Cool Obama-Fact of the day 1
- Thread starter curtix
- Start date
-
- Tags
- i <3 n8
so is this the father that left when he was 2? damn, socialism is now genetic?
No, but they do make cream for it. S**t itches!
My father is a non-smoking teetotaller.
C
curtix
Guest
If you read either of his books - one is named "Dreams from My Father" you will see how much his father influenced him after all. So while it is most obviously not genetic, what his father believed, and what he has learned about his father. Most certainly has influence on him. All people for that matter. We sometimes embrace our fathers ideas, sometimes we reject them. I would assume no one will argue that Obama's obvious socialist tendencies would claim he rejected the "Dreams of his father".
I know you were excited about that comment so I am sorry to inject the blasted reality. Do a little more research and stay tuned to Ridemonkey.com for more amazing Obama Facts as the days progress. I will try to educate you even if you are kicking and screaming.
C
curtix
Guest
No matter how bad the itch some people never learn to wear a political "jim-hat". If they did they would stop catching that crap. Plus it will kill you.
Last edited by a moderator:
George Bushs father flew in WW2...his son pretended to. McCains dad (And Gramps) were succesful Admirals, he wasnt.
My dad wrote poetry, I can barely sign my name.
Whats your point again?
My dad wrote poetry, I can barely sign my name.
Whats your point again?
They were all adopted?
C
curtix
Guest
yup, keep spouting the party line, it's too bad that you don't read up a bit more on the issues and get a little more 'educated' yourself.
sorry, unless you can post facts such as how McCain's economic policy are different from Bush's, how he's going to be able to balance the budget while offering additional tax cuts across the board (including corporate tax cuts), or how he's not full of sh!t championing Palin as an earmark reformer when Alaska's been the biggest drain on our taxpayer dollars due to her and Sen Stevens, you're going to get ignored pretty damn quick around here...McCain's Campaign Manager said:
please do tell
C
curtix
Guest
Allow me to redirect this to people you may trust that know more about economics than myself:
IBD - The Audacity of socialism
C
curtix
Guest
If you want to discuss McCain I suggest starting a McCain thread and not hijacking this one in an effort to divert attention from your Socialist Left wing Candidate. Again you make my point that rather than respond to what I have been saying you point at McCain and hope everyone ignores the things said about Obama. What McCain wants to do / has done/ has nothing to do with the topic at hand in spite of your constant attempts at redirection. Please re-read the title of this thread and engage accordingly.
Yes, they do. They know, like I do, that they (earners of incomes greater than $250k) stand to gain (or keep) a windfall in tax benefits. I had dinner with my hedge fund owning buddy the other night, who flat out said it has nothing to do with national economics, but his opposition to Obama is purely about his own wallet.
Warren Buffet, who stands to earn more than anyone else by keeping Bush's tax policies, has pointed out the fallacies of trickle down economics and is pushing for Obama's tax plan, citing the vastly larger stimulus effect it would have on the economy. Are you going to argue with Mr. Warren B?
You guys really need to learn the actual definition of "Socialism" and stop simply spouting party lines.
Please tell me when and where any candidate at all discussed state and collective ownership of all means of production and distribution of goods. Whether it be selective or blanket policy, production and distribution of goods has to be state controlled for any system to be socialist. Notice I said goods, not services.
This is the #1 tenet of Socialism (any branch of it, of which there are many). Without it, you have no Socialism. The USSR had socialist economic policies. They controlled vast amounts of factories and decide who got what, when.
There is no proletarian revolution in the USA.
Please tell me when and where any candidate at all discussed state and collective ownership of all means of production and distribution of goods. Whether it be selective or blanket policy, production and distribution of goods has to be state controlled for any system to be socialist. Notice I said goods, not services.
This is the #1 tenet of Socialism (any branch of it, of which there are many). Without it, you have no Socialism. The USSR had socialist economic policies. They controlled vast amounts of factories and decide who got what, when.
There is no proletarian revolution in the USA.
Last edited:
Anyone who believes in trickle down economics is an idiot who cannot read history books.
C
curtix
Guest
Here we go:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
good, you've got rote memorization down pat. now let's try for comprehension.
Obama's entire blueprint is laid out on his web-site. See if you can find ANY specific point at which he "advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
C
curtix
Guest
I'm actually impressed to hear a conservative say something besides "he's a muslim!" or "he's a terrorist!" or "ain't no way I'm gonna vote for a n*gger!". All of which I have heard from Nascar watching gun toting morons within the last month. At least curtix is trying.
I did. You already posted that once. I responded. If your treating the word "Socialist" as a broad, indefinable pejorative as IBD has, then that works. But don't post the proper definition of "Socialist" and then pretend that's the way IBD used it.
I hope you did point out that in 20 years, assuming GOP economic policies continue, that he shouldn't whine when his kid gets kidnapped on the way to school and held for ransom.
no he's not. he reads 'socialism' in the headline, and then posts the link over and over. the "opinion piece" in the IBD is so full of holes you could drive a truck through it, but for some reason if we all just read it, we'd see true enlightenment and nirvana.
I read it, and aside from "but this guy who he knew, or his dad, wrote this socialism piece in the 1960s" and "he wants to spend more money on aid to the poor around the world", there's really not much to it. Kinda sad that they've devoted 14 articles to those two points. I can remember when IBD actually was a real news source.
It's actually not bad, until you get to the editorial pages. Like the WSJ, it just gets wacky at that point.
C
curtix
Guest
"You're becoming a bore," his friends told him. He went to socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he'd become "one of those freaks you see on the streets around here."
(Source)
C
curtix
Guest
And the wonderful - Michelle Obama :"They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach. If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
That is what we call Wealth Redistribution a core precept of Socialism.
That is what we call Wealth Redistribution a core precept of Socialism.
C
curtix
Guest
Barack Obama (ontheissues.org)
Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Self Described Socialist Bernie Sanders (ontheissues.org)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Self Described Socialist Bernie Sanders (ontheissues.org)
Strongly Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)
C
curtix
Guest
Commentary on Barack Obama's Economic Policies - "Among other things, he is concerned about the "winner-take-all" economy where, he says, "the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy." Actually, the gains from economic growth can skew toward anyone willing to work hard and make personal and family decisions that improve their chances for success. This is boilerplate wealth redistribution, an economic philosophy at the center of the former Soviet Union. Obama and Democrats wish to embrace it now in order to make more people dependent on government, rather than encourage people to rely on themselves and the opportunity America offers to most citizens, even illegal aliens. Guaranteed equal outcome is socialism. America was built on and sustained by a "can do" spirit. Today, too many are taught a "can't do" spirit. They are told that because of factors over which they have no control -- race, class, poverty -- it is impossible for them to do anything for themselves and so they must increasingly rely on government. Government doesn't cure poverty." (Source)
Are you a Libertarian?
C
curtix
Guest
I cant quite find a label that fits - seriously.
It's also common-f*cking-sense.That is what we call Wealth Redistribution a core precept of Socialism.
If I made fun of Objectivism would you take offense?
C
curtix
Guest
I do not think that is a defensible position. But have at it.
C
curtix
Guest
Ok so if I do well for myself and make some money the government should punish me and force me to give it to who they say. If that is your idea of common sense you would love communism.
Damn...well that's dissapointing. As you were.
C
curtix
Guest
Sorry to disappoint. LOL.
C
curtix
Guest
Dude...seriously..stop saying NOTHING
Unfortunately, what we have now is, the board of directors for, say, Xerox, is made up of CEO's and executives from IBM, HP, Ford, Sony, Dell, Exxon, etc. Same thing for pretty much every other corporation. They sit in their board of directors meetings and vote each other 20 million dollar salaries, while the company's stock does jack squat (or even goes down the tubes), and the employees get raises that don't keep pace with inflation. They don't work any harder than you or I, and they certainly haven't earned a 20 million dollar salary. Do you think Cindy McCain did anything to earn her money? Can you define "heiress"?