jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (196 posts)

More troops....more drones.

  1. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago
    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      More dones, more power.  The police state is coming.

    2. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If starting a thread for discussion, I think it's helpful to at least give a synopsis of the link you're posting. 
      You say, nuff said, and yet I know nothing about what the link says.  Not all of us want to open a thread only to find a link to an article.

      1. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I put those links there because if I don't I get ,,,,well not asked, demanded to provide it.
        Now you complain that I provide it.
        If I am going to post the link you can read the article yourself.

        1. rebekahELLE profile image91
          rebekahELLEposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see my post as a complaint.  Sure, you can post a link if people want to read the article also, but simply posting a link and saying nothing about it may discourage more discussion.  Some of us are simply stopping in and browsing and don't have time to read an article.

          1. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry....will try to behave myself....

      2. 61
        whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Every once in a while you might have to read, shouldn't be that hard for a writer.

        1. Barefootfae profile image59
          Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Damned if I do...damned if I don't.
          Especially when they don't like the topic to start with.

          1. 61
            whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Its just the game liberals play.

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I didn't know you were a pacifist and a dove... good for you.

    4. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A really terrifying expansion of the use of drones.  If some other country targeted bad guys in the USA with similar type drones or weapons they would be labeled terrorists. I cant believe liberals are not up in arms demanding Obama be charged with war crimes etc, except I guess its a war or participation in a war that has no support by the people of the United States.

      1. Drhu profile image59
        Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh they are unhappy and state they didn't vote for that, but actually DO SOMETHING as in impeach or such.
        Huh-uh.....that's their President. They would vote for him again if they could.
        You know..like they accuse others of thinking that way of Nush.

  2. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    How many more troops...that he wasn't going to deploy....is he gonna deploy?

    1. John Holden profile image62
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And yet you'll still claim that he;s a socialist!

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Socialist = control, yes?  What better way than force?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not all socialists believe in an overarching government that concentrates all the productive forces of society into itself.  The more accurate term for that would be state socialism or state capitalism (since the state is basically acting as the sole corporation of the nation).

          Others believe businesses should be run as co-ops, rather than dictatorships.  Others say still the state is a tool of the capitalist class and until it's gone, socialism will never happen.

          There's a wide variety of viewpoints within socialism, and Obama does not fit any of them.

          1. John Holden profile image62
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            +1

        2. John Holden profile image62
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You really don't understand socialism do you!

        3. junkseller profile image90
          junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, actually you have it backwards. For a lot of Americans control = Socialism. More accurately, State control = Socialism, but State control would more accurately be called Fascism or Authoritarianism. Socialism according to Marx had NO state at all, thereby maximizing individual liberty, which ironically is what a lot of people who wrongly talk about Socialism supposedly want. Yes, Socialism is also meant to have a high level of social equality and sharing, it is in no way meant to be maintained through coercion or force. I suspect that most actual socialists might find Obama to be, to an extent, correct on the social scale but completely wrong on the liberty scale. By ideology, Socialists are as opposed to Obama's war policies as are Libertarians (think Ron Paul, for example).

          Here's the statement about International Solidarity and Peace form the Socialist Party USA: "We condemn war, preparation for war, and the militaristic culture because they play havoc with people's lives and divert resources from constructive social projects. Militarism also concentrates even greater power in the hands of the few, the powerful and the violent." http://socialistparty-usa.net/principles.html

          So, Socialism = NO control and there is no WORSE way than force.

          1. John Holden profile image62
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But what we all think and say counts for nothing because their capitalist masters have told them another story.

          2. 0
            Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm glad to see someone who has actually read Marx and understands that the state is seen as an obstacle to progress under his theory.  I hate it when uninformed people call American liberals Marxists.  It betrays their own ignorance.

            1. junkseller profile image90
              junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's funny because Capitalists should be as interested in Marx as anyone. His critiques of Capitalism were very astute, and one only improves a system by engaging its imperfections. Unfortunately, too many people seem far more interested in building unchallengeable fortresses around the objects of their faith. From their bastions, everyone outside is an enemy, so I don't think they really worry about the accuracy of their lobbed insults. It only matters that they lob them as fast as they can. In the time it takes someone to explain the difference between a fascist and a socialist they are able to reset their catapult and load a new stone.

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Here's a question:

                Can you show me a real life example.....not something he wrote....whereby Marxism improved the quality of life of a nation? Any nation?

                1. junkseller profile image90
                  junksellerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  First of all, I'm not really sure what would be wrong simply with "something he wrote." He was a philosopher. That's what he did. It's like asking what good Plato did outside of what he wrote.

                  Secondly, your question is a trap. Impossible to answer to someone who has already professed a hostility towards the ideology. No matter what one would answer you can simply speciously disagree and then either claim victory of some sort or force the other person to go down a never ending tangent of trying to convince you of something you'll never believe anyway. That's a silly game I personally won't play.

                  Thirdly, I don't know what it has to do with the discussion regarding the original post anyway.

                2. John Holden profile image62
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Can you show me any nation where his ideas have been implemented, untrammelled by capitalism?

                  1. innersmiff profile image78
                    innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Have you ever considered that it might be the case that Marxism does not work precisely because there is a demand for free enterprise? Or does Marxism seek to destroy our natural tendencies?

            2. innersmiff profile image78
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But then Marx saw the state necessary to enforce the interim period between capitalism and the stateless society. Further government control would fit that bill then.

              However, I don't believe what we see in the west is the result of any consistent ideology other than statism, or more bluntly, violence. Socialist, capitalist, fascist ideologies are used as far as they are useful, to provide an illusion of difference. Obama is presented as the saviour of little people, an all round good guy who's moving forward. Reagan was presented as the thrifty brave capitalist. But when you break it down, Obama and Reagan's domestic and foreign policies are shockingly similar! It is indeed folly to call Obama a socialist as I don't believe him or his handlers have ever had an idea in their life if it didn't personally benefit them.

              1. 0
                Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                True true.  That's where him and the anarchists of the period strongly differed.  Many agreed with his assessment of Capitalism, but parted ways it came to the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

        4. 84
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          He is a socialist.  +1

  3. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    I would like to see my question answered.
    Likewise can you direct me to any nation currently enjoying and prospering under the guidance of Marx?
    Anyone?
    Bueller? Bueller?

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And I suppose America's doing just fine and dandy under the guidance of the Almighty Dollar?

  4. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    Yes....you are dutifully ignoring my questions.
    That means you know you have no answers.

  5. Barefootfae profile image59
    Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago

    Just as I thought.
    No answers.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image85
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Here's an answer: Marxist Communism has yet to work because greedy sons of bitches (a.k.a. businessmen, oil tycoons, Conservatives) can't stand the idea of not being propped up on pedestals over everyone else, so they throw money at people to make Communism sound like cannibalism, just so they can continue to throw money at people to get their way.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        @ Zeliiiro
             So, you think communism worked out just fine for Russia? If you look into it and research the result of years of Communism you will see that the people became incapable of dealing with freedom once they got it back to some degree. Just like the slaves of the civil war era; once freed, many had a hard time adjusting to being free. Why? because Freedom is a huge responsibility.
              To be able to deal with freedom one must learn how to guide one's own will. It is all about personal will. America demands that each person has the opportunity to guide his own will. Without that freedom and the opportunity to guide ones own life, one is
        miserable.
        miserable.
        miserable.
        How many times can I say that word to explain to you the importance of having individual freedom and self command? until you and people like you, get it. My advice is to stop focusing on the rich and the corporations and the stuff you can't change and try to enjoy the little amount of freedom we still have.
        There IS a way to change those corporations but you need to know how; get this book: It Takes a Pillage by Nomi Prins. 
        Here is another: The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant.
        I hope you are getting along with your parents. Try to make amends with one of them.
        OK?

        1. 0
          Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Russia did not govern like Marx envisioned the "temporary dictatorship of the proletariat" would.  It's also interesting to wonder what would have happened if Stalin had not taken control.

          But calling Russia Communist again betrays your ignorance of Marx's writing.  Whether you agree with Communism or not, it's good to use concepts accurately.   Marx specifically claimed the state's only function was oppression, and under Capitalism, the oppression was done by the bourgeois.  Under the temporary "dictatorship of the proletariat", the state would exist to oppress the bourgeois to ensure they were would not regain power and to aid in the transition to a communist society.

          Marx then claimed that the transition to Communism would be slow because people's psychological attitudes would need to adjust to a radically different conception of life.  When Stalin instituted a dictatorship of one person, it's obvious Russia never had a chance to even try a communist transition.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And then Stalin showed up. Threw a monkey wrench in the whole works. Who let that happen?

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well he killed everyone who tried to stop it until everyone else was too scared to try.

          2. Drhu profile image59
            Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So which was it?
            Capitalism? Or that evil Stalin who made USSR Communist?
            Which they will always be viewed as by the way.

            1. John Holden profile image62
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do your history. Stalin came after the revolution and took it away from communism and not the way round you claim.

              1. Drhu profile image59
                Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't claim anything.
                Who's history?
                What is in the books or some specious source?

                1. John Holden profile image62
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well you said that Stalin made the USSR communist which he did not, he moved it away from communism.

                  The history of how things really happened and not the history that the opponents of communism and socialism would like us to believe.

                  Yes indeed, what is in the books and not some specious source such as that saying that Stalin made the USSR communist.

      2. Barefootfae profile image59
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If you had ever seen the fences....meant to keep people in....you would know the real answer.
        I have.
        Get some life experience. Being and anime character balancing a pencil on your nose doesn't pay much.

        1. John Holden profile image62
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What fences?
          In which socialist country are they?

          Admit it, you, along side most of your fellow countrymen are brainwashed into believing that something is what it patently isn't.

          1. Barefootfae profile image59
            Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The youngster wanted to talk Communism.....go and look John.
            I had been to East Germany. A place so nice they had to fence people in.

            1. John Holden profile image62
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Ah yes! The German Democratic Republic, which was neither democratic nor a republic and most definitely wasn't socialist or communist.

              1. Barefootfae profile image59
                Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So what was it John?

                1. John Holden profile image62
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  A right wing tyranny!

                  Have you ever actually read any Marx? Not just right wing précis but what he actually said?

                2. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It was fascist, fascism was a movement begun by Mussolini, Hitler's ally.
                  fas·cism 
                  /ˈfaSHizəm/
                  Noun:
                  An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

                  1. John Holden profile image62
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The key word being "nationalism" which is right wing and opposed to left wing "Internationalism".

      3. 84
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Greedy so-called communists do the same.  How can it truly be communist when your leaders live like a king?

        1. John Holden profile image62
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Dead right, that isn't communism, that's state capitalism as introduced to the USSR in the 1920s.

        2. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Hey, you're right (for once)! That isn't communism!

  6. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago
  7. Drhu profile image59
    Drhuposted 3 years ago

    And what does Marx and the USSR have to do with the original intent of the forum? Hmmmm?

    1. 0
      Sooner28posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is a political forum.  Marx will always come up in every discussion tongue.

      1. John Holden profile image62
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And if it's not Marx, it's the H man smile

        1. Zelkiiro profile image85
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Herbert Hoover?

          1. John Holden profile image62
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Er, no, try again smile

            1. Zelkiiro profile image85
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Harry Truman? Hun, Attila the? Harvey Birdman (Attorney at Law)?

              1. John Holden profile image62
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hitler.

      2. Drhu profile image59
        Drhuposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wow...hadn't considered that. Thanks.

        big_smile

 
working