The Political Brain

[Coito ergo sum]

Really? So how is it you can claim with a straight face that Obama is a far left winger leading a right-wing party (because that's exactly what they are)? Why the hell would a bunch of right-wingers allow a supposed Marxist lead their party?

The Democratic party is a centrist party, like the Republican party. Both grab for the big chunks of voters in the middle. There are conservative democrats and there are liberal democrats, and there are conservative republicans and liberal republicans.

I wasn't the one who said Obama IS a Marxist. I said he leans left and his sympathies lie there. I think that there is a large chunk of the Democratic party that also work toward moving the US "left" - but, that's clearly not all of them. That portion of the Democratic party in the US has to contend with the more conservative elements, like the Blue Dog Democrats, and the old Reagan Democrats.

Plus, most individual voters aren't concerned much with political philosophy. Most voters voted for "change" and "not Bush," and they voted for a guy who made inspiring speeches. This is what won the election for Obama - he won over the great mass of "Independents" who blow with the wind. They hardly follow the news, don't know anything about political philosophy or politics in general, and just voted for somebody to "fix it."

You're not paying attention to what Obama WANTS - he hasn't succeeded in getting what he wants in every area, that's for sure. And, good thing. Based on what Obama wants, has said he wants, and has tried, he would fit in nicely on the left side of the spectrum in most European countries.

You say that like being on the left side of the spectrum in Europe is a bad thing. The left in Europe is mainstream. Europe (and the rest of the western world - particularly Canada and Australia) shit all over the US in most OECD measures. If the US continues to move to the right, as it has done for the last 30 or so years, it is only going to fall further behind the rest of the western world in objective standards.

No - I said it like it's a fact, as I see it. I never said it wasn't mainstream. The US simply hasn't moved to the right for the last 30 or so years - that's a huge misconception. Despite the efforts of right wingers - the US has increased entitlements and social spending, and the US economy has become less capitalistic.

Moreover, the US isn't "falling behind" Europe. Maybe that's worth another thread. But, I'll be happy to discuss any specific "measure" you'd like to bring up.

Also - on the issue of the expiration of tax cuts - if you are attempting to claim that Obama was in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, then you're dead wrong. The Democrats, other than the conservative blue dogs, wanted them to expire. They chickened out, because they saw the negative impact on the economy that was being forcasted and the political suicide that would result if the Republicans could point to the Democrats and say "see! they raised your taxes!" So, they issued a temporary extension, and then claimed victory suggesting that it was a measure to help the economy (despite having said for many years before that the tax cuts actually hurt the economy...)

[pErvinalia]

Ok, sorry to get carried away and lump you in with Seth. This happens when I have to deal with the sort of ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that Seth peddles. But to be clear here, Seth DOES believe the whole western world is socialist. He really DOES believe it will end in GULAGS and millions of deaths. I shit you not. He really believes this stuff. So, as long as you don't believe any of this nonsense, then I will once again apologise for possibly misrepresenting your argument.

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

I haven't seen the thread, but i've seen PZ's piece in which he puts Seth back in his place. :tehe:

Most of it is a mixed economy with more or less degree of government control over different industries, depending on the country. I never said that socialized medicine was socialism - but it's socialist, isn't it?

Well it depends how it is enacted. In many (most) countries, a public UHC co-exists with a private system as well. Anyway, to be fair (to my argument), you were using UHC as one piece of evidence that Obama is a socialist.

...holds many leftist views...I think he leans left. I think he thinks socialism is good.

Well I think you actually said that he is 'far-left' and was a 'marxist' (or at least you were strongly implying it). And if he is a Marxist, then that puts him even further to the left than Socialism.

I don't know why other folks who think socialism is a good thing would be so adamant about demanding that nobody allude to Obama as holding any socialist views. If he doesn't agree with the left leaning folks, why do the left leaning folks like him, vote for him and support his policies? Because his views are right wing? That's why people on the left of the political spectrum vote for him and support his policies? Really?

Come on, you're smarter than this. The american democrats obviously consider themselves on the left of the political spectrum. But my reference to the "right" side of politics was in the context of the democrats in relation to the rest of the western world. They think they are left-wingers voting for a left-winger. But in the context of the wider world, it is patently obvious that they are right-wingers voting for a right-winger (who may have fantasised once about being a marxist - if he even did that).

To remind you, the CONSERVATIVES in (if i'm not mistaken) ALL western democracies other than the US support their respective UHC systems. The right wingers support this (and many other) social programs. I certainly would use that as evidence that the leaders of those parties are socialists.

Some leaders of western countries have been socialists. France has had socialist prime ministers, right?

You are missing the point. The point is that RIGHT-WING parties in the rest of the western world support universal health care. You are using the fact that BO supports (apparently) universal health care as one piece of evidence that he has socialist/marxist sympathies. So by the same token you should also consider the members of those RIGHT-WING parties of virtually all other western democracies as having socialist sympathies. In fact, they have probably greater socialist sympathies (apparently) if you go by all the social programs that the conservatives in the rest of the western world support. You see the silliness of this line of reasoning? And as 914 pointed out, the KKK would support Bush et al over the dems every time (in a two horse race - as my rebuttals were qualified in response to your points). Does this mean that Bush has KKK sympathies? Of course not.

If it was capitalist then it would involve a free market for medical products and services, wouldn't it? We know it's not capitalist - so if it's not socialist - then what would you say it is?

Well clearly it is a mix, isn't it?

And, clearly I did say that most western economies are mixed economies, didn't I?

Sure, i didn't say you didn't. I was just answering your question.

And this proves that social democracies aren't really socialist economies in sheeps clothing. They truly are a mix, and a mix that when more social leaning has proven to be far greater for it's citizens.

Right. Like I said. Mixed economies.

And, here we have that rare instance in these forum debates where two people cast aside preconceived notions and discard the aspersions and actually - gasp - dare we say it - clarify the terms each other is using - understand each other's points of view - and actually reach what might be termed agreement on an issue.

Yes and no. We still have the problem of you equating Obama with a socialist/marxist sympathiser, and the fact that you don't seem to understand that the American Democrats would be a right-wing party in the rest of the western world. Although we do seem to agree that a mixed-economy isn't a stepping stone to KOMMUNIZM!!1!!11!1!! like one particular other poster seems to think. :tehe:

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes and no. We still have the problem of you equating Obama with a socialist/marxist sympathiser, and the fact that you don't seem to understand that the American Democrats would be a right-wing party in the rest of the western world. Although we do seem to agree that a mixed-economy isn't a stepping stone to KOMMUNIZM!!1!!11!1!! like one particular other poster seems to think. :tehe:

Obama is not the American Democrats. Obama is his own man, and where the American Democrats would fall on the Australian political spectrum is irrelevant. The Democratic Party in the US represents about 40% of the population, and that includes not just San Francisco leftists, but also Kentucky blue dog conservative democrats. Obama is among the left of the Democratic Party. He also has to work within the system to get elected. His 'druthers are not what he can achieve. He has his 'druthers and he has what he can accomplish.

[Seth]

Obama, damn commie! The guy is a right wing corporatist christian. Same as the rest of them (us pres)


Obama Budget Proposal: Cuts To Target Working Poor, Middle Class & Students

WASHINGTON -- Less than two months after signing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans into law, President Barack Obama proposed a spending plan to Congress that cuts funding to programs that assist the working poor, help the needy heat their homes, and expand access to graduate-level education, undermining the kind of community-based organizations that helped Obama launch his political career in Chicago.

All you have to do is understand the politics involved. He's playing a revolutionary end-game whose purpose is to sow discontent and anger and breed, well, Marxist revolutionary discontent. His budget is intended to force the Republicans into as difficult a position as possible while simultaneously egging on the proletarian base. If Republicans want spending cuts, Obama's going to force them to cut programs that will piss off the poor, or not cut anything at all, and he'll lay the blame on the Republicans either way. If the House rejects the low-income energy assistance program (LEAP), which it must, then Obama can claim they're not serious about cutting the budget. If they do approve the cuts to LEAP, he'll claim the Republicans are evil.

As usual, he's playing politics with social welfare programs that affect the working poor, in order to create chaos, foment riots and make the Republicans look like evil bastards whenever he's able to.

When you understand his goal, which is to "fundamentally transform" the United States into a Marxist Progressive social utopia, which itself requires, as Van Jones says, "Top down, bottom up, inside out" political and social upheaval, it's easy to understand why he LOOKS LIKE he's pandering to conservatives. But it's all part of a very complex psychological and political manipulation of the middle and lower classes intended to foment class warfare in the United States and bring on economic and social collapse so that the nation will cry out for someone to save them from the chaos...to which the Marxists will reply "Hey, well save you, just give up all your rights and follow us."

That's exactly how Marx planned it, and it's right out of the Communist Manifesto. It's just a more subtle game of political strategy just now. But the end-game is violent Marxist-fomented upheaval and chaos.

He's willing to play whatever role is necessary to advance that ultimate goal, even if it means appearing to cooperate with the right, if it suits his purposes.

[PsychoSerenity]

[Seth]

I'm suggesting that his actions and what the democrats have produced since being in power are anathema to the communist ideal. Any rational analysis would lead one to this point.

Not if you understand how politics actually works. Or what is actually being said. Which you don't.

Obama is a Marxist. He was raised by Marxists, trained by Marxists, and surrounds himself with Marxists and radicals.

The process he's using is a mix of Marxism and mostly Progressivism.

The end game is "fundamental transformation" into some form of socialist society.

The Progressive Administrative State is how he's going to achieve the goal of State Socialism, and institute central planning.

Marxist revolutionary principles of action are what he, and many others, are using to stir up the proletarian base.

He cannot openly announce that his ultimate dreams are Marxist because that would doom him and all his programs, but he is engaging all sorts of Marxist thought and planning, which is easy to see if one looks objectively at his policy statements and associations BEFORE he became President. He must be a crypto-Marxist because Americans will not accept an open Marxist in the White House, so he has allied himself with the Progressives, who are a different form of collectivists. He's taken up the Progressive flag and is waving it with all his might so that the Progressives will follow him and help to crush the power of the conservatives. But in the end, if he succeeds (which he won't) the Progressives will be eaten alive by the Marxists and hard-line socialist left if they can manage it. That's why all the labor unions, and the CPUSA, and every other left-wing organization in the country has been supporting Obama.

But he faces a serious dilemma right now, because the November elections were a kick in the teeth to his ideological dreams. But he's nothing if not canny and adaptable. He believes that his hard-left base understands the setback, and that they will work with him and do what Progressives ALWAYS do when attacked from the right: retreat, change their name, and reorganize. Progressives are NOT of the radical Marxist revolutionary bent. They differ in process from pure Marxists in that they don't want revolutionary overthrow, they want cancerous conversion of the society, and they've been working for it for a hundred years now. Progressivism emerged to counter the failures of radical Marxism, to turn the country towards Marxist and socialist principles without the violence, by the expedient of the Administrative State, which is nothing more or less than a version of State Socialism.

Being a Marxist Progressive, Obama knows that his "fundamental transformation" plan of rapid societal change that he'd hoped for (in his narcissistic, megalomaniacal revolutionary zeal) has failed because he overplayed his hand with the lame-duck Congress that rammed through Progressive programs in a way that infuriated the People, who repudiated them by turning over the House to the conservatives.

Obama badly miscalculated how willing the people of the United States were to turn to collectivism and socialism, so now he's backpedaling furiously and he's trying to both hold on to power and position himself for a second term. In order to position himself for a second term, he MUST move to the center, if not the right, in order to get back the votes he lost by being too radical.

He will now do ANYTHING that will improve his chances of garnering middle-of-the-road voters, including abandoning the radical positions of his early presidency. He will throw "the poor" under the bus, but only in very carefully calculated ways that, by using propaganda and lies, can be plausibly blamed on the right, in hopes of retaining their votes. You can look for the propaganda to cover up precisely the complaints you have elucidated about his move to the right. The propagandists will simply ignore Obama's actual record, and will blame it on the Republicans in the House. This will be a total lie, but Obama's working poor base will easily accept the lies and forget that it was Obama's idea in their zeal to give Obama a second term.

This is all a very, very complex political chess game, and the Progressives are play 50 moves ahead of your patently ignorant understanding of the end-game.

Obama cannot be Che Guevara or Karl Marx and he cannot openly call for violent, radical Marxist revolution, even though he'd like to. He must maintain the facade of being left, but not TOO far left. And he's a very chameleon-like in that regard, as you yourself admit with your excoriations. But he would love to see violent Marxist revolutionaries in the United States foment riots and disorder, and his legion of hard-left, violent, Marxist and Communist revolutionaries, like Van Jones and Bill Ayers, are working hard to make that happen.

Only when you understand that this is a subtle and complex political war, not a proletarian revolution...yet...will you begin to understand what's going on here.

[Seth]

Busted here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/29 ... 730/466083

Citing the Daily Kos as a source for "busting" any criticism of the left is rather like citing the Soviet Politbureau as proof that what the Soviet Central Committee is saying is true.

[Seth]

There's a large number of politically literate and sophisticated US posters on Ratskep who agree that Obama is right-wing by western standards. I'm happy to accept their view.

rEvolutionist, Ratskep is a much more politically adept forum than rationalia. I'm sure you've noticed that. All the librarians and "USA number 1" folks seem to find their way over here. Ratskep has more interesting and well informed posts, but rationalia is, at times anyway, more fun because of the opposing views. There are a lot of forums where everyone pretty much agrees on everything and that can get a little Hoping toontown, Hugin, and stronium dog make their way over here, haha.

That's because Ratskep is a giant leftist circle-jerk and they boot anyone with an opinion to the right of Marx himself out through biased moderation and outright violation of their own rules. There are no ethics at Ratskep that apply to anyone on the right of the political spectrum. They're just a bunch of leftist goons who use Alinsky smear tactics as a substitute for rational argumentation. And now the practice has followed me here. But, the good news is that the rules are different here, and so long as I mind my manners, I'm free to do as I please.

[Seth]

The Communist Party USA actively supported Obama during the primary election and their leader Sam Webb recently stated: "Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House." He went on to enthusiastically discuss Obama's agenda to nationalize the American financial system, the Federal Reserve Bank, and private industries such as energy and various other sectors. "All these – and many other things – are within OUR reach now... an opportunity of a lifetime," said Webb. So, that's what the Communist Party USA thinks of him.

Gosh, do you think they think better of him than they do Bush? I bet the National Socialist Worker's Party and everyone at Stormfront liked Bush and McCain better than Obama. Doesn't make Bush or McCain racists.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.

McCarthy would be proud of you.

McCarthy was right, the US government was, and still is, stuffed with Communist spies, agents, traitors and fellow travelers. It's much worse today that it was in McCarthy's time, and we need another McCarthy who is willing to take on the traitors, communists and socialists in our government, like the one in the White House. I'd prefer to see some heads on pikes this time, or perhaps traitors hanging from light poles on Constitution Avenue, but I'll take what I can get for the moment, and Obama is on the ropes right now, which means he has to pander to the middle by moving to the right. Hopefully that will piss off the hard-left enough to run another Marxist against him in 2012, which will dilute the vote.

That's the problem with Marxists, they have little self-control, and when one of their leaders doesn't measure up to their idea of acceptable revolutionary zeal, they tend to kill them. Obama is likely at far greater risk of assassination from anarchists and radical Marxists than he is from the right. Typically presidential assassins are either pure nut jobs, or from the political left.

This is a good thing, though, that the radical Marxist left is generally unable to contain their anger at not achieving quick victory, because it shows the rest of us just how dangerous they really are, and why we need to extirpate Progressivism and Marxism from our society.


Glenn Beck's doing a fair job, and he doesn't even have subpoena powers. And the people responded to him and retook the House.

[JOZeldenrust]

The Communist Party USA actively supported Obama during the primary election and their leader Sam Webb recently stated: "Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House." He went on to enthusiastically discuss Obama's agenda to nationalize the American financial system, the Federal Reserve Bank, and private industries such as energy and various other sectors. "All these – and many other things – are within OUR reach now... an opportunity of a lifetime," said Webb. So, that's what the Communist Party USA thinks of him.

Gosh, do you think they think better of him than they do Bush? I bet the National Socialist Worker's Party and everyone at Stormfront liked Bush and McCain better than Obama. Doesn't make Bush or McCain racists.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.

McCarthy would be proud of you.

McCarthy was right, the US government was, and still is, stuffed with Communist spies, agents, traitors and fellow travelers. It's much worse today that it was in McCarthy's time, and we need another McCarthy who is willing to take on the traitors, communists and socialists in our government, like the one in the White House. I'd prefer to see some heads on pikes this time, or perhaps traitors hanging from light poles on Constitution Avenue, but I'll take what I can get for the moment, and Obama is on the ropes right now, which means he has to pander to the middle by moving to the right. Hopefully that will piss off the hard-left enough to run another Marxist against him in 2012, which will dilute the vote.

That's the problem with Marxists, they have little self-control, and when one of their leaders doesn't measure up to their idea of acceptable revolutionary zeal, they tend to kill them. Obama is likely at far greater risk of assassination from anarchists and radical Marxists than he is from the right. Typically presidential assassins are either pure nut jobs, or from the political left.

This is a good thing, though, that the radical Marxist left is generally unable to contain their anger at not achieving quick victory, because it shows the rest of us just how dangerous they really are, and why we need to extirpate Progressivism and Marxism from our society.


Glenn Beck's doing a fair job, and he doesn't even have subpoena powers. And the people responded to him and retook the House.

You don't epect to be taken seriously, do you? Advocating McCarthyism, honestly? We should exclude people from public life because of their political convictions, or even the political convictions of the people they hang out with? Really? I thought you valued freedom.

Guess I was mistaken.

[Seth]

Really? So how is it you can claim with a straight face that Obama is a far left winger leading a right-wing party (because that's exactly what they are)? Why the hell would a bunch of right-wingers allow a supposed Marxist lead their party?

The Democratic party is a centrist party, like the Republican party. Both grab for the big chunks of voters in the middle. There are conservative democrats and there are liberal democrats, and there are conservative republicans and liberal republicans.

The democrat party is stuffed to the gills, and has been co-opted by the PROGRESSIVES, who are something completely different than the classic Democrat of US history. There are also Progressives in the REPUBLICAN party.

I wasn't the one who said Obama IS a Marxist. I said he leans left and his sympathies lie there. I think that there is a large chunk of the Democratic party that also work toward moving the US "left" - but, that's clearly not all of them. That portion of the Democratic party in the US has to contend with the more conservative elements, like the Blue Dog Democrats, and the old Reagan Democrats.

Right. The left wing of the Democrat party are the Progressives and the Marxists, who are working together, but who will eventually themselves go to war over who ultimately runs things; the Progressive Administrative State or the Marxist/Communist Cult of Personality.

Plus, most individual voters aren't concerned much with political philosophy. Most voters voted for "change" and "not Bush," and they voted for a guy who made inspiring speeches. This is what won the election for Obama - he won over the great mass of "Independents" who blow with the wind. They hardly follow the news, don't know anything about political philosophy or politics in general, and just voted for somebody to "fix it."

Yup, exactly. The political center and left were so sick of Bush (who, by the way, is a Progressive...Woodrow Wilson is one of Bush's idols), and the blacks didn't care what Obama's politics were so long as he was black, that none of them asked "Change into what?" "Fundamental transformation into what?"

Well, now they know (thanks in large part to Glenn Beck and Fox News), and they strongly repudiated him in the November election, after seeing just what he had in mind.

You're not paying attention to what Obama WANTS - he hasn't succeeded in getting what he wants in every area, that's for sure. And, good thing. Based on what Obama wants, has said he wants, and has tried, he would fit in nicely on the left side of the spectrum in most European countries.

You say that like being on the left side of the spectrum in Europe is a bad thing.

It is a bad thing. Europe is almost entirely socialist and collectivist, and that is, ipso facto, a bad thing.

[Seth]

The Communist Party USA actively supported Obama during the primary election and their leader Sam Webb recently stated: "Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House." He went on to enthusiastically discuss Obama's agenda to nationalize the American financial system, the Federal Reserve Bank, and private industries such as energy and various other sectors. "All these – and many other things – are within OUR reach now... an opportunity of a lifetime," said Webb. So, that's what the Communist Party USA thinks of him.

Gosh, do you think they think better of him than they do Bush? I bet the National Socialist Worker's Party and everyone at Stormfront liked Bush and McCain better than Obama. Doesn't make Bush or McCain racists.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.

McCarthy would be proud of you.

McCarthy was right, the US government was, and still is, stuffed with Communist spies, agents, traitors and fellow travelers. It's much worse today that it was in McCarthy's time, and we need another McCarthy who is willing to take on the traitors, communists and socialists in our government, like the one in the White House. I'd prefer to see some heads on pikes this time, or perhaps traitors hanging from light poles on Constitution Avenue, but I'll take what I can get for the moment, and Obama is on the ropes right now, which means he has to pander to the middle by moving to the right. Hopefully that will piss off the hard-left enough to run another Marxist against him in 2012, which will dilute the vote.

That's the problem with Marxists, they have little self-control, and when one of their leaders doesn't measure up to their idea of acceptable revolutionary zeal, they tend to kill them. Obama is likely at far greater risk of assassination from anarchists and radical Marxists than he is from the right. Typically presidential assassins are either pure nut jobs, or from the political left.

This is a good thing, though, that the radical Marxist left is generally unable to contain their anger at not achieving quick victory, because it shows the rest of us just how dangerous they really are, and why we need to extirpate Progressivism and Marxism from our society.


Glenn Beck's doing a fair job, and he doesn't even have subpoena powers. And the people responded to him and retook the House.

You don't epect to be taken seriously, do you? Advocating McCarthyism, honestly? We should exclude people from public life because of their political convictions, or even the political convictions of the people they hang out with? Really? I thought you valued freedom.

Guess I was mistaken.

I suggest you read "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans before you swallow the anti-McCarthy propaganda too deeply. The fact is that the Communists were infiltrating our government with the express purpose of damaging it and bringing it down by the direction of the Soviet Central Committee. What you don't know, because you've swallowed the propaganda, is that every single charge that McCarthy made against anyone during HIS investigations was proven to be accurate and true. He was a very, very careful investigator and never made an accusation without compelling documentary evidence. The relatively recent release of records, both in the US and from the archives of the KGB (the Venona papers) prove that McCarthy's work was honest and forthright, and that his accusations were proven true, and that there was concerted conspiracies both from the Communists and from the power elite in Washington who did not want to be humiliated and embarrassed by what McCarthy had found, to cover up, conceal and destroy evidence and to malign and lie about McCarthy to marginalize him and his investigations.

Evans has inspected the original documents and puts together a compelling case that McCarthy was one of the true heroes of the Cold War, and that many powerful politicians in Washington attacked and lied about him to protect their own political careers because THEY had failed in their duty under FEDERAL LAW, to expunge known Communists from our government.

Now I expect you to bring up the Hollywood Ten, so I'll point out to you that McCarthy had nothing whatever to do with the HOUSE committee on unAmerican activities, which, lest you fail to understand, was a HOUSE committee, and that the Hollywood Ten were blacklisted by HOLLYWOOD, not Washington.

McCarthy was a Senator, and the hearings he participated in were run by Millard Tydings, a Democrat who deliberately ignored and covered up the evidence that McCarthy brought forward for his own personal political reasons unassociated with the truth in McCarthy's research.

Go read the book, if you have the intellectual and ethical courage to have your preconceptions shattered by facts. It's all there, laid out in painful detail with citations to original sources. Become educated about history from some source other than the leftist Wikipedia entry and Communist propaganda that's been smearing McCarthy all along. He was right, and he was a hero of the United States for his dedication to rooting out Communists in our government. One day his reputation will be restored and he will be acknowledged as a patriot and defender of the Constitution, but not until the leftist propaganda is debunked, which Evans has conclusively and authoritatively done.

And yes, Communists and Marxist and other collectivist radicals are a danger to the Republic and must be kept out of public office in the United States, and better yet out of the United States entirely, because they have as their ideological goal violent overthrow of the Constitution and government of the United States, which is sedition and treason.

I value freedom for those who value freedom and respect the freedom of others. But I'm not so stupid as to allow those who wish to enslave us all to hide behind the flag in their quest to destroy freedom, be they collectivists or religious fanatics bent on establishing a world Islamic Caliphate.

[sandinista]

Ok, sorry to get carried away and lump you in with Seth. This happens when I have to deal with the sort of ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that Seth peddles. But to be clear here, Seth DOES believe the whole western world is socialist. He really DOES believe it will end in GULAGS and millions of deaths. I shit you not. He really believes this stuff. So, as long as you don't believe any of this nonsense, then I will once again apologise for possibly misrepresenting your argument.

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

Actually, CES agrees with Seth on most ideological issues. Judging from his posts anyway. He keeps mentioning the "abortion thread" as his opposition to seth. He disagrees on one issue as far as I can tell. Same librarian, knee jerk anti communist/socialist, pro imperialism, pro neo liberal free market capitalist stance.

[Seth]

Ok, sorry to get carried away and lump you in with Seth. This happens when I have to deal with the sort of ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that Seth peddles. But to be clear here, Seth DOES believe the whole western world is socialist. He really DOES believe it will end in GULAGS and millions of deaths. I shit you not. He really believes this stuff. So, as long as you don't believe any of this nonsense, then I will once again apologise for possibly misrepresenting your argument.

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

Actually, CES agrees with Seth on most ideological issues. Judging from his posts anyway. He keeps mentioning the "abortion thread" as his opposition to seth. He disagrees on one issue as far as I can tell. Same librarian, knee jerk anti communist/socialist, pro imperialism, pro neo liberal free market capitalist stance.

And yours is the same knee-jerk, ignorant, communist/socialist pro-revolutionary propagandistic pro-enslavement liberal fascist collectivist stance.

By the way, it's "LIBERTARIAN" not "librarian." The former is a political and social system, the latter is employment in a repository for books. Big difference.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ok, sorry to get carried away and lump you in with Seth. This happens when I have to deal with the sort of ridiculous conspiracy nonsense that Seth peddles. But to be clear here, Seth DOES believe the whole western world is socialist. He really DOES believe it will end in GULAGS and millions of deaths. I shit you not. He really believes this stuff. So, as long as you don't believe any of this nonsense, then I will once again apologise for possibly misrepresenting your argument.

I disagree with Seth all the time. Check out the "secular debate about abortion" thread.

Actually, CES agrees with Seth on most ideological issues. Judging from his posts anyway. He keeps mentioning the "abortion thread" as his opposition to seth. He disagrees on one issue as far as I can tell. Same librarian, knee jerk anti communist/socialist, pro imperialism, pro neo liberal free market capitalist stance.

Actually, I haven't agreed with Seth on most issues at all.

I didn't "keep" mentioning the abortion thread. I mentioned it.

I disagree with Seth on THIS issue, as a matter of fact. I don't think Obama is a crypto-Marxist whatever, etc. I don't agree with the recent suggestion that McCarthy was right.

Frankly, it's hard to think of where Seth and I agree. I think we both oppose the health care reform enacted in the US. So that might be one. I think we oppose it for different reasons though.

But, you've never been much concerned about accuracy. It doesn't serve your agenda.