Don't think of your party (if applicable).

[francoHFW]

OP- I couldn;t care less about your brainwashed, ignorant, no doubt bigotted ''opinion''. Everything you know O-Care is bs- the Pub health care reform plan is not communist or dictatorship. Change the channel and read something not bought off by lying, greedy, idiot, billionnaire pub swine...

 

[RKMBrown]

He made the case that Bush was communistic based upon Obama's same policies in this very thread. And he supports Obama. Why are you and Two Thumbs giving this guy a pass? Did words suddenly lose all meaning?

Read for content;

You said "Says the lying degenerate communist."

Three contentions;

1. Liar
2. Degenerate
3. Communist

I said "Oh, Derideo isn't a Communist."

The implication being that he IS a liar and a degenerate.

Now my purpose was to be humorous; I saw an opportunity for a witty jab at Derideo and took it.

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

So, an implication lies in the opposite of whatever you say? Good to know. No surprise that the idiot Derideo thanked your post.

Seriously man; I've generally liked you. But, I generally like Derideo as well...

I usually agree with you - I NEVER agree with Derideo..

Such is life on a message board!

I thanked Uncensored because he has a sense of humor. Yes, I can at myself too. There is more to life than just being "right" in a thread. We might never agree on anything but I seriously doubt that. I have found myself standing shoulder to shoulder in one thread with posters who I was at odds with in another. I try to respect the opinions of others even if I don't agree with them and I give others the kind of respect I expect to receive in return. It is a two-way street and while Uncensored and I might be at opposite ends of it we are still on the same road together.

 

[Derideo_Te]

He made the case that Bush was communistic based upon Obama's same policies in this very thread. And he supports Obama. Why are you and Two Thumbs giving this guy a pass? Did words suddenly lose all meaning?

Read for content;

You said "Says the lying degenerate communist."

Three contentions;

1. Liar
2. Degenerate
3. Communist

I said "Oh, Derideo isn't a Communist."

The implication being that he IS a liar and a degenerate.

Now my purpose was to be humorous; I saw an opportunity for a witty jab at Derideo and took it.

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

If we are going to go about making up imaginary definitions let's not just stop with communists. Let's look at the libertarian idealism for small government and no interference in people's lives. The ideal would be a dictatorship since government cannot get any smaller than a single person calling the shots and as long it is a dictator whose values you agree with it sounds like the perfect libertarian form of government, right?

 

[RKMBrown]

Read for content;

You said "Says the lying degenerate communist."

Three contentions;

1. Liar
2. Degenerate
3. Communist

I said "Oh, Derideo isn't a Communist."

The implication being that he IS a liar and a degenerate.

Now my purpose was to be humorous; I saw an opportunity for a witty jab at Derideo and took it.

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

If we are going to go about making up imaginary definitions let's not just stop with communists. Let's look at the libertarian idealism for small government and no interference in people's lives. The ideal would be a dictatorship since government cannot get any smaller than a single person calling the shots and as long it is a dictator whose values you agree with it sounds like the perfect libertarian form of government, right?

Huh? dictating is the opposite of libertarian it's authoritarian... for the libertarian you see, the ends do not justify the means. But I can see how that might be confusing for a democrat given the cognitive dissonance issue you guys all have.

What part of my two alternatives for the definition of communism, irked you?

What part of most democrats desire for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars do you disagree with?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Read for content;

You said "Says the lying degenerate communist."

Three contentions;

1. Liar
2. Degenerate
3. Communist

I said "Oh, Derideo isn't a Communist."

The implication being that he IS a liar and a degenerate.

Now my purpose was to be humorous; I saw an opportunity for a witty jab at Derideo and took it.

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

If we are going to go about making up imaginary definitions let's not just stop with communists. Let's look at the libertarian idealism for small government and no interference in people's lives. The ideal would be a dictatorship since government cannot get any smaller than a single person calling the shots and as long it is a dictator whose values you agree with it sounds like the perfect libertarian form of government, right?

Cept the part where we used your definition of a 'Soviet Dictatorship' IE a form of communism.

And you have a serious disconnect with reality to be claiming that libertarianism is about communism. But, we've already established that you're nothing but a propagandist; so no surprise there.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If this is what you mean about a TGG melt down, DT, Sorry. You're getting your ass kicked.

Only if you believe TGG's puerile definition of "communism", Ernie. The policies enacted by the prior administration when it comes to intrusion into privacy, healthcare and education are not signifcantly different to those of the current administration when viewed dispassionately from a non partisan perspective.

TGG is screaming (all caps in #206) and using vulgar language (#207). That equates to a meltdown in my opinion. And no, I don't respond to irrational rants like those because I refuse to be dragged down to that level. TGG needs to take a walk and regain his senses if he expects to engage in a rational debate. If he doesn't then he can just fester in his own anger. I am under no obligation to respond when he is emoting rather than thinking.

So no, I don't consider that I am getting my "ass kicked" by someone who is demonstrably incapable of controlling themselves and behaving like a normal human being in this forum. Perhaps I just have a different standard when it comes to the definition of "ass kicking" but there as an old adage about arguing with a fool. I choose not to go there when I see that kind of response because I don't believe that it accomplishes anything useful. However I do support TGG's right to make a fool of himself in this thread. I can turn the other cheek and walk away because I have no emotional investment in the outcome. I already know that what TGG is alleging is entirely false and I don't need to defend the facts since they stand on their own merits.

Finally let me say that I understand that in your opinion I am getting my "ass kicked" but I respectfully beg to differ. Since it is my ass and I am feeling no pain whatsoever TGG's posts are utterly ineffective. I will admit that they made me but not so hard that I hurt myself.

Peace
DT

LMAO. People should use nothing but caps and vulgar language and 'melt down' on your sorry ass all day long.

BTW - Love that you made three solid paragraphs in a silly attempt to defame me; but could never be bothered to really regard the topic at hand. That really shows what you're all about.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We might never agree on anything..

Well considering that you can't even agree with yourself about the definition of communism, why would anyone care who you agree with or don't agree with? You're a spinster; not a serious poster.

 

[Derideo_Te]

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

If we are going to go about making up imaginary definitions let's not just stop with communists. Let's look at the libertarian idealism for small government and no interference in people's lives. The ideal would be a dictatorship since government cannot get any smaller than a single person calling the shots and as long it is a dictator whose values you agree with it sounds like the perfect libertarian form of government, right?

Huh? dictating is the opposite of libertarian it's authoritarian... for the libertarian you see, the ends do not justify the means. But I can see how that might be confusing for a democrat given the cognitive dissonance issue you guys all have.

What part of my two alternatives for the definition of communism, irked you?

What part of most democrats desire for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars do you disagree with?

Why do libertarians always assume that everyone else must either be a Dem or a Republican? Equally not surprising that you cannot comprehend the concept of a benevolent libertarian dictatorship either. Because it is the inability to conceive of what an actual libertarian "nirvana" of any form would actually be like in reality is what makes you a libertarian in the first place.

 

[Derideo_Te]

at the Grating Gatsby's ongoing meltdown.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If we are going to go about making up imaginary definitions let's not just stop with communists. Let's look at the libertarian idealism for small government and no interference in people's lives. The ideal would be a dictatorship since government cannot get any smaller than a single person calling the shots and as long it is a dictator whose values you agree with it sounds like the perfect libertarian form of government, right?

Huh? dictating is the opposite of libertarian it's authoritarian... for the libertarian you see, the ends do not justify the means. But I can see how that might be confusing for a democrat given the cognitive dissonance issue you guys all have.

What part of my two alternatives for the definition of communism, irked you?

What part of most democrats desire for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars do you disagree with?

Why do libertarians always assume that everyone else must either be a Dem or a Republican? Equally not surprising that you cannot comprehend the concept of a benevolent libertarian dictatorship either. Because it is the inability to conceive of what an actual libertarian "nirvana" of any form would actually be like in reality is what makes you a libertarian in the first place.

I don't care if you call yourself Dem or not. I just know your head is firmly up Obama's ass.

And who cares what nonsense you're making up about libertarians. The mere fact that you think an ideal libertarian system would come down to a dictatorship shows how much of an ignorant bastard (or rather lying spinster) you truly are. And it's certainly an ironic argument given that you celebrate the de facto dictatorship that is the Obama regime.

 

[Pogo]

He made the case that Bush was communistic based upon Obama's same policies in this very thread. And he supports Obama. Why are you and Two Thumbs giving this guy a pass? Did words suddenly lose all meaning?

Read for content;

You said "Says the lying degenerate communist."

Three contentions;

1. Liar
2. Degenerate
3. Communist

I said "Oh, Derideo isn't a Communist."

The implication being that he IS a liar and a degenerate.

Now my purpose was to be humorous; I saw an opportunity for a witty jab at Derideo and took it.

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

Neither of those "definitions" is in any way workable. But I'd turn your original question around to ask: is it possible to be an authoritarian and also be a communist?

I don't think so. They're in conflict with each other.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Huh? dictating is the opposite of libertarian it's authoritarian... for the libertarian you see, the ends do not justify the means. But I can see how that might be confusing for a democrat given the cognitive dissonance issue you guys all have.

What part of my two alternatives for the definition of communism, irked you?

What part of most democrats desire for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars do you disagree with?

Why do libertarians always assume that everyone else must either be a Dem or a Republican? Equally not surprising that you cannot comprehend the concept of a benevolent libertarian dictatorship either. Because it is the inability to conceive of what an actual libertarian "nirvana" of any form would actually be like in reality is what makes you a libertarian in the first place.

I don't care if you call yourself Dem or not. I just know your head is firmly up Obama's ass.

And who cares what nonsense you're making up about libertarians. The mere fact that you think an ideal libertarian system would come down to a dictatorship shows how much of an ignorant bastard (or rather lying spinster) you truly are. And it's certainly an ironic argument given that you celebrate the de facto dictatorship that is the Obama regime.

What you "know" is on a par with your room temperature IQ which is why you just earned yourself the nickname of the Gormless Gatsby. Please feel free to spend day 3 of your meltdown pretending to "just know" things for the amusement of others.

 

[RKMBrown]

Read for content;

You said "Says the lying degenerate communist."

Three contentions;

1. Liar
2. Degenerate
3. Communist

I said "Oh, Derideo isn't a Communist."

The implication being that he IS a liar and a degenerate.

Now my purpose was to be humorous; I saw an opportunity for a witty jab at Derideo and took it.

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

Neither of those "definitions" is in any way workable. But I'd turn your original question around to ask: is it possible to be an authoritarian and also be a communist?

I don't think so. They're in conflict with each other.

Communism is in conflict with authoritarian? How?

While I would agree that the authoritarian socialist/communist policies of Communist Russia and China failed and gave way to authoritarian capitalist policies.. those states were and remain in absolute control by the government. Liberty is very limited in these states.

 

[Redfish]

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

Neither of those "definitions" is in any way workable. But I'd turn your original question around to ask: is it possible to be an authoritarian and also be a communist?

I don't think so. They're in conflict with each other.

Communism is in conflict with authoritarian? How?

While I would agree that the authoritarian socialist/communist policies of Communist Russia and China failed and gave way to authoritarian capitalist policies.. those states were and remain in absolute control by the government. Liberty is very limited in these states.

exactly, and the libs, in their ignorance, want that for the USA under their hero obama.

the left wing agenda always sounds good---everyone equal, no rich people, no poor people, "fairness", income distribution by a benevalent dictator, etc

but in reality it becomes a form of slavery where everyone is equally miserable except the ruling elites who control all of the money and all of the power.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Why do libertarians always assume that everyone else must either be a Dem or a Republican? Equally not surprising that you cannot comprehend the concept of a benevolent libertarian dictatorship either. Because it is the inability to conceive of what an actual libertarian "nirvana" of any form would actually be like in reality is what makes you a libertarian in the first place.

I don't care if you call yourself Dem or not. I just know your head is firmly up Obama's ass.

And who cares what nonsense you're making up about libertarians. The mere fact that you think an ideal libertarian system would come down to a dictatorship shows how much of an ignorant bastard (or rather lying spinster) you truly are. And it's certainly an ironic argument given that you celebrate the de facto dictatorship that is the Obama regime.

What you "know" is on a par with your room temperature IQ which is why you just earned yourself the nickname of the Gormless Gatsby. Please feel free to spend day 3 of your meltdown pretending to "just know" things for the amusement of others.

It doesn't take a room temperature IQ to know that your head is up Obama's ass.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't care if you call yourself Dem or not. I just know your head is firmly up Obama's ass.

And who cares what nonsense you're making up about libertarians. The mere fact that you think an ideal libertarian system would come down to a dictatorship shows how much of an ignorant bastard (or rather lying spinster) you truly are. And it's certainly an ironic argument given that you celebrate the de facto dictatorship that is the Obama regime.

What you "know" is on a par with your room temperature IQ which is why you just earned yourself the nickname of the Gormless Gatsby. Please feel free to spend day 3 of your meltdown pretending to "just know" things for the amusement of others.

It doesn't take a room temperature IQ to know that your head is up Obama's ass.

Something else you have failed to prove!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

What you "know" is on a par with your room temperature IQ which is why you just earned yourself the nickname of the Gormless Gatsby. Please feel free to spend day 3 of your meltdown pretending to "just know" things for the amusement of others.

It doesn't take a room temperature IQ to know that your head is up Obama's ass.

Something else you have failed to prove!

I've proven that you are incapable or unwilling to engage in true and honest discussions on the topic at hand and that instead you resort to meaningless pot shots. I've also proven that this is because you will say one thing and then not hold to it; so you're uninterested in such decisive paths when instead you can resort to propaganda and spin. But, I digress cos you're a coward no matter what you claim I have or have not 'proved.'

 

[Pogo]

ROFL

Is it possible to be a authoritarian socialist and not be a communist? I suppose it is, if you define communist as Russians bent on destroying America with nuclear weapons. But if you define communist as a person who desires for nirvana accomplished by order from a democratically elected president, political committees, and industry czars... well yeah that fits most democrats doesn't it?

Neither of those "definitions" is in any way workable. But I'd turn your original question around to ask: is it possible to be an authoritarian and also be a communist?

I don't think so. They're in conflict with each other.

Communism is in conflict with authoritarian? How?

While I would agree that the authoritarian socialist/communist policies of Communist Russia and China failed and gave way to authoritarian capitalist policies.. those states were and remain in absolute control by the government. Liberty is very limited in these states.

Sure it is, but Russia and China already had a long history of authoritarianism. And that's a disadvantage to tinkering with communism, which is at base egalitarian. Hence they're in opposition.

(/way offtopic)

 

[RKMBrown]

Neither of those "definitions" is in any way workable. But I'd turn your original question around to ask: is it possible to be an authoritarian and also be a communist?

I don't think so. They're in conflict with each other.

Communism is in conflict with authoritarian? How?

While I would agree that the authoritarian socialist/communist policies of Communist Russia and China failed and gave way to authoritarian capitalist policies.. those states were and remain in absolute control by the government. Liberty is very limited in these states.

Sure it is, but Russia and China already had a long history of authoritarianism. And that's a disadvantage to tinkering with communism, which is at base egalitarian. Hence they're in opposition.

(/way offtopic)

It's on topic, because Obama is an authoritarian that pushes for socialist & communist solutions at every turn. One has to be suffering from cognitive dissonance to not understand these facts.