It didn't take long for this bumper sticker to get printed up.

[*Robert* 2]

$hit y'all....we scared Joseph off. He hasn't posted since his quadruple whammy. I guess that smart card didn't work too well huh?

freak'n noOb!!!

[almaty 19]

$hit y'all....we scared Joseph off. He hasn't posted since his quadruple whammy. I guess that smart card didn't work too well huh?

freak'n noOb!!!

left out uppity

[Tahoma 2,292]

Thanks again, HAL. The epoxy worked great. Would you mind if I loaned it to Joseph? He seems to be having a problem getting a quote stuck to Thomas Jefferson.

[HAL 9000 96]

Thanks again, HAL. The epoxy worked great. Would you mind if I loaned it to Joseph? He seems to be having a problem getting a quote stuck to Thomas Jefferson.

You'll have to fill out an intervention request for that one, T. Communosocialism works like that.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Thanks again, HAL. The epoxy worked great. Would you mind if I loaned it to Joseph? He seems to be having a problem getting a quote stuck to Thomas Jefferson.

You'll have to fill out an intervention request for that one, T. Communosocialism works like that.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

^

|

|

|

Point proven.

How old are you again? It was obviously a connection error, and not deliberate.

You also didn't use webster's dictionary or bother to even acknowledge who wrote the Communist Manifesto

• Main Entry: so•cial•ism

• Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

• Function: noun

• Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

• Main Entry: com•mu•nism

• Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\

• Function: noun

• Etymology: French communisme, from commun common

• Date: 1840

1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively

So all of your assertions that Socialism and Communism have nothing to do with Marx are either complete lies, or ignorance, and i'd be willing to go with both on this one.

[thetreble 19]

Who said they didn't have anything to do with one another? You said they were similar, you didn't say while they are two different ideologies there are probably a few times where a few points of all intersect.

They still stand to be TWO different ideologies. That is what you aren't getting. If they were not separate and whole, they wouldn't be called two different things. You don't understand that one is a system of government and the other an economic reaction to capitalism.

I didn't "bother" to use Webster's dictionary because I don't really give a *uck. It's obvious you do.

You sincerely believe that by making sure every one thinks you are right or intelligent in a thread, on a website, on the internet, that it will give you some sort of self satisfaction. That is the difference between yourself and I. I don't care at all, and you actually make me laugh.

Edited September 11, 2009 by thetreble

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I don't care about showing myself to be right. I care about you purposely misleading. Funny how you're now backtreading on your previous comments on how they are two completely different things. I said they are similar, and they are as proven by the definitions and two progressions of the Marxist theory. You also said it has nothing to do with Marx, and yet you were proven wrong again. You were proven wrong on so many occasions and now you're angry and lashing out like a good little leftist usually does. I guess my idea that perhaps you are book smart has been thrown out the window.

[Peikko 1,575]

No, you said they were the same apart from one tiny difference. The truth is they have similarities but are not the same and are different enough to be separately identifiable. But again the main point is that no Democrat is advocating any policy that can be described as a shift into a system of socialism so all this scare mongering about socialism and National Socialism (which by the way has absolutely nothing to do with socialism at all) is totally spurious.

What you should do, if you want to engage in discussion is actually point out the areas of difficulty that you have with any given policy rather than suggesting you don't like the idea of something because it's too 'librul' or too 'socialist' but that would actually mean you would have to understand any given policy which is rather too much trouble I would imagine.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The Democrats outwardly don't seem to be "advocating" for socialism because it would be shot down dead if the people got wind of it (which they are starting to do - and i am definitely not saying that there aren't plenty of Reps who are advocating the same thing.). So, the government now controls the banks, 2/3 of the former "Big 3" auto companies, and now they want to control healthcare, next comes commerce with cap-and-trade. So, when the government controls everything; what, pray tell, shall we call it? Freedom?

Socialism in practice and in theory is a progressive step. It can't usually get done overnight, which is why Marx used it as a stepping stone process.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Here is what I actually said "The problem is that one closely resembles the other. With one minor detail change. "

Usually that minor detail is whether there is an authoritarian power controlling the commune.

Yes, they do closely resemble each other. In practice and in definition.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, be very afraid of a couple of companies being nationalised. The US government does not have control over the banking system, nor does it have control over car production nor is it proposing taking control over health care. Your very scary 'slippery socialist slope' is a joke. Grow some balls man and quit yer whining.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Yes, be very afraid of a couple of companies being nationalised. The US government does not have control over the banking system, nor does it have control over car production nor is it proposing taking control over health care. Your very scary 'slippery socialist slope' is a joke. Grow some balls man and quit yer whining.

I really don't want to bore everyone with the numerous articles detailing the Feds coming in and shutting down banks at will. Especially now that they gave them almost a trillion. They own the banks.

Doesn't have control over car production? The whole purpose of the "new GM" was so Obama could tell them what kind of cars to make. "more fuel efficient cars to decrease our dependence on foreign energy". The government appointed a majority on the board of directors at GM - what do you call that?

Obama has said in many interviews that a "single payer system" is his ultimate goal. Do you even know what that is?

I'm not sure what your obsession with my balls is, but Ana will take offense to that.

[Craneman 2]

It all depends on what your definition of IS, IS.

Yes, be very afraid of a couple of companies being nationalised. The US government does not have control over the banking system, nor does it have control over car production nor is it proposing taking control over health care. Your very scary 'slippery socialist slope' is a joke. Grow some balls man and quit yer whining.

I really don't want to bore everyone with the numerous articles detailing the Feds coming in and shutting down banks at will. Especially now that they gave them almost a trillion. They own the banks.

Doesn't have control over car production? The whole purpose of the "new GM" was so Obama could tell them what kind of cars to make. "more fuel efficient cars to decrease our dependence on foreign energy". The government appointed a majority on the board of directors at GM - what do you call that?

Obama has said in many interviews that a "single payer system" is his ultimate goal. Do you even know what that is?

I'm not sure what your obsession with my balls is, but Ana will take offense to that.

[Minya's wife 25]

Yes, be very afraid of a couple of companies being nationalised. The US government does not have control over the banking system, nor does it have control over car production nor is it proposing taking control over health care. Your very scary 'slippery socialist slope' is a joke. Grow some balls man and quit yer whining.

I really don't want to bore everyone with the numerous articles detailing the Feds coming in and shutting down banks at will. Especially now that they gave them almost a trillion. They own the banks.

Doesn't have control over car production? The whole purpose of the "new GM" was so Obama could tell them what kind of cars to make. "more fuel efficient cars to decrease our dependence on foreign energy". The government appointed a majority on the board of directors at GM - what do you call that?

Obama has said in many interviews that a "single payer system" is his ultimate goal. Do you even know what that is?

I'm not sure what your obsession with my balls is, but Ana will take offense to that.

No really, you can't be this schitzo. You actually believe all the big brother $heit you're saying?