The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

RIC wrote:At some point in time would it not be interesting to consider the ability or even interest to PERSUADE an interlocutor?

Asked, answered, asked, answered, asked answered. OK, asked again, I'll answer again. The Left has decided to CRUSH the Republicans instead of discussing anything. Republicans are the devil, when both parties did and said the exact same things (e.g., WMDs) the Democrats were truthful and the Republicans liars, letting liberal lawyers run this country is a magic elixir that will solve all problems. And the Republicans instead of standing up have been crushed because they are pathetic. Every discussion results in a liberal cluster based on the inherent truth of liberalism. Not one liberal has been interested in discussing any real cause and effect economics, liberalism is the elixir, that's all I get back. There is NO POINT. Liberals like dissenters like Irn-Bru so they can say their minds are open while they reject every idea and pat him on the head because he professes in the end he is a liberal. It's win-win for the left, they win, they win.

RIC wrote:The origin of this thread comes precisely from the fact that several public observers consider that Obama is more pragmatic and center than they thought. Any accusations based on groundless exaggerations are actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to your political cause and credibility as a poster.

Hello, how many times can I say this, I have no political cause. Liberalism's won. We're going to get national health care, energy, ever expanding welfare for the elderly, government control over wall street and corporations. How many times can I concede? All that's left is harassing the Left. And frankly while my methods are totally unpersuasive to someone who disagrees with them, they are still based on a lot more logic and facts then what's used by the Left. Though no strategy works, liberalism is the elixir. To the Left that is fact, so why should I use one ineffective strategy over another because you said so?

And again the magic Left, Obama's not even taken office and he's already a "centrist."

RIC wrote:There are other right of center posters in this forum. Some of them are pretty smart. You have managed to alienate even the guys on your side of the spectrum. This approach may work for Rush Limbaugh but it certainly does not stand to serious scrutiny of any sort in political or philosophical terms.

Liberalism is the magic elixir, nothing works.

RIC wrote:Good luck and I hope that you manage to develop better debating skills and greater depth in your philosophical background in the future. It could be fun if you could raise your game a notch.

In the meantime ...

The "alienation" thing again, I'm not in the liberal religion, so I'm "alienated" from the collective. Dude, it's projection as to how you would feel if you were not secure in your views that you and the rest of the liberals agree on every issue. If I were like that I would BE a liberal. So to tell me I feel how I WOULD feel if I were a liberal when I agree I'm not is totally pointless.

RIC wrote:Good luck and I hope that you manage to develop better debating skills and greater depth in your philosophical background in the future. It could be fun if you could raise your game a notch.

Um..OK. You repeat what every Democrat in America says and challenge me to raise my "game a notch." What about raising your own game a "notch" by saying something every liberal in this country doesn't say every day? What about an original idea? You'll like the results in my "game," which you would know if you read what I've written when it's happened.

welch wrote:I agree, Kaz, that analyzing the Manifesto is more fun than analyzing Snyder and Zorn.

I can't understand the reference to RiC, and we both know that if you want to understand a document you read it...rather than read one summary by a conservative.

Does anyone else want to read the Communist Manifesto and reflect on the Obama platform?

Both are on the web.

The Gutenberg version of the Manifesto is at:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt


Obama on issues is at:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

"What do the documents say?"

Will do, but to answer the immediate question on RIC, I'm just harassing him. When he bashed America I used to bash Canada and he laughed. It turned out he's a French Quebecit, the Boss explained how they boo the Canadian Anthem too. Suddenly it made sense, so I only bash Quebec now and sure enough instead of laughing he gets upset. Anyway, it's interesting how fiercely independent French Canadians repeat all the American Democratic party's talking points. Now that IS funny. But I'll try to keep those out of my posts to you.

I've read a bunch of the manifesto, not all, it goes on forever and I'm not sure what you're seeing different in objective to the Democrats. The only real differences I've seen so far are that when it was written the world's economies were a lot more agriculturally based then they are today. But the class struggles are a cornerstone of the Democratic party with progressive taxes, redistribution of wealth, assets being controlled by the State, industries being controlled by the many low achievers instead of the few high achievers. Of course the low achievers are protected by a special class of elitist leaders who don't follow their own rules. Limousine Washington liberal lawyers. Don't send their own kids to government schools, the law doesn't apply to them, they wield all the power. What better description can there be of today's DC Democrat?

Then how there's even how wealth in private hands isn't by preventing money from leaving the country, preventing the passing of wealth to children, ...

But if you're interested in discussing/debating more, I'll spend more time going back through it. I'm on the beach next week (Miami Beach) planning to do lots of reading, what better to read then the Communist Manifesto! I'll starting a forum on it when I get back, be prepared.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Cappster wrote:He is full of crap. I wonder if fiscal responsibility involves billions of dollars in bailouts for private industries?

You talking about Bush or Obama? Just asking because both are doing exactly the same thing. You see that is why is so strange to witness as a foreigner the passion with which Republicans and Democrats fight each other ....

... to do the SAME thing.

One spent billions and the other wants to spend billions. Trust me, I feel like a foreigner in my own Country, because I haven't chosen to be a republican or a democrat. Its truly sickening to watch the "red" and "blue" parties go back and forth constantly saying they each will rid America of its problems. Its an endless cycle and nothing every really gets accomplished other than a bigger national deficit.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:industries being controlled by the many low achievers instead of the few high achievers.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:industries being controlled by the many low achievers instead of the few high achievers.

It's what socialism's all about. What's funny is you don't even get it. That, RIC, is at the heart of why it's pointless arguing with liberals. There is no debate, there is, "I don't get it, that wasn't liberal, it made no since." To borrow from Pulp's sig.

Cappster wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Cappster wrote:He is full of crap. I wonder if fiscal responsibility involves billions of dollars in bailouts for private industries?

You talking about Bush or Obama? Just asking because both are doing exactly the same thing. You see that is why is so strange to witness as a foreigner the passion with which Republicans and Democrats fight each other ....

... to do the SAME thing.

One spent billions and the other wants to spend billions. Trust me, I feel like a foreigner in my own Country, because I haven't chosen to be a republican or a democrat. Its truly sickening to watch the "red" and "blue" parties go back and forth constantly saying they each will rid America of its problems. Its an endless cycle and nothing every really gets accomplished other than a bigger national deficit.

It's the Republican's fault

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:industries being controlled by the many low achievers instead of the few high achievers.

It's what socialism's all about. What's funny is you don't even get it.

Oh, the irony.

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:industries being controlled by the many low achievers instead of the few high achievers.

It's what socialism's all about. What's funny is you don't even get it.

Oh, the irony.

Me too. You don't get my reference that socialism is all about passing the bills of low achievers with low income to high achievers with high incomes though taxes and government "benefits" and constantly transferring wealth from people who earned it to people who didn't resulting in endless growth of their own power and corruption and I don't get the inherent truth of liberalism. When you think about it it really is the same, that is ironic!

What's ironic is that you think government is controlling industry, which is completely the polar opposite of the way it is, and then you accuse me of not getting it. We are not becoming socialist, we are becoming a fascist state. No kazoo, not Nazi, I said fascist. Look it up.

JSPB22 wrote:What's ironic is that you think government is controlling industry, which is completely the polar opposite of the way it is, and then you accuse me of not getting it. We are not becoming socialist, we are becoming a fascist state. No kazoo, not Nazi, I said fascist. Look it up.

First of all, I know what fascism is, I say this all the time and considering how many of my posts you read you must know that. This is in fact the first time you've brought this up, so you probably got from me what you're speaking to me now condescendingly about.

So you think fascism is different then socialism? Do you know what Nazi stands for in German? Fascism is a path to socialism, not the opposite of it. In fact it is one step removed. For example, government controls Wall Street (fascism) and then takes ownership of it (socialism). In this case by purchasing stock. Government owning the company is socialism. You may want to go deeper in researching terms if you want to debate someone who knows what they're talking about.

Second, your point ignores the direct path to socialism the Democrats are taking by retirement (social security, medicare) and their demands for national energy, health care, ... So that the Democrats are doing a combination of policies of direct to socialism is true as is that in other cases they are going to socialism via fascism. The objective's the same, again look up what Nazi means.

welch wrote:IDoes anyone else want to read the Communist Manifesto and reflect on the Obama platform?

Both are on the web.

The Gutenberg version of the Manifesto is at:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/61/61.txt


Obama on issues is at:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

"What do the documents say?"

So what are your reflections?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Don't send their own kids to government schools, the law doesn't apply to them, they wield all the power. What better description can there be of today's DC Democrat?

That's not limited to a DC Democrat; that's the way today's politicians, both Republican and Democrat, roll.

Hell, this recent Republican administration obviously didn't believe the law applied to them, either (Dick Cheney isn't part of the Executive Branch, remember?)

It's late, but starting tomorrow I hope to make THN the first NFL site to print the Communist Manifesto.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:What's ironic is that you think government is controlling industry, which is completely the polar opposite of the way it is, and then you accuse me of not getting it. We are not becoming socialist, we are becoming a fascist state. No kazoo, not Nazi, I said fascist. Look it up.

First of all, I know what fascism is, I say this all the time and considering how many of my posts you read you must know that. This is in fact the first time you've brought this up, so you probably got from me what you're speaking to me now condescendingly about.

So you think fascism is different then socialism? Do you know what Nazi stands for in German? Fascism is a path to socialism, not the opposite of it. In fact it is one step removed. For example, government controls Wall Street (fascism) and then takes ownership of it (socialism). In this case by purchasing stock. Government owning the company is socialism. You may want to go deeper in researching terms if you want to debate someone who knows what they're talking about.

Second, your point ignores the direct path to socialism the Democrats are taking by retirement (social security, medicare) and their demands for national energy, health care, ... So that the Democrats are doing a combination of policies of direct to socialism is true as is that in other cases they are going to socialism via fascism. The objective's the same, again look up what Nazi means.

Your failure to understand simple concepts again makes you sound silly. In a socialist state, government provides social programs desired by the populace and provides oversight of the marketplace by such means as anti-trust laws, government meat inspections, pollution controls, etc.
It is a compromise between communism and capitalist employing elements of governmental regulation and capitalism and is compatible with democracy in that the electorate establishes the balance.

In fascism, corporate power merges with and becomes one with the power of the state (by force or otherwise), which becomes autocratic. It is compatible with dictatorship, loss of individual rights, loss of private property to the ruling class (functionaries of government), etc. It preserves no element of a free market, free elections, etc.

All four major fascist regimes in the 20th century were dictatorships. Two were ushered in by failed communism/monarchy (Russia and Spain) and two developed from failed capitalism (Germany and Italy). In no case did socialism function as as a stepping stone to fascism.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:What's ironic is that you think government is controlling industry, which is completely the polar opposite of the way it is, and then you accuse me of not getting it. We are not becoming socialist, we are becoming a fascist state. No kazoo, not Nazi, I said fascist. Look it up.

First of all, I know what fascism is, I say this all the time and considering how many of my posts you read you must know that. This is in fact the first time you've brought this up, so you probably got from me what you're speaking to me now condescendingly about.

So you think fascism is different then socialism? Do you know what Nazi stands for in German? Fascism is a path to socialism, not the opposite of it. In fact it is one step removed. For example, government controls Wall Street (fascism) and then takes ownership of it (socialism). In this case by purchasing stock. Government owning the company is socialism. You may want to go deeper in researching terms if you want to debate someone who knows what they're talking about.

Second, your point ignores the direct path to socialism the Democrats are taking by retirement (social security, medicare) and their demands for national energy, health care, ... So that the Democrats are doing a combination of policies of direct to socialism is true as is that in other cases they are going to socialism via fascism. The objective's the same, again look up what Nazi means.

Your failure to understand simple concepts again makes you sound silly. In a socialist state, government provides social programs desired by the populace and provides oversight of the marketplace by such means as anti-trust laws, government meat inspections, pollution controls, etc.
It is a compromise between communism and capitalist employing elements of governmental regulation and capitalism and is compatible with democracy in that the electorate establishes the balance.

In fascism, corporate power merges with and becomes one with the power of the state (by force or otherwise), which becomes autocratic. It is compatible with dictatorship, loss of individual rights, loss of private property to the ruling class (functionaries of government), etc. It preserves no element of a free market, free elections, etc.

All four major fascist regimes in the 20th century were dictatorships. Two were ushered in by failed communism/monarchy (Russia and Spain) and two developed from failed capitalism (Germany and Italy). In no case did socialism function as as a stepping stone to fascism or fascism to socialism.

Also, please stop telling the youngsters on this board that democrats are pushing us to a socialist state. We've been unmistakably a socialist state for the better part of a century, and the programs you whine about, such as social security and health programs, are not only desired by the electorate but also have been repeatedly supported by both parties. Also, I think you should be clear that the Bush regime was/is a fascist regime and that you gave it aid and comfort by turning your invective against out-of-power liberals as Bush and Co. committed war crimes and wrecked the economy.

Trade Barriers Toughen With Global Slump
Despite Free-Market Pledge, Many Nations Adopt Restrictive Policies

By Anthony Faiola and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 22, 2008; A01

Only a few weeks after world leaders vowed at a Washington summit to reject trade protectionism and adhere to free-market principles as they combat the global financial crisis, a host of nations are already breaking that promise.

Moving to shield battered domestic manufacturers from foreign imports, Indonesia is slapping restrictions on at least 500 products this month, demanding special licenses and new fees on imports. Russia is hiking tariffs on imported cars, poultry and pork. France is launching a state fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers. Officials in Argentina and Brazil are seeking to raise tariffs on products from imported wine and textiles to leather goods and peaches, according to the World Trade Organization.

The list of countries making access to their markets harder potentially includes the United States, where critics are calling the White House's $17.4 billion bailout of the U.S. auto industry an unfair government subsidy that would put foreign competitors at a disadvantage.

Though still relatively narrow in scope, the moves, observers warn, in the coming months may grow into a broader wave of protectionism. That could worsen the global financial crisis by further choking world trade, which is already facing its first decline since 1982 as the world economy sharply slows and demand dries up.

In hard times, analysts say, nations are more inclined to take steps that inhibit trade, often with dire consequences. Trade restrictions imposed by countries trying to protect domestic industries in the 1930s, for instance, escalated into a global trade war that deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.

"Exporting firms tend to be innovative, dynamic and capable of generating good job growth," said Eswar S. Prasad, a professor of trade policy at Cornell University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "If trade restrictions caused by trade wars shut them down, their suppliers shut down, job losses get worse, and you can quickly have a spiraling downward effect on the entire economy."

<snip> see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews

Concern?

You think the time to be concerned would be before you elect the guy President?




Now I do hope he succeeds after all he is our president. Also I do support him because he is after all our President.

Now let me give my views on politics. First of all it is the workers of America that make this country great. Every factory worker, small business owner, Lawyer, doctor, tech guy etc.
We make this country great. Not the politicians.

What do politicians really do?
They sit in an office and write laws and bills. Big Corporations who stand to benefit most contribute millions to there politicians campaign in hopes of there guy getting elected.
It is very much like a Horse race. Every one puts there bet on a certain horse hoping they cash the winning ticket.

Politicians waste the most money. They litterally piss away Billions of Dollars every year. Us as working America give Billions of Dollars to the government every year in the form of taxes. Most Americans do not even now were there money is going.

The American Pie. Think of the American Economy as a big Apple Pie. Right now the workers of Americas piece of the pie is smaller than it was when Clinton was President. One Huge piece of the Pie which got even bigger the past eight years belongs to the Oil Corporations. Another huge piece belongs theCorporations who make weapons and services for the War. Not to mention Corporations taking there business overseas taking american jobs with them.
So the piece of pie which belonged to the American People is the smallest its been since the Depression.

Now the Economy. Everyone remembers when Clinton was President the economy was thriving. Now most would give credit to the Clintons for that.

Truth is the credit belongs to the American people. During Clinton's presidency Technology stocks went through the roof. The internet boom. If the internet boom happened now that would do wonders for our economy. It just so happened during Clinton's time. The credit really belongs to the computer engineers, the big Corps at the time Microsoft, Apple, etc.. They are the ones who pioneered the internet boom. The American people is who always make it happen. Not some politician.

A good government would not choke hold the American people with taxes. A good government would allow experts to do what they do best.
Popular thought is that taxing the rich more will help out the economy. Not so.

When we start taxing the business owner more guess what happens?He or she is going to lay off people. Meaning less jobs for the American people. This is already happening. More taxes will make it worse.

The Mortgage crisis,
Sadly millions of loans were given out to people whos dream was to own a house. Its sad but the truth is the greedy loan companys gave out loans they knew which could not be repaid. People signed loans in which they hoped could be paid. Sadly they could not.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are two large entities in which gave out millions of loans to lower income families. Sounded like a good idea when they first started giving out loans. Most of these families were just bearly able to get by. When the Economy started to go south and the interest rates went up these families could not afford the payments anymore.

So who's to fault? the Mortgage Company for giving out loans they knew were risky? The People for signing a loan they may have known little about? The effect of oil prices on the American Economy?

Change?

Radical change no? I just want to see the economy stabilized. Bring home the troops. Thats all. I am fine with that. Not too much to ask for. Truth is it is us as a people who are going to make it happen. Not some dushe bag politician sitting in an office doing nothing but speak on a podium and make deals in back rooms.

yikes

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Don't send their own kids to government schools, the law doesn't apply to them, they wield all the power. What better description can there be of today's DC Democrat?

That's not limited to a DC Democrat; that's the way today's politicians, both Republican and Democrat, roll.

Yes, it does apply to both parties. My reference though was how the anti-choice Democrat politicians don't send their own kids to the schools they want to force the rest of us to send ours to. It was a reference to HYPOCRISY. We're all equal, some people are more equal then others, from Orwell's lips to Obama's ears...

PulpExposure wrote:Hell, this recent Republican administration obviously didn't believe the law applied to them, either (Dick Cheney isn't part of the Executive Branch, remember?)

Not sure how Cheney didn't follow the law or what it has to do with Elitist Democrat politicians who are more equal then we are, like Obama who has no intention of sending his own kids to the crappy schools he wants to force the rest of the Blacks who live in DC to send their kids to.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Your failure to understand simple concepts again makes you sound silly. In a socialist state, government provides social programs desired by the populace and provides oversight of the marketplace by such means as anti-trust laws, government meat inspections, pollution controls, etc.
It is a compromise between communism and capitalist employing elements of governmental regulation and capitalism and is compatible with democracy in that the electorate establishes the balance.

In fascism, corporate power merges with and becomes one with the power of the state (by force or otherwise), which becomes autocratic. It is compatible with dictatorship, loss of individual rights, loss of private property to the ruling class (functionaries of government), etc. It preserves no element of a free market, free elections, etc.

All four major fascist regimes in the 20th century were dictatorships. Two were ushered in by failed communism/monarchy (Russia and Spain) and two developed from failed capitalism (Germany and Italy). In no case did socialism function as as a stepping stone to fascism.

I like your wackynitions.

Socialism is when the industry is owned by the government. Period. Communists governments are socialist, so is Sweden. Your description of socialism includes your idealistic and blatantly naive view of how you would like to view our socialist government. Socialist in THEORY can serve the people in a democratic state, but that's not part of socialism itself and the reality that your view of socialism doesn't work and isn't possible because socialist governments are run by greedy men who have their own interests of wealth and power first at heart is ignored.

Fascism is when the government controls the industry, but the industry is technically held in private hands. The fascists governments of Europe so tightly controlled industry the difference is virtually indistinguishable. All plans needed to be "approved" by the government. The Nazis, German for "National Socialist German Workers' Party" didn't see the difference either.

Also,

- Your point that in fascism involved any "corporate power" at all would be news to the corporations of Germany, Italy or the other fascist governments. You're reversing the definition from government control of industry to industrial control of government.

- While it's true that the fascists of Europe were hate filled, racist murderers, they weren't being fascists when they did it. Unfortunately the term is now used to describe what the fascists of Europe did warping the definition. Sure, it's used that way today, but no matter how many times it was used "ain't" didn't become a word.

- As to fascism leading to socialism, in true fascist countries like Nazi Germany, there is no material difference, so one leading to the other is irrelevant. In this country we are well on that path though. Government controls energy (fasicsm) and is moving to nationalize it (socialism). The same is happening in health care. Look at the bailouts, government loans the people's money in return for concessions (fascism) and stock (socialism). Clearly the path is there.

welch wrote:It's late, but starting tomorrow I hope to make THN the first NFL site to print the Communist Manifesto.

OK. I offered to read it and debate it when I thought you were planning some sort of discourse based on it. If you ever want to do that, my offer to read and discuss is still there. I'm not interested in going the solo route though.

My assertion that Obama is a Marxist though is based on his use of government not for just control of the economy but class warfare and social re-engineering. Government control of the economy is socialist and socialism is part of Communism. But the Manifesto goes beyond that to focus on that everything is owned by the "people" (in reality the elites, like Obama who rule in their name). That is why you confiscate money at death and emigration, it was never yours, it was Obama's. Then with social engineering he supports increasing tax rates on rich bastards to take away their money even if it doesn't provide the government with any more. If you read the Manifesto this class envy and warfare and ownership of the economy by the people is the delta between socialism and Communism. Concepts practiced in spades by the Democratic party generally and Comrade Obama in particular.

HEROHAMO wrote:Now let me give my views on politics. First of all it is the workers of America that make this country great. Every factory worker, small business owner, Lawyer, doctor, tech guy etc.
We make this country great. Not the politicians.

Obviously it's not the politicians, we agree on that. Politicians were parasites, i.e., lawyers in their previous lives gaining by leaching off the achievement of others, and they are even greater parasites as politicians consolidating their greed for power and money. Lawyers are leaches who set out on a career of destroying rather then creating value and the most successful at it spend the rest of their lives in Washington DC doing it on a grander scale then anyone else.

But when you say our greatness is the "workers" I disagree. Not in a disrespecting way to workers, but that our greatness was the opportunity to make more of yourself. Yes, many people do this by being good workers. But it is the guy who creates a business and provides a job who makes it great, not the guy who puts in his eight hours and goes home. It is the construction worker who achieves and becomes a supervisor of a group of construction workers, then starts his own company who makes this country great. Work leads to achievement, it's not just about being a "worker."

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Government control of the economy is socialist and socialism is part of Communism.

By those simplistic and erroneous premises and logic Keynes would be a communist too (and all social democratic governments around the world for that matter).

Somebody that does not know the philosophical and political differences between socialism and communism cannot be taken seriously. You see folks, this is what happens when somebody listens to Rush Limbaugh too much, say half an hour. What a bunch of nonsense.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote: Government control of the economy is socialist and socialism is part of Communism.

By those simplistic and erroneous premises and logic Keynes would be a communist too (and all social democratic governments around the world for that matter).

Um...I said that socialism, state ownership of industry is "part of" communism. I did not say that communism is part of socialism. Dogs are animals, that does not mean that all animals are dogs.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Somebody that does not know the philosophical and political differences between socialism and communism cannot be taken seriously. You see folks, this is what happens when somebody listens to Rush Limbaugh too much, say half an hour. What a bunch of nonsense.

I see, so rather then refute the facts, which you can't do and didn't, you go to who people "listen to." That's your argument. You don't like Rush, so you assume anyone you dislike must listen to him and is therefore wrong. Thanks for the enlightenment. See folks, that's what happens when someone listens to Harry Reid at all.

You know on that have you thought about the irony say of the Quebecits. Fiercely bigoted French Canadians who hate non-Canadians and English Canadians and frankly don't have much use for each other except to smugly mock everyone else with flagrant hypocrisy and prejudiced views? These "independent" thinkers have adapted the policies and talking points of the American Democratic Party! Wow, talk about putting your manhood in a blind trust! They agree with Americans on EVERY ISSUE! Wow! Now as you know I don't think much of Democrats, but I have to admit their complete and utter domestication of French Canadian political views is impressive.

Wait a minute, RIC, what's that CHILL! Oh my God, I'm ALIENATED from the liberal COLLECTIVE! RIC, help me, I was kidding, I don't want to be ALIENATED from the LIBERAL COLLECTIVE! I would have to THINK then. I would have to actually arrive at my own positions! I would no longer have the liberal colllective led by American Democrats to do the thinking for me! Help me RIC! Or should I say:

Well since RIC put me down Ive been out doin in my head
Come in late at night and in the mornin I just lay in an alienated bed

Well, Obama you look so fine (look so fine)
And I know it wouldn't take much time
For libs to tell me what to think
Help me get Rush out of my heart

Help me RIC
Help, help me RIC
Help me RIC
Help, help me RIC
Help me RIC
Help, help me RIC
Help me RIC
Help, help me RIC
Help me RIC
Help, help me RIC
Help me RIC
Help, help me RIC
Help me RIC yeah
Get Rush out of my heart

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Um...I said that socialism, state ownership of industry is "part of" communism. I did not say that communism is part of socialism. Dogs are animals, that does not mean that all animals are dogs.

But President Obama is a Marxist because, in your view, he is a socialist???

Man, read our own posts for God's sake !!!

By the way, President Obama MIGHT just pass the biggest tax cuts in US history if he gets his way. How is that for socialist, let alone communist?

If your views wre not so blatantly absurd they might be funny. Problem is, no comic attempt is remtely made.

Go on hijacking lyrics. It might become a better path for you. It has been tried but , with practice, it might be better than your attempts at philosophy or political science.