Obama the socialist president


Recommended Posts

We all know that Obama is a socialist and we all know that socialism always ends in the gulag, the gas chamber and in a blood field full of rice.

So, putting two and two together I just wondered if anyone here has a time line for when America is going to end up in the gulag, the gas chamber and in a blood field full of rice?

I e-mailed the White House and they said that don’t worry, Obama is not a socialist and the Democrats are not a socialist party. Obama has no plans for America to end up in the gulag, the gas chamber and in a blood field full of rice. I then put it to him that Obama does have plans for America to end up in the gulag, the gas chamber and in a blood field full of rice as he is a narcissistic Socialist who hates the prime movers. He then e-mailed me back saying If I was so clever did I have a time line for that.

Well…he had me there, but I bet you lot do have a time line for when America will end up like that.

Helps out here and let me put one over on this little White house squirt. Give me a time line and then he print off his e-mails, get a plate, a knife and fork and eat his words. So anyone out there who can answer me these questions three:

When will America end up?

1) In a gulag

2) In a gas chamber

3) In a field of rice and blood

I’d love to be a fly on the wall when that jobsworth gets this time line…ha ha ha as lets face it when it happens (questions 1 – 3) he will be the first go, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to hire a writer dude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to hire a writer dude.

That was a bit hard to digest. :)

I doubt, very seriously, that any of those three would ever happen. Sure, the government has its issues. But the people would not let such events come to pass.

~ Shane

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to hire a writer dude.

That was a bit hard to digest. :)

I doubt, very seriously, that any of those three would ever happen. Sure, the government has its issues. But the people would not let such events come to pass.

~ Shane

Shane:

Steven was just making a banal attempt to deride my "exaggeration" about the final result of marxist or fascist countries. I agree that it would be very difficult here, but not impossible. I would guesstimate less than five (5%) or ten (10%) percent.

He substitutes [democratic] "socialism" into my phrasing to achieve a pretty pitiful piece of attempted satire. I think he could be charged with "impersonating a satirist" and be found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Adam

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think you were in any of those places, er . . . in the first place. But, if you were, it is only the fault of those first places that they did not get you to at least the "second place."

Know whattuh meen?

rde

Someday, Gawd will-uh puth them thahr.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused...Obama is a socialist right? Socialism always ends in the gulag, gas chamber & the blood drenched paddy field. Yet...no one can give me a time line for this to happen in America? Why not? The people won't allow it? Why can't Obama, like the other socialists just make this (ending) happen? Why did the American people vote in a socialist president? Have they ever done this before? If so, why didn't that end in the gulag, gas chamber and blood drenched paddy field?

All I need to know is:

Obama is a socialist yes/no?

Socialism always end in the gulag, gas chamber & the blood soaked paddy field yes/no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism always end in the gulag, gas chamber & the blood soaked paddy field yes/no?

No. Sweden is socialist and they have no gulags there. What a socialist system produces more often than not is mediocrity and boredom, not death.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism always end in the gulag, gas chamber & the blood soaked paddy field yes/no?

No. Sweden is socialist and they have no gulags there. What a socialist system produces more often than not is mediocrity and boredom, not death.

Ba'al Chatzaf

There is no socialism in Sweden...as if there was there would be no money, buying or selling or a state and that is just for starters. Now all of these things exist here.

But it you don't believe me then how can you explain this?

http://www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/index.html

Going by this index there is more happiness in Sweden than there is in the US. Maybe the socialists there slip prozac in the water?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism always end in the gulag, gas chamber & the blood soaked paddy field yes/no?

No. Sweden is socialist and they have no gulags there. What a socialist system produces more often than not is mediocrity and boredom, not death.

Ba'al Chatzaf

There is no socialism in Sweden...as if there was there would be no money, buying or selling or a state and that is just for starters. Now all of these things exist here.

But it you don't believe me then how can you explain this?

http://www.happyplan...obal/index.html

Going by this index there is more happiness in Sweden than there is in the US. Maybe the socialists there slip prozac in the water?

I can't explain a map that is based on either subjective or irrelevant data.

How does one measure satisfaction?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Socialism always end in the gulag, gas chamber & the blood soaked paddy field yes/no?

No. Sweden is socialist and they have no gulags there. What a socialist system produces more often than not is mediocrity and boredom, not death.

Ba'al Chatzaf

There is no socialism in Sweden...as if there was there would be no money, buying or selling or a state and that is just for starters. Now all of these things exist here.

But it you don't believe me then how can you explain this?

http://www.happyplan...obal/index.html

Going by this index there is more happiness in Sweden than there is in the US. Maybe the socialists there slip prozac in the water?

I can't explain a map that is based on either subjective or irrelevant data.

How does one measure satisfaction?

Ba'al Chatzaf

How can you measure boredom? You state that socialism creates mediocrity. Yet the same could equally be said of objectivism or indeed any -ism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you measure boredom? You state that socialism creates mediocrity. Yet the same could equally be said of objectivism or indeed any -ism.

Good point. But that leaves the matter as a subjective judgment. A more objective way of seeing things is to count the number of people running from socialist states to non-socialist states versus the traffic in the opposite direction. How many people have actually fled Cuba or North Korea?

I am thinking about Sweden's greatest export, Ingmar Bergman who fled Sweden because his tax rate went up to 105 percent of his top income bracket. In short, he was penalized for becoming rich. So he left. Sweden's loss. Our gain.

Sweden is probably not an extreme socialist state because there is private ownership of the means of production, but there is a lot of government redistribution of income via taxation which is the low-calorie form of socialism practiced in Europe. Most likely people are too sensible, these days. to make the government the sole proprietor or even the main proprietor of productive capital. So they settle for the next "best" thing, to wit redistribution via taxation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

From space you can see no borders. We, and previous generations, have built up a productive capacity that is more than sufficient to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and amuse everyone on the planet. The only barrier to its use for that purpose is that it exists as capital. The only basis for its continuing existence as capital is our continuing acceptance of capitalist and state property rights. From below, at the sharp end, in the worker’s-eye view, these look as obsolete and obscene as property rights in people. Without those rights, capital would just be machinery, that we all together already operate and improve upon every day, every minute, collectively and globally. The only way in which these rights can be permanently abolished is consciously, politically, collectively and globally, at one fell swoop. Not on the same day all over the world of course, but in the space of a few years, in one historical moment. And why not? Slavery and feudalism were in the end abolished, with a stroke of the pen followed if necessary by a stroke of the sword.

Why should we not think, then, of the abolition of capitalism? We can’t reform it out of existence. Long experience, as well as theory and common sense, tell us this.

Neither ‘socialist’ governments nor ‘communist’

regimes have ever brought society a day nearer socialism

or communism. There are many reasons why not, but the

basic reason is simple. Production for exchange can’t be

gradually reformed into production directly for use. Nor,

in a world where almost everything is produced as part

of a global division of labour, can it be abolished locally

in one community, or one country, or one continent. It’s

all or nothing.

Closely related to that reason is another. A society of

conscious and voluntary co-operation can’t be

established unconsciously or unwillingly. It can’t be

imposed from above or from outside or from behind our

backs. Many will agree, if pressed, that the world cooperative

commonwealth can be thus established

eventually, but not now. In the meantime, they want

something else: a society called socialism which retains

wages, price, and profit but keeps them in the hands of

the state and the state, they hope, in the hands of the

workers, which all too often means the hands of the

workers’ party, which all too often means in the hands of

the correct leaders of the workers’ party. They want

that, or they want steps in that direction. The cooperative

commonwealth itself is, they insist, for the

distant future.

Why not now? We don’t need to wait for capitalism

to increase productive capacity to the point where the

co-operative commonwealth is possible, because it’s

already done so, and it’s already the greatest barrier to

the use and expansion of the productive capacity that

exists. Why then should we vote for reforming

governments to manage it, or ‘progressive’ regimes to

develop it further? Especially when these reforming

governments and these ‘progressive’ regimes waste so

much of production, and so many of us, in war and slump.

We have to make up our minds, once and for all, that

we want rid of this system, for good and all. Let those

who want to keep it reform it and improve it and expand

it. It’s their job while it lasts. The job of those who want

to end it is to give such people not a vote, not a gun, not

a penny, not a person, not an inch, not an ounce of

support. No political contender who is not a wage

slavery abolitionist, nobody who advocates in word and

deed anything less than, and anything other than, the

speedy end of this system, and the consequent

emancipation of the working class, deserves another

minute of our time. To everyone who claims to want

such an end eventually, but advocates something other or

something less in the meantime, we can say we’ve lived

already a long time in that meantime, and we’re still no

nearer.

All it would take to do away with this system and

establish the world co-operative commonwealth is for

most people in the world to agree to do it. It’s no news

that most people don’t. The number who understand and

want the commonwealth is tiny. The only revolutionary

action worth the name is working to increase that

number. Nothing more is needed, and nothing less will

do.

- Ken MacLeod

Link to post
Share on other sites
From space you can see no borders. We, and previous generations, have built up a productive capacity that is more than sufficient to feed, clothe, shelter, educate and amuse everyone on the planet.

Other than being absolutely absurd and specious, the border between North and South Korea at night is clear as a bell. Therefore, his first attempt at over generalizing fails.

His second assertion is also unsupported, undefined and facially false.

Adam

Stopped reading the post after that start

Link to post
Share on other sites
:

When will America end up?

1) In a gulag

?

How about financially and economically ruined?

One cannot live beyond one's means forever.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
:

When will America end up?

1) In a gulag

?

How about financially and economically ruined?

One cannot live beyond one's means forever.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Great. Time line please.

BTW - I take it you believe that Obama is a socialist but don't believe that socialism ends up in the gulag, gas chamber or the blood soaked paddy field thingy. I checked out Sweden the other day but could not find the number of people who flee from there every year. Do you have the figure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW - I take it you believe that Obama is a socialist but don't believe that socialism ends up in the gulag, gas chamber or the blood soaked paddy field thingy. I checked out Sweden the other day but could not find the number of people who flee from there every year. Do you have the figure?

Very few. They have lo-calorie socialism aka left wing democratic socialism. They are willing to put up with a degree of collectivism and socialization that Americans would find absolutely unbearable.

Just for the record, how many people are fleeing TO Sweden?

As far as I am able to tell their greatest economic achievements have been the SAAB, the Volvo and ABBA.

Sweden is a nice peaceful mediocre society. It does not make great contributions to human existence, and it is not an evil nasty place such as North Korea.

Sweden is just right for the Swedes. Not too hot, not too cold. Just right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada is socialist but lacks these evils.

Then again we gave the world Celine Dion............

But you also gave us Bryan Adams...before everything I do he was brilliant.

Canada is not socialist, it's a capitalist country. As is Sweden.

As for the - How about financially and economically ruined?

One cannot live beyond one's means forever.

Am I going to get a time line?

Edited by Kimmler
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the - How about financially and economically ruined?

One cannot live beyond one's means forever.

Am I going to get a time line?

You know I was going to read post 12 in an effort to figure out how you are using the term Socialism. Then I realized given the jaded, angry and bitter nature of your posts I wouldn't waste time. Funny as I think ideologically I am closer to you than I am to the other posters.

Are you getting your lulz here Kimmler? Is it even worth it for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is every Democratic President before Obama a socialist to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So is every Democratic President before Obama a socialist to you?

John:

Steven is attempting to be clever by starting this thread. He does not succeed. Apparently he refuses to define socialism. I have asked him for an example of a socialist society and I am still waiting.

Adam

welcome back

Link to post
Share on other sites
:

When will America end up?

1) In a gulag

2) In a gas chamber

3) In a field of rice and blood

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when that jobsworth gets this time line…ha ha ha as lets face it when it happens (questions 1 – 3) he will be the first go, right?

How about

4) in the poor house.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now