Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?

[Vox]

It's based on the exit polls. It is what it is.

I have a hard time believing a third party Libertarian candidate hurt the Democratic candidate. Seems more likely to me that the exit polls were statistically flawed (or fabricated).

But whatever.

I'm with you. While I'm arguing that the Republicans don't own our votes, that a majority of libertarians came from the left doesn't pass the smell test.

well, this is a total BS. here I agree with you both.

the "libertarian" was planted to steal the voices from the right and that is what he did.
It was pretty obvious last night - if you watched the live count.

he had 131K votes before the NVA counts started coming. He gained there only 10K votes - that is less than 8% of his count.

 

[manifold]

I am not a dude

And it is not silly. It is scary.

No, it's silly.

Obama is not a marxist, he's a corporatist, bought and paid for in full. And the last thing those he's beholden to want is to cede their wealth to the state.

he is a marxist. he is a corporatist bought and paid for on the road to his goal.

that is what you guys seem not to understand, even knowing that the guy is a lie, only lie and nothing but lie

look at what he is doing in fundamentals of transforming the country.
He is actually extremely consistent.
Or his puppeteers.

You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.

 

[Contumacious]

there is no evolution towards socialism. it can occur only violently.

r.

Previously.

But Karl Marx suggested a peaceful transition period - fascism - in the Communist Manifesto:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"

.

Karl Marx did not live to the time when it actually was put into life. Yes, the fascist variation of socialism was elected, but it took less than three months after the election to the monster to start showing it's real face.
and violence is needed mostly not to install the socialist state but to maintain it.
And that what all types of socialism proved - violence and blood and death.

and it still didn't work

Insofar as there is a tiny majority who are not ready to accept full blown socialism iit will be violent here in the US.

But they will be easily crushed.......ask the surviving Davidians

.

 

[Vox]

Previously.

But Karl Marx suggested a peaceful transition period - fascism - in the Communist Manifesto:

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…"[/size="4"]

.

Karl Marx did not live to the time when it actually was put into life. Yes, the fascist variation of socialism was elected, but it took less than three months after the election to the monster to start showing it's real face.
and violence is needed mostly not to install the socialist state but to maintain it.
And that what all types of socialism proved - violence and blood and death.

and it still didn't work

Insofar as there is a tiny majority who are not ready to accept full blown socialism iit will be violent here in the US.

But they will be easily crushed.......ask the surviving Davidians

.

it is violent everywhere where it is installed and maintained ( even for a short period of time)
because you can not install and maintain a regime where private property is expropriated from the citizens and not expect the resistance.

still won't work. in terms of sustainability. it did not work anywhere - the only regimes still there are on life support.

 

[Vox]

No, it's silly.

Obama is not a marxist, he's a corporatist, bought and paid for in full. And the last thing those he's beholden to want is to cede their wealth to the state.

he is a marxist. he is a corporatist bought and paid for on the road to his goal.

that is what you guys seem not to understand, even knowing that the guy is a lie, only lie and nothing but lie

look at what he is doing in fundamentals of transforming the country.
He is actually extremely consistent.
Or his puppeteers.

You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

 

[candycorn]

lol, he's so superior his approvals are in the toilet
now you need to kiss his picture or bow to the shine you have of him

What's the old saying? The most popular guy in town is the back up quarterback? Romney isn't even that...he's not qualified.

If Romney were superior, he would have won. He didn't. He got beat. Badly.

Now you need to fire up your excuse machine (if it hasn't overheated from constant use) and start the blame game. It's your only move.

Obama ran a superior campaign Whether he's a better potus than Mitt would have been, that's debatable. Mitt ran so far right he couldn't even thnk about getting to the middle. But, he had no choice if he wanted the gop nomination

If he would subvert his values to get the nomination; what does that say about his values and character?

 

[manifold]

he is a marxist. he is a corporatist bought and paid for on the road to his goal.

that is what you guys seem not to understand, even knowing that the guy is a lie, only lie and nothing but lie

look at what he is doing in fundamentals of transforming the country.
He is actually extremely consistent.
Or his puppeteers.

You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.

 

[bendog]

he is a marxist. he is a corporatist bought and paid for on the road to his goal.

that is what you guys seem not to understand, even knowing that the guy is a lie, only lie and nothing but lie

look at what he is doing in fundamentals of transforming the country.
He is actually extremely consistent.
Or his puppeteers.

You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

First we give banks a few billion and then have the Fed Reserve pour billions into markets.

 

[Toro]

You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

First we give banks a few billion and then have the Fed Reserve pour billions into markets.

Exactly. Bailing out banks is hardly Marxist. Nationalizing the entire financial system is Marxist.

 

[Vox]

You should take your own advice.

He's done nothing remotely consistent with the ideas promoted in Marx' Communist Manifesto.

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.

sure. read for yourself

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

 

[bendog]

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

First we give banks a few billion and then have the Fed Reserve pour billions into markets.

Exactly. Bailing out banks is hardly Marxist. Nationalizing the entire financial system is Marxist.

Marx's central tenet was the proletariat will have to abolish private ownership and social classes will disappear. However, Marx's views on how class warfare enables private ownership and economic disadvantage to the proletariat is not totally off the mark. But, we are a bourgoise society ... praise Jesus and pass the gravy. LOL.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Americans want JOBS
Americans want science
Americans want infrastructure

Americans don't want the gop telling them who they can marry or what they can put in their bodies.

 

[bendog]

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.

sure. read for yourself

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Ok, no 10 .. done that. LOL

 

[manifold]

oh, he has done PLENTY.
you did not read the Manifesto yourself, did you?

If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.

sure. read for yourself

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

You must've misunderstood.

I'm looking for examples of things Obama has done. Not a summary of items from the Communist Manifesto that he didn't do. Unless of course your plan is to prove my point. And if that's the case, well done kemosabe, well done.

 

[Contumacious]

Karl Marx did not live to the time when it actually was put into life. Yes, the fascist variation of socialism was elected, but it took less than three months after the election to the monster to start showing it's real face.
and violence is needed mostly not to install the socialist state but to maintain it.
And that what all types of socialism proved - violence and blood and death.

and it still didn't work

Insofar as there is a tiny majority who are not ready to accept full blown socialism iit will be violent here in the US.

But they will be easily crushed.......ask the surviving Davidians

.

it is violent everywhere where it is installed and maintained ( even for a short period of time)
because you can not install and maintain a regime where private property is expropriated from the citizens and not expect the resistance.

still won't work. in terms of sustainability. it did not work anywhere - the only regimes still there are on life support.

Gee, I haven't heard about any violence in Cuba, Venezuela.

The state apparatchiks can easily crush the dissenters.

.

 

[Vox]

If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.

sure. read for yourself

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Ok, no 10 .. done that. LOL

read the whole chapter II. The abolition of the family is much more impressive.

 

[Vox]

Insofar as there is a tiny majority who are not ready to accept full blown socialism iit will be violent here in the US.

But they will be easily crushed.......ask the surviving Davidians

.

it is violent everywhere where it is installed and maintained ( even for a short period of time)
because you can not install and maintain a regime where private property is expropriated from the citizens and not expect the resistance.

still won't work. in terms of sustainability. it did not work anywhere - the only regimes still there are on life support.

Gee, I haven't heard about any violence in Cuba, Venezuela.

The state apparatchiks can easily crush the dissenters.

.

oh really? you haven't heard about violence in Cuba?

where have you been for the last 50+ years?

Under the rock?

time to get to the world and learn something

 

[bendog]

sure. read for yourself

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

Ok, no 10 .. done that. LOL

read the whole chapter II. The abolition of the family is much more impressive.

Michelle is wolf in sheep's clothing, I'm tellin ya.

 

[Vox]

If he's done PLENTY, I'm sure you could cite an example or three, no?

PS: I'm not holding my breath.

sure. read for yourself

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Communist Manifesto (Chapter 2)

You must've misunderstood.

I'm looking for examples of things Obama has done. Not a summary of items from the Communist Manifesto that he didn't do. Unless of course your plan is to prove my point. And if that's the case, well done kemosabe, well done.

read for yourself. and if you do not see anything related to what obama has done - there is nothing to discuss as the leftards do not see. because they do not want to.

as I stated at the beginning - any discussion with a leftard is a waste of time.

 

[Contumacious]

it is violent everywhere where it is installed and maintained ( even for a short period of time)
because you can not install and maintain a regime where private property is expropriated from the citizens and not expect the resistance.

still won't work. in terms of sustainability. it did not work anywhere - the only regimes still there are on life support.

Gee, I haven't heard about any violence in Cuba, Venezuela.

The state apparatchiks can easily crush the dissenters.

.

oh really? you haven't heard about violence in Cuba?

where have you been for the last 50+ years?

Under the rock?

time to get to the world and learn something

That happened early on. Now the opposition is either in Jail or Miami. Ever heard of the Mariel boatlift?

.