Recess Reactionaries

Are making themselves heard all over the freakin' place, Tea Party style.I aint gonna link the locations, cause it isnt hard to find the news on them if you're interested. but I will if you want.

so... naturally the Dem Poobahs come out with charges of Astroturfing and put up jobs. Strange that the only commercial style posters are pro-Obamacare and pro-Lib. Yet those lib-lemmings carrying em dont know much about the issues.
Brings to mind... various trite sayings, like...

"Goes around, comes around"
"I'm like rubber, you're like glue.."

"takes one to know one... ", "heat..kitchen.."

The Dem and RINO pols aint happy... interesting that one's supporters are enthusiastic grassroots gatherings, opponents are A MOB! Right Don?

heh....

Oh... and some guy in LA makes up a Heath Ledger/Joker poster in the likeness of Barry the Great and 'Socialist" caption... oh, the STORM!

- I'm SURE when the Leftards did the very same to Dubya he protested JUST as loudly, right?

heh...
He IS a socialist, twink, justify that he isnt! Why cant these people say what they are?!!!

Whazzat? Oh.. I see, nebber min'!

:roll:

 

Haters with Guns

'White People Showing up with guns...'

I think we know who the 'haters' are. Video Proof Positive

 

RE: Haters with Guns

And then there's this: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi ... -event.php

And these: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... ning+obama

You and others really want to play this game??
Seems very disrespectful of the man, the office, and really our form of government. Freedom comes with responsibilities. Whether this is how desperate of measures some are willing to take because they feel "threatened" or if it is just some getting their kicks from seeing how far they can take this, somebody is going to get hurt. And I am confident those that helped move this along will take no responsibility for it.

 

RE: Haters with Guns

I really don't care what side of the fence you are on (right, left, green, red, libertarian, vegetarian, etc...); as soon as "Nazi" comes into your argument, your argument is no longer valid.

 

RE: Haters with Guns

Did you watch the video, WB?

Dont EVER put up something on Talking Points memo and expect me to take you serous!!!!!

Do you see me quotring Hannity on here? Michael Savage?
Why dont you just rebut with the DNC statements or fucking Olbermann?
Get that?


Here's the point you fucking idiot... MSNBC went to great lengths to falsify the point!
It's not about the guns to rally... I think it's stupid.

It's about falsifying news.
If there was a real RW nutjob to put up, why didnt MSNBC use that?!

-is EXACTLY the point! And I'm calling out MSNBC and its slavering audience. And Talking Points Memo, TOO!

 

"Civil" discourse is not dead......yet.

You are going to give yourself an annurism, PF.

 

Re: RE: Haters with Guns

Why do you act surprised? News people making up news is not a new(s) phenomenon, and sure as heck is not limited to one news source.

It's the people who believe everything on the news, or those who make a big deal about pointing things like this out and expecting everyone to be BLOWN AWAY, who are perhaps the real "fucking idiots".

 

If he's such a socialist why wasn't single payer on the table?


BTW was FDR a socialist?

 

Did he not explain to SEIU that it couldnt be done all at once? It might take 7 to 12 years.
First you have to have the Public Option, then you have to regulate the competition so that in the end there's only one choice. All that is covered in the House plan.
Before you argue the fine points... name all the Market Force or conservative influences in Obama's life.

Yes. So what. We made it over that hurdle; conveniently there was a war to build employment, and rationing which caused savings to pent up along with demands for goods and services for the returning troops and factory workers.

And BTW; so was Truman. He wanted to nationalize Steel and Shipping. Yes, there WERE SOME good reasons for that, too. But if that had stood, we would have been well down the corrupt socialist road.

 

You're clueless as to what a socialist is. A socialist strikes at the root of the problem, capital. They simply get rid of private enterprise in all fields of the economy*. They don't believe that the bourgeois can work for the proletariat.


A European style democrat doesn't strike at the root of the problem, but tries to reform capital and MAY even nationalize industries that they see aren't working under a market economy for the people.


SO given that we can probably agree with these definitions if you're honest you'd say that Obama is a social democrat rather than a socialist. Obama sees the healthcare industry as something the state should take over, yet he isn't striking at capital in most sectors and is trying to reform it. This is obvious in the way he has dealt with the banks. He didn't nationalize them, instead he called for stricter regulations and bailed them out. A socialist doesn't bail out the bourgeois. In fact every socialist I know of absolutely hates corporate welfare. Even David Harvey said that bailing out banks only encourages bad behavior.


I urge you to read marxist political economy so maybe you could realize he's nowhere near a socialist. Playing golf with the UBS ceo isn't something a socialist does, sorry.



*This is up for debate. Many socialists don't mind small business and the spanish anarchists actually let the peasants continue on with their farms even though it wasn't run in a collective way. I guess it depends on who you read, really.

 

This beggars belief!

From the wiki:

Since I know neither of you are stupid, I must assume you mean to discredit by trivia' line drawing.
Calling on me to read about 'Marxist' ideology?!!

Try using your Critical Thinking and rebut this:
In general principle, the difference between Social Democracy and socialism refers to a timeline.

When the President of a Nation has the power to hire and fire corporate CEO's and determine compensation for corporate managers, what is that?

I had used 'National Socialism' in the past to describe where we are going but that is also a misnomer. As would be 'Fascist', though more accurate. Difference is appeal to patriotic duty and 'motherland'

 

Petty, I could go onto Wiki and make a case that we're heading towards corporatism in our current economy. Seriously, you need to learn what it is you're talking about as we're nowhere near socialism.

You're question just reaffirms what I've already stated. Democrats of Barack Obama's ilk want to reform capital and they do so by doing what you stated in the question. A socialist would completely abolish the damn house, he wouldn't try and give the house a new paint job. This is obvious if you've ever studied an actual socialist regime or society.


Please look at what the Spanish Anarchists did when they started to take the reins of the Spanish economy and then come back to me and tell me Barack Obama is leading our country towards socialism. Hell, look at what Lenin did. Look at what Julius Nyrere did. I could go on forever, but I hope you get the point.

 

I love how you left out the part on social democrats.


"Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise."


And voila we have Obama! Even then we don't as he hasn't nationalized a damn thing yet nor has he even suggested it.



"Economically, socialism denotes an economic system of state ownership and/or worker ownership of the means of production and distribution. In the economy of the Soviet Union, state ownership of the means of production was combined with central planning, in relation to which goods and services to make and provide, how they were to be produced, the quantities, and the sale prices. Soviet economic planning was an alternative to allowing the market (supply and demand) to determine prices and production. During the Great Depression, many socialists considered Soviet-style planned economies the remedy to capitalism's inherent flaws – monopoly, business cycles, unemployment, unequally distributed wealth, and the economic exploitation of workers."


Yep, that's the true Obama!


Like I said I can play this wiki game too. Something like this requires an actual knowledge of what you speak about. And yes, this knowledge can cokme about by reading the likes of Marx. Don't like Marx? Read Proudhon,read Bakunin etc etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism#Economics

 

Are you REALLY serious?

AGAIN you pull the argument by a statement on Marxism! Why do you continue to do that?

Instead of responding to argument about state control of all key sectors, you seem fixated on 'ownership', which is problematical in any case.

How about we look at the core issue and agree that what I referred to is 'Statism'?

Why not get back to the thread subject and address those 'Recess Reactionaries' and look at just why they might be angry and afraid?

What is the role of these fifty plus 'Czars' that the President appointed?

Is the proposed Carbon Tax and Trade a price mechanism or not?

Does the Executive directly control the value of the dollar or not?

Why would a Health Care bill have a provision imposing non-waivable penalties on taxpayers even for what the IRS might conclude is an honest mistake?

And, of course, those penalties dont apply to everyone.. especially not the ruling class!
Dont you think that many middle aged and older protestors see a link between how they had to qualify for a house mortgage up to the mid nineties and the loan adverts they heard on the radio since then? And do you fault them for thinking the government was behind the housing bust?

Do you fault the protestors for worrying that going trillions of dollars into more public debt makes their savings schemes relatively worthless? After all the government is just printing the money to cover it.

 

I think they're a bunch of miseducated fools running around pissed off and they don't even know what they're pissed about. Yes, I suppose they're afraid for the reasons you suggest, but it's because of a complete miseducation.You're leaders like Beck makes those czars seem so scary that even I'm tempted to fight them in the streets.I can see these middle aged people sitting at the dining room table every night for dinner watching his chalboard analysis on why these czars are a bunch of marxists trying to take over your life.It's this kind of miseducation that has your movement in trouble.



Instead of having a reasoned debate about the issues, your leaders have you guys so freaked out that nobody wants to hear that socialism isn't even that bad. You'd do well to drop the likes of Beck and Limbaugh and pick up the likes of Joe Scarborough and Peggy Noonan as the leaders of this movement.



There I addressed the teabaggers, happy?