PDA

View Full Version : Obama The trouble with admitting Obama is socialist


Bewbies
06-06-2012, 12:33 AM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

La literatura
06-06-2012, 12:52 AM
I think it's because he's not a socialist.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 12:55 AM
LMAO

Direckshun
06-06-2012, 01:11 AM
It's because he's not a socialist.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 01:13 AM
It's because he's not a socialist.

LMAO

What is he then?

Why has he surrounded himself with so many socialists?

Why did he just honor a socialist with the medal of freedom?

Which of his policies aren't socialist?

Seriously, I sound like I'm joking but I'm being honest. Why won't people admit it? Is there a more PC term I'm not aware of?

AustinChief
06-06-2012, 01:16 AM
It's because he's not a socialist.

You guys keep saying socialist like there is some line of demarcation defining who is or isn't one. Obama (and quite a few members of his administration but not all) is "more" socialist then mainstream America. Of course mainstream America is far more socialist compared to what it was 100 years ago. The term really only has value as a comparative.

Direckshun
06-06-2012, 01:22 AM
LMAO

What is he then?

He's an establishmentarian liberal.

Why has he surrounded himself with so many socialists?

I don't know who you're talking about.

Why did he just honor a socialist with the medal of freedom?

Because socialists do cool things, too, probably.

I don't know who you're referring to, so meh.

Honoring a socialist doesn't make you a socialist any more than honoring Immanuel Kant in philsophy makes you a Kantian.

Which of his policies aren't socialist?

Virtually all of them, if not all of them.

SNR
06-06-2012, 01:25 AM
He's an establishmentarian liberal.I thought we were an autonomous collective

http://monty-python-and-the-holy-grail.com/images/scenes/monty_python_holy_grail_script_025_dennis_mom.jpg

La literatura
06-06-2012, 01:27 AM
LMAO

What is he then?

Why has he surrounded himself with so many socialists?

Why did he just honor a socialist with the medal of freedom?

Which of his policies aren't socialist?

Seriously, I sound like I'm joking but I'm being honest. Why won't people admit it? Is there a more PC term I'm not aware of?

The dream of a centrally planned economy where society owns the means of production pretty much died after the fall of the USSR. The free market system won convincingly. The United States remains the leading exporter of free market principles, and the executive branch's foreign policy goals centrally focus on promoting healthy capitalism.

Nobody really wants to sit around and clearly navigate the nuances of political ideology, so things get lumped together easily in informal political discourse. That's why people will sometimes accuse Obama of not only being a socialist, but a fascist. Nevermind that socialism and fascism were strictly polar ideologies in 20th century history. It just matters that they were both flawed and not the American way.

What are sometimes known as "social democracy" ideas grew in the West following WWII. It advocated for increased federal spending on entitlements. Johnson's The Great Society was probably the pinnacle of this. After the Cold War ended, these were wrapped up in ideas like the "Third Way" or "Mixed Economies," with advocates generally increasing support of federal spending on entitlements.

This isn't socialism, though, as the term is precisely understood, in a way that is helpful for people who want an accurate understanding of history and the present.

Direckshun
06-06-2012, 01:29 AM
You guys keep saying socialist like there is some line of demarcation defining who is or isn't one. Obama (and quite a few members of his administration but not all) is "more" socialist then mainstream America. Of course mainstream America is far more socialist compared to what it was 100 years ago. The term really only has value as a comparative.

Economically, all policy goes on a scale, ranging from absolute freedom at the right end (anarchy?) to absolute equality at the other end (something like the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero).

I'd say it looks a lot like this.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/picture.php?albumid=15&pictureid=1146

Being a liberal doesn't make you a socialist, any more than being a conservative makes you an anarchist.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 01:34 AM
The dream of a centrally planned economy where society owns the means of production pretty much died after the fall of the USSR. The free market system won convincingly. The United States remains the leading exporter of free market principles, and the executive branch's foreign policy goals centrally focus on promoting healthy capitalism.

Nobody really wants to sit around and clearly navigate the nuances of political ideology, so things get lumped together easily in informal political discourse. That's why people will sometimes accuse Obama of not only being a socialist, but a fascist. Nevermind that socialism and fascism were strictly polar ideologies in 20th century history. It just matters that they were both flawed and not the American way.

What are sometimes known as "social democracy" ideas grew in the West following WWII. It advocated for increased federal spending on entitlements. Johnson's The Great Society was probably the pinnacle of this. After the Cold War ended, these were wrapped up in ideas like the "Third Way" or "Mixed Economies," with advocates generally increasing support of federal spending on entitlements.

This isn't socialism, though, as the term is precisely understood, in a way that is helpful for people who want an accurate understanding of history and the present.

Fascist and socialist are not opposites.

La literatura
06-06-2012, 01:38 AM
Fascist and socialist are not opposites.

That's the popular claim now. If you asked a socialist in the 1920s who his opposite was, though, he would tell you it was the fascists. And vice versa.

And with the perspective of history, we can differentiate fascism and socialism, while also pointing out their similarities. But they are emphatically not the same idea, nor were they practically the same in effect. And if we care about history to learn about how the world really was, and not just care about history in order to manipulate it to achieve what we want from it for ourselves, we should be able to recognize this.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 04:59 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg

Alan Keyes - Feb 2009

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 07:10 AM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?



It's kind of comical actually. According to Republicans he's the most radical socialist far-left wing nutjob of a President in history times eleventy billion.

Then you listen to the left and they bitch and moan about he's really just a Bush-clone who has done nothing for the poor or middle class and has continued the usual practice of getting on his knees for Wall Street and big money and corporations.



Mostly in this case I think you're wrong. He's not a socialist. Look up what a socialist is and then tell me what he's done that is so crazy socialistic, other than perhaps ObamaCare.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 07:25 AM
It's kind of comical actually. According to Republicans he's the most radical socialist far-left wing nutjob of a President in history times eleventy billion.

Then you listen to the left and they bitch and moan about he's really just a Bush-clone who has done nothing for the poor or middle class and has continued the usual practice of getting on his knees for Wall Street and big money and corporations.



Mostly in this case I think you're wrong. He's not a socialist. Look up what a socialist is and then tell me what he's done that is so crazy socialistic, other than perhaps ObamaCare.

Isn't Obamacare enough? If it's not shot down by the SCOTUS it could be the first step of socialism.

For me, it's not what he's done to date. It's more about what he says is his vision for the country. The government is not the answer to our problems and with the comments he's made it's more of the problem.

What happens when the government runs out of the money it can get out of the taxpayers? Right now the national debt is unrecoverable, there is no way ever to pay it off if we keep raising the limit.

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 07:31 AM
Isn't Obamacare enough? If it's not shot down by the SCOTUS it could be the first step of socialism.

The "first step"

Compare to Social Security, Medicare and a host of other government programs that are anywhere from 50 to 80 years old and tell me how this is some kind of "first step" toward anything.

The fact is that we have some programs that you could reasonably describe as being socialistic. Why? Because pure capitalism is a brutal, unfair system and the majority of the American people don't want it. Never have really, when you think about it.

For me, it's not what he's done to date. It's more about what he says is his vision for the country. The government is not the answer to our problems and with the comments he's made it's more of the problem.

So you admit you have no evidence, only worries and concerns. At least you're honest.

Don't worry -- at worst the Republicans in Congress will save you. But seriously -- Obama had the WH, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House, and he didn't go all socialist crazy on us then. Why would he now?

What happens when the government runs out of the money it can get out of the taxpayers?

Bad things. but we're not there yet. Not even close. But I'm also a deficit hawk and we need to change direction in the coming years. But if you think Romney = instant austerity, then you're wrong. He's even admitted it. It would crush the life out of the economy.

Right now the national debt is unrecoverable, there is no way ever to pay it off if we keep raising the limit.

The first half of your sentence is not true. The second is true if it goes on indefinitely.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:40 AM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?
They also consider this being labeled or an insult, if you can believe that. Labels help one identify a politician's contents—like any other label. But we mustn't know....only on food packaging must we know.

Based on two self-admitted socialists I know, if the state hasn't outright seized private property it's not socialism. Not saying I buy it but that's their argument. They don't recognize the different forms and shapes it takes.

Technically though, Obama is a corporatist, since he uses the model of Mussolini. Same results just using heavy controls that wind up empowering the same culprits that caused our problems entrenching oligarchs and power. A good example is the Dodd-Frank bill which effectively nationalizes the financial sector. Then loan guarantees bailing out banks and big auto. But Republican leadership, including Mitt would have done the same. The Rs were fine with Solyndra too.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:42 AM
He's an establishmentarian liberal.

Who are essentially socialist. Sweden gets labeled socialist but technically they're a wealth transfer nanny state, like ours, which doesn't go as far but we're on our way.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:43 AM
Economically, all policy goes on a scale, ranging from absolute freedom at the right end (anarchy?) to absolute equality at the other end (something like the Khmer Rouge's Year Zero).

I'd say it looks a lot like this.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/picture.php?albumid=15&pictureid=1146

Being a liberal doesn't make you a socialist, any more than being a conservative makes you an anarchist.

A HUGE glaring error with your graph葉hat is if you use the Framers of the Constitution. The center is Old Right Conservative.

Gotta go.

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 07:49 AM
They also consider this being labeled or an insult, if you can believe that. Labels help one identify a politician's contents様ike any other label. But we mustn't know....only on food packaging must we know.

Based on two self-admitted socialists I know, if the state hasn't outright seized private property it's not socialism. Not saying I buy it but that's their argument. They don't recognize the different forms and shapes it takes.

Technically though, Obama is a corporatist, since he uses the model of Mussolini. Same results just using heavy controls that wind up empowering the same culprits that caused our problems entrenching oligarchs and power. A good example is the Dodd-Frank bill which effectively nationalizes the financial sector. Then loan guarantees bailing out banks and big auto. But Republican leadership, including Mitt would have done the same. The Rs were fine with Solyndra too.


You want to explain to me again what "means of production" means?

You great at throwing around lables but, first, you don't even understand what the labels mean in far too many instances and, second, you seem to think that the labels that should be applied are those that would have applied in 1787 which is a bit, well, retarded.

But carry on.

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 07:50 AM
A HUGE glaring error with your graph葉hat is if you use the Framers of the Constitution. The center is Old Right Conservative.

Gotta go.


Why would anyone use 225 year old viewpoints to generate a graph of political viewpoints, etc.?

oh right...


http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/870818/80960180.jpg

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 08:28 AM
Fascist and socialist are not opposites.

They are not the same either.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:35 AM
Back for a minute to complete what I wanted to say about Direckshun's graph.

If one reads the notes from the Original Convention of our Framers, they discussed throughout what would be too much govt or too little. So their final result, the Constitution, was their compromise. This should be the benchmark for what the center is in America. This was considered radical by Europeans at that time but this was their formula for liberty. As for those who use the argument that things change, well this formula accounts for that since most of the everyday things were to be done at the state and local levels—not the federal level. So change can happen there even without an Amendment. Even help for the poor should be done there. So as the nation grows and changes, the center would still hold for the Federal govt. That is conservativism....as their intent was to preserve this formula while the left breaks it apart and concentrates power at the Federal level. This is true for what is today's Whig party, the GOP and certain religious conservatives.


All BIG govt is on the left with total govt at the extreme end: socialism, fascism, corporatism, neo-conservativism ( which incorporates the preceding three to some degree)
Right of center is libertarianism with the center Old Right or Paleo-Conservativism because this ideology stresses the Framer's guide for limiting govt power which is a balance of too much and too little and diffuses power down as well as across.

Basically, it's very simple—the more govt you have the less freedom you have. Since most of life is 7/8ths economic this area is where there's been so much more govt at the Federal level. The social issues are state and local issues. Keeping the Feds out of those issues, keeps power diffused. So the expansion of the 14th Amendment breaks down the federalist structure, another danger if too many social issues get decided from the top down.

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg839/scaled.php?server=839&filename=spectrum0.png&res=landing


http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4152/spectrum0wr2.gif

stevieray
06-06-2012, 08:37 AM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

..the same reason they think he's black.
..the same reason they marginalized Rev Wright.

...moral and ethical bankruptcy.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:41 AM
They are not the same either.

They are brother and sister ideologies. Fascism shares 6 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto and centralizes power. There is also military worship, military build-ups and wars of aggression....but socialist dictatorships have that too.

The key word here is the definition of "ownership" which means the right to control. If you can't control most of it, it means you don't effectively own it. The state just controls us indirectly through too many controls.

I mean socialism and communism are defined in their simplest terms as "ownership of the major means of production." The means of production are you and I—the people—not machinery or businesses. This control, for one major control, is done via an income tax. A progressive one.

Remember Hitler nationalized industries too.

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 09:19 AM
..the same reason they think he's black.



:spock:

Amnorix
06-06-2012, 09:21 AM
I mean socialism and communism are defined in their simplest terms as "ownership of the major means of production." The means of production are you and I葉he people溶ot machinery or businesses. This control, for one major control, is done via an income tax. A progressive one.

Remember Hitler nationalized industries too.



JFC you are one dumb whacko. I specifically schooled you on this months ago and yet you come back and post this stupid bullshit. Seriously, what is wrong with you?


Means of production refers to physical, non-human inputs used in production葉he factories, machines, and tools used to produce wealth[1] along with both infrastructural capital and natural capital.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 09:22 AM
Oh, and before I forget and have to log-off. The Paleo-Conservatives aka Old Right are classical liberals. Liberals today are "illiberals" as they use the force and violence of the central govt to re-engineer a free society. It's actually a false label used by the left as in Newspeak.

"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label." ~ Upton Sinclair, a self-admitted socialist

It's hard to liberate those Americans who love their chains.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 09:30 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_stealthy_spread_of_sociali.html

According to a February 2010 Gallup poll, "61% of liberals say their image of socialism is positive" and "53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism." Overall, 36% of Americans view socialism favorably.

I've said this over and over and George Orwell wrote about it in his abuse of language essay to control the masses:
In politics, language is key, and he who controls the language controls -- or at least better influences -- the debate. Constitutional conservatives, by nature, don't typically seek "control," and in this realm, they've too easily ceded ground. Socialist forces are winning the word war.

That more Americans accept socialist ideas is due to the left gaining control over education from lower education up through college. In fact some of our most prestigious universities are churning out socialist ideas, politicians, policy advisors: Clinton, Krugman for example. Not to mention how they dominate the airwaves.

Does anyone learn what freedom actually is, so they can survive in it successfully? That it entails responsibility? Nope. Kids coming out of schools graduate as govt boot lickers, with the requisite low-self esteem in their own abilities to survive in a free society.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 09:34 AM
fair
social justice
paying one's fair share
giving back
wealthy people get wealthy because of govt/infrastructure or the people ( when so many others don't achieve the same thing with the same things)
bigness ( not the govt kind though )
corporations ( as a generality )
wealthy
rich
The 1%
Big Oil
The Poor
poverty
share the wealth
redistribution
The People
What Europe has


...and other populist-sounding rhetoric

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 10:47 AM
They are not the same either.

No, but they are a lot closer than most admit. The opposite lie is to paint fascism as conservative, which it is not.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 10:49 AM
fair
social justice
paying one's fair share
giving back
wealthy people get wealthy because of govt/infrastructure or the people ( when so many others don't achieve the same thing with the same things)
bigness ( not the govt kind though )
corporations ( as a generality )
wealthy
rich
The 1%
Big Oil
The Poor
poverty
share the wealth
redistribution
The People
What Europe has


...and other populist-sounding rhetoric

Forward
Yes we can
Change
Progress (progressive)

But Obama's not using those terms on purpose...

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 11:17 AM
No, but they are a lot closer than most admit. The opposite lie is to paint fascism as conservative, which it is not.

That's true it's not. What we're seeing today in the GOP is not conservative though. At least not the grass-roots level but the leadership level. What we're getting is a top down driven agenda by globalists using lies to persuade the grassroots to drive the agenda in the direction that is desired.

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 12:19 PM
I think it's important to define what fascism is before assigning its characteristics...

I would define a fascist regime as a totalitarian government holding complete power, denying opposition, partnering with big business and emphasizing aggressive nationalist and often racist attitudes.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 02:20 PM
Look up what a socialist is and then tell me what he's done that is so crazy socialistic, other than perhaps ObamaCare.

If Obamacare was govt-run healthcare, which it isn't. Its much closer to being a gift to PRIVATE health insurance industry.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 02:20 PM
I think it's important to define what fascism is before assigning its characteristics...

I would define a fascist regime as a totalitarian government holding complete power, denying opposition, partnering with big business and emphasizing aggressive nationalist and often racist attitudes.

So seizing 1. private businesses 2. Pitting races against each other 3. Growing the size/scope of gov't

Maybe I was wrong--maybe Obama isn't a Socialist...?

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 02:22 PM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

Anything to the left of far-right is now labelled socialist.
If Obama is a socialist, then so is Ronald Reagan.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 02:24 PM
So seizing 1. private businesses 2. Pitting races against each other 3. Growing the size/scope of gov't

Maybe I was wrong--maybe Obama isn't a Socialist...?

Now you're getting it. #2 and #3 doesn't make a socialist anyway. And #1 is not accurate as to what actually happened under Obama (if you are referring to the auto companies).

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 02:29 PM
So seizing 1. private businesses 2. Pitting races against each other 3. Growing the size/scope of gov't

Maybe I was wrong--maybe Obama isn't a Socialist...?

He isn't...

Let's define socialism as a system government where the means of production and the distribution of capital rests in the community as a whole.

Obama isn't nationalizing anything as a socialist would. There is no single payer health care system (which would be socialistic). He kept Bush's tax hike which is the very opposite of socialism. His war and nation building actions are outside the definition of socialism.

I would argue that you are correct in the assertion that he is much closer to a fascist than he is socialist. (We would disagree on his race baiting, but I don't want to derail the thread).

patteeu
06-06-2012, 02:53 PM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

For some people, it's 1. For some people, it's 2. For some people, it's a combination of 1 & 2. I think we can safely rule 3 out.

patteeu
06-06-2012, 02:57 PM
..the same reason they think he's black.

This is a good point. Obama is socialist in much the same way he's black. He's got a good deal of black in him to begin with, and he's spent his life striving to be even more black.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 02:58 PM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

A better question would be:
"Why do people fight so hard to claim Obama is a socialist?"

Of course, the answer to that is easy. It's a scare tactic that appeals to the dishonest and works on the ignorant.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 03:11 PM
A better question would be:
"Why do people fight so hard to claim Obama is a socialist?"

Of course, the answer to that is easy. It's a scare tactic that appeals to the dishonest and works on the ignorant.

Because they have eyes. And a brain. And are honest with themselves.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 03:14 PM
He isn't...

Let's define socialism as a system government where the means of production and the distribution of capital rests in the community as a whole.

Obama isn't nationalizing anything as a socialist would. There is no single payer health care system (which would be socialistic). He kept Bush's tax hike which is the very opposite of socialism. His war and nation building actions are outside the definition of socialism.

I would argue that you are correct in the assertion that he is much closer to a fascist than he is socialist. (We would disagree on his race baiting, but I don't want to derail the thread).

Obama can't govern as a pure socialist because he is limited by the separation of powers and the Constitution. Just because he can't govern that way doesn't mean he isn't....

oldandslow
06-06-2012, 03:19 PM
Obama can't govern as a pure socialist because he is limited by the separation of powers and the Constitution. Just because he can't govern that way doesn't mean he isn't....

Give me a single example of a socialist policy BO has attempted to pass.

Thig Lyfe
06-06-2012, 03:20 PM
I wish Obama were socialist.

Ace Gunner
06-06-2012, 03:28 PM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

stupidity imo and im not joking. but really, it's not socialism, it's corporatist rule -- dictatorship

Inspector
06-06-2012, 03:42 PM
Does the phrase "Spread the wealth" make one more socialist or more capitalist?

Or does that even come into play?

patteeu
06-06-2012, 03:59 PM
Give me a single example of a socialist policy BO has attempted to pass.

How about when he bumped the unions ahead of the bondholders when he put GM through it's pseudo-bankruptcy reorg.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 04:27 PM
Give me a single example of a socialist policy BO has attempted to pass.

What capitalist principles has he championed? What has he passed that capitalists look at and see a job well done?

Don't give me the Bush tax cuts, he was against those long before he admitted the economy would tank if he didn't extend them....and he's back against them again now.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 05:01 PM
What capitalist principles has he championed? What has he passed that capitalists look at and see a job well done?

Don't give me the Bush tax cuts, he was against those long before he admitted the economy would tank if he didn't extend them....and he's back against them again now.

For Obama to be a socialist, the word would have to be re-defined. And you would have to conclude that pretty much every president we've had, including and especially consvervative hero Ronald Reagan, is also a socialist.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 05:03 PM
For Obama to be a socialist, the word would have to be re-defined. And you would have to conclude that pretty much every president we've had, including and especially consvervative hero Ronald Reagan, is also a socialist.

Obama being a socialist or not has nothing to do with anyone else. LMAO

Obama is a capitalist because of Ben Franklin and Oprah!!!

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 05:14 PM
Obama being a socialist or not has nothing to do with anyone else. LMAO



But if you are going to say that Obama is a socialist because he did A, B, and C, then you are going to have to apply the socialist label on others who did similar things. And if you're not willing to apply that label to them, you can't honestly stick Obama with that label either.

Thig Lyfe
06-06-2012, 05:20 PM
But if you are going to say that Obama is a socialist because he did A, B, and C, then you are going to have to apply the socialist label on others who did similar things. And if you're not willing to apply that label to them, you can't honestly stick Obama with that label either.

LMAO yeah but socialism LMAO

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 06:08 PM
I wish Obama were socialist.

I wish Obama was the EX- president

vailpass
06-06-2012, 06:12 PM
Label him as you will. The sad fact is that the label of failed President is the most fitting label for obama.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 06:50 PM
LMAO yeah but socialism LMAO

Hmm, I never thought of it that way...

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:27 PM
For Obama to be a socialist, the word would have to be re-defined. And you would have to conclude that pretty much every president we've had, including and especially consvervative hero Ronald Reagan, is also a socialist.

:spock:

Everytime I glance at your handle I first see commie. Plus all the red rep adds to the confusion. :p

ChiefaRoo
06-06-2012, 07:29 PM
Label him as you will. The sad fact is that the label of failed President is the most fitting label for obama.

Agree, this guy has failed America. He's gone in November

banyon
06-06-2012, 07:37 PM
Clinton pretty much nailed this stuff to the wall yesterday:

<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=1674152756001&playerID=1409164951001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1674152756001&playerID=1409164951001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 07:38 PM
Label him as you will. The sad fact is that the label of failed President is the most fitting label for obama.

Okaaaay! I think Obama is a socialist at heart....but a frustrated socialist due to our system. So technically he's an Accidental Corporatist.

patteeu
06-06-2012, 07:42 PM
But if you are going to say that Obama is a socialist because he did A, B, and C, then you are going to have to apply the socialist label on others who did similar things. And if you're not willing to apply that label to them, you can't honestly stick Obama with that label either.

Whether he's a socialist or not has more to do with his philosophy than with what he does or doesn't do within the constraints of our political system.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 08:06 PM
:spock:

Everytime I glance at your handle I first see commie. Plus all the red rep adds to the confusion. :p

Well, your scale is a tad askew. Everything to the left of Ron Paul you consider a commie. And you're responsible for a good deal of my red rep.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 08:07 PM
Whether he's a socialist or not has more to do with his philosophy than with what he does or doesn't do within the constraints of our political system.

I like what Alan Keyes says about Obama, he'a a Communist.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:08 PM
Well, your scale is a tad askew. Everything to the left of Ron Paul you consider a commie. And you're responsible for a good deal of my red rep.
I see you're lying again, like a good commie does. You had that red collar when you had none from me and then only got one from which you even lied about then.
You have perhaps 4 by now from me—I'm just part of the crowd now.

La literatura
06-06-2012, 08:09 PM
Does the phrase "Spread the wealth" make one more socialist or more capitalist?

Or does that even come into play?

Healthy capitalism is theoretically supposed to spread the wealth, not keep it concentrated. So I guess three words doesn't really define a political ideology, like "God is dead" doesn't define a theology.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 08:09 PM
Whether he's a socialist or not has more to do with his philosophy than with what he does or doesn't do within the constraints of our political system.

The philosophy you have attributed to him is socialist, I would agree with that.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:11 PM
I like what Alan Keyes says about Obama, he'a a Communist.

Socialist is a Communist. They were used interchangeably in the 19th century. Communism is just the higher phase of socialism, when everyone is perfected by the state dictatorship, after which the state is no longer needed and withers away. Only the last phase has never happened anywhere溶ot with govt's anyway. Only happens in religious orders that take a vow of poverty and live communally.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 08:12 PM
Socialist is a Communist. They were used interchangeably in the 19th century. Communism is just the higher phase of socialism, when everyone is perfected by the state dictatorship, after which the state is no longer needed and withers away. Only the last phase has never happened anywhere溶ot with govt's anyway. Only happens in religious orders that take a vow of poverty and live communally.

I guess you misunderstood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg)

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 08:18 PM
I see you're lying again, like a good commie does. You had that red collar when you had none from me and then only got one from which you even lied about then.
You have perhaps 4 by now from me悠'm just part of the crowd now.

4? You given me that over a weekend. You're forgetting how sensitive you can be about Ronnie P. I'm sure you're in the double digits.

Bewbies
06-06-2012, 08:20 PM
But if you are going to say that Obama is a socialist because he did A, B, and C, then you are going to have to apply the socialist label on others who did similar things. And if you're not willing to apply that label to them, you can't honestly stick Obama with that label either.

I'd agree if you called yourself a punk bitch.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 08:22 PM
I like what Alan Keyes says

Not a lot of people have uttered these words.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:24 PM
I guess you misunderstood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlTgrMCxPg)

No YOU misunderstand. There's no real difference because it's the SAME economic system. Just today, more people think socialist sounds better than communist.

Your You Tube, has Keyes saying he's a "radical communist" but that's not much of a distinction either. I mean what does that mean? Radical means going back to root causes to handle problems.

Keyes is confused...what he should have said was Marxist-Leninist because they believe in using violent revolution to implement socialism. That's usually a "radical communist"because they implement the socialist phase via overthrow and/or dictatorship. The latter is what Obama is doing with his EOs to bypass congress.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 08:24 PM
I'd agree if you called yourself a punk bitch.

OK, good response.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:29 PM
4? You given me that over a weekend. You're forgetting how sensitive you can be about Ronnie P. I'm sure you're in the double digits.

That's a another lie. My control panel which I just checked shows none over the weekend. The last one was 5 weeks ago—none have been over Ron. It's because you troll the right even on other issues.

Here's one from 5 weeks ago: "Quite Trolling. The thread is about division in the GOP"

Last time you lied about this, you had one pos and one neg from me.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:35 PM
OK, good response.

Was deserved.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 08:36 PM
Your You Tube, has Keyes saying he's a "radical communist" but that's not much of a distinction either. I mean what does that mean?



It means like "super duper." Commonly used to emphasize a point when there's no real substance to the underlying description in the first place.

BucEyedPea
06-06-2012, 08:40 PM
It means like "super duper." Commonly used to emphasize a point when there's no real substance to the underlying description in the first place.

I think this post shows how sensitive you are about Obama.ROFL

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 10:20 PM
Not a lot of people have uttered these words.

So now you know of one that has. Keyes is one of the best debaters that was running last time around. Too bad the republican party didn't stand behind him, he may not have won the election but he would have torn Obama up in the debates. He didn't need to have a teleprompter to get his facts out.

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 10:21 PM
No YOU misunderstand. There's no real difference because it's the SAME economic system. Just today, more people think socialist sounds better than communist.

Your You Tube, has Keyes saying he's a "radical communist" but that's not much of a distinction either. I mean what does that mean? Radical means going back to root causes to handle problems.

Keyes is confused...what he should have said was Marxist-Leninist because they believe in using violent revolution to implement socialism. That's usually a "radical communist"because they implement the socialist phase via overthrow and/or dictatorship. The latter is what Obama is doing with his EOs to bypass congress.

You are like talking to a brick wall with one exception, there is more of a chance to get a brick wall to understand the point.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 10:46 PM
So now you know of one that has. Keyes is one of the best debaters that was running last time around. Too bad the republican party didn't stand behind him, he may not have won the election but he would have torn Obama up in the debates. He didn't need to have a teleprompter to get his facts out.

Hilarious. He's a birther--just like you!

The Rs did stand behind him--and they pushed that nut right out of the party. He's lost 6 or 7 elections, maybe he should get the hint.

Obama used telepromters during the debates?

Iz Zat Chew
06-06-2012, 11:06 PM
Hilarious. He's a birther--just like you!

The Rs did stand behind him--and they pushed that nut right out of the party. He's lost 6 or 7 elections, maybe he should get the hint.

Obama used telepromters during the debates?Once again you show your inability to grasp the simplest of concepts. I dont trust Obama to tell the truth. He's the ****ing president, what's to be gained now? Keyes was asking for proof of birth BEFORE the election. I guess you have a one track mind, good thing the rails end in November.

Obama only uses teleprompters on occasions when he wants to sound intelligent - you know when someone else writes his speeches. He is a tremendous reader, he's just not very smart, alot like you.

cosmo20002
06-06-2012, 11:40 PM
Obama only uses teleprompters on occasions when he wants to sound intelligent - you know when someone else writes his speeches. He is a tremendous reader, he's just not very smart, alot like you.

Do you (and other Obama critics) not realize that speechwriters and telepromters (which merely display the written speeches) are and have been commonly used by presidents, congressmen, and other people giving speeches for years and years?

It's stuff like this (as well as the birther nonsense) that just confirms that you are not just wrong about most everything, but just plain loony.

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 06:08 AM
Do you (and other Obama critics) not realize that speechwriters and telepromters (which merely display the written speeches) are and have been commonly used by presidents, congressmen, and other people giving speeches for years and years?

It's stuff like this (as well as the birther nonsense) that just confirms that you are not just wrong about most everything, but just plain loony.

I believe you are more worthless than Obama. Good bye.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 06:42 AM
You are like talking to a brick wall with one exception, there is more of a chance to get a brick wall to understand the point.

Why are you talking about yourself?

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 06:43 AM
So now you know of one that has. Keyes is one of the best debaters that was running last time around. Too bad the republican party didn't stand behind him, he may not have won the election but he would have torn Obama up in the debates. He didn't need to have a teleprompter to get his facts out.

The Republican party will never stand behind Keyes. They just use conservatives like Keyes for votes. Conservatives have been marginalized since Reagan left office. Why do you think most of the big corporate money went to Romney? Wake up and smell the coffee.

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 07:44 AM
Why are you talking about yourself?

pea, don't try to take away from yourself. just read your posts you are as bad as anyone when it comes to ignoring what is said and interjecting your position regardless of what the previous post said. Then when someone calls you on it you get defensive and deflect by trying to reverse the situation.

Your point about Keyes is completely out of sync with what I said. Keyes can debate with anyone and usually come out on top because has resident factual information within. I didn't post about him because I want him to be president, but he would be a far sight better than what we have now.

You can damn the republicans all you want, your democrat/liberal aspect is obvious. Most of the time you try to come off as a middle of the road with your political view but at the end of the day you are hardcore liberal.

cosmo20002
06-07-2012, 08:55 AM
I believe you are more worthless than Obama. Good bye.

I understand. But when I think about the other stuff you believe--Obama born in Kenya, evolution is a myth, no one but Obama used teleprompters, bigfoot--I really don't feel that bad about it.

cosmo20002
06-07-2012, 09:00 AM
Most of the time you try to come off as a middle of the road with your political view but at the end of the day you are hardcore liberal.

ROFL
BEP, you really need to stop taking those middle-of-the-road views.

How far to the right do you need to be to label BEP a hardcore liberal? ROFL

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 09:09 AM
pea, don't try to take away from yourself. just read your posts you are as bad as anyone when it comes to ignoring what is said and interjecting your position regardless of what the previous post said. Then when someone calls you on it you get defensive and deflect by trying to reverse the situation.

I didn't ignore what was said at all. I disagreed with it. I'm sorry but interjecting our position is what is done here. I have a right to defend my position. I can comment on what Keyes said, on any part I want, and I find him to be confused. I don't recall being called on this...except by you here.

Your point about Keyes is completely out of sync with what I said.
No, this is called a disagreement. This is your opinion that it's out of sync. I see it as you're being out-of-sync with what I said. I mean this is supposed to be about Obama being a socialist—not who would be better.

Keyes can debate with anyone and usually come out on top because has resident factual information within. I didn't post about him because I want him to be president, but he would be a far sight better than what we have now.

The part of Keye's information that are relevant to this thread was not all factual. I never even said I disagreed with all he said in that video. Certainly not his point about infanticide and Obama ruining the country. I think you're the one ignoring what I said. It's also irrelevant as to Keyes being better than what we have now because this is about Obama being a socialist. So now, who is ignoring things here? It's you.

You can damn the republicans all you want, your democrat/liberal aspect is obvious. Most of the time you try to come off as a middle of the road with your political view but at the end of the day you are hardcore liberal.

Ha! Ha! I see I hit a nerve with you. The Republican Establishment and leadership, not so much grass-roots, today are big govt socialists too. Perhaps, just at a slower rate of implementation. If you think I'm a democrat/liberal, then you have failed to understand what Conservativism is about or where I stand on most issues. Conservativism is actually classical liberalism since today's liberals are not classical liberals. This means limited govt with it's attendant lower costs, low taxes, little inflation, no central bank, no central economic planning or steering of an economy via a central bank, a humble foreign policy, federalism aka state's rights and free-trade.

You need to read Where the Right Went Wrong. Your evaluation of me is incorrect and you're being just as defensive as you claim I am. You're a typical NeoConservative or Big govt conservative, if you think I am anywhere near being a modern "liberal." I'm a Paleo-Conservative, which overlaps with libertarianism but isn't libertarianism. That's why I seem middle-of-the-road to you or "liberal." BTW, which is it, because those are not the same thing? I think you're just as confused as Keyes.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2012, 09:15 AM
I've been wondering this the last few days and thought I'd bring it here for discussion.

Why do people fight so hard to deny that Obama is a socialist? Is it:

1. They don't know what a socialist is?
2. They don't want to admit they are a socialist?
3. Obama's not a socialist, he's a capitalist and hates all things (and people) socialist.

Any insights?

:hmmm:

1. Feathers like a duck.
2. Feet like a duck.
3. Bill like a duck.
4. Quacks like a duck.
5. Walks like a duck.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, No way in hell he is a socialist !

Oh btw, throw the RINOs in their as well.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 09:19 AM
ROFL
BEP, you really need to stop taking those middle-of-the-road views.

How far to the right do you need to be to label BEP a hardcore liberal? ROFL

He's actually not that far to the right as he thinks. See those red triangles above the scalloped, dotted line? He's where the one on the right is located. I am closer to the larger blue triangle more to the right. I am to his right. Today, both the center and the "Neo" right are on the left.

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/8845/spectrum0.png

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 10:07 AM
I didn't ignore what was said at all. I disagreed with it. I'm sorry but interjecting our position is what is done here. I have a right to defend my position. I can comment on what Keyes said, on any part I want, and I find him to be confused. I don't recall being called on this...except by you here.


No, this is called a disagreement. This is your opinion that it's out of sync. I see it as you're being out-of-sync with what I said. I mean this is supposed to be about Obama being a socialist溶ot who would be better.



The part of Keye's information that are relevant to this thread was not all factual. I never even said I disagreed with all he said in that video. Certainly not his point about infanticide and Obama ruining the country. I think you're the one ignoring what I said. It's also irrelevant as to Keyes being better than what we have now because this is about Obama being a socialist. So now, who is ignoring things here? It's you.



Ha! Ha! I see I hit a nerve with you. The Republican Establishment and leadership, not so much grass-roots, today are big govt socialists too. Perhaps, just at a slower rate of implementation. If you think I'm a democrat/liberal, then you have failed to understand what Conservativism is about or where I stand on most issues. Conservativism is actually classical liberalism since today's liberals are not classical liberals. This means limited govt with it's attendant lower costs, low taxes, little inflation, no central bank, no central economic planning or steering of an economy via a central bank, a humble foreign policy, federalism aka state's rights and free-trade.

You need to read Where the Right Went Wrong. Your evaluation of me is incorrect and you're being just as defensive as you claim I am. You're a typical NeoConservative or Big govt conservative, if you think I am anywhere near being a modern "liberal." I'm a Paleo-Conservative, which overlaps with libertarianism but isn't libertarianism. That's why I seem middle-of-the-road to you or "liberal." BTW, which is it, because those are not the same thing? I think you're just as confused as Keyes.

You really think you struck a nerve?

You are just here to stir up shit. You change your position based on who you are arguing with.

Claim to be as right as you think you are, you are a left leaning liberal that is just playing a game.

Game is over, you win by default because I don't have the time to follow your inscidious path to hell.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 10:12 AM
Did you say something?

Chiefshrink
06-07-2012, 10:29 AM
You really think you struck a nerve?

You are just here to stir up shit. You change your position based on who you are arguing with.

Claim to be as right as you think you are, you are a left leaning liberal that is just playing a game.

Game is over, you win by default because I don't have the time to follow your inscidious path to hell.

Did you say something?

Hey, Damn It !! Did you both forget you are on the same side here and we are in war to save our country???? Yeah, Yeah, Neo-Con vs Libertarian vs Old Guard Repub, I get it:shrug: But NOT NOW !!! :shake: Fall back in line and man your posts !!:p:p:p:p

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 10:37 AM
Hey, Damn It !! Did you both forget you are on the same side here and we are in war to save our country???? Yeah, Yeah, Neo-Con vs Libertarian vs Old Guard Repub, I get it:shrug: But NOT NOW !!! :shake: Fall back in line and man your posts !!:p:p:p:p

So long as he calls me a left liberal...the gloves come off. :evil:

Chiefshrink
06-07-2012, 10:44 AM
So long as he calls me a left liberal...the gloves come off. :evil:

:LOL:

Ohhhhhhh you two are like rivaling siblings right now and both are headed for the "political penalty box" if you don't watch it !!!:p:p

Amnorix
06-07-2012, 10:46 AM
He's actually not that far to the right as he thinks. See those red triangles above the scalloped, dotted line? He's where the one on the right is located. I am closer to the larger blue triangle more to the right. I am to his right. Today, both the center and the "Neo" right are on the left.

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/8845/spectrum0.png


That's the center of what? Political thought 225 years ago? You're in the political center of a bunch of corpses?

That's the part that makes no sense. Literature might as well argue that he's an arch-conservative.....compared to the now-dead former inhabitants of the Paris commune.

Dickshrink is a raging liberal----compared to the barely civilized humans of thousands of years ago, where the strong took whatever they wanted, including land and women, from the weak.

It's complete lunacy. Of course, you're too obtuse to see that. The world ony exists through the prism you want to see it through -- nothing else matters.

Chiefshrink
06-07-2012, 11:14 AM
Political thought 225 years ago? You're in the political center of a bunch of corpses? That's the part that makes no sense.
It's complete lunacy. Of course, you're too obtuse to see that. The world ony exists through the prism you want to see it through -- nothing else matters.

Hey Anusorexia ! Political thought 225 yrs ago is about getting back to adhering to our beloved Constitution and why our country has spiraled down deeper into corrupt social and economic rot over the last 80yrs and at breakneck speed in the last 4yrs. But then again you are a Marxist Lib who worships those dead corpses like Marx,Lenin,Hitler and Stalin and of course this makes no sense and is complete lunacy to you and by far to obtuse to see it thus your world only exists through your red prism of Communism that you think is sooooooooooooooo successful and yet has not yielded one ounce of success in world history ever, well except for being tyrannical towards it's people.:rolleyes:

Yeeeeeaaaaaaaah American political thought 225 yrs ago is just sooooooooo pass, out of touch and just doesn't work and is just complete lunacy:rolleyes:

Hey Anus ! Whose the real lunatic here?:rolleyes:

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 11:22 AM
Did you say something?

I gave up. You win. I think less of you now than I have in the past few days and that's really bottoming out.

KC native
06-07-2012, 11:46 AM
ROFL a crazy convention in here.

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 12:16 PM
ROFL a crazy convention in here.

And now the party is complete, you are here.

Chief Henry
06-07-2012, 12:21 PM
Obama and the New Party"

dazedhero
06-07-2012, 12:21 PM
ROFL

Chief Faithful
06-07-2012, 12:23 PM
I think it's because he's not a socialist.

No, he is a European style social democracy socialist.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 01:00 PM
I gave up. You win. I think less of you now than I have in the past few days and that's really bottoming out.

It's mutual I guess! :thumb:

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 01:03 PM
Hey Anusorexia ! Political thought 225 yrs ago is about getting back to adhering to our beloved Constitution and why our country has spiraled down deeper into corrupt social and economic rot over the last 80yrs and at breakneck speed in the last 4yrs. But then again you are a Marxist Lib who worships those dead corpses like Marx,Lenin,Hitler and Stalin and of course this makes no sense and is complete lunacy to you and by far to obtuse to see it thus your world only exists through your red prism of Communism that you think is sooooooooooooooo successful and yet has not yielded one ounce of success in world history ever, well except for being tyrannical towards it's people.:rolleyes:

Yeeeeeaaaaaaaah American political thought 225 yrs ago is just sooooooooo pass, out of touch and just doesn't work and is just complete lunacy:rolleyes:

Hey Anus ! Whose the real lunatic here?:rolleyes:

He's another one talking about himself! He loves big govt, likes the Constitution being dead thus liberty is dead, doesn't know it's bad ideas, not the era they are implemented in, that are the source of most of our problems. His lunacy, is that he's in denial about it all.

Here's how I see Amnorix and others like him—slaves aren't worth trying to free. They like their chains and intellectualize having them. Or perhaps it's Stockholm Syndrome?

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 01:05 PM
It's mutual I guess! :thumb:
No not really, you've never even acted as if you respected anything I've said. At least I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt.

:rolleyes:

cosmo20002
06-07-2012, 01:09 PM
No not really, you've never even acted as if you respected anything I've said. At least I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt.

:rolleyes:

I told you before that the birther stuff makes it hard to take you seriously from the get-go. Though even without that, you make it pretty difficult.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 01:11 PM
No not really, you've never even acted as if you respected anything I've said. At least I started out giving you the benefit of the doubt.

:rolleyes:

Respect? That's what you're after? Sorry, I disagreed with you. I don't see why radical has to be put in front of the word communist, I guess.

BucEyedPea
06-07-2012, 01:12 PM
I told you before that the birther stuff makes it hard to take you seriously from the get-go. Though even without that, you make it pretty difficult.

I think he is specifically addressing me as a personal matter in how we react and respond to one another. Although, I am not a birther, it doesn't mean I disrespect a birther or their other views. What I don't respect is another aggressive war.

cosmo20002
06-07-2012, 01:39 PM
I think he is specifically addressing me as a personal matter in how we react and respond to one another. Although, I am not a birther, it doesn't mean I disrespect a birther or their other views. What I don't respect is another aggressive war.

Well, you should.

Iz Zat Chew
06-07-2012, 02:28 PM
I told you before that the birther stuff makes it hard to take you seriously

Cosmo you ignorant slut (stolenfrom SNL). I told you over and over that I don't give a shit about his bc. What he provided looked fake, it could be real but the man is a liar and I DO NOT TRUST ANYTHING HE SAYS OR DOES.

If that makes me a birther it makes you a left leaning liberal loon.

Get over the bc stuff and we can discuss things. When you get in a bind with facts all you do is throw out the birther shit all over to deflect from the topic at hand.