• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man who grew up in the USSR destroys OWS socialist..

Yes!!
A gold star,made in China,to stick on your Computer Monitor.:mrgreen:

Okay.....nothing looks better on my monitor, than a product made by Chinese slave labor!!
 
That seems to be about right. Doesn't seem so hard that people couldn't figure it out, huh? You win a "like" from me. That's something not many with "liberal" anywhere in their "lean" often get. :D

Woo-hoo....fortune and glory are mine!!!
We can all reach across the great partisan divide, and agree that radioman is always right....oops...always correct.;)
 
Yea ive watched a lot of this guys videos, but he also himself seems clueless. He basically thinks Obama is a socialist... So yea.. Cool he is from the USSR and left but he himself is a nut thinking that Obama is a socialist.

Obama beleives in redistribution of wealth and central control of the economy, so that makes him at least partly socialist, same as Republicans and most Americans.
 
Obama beleives in redistribution of wealth and central control of the economy,
Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth in some form or another.
And no he does not believe in central control of the economy. True he wants more regulation of parts of the economy but so do republicans they also beleive some parts of the economy should be regulated but he does not believe that the state or any other form of government should overwhelmingly control the economy.
so that makes him at least partly socialist, same as Republicans and most Americans.
You cant be "part socialist"...
 
Everyone believes in redistribution of wealth in some form or another.
And no he does not believe in central control of the economy. True he wants more regulation of parts of the economy but so do republicans they also beleive some parts of the economy should be regulated but he does not believe that the state or any other form of government should overwhelmingly control the economy.

You cant be "part socialist"...

I dont beleive in redistribution of wealth in any form. And the federal govt DOES overwhelmingly control the economy, even to the extent of owning the means of production. The govt owns schools, hospitals, banks, post offices, car factories, energy generation, etc. Thats the very definition of socialism. And Obama supports it. Hence hes socialist. Who knows what his end game is though. He wont tell the truth about it because socialism is a bad word.
 
I dont beleive in redistribution of wealth in any form.
so you dont believe in a government funded army? You dont believe in any sort of government backed tax services what so ever?

And the federal govt DOES overwhelmingly control the economy,
No they dont. No where even close to controlling the economy.

even to the extent of owning the means of production.
Sure the governement has some sort of ownign mechanism and agencies and projects but they dont own even close to what you are saying.

The govt owns schools, hospitals, banks, post offices, car factories, energy generation, etc.
Which makes up about like 5% of the economy...

Thats the very definition of socialism. And Obama supports it. Hence hes socialist. Who knows what his end game is though. He wont tell the truth about it because socialism is a bad word.
:doh
Thats called mixed market economy.
 
Woo-hoo....fortune and glory are mine!!!
We can all reach across the great partisan divide, and agree that radioman is always right....oops...always correct.;)

Damn. You were setting a record for a liberal with your run of being right once in a row, but you blew it on your next shot here. Damned shame, really. ;)
 
Damn. You were setting a record for a liberal with your run of being right once in a row, but you blew it on your next shot here. Damned shame, really. ;)

Oh...well....I'll wear(?) your "like" as a badge of honor.
I shall endeavor to win your support with more cogent, insightful..or is it inciteful...comments.
For instance.... I think the aging TPers should burn their Medicare cards in protest of wasteful gov't spending.
Don't you agree?
 
And those original teaparty participants would be disgusted by the billionaire bought and paid for group that uses their name today.

the tea party movement was never originally funded or bought when it was founded in 2007 by ron paul supporters in opposition to bush.

yes they were later hijacked by republicans to win,then discarded when they won the midterms.but in reality it was originally a grassroots movement in opposition to govt actions,long before it hit the national spotlight.
 
Well, aside from wearing funny costumes, taxation was an issue for both groups.
However, the Boston TPers were protesting taxation without representation.
Today's TPers have representation, they just don't like how their Reps spend the money.
Do I win anything?

You win a chance in the bonus round- while liberals were tossing bales of tea into Boston Harbour, what were conservatives doing? (hint- it involves real estate prices in Nova Scotia)
 
Didn't watch the video but I gotta point out that those guys who threw the tea into Boston Harbour were liberals, maybe the first liberals, and their example started a liberal movement in Europe against aristocracy and despotism.

Nice try but they where liberals in the classic sense modern politics have flipped clasic liberalism is closer to conservatism than modern liberalism.
 
so you dont believe in a government funded army? You dont believe in any sort of government backed tax services what so ever?

I do beleive in a public funded military, and other public funded services. I dont beleive in redistribution of wealth.
 
I do beleive in a public funded military, and other public funded services. I dont beleive in redistribution of wealth.

Well, unless you can prove that broke people pay taxes, or that they receive no benefit from military or other publicly funded things, that is wealth redistribution.
 
Well, unless you can prove that broke people pay taxes, or that they receive no benefit from military or other publicly funded things, that is wealth redistribution.

Not neccesary at all. I beleive everyone should pay for the services equally or not recieve them. Second, redistribution of wealth means taking property from someone who has it and giving it to someone who doesnt to promote social equality. The military doesnt do that. They take money from me and pay someone to protect me. Welfare on the other hand, is a direct transfer of wealth (after wasting some on bureaucrats).
 
Not neccesary at all. I beleive everyone should pay for the services equally or not recieve them. Second, redistribution of wealth means taking property from someone who has it and giving it to someone who doesnt to promote social equality. The military doesnt do that. They take money from me and pay someone to protect me. Welfare on the other hand, is a direct transfer of wealth (after wasting some on bureaucrats).

Hard to tax someone who has nothing, but that person benefits directly from you funding the military. Wealth redistribution.
 
Nice try but they where liberals in the classic sense modern politics have flipped clasic liberalism is closer to conservatism than modern liberalism.

That's true. Liberals have been really infamous for hijacking words and, ironically, "liberal" was one of them.
 
I do beleive in a public funded military, and other public funded services. I dont beleive in redistribution of wealth.

If you have a public funded military and public funded services that requires a redistribution of wealth. Hell that is a redistribution of wealth. Your taking wealth and redistributing it to fund fund those services.
 
If you have a public funded military and public funded services that requires a redistribution of wealth. Hell that is a redistribution of wealth. Your taking wealth and redistributing it to fund fund those services.

Thats taxation, not redistribution. Redistribution is the next step when you distribute the money to someone who is financialy unequal. Youre a socialist, you know how this works.
 
Didn't watch the video but I gotta point out that those guys who threw the tea into Boston Harbour were liberals, maybe the first liberals, and their example started a liberal movement in Europe against aristocracy and despotism.
Historically pigignorant. The people who threw that tea into the harbor were liberatarians not liberals.

Liberlism's core belief is that gov't is an agent of the common good, thus more is better.Totally, completely opposite of what the original tea partiers ( and almost all the founders) believed.
 
If you have a public funded military and public funded services that requires a redistribution of wealth. Hell that is a redistribution of wealth. Your taking wealth and redistributing it to fund fund those services.

It is not a redistribution of wealth to pay for the government budget from taxes. It is redistribution of wealth when the government gives that tax money to people as means-tested welfare. That is taking from one person and giving it to another based entirely on "means". It is "from each according to his means to each according to their need". It is classic Marxism. The fact that poor people who pay no taxes get the same protection from our military that everyone else gets isn't wealth redistribution. The fact that they get all the services taxpayers get AND some of their money, too, is the wealth redistribution.
 
Thats taxation, not redistribution.
Taxation is redistribution of wealth! Redistribution of income/wealth is the transfer of money/wealth from an individual(s) to others or other organization by taxation, welfare, charity, or other social mechanisms. It can be anything such as welfare, paying money for roads, military, police, fire department, food stamps, education. Thats all redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution is the next step when you distribute the money to someone who is financialy unequal. Youre a socialist, you know how this works.
Thats just called welfare. Which is one of the many forms of "redistribution of wealth".
 
They were classical liberals. I would call Martin Luther the first one of major significance.
 
It is not a redistribution of wealth to pay for the government budget from taxes.
Yes it is. Your taking wealth from one person and giving it to another person or organization. Thats REDISTRIBUTING THE WEALTH FROM ONE PERSON AND GIVING IT AWAY..

It is redistribution of wealth when the government gives that tax money to people as means-tested welfare.
That is a form of redistribution of wealth but only one of the many various forms.

That is taking from one person and giving it to another based entirely on "means". It is "from each according to his means to each according to their need". It is classic Marxism.
Oh dear christ, thats not what Marx is even talking about there.

The fact that poor people who pay no taxes get the same protection from our military that everyone else gets isn't wealth redistribution. The fact that they get all the services taxpayers get AND some of their money, too, is the wealth redistribution.
And so is paying for schools, and roads, etc etc all require redistributing wealth.
 
Back
Top Bottom