Racist Lefties Heckle Obama

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:You know what Ryan - it’s absurd and offensive to go around making baseless accusations, particularly with respect to racism, which I take very seriously.

If you’re going to start throwing that accusation around, you had better have some fucking good damn proof.[/quote]

Uh-oh, he’s cursing! He must be angry!

The only absurd thing here, tough guy, is the right’s refusal to acknowledge the blatant racism in the Tea Party. You want “proof?” You could just turn on the news. But I also posted videos on the previous page (which I pointed out before, but which you evidently cannot find).

Well imagine how stupid you’re going to feel once you finally the “previous” button on your browser.
[/quote]

Yeah - it pisses me off when the word “racist” is wielded so casually and confidently, as if the mere accusation is proof enough; it’s a posture adopted mostly by smug rich little white kids, especially those who haven’t ever seen REAL racism, in an effort to appear high-minded.

And, what’s worse, you don’t even appear to feel you need proof to do so - except for, “turn on your TV.”

The only “proof” you have offered is what only a sick little racist mind would see as racist. Draw your own conclusions about yourself.

42

The funny thing is that this all comes back from the idea that racists might attend Tea Party events. I ask, so? Um, who cares? No, really, why is it even a story that racists might attend a political event? Who…cares?! Are they small government racists who just want to be left alone, to associate with who they want? If so, they’re less dangerous to freedom than big government multi-culturalists. Oh, no I didn’t!

43

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

hehe, they did create a oligarchy.

the point is that someone has to rule, either is the people or it is some other group.

44

[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
The democratic problem with america is that the republican party and the democratic party are both rightwing partys,
[/quote]
AHAHAHAHAH!!! [/quote]

On the political spectrum the democrats are center-right…

Obama could -maybe- be considered center.

Obviously the American culture is currently shifted VERY far right to have smart people actually believing the Democrats are socialist.

Put Obama in any developed country other than America and his policies would be considered far-right conservative.[/quote]

Instead of using any other developed nation, how about we use, I dunno, the Constitution as our benchmark?

45

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:You know what Ryan - it’s absurd and offensive to go around making baseless accusations, particularly with respect to racism, which I take very seriously.

If you’re going to start throwing that accusation around, you had better have some fucking good damn proof.[/quote]

Uh-oh, he’s cursing! He must be angry!

The only absurd thing here, tough guy, is the right’s refusal to acknowledge the blatant racism in the Tea Party. You want “proof?” You could just turn on the news. But I also posted videos on the previous page (which I pointed out before, but which you evidently cannot find).

Well imagine how stupid you’re going to feel once you finally the “previous” button on your browser.
[/quote]

Yeah - it pisses me off when the word “racist” is wielded so casually and confidently, as if the mere accusation is proof enough; it’s a posture adopted mostly by smug rich little white kids, especially those who haven’t ever seen REAL racism, in an effort to appear high-minded.

And, what’s worse, you don’t even appear to feel you need proof to do so - except for, “turn on your TV.”

The only “proof” you have offered is what only a sick little racist mind would see as racist. Draw your own conclusions about yourself.
[/quote]

Too afraid to go to page one and watch the videos? If not, then I don’t know what you’re going on about.

46

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.

47

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

hehe, they did create a oligarchy.

the point is that someone has to rule, either is the people or it is some other group.[/quote]

It is never the people, always “some other group”.

48

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

Yeah, sure, those are at least entertaining, the 2-3 decades that they last.

God, you are one of those “the people can do no wrong” mysticist.

If only we can get rid of nobility, clerus, corporations, you name it, things would all turn out ok then, wont they?

Because “the people” themselves are pure and noble and would never force their whims on others wouldnt they.

49

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

hehe, they did create a oligarchy.

the point is that someone has to rule, either is the people or it is some other group.[/quote]

It is never the people, always “some other group”.

[/quote]

So you are saying that it is impossible for the people to rule them self. show me the facts to why this is?

50

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

Yeah, sure, those are at least entertaining, the 2-3 decades that they last.

God, you are one of those “the people can do no wrong” mysticist.

If only we can get rid of nobility, clerus, corporations, you name it, things would all turn out ok then, wont they?

Because “the people” themselves are pure and noble and would never force their whims on others wouldnt they.

[/quote]

Thats was what the republicans in feudal times tought, that they could remove the nobility and that everything would be great after that. We radical socialist are called radical for a reason! Radical meens “to the core”, so we know that we most change the society by the core, not just removing a class from the power.

51

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

hehe, they did create a oligarchy.

the point is that someone has to rule, either is the people or it is some other group.[/quote]

It is never the people, always “some other group”.

[/quote]

So you are saying that it is impossible for the people to rule them self. show me the facts to why this is?[/quote]

If they were they would probably have done it at some point.

Also, it depends on what you call “rule themselves”. I think everyone should rule himself which requires as small a government as possible to leave them as much room as possible to rule themselves.

However, if there has to be a big government “the people” would be the very last rulers I would want to live under for I do not enjoy fascism and witch burnings.

52

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

Yeah, sure, those are at least entertaining, the 2-3 decades that they last.

God, you are one of those “the people can do no wrong” mysticist.

If only we can get rid of nobility, clerus, corporations, you name it, things would all turn out ok then, wont they?

Because “the people” themselves are pure and noble and would never force their whims on others wouldnt they.

[/quote]

Thats was what the republicans in feudal times tought, that they could remove the nobility and that everything would be great after that. We radical socialist are called radical for a reason! Radical meens “to the core”, so we know that we most change the society by the core, not just removing a class from the power.[/quote]

No, in order to make socialism work you must change human beings which is why there always seem to pop up reeducation camps whenever there is a socialist revolution.

Also, radical means to the roots. Comes from the latin radix.

Interestingky enough a radical socialist is an oxymoron because socialist revolutions are rarely bottom up but almost always top down ventures.

53

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

Yeah, sure, those are at least entertaining, the 2-3 decades that they last.

God, you are one of those “the people can do no wrong” mysticist.

If only we can get rid of nobility, clerus, corporations, you name it, things would all turn out ok then, wont they?

Because “the people” themselves are pure and noble and would never force their whims on others wouldnt they.

[/quote]

Thats was what the republicans in feudal times tought, that they could remove the nobility and that everything would be great after that. We radical socialist are called radical for a reason! Radical meens “to the core”, so we know that we most change the society by the core, not just removing a class from the power.[/quote]

No, in order to make socialism work you must change human beings which is why there always seem to pop up reeducation camps whenever there is a socialist revolution.

Also, radical means to the roots. Comes from the latin radix.

Interestingky enough a radical socialist is an oxymoron because socialist revolutions are rarely bottom up but almost always top down ventures.
[/quote]

root or core, it doesnt change the meaning of it.

question. did the spanish collectives under the spanish civil war establish any camps? no they did not.
Did the workerscouncils(sovjets) under the russian revolution establish any camps? no they did not.
did the dictatur stalin create any camps? yes hi did. So what do you want, a democracy like the early sovjets and the collectives in spain or a society where a small group rules, like stalins russia or usa?

the russian revolution was bottom up, but became top down because of things I have explained in another tread.

54

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

Yeah, sure, those are at least entertaining, the 2-3 decades that they last.

God, you are one of those “the people can do no wrong” mysticist.

If only we can get rid of nobility, clerus, corporations, you name it, things would all turn out ok then, wont they?

Because “the people” themselves are pure and noble and would never force their whims on others wouldnt they.

[/quote]

Thats was what the republicans in feudal times tought, that they could remove the nobility and that everything would be great after that. We radical socialist are called radical for a reason! Radical meens “to the core”, so we know that we most change the society by the core, not just removing a class from the power.[/quote]

No, in order to make socialism work you must change human beings which is why there always seem to pop up reeducation camps whenever there is a socialist revolution.

Also, radical means to the roots. Comes from the latin radix.

Interestingky enough a radical socialist is an oxymoron because socialist revolutions are rarely bottom up but almost always top down ventures.
[/quote]

root or core, it doesnt change the meaning of it.

question. did the spanish collectives under the spanish civil war establish any camps? no they did not.
Did the workerscouncils(sovjets) under the russian revolution establish any camps? no they did not.
did the dictatur stalin create any camps? yes hi did. So what do you want, a democracy like the early sovjets and the collectives in spain or a society where a small group rules, like stalins russia or usa?

the russian revolution was bottom up, but became top down because of things I have explained in another tread.

[/quote]

One question:

Did they succeed?

For all the impact they have had you might as well include Woodstock as a provisional government “by the people”.

55

well the collectives in spain where killed by the fascist, thats only an argument against the anarchist method not the socialist method who believe the people need an army to protect them ( read a form of state ). Offcourse this is problematic, because the army can become a new institusion of power over the people. So its importent that the army its not a body of its own, but that it is a peoplearmy.

56

[quote]florelius wrote:
well the collectives in spain where killed by the fascist, thats only an argument against the anarchist method not the socialist method who believe the people need an army to protect them ( read a form of state ). Offcourse this is problematic, because the army can become a new institusion of power over the people. So its importent that the army its not a body of its own, but that it is a peoplearmy. [/quote]

So in other words, no can do?

All you need is an army that is professionel, yet voluntary and composed of “the people” AND able to keep evil fascists at bay while never tempted to take control of the state?

Did I already mention that the kind of people that could make socialism work do not exist?

57

it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.

58

[quote]florelius wrote:
it cant be proffesionel, it must be some form of militia composed of normal people and they shouldn not be soldiers of proffesion. A proffesionel army will most likely be a interrest group. The power lies with the gun, and therefor the people most have the gun so to speak.[/quote]

And what do you think will happen when these militias enounter troops that have been trained in military academies since they were ten?

Because your socialist utopia would have to survive in a world where some regimes do just that.

59

do america train people from they are ten? they are the ones who are most likely to attack a socialist society in the craddle.

but, If socialisme is going to succed it must be a world revolution. My generation of socialist will most likely not see a revolution. Our work consist in creating union between people all over the world. You know: workers solidarity. And it is a long way to go. In my country and most likely in many countrys, the radical left is fragmented in many small groups, like: maoists, anarchists, leninists, traditional marxists etc. We cannot do shit before we stop our silly debates between us and unite. This must happen regional, national, continental and global before we can start to talk about a realistisc revolution. Thats the sad truth about my movement, so in a sence you are right. To day socialisme is a utopi because the left fails to create union, but if and when we do unite a revolution is possble.

60

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]

They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]

Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]

You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially.