• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Obama a Socialist or a Communist?

Which is he


  • Total voters
    31
Why? So that you could continue moving on being wrong? Nope, I am here to correct all the ignorance of the world, even yours.

Do you have a point or anything to add other than comments you cannot back up? That's pretty much what I thought.
Not to put too fine of a point on it but your posts added nothing to the discussion.
 
He is neither, of course.
But, in this case, we do need a better people.
The conservatives/tea-baggers/racists hate him as he does believe in "sharing the wealth"...as do most decent people...
But these ****/****/**** are a small minority who receive far too much press.
Criminals and criminal enterprises believe as you do. Sharing the wealth just means taking it by the threat of force from the people who have earned it to give it to people who did nothing for it. It is an age-old problem. There have always been criminals in our midst.
 
He has allowed the continued of the wealth flow toward the 1%. The share for the rest is still decreasing.
 
How much money do you have altogether? $5000? $10,000? Maybe even $100K? Well, I'm unemployed and am facing losing my home and everything that my deceased parents and I have worked for within three months. Why not take half of what you own in money and give it to me? IF you have any integrity in what you say about "sharing" one's wealth with those of us less fortunate. Or in other words, put your money where your mouth is, literally. ~pause~ No, I didn't think so. Good idea for OTHERS to follow but certainly not you.
 
Criminals and criminal enterprises believe as you do. Sharing the wealth just means taking it by the threat of force from the people who have earned it to give it to people who did nothing for it. It is an age-old problem. There have always been criminals in our midst.

Wrong according to Merriam Webster. Sharing is not stealing. Look it up or maybe you don't want to get the facts in the way of your hallucination.
 
Of course not, certainly not here, even as some try to be. For that we can thank our Constitution.
And Mister......., you imply that its criminal to wish to share the wealth....
Then imagine a world where there was absolutely NO sharing of anything........imagine the hatred/strife/continual warfare between the haves and the have nots..
Of course, this scenario is only a fantasty....Its my opinion that it is mans way to share, to be social....at least most of us. .
And if that is socialism or criminal....then so be it.....
 
How much money do you have altogether? $5000? $10,000? Maybe even $100K? Well, I'm unemployed and am facing losing my home and everything that my deceased parents and I have worked for within three months. Why not take half of what you own in money and give it to me? IF you have any integrity in what you say about "sharing" one's wealth with those of us less fortunate. Or in other words, put your money where your mouth is, literally. ~pause~ No, I didn't think so. Good idea for OTHERS to follow but certainly not you.
So that both of us would be broke ?
We live in a "$100K" house, a dump, IMO and have two $1,000 cars...
I have been there(un and under employed from '94 onward)....but now we are retired and on social security...
The point is, our tax rates must be made more fair, in other words, the wealthy must pay a greater percentage..
I paid about 11% , as I recall in federal taxes....Romney ....13%..
I earned $30000 annuaally....Romney 3000000 plus.....and what exactly did he do that was worth that much ?
IMO, Romney was horribly overcompensated !
NO man needs so much money, $100K annually is sufficient !
It is not good that the 1% have so much and that others (99%) have "so little".
 
How do you determine how much is "enough"? Wages and prices, in a perfect world of free market capitalism, are determined by supply and demand. By what someone is willing to pay for a particular product or service. NOT by governmental edict/mandate nor by pretentious "moral" outrage. If a person can make 100K or a BILLION dollars a year, legally, then who are you to stand up and say "that's too much"?
Do you want someone like me who has far less than you to come to you and tell you that? Do you want others who have far less than you to come up to you and demand that you divide your acquired wealth, no matter how much that is, with them? Exactly by what right is anyone obligated to anyone else???
Remember, that's why this country was founded in the very first place. So that no individual, no monarchy, no army, no dictator, would be able to merely come in and take away what another person had worked for.
 
Of course not, certainly not here, even as some try to be. For that we can thank our Constitution.
And Mister......., you imply that its criminal to wish to share the wealth....
Then imagine a world where there was absolutely NO sharing of anything........imagine the hatred/strife/continual warfare between the haves and the have nots..
Of course, this scenario is only a fantasty....Its my opinion that it is mans way to share, to be social....at least most of us. .
And if that is socialism or criminal....then so be it.....


Let me interject here Mr. Progressive.

What is criminal isn't the act of sharing. We all understand that sharing is good. The thing that is wrong is government mandated sharing. That doesn't make it sharing anymore man....it makes it taking and giving. Sharing implies that a person gave up his own possessions willingly to another person.

Sharing doesn't need to be controlled by government because that doesn't make it sharing anymore.
 
Whats also wrong are government mandated property laws ....

We can go in theses circles forever ... Or we can agree that property is not in the state of nature, and that for society to work we need to agree on isntitutions and the instition of property is no more important than that of democracy or the commons or autonomy.
 
So for those of you who are going to say well then he was a Fascist. I have a question. "if this is so, how can you still be here?"

Wolfman24

Fascism doesn't make a population vanish. I don't know why you would think so.
 
Not to put too fine of a point on it but your posts added nothing to the discussion.

So it's like your posts then?

No, in fact I laid out in my original posting why we fit the definition of fascism more than socialism or communism. You just wish to ignore it because you are incapable of addressing it.
 
How do you determine how much is "enough"? Wages and prices, in a perfect world of free market capitalism, are determined by supply and demand. By what someone is willing to pay for a particular product or service. NOT by governmental edict/mandate nor by pretentious "moral" outrage. If a person can make 100K or a BILLION dollars a year, legally, then who are you to stand up and say "that's too much"?
Do you want someone like me who has far less than you to come to you and tell you that? Do you want others who have far less than you to come up to you and demand that you divide your acquired wealth, no matter how much that is, with them? Exactly by what right is anyone obligated to anyone else???
Remember, that's why this country was founded in the very first place. So that no individual, no monarchy, no army, no dictator, would be able to merely come in and take away what another person had worked for.

Some of the richest people in the world are exactly, monarchs, dictators, because money gives them means to become that way.
 
Wrong according to Merriam Webster. Sharing is not stealing. Look it up or maybe you don't want to get the facts in the way of your hallucination.
Do you think you make it any less a crime because you would prefer to believe it is not? Awesome.
 
So it's like your posts then?

No, in fact I laid out in my original posting why we fit the definition of fascism more than socialism or communism. You just wish to ignore it because you are incapable of addressing it.
Fascism is a tool the the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama has been sing to break us. No problem. he and his minions shall be broken in November.

I thin the abusive use of regulations to punish the nation is fascistic. And so, apparently, do you.
 
No, I prefer to believe the dictionary and our rules of law, than you.
Show me "share the wealth" in your dictionary.

Some are takers by nature. Others are takers by choice. All are cowards who have the government steal on their behalf.
 
Show me "share the wealth" in your dictionary.

Some are takers by nature. Others are takers by choice. All are cowards who have the government steal on their behalf.

The dictionary doesn't work that way. You can only pick one word at a time, unlike your world.
 
Fascism is a tool the the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama has been sing to break us. No problem. he and his minions shall be broken in November.


Exactly, Obama is a socialist, a Marxist, a fascist, and a Muslim.
 
Is Obama a Socialist or a Communist?


Cue Music....


"He's a.....
SUPER Commie Socialistic
Welfare lovin' doofus!
Super Commie Socialistic
Welfare lovin' doofus!
If you sing it loud enough
He really sounds atrocious
SUPER Commie Socialistic
Welfare lovin' doofus!"

With apologies to Mary Poppins....

:mrgreen:

 
Back
Top Bottom