Obama as a Marxist

[Meister]

There are degrees to socialism....Bush was a big spender, social on some, and conservatice on others. Obama is going to take us a lot further into socialism that Bush ever did. Remember, Obama just got into his office, and with the likes of Pelosi, and Reid...

No there's aren't.

Socialism has a MEANING.

Obama might be fifty kinds of fool, he may be all sort of things you disapprove of but until he nationalizes this nations MEANS OF PRODUCTION he is no more a socialist than you are.

Jesus christ on a crutch go get a fucking education.

What the hell are you talking about?? Right now we have social security, we have medicare, welfare....which is socialiism...that is socialism...but right now we aren't a socialized nation. That's what I mean about degrees of socialism. If he takes us more and more in the direction of nationalizing, like healthcare, or energy, financing, expanding welfare...that is more and more socialism. He wants this along with redistribution of wealth in America. This is from HIS own mouth. Then you have the full blown socialists like Nancy pelosi, and Harry Reid..that is a recipe for socialism. You may like it, but I assure you most Americans won't like it. Give him, and the House, and Senate a chance. They will move a lot closer. Perhaps, if their are some changes in the next election in 2010 that will hinder what he proposes. This stimulus bill has a lot of social overtones to it. Socialism isn't done over night, it chips away a little at a time, Edit. That's how it was done in France, and all over Europe. I assure you....I'm no socialist..don't call me one. But we do have some socialism in our country right now.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Notice friends how the cries that arguments have failed and the challenges to specify the failed arguments; along with the fallacious assertions of anti-intellectualism and the challenges for support of such have gone unanswered?

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why this is?

I'm gonna go with: "They didn't respond because to respond would put an end to the doubt that they're unable to do so..."

With regard to the idiocy advocating that 'President Hussein can't be a Marxist because he hasn't come to demand that all assets formerly subject to private ownership be forfeited to the State...; this position is absurd on it's face. It demands that a Marxist, or... 'one that advocates for the elements common to and inherent in Marxism' must declare their desire for unfettered state control or they somehow miss the Marxist cutoff fails to recognize that such an individual has absolutely no potential to gain power... Absent power, there is no means to set their Marxist theories to practice, thus such is a fairy tale.

The argument being advanced by Toro, et al is analogical to someone who modifies a car for certain non-traditional or 'beyond stock' roles.

For instance, I own a 1996 Chevy Z28 Camaro. I bought it for practically nothin' when it had +/- 150,000 miles. I like to race and as is the racers wont I have made the usual modifications , typical of guys and gals who like to race, which are commonly referred to as 'bolt-ons'... I rebuilt the engine, leaving the internal components in their stock configurations, but with better than new tolerances and I made some changes top side which give the engine more power and so. Now Toro and her pedantic comrades argue that because of these modifications, the car is no longer a '96 Z... 'Z 28s have a long and distinct set of criteria and specifications; the specifications alter the criteria and thus the car is no longer a Z28 Camaro.' Which is absurd...

Marxism is like everything else on earth, it begins as a theory and 'morphs' into what it becomes in practice... what 'that' turns out to BE is DEPENDENT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE RELEVENT TO THAT EXERCISE... or "Experiment."

The Left loves to fantasize over the various manifestations of their ethereal economic theories... when in practice every OUNCE of their 'essence' born from their poli-sci masturbation is useless... They're the unwavering advocates of Social Science...

Such "Science" came to popularity in the late 19th century and became the secular-religion of what became the ideological left… at the turn of the 20th Century... The Social Sciences rested as the foundation of the Progressive (Fascism) Movement and remains such... And it’s that in which the bulk of the western world is presently mired.

The purpose of Social Science is wholly anti-intellectual... Social Science is the study of subjective minutia... it's become VERY popular, because for all intents and purposes, it can be anything to anyone; there are no 'wrong answers' as long as the answers rest within accepted convention... and they're handing out DEGREES in these "disciplines" by the tens of thousands every year. And who hires these idiots? Take a guess... (starts with GOVERMENT&#8230 they are best suited to bureaucracies which are now LOADED with these idiots... They're the lowest common intellectual denominator.

Compare the “Scientists of Economy and Psychology,” for instance, to say… a meteorologist... Now this ‘scientists, the lowly weatherman, can tell you with a better than 50% probability of accuracy what the weather is going to be like over the next 5 days... The economic, psychological scientist can only DREAM of ever being able to rest their expert opinions beyond such lofty odds. Meaning that a 50% accuracy is the best that be can hoped for the estimates projected by these 'social scientists' ; their 'experts' whose professional opinion has roughly the same accuracy as the flip of a coin.

Anywho... They're the idiots who tells us what is good for us; they love to tell us what we can and cannot do; they're the morons that sit on the School boards, the city councils, they're the state representatives; they're the your bureaucrats and the legislators...

Their 'Science' is the equivalent of the 'Arts' and they are where you'll find your 'better indoctrinated' (read: educated) communists...

They love to spout opinions but they're rarely found supporting those opinions with anything approaching well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid arguments... they love to tell you how it is... they just aren't well equipped to tell you why it is.

As that is something that this thread has once again CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN!

In closing, let me just add that using the same reasoning which they've advanced in this 'discussion' they would be hard pressed to define Maxine Water- Dem. CA. as a Marxist... and no... they would be unable to square that assessment with her recent declaration of her intent socialize the US means of production: “And guess what this member (US FEDERAL LEGISLATOR) would be all about? This member would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several seconds] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies..."

Now THAT friends is a member of the United States Congress declaring her desire and intent to socialize; to nationalize; to take OVER the means of production of US industry... and that is not a statement she made to socialist constituents, where one could rationalize such as a political posture taken to appease a polarized segment of her constituency... NO no... SHE MADE THAT STATEMENT WHILE SITTING IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A US CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, A STATEMENT MADE WHILE SHE WAS SITTING IN THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; A STATEMENT MADE IN FULL VIEW OF ATHE PUBLIC AND WHILE SHE SAT OVER AN OFFICIAL HEARING REGARING PUBLIC POLICY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES... THAT IS AN OVERT, UMABIGUOUS OFFICIAL PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM A US LEGISLATOR; one of President Hussein's most ardent supporters; she is cut from the same ideological cloth as President Hussein.

The distinction being that President Hussein is not as open in his desire to do the same damn thing, preferring to work more stealthily in his implementation of policy which advances policy aligned with the tenets of Marxism; this evidenced by President Hussein's initiatives limiting what the private ownership of US production can and cannot do in terms of the product which the INDIVIDUAL CAN REALIZE AS THE RESULT OF THEIR OWN LABOR. A fundamental principle on which our inalienable human rights rest. I defy anyone on this board or anyone that those on this board can influence, to find for me a position advanced by President Hussein which can be argued to be in alignment with, let alone directly speaks to the divine endowment of inalienable human rights and their inherent responsibilities and to correlate what they may advance as such to specific policy initiatives of President Hussein.

I’ve read neither of his books, but I’ve listened to and read the transcripts of his stump speeches… not a single mention of such can be found; with the exception being in his inauguration address… where a passing mention of “…the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness” is present. A speech he gave only a week or so before he proclaimed that those who own the means of national production should be limited in the pursuit of the full measure of their happiness, through the federal mandate limiting the value of the product of their labor.

President Hussein talks a good game, and it is his rhetoric which the oppositions desires to advance as evidence discrediting the assertion that he is a Marxist; but he is nonetheless a Marxist; 'one that advocates for the elements common to and inherent in Marxism'... That he veils his advocacy of Socialism and that his overt public posture does not meet the subjective criteria of these socialists, the Advocates of Social Science... is as understandable, as it is irrelevant.

 

[Toro]

So is anyone actually going to read PI's post apart from maybe Agna?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

How about every nation in Europe for starters?

The point some of us try to make to those who are poliSCi-clueless, is that words like Socialism and Marxism have very SPECIFIC meanings.

It's not what people like PU like, or don't like, it means something very specific.

Now the general consensus of the politically unasture is that socialism means government welfare or something (anything, actually) they don't personally approve of.

It doesn't.

So if we allow the terminal dense to destroy the language, we allow them to make it impossible to have any kind of intelligent conversation about these subjects.

And I suspect, that in some cases, that is really their agenda.

Socialism works in nations with limited populations, nations with large populations such as the US 305 million people (new census estimate) fail under socialism.

The USSR is a fantastic example..

Large socialist nations and only one class and thats the dirt poor!

Maybe some liberals need to talk to some russians who defected to the US to find out exactly how awful socialism is...

Not to mention socialism inevitably leads to communism.

I agree.

Classic Moderate response... which is usually followed with a soft advocacy and or defense of socialism, despite the implication which seemed to reject it there for a second...

Socialism isn't a good model for government.
Neither is the model we currently have which isn't socialism.

ROFL... PERFECT! Note here where it's a CLASSIC soft rejection of socialism, with the ever present rejection of individual liberty. Now I say 'liberty' because I've read hundreds of posts from this imbecile and while she feigns a moderate stance, when the rubber of truth hits the road reality, she will not find that the problems in "the model we currently have" are associated with the 'socialist facets of our mixed economy.' The problems she inevitably finds are associated with individual liberty; of which, the resolution she invetibably brings, requires such be infringed or thoroughly usurped by greater government power. Inevitably this has to do with the restricting the means of the private ownership of production through, the afrementioned government power; and always under the red-herring declaring that such defends the collective rights of "THE PEOPLE..."

Let's see how this one works out...

What's your point?

That Obama is a socialist?

Well then, what was Bush?

They running the same government, dude.

LMNAO... Oh GOD that's precious... in effect this is yet another ad populum fallacy, wherein the imbecile advances the oft advanced and seldom admired: "If my guys a Socialist, SO IS YOURS" defense..." Hysterical! Particularly given the recent admonition wherein she implied the status of "intellectual" upon herself; an implication which forced the inference that it is in the heady altitude of intellectualism where an understanding of the subtle nuance of Political Science can be realized; where distinctions without a difference make it very hard for the lay-person to comprehend the aberrant facets on which the relevant stark inequities rests...

Of course, that President Hussein is a Marxist, would in no way correlate to GW's fascism... She can't speak to the issues specifically so she hopes to distract from the discussion by projecting an implication of a 'lock-step adherence' to President Bush and his Presidency... upon her opposition, point to the similarities of the economic policies of the last days of the Bush Administration and the adherence to the same policies by President Hussein and his regime.

In effect her position can be accurately translated to represent: 'I know you liked Bush; I know you don't believe Bush is a socialist; and he initiated the same economic policy as that which President Hussein is advocating, so President Hussein can't be a socialist...'

Wake the fuck up and smell the MULTIPLE bailouts.

There's just no way to know what this is suppose to mean... it appears to be a typical attempt to imply an inherent veracity to the center, on the premise that both she's recognizing that both extremes are engaged in the same thing... which of course would, as usual, be an unsound conclusion, given that there is nothing remotely right wing about the bail out. PERIOD. It's a leftist farce in it's entirety.

 

[Sinatra]

Notice friends how the cries that arguments have failed and the challenges to specify the failed arguments; along with the fallacious assertions of anti-intellectualism and the challenges for support of such have gone unanswered?

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why this is?

I'm gonna go with: "They didn't respond because to respond would put an end to the doubt that they're unable to do so..."

With regard to the idiocy advocating that 'President Hussein can't be a Marxist because he hasn't come to demand that all assets formerly subject to private ownership be forfeited to the State...; this position is absurd on it's face. It demands that a Marxist, or... 'one that advocates for the elements common to and inherent in Marxism' must declare their desire for unfettered state control or they somehow miss the Marxist cutoff fails to recognize that such an individual has absolutely no potential to gain power... Absent power, there is no means to set their Marxist theories to practice, thus such is a fairy tale.

The argument being advanced by Toro, et al is analogical to someone who modifies a car for certain non-traditional or 'beyond stock' roles.

For instance, I own a 1996 Chevy Z28 Camaro. I bought it for practically nothin' when it had +/- 150,000 miles. I like to race and as is the racers wont I have made the usual modifications , typical of guys and gals who like to race, which are commonly referred to as 'bolt-ons'... I rebuilt the engine, leaving the internal components in their stock configurations, but with better than new tolerances and I made some changes top side which give the engine more power and so. Now Toro and her pedantic comrades argue that because of these modifications, the car is no longer a '96 Z... 'Z 28s have a long and distinct set of criteria and specifications; the specifications alter the criteria and thus the car is no longer a Z28 Camaro.' Which is absurd...

Marxism is like everything else on earth, it begins as a theory and 'morphs' into what it becomes in practice... what 'that' turns out to BE is DEPENDENT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE RELEVENT TO THAT EXERCISE... or "Experiment."

The Left loves to fantasize over the various manifestations of their ethereal economic theories... when in practice every OUNCE of their 'essence' born from their poli-sci masturbation is useless... They're the unwavering advocates of Social Science...

Such "Science" came to popularity in the late 19th century and became the secular-religion of what became the ideological left… at the turn of the 20th Century... The Social Sciences rested as the foundation of the Progressive (Fascism) Movement and remains such... And it’s that in which the bulk of the western world is presently mired.

The purpose of Social Science is wholly anti-intellectual... Social Science is the study of subjective minutia... it's become VERY popular, because for all intents and purposes, it can be anything to anyone; there are no 'wrong answers' as long as the answers rest within accepted convention... and they're handing out DEGREES in these "disciplines" by the tens of thousands every year. And who hires these idiots? Take a guess... (starts with GOVERMENT…) they are best suited to bureaucracies which are now LOADED with these idiots... They're the lowest common intellectual denominator.

Compare the “Scientists of Economy and Psychology,” for instance, to say… a meteorologist... Now this ‘scientists, the lowly weatherman, can tell you with a better than 50% probability of accuracy what the weather is going to be like over the next 5 days... The economic, psychological scientist can only DREAM of ever being able to rest their expert opinions beyond such lofty odds. Meaning that a 50% accuracy is the best that be can hoped for the estimates projected by these 'social scientists' ; their 'experts' whose professional opinion has roughly the same accuracy as the flip of a coin.

Anywho... They're the idiots who tells us what is good for us; they love to tell us what we can and cannot do; they're the morons that sit on the School boards, the city councils, they're the state representatives; they're the your bureaucrats and the legislators...

Their 'Science' is the equivalent of the 'Arts' and they are where you'll find your 'better indoctrinated' (read: educated) communists...

They love to spout opinions but they're rarely found supporting those opinions with anything approaching well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid arguments... they love to tell you how it is... they just aren't well equipped to tell you why it is.

As that is something that this thread has once again CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN!

In closing, let me just add that using the same reasoning which they've advanced in this 'discussion' they would be hard pressed to define Maxine Water- Dem. CA. as a Marxist... and no... they would be unable to square that assessment with her recent declaration of her intent socialize the US means of production: “And guess what this member (US FEDERAL LEGISLATOR) would be all about? This member would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several seconds] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies..."

Now THAT friends is a member of the United States Congress declaring her desire and intent to socialize; to nationalize; to take OVER the means of production of US industry... and that is not a statement she made to socialist constituents, where one could rationalize such as a political posture taken to appease a polarized segment of her constituency... NO no... SHE MADE THAT STATEMENT WHILE SITTING IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A US CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, A STATEMENT MADE WHILE SHE WAS SITTING IN THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; A STATEMENT MADE IN FULL VIEW OF ATHE PUBLIC AND WHILE SHE SAT OVER AN OFFICIAL HEARING REGARING PUBLIC POLICY IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES... THAT IS AN OVERT, UMABIGUOUS OFFICIAL PUBLIC STATEMENT FROM A US LEGISLATOR; one of President Hussein's most ardent supporters; she is cut from the same ideological cloth as President Hussein.

The distinction being that President Hussein is not as open in his desire to do the same damn thing, preferring to work more stealthily in his implementation of policy which advances policy aligned with the tenets of Marxism; this evidenced by President Hussein's initiatives limiting what the private ownership of US production can and cannot do in terms of the product which the INDIVIDUAL CAN REALIZE AS THE RESULT OF THEIR OWN LABOR. A fundamental principle on which our inalienable human rights rest. I defy anyone on this board or anyone that those on this board can influence, to find for me a position advanced by President Hussein which can be argued to be in alignment with, let alone directly speaks to the divine endowment of inalienable human rights and their inherent responsibilities and to correlate what they may advance as such to specific policy initiatives of President Hussein.

I’ve read neither of his books, but I’ve listened to and read the transcripts of his stump speeches… not a single mention of such can be found; with the exception being in his inauguration address… where a passing mention of “…the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness” is present. A speech he gave only a week or so before he proclaimed that those who own the means of national production should be limited in the pursuit of the full measure of their happiness, through the federal mandate limiting the value of the product of their labor.

President Hussein talks a good game, and it is his rhetoric which the oppositions desires to advance as evidence discrediting the assertion that he is a Marxist; but he is nonetheless a Marxist; one who pursues the implementation of the inherent ‘principles’ advanced in Marxism... That he veils his advocacy of Socialism and that his overt public posture does not meet the subjective criteria of these socialists, the Advocates of Social Science... is as understandable, as it is irrelevant.

_____________________________

You know, while I am not quite ready to fully accept your links with Obama and Marxism, you show a more than passing understanding of Marxist theology (my term) which places you far ahead of the curve of most regarding this subject.

And when combined with Obama's working-class friendly rhetoric, there is certainly distinct similarities - though I continue to place Obama in the category of "soft-socialist", a category the majority of his fellow Democrats inhabit, though some like Waters, and Pelosi, appear more inclined to reveal outright Socialist tendancies. Current examples of soft-socialism would be France, and to a somewhat lesser degree, Great Britain. A more aggressive version of Socialism would be Cuba.

Those who know there history should note that perhaps the most infamous of a quasi- Socialist state was Nazi Germany. While private industries were allowed to continue under Hitler's reign, those industries were required to bend completely to the will of the State. There appears to be mounting evidence the United States is creeping just a bit faster in that direction now. (As opposed to the Soviet Union example where all industry was owned by the State - a more outright version of Socialism) I would also add, that he politically correct dogma that now pervades our very existence in this country fits quite nicley into outright socialist thought, wherein the State has control over the arena of thought and expression.

As to Obama specifically, he has a number of times shared his belief in increasing the tax burden upon the American "wealthy" to give to the "poor". Such a philosophy clearly has its roots in the re-distributative tenants of Socialism. The State comes in, takes your money, and gives it to others. If you refuse, you are breaking the law and will be punished. That is socialism in its purest sense. Of course, we have been doing some form of that in this country for quite a while now, so at some level, is the United States not already socialist in nature?

Answer - Yes. The debate then resides in the degrees of separation between socialist inclinations, soft-socialism, and outright socialism.

Obama, it would appear, would like American to veer in the direction of soft socialism, and there is a litany of historical Obama references to support that declaration. Here are but a handful...

-Obama gave a strong endorsement of Bernie Sanders, the only openly socialist member of the United States Senate.

-Obama spoke at the funeral of American Socialist leader Saul Mendelson, where Obama lauded Menedelson for having always held strong to his belief in democratic socialism.

-Obama repeatedly utilizes the term "economic justice". He has yet to be asked specifically what that term means, but it could just as easily been voiced by any number of historical socialist leaders.

-His now infamous "spread the wealth" remark. I no of no other candidate in recent American political history who would have been given such a pass on that one remark. It appeared to show a rare unscripted look into Obama's core philosophy, one that is clearly sympathetic to the core principles of socialism.


So is Obama an outright socialist/Marxist/Statist..etc.?

Perhaps, but if he is, he is still playing it close enough to the vest to keep such tags well hidden beneath a shiny and slick veneer of charisma and speeches that while talking much, consistently say little.


This much is known, if Obama fails to continue successfully selling his image to the American people, that veneer will fade mighty fast, and his political star will fall at a speed and impact not seen since Nixon gave his victory salute while exiting stage right from the White House...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So is anyone actually going to read PI's post apart from maybe Agna?

Yet another would-be 'intellectual' heard from... Of course recognizing that as such, does necessarily require that one accept the implied definition, which revises the actual definition of 'intellectual.'

In keeping with left-think tradition, they've not defined their implication of what they 'feel' intellectual means, preferring instead to remain as vague as possible, presumably to keep their 'intellectual options' open; but the evidence presented thus far tends to indicate that they want to interpret 'intellectual to represent the accepting the leftist position as that which rests upon hard science and which enjoys the consensus of the majority.

Which is frankly the antithesis of intellectual and stands as the working definition of a demagogue.

Let's look to an well respected resource with regard to the actual underlying concepts of both...

in·tel·lec·tu·al [ìnt'l ékchoo əl]
adj
1. relating to thought process: relating to or involving the mental processes of abstract thinking and reasoning rather than the emotions
2. intelligent and knowledgeable: having a highly developed ability to think, reason, and understand, especially in combination with wide knowledge
3. for intelligent people: intended for, appealing to, or done by intelligent people
intellectual pursuits



n (plural in·tel·lec·tu·als)
intelligent person: somebody with a highly developed ability to reason and understand, especially if also well educated and interested in the arts or sciences or enjoying activities involving serious mental effort


[15th century. Via French < late Latin intellectualis < Latin intellectus (see intellect)]



dem·a·gogue [démm&#601; gòg]
or dem·a·gog [démm&#601; gòg]
n (plural dem·a·gogues) (plural dem·a·gogs)
1. emotive dictator: a political leader who gains power by appealing to people's emotions, instincts, and prejudices in a way that is considered manipulative and dangerous

2. to engage in demagoguery: to act like a demagogue in gaining power by appealing to people's emotions and prejudices

3. elicit emotive bias on issues: to elicit people's emotional and prejudicial biases on an issue

[Mid-17th century. < Greek d&#275;mag&#333;gos "leader of the people" < ag&#333;gos "leader" < agein "lead"]


Golly...

Now I wonder... Of the two concepts... which would the above 'appeal for the observer not to hear the argument of the opposition' represent?

The concept which speaks to the 'intelligent person: somebody with a highly developed ability to reason and understand, ... enjoying activities involving serious mental effort' OR... the concept which rejects serious mental effort, opting to 'elicit emotive bias on issues: to elicit people's emotional and prejudicial biases on an issue?'

ROFLMNAO... Leftists...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect as at 3:40 Pm on this date, February 14th, 2009: the imbecile Ag-whatshername sat impotently staring at her screen... as she read this very thread and while she was unable to muster the intellectual means to post a response to the challeges which have been directly and unambiguously set to her... she was able to offer this flaccid little negative-rep to the post where I pointed out her indisputable default concession: "Moronic, even for you."

One presumes that this will be the best we're gonna get in the way of argument she presents as the basis for her now long since discredited assertion that some argument of mine has failed on this thread.

ROFLMNAO...

Now do not make the mistake of thinking that this imbecile is just a poor example of a leftists and that most leftists are much more capable of supporting their assertions... because that's simply not true... if the Lord of the Idiots, the secular high-holy himself: President Hussein were to enter this board... he'd be every BIT as incapable of supporting his ideological 'feelings' as this dumbass. Ag is actually pretty bright for a leftist.

 

[Meister]

Let the record reflect as at 3:40 Pm on this date, February 14th, 2009: the imbecile Ag-whatshername sat impotently staring at her screen... as she read this very thread and while she was unable to muster the intellectual means to post a response to the challeges which have been directly and unambiguously set to her... she was able to offer this flaccid little negative-rep to the post where I pointed out her indisputable default concession: "Moronic, even for you."

One presumes that this will be the best we're gonna get in the way of argument she presents as the basis for her now long since discredited assertion that some argument of mine has failed on this thread.

ROFLMNAO...

Now do not make the mistake of thinking that this imbecile is just a poor example of a leftists and that most leftists are much more capable of supporting their assertions... because that's simply not true... if the Lord of the Idiots, the secular high-holy himself: President Hussein were to enter this board... he'd be every BIT as incapable of supporting his ideological 'feelings' as this dumbass. Ag is actually pretty bright for a leftist.

Duly noted, and will be reflected in the minutes.

 

[Toro]

Let the record reflect as at 3:40 Pm on this date, February 14th, 2009: the imbecile Ag-whatshername sat impotently staring at her screen... as she read this very thread and while she was unable to muster the intellectual means to post a response to the blah, blah, blah...

You remind me of this guy, the guy in black

[youtube]2eMkth8FWno[/youtube]

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Let the record reflect as at 3:40 Pm on this date, February 14th, 2009: the imbecile Ag-whatshername sat impotently staring at her screen... as she read this very thread and while she was unable to muster the intellectual means to post a response to the blah, blah, blah...

You remind me of this guy, the guy in black

[youtube]2eMkth8FWno[/youtube]

LOL... that's hilarious... (The MP skit...) you remind me of the THIS guy, the guy in the beach pales...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Once again, we find the left coming up woefully short; opting instead to sit impotently weeping and gnashing their rhetorical teeth...

Let the record reflect that the Left has realized yet another:

EPIC FAIL!

 

[Paulie]

Someone did reply. And made her point swimmingly.

No, she didn't. Her point was irrelevant and off-topic. But since you're the economics expert, here's your question about Marxian economics: When it comes to two specific forms of crisis, underconsumption crisis and profit squeeze crisis, which occurs when the capitalist class is too strong and which occurs when they are too weak?

Marx figured that production factors could led to crises, not consumption. Underconsumption would be attributed to underproduction. I'm not an expert on Marx by any means, but I'd think that underconsumption crisis occurs when the capitalist class is too weak.

And you'll never see me refer to Obama as a Marxist. Number one, I don't care enough to make that parallel, and number two, he's just NOT. He's a mixed economy stooge just like all other stooges that have been president. Big business shapes US politics, and big business has nothing to gain from Marxism. No real Marxist would ever get to be president in this country.

 

[Agnapostate]

I'm not an expert on Marx by any means, but I'd think that underconsumption crisis occurs when the capitalist class is too weak.

I'm afraid not. An underconsumption crisis traditionally occurs when the capitalist class is too strong, and a profit squeeze crisis when they're too weak. Moreover, this analysis remains critical today. As Jonathan Goldstein notes, "The continued relevance of the Marxian approach stems from its focus on class/social relations including competitive relations. The impending economics crisis is a crisis of social relations. It is the direct result of the irrationalities of a capitalist system of production and distribution based on conflictual class relations. In such a system, crises evolve either when the capitalist class is too strong (UC crisis) or too weak (PS crisis)."

In my opinion, there are two varieties of anti-socialists on this forum. There are those that are somewhat informed, such as Paul and Toro, though even they inappropriately refer to the Soviet Union as "socialist" and don't take into account the adverse selection and moral hazard problems caused by asymmetric information, and then there's people like Pubertus and AllieBabble, who are flagrantly ignorant of political economy and endeavor to exhibit that at every opportunity.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Someone did reply. And made her point swimmingly.

No, she didn't. Her point was irrelevant and off-topic. But since you're the economics expert, here's your question about Marxian economics: When it comes to two specific forms of crisis, underconsumption crisis and profit squeeze crisis, which occurs when the capitalist class is too strong and which occurs when they are too weak?

Marx figured that production factors could led to crises, not consumption. Underconsumption would be attributed to underproduction. I'm not an expert on Marx by any means, but I'd think that underconsumption crisis occurs when the capitalist class is too weak.

And you'll never see me refer to Obama as a Marxist. Number one, I don't care enough to make that parallel, and number two, he's just NOT. He's a mixed economy stooge just like all other stooges that have been president. Big business shapes US politics, and big business has nothing to gain from Marxism. No real Marxist would ever get to be president in this country.

Well it's true that President Hussein is advocating for and advancing policy which manifestly exemplifies fascism (mixed economics of socialism and capitalism) but you'll notice that NOWHERE in his rhetoric or his policy initiatives is he or has he advocated for greater economic freedom (capitalism). ALL... and that means to represent 100% of his rhetoric and policy initiatives have advocated for and served to lesser economic freedom, thus greater levels of government intervention in the means of the individual to produce.

Now, it should be noted that the opposition, in particular Ag-whatsername was asked to define Marxism and each and every element of Marxism which she advanced as Marxist is present in SPADES in the rhetoric and policy initiatives of President Hussein.

 

[Agnapostate]

That's not true. You're simply completely ignorant of Marxian economics, which accounted for your failure to summarize crisis theory, for instance.

 

[Toro]

That's not true. You're simply completely ignorant of Marxian economics, which accounted for your failure to summarize crisis theory, for instance.

Hey, don't worry about it. PI is also ignorant of basic economics, or simply reading an economics graph, like when he/she tried to tell me that a graph I posted from the St Louis Fed on consumption was really production.

That was pretty funny.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's not true. You're simply completely ignorant of Marxian economics, which accounted for your failure to summarize crisis theory, for instance.

ROFLMNAO... What's not true Clueless?

What accounted for my not discussing irrelevant minutia, was your EPIC FAILURE which was determined through your failure to respond; a failure to respond during periods where there is indisputable evidence that you were in the thread... all serving as incontestable indicators of your having fled the field; conceding the debate to your opposition...

(Howdy!)

Now, it's been a several days... but if you'd like to go back into the record, pull the direct and unbambiguous challenges which have been set to you and advance a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid response... then I will entertain your attempt to change the subject.

 

[Agnapostate]

Don't be an idiot; you're utterly ignorant of Marxian political economy, as has now been extensively documented. Even Toro, himself an anti-socialist, notes that you're ignorant not simply of Marxian political economy, but of political economy in general.

 

[Toro]

PI thinks I'm a socialist.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's not true. You're simply completely ignorant of Marxian economics, which accounted for your failure to summarize crisis theory, for instance.

Hey, don't worry about it. PI is also ignorant of basic economics, or simply reading an economics graph, like when he/she tried to tell me that a graph I posted from the St Louis Fed on consumption was really production.

That was pretty funny.

What a lovely fantasy, douche-bag... ever try reality? I find that fiction isn't a very effective tactic in text debate... Ya see the coolest thing about text message boards is THE RECORD... this is because leftists LOVE to strip the arguments advanced by their opposition of context and advance such in vulgar red-herrings; not at ALL unlike that cute little crimson herring you've advanced here. That the record is in writing, it is impossible to successfully distort context; particularly where the opposition advances a direct and unambiguous challenge... such as:

Toro... you've stated that I confused consumption with production in interpreting Data you advanced via a Graph... I am stating flat out that this never happened and hereby challenge you to support this deception, or retract it... and of course you're failure to support it will constitute your default concession that your assertion is a lie of the damnable variety; confirming you Douche-Bag status...

Best of luck and yes... should you work up the courage to source the post from the relevant discussion, I will shove it up your rhetorical ass, proving your desperate, but erroneous inference to be complete Bullshit.

Best of luck...