Tell me this guy ain't a Marxist...
-
Stan, your definition of Marxist boils down to "successful Democratic politician."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Stan, your definition of Marxist boils down to "successful Democratic politician."
Actually, my definition of Marxism is simply collectivist control of government for the purpose of directly managing the economic and social parameters that define a nation. Current tax laws in ths US tend to obfuscate the entire 'controlling the means of production' criteria. So, yes, that would pretty much cover the entire democrat party, and many of the currently acquiescent Republicans. However, the rest of the government to the contrary or not, any intellectually honest person would have to admit that Obama certainly lends credence to my argument.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Al Beback wrote:
You forgot, (3) Marxist don't believe in lowering taxes for the middle class to make it stronger. They prefer everyone to be working-class poor, except themselves of course -- similar to capitalists.
A healthy, self sufficient, middle class depends upon keeping tax rates low for everyone and not making them dependent upon government for things they should be providing for themselves. It depends upon free market capitalism. There is no such thing as a government generated middle class.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A healthy, self sufficient, middle class depends upon keeping tax rates low for everyone and not making them dependent upon government for things they should be providing for themselves. It depends upon free market capitalism.
That's great professor. So when can we put this free market capitalism thing in play? Evidently what we've had for the past 8 years hasn't worked. :rolleyes: How about this? We give the middle class a tax break. They in turn stimulate the economy (the rich) while encouraging the lower class to get on their feet.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no such thing as a government generated middle class.
But you just mentioned keeping taxes low. Taxes are controlled by government. So of course government plays a role.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is it important to you which class they are a member of
No.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Is it important to you that your class is in harmony with your preferred Presidential candidate.
No.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Or should the class structure be abolished.
This is the United States, there is no rigidly defined class structure. If you don't like the class you're in, change it on your own. Otherwise, it ain't no concern of mine what you do. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just don't expect me to pay for it.
Out of curiousity, do you make over $250K/year?
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Just don't expect me to pay for it.
Out of curiousity, do you make over $250K/year?
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
No, why?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A healthy, self sufficient, middle class depends upon keeping tax rates low for everyone and not making them dependent upon government for things they should be providing for themselves. It depends upon free market capitalism.
That's great professor. So when can we put this free market capitalism thing in play? Evidently what we've had for the past 8 years hasn't worked. :rolleyes: How about this? We give the middle class a tax break. They in turn stimulate the economy (the rich) while encouraging the lower class to get on their feet.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no such thing as a government generated middle class.
But you just mentioned keeping taxes low. Taxes are controlled by government. So of course government plays a role.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
Evidently what we've had for the past 8 years hasn't worked
It has worked fine. Free market capitalism has natural cycles. We are currently in a simple, entirely expected downturn which has been exacerabated by the government intervention in the process, and apparent dishonesty in certain investment banks.
Al Beback wrote:
How about this? We give the middle class a tax break. They in turn stimulate the economy
And who is going to be hiring the middle class? Every paycheck I have ever received in my life has come from some rich guy trying to become even richer. If he is giving more of that to the government, thats less he has available to use to hire me.
Al Beback wrote:
while encouraging the lower class to get on their feet.
I seriously doubt that you have ever met anyone in the 'lower class'. I've known many, and all of those who wished to work their way out of it have always been able to easily do so. Giving them largess is not going to do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Al Beback wrote:
Evidently what we've had for the past 8 years hasn't worked
It has worked fine. Free market capitalism has natural cycles. We are currently in a simple, entirely expected downturn which has been exacerabated by the government intervention in the process, and apparent dishonesty in certain investment banks.
Al Beback wrote:
How about this? We give the middle class a tax break. They in turn stimulate the economy
And who is going to be hiring the middle class? Every paycheck I have ever received in my life has come from some rich guy trying to become even richer. If he is giving more of that to the government, thats less he has available to use to hire me.
Al Beback wrote:
while encouraging the lower class to get on their feet.
I seriously doubt that you have ever met anyone in the 'lower class'. I've known many, and all of those who wished to work their way out of it have always been able to easily do so. Giving them largess is not going to do that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every paycheck I have ever received in my life has come from some rich guy trying to become even richer.
So how come you as a wage slave are so much more unable to see that Capitalism, unchecked, has egregious faults than I, who spent half his working life meeting payrolls, am?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've known many, and all of those who wished to work their way out of it have always been able to easily do so.
Ka made pretty much the same argument you are addressing and I suggested that anyone identified as being congentitally incapable of working hard should have their reproductive rights eliminated. (snip, snip).
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck[^] So, lets see. Raised around Marxists, purposfully sought out radical marxist personel and professional associations throughout his entire adult life, and speaks openly with explicite marxist rhetoric. I'll be waiting for the standard - (1) It is all a mere coincidence or (2) We have always been a Marxist society anyway - replies
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Tell me this guy ain't a Marxist...
O.k. sir, here it goes: there is no way that guy can be a Marxist. Only a lunatic would think so. BTW, have you ever seen/talked to a real Marxist? You know; the ones that talk about abolition of private property and bourgeoisie, dictatorship of proletariat, revolution, ending the class struggle, etc, etc,... We got plenty of them here in South America (unfortunately, BTW). Or, putting the same question in a more meaningful way: do you have any idea of what your words mean? You know; names (e.g.: "Marxist") have a consolidated meaning, you can't just attach your own (twisted) meaning to them and believe that what your Republican propaganda talking points make any sense.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Oakman wrote:
Stan, your definition of Marxist boils down to "successful Democratic politician."
Actually, my definition of Marxism is simply collectivist control of government for the purpose of directly managing the economic and social parameters that define a nation. Current tax laws in ths US tend to obfuscate the entire 'controlling the means of production' criteria. So, yes, that would pretty much cover the entire democrat party, and many of the currently acquiescent Republicans. However, the rest of the government to the contrary or not, any intellectually honest person would have to admit that Obama certainly lends credence to my argument.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Marxism is simply collectivist control of government for the purpose of directly managing the economic and social parameters that define a nation.
Stan Shannon wrote:
that would pretty much cover the entire democrat party, and many of the currently acquiescent Republicans.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Please, keep posting. You are so entertaining!
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Tell me this guy ain't a Marxist...
O.k. sir, here it goes: there is no way that guy can be a Marxist. Only a lunatic would think so. BTW, have you ever seen/talked to a real Marxist? You know; the ones that talk about abolition of private property and bourgeoisie, dictatorship of proletariat, revolution, ending the class struggle, etc, etc,... We got plenty of them here in South America (unfortunately, BTW). Or, putting the same question in a more meaningful way: do you have any idea of what your words mean? You know; names (e.g.: "Marxist") have a consolidated meaning, you can't just attach your own (twisted) meaning to them and believe that what your Republican propaganda talking points make any sense.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every paycheck I have ever received in my life has come from some rich guy trying to become even richer.
So how come you as a wage slave are so much more unable to see that Capitalism, unchecked, has egregious faults than I, who spent half his working life meeting payrolls, am?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've known many, and all of those who wished to work their way out of it have always been able to easily do so.
Ka made pretty much the same argument you are addressing and I suggested that anyone identified as being congentitally incapable of working hard should have their reproductive rights eliminated. (snip, snip).
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So how come you as a wage slave are so much more unable to see that Capitalism, unchecked, has egregious faults than I, who spent half his working life meeting payrolls, am?
I fully acknowledge that capitalism is imperfect. It should be imperfect. But there is no adequate alternative to those imperfections. I don't consider myself to be a 'wage slave'. I very much enjoy living in a society in which I can freely exchange my services for another person's wealth. That is the very definition of freedom. There is no other definition. Frankly, I have never wanted to be responsible for managing a payroll (although I do have a thriving 1099 side 'business' with one employee - me) Being an accountant bores the hell out of me. Hell, I get bored budgeting my own income.
Oakman wrote:
Ka made pretty much the same argument you are addressing and I suggested that anyone identified as being congentitally incapable of working hard should have their reproductive rights eliminated. (snip, snip).
Well, we certainly need some kind of law to prohibit people from bringing more welfare dpendents into the world.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Tell me this guy ain't a Marxist...
O.k. sir, here it goes: there is no way that guy can be a Marxist. Only a lunatic would think so. BTW, have you ever seen/talked to a real Marxist? You know; the ones that talk about abolition of private property and bourgeoisie, dictatorship of proletariat, revolution, ending the class struggle, etc, etc,... We got plenty of them here in South America (unfortunately, BTW). Or, putting the same question in a more meaningful way: do you have any idea of what your words mean? You know; names (e.g.: "Marxist") have a consolidated meaning, you can't just attach your own (twisted) meaning to them and believe that what your Republican propaganda talking points make any sense.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
BTW, have you ever seen/talked to a real Marxist? You know; the ones that talk about abolition of private property and bourgeoisie, dictatorship of proletariat, revolution, ending the class struggle, etc, etc,... We got plenty of them here in South America (unfortunately, BTW). Or, putting the same question in a more meaningful way: do you have any idea of what your words mean? You know; names (e.g.: "Marxist") have a consolidated meaning, you can't just attach your own (twisted) meaning to them and believe that what your Republican propaganda talking points make any sense.
I don't accept those standard definitions. I believe those are simply one particular form of Marxism. Any system of governemtn which attempts to centralize economic and social policies at the highest levels of authority is inherently Marxist. All of the more conventional definitions can be worked into the overall process in some slightly altered way as time allows. But, 'redistribution of wealth' is a Marxist concept by anyone's definition.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:20 PM
-
No, why?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Because you keep bitching about taxes and yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Diego Moita wrote:
BTW, have you ever seen/talked to a real Marxist? You know; the ones that talk about abolition of private property and bourgeoisie, dictatorship of proletariat, revolution, ending the class struggle, etc, etc,... We got plenty of them here in South America (unfortunately, BTW). Or, putting the same question in a more meaningful way: do you have any idea of what your words mean? You know; names (e.g.: "Marxist") have a consolidated meaning, you can't just attach your own (twisted) meaning to them and believe that what your Republican propaganda talking points make any sense.
I don't accept those standard definitions. I believe those are simply one particular form of Marxism. Any system of governemtn which attempts to centralize economic and social policies at the highest levels of authority is inherently Marxist. All of the more conventional definitions can be worked into the overall process in some slightly altered way as time allows. But, 'redistribution of wealth' is a Marxist concept by anyone's definition.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, October 27, 2008 1:20 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, 'redistribution of wealth' is a Marxist concept by anyone's definition
Every time a Capitalist buys low and sells high, he too is redistributing the wealth. Every time a government pays big bucks to a defense contractor, it is redistributing the wealth. Every time the government yanks some National Guardsman out of his job and sends him to fight on active duty for a year, it is redistributing the wealth. It's not that I disagree with your basic premise, but you need to define your terms better.
-
Because you keep bitching about taxes and yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Thats because I don't believe a word of it. There is nothing about Obama that suggests either honesty or a respect for the middleclass. And even if he does carry thorugh on his promise, the tax increases on the "wealthy" (and who the hell is he to even define such a concept) will suppress investments and spending, and will therefore be very likely severly inhibit my opportunitites to earn any income at all to be taxed on.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But, 'redistribution of wealth' is a Marxist concept by anyone's definition
Every time a Capitalist buys low and sells high, he too is redistributing the wealth. Every time a government pays big bucks to a defense contractor, it is redistributing the wealth. Every time the government yanks some National Guardsman out of his job and sends him to fight on active duty for a year, it is redistributing the wealth. It's not that I disagree with your basic premise, but you need to define your terms better.
And every time a rich guy signs my pay check its redistributing wealth. Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need. That is precisely the kind of redistribution of wealth Obama is referring to. Every other kind is perfectuly ok in a capitalistic society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So how come you as a wage slave are so much more unable to see that Capitalism, unchecked, has egregious faults than I, who spent half his working life meeting payrolls, am?
I fully acknowledge that capitalism is imperfect. It should be imperfect. But there is no adequate alternative to those imperfections. I don't consider myself to be a 'wage slave'. I very much enjoy living in a society in which I can freely exchange my services for another person's wealth. That is the very definition of freedom. There is no other definition. Frankly, I have never wanted to be responsible for managing a payroll (although I do have a thriving 1099 side 'business' with one employee - me) Being an accountant bores the hell out of me. Hell, I get bored budgeting my own income.
Oakman wrote:
Ka made pretty much the same argument you are addressing and I suggested that anyone identified as being congentitally incapable of working hard should have their reproductive rights eliminated. (snip, snip).
Well, we certainly need some kind of law to prohibit people from bringing more welfare dpendents into the world.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Al Beback wrote:
yet refuse to vote for the man who would bring you the most tax relief.
Thats because I don't believe a word of it. There is nothing about Obama that suggests either honesty or a respect for the middleclass. And even if he does carry thorugh on his promise, the tax increases on the "wealthy" (and who the hell is he to even define such a concept) will suppress investments and spending, and will therefore be very likely severly inhibit my opportunitites to earn any income at all to be taxed on.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
And every time a rich guy signs my pay check its redistributing wealth. Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need. That is precisely the kind of redistribution of wealth Obama is referring to. Every other kind is perfectuly ok in a capitalistic society.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on ability and giving to those based upon need.
Actually no. I think you mean: Collectivist redistribution of wealth means exclusively taking from those based on wealth and giving to those based upon need. At least as far as I have heard, Socialists are just as willing to take money from an incompetent - like, say, Rumsfeld, as from a competent, like say, Romney.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats because I don't believe a word of it.
And you do believe McCain???
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And you do believe McCain???
Not so much. I think he is an intrinsically more honest person than Obama. But I certainly believe that he will be even less likey to keep any promist to conservatives than Bush was. He will probably keep his promises to everyone else as best he can. But he has nothing but contempt for conservatives, probably more so than Obama does.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, we certainly need some kind of law to prohibit people from bringing more welfare dpendents into the world.
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But one passed by the peepul, right?
Certainly. But, of course, in my ideal government, only those actually producing and paying more into the system than they get back from it would be allowed to vote anyway.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.