EXPOSED: U.S. Commies reveal "WE'RE USING THE DEMOCRATS"

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

This definitely needed its own thread, thanks again T.

THIS NEEDS TO BE KNOWN, SPREAD, to anyone who still gives a damn bout this great nation.


Not too awful long ago I wrote about the Communist Party USA and their support for many of the identical principles endorsed by the Democrat Party here in the US. I listed the various similarities but now I have some even more honest words from the Communists themselves. Joe Sims, co-editor of the Communist Party USA online magazine Peoples World states among other things "the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely." Read that slowly and carefully..."the possibility that the communists may be able to "capture' the Democratic Party entirely."

Communist Party USA Reveals: We're Using the Democrat Party - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com

 

[Neotrotsky]

Did anyone ever have any doubt?

Oh, the Left will try and deny it; but that is to be expected.

Part of the reason you see the "no label" crowd trying to make a push

When the labels you have suck to the majority of Americans , then try to get rid of them

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Did anyone ever have any doubt?

Oh, the Left will try and deny it; but that is to be expected.

Part of the reason you see the "no label" crowd trying to make a push

When the labels you have suck to the majority of Americans , then try to get rid of them

Indeed......

 

[The Infidel]

The Commucrats are willing useful idiots

 

[Oddball]

Did anyone ever have any doubt?

Oh, the Left will try and deny it; but that is to be expected.

Part of the reason you see the "no label" crowd trying to make a push

When the labels you have suck to the majority of Americans , then try to get rid of them

I occurs to me that those who object the most to being "labeled" are those who get correctly identified for who they are and what they truly believe.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I can't recall his name. But there was a man that ran for Pres 5 or 6 times for the Socialist Party. In an interveiw for his last run the said that he won't run again and really didn't have to this time.

When asked why;

Because the Democrat party has absorbed our platform.

That was back in the 50's. so learning that the communist *vomit* are moving in, is not a surprise.

 

[BlindBoo]

God-damn-it so are they fucking Socialist or fucking Communist???????

Satlinist? Marxist? Maoist? Pol Pot-ist?

Whatever-ist. They're just evil huh?

Next up, how liberals all really support authoritain dictators hell bent on world domination.

Instead of ditto-heads your names should be parrot-heads.

 

[Oddball]

I can't recall his name. But there was a man that ran for Pres 5 or 6 times for the Socialist Party. In an interveiw for his last run the said that he won't run again and really didn't have to this time.

When asked why;

Because the Democrat party has absorbed our platform.

That was back in the 50's. so learning that the communist *vomit* are moving in, is not a surprise.

Probably Eugene Debs.

Few realize that FDR stole the New Deal programs from him and the Socialist Party.

 

[Neotrotsky]

I can't recall his name. But there was a man that ran for Pres 5 or 6 times for the Socialist Party. In an interveiw for his last run the said that he won't run again and really didn't have to this time.

When asked why;

Because the Democrat party has absorbed our platform.

That was back in the 50's. so learning that the communist *vomit* are moving in, is not a surprise.

Probably Eugene Debs.

Few realize that FDR stole the New Deal programs from him and the Socialist Party.

Debs said:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

 

[kaz]

God-damn-it so are they fucking Socialist or fucking Communist???????

Satlinist? Marxist? Maoist? Pol Pot-ist?

Whatever-ist. They're just evil huh?

Next up, how liberals all really support authoritain dictators hell bent on world domination.

Instead of ditto-heads your names should be parrot-heads.

Let's get specific here. Name one plank of the communist manifesto that Democrats flat out oppose. If you have an open mind and read them and think about the Democrats actual positions and how they are in line not only with the planks but the reasons for them, it will scare the snot out of you

 

[Two Thumbs]

God-damn-it so are they fucking Socialist or fucking Communist???????

Satlinist? Marxist? Maoist? Pol Pot-ist?

Whatever-ist. They're just evil huh?

Next up, how liberals all really support authoritain dictators hell bent on world domination.

Instead of ditto-heads your names should be parrot-heads.

socialism frequently leads to communism.

How many people that worked for Obama were caught quoting Mao?

We are not saying YOU are a socialist, but the people that run your party are becoming so.

Just look around do some research, it's not that hard.

 

[Neotrotsky]

God-damn-it so are they fucking Socialist or fucking Communist???????

Satlinist? Marxist? Maoist? Pol Pot-ist?

Whatever-ist. They're just evil huh?

Next up, how liberals all really support authoritain dictators hell bent on world domination.

Instead of ditto-heads your names should be parrot-heads.

Let's get specific here. Name one plank of the communist manifesto that Democrats flat out oppose. If you have an open mind and read them and think about the Democrats actual positions and how they are in line not only with the planks but the reasons for them, it will scare the snot out of you

I do believe that they may differ in approach

Communists, traditionally, call for revolutionary change over to socialism to get us to "utopia"

The Democrats have digressed more into the Social Democracy mode, where they slowly change us over via socialism to "utopia"

No doubt the Democrats method is the more insidious one. It follows the "salami theory" of politics:

You can't force a man to eat a whole salami at one sitting; but feed him piece at a time and before you know it- He will eat the whole thing.


-

So, we see the problem with PapaObama. He tried too hard and fast to push a lot of "salami" down Americans throats and they regurgitated.


Papa Obama suffers from Premature proclamation with the US ,,, who would have thought. Guess it comes from his "inexperience" and "over-exuberance"

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Ever notice that ever since Carter, when Jackass presidents finally have their real far left natures exposed, they either are fired, like Carter, or have no choice but to grudgingly move to the center like Clinton and Obama after America sends them a midterm reminder.........

 

[Agit8r]

Yes. that is why they are wanting to be "bipartisan" with the "other" of the "two" political parties in their support of monied corporations

"Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way." -- Karl Marx

 

[Neotrotsky]

Yes. that is why they are wanting to be "bipartisan" with the "other" of the "two" political parties in their support of monied corporations

"Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way." -- Karl Marx

No doubt the US is morphing into a crony capitalist state; but this is do more to gov't interjection into the marketplace to "shape" policy. When politicians and corporate heads get together, it is not to discuss how to make markets more competitive; but for all parties involved to "mark" their territory and to improve their position.

However, This is a failure of gov't to have a proper role in the market.

As for Marx, the surplus theory of value is flawed and incorrect. During his time there was no formal "marginal" understanding of what value was or meant. It was a question of their time- the "water-diamond" paradox.
Why did water, essential to life, have such little value and diamonds, useless for most part, have so much value

In Marx's mind all value came from labor and the capitalist took the surplus for himself- that concept of value was wrong. However, the marginal understanding of supply and demand was not formalized yet.

Value is merely the interaction between supply and demand.
3 days at sea with no water- water "increases" in value- because demand is high and supply is low

Thus, a capitalist could spend all day with his factories making a product that no one wants- regardless of how much labor was put into it, it has no value. So value, does not derive from labor exclusively.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did anyone ever have any doubt?

Oh, the Left will try and deny it; but that is to be expected.

Part of the reason you see the "no label" crowd trying to make a push

When the labels you have suck to the majority of Americans , then try to get rid of them

Interesting post, as it reflects what the progressives of the early 20th century did...the election of Harding, following the disaster of Wilson, was a landslide.

Progressive Dewey campaigned to have he progressives change their name to liberal, hoping that folks would associate them with the classical liberals, the Founders.

1. “The United States presidential election of 1920 was dominated by the aftermath of World War I and the hostile reaction to Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic president. Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (60.3% to 34.1%) in Presidential elections after the so-called "Era of Good Feelings" ended with the victory of James Monroe in the election of 1820. ” United States presidential election, 1920 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“In the 1920 election, he and his running-mate, Calvin Coolidge, defeated Democrat and fellow Ohioan James M. Cox, in what was then the largest presidential popular vote landslide in American history since the popular vote tally began to be recorded in 1824: 60.36% to 34.19%.”Warren G. Harding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. . “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n45566374/

 

[Sallow]

I have it on good authority that zombie like Aliens are pulling the strings of the Republicans.

There was even a movie made about it...called "They Live".

It's not fiction! It was a documentary!

And "To Serve Man" is a cook book!!!

And Soylent Green is people!!!!

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I have it on good authority that zombie like Aliens are pulling the strings of the Republicans.

There was even a movie made about it...called "They Live".

It's not fiction! It was a documentary!

And "To Serve Man" is a cook book!!!

And Soylent Green is people!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't recall his name. But there was a man that ran for Pres 5 or 6 times for the Socialist Party. In an interveiw for his last run the said that he won't run again and really didn't have to this time.

When asked why;

Because the Democrat party has absorbed our platform.

That was back in the 50's. so learning that the communist *vomit* are moving in, is not a surprise.

Eugene Victor Debs ran on the Socialist ticket, and recieved the greatest vote total that
socialists ever received.

Eugene V. Debs claimed that the Progressives’ bandana had replace the red flag of socialism. NYTimes, August 14, 1912 Debs: “My prediction that Roosevelt would steal our platform bodily has been fulfilled.”

 

[Agit8r]

Yes. that is why they are wanting to be "bipartisan" with the "other" of the "two" political parties in their support of monied corporations

"Capitalist joint-stock companies as much as cooperative factories should be viewed as transition forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, simply that in the one case the opposition is abolished in a negative way, and in the other in a positive way." -- Karl Marx

No doubt the US is morphing into a crony capitalist state; but this is do more to gov't interjection into the marketplace to "shape" policy. When politicians and corporate heads get together, it is not to discuss how to make markets more competitive; but for all parties involved to "mark" their territory and to improve their position.

However, This is a failure of gov't to have a proper role in the market.

As for Marx, the surplus theory of value is flawed and incorrect. During his time there was no formal "marginal" understanding of what value was or meant. It was a question of their time- the "water-diamond" paradox.
Why did water, essential to life, have such little value and diamonds, useless for most part, have so much value

In Marx's mind all value came from labor and the capitalist took the surplus for himself- that concept of value was wrong. However, the marginal understanding of supply and demand was not formalized yet.

Value is merely the interaction between supply and demand.
3 days at sea with no water- water "increases" in value- because demand is high and supply is low

Thus, a capitalist could spend all day with his factories making a product that no one wants- regardless of how much labor was put into it, it has no value. So value, does not derive from labor exclusively.

I don't pretend to understand Marx's economics. but then, I'm not a marxist either.