Apparently Nearly Half of House Dems are Members of the Commie Party

[Bob_Head]

So, no doubt, the same is the case with liberals and their use of the word "radical".

God damned Saul Alinsky, trying to force rules on the Right.

[raider.adam]

Hey what about all the crazy stuff that Jeremiah Wright actually did say? Or Bill Ayers? Both buddies and patrons of our President for more than two decades preceding his candidacy. He went to Jeremiah's church for 20 years, only dropping out when it became politically expedient. Good thing the media gave him a pass on that, huh? Or how about Bill Ayers, who actually is a card carrying socialist/communist.

Whatever you say about guys like West, communism (often under the guize of socialism) killed way more people in the last century than any other political movement, often via starvation. "Spreading the wealth around" sure sounds a lot like this failed ideology to me.

Rev. Wright: Clarence Thomas ‘Is Worshipping Some Other God’ | ‘White Supremacy’ Drives ‘World Policy’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

I know I'm going to regret this, but what kind of crazy stuff has Ayers, the mild-manered education reformer since about the late-1980's (i.e. the guy that Obama actually interactd with in Chicago), said? Not the 1960's SDS radical Ayers of 20+ years previous but the one that actusally sat on the same education reform board that Obama did. Because a lot of the stuff from that Ayers that I've read actually sounds like pretty sound education policy, like the "small schools" movement for improving performance at urban high schools.

I'm not one to defend Ayers or Wright, but put simply, one is an elected official and the others aren't. There are different tolerance levels for stupid depending on the classification of the person.

You are right sir, here is the exact quote:. So while not saying they are actual members he implies they are communists. Which begs the question how does one define what a communist is. Since we never really had a true commie regime in the sense that Marxs envisioned. In the USSR you substituted the party hierarchy for the industralist, you still had a multiple class society. So West never elaborated what being a communist meant and how this affected Democratic policy, he just threw this out has a scare word. Commie= Stalin=Godless=scary. Not any useful public dialogue. Don't get me wrong the left does this too, Republicans= hate blacks=give the rich all the money=scary.

He said that AFTERwords. Click the link I supplied. It has a link to the video as well. He specifically said communist in response to the person asking about Marxists*.



* How cool would it have been if his reply was "There are about 80 Marxists in Congress. They sit around on Tuesday mornings in committee and watch old episodes of 'You Bet Your Life'."

[Dayman]

That aside, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a lot of Dems turned out to be card-carrying Communists or at least borderline Communists. I can think of a couple offhand, although a senator from Vermont is technically an independent but who is tightly allied with the Dems.

Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist, and probably the furthest left in Congress. I don't think there are any legit communists, but many with socialist sympathies.

[Dayman]

Your argument is so powerful you must insult me to prevail. Or not prevail. You didn't answer my question either. So spreading the wealth around is not a founding principal of communism? Hmmmmmnnnn? Because our President Obama has made this point publicly - he believes strongly in income redistribution.

The founding principal of communism isn't "spreading the wealth". That's just Robin Hood antics. The founding principle of communism is that the proletariat - average joe factory workers - controlling the means of production. Meaning instead of working for the man, they all own the factory and take their share of their labor. Additionally, the idea that labor makes something "yours" is actually very Lockean. Thinking of politics in absolutes is really narrowminded. They're ideas, not "right and wrong". Some ideas work for some groups, some don't.

Whatever you say about guys like West, communism (often under the guize of socialism) killed way more people in the last century than any other political movement, often via starvation. "Spreading the wealth around" sure sounds a lot like this failed ideology to me.

No, Marxism–Leninist policies under Stalin killed lots of people. And the Holdomor was driven not out of ideology, but out of wanting to populate land with ethnic Russians after the Ukrainians were starved out. Communism failed because @ssholes like Stalin used it as an excuse to be a bloody tyrant. And then we go and fight, unjustly, legit communists like Ho Chi Minh who wanted U.S. support, independence, and self-determination, and nothing to do with China/Russia but did so because we refused to lean on France, something we could have done at the time since we were bankrolling their reconstruction after WWII. The guise of socialism killed no-one, and democratic socialism has worked really well in Europe.

[Dayman]

Likewise, I have always wondered how those on the left - especially the mainstream media - constantly use the term "radical" to refer to conservatives when, by definition, that's the very antithesis of a conservative by definition. Is it ignorance, stupidity, what?

I've always correctly called you a reactionary

[JoeBaker]

I know I'm going to regret this, but what kind of crazy stuff has Ayers, the mild-manered education reformer since about the late-1980's (i.e. the guy that Obama actually interactd with in Chicago), said? Not the 1960's SDS radical Ayers of 20+ years previous but the one that actusally sat on the same education reform board that Obama did. Because a lot of the stuff from that Ayers that I've read actually sounds like pretty sound education policy, like the "small schools" movement for improving performance at urban high schools.

Well, here he is in 2001 (while cohorting with Barry) on the cover of Chicago magazine trampling the US flag:



And just a mere couple weeks ago, at an Occupuke Wall Street event he said: "I get up every morning thinking, today I'm gonna make a difference. Today I'm gonna end capitalism."

But maybe flag desecration and the destruction of our economic system is not crazy or radical to some folks.

[NickTheCage]

I'm still surprised by how many people on the Right don't seem to be able to distinguish between liberalism (which has been the political ideology of the U.S. since 1933) with actual socialism or communism. Is that because of simple ignorance, or just stupidity (intentional or unintentional)?

I'm surprised that posters would actually think that liberalism has been a political ideology since 1933 when its roots go back to the 18th century.

Is it simple ignorance or just stupidity (intentional or unintentional) that said posters don't realize the term was hijacked by the left in the 20's after the country got really turned off by any politician who was and called them self 'Progressive'?

[Naveen]

I'm surprised that posters would actually think that liberalism has been a political ideology since 1933 when its roots go back to the 18th century.

That's not what I said.

[Politburo]

Likewise, I have always wondered how those on the left - especially the mainstream media - constantly use the term "radical" to refer to conservatives when, by definition, that's the very antithesis of a conservative by definition. Is it ignorance, stupidity, what?

Seems like lack of context on your part. Conservatives "by definition" might not want to change things, but does that have any meaning when in reality they do want to change things? As an example, see Ryan's medicare plan, which is typically where the 'radical' label has been used recently by the left. Or another example, something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan (or any other tax system overhaul).. how do those fit into the definition of conservative? They obviously don't.

[Colin P. Varga]

Likewise, I have always wondered how those on the left - especially the mainstream media - constantly use the term "radical" to refer to conservatives when, by definition, that's the very antithesis of a conservative by definition. Is it ignorance, stupidity, what?

It's a legitimate use of the word. For example: A Conservative (someone recognized by other Conservatives as one of their own) who wishes to re-establish "separate but equal" statutes in regard to races in the US would be someone that espouses a radical point of view. Inasmuch as the US has a long history of repudiating that doctrine. That person could be termed as a radical Conservative.


Might want to checkout Radical-Conservative.org:
The Opinions of a Radical-Conservative If you dont like them well TOUGH deal with it!

[NickTheCage]

Seems like lack of context on your part. Conservatives "by definition" might not want to change things, but does that have any meaning when in reality they do want to change things? As an example, see Ryan's medicare plan, which is typically where the 'radical' label has been used recently by the left. Or another example, something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan (or any other tax system overhaul).. how do those fit into the definition of conservative? They obviously don't.

How is Ryan's budget plan 'radical' and/or conservative?

[Naveen]

Seems like lack of context on your part. Conservatives "by definition" might not want to change things, but does that have any meaning when in reality they do want to change things? As an example, see Ryan's medicare plan, which is typically where the 'radical' label has been used recently by the left. Or another example, something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan (or any other tax system overhaul).. how do those fit into the definition of conservative? They obviously don't.

The political labels "liberal" and "conservative" have become unmoored from their dictionary meanings, to a large extent.

[seand]

Well, here he is in 2001 (while cohorting with Barry) on the cover of Chicago magazine trampling the US flag:



And just a mere couple weeks ago, at an Occupuke Wall Street event he said: "I get up every morning thinking, today I'm gonna make a difference. Today I'm gonna end capitalism."

But maybe flag desecration and the destruction of our economic system is not crazy or radical to some folks.

Fair enough. It was an honest question. Those are indeed some very crazy statements. Capitilism, at least as its been practiced by the large banks in terms of unregulated financial derivatives in recent years has sadly been doing way too good of a job of destroying itself, all by itself, these days. I did a quick search and what I got was various negative reviews including from Slate of his recent memoir as self-serving and letting himself off the hook way too much for Weatherman stupidity.

Still the thing that Obama sat on a board with him on, education reform, is what Ayers later won Chicago Citizen of the Year for and was also honored by the Annenberg Foundation for. And I also found this article, also on Slate.
The Bill Ayers that Barack Obama and I worked with was no "domestic terrorist." - Slate Magazine

[NickTheCage]

Fair enough. It was an honest question. Those are indeed some very crazy statements. Capitilism, at least as its been practiced by the large banks in terms of unregulated financial derivatives in recent years has sadly been doing way too good of a job of destroying itself, all by itself, these days.

But unfortunately you beloved government did allow free market capitalism to function so it didn't destroy it self.

[Politburo]

How is Ryan's budget plan 'radical' and/or conservative?

Radical (adj.): Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something

It's hard to argue that changing Medicare to a voucher system is not affecting the fundamental nature of the program. But go ahead, give it a shot..

[NickTheCage]

Seems like lack of context on your part. Conservatives "by definition" might not want to change things, but does that have any meaning when in reality they do want to change things? As an example, see Ryan's medicare plan, which is typically where the 'radical' label has been used recently by the left. Or another example, something like Cain's 9-9-9 plan (or any other tax system overhaul).. how do those fit into the definition of conservative? They obviously don't.

How is Ryan's budget plan 'radical' and/or conservative?

Radical (adj.): Relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something

It's hard to argue that changing Medicare to a voucher system is not affecting the fundamental nature of the program. But go ahead, give it a shot..

It is no more 'radical' than Obama and what he does to medicare to fund obamacare. Both take money out of that program to fund other utopian programs.

Per the budget and what the left labels, in Ryan's budget, radical. Your Dear leader mentioned a bunch of things besides medicare when discussing Ryan’s ‘radical’ plan. He spoke of cuts to government college hand outs, medical research, national parks, and even mentioned technology to make accurate weather forecasts which really brought the lulz.

Look at it this way and explain to me what is so ‘radical’ to Ryan’s budget?

Paul Ryan's budget will spend $3.6 trillion this year while bringing in $2.4 trillion and balances the budget in 2040. The Bamsters budget will spend $3.8 trillion in 2012 and bring in $2.5 trillion but will never balance the budget. They both spend abt $50K borrowed per second in 2012 or some astronomical/similar number

Yeah, thank god for Ryan's conservative card as I am sure the next 14 congresses will follow his road map.

Speaking of road maps; any "right winger" who attempts to come up with a centrally planned road map to prosperity should be tarred and feathered. ‘Conservatives’ defending this clown doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

[seand]

But unfortunately you beloved government did allow free market capitalism to function so it didn't destroy it self.

Err, sort of. What really happened is that its been demonstrated that with complexity of operations in world of financial derivatives and investment banks betting against their own customers, that a fairly rigorous set of regulatory protections are needed to make things work a little closer to the "level playing field" in Adam Smith's idealized free market. The line between fraud and fair practice gets fairly easily blurred in an economic system of this complexity. The idea of "free market capitalism" magically existing without regulation is kind exploded by the complexity of the system, the overwhelming power and influence of the largest banks. The principles of open competition sometimes require more, not less regulation to keep the playing field fair and level.

[Politburo]

blah blah

I didn't argue that the 'radical' label couldn't be applied to other proposals, including those from the Obama administration. And I don't particularly care about your effort to brand the Republican party as un-conservative. Good luck with that.

[ACretin]

But all Capitalism is Crony Capitalism. Can you ever name an era when that wasn't the case?

Not really. And in fact our modern version of politics didn't even exist until the 1800s. Perhaps crony capitalism has been around forever, but like all things it is a matter of moderation. And in the settling of the West, quite clearly land grants were given out essentially to whomever could show up in an office. Land grants in hand, they then were free to set up whatever enterprise they saw fit in their recently settled area. There was no Federal income tax until the 1900s, so that could be another later demarcation point in the departure of free enterprise and crony capitalism. As tax rates increased over the 1900s, and regulation as well, crony capitalism grew in parallel. In a high tax and regulatory environment, only the policitally connected can easily navigate the largely political gauntlets businesses face on the path to success. Witness Philly, with the highest combined business taxes in the world (47%); to succeed in Philly you need to go through the Mayor's Office, or City Council, to get your near monopoly (airport concessions etc.) or your special tax break (Navy Yard, etc.).

Sure, taxes and regulation will never go away completely, and it's not the 1800s anymore, or even the 1900s. But they are too high, and this type of environment facilitates corruption among the political class and the poltically connected business class, at the expense of everyone else, literally.

[NickTheCage]

I didn't argue that the 'radical' label couldn't be applied to other proposals, including those from the Obama administration. And I don't particularly care about your effort to brand the Republican party as un-conservative. Good luck with that.

Of course you don't care b/ you know it's true and we live in a one party political system