|
MrRodgers -> RE: ISIS can't attack the US (11/20/2015 8:27:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
There's a lot we agree on and why I haven't had reason to go after your posts but I still fail to see the socialism. In fact food stamps were cut, no SS raise. I mean what is the difference between people taking advantage of govt. programs that existed before Obama got in and Exxon or GE doing the same ? We've had corp. 'food stamps' for 40 years and even CATO has published studies on corp. welfare and welfare for corps. with Billion$ in profits.
Plus presidents get angry at the sniping all of the time so what's new about people, partisans or not carping about differences in reaction at any given moment ? And just how is it that Obama is a muslim ? I mean this admin.'s drone war has killed more Muslims than any previous admin. Even on immigration, by the numbers, Obama is called 'Deporter in Chief.'
Because you have never engaged in ad hominem attacks, I will post this, one more time. I have posted it many times, before. I get bored with providing information to the less research-minded posters when they demand "links!" only to have them ignore those links. I doubt you'll do that.
Also, I should say that at the time Dumbo ears was running for his first time, it was my job to research him. I did NOT post my research here but what I am about to post is (similar) results from another user.
Here it is (in a different color for clarity):
quote:
Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]
Obama believes this.
quote:
Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other.
And fits this bill.
quote:
Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
Obama is the latter.
quote:
Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy
He's the former.
So on listed definitions, Obama is four out of four. Should you wish to move past socialism and into Marxist Communism, I personally think he fulfills 7 of 10 planks if you grade liberally.
The amusing part is if Obama had been running for an office in some country in Europe, he could have just been upfront and said "I'm a socialist", and noone would care.
Socialist. Always has been, always will be.
While I don't have three sources that are willing to come forward (even to this day), I have four people who have knowledge of Obummer's religious leanings. Only two are willing to go on record (and even that needs to be semi-anonymous). However; mark my words: when Dumbo ears is out of office about 3 years or so, he will admit to being a Nation of Islam member and a bunch of douche canoes around here will owe me an apology or they will be exposed as the ignorant and ill-mannered slugs that they are (again; that's not about you, Mr. Rodgers).
Remember, please: his intent was to "fundamentally change America." I say: "The scumbag's done it."
Michael
Even if most if not all of those much more modern-day versions of socialism are true, if one were among the investor class, the corp. elite and generally speaking...the 1%ers, since about 1980, they have to love America's (and Obama's, since 2008) brand of socialism.
Look where equities and the increases of wealth have gone. In fact there are studies now being done on the cost to the economy of having so much of capitalism's capital...going into paper, it's beginning to hurt. [It] doesn't create growth.
Suffice to to say Michael, if one looks at the practical difference in policies and what's really happened on the street as it were, the socialists of the 21st century have been an abject failure.
Some socialists believe or propose a lot of things, most don't and fewer yet actually...come to be.
|
|
|
|
