Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, the thought of a private website deciding what gets posted on their private property. How 'communist'...
Just like me. I decide which candidates signs go in the yard that I own. And on the bumpers of the cars I own. How 'communist'...
It's always a good laugh when someone explains how private property rights are 'communist'!
Private websites can do as they wish. However, it has been shown time and time again over the years that liberals are not fair with regard to the publishing of material. Liberals are known to close threads, erase comments, and silence conservative posters through bannings. They do this in a biased manner, instead of allowing open speech for members of every ideological viewpoint. If it were a posted liberal site, that's one thing. However, when a site is supposed to be non-partisan, or isn't mean to display a particular ideological message, it is troubling the biased nature that those on the left tend to display. Silencing speech is affiliated with communism, for communists would have people punished for speaking out.
It is blatantly obvious to anyone but the ignorant that Barack Obama is a Communist, yet so many people still support him. Why?
For decades we engaged in a Cold War with the Soviets to put an end to Communism, a Marxist market system that discourages freedom in favor of the state. While America is not at the same point as the former Soviet Union or the republics of Eastern Europe, it is readily clear that the president wants us to move in that direction.
Do you really support Communism?
If not, what are you doing supporting a Communist?
Obama stands for an ideology that is blatantly unAmerican and against everything this country was founded on. Yet, you still support him. Why?
Consider the following:
Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. This basically means that he favors taking from the workers (haves) and giving to the have-nots (non-workers) through the force of the state. This is not charitable giving, something that we should all do. Rather, this is tyranny.
Obama uses the radical environmentalist agenda to support the destruction of private enterprise. Consider his previous calls for bankrupting the coal industry, as well as his support for Cap & Trade, a policy that would put caps on emissions from industry. Such a policy would force companies to close, which would result in a lot of people being out of work. This is Marxism.
Bankrupt the coal industry & support of cap and trade
Obama believes that if you're successful, "you didn't build that". This is rejection of the individual in favor of the collective, a Marxist viewpoint.
Think about it, do you really support such an individual who is:
-Communist
-Kenyan-Born
-possibly Muslim
-pro-infanticide
wow, what a rant: I do not like him, infact I can't stand him. I think he is arrogant, a snob, racist, maybe a Muslim or certainly a sympathizer, and just plain not cut out for the job. I do think he is a socialist, but I certainly wouldn't go as as what you are saying..Talk about downright hatred, you seem to relly have it...
Most socialists and communists don't identify with the label, for it tars their image in public, considering the negatives of socialism.
I'd say most democrats are true socialists.
Get a grip. If most democrats were socialists, the Democratic Party would be the Socialist Party, but instead it follows a neo-liberal agenda that supports income inequality, incredible defense spending, and a capitalist society. Rich liberals have no interest in giving up very much of their wealth to expanded social programs or seeing large portions of the private sector nationalized, since many of them make their money there.
I'm not a fan of Obama because he's not far enough to the left for me. If Obama even resembled a Social Democrat I would support him but he doesn't, so I don't. Calling him a Communist couldn't be further from the truth.
America is an oligarchy, and it's sad that it's so hard for people to see. Money controls our society, not the people.
These elections are living proof of that; neither candidate accepted public funding for the first time since public funding has been offered. SuperPACs rule the airwaves and are funded by billionaires seeking influence. Is that socialism? No, that's hypercapitalism tainting our political process. Wake up.
The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing…….Beware the Message in the Fabian Window
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” Obama has an agenda. And, the "change" of which he speaks may well not be what most Americans think, or want.
What are his plans for America?
Redistribution of wealth from those who own the means of production to those who don’t
Fostering of class envy and economic class warfare
Government control of the health care system and education
Increased taxes on the wealthy (whomever he decides is wealthy - $200K / $250K Obama calls them millionaires and billionaires)
Taxing corporations for being too successful
Punishing with new federal taxes, employers who do not choose to purchase Obamacare health insurance for their employees
Increased deference to the United Nations and
Erosion of our national sovereignty (Mexico)
Consorting with enemies of Israel and America
Bigger and more intrusive government
Appointing federal commissars with no constitutional authority to do so
Ensuring that America is not a superpower, but an equal among all nations
Denigrating religion (which as Marx noted, is the opiate of the masses) and
Disregarding the Constitution in an effort to re-form (remould) a foundational document that has served us well for over two centuries.
Under socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well."
Private websites can do as they wish. However, it has been shown time and time again over the years that liberals are not fair with regard to the publishing of material. Liberals are known to close threads, erase comments, and silence conservative posters through bannings. They do this in a biased manner, instead of allowing open speech for members of every ideological viewpoint. If it were a posted liberal site, that's one thing. However, when a site is supposed to be non-partisan, or isn't mean to display a particular ideological message, it is troubling the biased nature that those on the left tend to display. Silencing speech is affiliated with communism, for communists would have people punished for speaking out.
Uh huh.. It's a 'liberal' thing...
Tell you what -- go to redstate.com and start talking up Ron Paul. See how long you last as a poster there.
^^lol. alright i'm done after this, some of you guys are too gone.
During Obama's presidency, he had the opportunity to:
Permanently nationalize a failing auto industry.
Fight for a public option.
Overhaul Wall Street following a fiscal calamity.
Push for a more progressive tax structure.
End the War on Drugs.
End the privatization of prisons.
End the increasing privatization of education.
None of these things would have made him a communist, but he might have resembled an actual leftist. He did none of those things. If he is a communist he is literally the worst communist in history, which effectively makes him a capitalist.
wow, what a rant: I do not like him, infact I can't stand him. I think he is arrogant, a snob, racist, maybe a Muslim or certainly a sympathizer, and just plain not cut out for the job. I do think he is a socialist, but I certainly wouldn't go as as what you are saying..Talk about downright hatred, you seem to relly have it...
Hatred? No.
What I am doing is exposing Obama in his own words. I am exposing him for the evil that he promotes.
Evil is supporting the murder of the unborn. You can't be more evil than that.
Evil is supporting an economic system that killed people who spoke out against it in their land.
If we don't want name calling around here, threads like this should be deleted. This thread is so dumb, so void of any worth, so baseless, ill informed and facetious, that the only proper response to it is a direct insult to the OP.
Just like 90% of the liberal swill bandied about in this very forum every day.
Get a grip. If most democrats were socialists, the Democratic Party would be the Socialist Party, but instead it follows a neo-liberal agenda that supports income inequality, incredible defense spending, and a capitalist society. Rich liberals have no interest in giving up very much of their wealth to expanded social programs or seeing large portions of the private sector nationalized, since many of them make their money there.
Most democrats are socialists. They simply do not want to call themselves socialist. Many do not even realize that they support socialist policies.
They do not join the socialist party because third parties have practically no chance to win an election. As stated, socialism is a dirty word.
Democrats are socialist, not fully communist, though Obama is communist in ideology. He simply doesn't go that far economically because it isn't feasible for him, at least not at the moment.
Rich liberals are walking hypocrites. They support policies that stifle the success they had.
Quote:
I'm not a fan of Obama because he's not far enough to the left for me. If Obama even resembled a Social Democrat I would support him but he doesn't, so I don't. Calling him a Communist couldn't be further from the truth.
You're a hard-core communist, huh, the likes seen in the former Soviet Union?
Quote:
America is an oligarchy, and it's sad that it's so hard for people to see. Money controls our society, not the people.
You need money to run elections. People have to be paid for their services.
Quote:
These elections are living proof of that; neither candidate accepted public funding for the first time since public funding has been offered. SuperPACs rule the airwaves and are funded by billionaires seeking influence. Is that socialism? No, that's hypercapitalism tainting our political process. Wake up.
As long as we're free, you can't expect wealthy corporations to not try to influence elections. It's part of living in a free society. Does fewer voices getting their message out have any drawbacks? Yes, but I'd rather be free than living in a land where the government controls with an iron fist. At least we have a little freedom left, but for how long?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
