• 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!

Rep. Allen West Says Up To 81 House Members Are Communists

Grant said:
Politics was never intended to be a real business until the Obama administration began using taxpayer money to buy automobile companies, investing in varying solar companies and otherwise "stimulating the economy".
Click to expand...

Well, it's always been a business, certainly from the founding onward. Assumption of the Revolutionary war debt, speculation involving Federal lands, the Erie Canal financing, etc., etc.

And actually it seems that a great many of those who invested in him now have buyers remorse.
Click to expand...

GM is happy, and those on the inside of the solar business didn't lose their own money. It's a matter of who gains and who loses, and not everybody is always happy, but the insiders rarely take a hit.



His resume is rather murky but if you say he was a successful businessman before entering public office he might well have been. You have no reason to lie.
Click to expand...

His resume is pretty straight forward, hiring employees, rounding up investors and financing, organizing and administration of his business, planning, it's all there.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
So to recap once again:

West makes the following claim: "I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party"

This claim is proven false.

People claim that it could be true because progressive is the same thing as communist. This is shown to be not true.

People then try socialism. Again shown to not be true.

In amongst all this is the usual laundry list of supposed evils of any one to the left of the far right. The topic is abandoned to just turn this into a attack. The smell of desperation gets heavy. No one actually wants to admit that a republican might have gotten it wrong. Oh no, the problem is just that facts have a liberal bias so we just need to ignore them, and ignore what words mean.
Click to expand...

That's certainly how I see this thread playing out. I'm actually kind of shocked by it.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Agreed.

Do you agree that representative democracy concedes, as a fundamental, that multiple points of view do have merit? Otherwise, we should seek out a dictatorship, as it's far more efficient. The founders obviously recognized this and favored a system of compromise over one of control or orthodoxy. So "rugged individualism" is correct, in the sense that individuals are entrusted to make choices for themselves by a doctrine that respects such diversity. it does not mean that we are or should be free of obligation or "force."
Click to expand...

This is so out of line. Representative democracy enables differing points of view. But it most surely does not grant them any merit at all.

Further, "rugged individualism" has nothing to do with respecting diversity. It respects only the ability to produce results. The foundation upon which a Democratic Republic will thrive. As noted earlier, the Pilgrims learned real quick that such as you espouse is jibberish. Folly.
 
Grant said:
Au contraire my naive little friend. Communism does have a face and it's filled with the hatred that caused over 100 million deaths and destroyed many millions more lives. It was, an is, evil incarnate, the worst scourge of the previous century, worse than Nazism, Fascism or any other ism you care to name.


Communism is idea i've conjured? No, it's not. I'm seen it up close in eastern Europe and witnessed the human suffering. Are you also a holocaust denier?

Frontline Fellowship - Working for Reformation & Praying for Revival

Robert Fulford's column about The Black Book of Communism
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring the communists in your history books. They were real -- well, a lot of them were, at least. I was referring to the communists that you, West and nobody else can see.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
This is so out of line. Representative democracy enables differing points of view. But it most surely does not grant them any merit at all.

Further, "rugged individualism" has nothing to do with respecting diversity. It respects only the ability to produce results. The foundation upon which a Democratic Republic will thrive. As noted earlier, the Pilgrims learned real quick that such as you espouse is jibberish. Folly.
Click to expand...

Then why have a representative democracy? Why have a Bill of Rights? Why have freedom of speech, religion, etc? Why not just have a system of control by the enlightened such as yourself? If you don't see merit in diversity, then why merit democracy?
 
I haven't read the whole thread since my last post but I don't need too, I know what this one said and that one.. However I ask one simple question to anyone willing to answer. What is the end game for human societies? How do all the religions, the ideologies and philosophical differences eventually mesh into one?

50, 100, 300 years from now, how does what we have now all end? What kind of society are we left with?

Tim-
 
cpwill said:
you are definitely correct that the Pilgrims tried that.

for a year. many of them starved to death.

then they switched to individualism (they had a much steeper learning curve than modern liberals).

and, oddly, ate pretty well thereafter :).
Click to expand...

Well, it's a great fantasy. Too bad it relies on leaving out important details, like the Plymouth Colony being a chartered private corporation, with shareholders demanding a return on their capital, and the reason those that made it over to Mass. were starving is because they were required to turn over all their production to the corporation beyond subsistence, and they went 'rogue' because they decided that staying alive was more important than profits for shareholders. Not to mention it was a bunch of 'Commie indians' who stepping in and got the farming thing off to a decent start by 'cooperating' with them, and of course, like all farming communities, they still helped each other with harvests, building, medical assistance, plowing, and all the rest of that stuff, so this little heart-warming example of 'libertarianism' isn't quite what really happened.

Later on, the fur trade with the Commie indians allowed them to buy off those shareholders in England and kiss them off, at a reduced price per share as well.

Not exactly the triumph of Social Darwinism and laissez faire many try to paint it to be.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Here we go again. How absurd.

1) What extra-Constitutional process stopped Jefferson from being impeached ? And you apparently do not understand "treason".

2) The Alien and Sedition Acts were eventually overturned by Congress. They were also voted in before Judicial Review was established.

3) Washington ? Tell us where Washington violated due process and jailed Congress in its attempts to impeach him ?

All these pretend liberal historians. What a joke.
Click to expand...

You're changing your tune. Before, you were saying the constitution must be upheld as written. Now you're saying it must be interpreted by Congress, that because Jefferson wasn't impeached, his actions weren't extra-constitutional. So, is the constitution interpretable or isn't it?
 
GhostlyJoe said:
But he can't defend the idea that there are 81 communists in Congress, because they are factually not there.
Click to expand...

Finally! Someone with the facts. Okay, what are the facts then? Can you sure the political leanings of these people?
I'm sure Marx thought he could defend his ideas just fine.
Click to expand...

You're sure of a lot of facts. it seems.

His ideas were of their own time, and they've certainly influenced the modern age,
Click to expand...

Yes, many have witnessed this influence, and in fact it was often the last thing they ever witnessed.

but Marxism is not a modern philosophy, and communism is not taking hold in the modern United States, and any assertion that they are is exactly the type of diversionary tactic you're describing.
Click to expand...

Diversionary from what? You think there are no closet communists around? Those who still hold Marxist points of view and genuinely believe it's a good thing? Where do you get your "facts"?

I'm not a defender of Marx. Marx can defend himself. I'm a defender of my own ideas and perspectives. Modern liberals, likewise, may not share your worldview, but very few follow Marxist ideology.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just claim that Marx only thought he could defend his own ideas?

Very few? If only. But one is still too many, just as there are far too many Fascist, racists, and other types of misogynists in the world.
 
Grant said:
Finally! Someone with the facts. Okay, what are the facts then? Can you sure the political leanings of these people?


You're sure of a lot of facts. it seems.



Yes, many have witnessed this influence, and in fact it was often the last thing they ever witnessed.



Diversionary from what? You think there are no closet communists around? Those who still hold Marxist points of view and genuinely believe it's a good thing? Where do you get your "facts"?



Didn't you just claim that Marx only thought he could defend his own ideas?

Very few? If only. But one is still too many, just as there are far too many Fascist, racists, and other types of misogynists in the world.
Click to expand...

You know, you "rugged individualists" sure see the world as a bunch of collectives. I'm sure there are even more villainous archetypes you can call out -- satanists, witches. It doesn't matter what they profess to believe. You can see their true intentions.
 
notquiteright said:
The concept of rugged individual makes for great self stroking but we are a group animal that works best when many hands lighten the load... :3oops:
Click to expand...

These people often gathered together in groups but only because it served their purpose at the time. They were not forced into it nor did the government make them do it and, as free people, they were always free to leave. They cooperated with each other largely without government direction, involvement or interference. And any government tended to be local.
 
cpwill-
Puritans actually, and their salvation didn't come from individualism but adapting native crops to their use, the Commons remained in use far after the first year. As far as eating pretty good, no sir, they had periodic visits from starvation, the Salem Witch Insanity came about partly due to having to resort to eating smutty grain during another thin winter.

The use of fortified settlements and the bands of settlers working together for both protection and building is well documented. You have heard of barn raising parties, communal harvests, building irrigation systems that benefit more than a so-called rugged individual.

Like I said, many 'conservatives' attempt to rewrite the actual history to some self serving myth...
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Look it up NotQuiteRight. Communism was a massive fail with the Pilgrims. Many starved to death because that system could not rise to the level pf production needed to withstand the harsh realities. So they switched to rugged individualism. To capitalism.
Click to expand...

Lol ... how much 'capital' did they have, exactly? And, 'harsh realities' demand cooperation and support from the entire community. 'Rugged individualists' die off amazingly quickly in wildernesses.

And again, they survived by keeping what they produced for themselves instead of giving it to corporate shareholders, i.e. private enterprise. Workers giving all their productivity gains to a private corporation, or to a state, is a distinction without a difference for almost all producers.


To enabling "have's and have not's" based on one's own brains and braun, where the charity of the have's made sure that the have-not's endured as well. That's what America was founded on, not all the liberal crappola.

Look it up liberal.
Click to expand...

Really? Is that why the wealthiest people in America during and after the Revolution were slave owners and plantation owners who never hit a lick in their entire lives? How about all those indentured servants suckered into coming over by liars and swindlers who wouldn't be caught dead hefting an axe or unloading a ship? Do pirates count as 'rugged individualists'? How about smugglers?
 
Redress said:
Ummm...bat**** insane libertarian crap isn't the topic.
Click to expand...

So conservatives don't understand words like socialism(even if that is false) but its libertarian insane bat **** to point that liberals don't understand the words in the law of the land? Whatever dude.
 
notquiteright said:
cpwill-
Puritans actually, and their salvation didn't come from individualism but adapting native crops to their use, the Commons remained in use far after the first year. As far as eating pretty good, no sir, they had periodic visits from starvation, the Salem Witch Insanity came about partly due to having to resort to eating smutty grain during another thin winter.

The use of fortified settlements and the bands of settlers working together for both protection and building is well documented. You have heard of barn raising parties, communal harvests, building irrigation systems that benefit more than a so-called rugged individual.

Like I said, many 'conservatives' attempt to rewrite the actual history to some self serving myth...
Click to expand...

All that, and they also divided up the available land in very 'un-capitalist' fashion as well.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
You know, you "rugged individualists" sure see the world as a bunch of collectives. I'm sure there are even more villainous archetypes you can call out -- satanists, witches. It doesn't matter what they profess to believe. You can see their true intentions.
Click to expand...

Good to know no one countered my argument on socialism and liberals earlier..lol
 
Rapunzel52 said:
Strange...sounded like childish name calling to me.
Click to expand...

Funny how it is when I do it, but the person who did it that I copied wasn't. I love selective outrage, it is so telling. The fact that the point(which is to show how stupid that type of comment is) went over your head makes it even better.
 
Henrin said:
So conservatives don't understand words like socialism(even if that is false) but its libertarian insane bat **** to point that liberals don't understand the words in the law of the land? Whatever dude.
Click to expand...

The conservatives claiming that these people are socialist or communist have proven to not know the meaning of the word.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
I wasn't referring the communists in your history books. They were real -- well, a lot of them were, at least. I was referring to the communists that you, West and nobody else can see.
Click to expand...

You feel qualified to speak for Allen West?
 
Redress said:
Funny how it is when I do it, but the person who did it that I copied wasn't. I love selective outrage, it is so telling. The fact that the point(which is to show how stupid that type of comment is) went over your head makes it even better.
Click to expand...


I called no one names and you didn't copy and paste it from me, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
GhostlyJoe said:
Agreed.

Do you agree that representative democracy concedes, as a fundamental, that multiple points of view do have merit? Otherwise, we should seek out a dictatorship, as it's far more efficient. The founders obviously recognized this and favored a system of compromise over one of control or orthodoxy. So "rugged individualism" is correct, in the sense that individuals are entrusted to make choices for themselves by a doctrine that respects such diversity. it does not mean that we are or should be free of obligation or "force."
Click to expand...

Yes, our founders knew how to do it the right way. They were absolutely brilliant. We should go back the their laws where only landowners could vote.
 
Rapunzel52 said:
I called no one names and you didn't copy and paste it from me, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I will slow this down for you, but this is another example of why you should read the thread before commenting. Read the following quote and note the bolded part:

Hicup said:
Don't let them deter you. West is correct, even if he was sort of being flippant about it. McCarthy was also correct when he identified it in the 50's. Communist don't/can't come out into the open in a free society, they must work hard and over a long period of time to influence policy and direction. They've been embedding themselves into the very fabric of our society for decades, influenciung our media, and our children in our educational institutions. Is it one coordinated effort? Nope, probably not, but there are many of them with the same goals, even if how and why they go about achieving them is different the goal is the same insane notion that a central authority is smart enough and uncorruptable enough to make decisions for all of us..

Anyone that denies this is insane or simply a dolt! Besides, West was correct at least in part about the car carrying aspect since it is well nown that Obama himself hired communists, and congressional leaders have been seen leaving communist party of America locations.. I think Water from O'Reilly had them on camera running away from the cameras.. LOL

Communism can't flourish in a free society, they must manufacture unrest and then offer a solution to resolve it. It's how's it's done. My God anyone NOT know this?


Tim-
Click to expand...

Now here is my reply:



Redress said:
Any one who believes that what West said was true is either a dolt or insane. See how that works. In point of fact, it is factually untrue. PolitiFact Florida | Allen West says about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party

Again, what we have here is some one makes a claim. It fails on the facts(this means it is untrue). Instead of admitting it was untrue, people keep on arguing it must be true because we want to believe it is, and facts be damned. We don't need facts or reality, we just want to smear people we disagree with.
Click to expand...


Notice something? We call this an illustrative example. No go read the above and note the underlined part. That is saying I was showing an example of his style. Got it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom