...And Yes, Barack Obama is a Marxist

Definitely very true!! The bill was a joke!! The easiest way to insure more people, is obviously to reduce costs. The bill did almost nothing to reduce costs, and was therefore not about helping the American people or the uninsured!! It was about helping giant insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies!!

 

Actually NO IT ISN'T!! However, I do so love when people do this on this forum!! Say false things, put it in capital letters, and then pretend as if they are stating an undeniable fact!! It almost feels like a game to me!! So I will try!! Republicans ARE SPACE ALIENS, WHO WORK FOR SATAN!!


I put it in capital letters, and added no argument or evidence to support it, as though it is a self-evidently true notion!! So therefore it MUST be true!! I like this game!!

 

I never mentioned the extent to which the President is an authoritarian, but he is nonetheless.

 

If you define authoritarianism as any party, group, or individual that does not support maximum liberty at all time an authoritarian then maybe so. However, that then leads to the question of defining maximum liberty. Many left-libertarians would claim right-libertarians support authoritarianism, and vice-versa. So basically everyone is an authoritarian by some standard, at which time the term loses all meaning.

 

Very true, it is open to interpretation.

 

Now I am really confused!! So is it your opinion, that it is bad form to respond to posts that don't directly respond to you? How would I ever have posted for the first time in that case? Would my first post have to be starting my own thread, so that people would respond, so I could then rightfully respond to their posts? How was the person to have responded to my OP in the first place, if my OP didn't directly address them(that is pretty impossible). I am pretty sure responding to posts in threads by posters that aren't directly responding to a previous post of yours is pretty basic forum etiquette!!

PS. You are pretending as if I respond to you all the time, and I honestly can't remember the last time I conversed with you!!

 

Your confusion is apparent. We had a short discussion in the Debate section some time ago. My memory is old, but still sharp.

Let's talk about Obama ok? Let me know if that works for you.

 

Of course I remember our debate on Iran!! That was months ago....

 

First, I said nothing about "anarcho-syndicalist commune" - and the very phrase itself is an oxymoron. Obama is not anarchist; he's a totalitarianist.

Either way, it's moot, because this is about Progressing an agenda in which he believes. He's not going to be in power when full implementation takes place regardless.

He's a State Socialist in action. If he were only a Socialist at heart, he would not have spent his life associating with people who believe far more radical things.

Why is your case regarding what Engels would or would not have supported any more credible than to simply claim that Socialists in general are simple useful idiots to those with more dastardly motivations?

Whether by accident or intent, Socialism is simply a gateway to Totalitarianism.

 

You don't think 'right-wingers' can be Totalitarian as well? I'll go ahead and call the guy a boob; a Marxist, and incredibly biased, considering his former position.

The State Department of Education is something which is the right of a State to create and control. Even healthcare to State citizens is a right of that State.

Romney said it himself: Government health care enacted by a State is different than the Federal Government forcing each State to adopt its rules.

One is Constitutional; one is not.

Non sequitur. In order to be a break, they first had to pay taxes.

That's what I was thinking of your response - only I proved it.

 

Why is it that not one of you libbies - and there have been several - who claim that someone else "doesn't understand what a Marxist is" - has ever included their definition of a Marxist, even when asked to do so?

Van Jones, btw, was not 'decades ago'. Nearly every major policy platform Obama represents asserts and defends the "wealth redistributionist" policies of a Marxist. ObamaCare is quintessentially Marxist.

So go ahead: let's hear this magical definition of a Marxist that somehow circumvents snaring things like ObamaCare in its grasp. It should be interesting, since the Communist Manifesto expressly demanded such services be provided by Government.

 

Why should I educate others?

The info is out there, easy to find.


And I note you also dont give 1 example of these massive marxists policys obaam instated.

Van jones is a person not policy.

Ah obamacare , so you claim the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is perfectly in line with marxism?

 

Van Jones is a rallying point for conservatives. He motivates conservatives.

 

It's been done, several times in fact, Goldwater did at least one time and I believe Someone did as well, though that may have been a different thread. In either case the OP made an accusation and as such bears the burden of proof.

Forcing folks to buy insurance from private carriers is Marxist? No dice, there's no intent there to shift the ownership of the means of production, had you bothered to read the thread you'd have found both a definition and that this has already been refuted.

 

Van Jones discusses Unicorn Herding on the Steven Colbert show.....

 

Lets let Obama do that for him....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs"]Obama Constitution Negative Liberties.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

So he's a Marxist, too!? That just goes to show how nonsensical your premise is.

Now we jump from blanket Marxism to federalism and constitutionality. Goalpost moving. So tiresome.

And...? Yes they have to pay taxes....because those taxes are owed.The debt is there. The rates in place. The reduction in taxes to those with the greatest wealth was not offset by spending decreases or other revenue generators. The shortfall it created went straight to the debt....in other words, to the rest of us...the 98%. THAT is redistribution of wealth from the many to the few.

No, you've failed again. Well, you didn't fail in demonstrating you lack of understanding of Marxism.

Government is a group of people agreeing to have a system in place that provides for the common good. The right seems to now define anything done for the common good as socialist and of course it is not. In this country industry is not owned and controlled by government. Government regulations are not government control. They are rules that (are intended to) ensure a level playing field. Even with the healthcare reform law we still have a private healthcare industry and a private insurance industry. Its not owned by the government. The VA medical system, on the other hand is. Its the only true example of the socialistic healthcare we have. The facilities are owned by the government and everyone is paid directly by the government.

Ironically, during the financial crisis, it was Republicans that were proposing the nationalization of the banking industry, not Obama. If Obama were a Marxist or a socialist, he would have jumped all over that,wouldn't he?

Marxism looks for revolutionary overthrow of such a system as we have today. It doesn't not see incremental change as a means to their ends. Nothing that the President has done.....even healthcare reform....fits the definition of Marxism.

Marxist, socialist and communist are three entirely different things and none of them fit the President.

 

Nope, Participation is mandatory....

 

and.....? its still not single payer and still controlled by the private sector.

Participation is mandatory because it should be. Everybody needs it and its illegal to turn people away who need care.

It was a great idea when Republicans proposed it years ago.

 

the means of production is not controlled by the govn't. it's still capitolism.

thank you for again proving you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

then define capitalism, and show how obamacare is not.

 

Nope, Thats BS.

The government should serve the people, not enslave them.

Its a Constitutional thingy... Maybe you should check it out....

 

'Should' is a lovely word. Real capitalist governments serve real capitalists, as in Iraq. Capitalism is a system of robbery, and its governments see to it that the very rich benefit, as you know. Constitutions are like 'should' - very pretty.

 

Better yet,

Compare and contrast the Obamacares and the Pill Bill.

The Medicare prescription drug plan, written by Republicans and the drug industry, passed by Republicans and signed into law by a Republican President.

The Pill Bill is not funded in any way shape or form. Every penny spent goes to the debt.

The Pill Bill OUTLAWS price negotiation.

The Pill Bill OUTLAWS competition from overseas drug providers.

Its the biggest new ENTITLEMENT in our lifetime.

Conservatives supported the Pill Bill then and now while these same hypocrites scream about Obamacares, a plan that requires people to be responsible and pay their share for their care. Its funded. Its privately administered. It doesn't outlaw negotiation and competition.

The Pill Bill is fascism disguised as socialism.

 

When was the last time you had one? I certainly don't think the likes of the current crop of Muppets masquerading as republican presidential candidates understand the meaning of 'real statesman'. They sure don't act like one.