news:4C98C5BA...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com...
> On 9/21/2010 8:34 AM, Lifsabsurd wrote:
>> http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20266544.htm
>>
Pathetic after what Bush did for his CEO's on Wall Street. Forget?
Stephen Young
There ya go with wanting to kill everybody again Sheesh!
I hope your god looses the election! Is the economic policy of the GOP
going to be hiring all the teabaggers to bury dead bodies? And I thought
your type only wanted war in the middle east. wow! I missed that one
hahah
Beam Me Up Scotty
I see Obama about to kill millions via mayhem and government fighting to
survive. Government won't just collapse, it will fight to steal all you
have so that it will survive, like a drowning man will climb on top of
you and hold you under, so he can get another breath of air.
I have no God.....
I don't need a job......
I call'm as I see'm.....
Lamont Cranston
>
> *Obama is a Socialist first and last* then he is the other things, as
> they benefit him between that.
ROTFLMAO! You don't have a fucking clue as to what a socialist is.
Beam Me Up Scotty
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a
reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
dave
You do need professional help.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:34:25 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a
>> reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
>
You and 45% doesn't mean he's NOT a socialist... because you HOPE he
isn't a Socialist.
Lamont Cranston
LOL! As Obama struggles to save capitalism, you wingnuts call him a
socialist.
WR
wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 8:45 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:34:25 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> >>> In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a
> >>> reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
>
> >> That' don't make it true, does it?
>
> > You and 45% doesn't mean he's NOT a socialist... because you HOPE he
> > isn't a Socialist.
>
> LOL! As Obama struggles to save capitalism, you wingnuts call him a
> socialist.
In his post he invokes Darwin. I hate to point this out, but in pseudo-
Darwinian analysis, it looks like the Communists and Socialists have
already won. There are one of hell of lot more people living
in"Communist" and "Socialist" countries right now than in capitalist
ones. Beam me up, of course, has no idea what a socialist is and what
socialism is. I
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sep 22, 4:29 pm, Lamont Cranston <Lamont.Crans...@TheShadow.com>
> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 8:45 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2010 8:58 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:34:25 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a
>>>>> reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
>>
>>>> That' don't make it true, does it?
>>
>>> You and 45% doesn't mean he's NOT a socialist... because you HOPE he
>>> isn't a Socialist.
>>
>> LOL! As Obama struggles to save capitalism, you wingnuts call him a
>> socialist.
>
> In his post he invokes Darwin. I hate to point this out, but in pseudo-
> Darwinian analysis, it looks like the Communists and Socialists have
> already won.
I consider me the winner.... the Socialists are the losers.
> There are one of hell of lot more people living
> in"Communist" and "Socialist" countries right now than in capitalist
> ones. Beam me up, of course, has no idea what a socialist is and what
> socialism is. I
Right.... a billion flies eating shit, can't all be wrong.
Lifsabsurd
wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 8:45 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:34:25 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
> >>> In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a
> >>> reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
>
> >> That' don't make it true, does it?
>
> > You and 45% doesn't mean he's NOT a socialist... because you HOPE he
> > isn't a Socialist.
>
> LOL! As Obama struggles to save capitalism,
You don't believe that lie for a second.
Chas. Chan
recognized for what it is. It’s not Socialism, either. Really. Even
the Marxism label falls short. (There is no Engelsism, is there?)
A Communist by any other name is still a Communist, whether of the Big
“C” (card-carrying type) or small “c” (fellow traveler).
In 1848 the Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels co-authored Communist
Manifesto was completed and published at the request of London’s
Communist League.
If you don’t want to read the whole Manifesto, read the 10 Planks.
Educate yourself.
bpnjensen
You have spittle dribbling down your chin.
Lifsabsurd
Well, yes. And no. For me the term 'socialism' is used as a broad,
encompassing, generic term that includes communism, Communism,
Marxism, many so-called 'third ways' (fascism, Nazism, democratic
socialism, liberalism, progressivism), Fabianism, and many more such
similar ideologies. I understand that some define socialism
differently, for example, as an historical step towards Marxism, and
therefore distinct from it, but one needs a word to group together
under one label all these closely related movements, because they have
so much in common. What else would one use generically?
Collectivists? Radical egalitarians? Vermin? It seems to me that
since so many related ideologies call themselves socialists we should
not reject the more general definition of socialism.
dave
>
> Well, yes. And no. For me the term 'socialism' is used as a broad,
> encompassing, generic term that includes communism, Communism,
> Marxism, many so-called 'third ways' (fascism, Nazism, democratic
> socialism, liberalism, progressivism), Fabianism, and many more such
> similar ideologies. I understand that some define socialism
> differently, for example, as an historical step towards Marxism, and
> therefore distinct from it, but one needs a word to group together
> under one label all these closely related movements, because they have
> so much in common. What else would one use generically?
> Collectivists? Radical egalitarians? Vermin? It seems to me that
> since so many related ideologies call themselves socialists we should
> not reject the more general definition of socialism.
A combat unit is organized in a socialist manner, with everyone watching
everyone else's back.
Tim Crowley
Buahahahahahahahahahahhaha.
hint: you don't understand the very basics.
(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) <http://www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Chas. Chan" <tianm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stop Calling Them Socialists. They’re Red-Blooded Communists
ROTFL!!!!!
Get into a time machine and go back to Eastern Europe and/or
the USSR in the mid-'fifties. When there still were some ACTUAL
Communists worthy of any concern out and about.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••
••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••
"He saved the lives of thousands of women who would've
died otherwise, thousands who would've been made sterile
or gravely injured by childbirth. He knew his life was at grave
risk. Dr. Tiller was a true Saint."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from websites below.)
http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then why don't you explain them to us?
Beam Me Up Scotty
I actually researched the Fabian Socialists and was one of(if NOT the
first) to bring this to the NewsGroups connecting Obama to Fabian
Socialists and later I found a Video of Obama calling himself a
Progressive(that video has since been scrubbed from the internet).
The difference is minor and one cult was from Europe while the other an
American adaptation of the other.... They are both just the idea that
the change to Socialism can be a peaceful "evolution" rather than a
violent "Revolution"......
Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
real goals.
Were it that Progressives were up front about their goals, I would have
little to worry about since most people aren't so stupid as to sign on
with the Socialist Kooks and their utopian quest..... but the fact that
there's a goal that's being shielded by obfuscation and lies makes the
Progressives more dangerous than the Communists that pronounce their
ideological goals and will use a gun to exact those goals.
The communist deserves a certain amount of respect as someone with
Character..... but the Fabians/Progressives we face now will befriend
you and lull you into a passive state of mind, then sink their knife
deep in your back as you sleep.
Beam Me Up Scotty
bpnjensen
Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
> The communist deserves a certain amount of respect as someone with
> Character..... but the Fabians/Progressives we face now will befriend
> you and lull you into a passive state of mind, then sink their knife
> deep in your back as you sleep.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
In your case, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy... ;-)
Peter Franks
The problem w/ defining socialism (or communism) is that its ugliness is
apparent when purely and concisely defined. A socialist will never
define communism, instead they come up w/ all sorts of pretty ways to
polish that turd.
I've studied it somewhat, and distilled what seems to be the essence:
Socialism: benevolence through compulsion
Communism: production through compulsion
Totalitarianism: compulsion in all things
Note that there is no mention of ownership, who or what controls,
majority/minority, etc. All of those are canards and irrelevant to the
core -- and that core is compulsion.
I've challenged many to posit alternative definitions or to refute mine.
The responses (few have actually be substantive) have been defective,
or upon closer examination (i.e. decomposition) justify my definitions.
Beam Me Up Scotty
I'm a bit shy at first but people warm up to me after a while.
dave
>
> Note that there is no mention of ownership, who or what controls,
> majority/minority, etc.
Jefferson changed "...pursuit of property" to "..pursuit of happiness".
Was he a communist?
Lifsabsurd
I think they are all *very closely related*, and all deserve to be
called socialists. For me they are all peas in the same pod. The
most important thing to me is that they all have essentially the same
*goals*, they all get you to the same place, whether they involve a
nationalist (Nazism) or internationalist (Marxism) bent, a
revolutionary (Marxism and its various subtypes) or evolutionary
(Fabianism) mechanism of achieving the goals, whether they *claim* to
incorporate capitalism (various third ways claim to), or use state
corporatism (fascism, which is just another form of third way in my
opinion), whether they do or do not involve militarism or imperialism,
etc. -- all forms of socialism have more similarities than
differences. All forms involve a paradoxical form of radical
egalitarianism as a primary goal, some form of belief in collectivism
in contrast to individualism, some form of wealth equalization for the
masses, a hatred of *true* free-market capitalism, an antipathy
towards the concept of private property, radical ideas of what
constitute "rights," and, above all, as a practical matter, the
imposition of some form of leadership by the "elite" (even in so-
called democratic socialism).
They are not really the elite, of course. They are more like self-
appointed elitists, people convinced of their own superiority over the
rest of us mere mortals.
> The difference is minor and one cult was from Europe while the other an
> American adaptation of the other.... They are both just the idea that
> the change to Socialism can be a peaceful "evolution" rather than a
> violent "Revolution"......
>
> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
> real goals.
>
> Were it that Progressives were up front about their goals, I would have
> little to worry about since most people aren't so stupid as to sign on
> with the Socialist Kooks and their utopian quest..... but the fact that
> there's a goal that's being shielded by obfuscation and lies makes the
> Progressives more dangerous than the Communists that pronounce their
> ideological goals and will use a gun to exact those goals.
The goals to me are essentially the same for communists, Communists (I
firmly believe that Obama is at heart a Marxist), and progressives.
They therefore can all work together seamlessly. To me it scarcely
makes a difference which of the many socialist labels they give to
themselves.
> The communist deserves a certain amount of respect as someone with
> Character..... but the Fabians/Progressives we face now will befriend
> you and lull you into a passive state of mind, then sink their knife
> deep in your back as you sleep.- Hide quoted text -
I agree that those who openly label themselves Communists are more
honest about their goals. But, based on the fact that the actual
CPUSA readily supports Democrats, esp. this administration, the true
card-carrying Communists know very well that the only meaningful
difference between them and Democrats is the theoretical means of
achieving the SAME goals.
Lifsabsurd
Well, I'm not sure it can be *defined* this way. I agree that the
definition has been muddied. I will also agree that your
*distillation* incorporates a great deal of truth. It is amazing that
people who believe in radical egalitarianism paradoxically believe
that only certain people are smart enough to dictate to the rest of
the herd.
> Communism: production through compulsion
Again, I would say that your distillation contains a great deal of
truth.
> Totalitarianism: compulsion in all things
Same comment as above.
> Note that there is no mention of ownership, who or what controls,
> majority/minority, etc. All of those are canards and irrelevant to the
> core -- and that core is compulsion.
>
> I've challenged many to posit alternative definitions or to refute mine.
> The responses (few have actually be substantive) have been defective,
> or upon closer examination (i.e. decomposition) justify my definitions.- Hide quoted text -
Lifsabsurd
More likely a man good at diplomatic compromise.
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I was looking for old treatments of this topic. It is not the first
time I have been involved in a discussion of socialism and its
definition. I found this old thread, not the best discussion from the
past, but which contains some discussion of the topic. If anyone
thinks it worth the time to read it, some of my opinions from 2001 are
to be found in messages 10 and 15. Hope the link works.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Interesting, you come to a lot of the same conclusions I have found and
we had never crossed paths.
Lifsabsurd
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Soviet Union was a very powerful empire for awhile, until its
centrally-planned economy completely collapsed. Now it doesn't
exist. Communist China became something more akin to a third way
system to try to survive. It employs pseudo-capitalist means of
production now, or perhaps something more closely related to corporate
statism, rather than the more pure centralized planning. Cuba is a
basket case, and European democratic socialist states are in the
toilet. Even Sweden and the Netherlands are retreating from socialst
policies. I recently posted articles in that regard. It may look
like the socialists have won, but in fact, socialists can never win in
the long run. You cannot enslave productive people and force them to
take care of non-productive people for long. Obama just tried it in
this country and now he is whining about how the productive people
(businesses, capitalists) just won't cooperate. People aren't
stupid. Why should they work to take care of sewer shit? DUH.
BTW, I have heard many times the rejoinder that a conservative doesn't
know what socialism is. So far, Crowley hasn't told us. Why don't
you?
Peter Franks
No, because he didn't advocate either (or neither) through compulsion.
Note: compulsion is the key element, not property.
Peter Franks
Yes; thank you for your response.
Joe from Kokomo
> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
> real goals.
Maybe you could enlighten us to the "hidden agenda" and their "real goals".
As to trying to push us into socialism, are "they" stupid...or just blind?
Blind to the fact that socialism failed miserably in Russia and North
Korea and that China is almost more Capitalist than we are. Heck, even
Fidel Castro just said a few weeks ago that their system "doesn't work
for them [Cubans] any more". Why would anyone even want socialism with a
track record like that?
Or is "socialism" your code word for "New World Order", one world
government or world domination by a select few???
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 9/23/2010 12:13 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
>> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
>> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
>> real goals.
>
> Maybe you could enlighten us to the "hidden agenda" and their "real goals".
Ask Obama.
> As to trying to push us into socialism, are "they" stupid...or just blind?
YES!
> Blind to the fact that socialism failed miserably in Russia and North
> Korea and that China is almost more Capitalist than we are. Heck, even
> Fidel Castro just said a few weeks ago that their system "doesn't work
> for them [Cubans] any more". Why would anyone even want socialism with a
> track record like that?
Asking someone like Obama to give-up their ideology is like asking the
Ayatollah to become a JEW.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Happiness is a wider scope since you can pursue property if it makes you
happy. Or you can pursue poverty if your name is Obama. But we each
have the right as an individual and NOT as a Nation.
BDK
Every...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com says...
> On 9/23/2010 7:44 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
> > On 9/23/2010 12:13 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> >
> >> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
> >> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
> >> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
> >> real goals.
> >
> > Maybe you could enlighten us to the "hidden agenda" and their "real goals".
>
> Ask Obama.
He's probably as mystified as the rest of us who are wondering what
you're going on about.
>
>
> > As to trying to push us into socialism, are "they" stupid...or just blind?
>
> YES!
>
> > Blind to the fact that socialism failed miserably in Russia and North
> > Korea and that China is almost more Capitalist than we are. Heck, even
> > Fidel Castro just said a few weeks ago that their system "doesn't work
> > for them [Cubans] any more". Why would anyone even want socialism with a
> > track record like that?
>
> Asking someone like Obama to give-up their ideology is like asking the
> Ayatollah to become a JEW.
>
>
In other words, you're just parroting stuff you've read off hard right
websites. Kind of like the Obama being born in Kenya nonsense.
--
BDK, non-jew leader of the non-existant paid jew shills!
robert bowman
> The communist deserves a certain amount of respect as someone with
> Character..... but the Fabians/Progressives we face now will befriend
> you and lull you into a passive state of mind, then sink their knife
> deep in your back as you sleep.
At least the Fabians had George Bernard Shaw to entertain you while they
tinkered with their version of heaven on earth. The modern progressive is a
boring piece of work.
RHF
> Lifsabsurd wrote:
>
> > Well, yes. And no. For me the term 'socialism' is used as a broad,
> > encompassing, generic term that includes communism, Communism,
> > Marxism, many so-called 'third ways' (fascism, Nazism, democratic
> > socialism, liberalism, progressivism), Fabianism, and many more such
> > similar ideologies. I understand that some define socialism
> > differently, for example, as an historical step towards Marxism, and
> > therefore distinct from it, but one needs a word to group together
> > under one label all these closely related movements, because they have
> > so much in common. What else would one use generically?
> > Collectivists? Radical egalitarians? Vermin? It seems to me that
> > since so many related ideologies call themselves socialists we should
> > not reject the more general definition of socialism.
- A combat unit is organized in a socialist manner,
- with everyone watching everyone else's back.
'Special Dave' - You Are An Army Of One ! ;;-}} ~ RHF
.
-imho- National Defense Is {Necessary} Socialism :
By The People : For The People : Of The People
-TFIF- Universal National Service is the Only Way
a Democratic Republic should People it's Military.
-and- National Defense Military Organizations
are by nature 'socialistic' -wrt- Uniform Treatment
of Ranks. { All For One : One For All }
.
.
RHF
* Elitist Polictical Cadre devoted to placing
themselves In-Control of Your Life.
Masters of a World 'under' Their Domination.
.
Beware the OWLES -cause- They Are 'Elitist'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Limousine-liberal
The OWLES = One World Liberal Elitists Socialists
* The Problem with the OWLES is not that they are One Worlders.
* The Problem with the OWLES is not that they are Liberals.
* The Problem with the OWLES is not that they are Socialists.
* The Problem With The OWLES 'is' That They Are ELITISTS [.]
.
WHO
- WHOO.
- - WHOOO !
- - - Beware of the OWLES = One World Liberal Elite Socialist.
.
The OWLES and their 'Double Truths' of Lies and Propaganda:
Because after all, only they the All Knowing OWLES
are morally right and politically correct; and the rest of
us are dumb ignorant stupid 'brown shirted', 'white robe
wearing' de-generated sub-humans. Who must be Lead
by the OWLES, because after all they 'The OWLES' are
Morally Right and Politically Correct, and alas we 'the
un-washed' need their Over-Lord-ship.
~ RHF
arthr...@webtv.net
Do not forget Pol Pot, the insane leader of Cambodia . Anything else
just pales in comparison with his social order ...
Joe from Kokomo
>> On 9/23/2010 12:13 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
>>> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
>>> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
>>> real goals.
On 9/23/2010 7:44 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>> Maybe you could enlighten us to the "hidden agenda" and their "real goals".
On 9/23/2010 8:13 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Ask Obama.
To the best of my knowledge, Obama doesn't post here.
Anyway, it was YOUR statement, so I asked YOU to explain it.
RHF
> On Sep 23, 7:44 pm, Joe from Kokomo <j...@indy.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/23/2010 12:13 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> > > Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
> > > pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
> > > what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
> > > real goals.
>
> > Maybe you could enlighten us to the "hidden agenda" and their "real goals".
>
> > As to trying to push us into socialism, are "they" stupid...or just blind?
>
> > Blind to the fact that socialism failed miserably in Russia and North
> > Korea and that China is almost more Capitalist than we are. Heck, even
> > Fidel Castro just said a few weeks ago that their system "doesn't work
> > for them [Cubans] any more". Why would anyone even want socialism with a
> > track record like that?
>
> > Or is "socialism" your code word for "New World Order", one world
> > government or world domination by a select few???
>
See there you go calling Pol Pot "Insane"
-cause- Pol Pot Was NOT "Insane" [.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot
Agrarian Socialism & Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_socialism
Pol Pot was then {dead now} a 'Committed' Communist
Political Leader {Cadre} : That Believed By Any Means
Necessary -to- Achieve The Goal of Communist Control of
the People and Rule of 'The Party' ELITE Over the People.
- Anything else just pales in comparison with his social order ...
NO ! - The Bright Red Stars of Stalin and Mao both
achieved more Communism Enslavement and Mass
Murders on a larger scale over a lot longer period . . .
.
Bio Offers Sinister View of Chairman Mao
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4967077
.
Mao's "Great Leap Forward" Killed 45 Million
in Four Years
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
.
Mao’s “Great Leap” or “Great Famine”
http://chrisgrande.com/2010/08/31/maos-great-leap-or-great-famine-new-book/
.
Prez Obama's Policies Linked to : Mao, Marx,
Sanger and Darwin
http://darwinsracists.com/book/?p=76
.
Obama-U-Nism© There Is No Deception
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/e39e54fe4774d794
.
Praise Be The Obama ! - my prez-a-duntz ~ RHF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K17kA50c1zs
All Hail to Our Lord and Savior Prez Obama !
http://votingfemale.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-i-am-god.jpg
-for- all those unbelievers : the truth will set you free
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw
.
.
Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>>> On 9/23/2010 12:13 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
>>>> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
>>>> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
>>>> real goals.
>
> On 9/23/2010 7:44 PM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
>
>>> Maybe you could enlighten us to the "hidden agenda" and their "real
>>> goals".
didn't you quote "hidden agenda" why do you suppose that I know what
their agenda is. Do I need to tell you it's NOT to return America to
it's place as the greatest Nation on the planet?
Do I look like Nostradamus?
I'm NOT even a Socialist.
I do know what their policies will NOT do.....
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Sep 23, 11:16 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-
>
>> Coincidentally we are in what looks like a *COUP* where we are being
>> pushed into Socialism by the progressives that have a hidden agenda for
>> what they are doing, all the while trying to deceive the public of the
>> real goals.
>
> the country by refusing to invest. That is what will encourage people
> to think of ways to socialize the economy.
*OBAMA SHOW US YOUR BUUBS*
*GOVERNMENT GONE WILD*
You're hitting the nail on the head, but you're nailing the wrong board.
Corporations "like" people, look to their own survival first.
If they "refuse to invest" it's because they perceive the need to NOT
invest out weighs the need to invest. One reason NOT to invest is that
Government has gone wild and the corporations feel the need to stay
liquid so they can react to the Government Onslaught of Legislation.
Socialism(Redistribution) is the problem and Obama touts it as the
solution. Everything Obama does is connected to redistribution.
Stephen Young
> It’s refreshing that finally the Progressive/Liberal label is being
> recognized for what it is. It’s not Socialism, either. Really. Even the
> Marxism label falls short. (There is no Engelsism, is there?)
>
> A Communist by any other name is still a Communist, whether of the Big
> “C” (card-carrying type) or small “c” (fellow traveler).
>
> In 1848 the Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels co-authored Communist
> Manifesto was completed and published at the request of London’s
> Communist League.
>
> If you don’t want to read the whole Manifesto, read the 10 Planks.
>
> Educate yourself.
>
> http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/stop-calling-them-
socialists-theyre-red-blooded-communists/
you're IQ is that of a faux news viewer
try forming your own opinion instead of posting others who have don't own
asian stock
RHF
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:03:16 -0700, Chas. Chan wrote:
> > It’s refreshing that finally the Progressive/Liberal label is being
> > recognized for what it is. It’s not Socialism, either. Really. Even the
> > Marxism label falls short. (There is no Engelsism, is there?)
>
> > A Communist by any other name is still a Communist, whether of the Big
> > “C” (card-carrying type) or small “c” (fellow traveler).
>
> > In 1848 the Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels co-authored Communist
> > Manifesto was completed and published at the request of London’s
> > Communist League.
>
> > If you don’t want to read the whole Manifesto, read the 10 Planks.
>
> > Educate yourself.
>
> >http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/stop-calling-them-
>
> socialists-theyre-red-blooded-communists/
Stephen Young -wrote-
- you're IQ is that of a faux news viewer
Stephen Young - Speaking of "IQs" just what do
these words you wrote say about your own "IQ" . . .
Stephen Young -wrote-
- try forming your own opinion instead of posting
- others who have don't own asian stock
it goes to creditability your honor ~ RHF
.