Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

[JakeStarkey]

You, buckeye, have not identified the far left, the left, the old left, or the new left. You have conflated the Left with the Dems and the Centrists, and that is not so, and you certainly have not proved anything of the sort.

You talk about Karl Marx. Yes, the bourgeois revolutions of the French in 1789 and 1848 were exactly that, not those of communists, you idiot. Capitalism was not overthrown, nor was it intended to be overthrown. The monarrchy, not the economic system, was the target each time. You can believe in Marxian rhetoric all you want, but the fact remains the Marx's philosophy is wrong. And you somehow silly try to tie it all to the 'New Left' with rhetoric but not reality.

Bro, you have to identify the Left in all of its configurations. It is not one heap anymore than the right is a heap.

You have to make an argument with facts, not rhetoric, and we go from there. You made the assertion, now try to prove it. You don't get to make an assertion then ask me to disprove it with facts. That is not how it works, son.

Like I said Jefferson agreed with it at first, Heck even Burke did, but the violence is horrible, yet you still have new left people that LOVE the French Revolution and not just the begining.

Jake you criticise, so who are the "rational" left? Please educate me on the difference and who is in the side of liberalism?
You really think the NAACP is less radical than PETA? I mean what do they disagree on? OR is PETA part of the "rational" left?
So post something for us to look at.

You still conflate the New Left with the center, left of center, and democrats. They are not the same thing. Yes, the right and the left agree with the principles of the French Revolution, just not the violence.

You have yet to prove the French Revolution was protoMarxist. What a stupid comment by you, you know that?

The NAACP, women's lib, etc. are not PETA, ELF, or NAMBLA, and you know it.

You are getting your ass kicked because you are getting splattered with your tar brush.

Trying be historical and accurate: OK?

Sorry bro, but you have not answered one question. I keep asking you WHO Are the "rational" left? And how do their policies differ from the NEW left? All I get is attacks on mine.
Karl Marx: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
The German philosopher and founder of international communism, Karl Marx (1818–83), wrote on many occasions about the French Revolution, which he considered the first stage in an eventual worldwide proletarian revolution. In this relatively early work from 1852, Marx compares the French Revolution of 1789 with that of 1848. Marx considered the French Revolution the classic example of the "bourgeois revolution," in which capitalism overthrew feudalism, creating the legal conditions under which capitalism could flourish

He knew the results of the revolution and APPROVED of it as the first stage. you know the stages in his own Manifesto. So he supported the violence AND was influenced by the french revolution. Most people with a brain, know that the french revolution was the first real begining of modern communism. You had people who OVERTHREW VIOLENTLY (espoused by Marx and repeated by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky). People who were ATheist (French Revolutionaries wanted a new calander and all kinds of crazy shit, and who else promotes atheisism and violence, the NEW left and that's just a start)


And when the NEW left likes to insult the middle class, guess what FRENCH word they use in a NEGATIVE way. Bougeosie...and that is a holdover from the.....FRENCH....REVOLUTION.

Sorry bro, but you have not answered one question. I keep asking you WHO Are the "rational" left? And how do their policies differ from the NEW left? All I get is attacks on mine.

 

[buckeye45_73]

You, buckeye, have not identified the far left, the left, the old left, or the new left. You have conflated the Left with the Dems and the Centrists, and that is not so, and you certainly have not proved anything of the sort.

You talk about Karl Marx. Yes, the bourgeois revolutions of the French in 1789 and 1848 were exactly that, not those of communists, you idiot. Capitalism was not overthrown, nor was it intended to be overthrown. The monarrchy, not the economic system, was the target each time. You can believe in Marxian rhetoric all you want, but the fact remains the Marx's philosophy is wrong. And you somehow silly try to tie it all to the 'New Left' with rhetoric but not reality.

Bro, you have to identify the Left in all of its configurations. It is not one heap anymore than the right is a heap.

You have to make an argument with facts, not rhetoric, and we go from there. You made the assertion, now try to prove it. You don't get to make an assertion then ask me to disprove it with facts. That is not how it works, son.

You still conflate the New Left with the center, left of center, and democrats. They are not the same thing. Yes, the right and the left agree with the principles of the French Revolution, just not the violence.

You have yet to prove the French Revolution was protoMarxist. What a stupid comment by you, you know that?

The NAACP, women's lib, etc. are not PETA, ELF, or NAMBLA, and you know it.

You are getting your ass kicked because you are getting splattered with your tar brush.

Trying be historical and accurate: OK?

Sorry bro, but you have not answered one question. I keep asking you WHO Are the "rational" left? And how do their policies differ from the NEW left? All I get is attacks on mine.
Karl Marx: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
The German philosopher and founder of international communism, Karl Marx (1818–83), wrote on many occasions about the French Revolution, which he considered the first stage in an eventual worldwide proletarian revolution. In this relatively early work from 1852, Marx compares the French Revolution of 1789 with that of 1848. Marx considered the French Revolution the classic example of the "bourgeois revolution," in which capitalism overthrew feudalism, creating the legal conditions under which capitalism could flourish

He knew the results of the revolution and APPROVED of it as the first stage. you know the stages in his own Manifesto. So he supported the violence AND was influenced by the french revolution. Most people with a brain, know that the french revolution was the first real begining of modern communism. You had people who OVERTHREW VIOLENTLY (espoused by Marx and repeated by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky). People who were ATheist (French Revolutionaries wanted a new calander and all kinds of crazy shit, and who else promotes atheisism and violence, the NEW left and that's just a start)


And when the NEW left likes to insult the middle class, guess what FRENCH word they use in a NEGATIVE way. Bougeosie...and that is a holdover from the.....FRENCH....REVOLUTION.

Sorry bro, but you have not answered one question. I keep asking you WHO Are the "rational" left? And how do their policies differ from the NEW left? All I get is attacks on mine.

IT took you that long to come up with that crap? Mister middle of the road (Man you are a left wing hack)
I have shown you that Marx's philosphy came from the French Revolution leaders who were nutjobs and the first communists. The guise of the REvolution was to overthrew the monarchy, yes, but they did and then the Reign of Terror began and that's the part that Marx loved, the violence and after monarchy was capitalism, or atleast what he predicted. ALL of the Committee of Public Safety leaders were commies, it's just the name wasnt really in use then.
Now you tell me the NEW left isnt Marxist, oh so you're one of those dumbasses that heard your college professor say the USSR wasnt communist, in fact communism hasnt been tried. Look son, you have answered shit in this thread, you havent defined the "Left" I cant wait to hear, so lets have it:

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have been dealing with a friend's whose grandson is dying, so fuck off about how long it took me to respond.

You have shown us only that Marx's philosophy interpreted the French revolutions in Marxist terms: duh, son, what else would Marx do! In fact, the issue was the monarchy, not the economy.

You have not tied Marx or the French revolutions to any of the nuttiness you are accusing your political enemies here of doing. That's the problem: you have made an assertion without any evidence.

Now you engage is the faulty premise of saying I have said something I have not said.

I SAID that you have not differentiated the New Left from the Old Left and the various groupings within it and they differ or not from the center.

Unlike you, I have been to college, earned two graduate degrees, and actually do remember my professors telling me the USSR was communist.

You must define the Left and go forward. Your premise, your burden, and you have failed so far.

You, buckeye, have not identified the far left, the left, the old left, or the new left. You have conflated the Left with the Dems and the Centrists, and that is not so, and you certainly have not proved anything of the sort.

You talk about Karl Marx. Yes, the bourgeois revolutions of the French in 1789 and 1848 were exactly that, not those of communists, you idiot. Capitalism was not overthrown, nor was it intended to be overthrown. The monarrchy, not the economic system, was the target each time. You can believe in Marxian rhetoric all you want, but the fact remains the Marx's philosophy is wrong. And you somehow silly try to tie it all to the 'New Left' with rhetoric but not reality.

Bro, you have to identify the Left in all of its configurations. It is not one heap anymore than the right is a heap.

You have to make an argument with facts, not rhetoric, and we go from there. You made the assertion, now try to prove it. You don't get to make an assertion then ask me to disprove it with facts. That is not how it works, son.

Sorry bro, but you have not answered one question. I keep asking you WHO Are the "rational" left? And how do their policies differ from the NEW left? All I get is attacks on mine.
Karl Marx: The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
The German philosopher and founder of international communism, Karl Marx (1818–83), wrote on many occasions about the French Revolution, which he considered the first stage in an eventual worldwide proletarian revolution. In this relatively early work from 1852, Marx compares the French Revolution of 1789 with that of 1848. Marx considered the French Revolution the classic example of the "bourgeois revolution," in which capitalism overthrew feudalism, creating the legal conditions under which capitalism could flourish

He knew the results of the revolution and APPROVED of it as the first stage. you know the stages in his own Manifesto. So he supported the violence AND was influenced by the french revolution. Most people with a brain, know that the french revolution was the first real begining of modern communism. You had people who OVERTHREW VIOLENTLY (espoused by Marx and repeated by Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky). People who were ATheist (French Revolutionaries wanted a new calander and all kinds of crazy shit, and who else promotes atheisism and violence, the NEW left and that's just a start)


And when the NEW left likes to insult the middle class, guess what FRENCH word they use in a NEGATIVE way. Bougeosie...and that is a holdover from the.....FRENCH....REVOLUTION.

Sorry bro, but you have not answered one question. I keep asking you WHO Are the "rational" left? And how do their policies differ from the NEW left? All I get is attacks on mine.

IT took you that long to come up with that crap? Mister middle of the road (Man you are a left wing hack)
I have shown you that Marx's philosphy came from the French Revolution leaders who were nutjobs and the first communists. The guise of the REvolution was to overthrew the monarchy, yes, but they did and then the Reign of Terror began and that's the part that Marx loved, the violence and after monarchy was capitalism, or atleast what he predicted. ALL of the Committee of Public Safety leaders were commies, it's just the name wasnt really in use then.
Now you tell me the NEW left isnt Marxist, oh so you're one of those dumbasses that heard your college professor say the USSR wasnt communist, in fact communism hasnt been tried. Look son, you have answered shit in this thread, you havent defined the "Left" I cant wait to hear, so lets have it:

 

[buckeye45_73]

I have been dealing with a friend's whose grandson is dying, so fuck off about how long it took me to respond.

You have shown us only that Marx's philosophy interpreted the French revolutions in Marxist terms: duh, son, what else would Marx do! In fact, the issue was the monarchy, not the economy.

You have not tied Marx or the French revolutions to any of the nuttiness you are accusing your political enemies here of doing. That's the problem: you have made an assertion without any evidence.

Now you engage is the faulty premise of saying I have said something I have not said.

I SAID that you have not differentiated the New Left from the Old Left and the various groupings within it and they differ or not from the center.

Unlike you, I have been to college, earned two graduate degrees, and actually do remember my professors telling me the USSR was communist.

You must define the Left and go forward. Your premise, your burden, and you have failed so far.

You, buckeye, have not identified the far left, the left, the old left, or the new left. You have conflated the Left with the Dems and the Centrists, and that is not so, and you certainly have not proved anything of the sort.

You talk about Karl Marx. Yes, the bourgeois revolutions of the French in 1789 and 1848 were exactly that, not those of communists, you idiot. Capitalism was not overthrown, nor was it intended to be overthrown. The monarrchy, not the economic system, was the target each time. You can believe in Marxian rhetoric all you want, but the fact remains the Marx's philosophy is wrong. And you somehow silly try to tie it all to the 'New Left' with rhetoric but not reality.

Bro, you have to identify the Left in all of its configurations. It is not one heap anymore than the right is a heap.

You have to make an argument with facts, not rhetoric, and we go from there. You made the assertion, now try to prove it. You don't get to make an assertion then ask me to disprove it with facts. That is not how it works, son.

IT took you that long to come up with that crap? Mister middle of the road (Man you are a left wing hack)
I have shown you that Marx's philosphy came from the French Revolution leaders who were nutjobs and the first communists. The guise of the REvolution was to overthrew the monarchy, yes, but they did and then the Reign of Terror began and that's the part that Marx loved, the violence and after monarchy was capitalism, or atleast what he predicted. ALL of the Committee of Public Safety leaders were commies, it's just the name wasnt really in use then.
Now you tell me the NEW left isnt Marxist, oh so you're one of those dumbasses that heard your college professor say the USSR wasnt communist, in fact communism hasnt been tried. Look son, you have answered shit in this thread, you havent defined the "Left" I cant wait to hear, so lets have it:

Oh I have to define the left, oh wizard of smart, why dont you do it since you keep saying I have it wrong. OMG two degrees, well you're so smart arent ya? If you are so smart, WHAT IS YOUR definition of the left, you said it has nothing to do with Marxism, which you and I know is bullshit. The left is built on Marxism.
And if all Marx did was "interpret" the French Revolution, why not the American Revolution, or did he?
Do you even know who was in the Reign of Terror and what they did? (And dont be a dumbass, give a real answer)
And I never said capitalism was overthrown or the target, that was Marxis' next target. You do realize monarchy was still around in Marx's time and that was the first enemy, the second was capitalism (hmmmmmm sounds alot like the values of the new left, anti-caplitalism with atheisism, which was big in ......Marxism and.......the French Revolution, how convient)
The fact is you're confusing the inital purpose of the Revolution with the actual events. IF it was just about the monarchy, then WHY did the really NASTY stuff happen AFTER the king was dead? Why did they want to redistribute the wealth of the aristocracy (sounds kinda commie to me) and why did they want God dead. Hell dude they changed the calander and days of the week to get away from Judeo-Christianity.
Sorry man, you picked on the one History grad that didnt come out a commuinist and I love to talk about the French Revolution......it's one of the most notorious examples of unitended consequences there are.

So again chief, define the "left" and I still havent gotten you definition or examples of the "rational" left, I cant wait to see these, if you have any.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Oh and Jake, I take the far right as a badge of honor, Hey even before you said that I put me in the Vary hard right on the poll from Boop. I'm honest and dont try to "pretend" to be a moderate. I love to flush out fake moderates all the time, it's kind of like a sport for me.

And yes I'm in the GOP and less kooky than a non Marxist left winger (non marxist, you really make me laugh)
but I have been in Republican politics for a bit, and was a page at the 96 Republican Convention, God I love San Diego, if it was in Arizona, I'd move there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

buckeye claims he is GOP and very hard right. He believes that he like, Santorum, is the heart of the GOP. No, he is not, not even close, not anywhere near mainstream America or mainstream GOP. A true conservative is compassionate, and he made no apology to me for jumping me for being "late" (really?) in reply, or inquire as to the dying child's fate.

You made a claim, lumped everybody you do not like as Left, New Left, extreme left (the terms kept changing) but never told us what (1) the New Left is, (2) why it is the New Left, and how it applies to the problem, which you do not bother to identify, other than everything wrong in America is attributable to the "New Left".

You then rant about the French revolutions of 1789 and 1848, uses Marxian rhetoric (which you clearly donot understand), and fail to link Marx to the causes of the revolutions and the those revolutions to our "New Left".

Then you demand I refute your unsupported assertion. I demand that you have differentiate the New Left from the Old Left and the various groupings within it and how the differ or not from the center.

You must define the Left and go forward. Your premise, your burden, and you have failed so far.

 

[Douger]

He's a biker without a Harley.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

The question in of itself is ignorant idiocy.

 

[Peach]

Not necessarily. It's feasible for somebody who to be a committed marxist without saying "I, me, my, mine" incessantly.

But if the Marxist sees himself as the annointed one, the one to lead the people to the promised land, a Marxist utopia, he has to set himself up as that 'father figure' or the "messiah' that the people will trust and adore/worship and follow. Marxism requires gradually taking more and more power into the government until the governent holds it all. And Obama has already demonstrated in aces that he sees himself as the government and not Congress or the Supreme Court or anybody else.

On the illegal alien thread, we are hashing his recent executive order countermanding a law of the land and making a new law. There is something really ominous about a President who presumes to assume that kind of power. One who knows that he controls the government and the media so that he can get away with it.

I think only a narcissist would believe he could pull it off.

You defined fascist dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo well.

 

[Peach]

I'm going to go with "Obama is a Narcissist".

I'll choose REALITY, well intentioned, hard working, intelligent, but perhaps IN OVER HIS HEAD.

 

[Sallow]

One final thought, conservatives are not fascists nor socialists for the simple reason they abhor state control and ability of state to expropriate at will. The conservative movement is the anthesis to fascism. Part of the problem people have in understanding the differences is due to the media and political rhetoric of the left. Their sole purpose behind the use of fascist to describe conservatives....is to scare people, like the pan handler that yells fuck you when you pass without contributing to his fund.

Oh bullshit.

Fascism is far right doctrine. As is Oligarchy, Theocracy, Monarchy, Aristocracy and most Military dictatorships.

Saudi Arabia is a fine example of far right ideology. It's dynastic rule overseen by religious doctrine.

 

[Peach]

One final thought, conservatives are not fascists nor socialists for the simple reason they abhor state control and ability of state to expropriate at will. The conservative movement is the anthesis to fascism. Part of the problem people have in understanding the differences is due to the media and political rhetoric of the left. Their sole purpose behind the use of fascist to describe conservatives....is to scare people, like the pan handler that yells fuck you when you pass without contributing to his fund.

Oh bullshit.

Fascism is far right doctrine. As is Oligarchy, Theocracy, Monarchy, Aristocracy and most Military dictatorships.

Saudi Arabia is a fine example of far right ideology. It's dynastic rule overseen by religious doctrine.

Yes, but being able to type three syllable words is an accomplishment for some here.

 

[Ernie S.]

He's a biker without a Harley.

We call them posers. It kind of fits. He's got the black tee-shirts, leather jacket, maybe a pair of chaps and keeps his wallet on a chain. He's all for show without a clue of how to do the job.

 

[Ernie S.]

Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

The question in of itself is ignorant idiocy.

Typical Lib. You have no answer, nothing to add, so it's the question's fault. Careful Mr. Jones. Your assholeness is showing.

 

[Ernie S.]

Not necessarily. It's feasible for somebody who to be a committed marxist without saying "I, me, my, mine" incessantly.

But if the Marxist sees himself as the annointed one, the one to lead the people to the promised land, a Marxist utopia, he has to set himself up as that 'father figure' or the "messiah' that the people will trust and adore/worship and follow. Marxism requires gradually taking more and more power into the government until the governent holds it all. And Obama has already demonstrated in aces that he sees himself as the government and not Congress or the Supreme Court or anybody else.

On the illegal alien thread, we are hashing his recent executive order countermanding a law of the land and making a new law. There is something really ominous about a President who presumes to assume that kind of power. One who knows that he controls the government and the media so that he can get away with it.

I think only a narcissist would believe he could pull it off.

You defined fascist dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo well.

She did! And in what ways would obama not fit the description?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is obama a socilist, or a fascist?

The question in of itself is ignorant idiocy.

Typical Lib. You have no answer, nothing to add, so it's the question's fault. Careful Mr. Jones. Your assholeness is showing.

Here you go, Ernie, I corrected your statement for accuracy. "Careful Mr. Jones. My assholeness is showing."

 

[Ernie S.]

I'm going to go with "Obama is a Narcissist".

I'll choose REALITY, well intentioned, hard working, intelligent, but perhaps IN OVER HIS HEAD.

I'll allow he may be hard working, relatively intelligent and in over his head, but his intention is to "Fundamentally transform America" into something it never was intended to be.
Perhaps you would like to see him emulate Hugo Chavez, but I'll pass.

 

[Ernie S.]

The question in of itself is ignorant idiocy.

Typical Lib. You have no answer, nothing to add, so it's the question's fault. Careful Mr. Jones. Your assholeness is showing.

Here you go, Ernie, I corrected your statement for accuracy. "Careful Mr. Jones. My assholeness is showing."

Let me get this straight... Jones refuses to read a column, much less comment on it, resorts to calling the question idiotic and YOU support HIM and I'M the asshole? Fuck off, Jake

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's get you straight, Ernie. You want to call names but not get them in return.

Fuck off. You will get your ass kicked every time you do it and whine.

Typical Lib. You have no answer, nothing to add, so it's the question's fault. Careful Mr. Jones. Your assholeness is showing.

Here you go, Ernie, I corrected your statement for accuracy. "Careful Mr. Jones. My assholeness is showing."

Let me get this straight... Jones refuses to read a column, much less comment on it, resorts to calling the question idiotic and YOU support HIM and I'M the asshole? Fuck off, Jake

 

[Ernie S.]

Is Mr Jones incapable of speaking in his own defense?