Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-17-2012, 11:23 AM   #91
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
Don't you see you guys are revealing how little you understand about Marxism? Have you actually studied it? I have, as I am quite sure Jolepp has, and you are just plain incorrect. Throwing around the Marxist label is pure demagoguery which, like all demagoguery, is meant to stir up fear and loathing. Only when you first honestly and accurately characterize what's being proposed can a meaningful discussion be had.
The more you defend President Obama as not being a neo-marxist is more evidence that he is.

Another example recently President Obama put forth a plan to consolidate Federal agencies in the guise of cutting costs. The real objective of this plan would consolidate more power into his hands by putting this super agency under the control of the White House. President Obama will need this type of executive fiat if reelected so his administration can circumvent any effort by Congress to shut down Obamacare. This is a fundamental tactic of marxism to consolidate and centralize power. Which is the primary way President Obama has ruled as President by using Federal agencies to not only go against congressional wishes but also to defy the Judiciary as well.

01-17-2012, 11:27 AM   #92
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 129
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
The more you defend President Obama as not being a neo-marxist is more evidence that he is.

Another example recently President Obama put forth a plan to consolidate Federal agencies in the guise of cutting costs. The real objective of this plan would consolidate more power into his hands by putting this super agency under the control of the White House. President Obama will need this type of executive fiat if reelected so his administration can circumvent any effort by Congress to shut down Obamacare. This is a fundamental tactic of marxism to consolidate and centralize power. Which is the primary way President Obama has ruled as President by using Federal agencies to not only go against congressional wishes but also to defy the Judiciary as well.
But don't for a minute think that voting for your average Republican is going to fix this.
01-17-2012, 11:39 AM   #93
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Finland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,196
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
Maybe in your world jolepp it is patently absurd but in reality it is spot on.
Obviously our ideas of reality or at least our ideas of definitions of one or more concepts differ . (It would be interesting to hear your definition of 'marxist' or 'marxism'.)
01-17-2012, 11:40 AM   #94
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
les Under Obamacare $650 billion dollars is cut from Medicare over tens years. That was the Obama White House number they discussed. You can post a thousand articles but it will not change what Obamacare is going to do to in cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare funding. At a time when Medicare recipients are growing exponentially with the aging baby boomer generation. How that is going to happen without reducing Medicare services or charging seniors for care is yet to be seen.
But aren't you arguing here for an existing Marxist/Socialist program while at the same time being vehemently opposed to any Marxist/Socialist policies? Which is it?

Or were you mentioning this as a Good Thing

01-17-2012, 11:43 AM   #95
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
This is a fundamental tactic of marxism to consolidate and centralize power.
And so just about every President in recent memory is marxist in his attempt to epand executive power?
01-17-2012, 11:46 AM   #96
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,325
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
The more you defend President Obama as not being a neo-marxist is more evidence that he is.
I think that defines your mindset more than anything you have posted here. By that logic, the more I assert that you are a rational, open-minded person, the more evidence it would be that you aren't.
01-17-2012, 11:46 AM   #97
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by betaPhoto Quote
And the US is not practicing Capitalism, the current lame attempt is an insult to capitalism.
Perhaps you are arguing from a non-existent ideal of both communism and capitalism. When has capitalism been 'pure' - and what does that mean anyway?

Capitalism depends on certain social and political support structures, i.e. rules and regulations, for it to operate. Without rules and regulations, and their enforcement, it ain't a well operating free market, but rather an anarchist free for all. Sort of what Russia has become.

01-17-2012, 11:51 AM   #98
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 129
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
And so just about every President in recent memory is marxist in his attempt to epand executive power?
Do you think then, that "every President in recent memory has attempted to expand executive power" is then an expresion of an increasing fascist tendency?
01-17-2012, 11:55 AM   #99
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 129
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Perhaps you are arguing from a non-existent ideal of both communism and capitalism. When has capitalism been 'pure' - and what does that mean anyway?

Capitalism depends on certain social and political support structures, i.e. rules and regulations, for it to operate. Without rules and regulations, and their enforcement, it ain't a well operating free market, but rather an anarchist free for all. Sort of what Russia has become.

No, I don't wish for anarchy. It certainly is a jump to say that our current sick systems only Capitalist alternative is anarchy.

And I disagree that well practiced Capitalism comes with no rules and is akin to anarchy.

What I do appreciate about your comment though is you hinted at asking, "what then, am I advocating". But then slipped into telling me what I was advocating.

Last edited by betaPhoto; 01-17-2012 at 12:14 PM.
01-17-2012, 11:55 AM   #100
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by betaPhoto Quote
Do you think then, that "every President in recent memory has attempted to expand executive power" is then an expresion of an increasing fascist tendency?
No. Neither. It is a part of how the US Constitution operates. And a good part of the consideration that ought to be given to the continuous pressing on each other of the three branches of government is this: we have to consider each further executive power not in the light of is it 'our' guy in office, but what happens when it's someone we don't like?

That's one of the inconsistencies I see in the Republicans, and many Democrats, where what's OK for a Bush is Communist/Fascist for an Obama, and vice versa.
01-17-2012, 11:56 AM   #101
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,072
QuoteOriginally posted by betaPhoto Quote
No, I don't wish for anarchy. It certainly is a jump to say that our current sick systems only alternative is anarchy.

And I disagree that well practiced Capitalism comes with no rules and is akin to anarchy.
I did not say that it was I was just trying to figure out at what point do you feel capitalism becomes sickly and compromised by state interference.
01-17-2012, 12:14 PM   #102
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
I think that defines your mindset more than anything you have posted here. By that logic, the more I assert that you are a rational, open-minded person, the more evidence it would be that you aren't.
Oh please now you are defining my mindset. What is next? Labels?
01-17-2012, 12:15 PM   #103
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 129
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
I did not say that it was I was just trying to figure out at what point do you feel capitalism becomes sickly and compromised by state interference.
Now!


_______________

By the way, I love your collection of Pentax print ads!
01-17-2012, 12:16 PM   #104
Veteran Member
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
GeneV you can spin it all you want but it still doesn't negate the fact the Democratic Party had a super majority during the healthcare debate and could have passed what ever legislation they wanted and they did. To say that what was passed was a compromise with conservatives is absurd. It was a comprise with Democrats. Democrats that feared voting for Obamacare was going to result in the lose of their congressional seats. Which took place in the mid-term elections in 2010.
So there are no conservative voices on these issues in the Democratic Party? Somehow, I have the feeling that there aren't many Republicans who fit your definition of "conservative," either.

BTW, the Democratic caucus had a supermajority for about 3 months, Another Inconvenient Truth: The Democrats Only Had A Super-Majority For About Three Months | DRUDGE RETORT , and even during that period, the number of actual Democrats was only 58, not the 60 needed to pass without compromise outside the party. Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not As Strong As Advertised | Fox News Even Fox News admitted that supermajority was not what people say it was.
01-17-2012, 12:17 PM   #105
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
But aren't you arguing here for an existing Marxist/Socialist program while at the same time being vehemently opposed to any Marxist/Socialist policies? Which is it?

Or were you mentioning this as a Good Thing
No I am not arguing for or against it. All I did was point out that Demacrats have accused Republicans of wanting to cut Medicare when Obamacare actually does cut Medicare.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
challenges, court, health, hour, insurance, mandate, obamacare, supreme
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Westboro Baptist Fanatics win in Supreme Court Nesster General Talk 28 04-04-2011 12:37 PM
PBS Series on History of the Supreme Court Ira General Talk 1 10-11-2010 06:22 AM
Night Supreme Court tootall Post Your Photos! 11 08-02-2010 07:42 PM
Hilary for Supreme Court Justice? Driver3 General Talk 18 04-13-2010 08:21 AM
Supreme Court strikes down campaign spending limits 5-4 deadwolfbones General Talk 24 01-23-2010 07:36 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top