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 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.
(Howdy!) 
