Figures Corsi would find a home on Blech. It was a disgusting circle jerk if ever I saw one.

How long before Limbaugh and O'Reilly talk to him? Isn't that who's left on his tour?

Ok.

Now that the Beaver has out stupided Hannity, who's left on the right wingnut bench to make Beck seem intelligent?

I'm betting on Ben Stein.

Don't give up so easily on Flintstone.  He went to a lot of trouble to set the standards, and won't give up his crown (or tiara, whatever) easily.

Now that the Beaver has out stupided Hannity, who's left on the right wingnut bench to make Beck seem intelligent?

No one and nothing can make Glenn Beck seem intelligent.  He's as brain-dead as all the other righties.

These guys have no idea what Marxism is.  Before you go off on economic systems, you need to read Das Capital and The Wealth of Nations.  .... oh right, pundits don't read.

Every time I hear a wingnut call somebody a "marxist" or a "socialist" or use the phrase "redistribution of wealth" without backing it up, I wanna go all Iñigo Montoya on them:

You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

INCONCEIVABLE!

As I read your post, I was (at first) like... "What?  Accuse them of patricide and the threaten revenege?"  But, yeah, once I finished, I'm in complete agreement with you. 

They've been misusing "FASCIST" a bit more aggregiously though, IMHO.  To describe Democrats/Liberals as Marxist/Communist is hyperbole to a ridiculous degree (just as it is when we use "Fascist" to descibe Republicans - though it IS a lot lcoser to the truth with some of these clowns.)  But when THEY use FASCIST to describe US...

Well it's like the good Senator said (greatest quote since JFK)

"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant!"

The largest part of the Repugnican base - those not in the top one percent  financially who do continually vote against their own interests because of their homophobic religious ideologies and their consuming need to keep women subservient do indeed take pride in being ignorant. They are in fact the sole component of Beck's audience.

One can be an advocate of some form of wealth redistribution and not subscribe to the Marxist ideology. 

You clearly haven't read the books.

You haven't read the books clearly.

"Redistribution of wealth" is in and of itself not "Marxist".  If capitalism created a situation where 1% of the population controlled 99% of the wealth, how else would you correct that?  The issue isn't one of absolutism, where any such effort is wrong, it's relative to the actual need of the specific situation.

Considering that we've had 7+ years of redistributing wealth upwards (highest disparity since the robber barons of the 1920's), don't you think a little correction is now in order?

But those who already have theirs are selfish and will fight to the end to keep every last penny, a la Mr. Krabs.

If you're rich, you call redistribution "Marxism." If you're poor, you call it lassez faire capitalism.

Problem is, the rich definition is the incorrect one. 

 

Brab,

Why make up absurd hypotheticals that make no sense to argue against Capitalism? Clearly Capitalism hasn't caused wealth to aggregate with the top 1%. You may not like Capitalism, which is fine, but lets keep the argument in the real world.

But I'm not arguing against capitalism.  The point is that it's not perfect, and if greed gets out of hand, then there has to be some way of correcting it without it being "Marxism".  The hypothetical is to illustrate that.

You are probably arguing for regulation.

Rules, of course, in the Republican mind are subject to change when they no longer benefit the few. Rules are subject to change when they benefit hard working people.

"You are probably arguing for regulation."

Absolutely.  Pure, unrestrained capitalism is just as stupid as communism, because neither one takes human nature into account.  The idea that people will voluntarily act out of the best interests of others instead of greed doesn't work in any system.

No, your ridiculous hypothetical is meant to take the argument to some irrelevant extreme because arguing reality, and not emotion, won't advance your point, or your argument.

No, the hypothetical proves the point that a correction is not Marxism.  The question is then at what point a correction is warranted.  I have no idea how this principle is "emotional" or unrealistic in nature.

When 1% of the population controls 99% of the wealth, then you come back here and argue for correction.  Until then, your premise and your argument are merely to drum up support for your correction based on pure emotion, not facts.

I'm not saying anything about "facts", I'm talking about a principle.

If wealth was that disproportionate, would you think that is a problem?  I hope so.   Would a desire to do something about that make you a Marxist?  Of course not.  Therefore redistribution is not in and of itself Marxist.

Why is this controversial?

If, If, If......your "If's" are not reality, therefore they are hypotheticals.  If and when we are anywhere near 1% controlling 99% then your "if" may have some relevance, but we aren't, and it doesn't. 

So arguing principle, based on your hypothetical that is so far out there, is pointless. 

Of course it's a hypothetical, and of course it's far out there.  But since you don't deny the premise, then you must agree that there are situations that such a thing wouldn't be "Marxism".  Why does this bother you?

Deny what premise?  Your insistence on arguing principle over a ridiculous hypothetical is mind-boggling.  Do you know how pointless, worthless, irrelevant, and silly that is?

What about a hypothetical that now all firearms are able to be sold in vending machines across the country.  Yours is no sillier than that is.

What is the point of that hypothetical?  In this case, I'm talking about the idea that "redistribution" equals Marxism.  I'm not saying it is the case, I'm not saying it will be the case, it's just to demonstrate that Marxism is not absolute, it's not something that applies to any redistribution of wealth.

Since I'm directly addressing what Beck said, clearly there's a point to the example.

Clearly Capitalism hasn't caused wealth to aggregate with the top 1%.

No, that's right. It was the tooth fairy. 

Clearly Capitalism hasn't caused wealth to aggregate with the top 1%.

That comment reminds me of an old Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob was trying to get parole and someone on the parole board asks Bob why he has a tattoo that says "Die, Bart, Die".  Sideshow Bob replies that it's actually German for "The, Bart, The".  One of the parole officers is mollified by this and says "No one who speaks German could be an evil man!"

My point being that that statement is as absurd as AA's.

Now is Barry the highest rated marxist in the Senate or just in the top ten?  Let's get this right for once!

I had no idea there was a top ten list for Marxist senators.  Thanks for providing the information.

One thing--Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, and Ted Stevens--on what list would you put these esteemed Repulican senators? 

I would rank them as national disgraces along with Edwards, Jeffers, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, but that doesn't change the argument.

Believe what you want about Obama. It'll just make you that much angrier for the next 8 years as this country is led by Obama and the democratic party. ;)

Now is Barry the highest rated marxist in the Senate or just in the top ten?  Let's get this right for once!

You haven't been right about anything your entire life, PC.

Obama's a Marxist, huh? How did I miss his campaign speeches about false consciousness and historical materialism?

vygotsky-wannabe,

Opps there it is......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/michelle-obama-dont-go_n_89264.html

Hmm...

She makes a statement encouraging people not to go into corporate law and hedge fund management, the exact thing that the right demonized John Edwards for, and now she's Marxist for doing so?

Can't you righties make up your minds on what professions deserve your scorn? 

petra90210,

vygotsky-wannabe asked for examples of historical materialism in Obama's campaign.  I just showed him one, yes it was Michele and not Barry himself, but my guess is they share the idea that others should not pursue wealth and material gain.

Yeah, Michelle is having a hard time paying back her loans with her $300,000 per year job working for a... a... hospital.  

I think Universal Health coverage is just a ploy to get us all to pay Michelle's salary. :-) 

"vygotsky-wannabe asked for examples of historical materialism in Obama's campaign.  I just showed him one, yes it was Michele and not Barry himself, but my guess is they share the idea that others should not pursue wealth and material gain."

OK, first of all, I picked the name "Vysotsky" as a nod to Vladimir Vysotsky, not Lev Vygotsky.   

Second: the link you posted was to the Huffington Post's link to a National Review piece about Michelle Obama's comments encouraging people to resist the pressure to pursue higher-paying corporate jobs "work[ing] for the community" as teachers, social workers, and healthcare workers.

Where in that article did you detect even a hint of a discussion of historical materialism?  (You may want to actually look up the term 'historical materialism' to make sure you know what you're talking about before you answer.  Kind of like how you might want to look up Vygotsky and Vysotsky before you start throwing their names around.)

vladi-laddie,

My bad on the Vygotsky thang.  Both Russian but Vysotsky quite

vladi-laddie,

My bad on the Vygotsky thang.  Both Russian but Vysotsky quite the tragic basketcase.

I guess my comments were more appropriately related to the idea of sacrifice of the benefits of wealth as false consciousness.  One's individual success, financial security, contentment  are capitalism's fruit that serve as false pacifiers of the true reality of the class struggle.

The Hegelian dialetic that renders truth relative to the conditions would probably fit someone who vacillates from position to position.  I could state that regarding Obama, positons of truth are relative, ie,  Rev. Wright is my mentor to I didn't know his opinions, or I'm against drilling to I am for it, so on and so forth.

Vacillating, you mean kinda like this?

National Security Policy

1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

2. McCain insisted that everyone, even “terrible killers,” “the worst kind of scum of humanity,” and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, “deserve to have some adjudication of their cases,” even if that means “releasing some of them.” McCain now believes the opposite.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.

5. McCain was for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay before he was against it.

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He’s since come to the opposite conclusion.

Foreign Policy

7. McCain was for kicking Russia out of the G8 before he was against it.

8. McCain supported moving “towards normalization of relations” with Cuba. Now he believes the opposite.

9. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.

10. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Syria. Now he believes the opposite.

11. McCain is both for and against a “rogue state rollback” as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

13. McCain was against divestment from South Africa before he was for it.

Military Policy

14. McCain recently claimed that he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

16. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

17. McCain has repeatedly said it’s a dangerous mistake to tell the “enemy” when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

18. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.

Domestic Policy

19. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

20. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.

21. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

22. He argued the NRA should not have a role in the Republican Party’s policy making. Now he believes the opposite.

23. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

24. McCain is both for and against earmarks for Arizona.

25. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.

26. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

27. McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

28. McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

29. McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

30. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

Economic Policy

31. McCain was against Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.

32. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.

33. McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal. And soon after that, McCain abandoned his second position and went back to his first.

34. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.

35. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

36. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”

37. McCain has changed his entire economic worldview on multiple occasions.

38. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.

Energy Policy

39. McCain supported the moratorium on coastal drilling ; now he’s against it.

40. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

41. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.

42. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.

43. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.

Immigration Policy

44. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

45. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.

46. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”

Judicial Policy and the Rule of Law

47. McCain said he would “not impose a litmus test on any nominee.” He used to promise the opposite.

48. McCain believes the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

49. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

Campaign, Ethics, and Lobbying Reform

50. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

51. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

52. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

Politics and Associations

53. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn’t. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)

54. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn’t.

55. McCain says he considered and did not consider joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.

56. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

57. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

58. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

59. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

60. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

61. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was “corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff’s gay lover.” McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.

Which will explain why in January, the republican party will look like this:

Vacillating, you mean kinda like this?

No, not like that, Snoop! Only about Obama! Damn, that list is getting long.

Off topic, but just caught a bit of righty lunacy. I posted recently about Hugh Hewitt & callers to his radio show distorting Obama's accurate, common-sense statements regarding tire inflation as some sort of oppression, or government interference. That's the authoritarian mind at work.

Just now, Sean Hannity & Herr Karl were on the tube, expanding on the hilarity. Remember, these were very simple and proven methods of fuel conservation mentioned by Obama,properly inflated tires and tune-ups,made in response to a citizens questions about what he could do personally to increase his fuel efficiency.

Not to Rove-- he worked in the phrases "Nanny state" and "tire police", to hearty laughter from Hannity.They really do take a lot of pride in their ignorance. I guess if we had a widespread epidemic of Americans teeth falling out, and Obama recommended brushing and flossing, the rightys would be screaming about Big Brother just as quick.

It's just a strange reaction, and explains a lot of the far right thinking.

Hey America. You've got a problem? Why don't you use your head. Be smart and do some simple, logical things to minimize that problem?

Right Wing America: "Don't tell us what to do, fascist/commie/Socialist dictator!"

Yeah Colonel. I guess all that right wing blathering about personal accountability was just hot air after all. Imagine, taking responsibility for your tire pressure! No time for that, you get your widdle handsies dirty and have to pay a quarter for the air pump! Cheap bastids...

Wow, that was great.  That's why most Republicans don't like him either.  We just don't dislike him as much.

Dear PC,

You've changed your position twice and completely in just the course of this conversation, and you're taking a swing at Obama for vacillating?

First you argued that the article to which you linked was an example of Obama's position on historical materialism... which it isn't, so that didn't work out so well for you.  So then you flipflopped and argued that what you really meant was that it best exemplified false consciousness and, uh, the supreme relativity of the Hegelian dialectic...  which is an interesting argument, since Hegel actually did believe in an absolute truth, and besides, Marx rather famously disagreed with Hegel's dialectical method anyway, so how is this relevant to Obama's supposed Marxism. As for false consciousness, Michelle Obama certainly picked a strange way to address awareness of class conflict: go into philanthropy, teaching and nursing? 

Huh. I may have to rethink similar appeals from George and Laura Bush who have praised the work of teachers and, worse yet, volunteers... who are just unpaid laborers, right? PC, I'm shocked -- I had no idea that the First Family were actually flaming Marxists!

I wasn’t addressing his question or your half-baked answer.  

If you’re going to link to an article from a right-wing rag here, then don’t get your knickers in a bunch over criticism of that article and those who ascribe to its opinions.

John Edwards was chewed to pieces by the right over practicing law and associating with and benefiting from a hedge fund.  Now we have Michelle Obama encouraging people to avoid these two exact same professions and instead focus on professions that may not pay as well, but directly help their fellow man and provide direct benefits to communities.

Seems this would be applauded by the right, based upon how they viewed these professions back when Edwards was a candidate.  But now, the winds have changed and these professions are suddenly and conveniently flagships for all that is right with capitalism and America.

That's hysterical, pc. Historical materialism. The history of, the very foundation of the conservative movement, is disdain for consumerism and materialism. Just ask that working class hero, Paul Weyrich.

But seriously, word games aside, this attack line of Marxism, socialism...is such a dead giveaway that the right is out of ideas. That they have no answer, no examples to cite that remotely refute the liberal principle of the common good. It shows me that cons won't argue honestly.

After six years of Republican economic dominance and thirty years of conservative corporate worship our country is screwed. The disparity of wealth is growing and don't try to tell me I am merely experiencing class envy. An expansive, informed, educated, healthy, economically secure middle class is the spiritual source of a vibrant democracy.

Republicanism, with it's vehement opposition to unionization, has shrunken the middle class. In fact, I believe it actively seeks to shrink the middle class for the sake of control. Because when we are afraid for our future, afraid that our jobs are unstable and frightened that we won't be able to find another job we are more pliable, more willing to eat the shit that the corporate elites feed us. And have no doubt, the CEO superhero is the highest form of attainment for the modern righty.

What we ask is simply to make the elites play by the same rules we do, you know, in accordance to the notion that all men are created equal.

No more tax breaks and loopholes for those rich bastards who disproportionately benefit from our tax funded infrastructure . No more privatized profits and socialized costs. No more bailouts for men driven to foolish con artistry in pursuit of wealth. Basically. No more Reaganonomics.

COMMUNIST!

Shhh! You'll wake up the wingnut trolls.

Obama's a Marxist, huh? How did I miss his campaign speeches about false consciousness and historical materialism?

I particularly enjoyed his one on The German Ideology.

His elucidations on Marcuse are great, too-- all over YouTube. 

Marcuse, by the way, a Jewish intellectual forced to flee Germany with the rise of the Nazis, or as Jonah Goldberg would call them, "liberal fascists".

Actually, I was really hoping that Obama will bring up his critique of some of the finer points of Lukacs' work in his acceptance speech at Invesco Field.

Marxist, socialist, facist eh? I wish you guys could decide which of the three mutually exclusive systems of government, or misgovernment, that your going to accuse him of being.

If not your just avoiding any discussion while going yah yahyah yah yah at the upper reaches of human vocal frequencies. Makes me look forward to a nice session of blackboard scrapping.

Come'on you all are normally very good at rhetorical syncronization. 

Marxism and Fascism both spring from socialism. Marxism argues class warfare to achieve a socialist state while Fascism argues nationism to achieve the same goal.

Wow. Breathtaking ignorance.

Apparently you are speaking for yourself.

Take a look at Wikopedia regarding Fascism or my reference to it further down in this thread. 

"Redistribution of wealth"

Time to put the boot on this one.

We want to balance the frickin' budget, and raising taxes on the rich is the only good way. Redistribution has nothing to do with it.

If any republican actually balances the budget -- for real -- we can reopen the tax policy dialogue.

(We also support the right of poor people to not die from poorness.)

steverino,

Psst, Shhhh.  Your comments could give you away.  Your statemenst seem close to disclosing that the rich are the bourgeoisie and the poor the proletariat.

Pssst....Clean it up and pass it on.....

We want to balance the frickin' budget, and raising taxes on the rich is the only good way.

 

You forgot reduce wasteful spending :)

No, that's old ground. The bulk of the budget is mandatory spending. There isn't $400 billion in waste in a single year.

I'm all for eliminating waste, though. If you think it's enough to balance the budget, make sure you do that before the next round of tax cuts.

Steve,

You "left" out the obvious. Cut spending. Social redistribution programs are the biggest single items in the Federal Budget.  

and so are ill conceived wars that do not just waste money but precious American lives.

Steeve, are you telling us there is no way of reducing government spending 10-13%? I'll bet it could be done, if there was the will to do so, without hurting the "Children, Military, Old People".

"I'll bet it could be done, if there was the will to do so, without hurting the Children, Military, Old People"

There has never, ever, even been a <i>proposal</i> put forward that can do that.  Every proposal for reducing the cost of government's big programs (except defense) includes huge cuts in things that people need very badly.

And if there ever <i>were</i> such a proposal, a true fiscal conservative would insist it be done <i>before</i> more tax cuts.  If the votes aren't there, work at getting the votes.  Then work some more.  Then carry it out.  <i>Then</i> cut taxes.

"Social redistribution programs"

Such as? 

That's code for "stuff that helps the poor". Government money should all go to war contractors or big business.

Correction:  war profiteers.

Does anyone seriously foresee even a miniscule rise in prominence of the Workers Party or the Communist Party as a result of Barack Obama becoming president?

This is pretty much what Beck and the rest of the professional right-wing liars want us to believe and live in fear of, isn’t it?

rock411,

Barak says, "Been their, done that!"

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

 

If it had at least one link or one reference to an unbiased source, I'd be inclined to take it seriously.

petie,

Sorry that I didn't choose mother jones for my info.  Hope this will do.

http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html#anchor781435

This is from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America that I link to ....

"Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Except you know that this information is not evidence of it either.

You not only have to use reasonable sources, not the ones you provided,  but they have to say what you claim that they say.

You can't do it on this topic, because they don't exist, so why not stop wasting everyone's time?

BB,

Sorry. Simply burying your head in the sand and saying it doesn't exist is not a good argument.

PC gave the quote and the link. It is there even if you refuse to believe it. 

Isn't that exactly what you clowns do when presented with facts that you refuse to believe? Except you refuse to believe the truth, not the crackpot sites you always provide.

Mr Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr Kettle.

Thanks for the Human Events link, plowedcon. I haven't visited that loony bin lately. Did you read the comments? Som e highlights;

Communism/Socialism doesn't work; it is designed to keep everyone down to the lowest common denominator (i.e., the most dumbest, uneducated and lazy person). Furthermore, it forces people to repress their God-given (yeah, I said GOD, not GOVERNMENT, GET OVER IT) gifts to exercise their intelligence, innovation and creativity to solve the problems faced by nations, humanity, etc

"God help us all if that communist Obama wins the election. Get ready to fight for your second amendment rights because like all socialists, they will be looking to disarm us all in order to force us to submit to their miserable doctrine." - Dave Goin

Truer words have never been utttered! Obamination is a nightmare waiting to happen

Do you post there, PC? I'll bet those bedwetting imbeciles call you "professor" !

;0)

kernal,

No need to get testy, just look above at the CDSA link.....

Testy? You kid yourself. You amuse me, and validate everything I believe in. I probably don't thank you guys enough.

You're clueless ... Go read the books.

Barak says, "Been their, done that!"

Who's "Barak?" And why would he say anything so illiterate?

Pete,

ProudConservative's links describe how different communistic organizations have morphed over the years.  It's not your granddaddy's communist party anymore. :-)

And these new communistic organizations have magical powers of rapid indoctrination and insurrection and that's why we need to be afraid.

GOT IT.  :-D

And they're able to hide under AA's bed much more easily than they could in those bad old 1950s.

No increase in enrollment , just an increase in the stupidity of the mob.  A good Utopian candidate can never resist playing Robin Hood--it's just too easy to buy votes that way.

The mob doesn't grasp the fact that now, in one of the biggest credit/capital contractions in history, Obama's proposal to raid the "Rich" is an attack on capital formation.  That money flows into capital markets that are desperate for it.  Attacking oil profits is the same thing.  Pension funds (teachers, other unions, Persi funds, etc.) are invested there.  If it becomes a comparatively less desirable investment than something else, with share prices falling, the pension money will flow to more desirable shares. 

Summing it up: the mob attacks capital and then wonders what happened to their job.

No, I know its hard for you, but abuse of capital would be the thing.

300billion a year leaves our economy for off shore tax havens. Currently thats 1.5 Trillion in assets that will somehow never trickle down to or support the population that created it.

Speaking of Utopians, how's that invisible hand working to curtail stagnant wages, rising costs and job outsourcing?

Spare us your condescension. It's our economy, we deserve to have it work for us.

When you examine economic systems you actually find that Capitalism is a very left wing concept, almost entirely to the left of the scale.

Farfromperfect,

You have got to be kidding!

"When you examine economic systems you actually find that Capitalism is a very left wing concept, almost entirely to the left of the scale."

 

I'm with PC for right now. Can you explain that? Thanks.

Certainly ... The Left refers to a democratic type system where all the people make decisions together, the Right is a dictatorial system where only a few, or one person, make decisions.

Remember ... You need to read the books, The Wealth of Nations and Das Capital, instead of just listening to pundits. 

In Capitalism, decisions are made through purchasing, with each person having as many votes as he has dollars.  Under Socialism, all the people make decisions, with each having one vote.

The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was NOT Communist nor Socialist.  It was a dictatorial system with a central control economy where only a few made decisions.  It was the lack of distribution of decision making that collapsed its economy.  The Carter boycott of the Olympics and the grain embargo pushed it over the edge.

Thus ... Capitalism: Left wing ... Soviet: Right wing. 

And ... Neither pure right or left wing concepts work, you need to be in grey area.

fprefect,

You are conflating democracy with socialism when you say everyone in a socialist society has one vote. All socialist societies rely on a very strong central government, most are ruled by dictators or a ruling cadre, who make the decisions for society.

To say that the U.S.S.R. is not Communist is simply incorrect.  

Read the books .... You're completely wrong. Stop listening to idiots like Lenin who claimed to be a Marxist.  He wasn't.  Lenin followed a fascist revolutionary named Мучайеь.  And, Stalin, of course, was much worse.

Marx called for democratic decision making in all areas of government, economics, and theocracy.

Socialism is Economic Democracy.

Finally someone has it right!

You don't understand, so you resort to personal attacks?  There goes your credibility.

Capitalism spread wealth beyond the ruling classes. Produced the first  middle class population of any size. Allowed millions the chance to exist beyond a short life of filth and squalor. Yup sounds leftwing to me.

Might be a little out of reach for them just yet, EW. I think they're still mulling over The Sword in the Stone.

Is Obama a Marxist? No. Is Beck a pathetic moron? He sure tries hard. With a little more work he'll make it easily.

Marxism and Fascism both spring from socialism. Marxism argues class warfare to achieve a socialist state while Fascism argues nationalism to achieve the same goal.

The place of fascism in the political spectrum remains highly debated. In practice, fascism opposed communism and classic liberalism but also socialism and laissez faire capitalism. Many scholars accept fascism as a search for a Third Way among these fields.[22][23][24][25][26][27][7][28][29] 

Please see the above post.  Marxism is purely left wing and Fascism is purely right wing.  Neither will actually work.  

My cut and paste may not work.  From the same wikopedia linked above:

The original founders of Fascism in Italy were made up of people who were previously socialists, syndicalists, military men and anarchists but had become angered at the international left's opposition to patriotism and decided to form a new movement; Benito Mussolini, Michele Bianchi and Dino Grandi were all previously socialists.[34] The two biggest difference between the movements, is that fascism rejects the idea of class war in favor of class collaboration,[35] while also rejecting socialist internationalism in favor of socialist/state nationalism.

 

Scholar A. James Gregor asserts that the most "uninspired effort to understand fascism" is to simply place it on the right-wing, or the radical right as the common tendency was in the Anglosphere during the post-war period.[21] While Walter Laqueur asserts that historical fascism: "did not belong to the extreme Left, yet defining it as part of the extreme Right is not very illuminating either." and that it "was always a coalition between radical, populist ('fascist') elements and others gravitating toward the extreme Right".[31] Since the end of World War II, many fascist movements have become more monolithically right-wing, and became intertwined with the radical right.[32][33]

Source

How many make the decisions in a Fascist system?

You're sourcing to Wikipedia?  You get an automatic 'F' for your analysis.

Farther up, FPrefect states, "Please see the above post."

That was from Wikipedia, also. It's a perfectly good site for him when it supports his limited world view. When it doesn't, it receives an "F."

FPrefect gets an "F" for lack of critical thinking and massive amounts of hypocrisy.

I will guarantee that if you asked Glenn Beck or Klannity how a socialist government works, they wouldn't be able to answer. I'll guarantee that none of the professional liars (I liked that!) could describe Marxism.

 These blowhards are probably too stupid to realize that if it wasn't for BIG BAD GOVERNMENT regulating the market that we'd still be in the Gilded Age. They sit there and rant about things they don't even understand but have managed to turn "socialism" into a word that evokes images of a Soviet gulag.

You're sourcing to Wikipedia?  You get an automatic 'F' for your analysis.

They provide citations. Now, where is YOUR source and why should I believe what YOU say?

 Beck is a moron. Always has been, always will be. He calls anymore who talks about "fairness", "sharing the wealth" or "redistribution of wealth" as "Marxist" or "socialist." He makes a "mere" 10 million a year but yet he whines about how high his taxes are.  Even if the government took half his income that still leaves him with 5 million a year. (Poor baby, how does he manage? Perhaps we should start a fund for him so he can that 2nd or 3rd mansion.)

 Beck is obsessed with Obama and rants against him for 3 hours every day just like his mentor's Limbaugh and Hannity do. I can't wait for Obama to be elected President just for the shear joy of watching Beck soil himself and hear him hysterically rant: "The Marxists are coming! The Marxists are coming!"   :-)

Go sue the schools you went to --you got ripped off

So CORSI is making another stop on the RIGHT WING SLIME  MACHINE TOUR. That's news? Why anyone would pay  any attention to BRAIN DEAD MORONS like BECK or CORSI?

No-were supposed to pay attention to BRAIN DEAD MORONS like you???How much are you being paid to give your opinion????These guys get 3 hrs out of 24 and your propaganda is in question--pass the fairness doctrine--give both sides equal time--go ahead the guns loaded shoot yourself in the head--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buc, that's the space bar,not the wingnut treat dispenser.

OMG I spit coffee on my keyboard.

Be Serious, lol.

"wingnut treat dispenser" guess what label I just printed out on my handy dandy label printer for my space bar. comedic genius my friend!!

Right, you got a solid education, and it shows in that post.  The hypocrisy is staggering.

You really believe that just because people like Beck are paid to display their stupidity in public that their opinions are more informed or intelligent than those who don't? I guess we'll never see you disagree with or criticize a liberal pundit, right?

One of the biggest myths about the Fairness Doctrine is that it requires equal time for both sides of an issue.  IT DOES NOT REQUIRE EQUAL TIME.  It simply requires that opposing view points be given the opportunity to air, but it does not specify a specific amount of time.

As I understand it, Flush Drugbaugh and the other right-wing professional liars would be in compliance if they allowed someone with an opposing view point as little as one minute to rebut one of their 15-minute B.S. diatribes.  This is part of why I think the Fairness Doctrine is not the answer.  The answer lies with repealing the Telecom Act to bring back more local ownership of a limited number of FCC licenses.  Then and only then will liberal and progressive talk radio have the chance to fail on a level playing field in a truly free market.