Obama says they are calling me a Socialist

[usmcstinger]

Then prove the following: Democratic Socialists of America did not create the New Party
Prove to me that Obama was not a member of the New Party

 

[rightwinger]

WTF are you blabbing about?

 

[Charles_Main]

Then prove the following: Democratic Socialists of America did not create the New Party
Prove to me that Obama was not a member of the New Party

If it Walks and talks like a socialist, it's a socialist. He is Pragmatic enough to know he cant get it all at once. Baby steps. Don't want to appear to actually want what he wants, less the people catch on. lol

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Huh?

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun:

A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

That describes the GObP/Repub party.

It also describes the Repub health care system where we all have to pay for the care of those who do not or cannot pay for themselves.

Its the opposite of ObamaCare.

 

[BlindBoo]

It's true. They are, and have been since 2008??????

 

[usmcstinger]

Only in the delusional World of the left, could these nonsensical statements make any sense.

 

[Dragon]

Only in the delusional World of the left, could these nonsensical statements make any sense.

It's your OP that makes no sense, bro. Who are the Democratic Socialists of America? What is the New Party?

 

[Jarhead]

Only in the delusional World of the left, could these nonsensical statements make any sense.

It's your OP that makes no sense, bro. Who are the Democratic Socialists of America? What is the New Party?

?????

And you come on here and talk politics like you are in the know?

The DS of A is not some small hidden group.

Anyone interested in politics knows who they are, their agenda and their impact.

Wow.....I thought you were more knowledgable.

I guess not.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Huh?

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun:

A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

That describes the GObP/Repub party.

It also describes the Repub health care system where we all have to pay for the care of those who do not or cannot pay for themselves.

Its the opposite of ObamaCare.

It's not about the way socialism works its about the outcome...

Would a heart be a heart if it pumped backwards??

At the end of the day our government redistributes wealth to those who do nothing... That is socialism or at least the end result is the end result of socialism.

If it makes you any happier I would gladly rename the government redistribution of wealth "Obamunism" and you know what?? I will also claim that new economic ideology is a synonym to socialism..

Happy?

"Obamunism"

 

[Mr.Nick]

The further ******* more - socialism implies or defines that the means of production, services and goods are (delusionally) publicly owned.

There is no your or mine...

Your tomato is my ******* tomato and your house is my house..

How do you regulate such bullshit??

Oh yeah a communist government....

Why do you think socialism is communism??

Because it takes an authoritarian government if not totalitarian government to make it work...

Why is that??

Because anarchy is impossible...

Karl Marx was one of the dumbest ***** EVER, and he is responsible for the murder of a half billion people...

Then progressives have the ******* audacity for what they deem progress??????

It sounds like Maoism to me....

 

[Dragon]

Only in the delusional World of the left, could these nonsensical statements make any sense.

It's your OP that makes no sense, bro. Who are the Democratic Socialists of America? What is the New Party?

The DS of A is not some small hidden group.

I found it with a web search: Democratic Socialists of America

They may not be hidden, but I'd say "small" describes them pretty well. And I still don't know what the "New Party" is. Here's one reference to something by that name:

New Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That outfit existed in the 1990s. And apparently it might have endorsed Obama in '96.

This is pretty damned obscure, frankly. It's hardly evidence that Obama is a socialist. Certainly not enough to counter the mountain of evidence to the contrary. And I say that as someone who would very much prefer it if he was.

 

[Jarhead]

Huh?

so·cial·ism/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
Noun:

A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

That describes the GObP/Repub party.

It also describes the Repub health care system where we all have to pay for the care of those who do not or cannot pay for themselves.

Its the opposite of ObamaCare.

It's not about the way socialism works its about the outcome...

Would a heart be a heart if it pumped backwards??

At the end of the day our government redistributes wealth to those who do nothing... That is socialism or at least the end result is the end result of socialism.

If it makes you any happier I would gladly rename the government redistribution of wealth "Obamunism" and you know what?? I will also claim that new economic ideology is a synonym to socialism..

Happy?

"Obamunism"

redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is an unfortunate bi product of the actual intent...which is to assist those that do all they can, but still struggle...

 

[Dragon]

redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is an unfortunate bi product of the actual intent...which is to assist those that do all they can, but still struggle...

Redistribution of wealth to those who "do nothing" is a fact of life. It's called "aid to the poor." Very little in the way of changes to these government functions is proposed.

No, what we want is redistribution of wealth to those who work, as opposed to those who own. Different kettle of fish altogether.

 

[Jarhead]

It's your OP that makes no sense, bro. Who are the Democratic Socialists of America? What is the New Party?

The DS of A is not some small hidden group.

I found it with a web search: Democratic Socialists of America

They may not be hidden, but I'd say "small" describes them pretty well. And I still don't know what the "New Party" is. Here's one reference to something by that name:

New Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That outfit existed in the 1990s. And apparently it might have endorsed Obama in '96.

This is pretty damned obscure, frankly. It's hardly evidence that Obama is a socialist. Certainly not enough to counter the mountain of evidence to the contrary. And I say that as someone who would very much prefer it if he was.

I am not saying Obama is a socialist.
Never said it.
But Obama does believe in many ideas that are of the socialist ideology.

I rarely hear him give credit to business owners.....I actually never hear him say it.

But his administration was all over the airwaves talking about what a great job GM is doing.

That concerns me.

 

[Jarhead]

redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is an unfortunate bi product of the actual intent...which is to assist those that do all they can, but still struggle...

Redistribution of wealth to those who "do nothing" is a fact of life. It's called "aid to the poor." Very little in the way of changes to these government functions is proposed.

No, what we want is redistribution of wealth to those who work, as opposed to those who own. Different kettle of fish altogether.

you are wrong.

Redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is NOT "aid to the poor"

The poor are not comprised of only those that do nothing.

Many of "the poor" bust their asses...but get nowhere.

You may have not meant it as it came across...but if you did, I very much resent what you said.

Those that do nothing disguise themselves as those that bust their asses but still are poor...and that is why they get their entitlenmts...

But it is not designed to assist those that dont try...that is just a bi product of the welfare and unemployment systems....

 

[Mr.Nick]

Huh?



That describes the GObP/Repub party.

It also describes the Repub health care system where we all have to pay for the care of those who do not or cannot pay for themselves.

Its the opposite of ObamaCare.

It's not about the way socialism works its about the outcome...

Would a heart be a heart if it pumped backwards??

At the end of the day our government redistributes wealth to those who do nothing... That is socialism or at least the end result is the end result of socialism.

If it makes you any happier I would gladly rename the government redistribution of wealth "Obamunism" and you know what?? I will also claim that new economic ideology is a synonym to socialism..

Happy?

"Obamunism"

redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is an unfortunate bi product of the actual intent...which is to assist those that do all they can, but still struggle...

That is why we have private charities dumb ****...

We have had them since forever, and mankind didn't collapse without government redistributing wealth...

 

[Dragon]

I am not saying Obama is a socialist.
Never said it.
But Obama does believe in many ideas that are of the socialist ideology.

See, again, speaking as a socialist myself, I do know what you're talking about. But the problem (from my perspective) is that it seems to be nothing more than talk. President Obama appointed Wall Street crony capitalist Tim Geithner as Sec. of Treasury, kept Bernanke at the Fed, went ahead with the Bush bank bailout without holding the banks accountable, killed the public option in health care reform, and apart from taking out the middleman in student loans, has done almost nothing to narrow income gaps or promote full employment or encourage organized labor or in any way tread on the toes of big business. Actions speak louder than words. Big business can see what I'm seeing, too, because they continue to flood Obama's campaign chest with big donations.

He talks a lot more socialist than he walks.

 

[Mr.Nick]

redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is an unfortunate bi product of the actual intent...which is to assist those that do all they can, but still struggle...

Redistribution of wealth to those who "do nothing" is a fact of life. It's called "aid to the poor." Very little in the way of changes to these government functions is proposed.

No, what we want is redistribution of wealth to those who work, as opposed to those who own. Different kettle of fish altogether.

you are wrong.

Redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is NOT "aid to the poor"

The poor are not comprised of only those that do nothing.

Many of "the poor" bust their asses...but get nowhere.

You may have not meant it as it came across...but if you did, I very much resent what you said.

Those that do nothing disguise themselves as those that bust their asses but still are poor...and that is why they get their entitlenmts...

But it is not designed to assist those that dont try...that is just a bi product of the welfare and unemployment systems....

Ignorant ******..

Lets not forget Obama Bailed out the labor unions with "stimulus" lets not forget the retard bailed out GM then turned around and issued vouchers to citizens who wanted to buy a UAW made car all on the taxpayers dime..

How ******* stupid do you think I am??

Like I cant see Obama bailing out GM then stimulating his UAW buddies (because they support democrats) with taxpayer funds??

No, you probably just rationalize it differently...

Connect the dots dickhead... This is the real world not one of your progressive fantasies..

WTF...

 

[DaGoose]

redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is an unfortunate bi product of the actual intent...which is to assist those that do all they can, but still struggle...

Redistribution of wealth to those who "do nothing" is a fact of life. It's called "aid to the poor." Very little in the way of changes to these government functions is proposed.

No, what we want is redistribution of wealth to those who work, as opposed to those who own. Different kettle of fish altogether.

you are wrong.

Redistribution of wealth to those that do nothing is NOT "aid to the poor"

The poor are not comprised of only those that do nothing.

Many of "the poor" bust their asses...but get nowhere.

You may have not meant it as it came across...but if you did, I very much resent what you said.

Those that do nothing disguise themselves as those that bust their asses but still are poor...and that is why they get their entitlenmts...

But it is not designed to assist those that dont try...that is just a bi product of the welfare and unemployment systems....

And if you are lumping "entitlements" in with any kind of welfare program to the poor then I very much resent that.

An entitlement is something I'm most certainly entitled to because I have worked and paid into it my whole life. It is NOT any kind of welfare program.

 

[merrill]

Congress across the board is dead without socialism. It's been that way forever.

What you call corp subsidies? Socialism

What do you call "pork barrel" projects? Socialism

What do you call Tax Increment Financing? Socialism

What do you call tax abatements? Socialism

What do you call the military industrial complex? Socialism

What do you call Congressional salaries? Socialism

What do you call the medical insurance industry? Guaranteed profit by way of socialism

Etc etc etc

Removing all socialism from for profit business = can we say "Free Market"? Now there's a concept.