Well, it is now official. Obama's failures are due to racism. Period!!

2011-05-30 14:48:45

#101

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6686|Tampa Bay Florida

lowing wrote:
Kmar wrote:
lowing wrote:

Yup I would say his political ideology favors communism closer than any other political ideology.

If you have a point just make it already
So is that a yes?
Sure, marxist, socialist, communist, whatever, call it a yes.. I am not going to sit here and read the dissected definitions of each however. Suffice it to say, his views are in favor of the power of govt. and not the individual.

Socialists and communists killed more of each other than the capitalists and communists ever did.

See how stupid this conversation is?

2011-05-30 15:06:51

#102

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5354|London, England

Spearhead wrote:
lowing wrote:
Kmar wrote:

So is that a yes?
Sure, marxist, socialist, communist, whatever, call it a yes.. I am not going to sit here and read the dissected definitions of each however. Suffice it to say, his views are in favor of the power of govt. and not the individual.
Socialists and communists killed more of each other than the capitalists and communists ever did.

See how stupid this conversation is?

That had more to do with the personalities involved than economic ideology.

Socialism and Communism are on the same axis, the only difference being the level of intervention on the governments part (with communism being on the extreme end).

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-30 18:48:19

#103

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6686|Tampa Bay Florida

Jay wrote:
Spearhead wrote:
lowing wrote:

Sure, marxist, socialist, communist, whatever, call it a yes.. I am not going to sit here and read the dissected definitions of each however. Suffice it to say, his views are in favor of the power of govt. and not the individual.
Socialists and communists killed more of each other than the capitalists and communists ever did.

See how stupid this conversation is?
That had more to do with the personalities involved than economic ideology.

Socialism and Communism are on the same axis, the only difference being the level of intervention on the governments part (with communism being on the extreme end).

Well of course they're on the same axis, I'm just pointing out its idiotic to throw words around with such broad meanings... if Obama is a communist, call him a communist, don't call him a "socialist".... lowing calls him everything in the book.

2011-05-30 18:57:12

#104

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

Jay wrote:
Spearhead wrote:
lowing wrote:

Sure, marxist, socialist, communist, whatever, call it a yes.. I am not going to sit here and read the dissected definitions of each however. Suffice it to say, his views are in favor of the power of govt. and not the individual.
Socialists and communists killed more of each other than the capitalists and communists ever did.

See how stupid this conversation is?
That had more to do with the personalities involved than economic ideology.

Socialism and Communism are on the same axis, the only difference being the level of intervention on the governments part (with communism being on the extreme end).

actually enmity between socialists and communists has often historically been very overtly ideological and political.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-30 19:06:40

#105

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5354|London, England

Uzique wrote:
Jay wrote:
Spearhead wrote:
Socialists and communists killed more of each other than the capitalists and communists ever did.

See how stupid this conversation is?
That had more to do with the personalities involved than economic ideology.

Socialism and Communism are on the same axis, the only difference being the level of intervention on the governments part (with communism being on the extreme end).
actually enmity between socialists and communists has often historically been very overtly ideological and political.

Right, but the specific 'killed each other more than capitalists and communists' was referring to Hitler vs Stalin. Neither really gave a fig about economic ideology, they were focused on their own egos.

It's a matter of degrees, but they still fall into the same ideological family.

Last edited by Jay (2011-05-30 19:07:14)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-30 19:17:03

#106

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

well technically you could say the entire political spectrum from the 1700's onwards falls into the same "ideological family".

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-31 00:37:44

#107

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6771|Moscow, Russia

Jay wrote:
Uzique wrote:
Jay wrote:
That had more to do with the personalities involved than economic ideology.

Socialism and Communism are on the same axis, the only difference being the level of intervention on the governments part (with communism being on the extreme end).
actually enmity between socialists and communists has often historically been very overtly ideological and political.
Right, but the specific 'killed each other more than capitalists and communists' was referring to Hitler vs Stalin. Neither really gave a fig about economic ideology, they were focused on their own egos.

and after this you people are surprised that you are not being taken seriously. /facepalm

Last edited by Shahter (2011-05-31 00:38:14)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-05-31 00:47:18

#108

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6647|USA

Spearhead wrote:
Jay wrote:
Spearhead wrote:

Socialists and communists killed more of each other than the capitalists and communists ever did.

See how stupid this conversation is?
That had more to do with the personalities involved than economic ideology.

Socialism and Communism are on the same axis, the only difference being the level of intervention on the governments part (with communism being on the extreme end).
Well of course they're on the same axis, I'm just pointing out its idiotic to throw words around with such broad meanings... if Obama is a communist, call him a communist, don't call him a "socialist".... lowing calls him everything in the book.

Really trying to figure out what this has to do with being labeled a racist for opposing the president.

2011-05-31 00:48:58

#109

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6597|132 and Bush

I think they're looking for an adequate label.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-05-31 01:22:01

#110

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6647|USA

Kmar wrote:
I think they're looking for an adequate label.

How about the labels that worked for everyone else, conservative, right wing etc..

2011-05-31 01:32:10

#111

venom6: Since day One.; +247|6554|Hungary

lol since when was Hitler a Fascist?

2011-05-31 02:03:04

#112

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|6770|Noizyland

Wut? Hitler was a Fascist. What do you consider him?

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2011-05-31 02:18:36

#113

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6597|132 and Bush

I just figured he was trolling.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2011-05-31 03:39:35

#114

JahManRed: wank; +646|6624|IRELAND

Obama's problem is that he all these great ideas but is more worried about getting re-elected than actually implementing them.
Ive lost any respect I had for him.

2011-05-31 04:59:07

#115

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6466

so obama's problem is that he's a politician? oh, okay. politics is a career not a divine calling. no shit he's strategising.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-05-31 05:04:44

#116

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|6728|St. Andrews / Oslo

JahManRed wrote:
Obama's problem is that he all these great ideas but is more worried about getting re-elected than actually implementing them.
Ive lost any respect I had for him.

Yes, that tends to happen in democracies.

edit - and especially in two-party systems.

Last edited by Jenspm (2011-05-31 05:25:27)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2011-05-31 05:35:04

#117

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5354|London, England

lowing wrote:
Kmar wrote:
I think they're looking for an adequate label.
How about the labels that worked for everyone else, conservative, right wing etc..

Because they don't mean anything. Or rather, they're so arbitrary that they can mean anything. Stop asking us to dumb down our language because you refuse to learn anything.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-31 08:50:12

#118

JahManRed: wank; +646|6624|IRELAND

Uzique wrote:
so obama's problem is that he's a politician? oh, okay. politics is a career not a divine calling. no shit he's strategising.

Yes he is. But he promised change. And I ain't seeing much. Ive never seen a presidential campaign build so heavily on this "change" so you would expect him to have the balls to carry them though. I remember the BBC having a "change" count ticker counting every time he said it in one of his speeches during his election campaign he took to saying it so much.

But as usual a politician puts his and his parties priorities before those of the country.

I suppose you can balance the things he didn't do against the things he might do if he gets a second term. At least that's what he will be counting on to get reelected

2011-05-31 09:16:33

#119

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6538|Texas - Bigger than France

So let me get this straight.

One 70 year old guy who is a little on the radical side of politics steps up and says something stupid...

...and you post it here as fact?

good one chief.

2011-05-31 12:05:59

#120

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6647|USA

Jay wrote:
lowing wrote:
Kmar wrote:
I think they're looking for an adequate label.
How about the labels that worked for everyone else, conservative, right wing etc..
Because they don't mean anything. Or rather, they're so arbitrary that they can mean anything. Stop asking us to dumb down our language because you refuse to learn anything.

Well, I would ask you what the fuck you are talking about, but that imply I cared...so discussion is over with you.

2011-05-31 12:08:06

#121

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6647|USA

Pug wrote:
So let me get this straight.

One 70 year old guy who is a little on the radical side of politics steps up and says something stupid...

...and you post it here as fact?

good one chief.

yes, because you have never heard any other examples of people or groups being called racist because of their opposition to Obama.

2011-05-31 12:10:11

#122

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6493

lowing wrote:
Jay wrote:
lowing wrote:

How about the labels that worked for everyone else, conservative, right wing etc..
Because they don't mean anything. Or rather, they're so arbitrary that they can mean anything. Stop asking us to dumb down our language because you refuse to learn anything.
Well, I would ask you what the fuck you are talking about, but that imply I cared...so discussion is over with you.

hey, can i get on this list too? all i have to do is call you dumb?

2011-05-31 12:14:56

#123

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6686|Tampa Bay Florida

lowing wrote:
yes, because you have never heard any other examples of people or groups being called racist because of their opposition to Obama.

only seen it mentioned at all when one or two crazies at a Tea party rally were holding signs... and thats really just what they were, crazies. Its not a pointless accusation at all. At the same time, its not a reflection of the tea parties political beliefs.

are you saying that the birther movement has nothing to do with race?

this video is relevant...

This is what every person involved SHOULD be doing... McCain handled it with class.

Last edited by Spearhead (2011-05-31 12:16:27)

2011-05-31 12:21:08

#124

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6538|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:
Pug wrote:
So let me get this straight.

One 70 year old guy who is a little on the radical side of politics steps up and says something stupid...

...and you post it here as fact?

good one chief.
yes, because you have never heard any other examples of people or groups being called racist because of their opposition to Obama.

seems to me you have a lot in common with the guy from south carolina

2011-05-31 12:23:24

#125

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6647|USA

Pug wrote:
lowing wrote:
Pug wrote:
So let me get this straight.

One 70 year old guy who is a little on the radical side of politics steps up and says something stupid...

...and you post it here as fact?

good one chief.
yes, because you have never heard any other examples of people or groups being called racist because of their opposition to Obama.
seems to me you have a lot in common with the guy from south carolina

oh do tell, what might that be Pug?

BF2S Forums Well, it is now official. Obama's failures are due to racism. Period!!

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Kmar wrote:

JahManRed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Board footer