• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

HELLRAISER

Looking to go where no FreeOnes member has gone before!
Don't trust a Neocon because not only will they lie to you when they tell you Obama is a radical socialist leftist commie, but they will also sell their souls to the devil and lie to their own mothers just to line their pockets

Here's an article that debunks the NeoCon lie being spread about Obama being a socialist. If anything, Obama is as liberal as any NeoCon president before him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html
 

HELLRAISER

Looking to go where no FreeOnes member has gone before!

Friday on my mind

Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner admitted in a TV appearance Sunday that President Barack Obama is not a socialist.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/20/boehner-obama-not-socialist/

I saw that interview.Boehner had to distance himself from head of the RNC Steele who had called Obama a socialist.They just keep digging themselves a hole to nowhere with such comments by Steele,Joe Wilson etc and can't even agree on what their message is themselves.Some want to call Obama socialist,liar and worse and some think thats not going to work well in the long run.The poor disorganized republicans,it couldn't happen to a better group of people(liars:cool:):1orglaugh
 

don_equis

This spot is for sale!
Socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterised by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation. It is characterised by unequal distribution of wealth and compensation according to work done. [1][2][3] Contrary to popular belief, socialism is not a political system; it is an economic system distinct from capitalism.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potentialities and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society that allows for the widespread application of modern technology to rationalise economic activity by eliminating the anarchy in production of capitalism[4], allowing for wealth and power to be distributed based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved, and whether increased production should be the main goal of socialists. The connotation of socialism varies among different groups, and can simply be a way of mediating decision-making within a society. Thus the degree of centralism in creating socialism, just as in capitalism or neoliberalism, is a feature of debate[5].

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market [Csocialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[6] Social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of marketsOLOR="red"][/COLOR]. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as socialists, introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means. Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticised the effects of industrialisation and private ownership on society. The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen (1771–1858), tried to found self-sustaining communes by secession from a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon (1760–1825), the first individual to coin the term socialism, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning.[7] The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organisation, and many contemporary socialists share this belief. Early socialist thinkers tended to favour an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

Vladimir Lenin, perhaps influenced by Marx's ideas of "lower" and "upper" stages of socialism[8], later used the word "socialism" as a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.


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


Just read that little excerpt from wiki's definition and tell me if a lot of that does not sound familiar...
 

BigSwede

Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
Everything that is non-republican are considered communist.:thefinger
 
^ Wow wiki has opened my eyes, for I was blind but now I see - hallelujah!!!

These socialists sound like intellectual gods compared to us with our lowly capitalists ideals...... ;)

But is Obama one ... no. Which is a mighty shame :(
 

don_equis

This spot is for sale!
Just be upfront and say that you all believe that socialism is the better economic model according to yall and your red flag carrying leader Obama, Pelosi and Reed! People seem to like it under the guise of "progressivism" and voted for it when they elected this goverment that really has no checks and balances so it can do whatever it wants, even "socialized healthcare"...

I just happen to not make enough money to be a neo con, but simply don't like socialism and prefer moderately regulated capitalism. But base on that excerpt of that definition that I posted before it pretty much fits Obama's agenda...
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Don't trust a Neocon because not only will they lie to you when they tell you Obama is a radical socialist leftist commie, but they will also sell their souls to the devil and lie to their own mothers just to line their pockets

Here's an article that debunks the NeoCon lie being spread about Obama being a socialist. If anything, Obama is as liberal as any NeoCon president before him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html

I don't know, dude. He could be a secret socialist. Ya know, just like he's a secret Muslim and a secret Kenyan and a secret anti-Christ and a secret grandma unplugger and a secret dictator and a secret... :rolleyes:

IMO, there does need to be (sane) opposition to Obama. But I think we see that the GOP is not up to it. For one, the party is now dominated by people who probably need to be housed in small rooms with padded walls, with daily lithium dosages. For another, they seem more interested in irrational rhetoric and nonsensical conspiracy theories, rather than developing ideas which will move the nation forward.

A good many of the GOP's Evangelical fundamentalist foot soldiers believe that the Earth is roughly 6,000 years old. They believe that dinosaurs were here with people. As I pointed out last night, they believe that if you read a Playboy magazine, you're on the road to being a homosexual. What am I saying? I'm saying that these people are fuckin' nuts!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a member of either party. And I firmly believe that there are many good Republicans out there. But it's also quite clear that the party is being run (into the ground) by crazy, ignorant flakes. And that really is too bad.

The only answer I can see is a viable 3rd party. Ross Perot just made a cool $400 million selling one of his companies. Not that he'd need to be out front, but we sure could use a man like him to get the ball rolling again.
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
The Washington Post and the Associated Press

The selling point is the article was written by Billy Wharton. :lovecoupl

"Obama is a radical socialist leftist commie"

This sums him up better. But, you forgot Kenya born. :hatsoff:

Read Don_Equis' comment.

Government in the private sector is Socialism, and Obama is on the GM commercial.

"Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"

-Bill Hicks
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Everything that is non-republican are considered communist.:thefinger

Oh, it's even better than that. If you're not a neocon or a fundamentalist snake charmer, you're not a "real" Republican, you're a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Ronald Reagan said this many years ago: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Ronald Reagan (and people like Jack Kemp) made the GOP a big tent/inclusive party. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the Reagan policies, I believe most of us would agree that he did expand the party greatly.

What's going on now? Does someone want me to believe that Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez are libertarians? Does someone want to try to convince me that Sarah Palin can spell, much less understand Supply Side Economics?

The big tent that Reagan built is being torn down and set on fire by people who are not inclusive, but exclusive. Even if Obama needs to be voted out in a couple of years, we don't need these sorry sons of bitches back in office!

Remember Bush Lites rallying cry: "You're either with us or you're against us!" Simple sayings for simple minds.
 

don_equis

This spot is for sale!
This is the land of the free still, so stand up that what you belive in Socialism. communisn, capitalism, democracy, individual rights, goverment control, etc....just don't go around in circles about it and don't call it what it is or say "that's not what he means or is trying to do" call it what it is.

Remember Van Jones?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzQb42A1Nqs - Van Jones Espousing Communism & Progressive Spiritual Activism

Who are Obama's Czars? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuK164TChm4

Bill O'Reilly's Income, Wealth Redistribution Debate with Flaming Socialist Liberal Lamont Hill Ph.D - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdOgHViNX54

Why do Obama advisors have the tittle of "czars" and everyone is ok with that?
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Don't trust a Neocon because not only will they lie to you when they tell you Obama is a radical socialist leftist commie, but they will also sell their souls to the devil and lie to their own mothers just to line their pockets

Here's an article that debunks the NeoCon lie being spread about Obama being a socialist. If anything, Obama is as liberal as any NeoCon president before him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html

your clear and unbiased point of view and love and misuse of the word neocon has got me sold.
Go Obama!
And to my special lady "We did it baby!".:thumbsup:

One question however, Are you employed sir?
 

Spleen

Banned?
Obama's No Socialist, I Should Know....


I AM OBAMA
 

StanScratch

My Penis Is Dancing!
This is the land of the free still, so stand up that what you belive in Socialism. communisn, capitalism, democracy, individual rights, goverment control, etc....just don't go around in circles about it and don't call it what it is or say "that's not what he means or is trying to do" call it what it is.

Remember Van Jones?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzQb42A1Nqs - Van Jones Espousing Communism & Progressive Spiritual Activism

Who are Obama's Czars? - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuK164TChm4

Bill O'Reilly's Income, Wealth Redistribution Debate with Flaming Socialist Liberal Lamont Hill Ph.D - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdOgHViNX54

Why do Obama advisors have the tittle of "czars" and everyone is ok with that?



The "czar" thing was actually started by the guy before him. Remember the "War Czar"?
 

don_equis

This spot is for sale!
The "czar" thing was actually started by the guy before him. Remember the "War Czar"?

So hope and change goes out the window because if the guy before him did it then so can he?

At least some of Congress want to start investigating the scope of power and to whom do they respond to andif this alter whatever is left of the "checks and balances"
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Why do Obama advisors have the tittle of "czars" and everyone is ok with that?


They don't have the title "czar". The title "czar" does not exist anywhere in the United States government. It's a term applied by the press and picked up by the neocons and bible thumpers on the right. Czar has no more (deep, political) meaning in the case of Obama than "kaiser" would have had in the case of Bush's advisors.


Reagan And Bush Advisors Defend Term “Czars”
September 19th, 2009, 1:45 PM EDT
The right wing loves referring to “czars” in the Obama administration, because it makes it seem as though the White House is overrun with commies. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, for example, wrote a piece in the Washington Post last week called “Czarist Washington”. But David B. Rifkin, Jr. (left) and Lee A. Casey (right), who served under Reagan and Bush 41 take exception to this (h/t Think Progress). They make the case that, in fact, it would be unconstitutional to subject every hiree to a nomination process.

Far from undermining the separation of powers, however, the president’s right to organize his White House policymaking apparatus is protected by that very constitutional principle.

The White House czars are presidential assistants charged with responsibility for given policy areas. As such, they are among the president’s closest advisors. In many respects, they are equivalent to the personal staff of a member of Congress. To subject the qualifications of such assistants to congressional scrutiny — the regular confirmation process — would trench upon the president’s inherent right, as the head of an independent and equal branch of the federal government, to seek advice and counsel where he sees fit.

There is a critical difference between a “czar” and a congressionally-approved cabinet member.

In the absence of legislation (such as that creating the Office of Drug Control Policy, whose director is the “drug czar”), the only power exercised by White House czars comes from their proximity to the president and the access this provides. Yes, as many will note, that truly is power. But it is not significant authority under U.S. law — which only the Constitution or Congress can confer.

The Constitution is clear about the distribution of power.

Hutchison’s frustration at being unable to tell whether the czars are imposing the administration’s agenda on agency officials who have been confirmed by the Senate is misplaced. Legally, they can do no such thing. The Constitution vests all executive power in the president, creating a unitary executive, and it is his authority to execute the laws that federal officials exercise, subject to his direction.
 

Friday on my mind

Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
Don't get hung up on the word Czar,it's been used in the govt for decades,a slang word used for man in charge of a specific area.The drug Czar,the energy Czar etc.And while you didn't come right out and say it it was a sign of Obama's socialist (communist) tendencies in your mind I will remind you the Czar was what was overthrown by communism.Not just overthrown but the whole family wiped out.Sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.A royal family that ruled with an iron fist won't be agitating and causing trouble in exile if their all dead.:eek::thumbsup
 
Don't trust a Neocon because not only will they lie to you when they tell you Obama is a radical socialist leftist commie, but they will also sell their souls to the devil and lie to their own mothers just to line their pockets

Here's an article that debunks the NeoCon lie being spread about Obama being a socialist. If anything, Obama is as liberal as any NeoCon president before him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html

The left throws around the term NeoCon more than the right throws around Socialist. Most of the people who are protesting him aren't NeoCons and heck, he's most popular with the NeoCon branch of the Republican party because of his handling of the war in Afghanistan.

You don't know what a NeoCon is.
 

jasonk282

Banned
The left throws around the term NeoCon more than the right throws around Socialist. Most of the people who are protesting him aren't NeoCons and heck, he's most popular with the NeoCon branch of the Republican party because of his handling of the war in Afghanistan.

You don't know what a NeoCon is.

bingo, NeoCons LOVE nation building
 
Top