Obama, and the Ten Planks of Communism

[rightwinger]

You're admitting you're clueless? It's amazing how often a libturd will claim that simply disagreeing with them means you are stupid. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.

We get it..

We get it.....

Anyone who disagrees with rightwing dogma is a Commie

It worked in the 1950s, why not just double down on stupid?

If you object to capitalism and freedom, you're a commie. It's really that simple.

Nobody is objecting to either capitalism or freedom

Those who fight the hardest to deny freedom are on the right

 

[bripat9643]

Nobody is objecting to either capitalism or freedom

You object to capitalism and freedom every time you post, and so do all the other left-wing morons in this forum

Those who fight the hardest to deny freedom are on the right

Big fat lie. Obama is eliminating one freedom after another, and all you brainwashed drones cheer everything he does.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody is objecting to either capitalism or freedom

You object to capitalism and freedom every time you post, and so do all the other left-wing morons in this forum

Those who fight the hardest to deny freedom are on the right

Big fat lie. Obama is eliminating one freedom after another, and all you brainwashed drones cheer everything he does.

Once again demonstrating the idiocy of the right fingerboy

Any attempt to regulate capitalism is characterized as destroying it
How did that work out for you in 2007-2008?

 

[bripat9643]

Nobody is objecting to either capitalism or freedom

You object to capitalism and freedom every time you post, and so do all the other left-wing morons in this forum

Those who fight the hardest to deny freedom are on the right

Big fat lie. Obama is eliminating one freedom after another, and all you brainwashed drones cheer everything he does.

Once again demonstrating the idiocy of the right fingerboy

Any attempt to regulate capitalism is characterized as destroying it
How did that work out for you in 2007-2008?

Every regulation is a step towards socialism. In other words, it's a step towards destroying capitalism. We now have 80,000 pages of federal regulations on capitalism. When will it be enough? Answer: when private property is abolished, for all intents and purposes.

Liberals will deny they are trying to destroy capitalism until the day the last vestige of it is regulated away and taxed away.

 

[regent]

In the 1890's Americans were getting concerned about capitalism being destroyed by businesses and corporations, so the Congress passed one of the first major regulations protecting capitalism: the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Sherman was a Republican and his bill passed both Senate and House with only one dissenting vote, 293 to 1. Later more anti-trust legislation measures had to be passed as some corporations and businesses continually created new ways and methods to destroy the essence of capitalism, competition. Then other regulations were passed to protect our food, and a raft of other products all hated by conservatives as taking away business freedoms to sell unhealthy, dangerous shoddy products to the public. The battle to outwit the regulations continues to this day.

 

[Vast LWC]

He's not just a commie!

He's a socialist Marxist Stalinist Kenyanist Hitlerist Martianist commie!

And yeah, America still prefers him to the Republicans!

.

Man, those Republicans must be some SERIOUS assholes then...

 

[rightwinger]

Phrases that make conservatives look like assholes:

Obama is a commie
Obama is a Muslim
Obams is not a real American
Obama is a Kenyan
Obama is a Marxist. Fascist, Socialist
Obama hates America

Miss any?

 

[bripat9643]

Nobody is objecting to either capitalism or freedom

You object to capitalism and freedom every time you post, and so do all the other left-wing morons in this forum

Those who fight the hardest to deny freedom are on the right

Big fat lie. Obama is eliminating one freedom after another, and all you brainwashed drones cheer everything he does.

Once again demonstrating the idiocy of the right fingerboy

Any attempt to regulate capitalism is characterized as destroying it
How did that work out for you in 2007-2008?

Yes, actually, all regulations are an attempt to destroy capitalism. That's been true since the birth of the nation. Left-wing turds like you have been claiming since day one that all you want to do is "reform" capitalism a little bit. You've been reforming it for 200 years, and everything you've done makes things worse. You won't be satisfied until business "owners" become nothing more than administrators doing the government bidding.

As I've already pointed out, we have 80,000 pages of federal regulations on capitalism. We also have innumerable city and state regulations. How much regulation is enough?

 

[Sallow]

I would guess that you're a commie and a moron. Commies are always claiming that people who object to their nefarious schemes don't understand communism. But the fact is that we do. We understand it far better than the imbeciles who defend it.

Says a self proclaimed Monarchist.

Tsar Bripat9643.

I'll take a monarchy over democracy any day of the week. Under monarchy, the government only confiscated 3% of the country's GDP. Now it takes 50%.

Monarchists are allowed to grab your land as well.

And **** your wife.

Still like it?

 

[Sallow]

Phrases that make conservatives look like assholes:

Obama is a commie
Obama is a Muslim
Obams is not a real American
Obama is a Kenyan
Obama is a Marxist. Fascist, Socialist
Obama hates America

Miss any?

Obama is an anti-colonialist.

 

[Desperado]

Obama is a commie?

And America still prefers him to Republicans?

We have a very ignorant electorate and very compliant lib mainstream media, and to their credit, Obama's team did have the best ground game. They rounded up all kinds of dregs and funneled them into polling places, after telling them who to vote for while promising free stuff.

Not only that, the American electorate are very very paranoid and would be more than happy to give up their Liberty and Freedom for feeling of more security.

 

[regent]

You object to capitalism and freedom every time you post, and so do all the other left-wing morons in this forum



Big fat lie. Obama is eliminating one freedom after another, and all you brainwashed drones cheer everything he does.

Once again demonstrating the idiocy of the right fingerboy

Any attempt to regulate capitalism is characterized as destroying it
How did that work out for you in 2007-2008?

Yes, actually, all regulations are an attempt to destroy capitalism. That's been true since the birth of the nation. Left-wing turds like you have been claiming since day one that all you want to do is "reform" capitalism a little bit. You've been reforming it for 200 years, and everything you've done makes things worse. You won't be satisfied until business "owners" become nothing more than administrators doing the government bidding.

As I've already pointed out, we have 80,000 pages of federal regulations on capitalism. We also have innumerable city and state regulations. How much regulation is enough?

How many ways can be created to destroy or bypass the facets of capitalism?
The nation's economic system must satisfy a number of institutions, the nation's well being, the people's well being, business's well being. Unregulated capitalism soon ceases to be capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

In the 1890's Americans were getting concerned about capitalism being destroyed by businesses and corporations, so the Congress passed one of the first major regulations protecting capitalism: the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Sherman was a Republican and his bill passed both Senate and House with only one dissenting vote, 293 to 1. Later more anti-trust legislation measures had to be passed as some corporations and businesses continually created new ways and methods to destroy the essence of capitalism, competition. Then other regulations were passed to protect our food, and a raft of other products all hated by conservatives as taking away business freedoms to sell unhealthy, dangerous shoddy products to the public. The battle to outwit the regulations continues to this day.

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies that were doing too good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient but politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, actually, all regulations are an attempt to destroy capitalism. That's been true since the birth of the nation. Left-wing turds like you have been claiming since day one that all you want to do is "reform" capitalism a little bit. You've been reforming it for 200 years, and everything you've done makes things worse. You won't be satisfied until business "owners" become nothing more than administrators doing the government bidding.

As I've already pointed out, we have 80,000 pages of federal regulations on capitalism. We also have innumerable city and state regulations. How much regulation is enough?

How many ways can be created to destroy or bypass the facets of capitalism?

I don't understand what this sentence is intended to signify. Private companies producing products and earning a profit don't destroy capitalism. Government taxes and regulations destroy capitalism.

The nation's economic system must satisfy a number of institutions, the nation's well being, the people's well being, business's well being. Unregulated capitalism soon ceases to be capitalism.

No it doesn't. That's bullshit leftist propaganda.

 

[Sallow]

In the 1890's Americans were getting concerned about capitalism being destroyed by businesses and corporations, so the Congress passed one of the first major regulations protecting capitalism: the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Sherman was a Republican and his bill passed both Senate and House with only one dissenting vote, 293 to 1. Later more anti-trust legislation measures had to be passed as some corporations and businesses continually created new ways and methods to destroy the essence of capitalism, competition. Then other regulations were passed to protect our food, and a raft of other products all hated by conservatives as taking away business freedoms to sell unhealthy, dangerous shoddy products to the public. The battle to outwit the regulations continues to this day.

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies there would doing to good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient bu politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

 

[bripat9643]

Obama is a commie?

And America still prefers him to Republicans?

We have a very ignorant electorate and very compliant lib mainstream media, and to their credit, Obama's team did have the best ground game. They rounded up all kinds of dregs and funneled them into polling places, after telling them who to vote for while promising free stuff.

Not only that, the American electorate are very very paranoid and would be more than happy to give up their Liberty and Freedom for feeling of more security.

yep. The theory that the average man values freedom is a myth. What they really want is security. They will trade away their freedom in a heartbeat in exchange for a steady paycheck. Obama's election proved that beyond all doubt.

 

[bripat9643]

In the 1890's Americans were getting concerned about capitalism being destroyed by businesses and corporations, so the Congress passed one of the first major regulations protecting capitalism: the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Sherman was a Republican and his bill passed both Senate and House with only one dissenting vote, 293 to 1. Later more anti-trust legislation measures had to be passed as some corporations and businesses continually created new ways and methods to destroy the essence of capitalism, competition. Then other regulations were passed to protect our food, and a raft of other products all hated by conservatives as taking away business freedoms to sell unhealthy, dangerous shoddy products to the public. The battle to outwit the regulations continues to this day.

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies there would doing to good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient bu politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

brilliant argument, shit-for-brains.

 

[bripat9643]

Says a self proclaimed Monarchist.

Tsar Bripat9643.

I'll take a monarchy over democracy any day of the week. Under monarchy, the government only confiscated 3% of the country's GDP. Now it takes 50%.

Monarchists are allowed to grab your land as well.

And **** your wife.

Still like it?

No they aren't, moron. Monarchs had to ply their demands in the courts, just like the common folks.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Obama is a commie?

And America still prefers him to Republicans?

Bahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa.....Love that.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

In the 1890's Americans were getting concerned about capitalism being destroyed by businesses and corporations, so the Congress passed one of the first major regulations protecting capitalism: the Sherman Anti-trust Act. Sherman was a Republican and his bill passed both Senate and House with only one dissenting vote, 293 to 1. Later more anti-trust legislation measures had to be passed as some corporations and businesses continually created new ways and methods to destroy the essence of capitalism, competition. Then other regulations were passed to protect our food, and a raft of other products all hated by conservatives as taking away business freedoms to sell unhealthy, dangerous shoddy products to the public. The battle to outwit the regulations continues to this day.

That's a charming piece of propaganda, but it's total bullshit. The American public was not concerned about getting every cheaper products in greater abundance. the Sherman act was designed to persecute companies there would doing to good a job of providing consumers with better products at a lower price. All suits based on the Sherman act were instigate by envious sour grapes competitors who couldn't match the quality or price of companies like Standard Oil or Alcoa.

The industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator John Sherman and his colleagues were expanding production four times faster than the economy as a whole, on average (some as much as ten times faster) for the decade prior to the 1890 Sherman act. They were also dropping their prices faster than the price level was dropping during this ten-year period of price deflation. The "trusts" were subjected to political attack precisely because they had been making products cheaper and cheaper, much to the dismay of their less efficient bu politically-connected rivals. Antitrust was a protectionist racket from the very beginning.

As Dominick Armentano demonstrated in his book, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents/gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents in 1897 while creating myriad new products and stimulating innovation in the entire industry. For this, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company despite the fact that he had more than 300 competitors when he supposedly "monopolized" the oil industry.

In his book, Antitrust and Monopoly, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case the accused forms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, creating new products, and generally benefiting consumers. It was not consumers who were being harmed, but the less-efficient, sour-grape competitors of these companies. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911 even the the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, all despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs to the company.

Good one. I have lived in three, count em', three socialist countries. The O/P and his reference wouldn't know communism if it landed in his lap and set his shirt on fire. Obama has, if anything, held closer to Geo W. Bush's policies than the ones he proclaimed in 2007.