Stop the insanity!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/17/2009-12-17_us_will_contribute_to_100b_climate_fund_for_developing_countries_hillary_clinton.html

So we can fund marxist tyrants around the globe --- screw 'em; over my dead body will a dollar of mine be used.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans

More ................................... change we can believe in .

can we stop the insanity of allowing people to call other people marxists when they aren't in fact marxists?

I think, in this case, the term is just fine.

care to tell me how?

Here is one of the great leaders ready to recieve our cash. Enjoy derek.

anyone wanna tell me how the admin is marxist?

derek bomar wrote: anyone wanna tell me how the admin is marxist?

Quaker was refering to marxist tyrants around the globe. Are you ok with Chavez and the like getting their hands on our cash?

and he hasn't referred to obama and the left in this country as marxists? And it's not our cash, it's China's

derek bomar wrote: and he hasn't referred to obama and the left in this country as marxists? And it's not our cash, it's China's

You need to change your glasses. There was nothing wrong with the original post. You're waaaaay too touchy when it comes to the term Marxists; and lastly, your response was non-responsive to the question about Chavez (or any of the other petty dictators who would benefit from such a fund).

DB dodging questions? I find that hard to believe!

ccrunner609 wrote: It will soon be over. Obama will lose the senate and house this next year and he will be powerless. He will then lose 2012.

I hope so.

Does anyone care to define the term Marxist and how it applies to any dictator in the world?

I have always been under the assumption that Karl Marx's theory has never been applied to a "communist" nation. There have in fact been no true communisms, only totalitarian governments led by dictators. That is not a communism by Marx's definition.

That being said, I think we need to get back to the true roots of our country, the way the founding fathers had envisioned it.

ccrunner609 wrote: It will soon be over. Obama will lose the senate and house this next year and he will be powerless. He will then lose 2012.

Great, then we get another republican POS? I guess rock bottom is not bottom enough. We need some more of that Republican lack of leadership.

ccrunner609 wrote: THe Founding fathers would be great right about now.

The founding fathers would be considered radical nutbags today.

dwcrew,

I don't think, along with you and many others, that there is a true form of capitalism, communism, socialism, marxism, etc.. What we have seen in practice/use is a bastardation of those models or systems. There doesn't have to be a true-to-the-letter practice of those systems in order for it be essentially, what it is.
I've never understood why people think it has to be to the letter in order for it to be so. It's almost like they throw that out there in an attempt to pull an "aha!" lol

Ok, right leaning people on this board are henceforth to be referred as fascists, authoritarians, or totalitarians.

Using inaccurate labels as a method of insulting people you don't agree with is stupid and childish. Can't we just describe what we don't like and why we don't like it without simply using general labels for things we don't like?

If it's one thing those on the left are VERY good at, it's name calling and labeling.

Liberals have taken it to an art form.

They learned their lessons well from Mr. Alinsky.

I Wear Pants wrote: Ok, right leaning people on this board are henceforth to be referred as fascists, authoritarians, or totalitarians.

Using inaccurate labels as a method of insulting people you don't agree with is stupid and childish. Can't we just describe what we don't like and why we don't like it without simply using general labels for things we don't like?

Well, you can call people on this forum those names/titles all you want. It doesn't matter because I highly doubt that any of them (us) has the power to do anything concerning government.
Also, retaliation also makes for interesting debates and opinions!

Personally, I'm not much to go and call people names. Unless you want to count names such as conservative or liberals. I'll also say that there are people in power that have socialistic tendencies along with people in power who have totalitarian tendencies.

I would think that if politicians don't like being called those names (socialists/fascists, etc.), that should tell them that they're doing something wrong and they better step to it.
Society in general likes to label groups/people. It's the whole "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck" sort of thing.

If a politician wants to let businesses cater to and regulate themselves, there's a good chance people will call him a capitalist.
If a politician likes to talk about and push the ideology of spreading the wealth, there's a good chance people will call him a socialist.
If a politician can't get anything done and stutters on the political stage, there's a good chance people will call him inept.

I mean, people can get worked up all day long if they want to, but that's just where the general public is at right now. In a couple of years, it may not be like that, but I think it will still be the same way. The public's outrage and frustration at government in general practially necessitates the labeling. Speaking of ducks, might be a good idea to just let the water roll off your back.

majorspark wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: THe Founding fathers would be great right about now.

The founding fathers would be considered radical nutbags today.

Pretty much. Republicans would call them naive and weak in their foreign policy views, and the left would criticize them for being worried about fiscal responsibility.

I Wear Pants wrote: Ok, right leaning people on this board are henceforth to be referred as fascists, authoritarians, or totalitarians.

Using inaccurate labels as a method of insulting people you don't agree with is stupid and childish. Can't we just describe what we don't like and why we don't like it without simply using general labels for things we don't like?

If someone addresses you or posters directly, giving you one of these titles, you deny it, and then they keep doing it, it will be treated as name calling.

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Ok, right leaning people on this board are henceforth to be referred as fascists, authoritarians, or totalitarians.

Using inaccurate labels as a method of insulting people you don't agree with is stupid and childish. Can't we just describe what we don't like and why we don't like it without simply using general labels for things we don't like?

If someone addresses you or posters directly, giving you one of these titles, you deny it, and then they keep doing it, it will be treated as name calling.

OK douche-bag.

dwccrew wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: It will soon be over. Obama will lose the senate and house this next year and he will be powerless. He will then lose 2012.

I hope so.

Does anyone care to define the term Marxist and how it applies to any dictator in the world?

I have always been under the assumption that Karl Marx's theory has never been applied to a "communist" nation. There have in fact been no true communisms, only totalitarian governments led by dictators. That is not a communism by Marx's definition.

That being said, I think we need to get back to the true roots of our country, the way the founding fathers had envisioned it.

What is the big deal with Marx? Was he an evil man? Did he kill thousands? Did he oppress millions? He was a man who espoused a political idealogy. In general, so as to not go into detail, his ideology encompassed a joining together of man to work for the interests of the good of the community. His ideology is in opposition to the one that forms the basis of capitalism, individual man working for his own self interest will in turn benefit society as a whole.

Marx's dream of a stateless, classless society, his communist utopia, has never existed. Although the basics of his political philosophy may not be evil, and elements of it can have some success in a small community, as a large scale national policy it is a proven failure. To implement it on a national scale requires the oppression of a significant number of the population who yearn to be free from the constraints of others. They yearn to have the freedom to use their individual skills and talents to take care of themselves and to be able to freely choose outside of themselves who will best benifit from their resources. The oppression of this group of people is the reason why Marx's political ideology has become associated with totalitarianism.

I Wear Pants wrote: Ok, right leaning people on this board are henceforth to be referred as fascists, authoritarians, or totalitarians.

Using inaccurate labels as a method of insulting people you don't agree with is stupid and childish. Can't we just describe what we don't like and why we don't like it without simply using general labels for things we don't like?

Most of these labels you dislike are used to describe political leaders or political groups. If it is directed to a poster it has to be rare because I can't recall many.

Those of you that take offense to the word socialist because it can only be used to describe pure socialism. Should we stop using the word capitalist because capitalism in its true form does not exist? Should I be offended when someone calls me a capitalist when I realize capitalism requires some reasonable government oversight?

How about "Social" Securtiy. Is that bad too? Or does it only get bad if I put "ist" on the end of it. Social, socialist, capital, capitalist are all general terms. There is nothing wrong with using these general terms to define the political ideology one leans toward. If you want to clarify your beliefs in detail than do so. I mean we don't have terms to describe someone who is 1/4 capitalist and 3/4 socialist do we?

What is the big deal with the word socialism? Are you guys ashamed of it? Are public schools not a form of socialim? Socialism as a political ideology is not evil. In fact I am ok if a state or local community wants to experiment with it. So if it fails or I don't like it, I can move. I just don't want it implemented on a national scale, where implementation of it will require a significant part of the population to be forced to partake in it against their will.

I would suggest if you can't handle these terms being thrown about on a political board then I probably would stay away from them.

jmog wrote: DB dodging questions? I find that hard to believe!

I didn't dodge anything. I don't care if his country receives anything from this. I really could care less.

What is the big deal with the word socialism? Are you guys ashamed of it? Are public schools not a form of socialim? Socialism as a political ideology is not evil. In fact I am ok if a state or local community wants to experiment with it. So if it fails or I don't like it, I can move. I just don't want it implemented on a national scale, where implementation of it will require a significant part of the population to be forced to partake in it against their will.

I would suggest if you can't handle these terms being thrown about on a political board then I probably would stay away from them.


what's the big deal with being called something you aren't? Eh...I dunno, seems kinda childish.

Becaues you're using it as some ridiculous fear tactic.

Kinda ridiculous to complain about Obama and his administration using fear tactics when the Republican party has used it quite well, ala the countless Marxist/Communist references, to whip the uneducated masses into a frenzy, just like Obama managed to whip the uneducated masses into a frenzy about "change."

And it is funny because people just throw these names around like they're exactly the same, when in fact they are totally contradictory. Quaker will complain about Obama wanting to turn the United States into a European-style Socialist State, and then in the next sentence claim that he is a Marxist. And those are two things that are completely and utterly not the same, considering European socialism, as he is referring to it, as officially and in practice completely forsaken Marxist views and ideology. Shows a lack of historical perspective and general ignorance, essentially. He's just as much a sheep as those he complains about.