- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 133,429
- Reaction score
- 43,228
- Location
- Miami
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Get mad all you want.
Well, I'm downright raging.
Get mad all you want.
How he describes himself is immarterial since he is a politician and a lyer. His actions and policies that he supports are clearly those of a socialist. Socialism, in any form, may differ from Marx but have common elements, mainly that the early steps of transition from Capitalism to Socialism require a government to seize control of industry and resources so that they may be equitably redistributed without regards to actual production of the individual. His policies, actions and economics clearly fall within that discription, thus is is undoubtedly socialist.
What makes him socialist. Hmm, lets see, proclaiming that we should pursue "bottom up economics", using the government to take over corporations, advocating laws that give the government control over corporations, using government monies for social programs to the detriment of average productive citizens, appointing an Industry Czar and actually expecting companies to abide by his policies, using tax laws to attempt to redistribute wealth from those who have actually done something and earned it to social cancers, such as welfare, calling the socialist revolution that overthrew a democratic government in China something to celebrate, they fact that so many of his policies are centered around "empowering" the poor at the expense of others, the fact that his level of control, while methodically different from Marx has the same economic affect, his constant demonizing of the Free Market, Capatilist markets and the results of profit based business, his claiming that the creators and investors "didn't build that" because a lot of unskilled labor was used, never mind that without the investments and creators nothing would of occured but if the unskilled laborers used weren't available, there are plenty others that would of been, his attempts to exerpt direct government control of the healthcare systems and other industries . Come to think of it, has he actually done anything or supported any policy that did not have a socialistic element? Oh, wait, I guess he did support patent reform to give the patent to the first to apply for it, well, I guess nobody, given enough time could do everything wrong.
Furthur, you seem to think I am directly refering to just Obama. Come on, when has any of my posts actually focused on only a single moment in history? We have been trending towards socialism since the 1960s, not just under Obama. You previously mentioned the human costs during different eras of US history, tell me, what has been the human costs since we started trending towards socialistic policies? How many jobs have left America as a result of government policies, taxes and agencies like OSHA and EPA? How bad has our education systems become since then? How many people are killed, raped, and assaulted as a result of living under socialistic programs like welfare? How many people have had their lives suppressed and ruined by adherence to socialistic programs? Tell, me, how many under welfare actually ever escape it or even attempt to escape it without reforms being made to the system and them being forced to? What is the crime rates, participation in gang violence, etc in these welfare areas controlled by socialistic programs? You point out that from the end of the civil war to the assination of Martin Luther King, Jr being double the numbers from 9/11, well guess what, murders generated by welfare and other socialist programs have an annual death rate of near that or greater. The human costs in this country since the introduction of socialist sytems here is far greater than in the entire previous history of the US, including slave era, prohibition and the civil war.
proclaiming that we should pursue "bottom up economics"
using the government to take over corporations
Furthur, you seem to think I am directly refering to just Obama.
I've been hearing a lot of interesting rhetoric on this subject, for a while now, so I figured I'd throw this question out there and see what you all think.
Without a doubt...I find it hard for anybody to think the United States hasnt' done more good than harm...even including all the black stains we have in our history.
Well, I'm downright raging.
and Russia and Britain and Australia and Canada and the soldiers of the British empire etc etc etc
To hear some people, you wonder whether anyone else was involved in either world war. I'm guessing that Japan and Germany also played minor roles somewhere along the line but really it was all down to the US - start to finish.
don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the )
Ah, but the question is not whether the US was, but rather, is it still. In the past was the US a benefit to the world, without a doubt, is it still a benefit to the world and will it remain a benefit to the world, I have to stick with unsure.
There ya go annoying the public again oscar...you would make a great cop
I already am a great cop :lamo
I'm definately not a fan of recent US foreign policy...so don't get me wrong. I'm not a rah rah under any circumstances our actions are fine.
At the same time....I think Kosovo and Libya have shown that the "International Community" is a group of bumbling under funded militaries. They completely rely on US technology and logistics as well as for the US to do the heavy lifting. I think if the US was gone tomorrow...Tawain, South Korea, Israel, and other conflicts would take place all around the world. Russia would gobble up the countries that just recently gain independence. Countries like Iran that are bellicose would start taking over their neighbors. I think global security almost entirely hinges on the US.
ask the europeans who would all be speaking german now if it were not for the US
In that war, Japan and Germany lost their worst people while we lost our best. Like the ancient Greeks after the Battle of Marathon, we've been going downhill ever since.and Russia and Britain and Australia and Canada and the soldiers of the British empire etc etc etc
To hear some people, you wonder whether anyone else was involved in either world war. I'm guessing that Japan and Germany also played minor roles somewhere along the line but really it was all down to the US - start to finish.
don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the )
I'll take the hit but you will find many people on your side of the pond think your joke is real historyt.
I don't think so. That's a sweet extrapolation but not correct, I'm afraid.
Yes, the USA has benefited the world in many ways and harmed it too. American foreign policy for example.
and Russia and Britain and Australia and Canada and the soldiers of the British empire etc etc etc
To hear some people, you wonder whether anyone else was involved in either world war. I'm guessing that Japan and Germany also played minor roles somewhere along the line but really it was all down to the US - start to finish.
don't get your knickers in a twist...it was a joke (or did you miss the )
I'll take the hit but you will find many people on your side of the pond think your joke is real historyt.
You are right... Europe would be speaking German and the Pacific would be speaking Japanese if not for the Americans. Good catch.
Your level of contribution to WWII relies solely on the amount of movies you make on the subject. Sorry.
You are right... Europe would be speaking German and the Pacific would be speaking Japanese if not for the Americans. Good catch.
What about the Soviet Union? Surely they deserve recognition in winning the war, don't they?
And the Eastern Bloc, and the Iron Curtain, and genocide, and the Berlin Wall, etc etc etc...
And the Eastern Bloc, and the Iron Curtain, and genocide, and the Berlin Wall, etc etc etc...
That's all after the war..
Yeah, I don't get this. I was talking about WWII, not the Soviet Union as a whole.
The Soviet Union had a huge impact on WWII.