• 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!

NorfolkVA judge orders website shut down

Ockham said:
Neither, or it will be a hybrid of Marxist + Capitalisim at best.
Click to expand...
So it will be both the rejection of capital and the support of capital. Contradictory statements are a great way to being.
The United States is too far from a widespread agrarian society so any chance at a Maoist form would have had to occur during the 1800's or prior.
Click to expand...
So Maoist isn't the answer. ~3% of Americans are farmers and most therein are farm hands or wage laborers.
After the industrial revolution it would have been harder to pull off and would today, require a full dictatorial overtaking, oppressive structure and near enslavement of the population to occur. Not likely.
Click to expand...
Marxism didn't exist until post-Industrial Revolution.
Much easier to initiate a step by step march to centralized the government power structure and go with a classless society by penalizing the rich and redistribution of wealth the lower classes while increasing the power of unions.
Click to expand...
How does one keep a tax law about "penalizing the rich" when it is a classless society? Seems like after the classes are dismantled (which is indeed the end of civilization, btw) then the tax codes don't count anymore.

What we'll have a hard time with is what to do with the classeless society when we get it. We'll need to have some sort of work -- China has a working class and their manipulation of goods/services and low cost products/low wages coupled with high exports now is causing greater wealth in certain areas. The balance of Capitalism's ability to create wealth and a classless society / spreading that wealth will be a key to success and frankly, has never really been successful.
Click to expand...
So we are going to way of Deng Xiaoping? Which initially started with cottage industries and worked its way up. Where are our cottage industries like we saw in the Chinese villages that lead to the special economic zones and the loosening of capital restrictions.


Communism has too many pit falls IMO. However, socialism coupled with capitalism and the European model of government / tax / redistribution and government involvement have struck a balance between acceptance and function. The sociological and socio-economic question is with the United States be able to adopt such a balance and if they do, will they ACCEPT it. After all, we exist as the refuse from high society of Europe and from inception, wanted to distance ourselves from such society - at the time, monarchy's.
Click to expand...

That is true, and I agree that America is not European. Socialism in the sense of state responsibility for the well-being of its citizens is not Communism, as it predates Communism. The Human Rights of Citizens was not just an idea from the liberal-marxist thinkers in European history, but also state projects of Bismark and The Directory (post Rev. France).

Now let us return to the question at hand:

What Communism is the United States going to adopt?
 
Arch Enemy said:
So it will be both the rejection of capital and the support of capital. Contradictory statements are a great way to being.
Click to expand...
China seems to reconcile it well.


Arch Enemy said:
How does one keep a tax law about "penalizing the rich" when it is a classless society?
Click to expand...
One does it on the WAY to becoming a classless society. How do you think they got to their end state?

Arch Enemy said:
Seems like after the classes are dismantled (which is indeed the end of civilization, btw) then the tax codes don't count anymore.
Click to expand...
Correct. It's a means to an end.

Arch Enemy said:
So we are going to way of Deng Xiaoping? Which initially started with cottage industries and worked its way up. Where are our cottage industries like we saw in the Chinese villages that lead to the special economic zones and the loosening of capital restrictions.
Click to expand...
Only once society is broken beyond repair. Then it would be possible.

Arch Enemy said:
Now let us return to the question at hand:

What Communism is the United States going to adopt?
Click to expand...

Whatever it's citizens can tolerate. It would have to be a long term, small stepped process over decades as I don't think the existing society, unless ruled via totalitarian rule, would accept it.
 
Ockham said:
China seems to reconcile it well.
Click to expand...
Because China is only a Communist country in name. It's economy is strict in regulations, but still capitalist. By definition, a Marxist-Communist country does not acquire wealth. There are still classes in China. And wealth is collecting amongst the few.

One does it on the WAY to becoming a classless society. How do you think they got to their end state?
Click to expand...

Whose end state?

Only once society is broken beyond repair. Then it would be possible.
Click to expand...
What society is currently broken beyond repair?

Whatever it's citizens can tolerate. It would have to be a long term, small stepped process over decades as I don't think the existing society, unless ruled via totalitarian rule, would accept it.
Click to expand...

Explain this to me. Why would an elite citizen like Obama tax his own class until destruction? Why would he want to eliminate class division when it is class division that put him in office?
 
Arch Enemy said:
Because China is only a Communist country in name.
Click to expand...
Politically it's Communist.

Arch Enemy said:
It's economy is strict in regulations, but still capitalist. By definition, a Marxist-Communist country does not acquire wealth. There are still classes in China. And wealth is collecting amongst the few.
Click to expand...
Since when does reality follow strict definition?



Arch Enemy said:
Whose end state?
Click to expand...

And end state contemplating Communism.


Arch Enemy said:
What society is currently broken beyond repair?
Click to expand...
A society contemplating Communism.



Arch Enemy said:
Explain this to me. Why would an elite citizen like Obama tax his own class until destruction? Why would he want to eliminate class division when it is class division that put him in office?
Click to expand...
To rebuild it and not have those pesky traditions and founding fathers around. Were I to want to remake the United States, it'd have to be totally reconstructed. I couldn't keep the Constitution, couldn't keep the laws, the founders, the traditions. It all has to go. Then, were I the one doing it, I'd be the new founder. Clean slate.
 
misterman said:
Please, for once in your life, back up your preposterous claims about Obama with real facts. And then when you're wrong, admit it and learn from it and think next time. How has Obama clamped down on free speech?
Click to expand...

You mean other than trying to discredit Fox News?....how about using his office to attack private citizens that hold different views than himself? (that would be Rush, Sean, and Glenn in case you forgot)

I suppose in your mind that doesn't count. :roll:
 
Crunch said:
You mean other than trying to discredit Fox News?
Click to expand...

You think that's a violation of free speech? Uh, no, that's just Obama using his freedom of speech.

....how about using his office to attack private citizens that hold different views than himself? (that would be Rush, Sean, and Glenn in case you forgot)
Click to expand...

Oh my God, he's criticizing his political enemies!! What has the world come to! He's using his freedom of speech to, dare I say it, to disagree with other people! It's socialism and totalitarianism run amok!

Get real.
 
misterman said:
You think that's a violation of free speech? Uh, no, that's just Obama using his freedom of speech.



Oh my God, he's criticizing his political enemies!! What has the world come to! He's using his freedom of speech to, dare I say it, to disagree with other people! It's socialism and totalitarianism run amok!

Get real.
Click to expand...

Just like the author of this website is criticizing Burfoot, but Burfoot can't handle it. I suppose this is the first time Burfoot has actually had to run against someone. Running unopposed over the years seems to give some politicians that sense of entitlement so God forbid anyone criticize them.

To Obama's credit, he hasn't yet tried to sue Rush and Hannity yet.
 
bicycleman said:
Just like the author of this website is criticizing Burfoot, but Burfoot can't handle it.
Click to expand...

So do you think the author of this website is oppressing Burfoot's freedom of speech?

To Obama's credit, he hasn't yet tried to sue Rush and Hannity yet.
Click to expand...

Let us know if that happens. Just like you'll let us know when Obama actually does a single thing to suppress freedom of speech.
 
misterman said:
You think that's a violation of free speech? Uh, no, that's just Obama using his freedom of speech.



Oh my God, he's criticizing his political enemies!! What has the world come to! He's using his freedom of speech to, dare I say it, to disagree with other people! It's socialism and totalitarianism run amok!

Get real.
Click to expand...

Using the power of the Presidency to attack others exercising their right to free speech is to say the least very unprofessional........ but what are we to expect from a guy with Barry's resume.
 
Ockham said:
Politically it's Communist.
Click to expand...

No it's not.
It's totalitarian with a Maoist overlay.

Since when does reality follow strict definition?
Click to expand...

I was not the one who considers the Obama Administration Communist. I have yet to label the administration in this thread. I am not the only applying a strict definition, I am the one arguing that you cannot apply the Communist definition because the Obama administration does not fall into the category.




And end state contemplating Communism.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Communism in the Marxist tradition is about a revolution that is to occur in a natural cycle.
Bolsehviskism is about forcing Marxist revolution.
Maoist is about forcing Marxist revolution with the farming class as the agents, instead of factory workers.

This tax codification that is to, supposedly, out to rid the rich class is a complete construction of the American right. It has nothing to do with Communism.



To rebuild it and not have those pesky traditions and founding fathers around. Were I to want to remake the United States, it'd have to be totally reconstructed. I couldn't keep the Constitution, couldn't keep the laws, the founders, the traditions. It all has to go. Then, were I the one doing it, I'd be the new founder. Clean slate.
Click to expand...

I'd wage that this idea is as far off as an end to American superiority by the ghost of Sitting Bull.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Norfolk judge orders anti-Burfoot website taken down | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

"A judge Wednesday forced the removal of a website attacking Vice Mayor Anthony Burfoot and the city's treatment of downtown clubs.

Circuit Court Judge Charles E. Poston ordered an immediate removal of the website May4thCounts.com, stating that other legal action "is not adequate under the particular circumstances of this case."

GoDaddy.com, the site's host, removed the content later in the day.

The website appeared last week, about a month before City Council elections. Burfoot, a target of the website, brought the suit in Circuit Court."

This is my hometown. I am ashamed of it. Talk about suppression of free speech combined with ugly politics! This story should go national soon.
Click to expand...

If I was a anti-2nd amendment loon I could argue that since they did not have the internet when the 1st amendment was written then this is not a 1st amendment violation on the part of the judge. I think the judge should be stripped of his position for blatantly violating the constitution.
 
Arch Enemy said:
No it's not.
It's totalitarian with a Maoist overlay.
Click to expand...

You say Tamata, I say Tomato. Frankly, I'm not a communist afficiando so you win.

Arch Enemy said:
I was not the one who considers the Obama Administration Communist.
Click to expand...
Nor am I.

Arch Enemy said:
I have yet to label the administration in this thread. I am not the only applying a strict definition, I am the one arguing that you cannot apply the Communist definition because the Obama administration does not fall into the category.
Click to expand...
Ok. And I'm saying reality doesn't follow definitions.


Arch Enemy said:
Wrong. Communism in the Marxist tradition is about a revolution that is to occur in a natural cycle.
Bolsehviskism is about forcing Marxist revolution.
Maoist is about forcing Marxist revolution with the farming class as the agents, instead of factory workers.
Click to expand...
We already covered that.

Arch Enemy said:
This tax codification that is to, supposedly, out to rid the rich class is a complete construction of the American right. It has nothing to do with Communism.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your saying. Out to rid the rich class?

Arch Enemy said:
I'd wage that this idea is as far off as an end to American superiority by the ghost of Sitting Bull.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Not sure what you mean.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Yeah, I liverd in that sh!thole for a a couple of years.:(
Click to expand...

I grew up there, but it wasn't that way back in the 50's and 60's. It had a small town community atmosphere, but you know what happens to most cities, eventually.
 
misterman said:
So do you think the author of this website is oppressing Burfoot's freedom of speech?



Let us know if that happens. Just like you'll let us know when Obama actually does a single thing to suppress freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

No, the website author is not oppressing Burfoot's freedom of speech. It is the same as Burfoot's political opponent bashing him during election time. That's all we heard when Obama and McCain were running against each other. It was thick. The Campaign Finance Reform Bill was a violation of freedom of speech.
 
Crunch said:
to attack others exercising their right to free speech is to say the least very unprofessional..
Click to expand...

It's what we're doing right now!

The President has a right to criticize what others say. It's part of his job. What, he's supposed to say nothing about the issues just because he disagrees with someone who said so first?

You have got to be kidding. How desperately pathetic can you get?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom