(Newt) My Plea to Republicans: It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

My Plea to Republicans: It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster (http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3393/Default.aspx)


The Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday should be a sharp wake up call for Republicans: Either Congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November.

The facts are clear and compelling.

Saturday's loss was in a district that President Bush carried by 19 percentage points in 2004 and that the Republicans have held since 1975.

This defeat follows on the loss of Speaker Hastert's seat in Illinois. That seat had been held by a Republican for 76 years with the single exception of the 1974 Watergate election when the Democrats held it for one term. That same seat had been carried by President Bush 55-44% in 2004.

[DoctorDoom]

That the GOP will tank in November is a given. The voters are for the most part morons who haven't a clue about what the RATs are and what they intend to do. The last two years of utter incompetence, ineffectuality and outright insanity under Ried and Pelosi, aided and abetted by spineless, gutless, weak-kneed, RAT-ass-kissing RINOs, have taught them exactly nothing.

The DBM will direct the election, as they have done for many years, and there will NOT be another Gingrich Revolution to pull America's butt out of the fire. This time is the last. Our nation won't survive the consequences of Nov 4, 2008. The asswipes will elect the implements of America's destruction.

[Lubbock]

Bite me, Newt!!!

Go French kiss Nancy and keep your damned opinions to yourself.

Asshole.

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

The Pubs have really screwed us by moving to the middle to appeal to moderates. Moving to the middle has only seen the Dems sprint farther to the left to distance themselves, to establish a difference between them and the Pubs, which the Pubs seem to repeatedly, and moronically, counter by chasing them father left.

[DesertFox]

What Lub said. Newt sold out by signing on to Gore's Big Lie. We don't need him telling us how to get even worse by going Marxist ourselves.

[Suzie]

Nancy did something to him in that commercial. Someone needs to save him. Garlic ... crosses ... something.. QUICK!!!

[Lazarus]

Newt has turned out to be NOT the Reagan Conservative that he posed as for so many years - Instead he has revealed himself to be just another corrupt politician who floats with the prevailing wind... Reagan Conservatism was just an opportunity for this unprincipled, opportunistic, con artist politician...

Newt is now on my growing list of RINO insiders who want to use the Republican party to make Conservatives dance on a string for their personal benefit...

The more I hear this kind of rhetoric from "prominent Republicans", the more I am distancing myself from the Republican party...

And when the Leftists cause so much real damage to this country that the political winds swing back to the right, you'll see the Newts of the world crawl our of their holes and tell us that a new wind is blowing and that we should line up once again behind them and keep them in power because they have always been Conservatives...

I'm tired of being conned by these bastards... When a political party emerges that represents my principles, and not just a mechanism to serve the power lusts of these whores, I will give that party my vote...

I'm finished with the Republicans...:flame: Whatever differences there are between the Pubs and the Dems, the Pubs are working hard to eliminate from their party platform...

[Kathy30]

If McCain doesn't lose his comprehensive immigration reform ideas, he's going to have worse problems in November than he does now.

[Lazarus]

Kathy, if McCain public declares that he is withdrawing that issue from the table, will you believe him? Do you believe anyone will? :brow:

This "Straight Talkin' Con Artist" is capable and willing to say ANYTHING to win the Presidency... He hungers for it - Its his life's obsession...

McCain has no integrity and no credibility... He doesn't have enough money to buy my vote...

[DesertFox]

Newt and McCain are opposite sides of the same coin.

[garlicguy]

Nancy did something to him in that commercial. Someone needs to save him. Garlic ... crosses ... something.. QUICK!!!

Let me see what I can do... Oh! Wait. ....Never mind....:doh:

[Kathy30]

Kathy, if McCain public declares that he is withdrawing that issue from the table, will you believe him? Do you believe anyone will? :brow:

This "Straight Talkin' Con Artist" is capable and willing to say ANYTHING to win the Presidency... He hungers for it - Its his life's obsession...

McCain has no integrity and no credibility... He doesn't have enough money to buy my vote...

What a shame that he's running against a serious communist. Given any other alternative, I wouldn't vote for him either.

[Rhino]

I can understand some folks not liking Newt. He has certainly made some bonehead mistakes. But did you guys actually read the article? He made a whole lot of accurate points, and his recommendations are mostly pretty darn good.

1. Repeal the gas tax for the summer...

2. Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market.

3. Introduce a "more energy at lower cost with less environmental damage and greater national security bill" as a replacement for the Warner-Lieberman "tax and trade" bill...

4. Establish an earmark moratorium for one year and pledge to uphold the presidential veto of bills with earmarks through the end of 2009.

5. Overhaul the census and cut its budget radically.

6. Implement a space-based, GPS-style air traffic control system.

7. Declare English the official language of government.

8. Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot.

9. Remind Americans that judges matter.

Now, some of these may not be great overall solutions for the issues they address. For instance, 1 and 2 would only have temporary effects. But when you keep in mind the premise of the article, winning Congressional elections, every proposal he has makes sense.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I can understand some folks not liking Newt. He has certainly made some bonehead mistakes. But did you guys actually read the article?

I was kinda wondering the same thing, :smirk:

He made a whole lot of accurate points, and his recommendations are mostly pretty darn good.

I guess I mighta shoulda highlighted those instead of just copying the first little bit of text on the webpage.

[DesertFox]

Rhino, to my mind none of that is "real change." It's politics as usual, and I no longer trust Newt's brand of politics.

[Lubbock]

To my mind, real change starts right here in our own backyard: Kick out the Country Club RINOs who have destroyed conservatism, destroyed the Party of Reagan.

No change --big or small, will come as long as the likes of Newt and McVain are kissing Liberal Ass.

The RINOs --of which Newt is one, have handed us over to Liberalsim.

Anyone who doubts that Newt is a RINO, need only to watch him and Nancy together on the sofa, chumming it up abut Climate Change. Newt is just one of many who have handed us over. He's become a media whore, selling books, feathering his own nest.

As I said: Bit me Newt!

[Rhino]

Rhino, to my mind none of that is "real change."Read my post again. I said it may not represent real change, and I'm betting he knows that. But in the context of winning elections, the stated point of the article, every single one of those suggestions makes sense. Let's face it, if most voters were actually aware of what would represent "real change", these elections would probably be a slam dunk victory for Republicans. But as we all know, most voters are blissfully unaware of those things.

[DesertFox]

It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster

Seems to me the stated point of the article -- enunciated in the title -- is that it's time for real change.

Evidently we are each responding to what we see as the stated point of the article. :D

[Suzie]

Uhh Laz... this is about Newt, not McCain.

[Lazarus]

Uhhh Sooz...... You're right... I was still frothing from another thread... I will make corrections... :D

Well hell by time I had adjusted it to reflect Newt, it had lost all its drama, so I just decided to delete the whole thing... Mark it up to advanced dooficity on my part...:smirky:

[Rhino]

It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster

Seems to me the stated point of the article -- enunciated in the title -- is that it's time for real change.

Evidently we are each responding to what we see as the stated point of the article. :DI think we're confusing contexts. The way I read the article, he is talking about real change in the way we handle the Congessional elections, and the text of the article seems to bear that out. You seem to be viewing it as him trying to affect real change in those nine issues above. While I'm sure he'd be glad to do that, I don't think he feels those actions are going to accomplish such real changes, certainly not in the long term. But they would accomplish real changes in the electability of Congressional Republicans. I think that is his main purpose for that article, and I think that is the real change he is referring to. So, based on that context, what he proposes is quite appropriate for that real change.

[Canaduck]

What a shame that he's running against a serious communist. Given any other alternative, I wouldn't vote for him either.
Neither Obama or Hillary are communists. I'm not convinced you properly understand what communism means.

[The_Elucidator]

Neither Obama or Hillary are communists. I'm not convinced you properly understand what communism means.

Don't start!!

[Canaduck]

Don't start!!
Well, it looks like I just did. Words communist get thrown around on this forum more than a baseball during a Yankees game.

[TeenageRepublican]

Neither Obama or Hillary are communists. I'm not convinced you properly understand what communism means.

I don't think you understand what political beliefs you have. The left wing has done the most damage to the world than the right wing has. I dare you to find proof that the right wing has done more damage than Hitler or Stalin.
To me, a leftist is an aspiring Nazi and/or Communist.

[DoctorDoom]

Well, it looks like I just did.The opinions of a clueless liberal hoser about US politics should be of interest to us because?

[Timberwolf]

Neither Obama or Hillary are communists. I'm not convinced you properly understand what communism means.
You might want to rethink your position. Both Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife and the Obamination are communists:Main Entry:com·mu·nism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?commun24.wav=communism%27%29)
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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communist) systems collectively

So, tell us how the above does NOT apply to either of the democrat candidates. Seems to me the entire platform of the Democrat Party is that referenced in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Well, I guess, TECHNICALLY, you're right. They're not communists, they're Marxists...although, that's really parsing words.

[DeclinetoState]

Originally Posted by Canaduck http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/../images/patriot/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?p=677826#post677826)
Neither Obama or Hillary are communists. I'm not convinced you properly understand what communism means.

Canaduck, you wouldn't happen to be an ex-RC priest living in Canada and believed to have an attraction to moose, would you?

[Canaduck]

You might want to rethink your position. Both Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife and the Obamination are communists:
Main Entry:com·mu·nism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?commun24.wav=communism%27%29)
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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communist) systems collectively

So, tell us how the above does NOT apply to either of the democrat candidates. Seems to me the entire platform of the Democrat Party is that referenced in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Well, I guess, TECHNICALLY, you're right. They're not communists, they're Marxists...although, that's really parsing words.
First of all, you prove positives. So for example, if you were to say "Obama is a communist" I would say "prove it" then you would have to prove they were communists. Its sort of the same thing as "innocent until proven guilty."

Nevertheless, I'll be glad to correct you. For a proper definition of communism, why not look at the core things the guy who came up with it should be in place? Y'know, looking at the communist manifesto. Me pointing out the differences between Obama/Hillary and

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Neither Obama or support abolition of private property.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
The highest tax bracket in America if Hillary were to be president would be 39% or so. (According to her appearance with Bill O'Reilly.) Compare that to Norway, a socialist (not even communist) country, with a highest income tax rate of 51%, they also have a 15% General Sales Tax. Looking at communism in practice, in the Old Soviet Union with Lenin, for a time all agricultural production was taken away by the state. After a time, Lenin decided that people wiould be allowed to keep a little bit of their crops to sell for themselves.
Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Neither Obama or Hillary support this. I don't recall them saying that instead of Mr. Hilton not passing down his hotel chain to Paris, it was instead going to become state property.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
I don't recall them saying anything/supporting anything like this, either.
Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Neither Obama or Hillary support this. The Democratic party platform does not involve state ownership of all banks, and the consolidation thereof into a single one.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.
Last I checked, the Dems didn't support mandatory state ownership of all Airlines, Railways, Roads, Phone lines, Radio, and Internet. Companies are even free to make toll roads and charge for their use.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
The Dems do not support confiscating all production facilities and having them owned by the state. They might support soil enrichment though, so gosh darn golly gee I guess thats one point for you, Timberwolf.
Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Stalin did something like that. The Dems/Obama/Hillary don't have anything like that planned.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
The Dems/Obama/Hillary are not banning cities, nor are they combined agriculture with manufacturing.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
Public Education is the one other thing that is the Dems do support. Along with that whole not wanting children ages 5-12 to be working in sweatshops with no employee recompense after losing fingers/limbs in factory equipment working for for little to no pay, but I don't think the Republicans have voiced any support of those conditions either.

So really, if you want to argue with Karl Marx over the definition of Communism and try to say the Dems support the key principles posted above (the key one being all property being owned by the state) then go ahead, but I don't think it'll be very productive.

Canaduck, you wouldn't happen to be an ex-RC priest living in Canada and believed to have an attraction to moose, would you?
No, but I swear I saw you hiding under a bridge the other day. Go back to hunting Blly Goats or something. Good meaningful input, I have to say. :claps:
I don't think you understand what political beliefs you have. The left wing has done the most damage to the world than the right wing has. I dare you to find proof that the right wing has done more damage than Hitler or Stalin.
To me, a leftist is an aspiring Nazi and/or Communist.
Which explains why liberals loathe Neo-Nazis so much, why they protested against Neo-Nazis in my city a month or two ago, and why if you go to the Council Of Conservative Citizens (which is an organization one step removed from the KKK) they supported Duncan Hunter (if I remember correctly) as the Republican candidate for president.

[TeenageRepublican]

Which explains why liberals loathe Neo-Nazis so much, why they protested against Neo-Nazis in my city a month or two ago, and why if you go to the Council Of Conservative Citizens (which is an organization one step removed from the KKK) they supported Duncan Hunter (if I remember correctly) as the Republican candidate for president.

And the Communists support whoever the Democrat candidate is. Point? Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and company will try to bring Communism to America. Tell me Canaduck, have you ever heard of the "Open Society"?

[Timberwolf]

Canaduck...I need links to the sources of your info.

[dPrasse]

Which explains why liberals loathe Neo-Nazis so much, why they protested against Neo-Nazis in my city a month or two ago,

Commies and Nazis have always hated each other ... trying to out-suppress each other ...

[Wyatt_Junker]

First of all, you prove positives. So for example, if you were to say "Obama is a communist" I would say "prove it" then you would have to prove they were communists. Its sort of the same thing as "innocent until proven guilty."


So now this is the Ojay trial?

And here I thought we were just talking about politics.

Well, I guess congratulations are in order my little dungeonmaster, cause you just went up into +5 metahporical beastmode! The frightening land where sayings and phrases morph into club-wielding giants. Who should we call to the witness stand first, genius? Maybe a bright idea?

Whatever you say Dershowitz.


Nevertheless, I'll be glad to correct you.


And, nevertheless, I will be glad to correct you like a teacher correcting a failing student. And I will have the satisfaction of not only failing you, but sending you back a few grades too.

So that maybe next time, when you come back here again, you will understand your role here as entertainment only. That you will not get anywhere in life. That you're a loser, a failure, a dunce. Comprende?

And hey, that's what the democrats say and believe anyway. I'm just repeating it. If you don't like it. Try really listening to their speeches next time. Everything Obama says is a crybaby's whine. His audience must be babies then. He tells them they're losers and failures and that only HE can help them hope in something better. They are incapable without HIM. They are lost without HIM. They are stupid if they don't vote for HIM. This is the script of the left. Loser. Failure. Dumbshit. Over and over.

For a proper definition of communism, why not look at the core things the guy who came up with it should be in place? Y'know, looking at the communist manifesto. Me pointing out the differences between Obama/Hillary and

And me pointing out the damn near mirror resemblances between each of them. The proper definition of communism as compared to Obama and Hillary, both of whom are the absolute wonder bitches of Marxism.


Originally Posted by communist manifesto
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Neither Obama or support abolition of private property.

Utter bullshit. As the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs. New London in their 5 to 4 decision(2005) we were authoritatively told that state and local governments could use eminent domain to seize private property. Hence, we must realize that those justices who favored such tyrrany, all systematic leftists of the bench, were all adopting a marxian worldview, led by Ginsburg, the most outspoken of the bunch in her gross injustice and anti-constitutional approval of the decision, and yes, *ahem* a Clinton appointee. I doubt Obama, the most liberal asshole deodorant in the senate would be any less of such a proponent than her.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

The highest tax bracket in America if Hillary were to be president would be 39% or so. (According to her appearance with Bill O'Reilly.)

Or so? Are you sure? I'll help you out. How about sprinkling in the term 'roughly' or 'more or less' into your soggy post to thicken it up? So, Clinton wants 40% of the highest tier's income, more or less. Nearly half. Sound fair to you? If so, explain why? Why anyone would want to work to give up HALF of their income to Federal fat?

Compare that to Norway, a socialist (not even communist) country, with a highest income tax rate of 51%, they also have a 15% General Sales Tax.

And I know Norweigians personally who were jailed for evasion. The ones who weren't were able to enjoy the free ride of their betters without complaint(obviously). We must also remember that Norway and Sweden both are ethnically homogenized for the most part compared to other shitholes like France where the immigrants are increasingly using those services faster than the worker's can supply them. In Sweden, however, that may not be for long as even Malmo now is becoming a haven for muslim immigrant trash. If it continues, don't expect the hard workers of Sveden to be their usual, willing selves in the socialist, feel good money scheme(another phrase for slow communism).

Which brings up another point. Try to evade paying your taxes here or elsewhere. Guess where you'll go?

You don't think America or Sweden are communist-centric only because they don't have a Siberian gulag, but they do have jails and they will use them if you decide to 'opt out' of the great socialist experiment. And this is done by brutal force. Don't trust me. Simply refuse to contribute. You'll learn that communism is more common than you know.

Looking at communism in practice, in the Old Soviet Union with Lenin, for a time all agricultural production was taken away by the state. After a time, Lenin decided that people wiould be allowed to keep a little bit of their crops to sell for themselves.

Why look to the Old Soviet Union when we can look all around us at the nations today? Besides, that's so retro. 'Russia' is simply a cliche.

Communism is a word that means communal, or centralized sharing, robbing individuals of their independence. I can see why you would shill for it. You prefer egalitarianism over liberty. You are the bumper sticker after an Obama rally.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Neither Obama or Hillary support this. I don't recall them saying that instead of Mr. Hilton not passing down his hotel chain to Paris, it was instead going to become state property.

And the death tax has been consistently opposed by the GOP year after year and completely embraced by the democrats year after year. A punitive, systematic attack on families whereby the estate's net worth is redefined and recalibrated every year to include more and more of the 'rich' who are now nothing more than middle class.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

I don't recall them saying anything/supporting anything like this, either.

And they wouldn't. And not just because its a non-sequitor. They don't have the balls to say what they are. In fact, they wouldn't say most of any of these points because democrats don't SAY ANYTHING. Instead, they get elected using voter ignorance and stupid cliches like Obama, then, once in power, they legislate their points into existence. Why would they advertise their communism? Number one, its inherent. Number two, they still want to grab the retarded moderates. But look at their views whether its nationalized healthcare or Obama's reinstitution of old tax predation models(which is suicide considering the economy right now) and you can see their communism openly.

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Neither Obama or Hillary support this. The Democratic party platform does not involve state ownership of all banks, and the consolidation thereof into a single one.

Yeah, the Federal Reserve isn't a bank is it? And the other wannabe 'banks' don't have any federal regulations do they?

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

Last I checked, the Dems didn't support mandatory state ownership of all Airlines, Railways, Roads, Phone lines, Radio, and Internet. Companies are even free to make toll roads and charge for their use.

And the FCC is what? And airlines are bailed out by the Feds what? Every 5 years? And railways? EDUCATE YOURSELF (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572204/government_regulation_of_railroads.html), because you're a damn embarassment.


Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The Dems do not support confiscating all production facilities and having them owned by the state. They might support soil enrichment though, so gosh darn golly gee I guess thats one point for you, Timberwolf.

Depends on what production facilities you mean. They may not be 'owned' technically, but they are regulated and if a 'private' company decides it doesn't want to abide by those regulations, then guess what? It gets shuttered. In fact, every business is not only regulated, they are becoming increasingly enslaved by new rules, rules with fancier names, rules with more Orwellian language, big rules, small rules, tax rules, employee rules, safety rules, wage and hour rules, rules by made up organizations such as the bureau of weights and meausres, green fees, OSHA regs, EEOC regs, ADA regs, EDD regs, fat regs, skinny regs, all of them dumb regs. Try to ignore them, get shut down. Pretend they don't exist. Don't comply. Give it time. Men in boots will eventually come and shut you down. Sounds like communism to me.

Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Stalin did something like that. The Dems/Obama/Hillary don't have anything like that planned.

No. Obama has something much worse. Could it be that if Obama is elected we would actually yearn for communism? I mean there is something very kind here in Marx's bullet point, namely that all must work. I like that. But no. With Obama, you can sit on your fat ass and you don't even have to walk to the mailbox to pick up your check from the state. You can just have it electroncially deposited so that you can keep sitting on your keyster while you watch As The World Turns. Meanwhile, INDUSTRY is punished. Those who are INDUSTRIOUS are made out to be the bad guy. Could it be any more upside down than the democrat's parade of painful rhetorical bullshit? I would absolutely THIRST for communism if Obama gets elected since he already said he was going to raise the minimum wage every year he was in office if his 98 Lb. punk ass was elected into office. That means that I AM ENSLAVED BY THE STATE, and FORCED TO WORK for the betterment of those who refuse to better themselves. Give me communism even before Obama because at least Stalin had a silver lining in his cloud compared to the left in America.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

The Dems/Obama/Hillary are not banning cities, nor are they combined agriculture with manufacturing.

And Marx wrote his drab, porrly written, naive, shit-riddled tome when agriculture was a deep concern. It makes sense. Who would want to work at all in industries such as agribusiness that paid so little only to reward others when other industries paid better? Its the same in China today. Everyone wants to be a school teacher because they get 3 months off every year and yet are paid the same as DOCTORS. Don't get a boo boo in China! Thus, you would have to force EVERYONE to toil in the soil together in order to pull carrots up out of the ground otherwise everyone would starve. Communism: Since you don't have nice things, the only fair thing to do is to ensure that everyone is poor together. Have you heard an Obama speech lately? It is entirely avaricious. He is a man obsessed with taking the wealth from one group of people and expressing it to others who have no more moral relation to it than a hobo to your five dollar bill.

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.


Public Education is the one other thing that is the Dems do support. Along with that whole not wanting children ages 5-12 to be working in sweatshops with no employee recompense after losing fingers/limbs in factory equipment working for for little to no pay, but I don't think the Republicans have voiced any support of those conditions either.

No. The dems support taking more money to throw into an increasingly failing public school system. If they really cared about education, they would support vouchers or private education only and straight up killing public education. And, its the only noble thing to do. Give us our property taxes back and let us make up our own minds on where to send our kids to school. Private school would rise to the occasion and we would have a better product to boot.

As far as kids in factories, we don't need laws. Let parents parent for shit's sake. Leave the government out of it. If there's abuse, where children are used as tools, then the state can impose itself. Otherwise, butt out.

So really, if you want to argue with Karl Marx over the definition of Communism and try to say the Dems support the key principles posted above (the key one being all property being owned by the state) then go ahead, but I don't think it'll be very productive.

They do agree with the key points. Entirely. They understand it better than Karl Marx ever did. Theirs is even a system, when and if implemented in its totatlity, would make pre-ninties Russia look plush. Where producers are either disincentivized into oblivion or detained for 'the good of society' and the rest are simply enslaved and impoverished because without the producers, there is nothing left.

[The_Elucidator]

Canaduck...I need links to the sources of your info.

Are you sure you really want to go there? :rotflmbo:

[Rhino]

Neither Obama or Hillary are communists. I'm not convinced you properly understand what communism means.Look up the meaning of "hyperbole".

[Rhino]

Canaduck...I need links to the sources of your info.:yeahthat:

[Lazarus]

Canaduck has been "Wyatt-ed"... Nuff said...:biggrin:

[Wolfcounsel]

"Canaduck has been "Wyatt-ed"... Nuff said...:biggrin:" --Lazarus

To libbies everywhere who speak in stumbles--Be quieted or be Wyatted, your choice. Hey! Nice ring to it.:evilgrin:
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Lazarus]

Hehehehe... I like it! :claps::thumb:

[DesertFox]

Wow! Wyatt kicked that dude's ass so hard that it exploded. Ass musta been made outta that reactive material that goes up on impact. Either that or all contents of the bowel were tightly-wound det cord.

[Timberwolf]

Wuff!

Hey, Canaduck...I guess I don't need those links after all. Besides, after the ass-kicking Wyatt just gave ya, I don't think I want you to "go foraging" for them...

Man, Wyatt...talk about layin' down smack!!! :thumb:

[DesertFox]

Man, Wyatt kicked that dude's ass into last week. He kicked his ass so hard, it left boot prints on the dude's forehead. He kicked his ass so bad, dude mama don't recognize it when she change the dude diaper.