How is Obama NOT a Socialist?

[bripat9643]

You posted 4 - 5 falsehoods in 2 sentences.

You're an imbecile who doesn't know what any of the terms you use means.

Wrong again puke, I think Niue to live-in. Few socialists countries before u can open ur. Mouth

?

Didn't anyone ever tell you not to drink while posting?

 

[lukelk]

People like you will always belie e what u have been brainwashed Into thikin

 

[Pasco08]

I'm sure every brainless drone agrees with it.

Just like everyone believes the Republicans aren't a bunch of Religious Fascists i mean either way you can make an argument for both. All a matter of perspective.

No, you can't make a valid argument that Republicans are fascists. You don't have the slightest ******* idea what fascism is. You're a brainless drone who simply repeats what he's heard in Commie sing-alongs you attended down at the local office of Earth First.

You really believe what you just posted didn't you? SMH How the mighty of fallen.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Very much different, infact in Germany they murdered all marxists on sight, sent thm to death camps too

yeah in soviet russia they did the same......hence not a lot of difference....thanks for the good analogy. you might call them synonyms

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2011/jan/27/hitler-vs-stalin-who-was-worse/

 

[tooAlive]

W

thankfully, not where you got yours.

Easy test for you, explain the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and capitalism, cause I think You do not know the difference

Socialism is like HIV and communism is like AIDS. And Fascism? Well, that's what comes after.

They're all pretty fucked up, and one ultimately leads to the other.

I posted this a while ago. You may have missed it.

 

[expatriate]

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how this democrat or that democrat is really a "marxist" or a "socialist" and they all pretty much play out the same way. The people who start these threads all have one thing in common, and that is that they really have no actual idea what either of those terms actually means. For all of those folks, both of those words are just dog whistle epithets that have long ago lost any sense of their true meaning and have devolved into just sort of "dirty words". A classic illustration of this phenomenon is the sign seen at a 2010 town hall meeting in a midwestern congressional district which had been overrun by local teabaggers which read, "KEEP YOUR SOCIALIST HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE". Increasingly, we are becoming a nation of morons manipulated by soundbites bought by the highest bidder. I guess we will get the kind of government that such a crowd of morons deserves.

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how people who call Democrats "socialist" or "marxist," and they all pretty much play out the same way. The liberal turds who post them have some idiosyncratic definition of "socialism" that is so narrow that not even Karl Marx would qualify.

And you know what is the funny thing about the posters? They're all a bunch of ******* lying commies.

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

 

[tooAlive]

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how this democrat or that democrat is really a "marxist" or a "socialist" and they all pretty much play out the same way. The people who start these threads all have one thing in common, and that is that they really have no actual idea what either of those terms actually means. For all of those folks, both of those words are just dog whistle epithets that have long ago lost any sense of their true meaning and have devolved into just sort of "dirty words". A classic illustration of this phenomenon is the sign seen at a 2010 town hall meeting in a midwestern congressional district which had been overrun by local teabaggers which read, "KEEP YOUR SOCIALIST HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE". Increasingly, we are becoming a nation of morons manipulated by soundbites bought by the highest bidder. I guess we will get the kind of government that such a crowd of morons deserves.

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how people who call Democrats "socialist" or "marxist," and they all pretty much play out the same way. The liberal turds who post them have some idiosyncratic definition of "socialism" that is so narrow that not even Karl Marx would qualify.

And you know what is the funny thing about the posters? They're all a bunch of ******* lying commies.

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

 

[bripat9643]

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how this democrat or that democrat is really a "marxist" or a "socialist" and they all pretty much play out the same way. The people who start these threads all have one thing in common, and that is that they really have no actual idea what either of those terms actually means. For all of those folks, both of those words are just dog whistle epithets that have long ago lost any sense of their true meaning and have devolved into just sort of "dirty words". A classic illustration of this phenomenon is the sign seen at a 2010 town hall meeting in a midwestern congressional district which had been overrun by local teabaggers which read, "KEEP YOUR SOCIALIST HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE". Increasingly, we are becoming a nation of morons manipulated by soundbites bought by the highest bidder. I guess we will get the kind of government that such a crowd of morons deserves.

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how people who call Democrats "socialist" or "marxist," and they all pretty much play out the same way. The liberal turds who post them have some idiosyncratic definition of "socialism" that is so narrow that not even Karl Marx would qualify.

And you know what is the funny thing about the posters? They're all a bunch of ******* lying commies.

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Socialism is government control of the means of production. It's that simple. Any other definition is just political blather.

 

[kaz]

How is Obama NOT a Socialist?

Obama a socialist? That's ridiculous, liberals don't like that word.

 

[expatriate]

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how people who call Democrats "socialist" or "marxist," and they all pretty much play out the same way. The liberal turds who post them have some idiosyncratic definition of "socialism" that is so narrow that not even Karl Marx would qualify.

And you know what is the funny thing about the posters? They're all a bunch of ******* lying commies.

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Socialism is government control of the means of production. It's that simple. Any other definition is just political blather.

agreed... it is government control of the means of ALL Production.... not just slivers of it. For example, when the government took over a portion of GM for a limited period of time, it was not an example of "socialism" any more than it was when we bailed out Chrysler in 1980 or the savings and loan industry in 1989 or the airline industry in 2001 or Bear Stearns and AIG in 2008. NOTHING that Obama has said or done has given anyone any reason to realistically believe that he wants to nationalize the country's means of production... therefore to suggest that he is a socialist is just political blather, as you say.

 

[expatriate]

I have read so many of these threads over the years about how people who call Democrats "socialist" or "marxist," and they all pretty much play out the same way. The liberal turds who post them have some idiosyncratic definition of "socialism" that is so narrow that not even Karl Marx would qualify.

And you know what is the funny thing about the posters? They're all a bunch of ******* lying commies.

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

 

[tooAlive]

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

 

[bripat9643]

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Socialism is government control of the means of production. It's that simple. Any other definition is just political blather.

agreed... it is government control of the means of ALL Production.... not just slivers of it. For example, when the government took over a portion of GM for a limited period of time, it was not an example of "socialism" any more than it was when we bailed out Chrysler in 1980 or the savings and loan industry in 1989 or the airline industry in 2001 or Bear Stearns and AIG in 2008.

Sorry, but only stupid people swallow the claim that only 100% government control of production is socialism. There are degrees of socialism. Taking over GM is socialism, pure and simple. The government schools are an example of socialism. Social Security is socialism. Medicare is socialism. Medicaid is socialism.

NOTHING that Obama has said or done has given anyone any reason to realistically believe that he wants to nationalize the country's means of production... therefore to suggest that he is a socialist is just political blather, as you say.

Everything he says and does indicates he wants to nationalize the country's means of production. He effectively nationalized GM and Chrysler.

 

[lukelk]

not me. I am a red blooded, patriotic American who served my country in uniform for a quarter of a century. Why don't YOU tell me what your textbook definition is of both socialism and marxism so we can attempt to intelligently discuss them?

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

hey Ex

thanks for your service. I also have to tell ya most the right wingers on these forums don't seem to be educated. Its a real shame but you gotta try

 

[tooAlive]

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

hey Ex

thanks for your service. I also have to tell ya most the right wingers on these forums don't seem to be educated. Its a real shame but you gotta try

Tell me what socialism is then. Please, enlighten us.

 

[occupied]

Thank you for your service ex.

And I'll see if I can help him with that one, since Wikipedia seems to be down for him.

Simply put, Socialists believe that when one man profits off the labor of another man he's exploiting him. That when you employ someone and pay them a salary while you're making considerably more thanks to their labor, you're outright stealing from them. That worker should be entitled to all the fruits of his labor. Therefore nobody should work for anybody, and everyone should work together for the collective good.

Am I right?

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

 

[SuMar]

Socialism is a political term applied to an economic system in which property is held in common and not individually, and relationships are governed by a political hierarchy. Common ownership doesn't mean decisions are made collectively, however. Instead, individuals in positions of authority make decisions in the name of the collective group. Regardless of the picture painted of socialism by its proponents, it ultimately removes group decision making in favor of the choices of one all-important individual.

Kind of sounds like Obama's redistribution plan...Hmmmm...

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common -- in in fact communism encompasses socialism -- the primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests. Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.

Or perhaps the libs are right, maybe Obama isn't a Socialist but rather a Communist....

Socialism -- A Definition of Socialism​

 

[tooAlive]

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

After debating with many socialists, that's what they all ultimately believed in.

They don't see the difference between employing someone and exploiting them.

 

[bripat9643]

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

Wrong, moron. Socialism does preclude private enterprise.

I love how all these libturds claim conservatives don't know what socialism is. Then they immediately prove they don't know the meaning themselves.

 

[occupied]

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

After debating with many socialists, that's what they all ultimately believed in.

They don't see the difference between employing someone and exploiting them.

People who go around calling themselves socialists are not usually reasonable people, they are much the same as any political fringe dweller, use them as examples at your peril.