Where is the US economy headed?

@plainoldme,

You are correct, you did not post a linnk.
But you did post the text of the wiki article I linked to.

@spendius,

Your views on evolution make you unworthy of consideration.

Sugar, all totalitarians are on the right. Just read the Texas GOP's platform. Ignorant bullies all.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Yes, and the pieces of the text I posted demonstrated that throughout its history, the name of the party changed back and forth to include/eliminate the word socialist.

My posts also demonstrated that Hitler had to be persuaded to accept the final name of the party as we know it from the history of WWII. The version of the name he proposed has a very different meaning from the one that was finally accepted. To be a "social revolutionary" is not the same as to be a "socialist." Consider, a social revolutionary might include a person from India seeking to dissolve the caste system or an American proponent of gay marriage and neither person approves of, or is even considering, socialism.

Furthermore, Hitler personally was against many things that communists and socialists favor as the piece I cut and pasted notes.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Your views on evolution make you unworthy of consideration.

But you have considered me right there POM. Do you behave unworthily in other aspects of life.

You are also supposed to have me on Ignore so how do you know my views on evolution let alone that they render me unworthy of consideration despite the fact that those views of mine have been a principle feature of two long running threads.

But that's passe really. POM wrote--about okie--

Quote:

I suppose he lives under electric power lines and electricity pulsing above him penetrates his body, giving him knowledge of a preternatural kind.

This supposition, sarcastic and gratuitous as it is, has nowhere near as good a scientific foundation that the supposition, based on POM's use of the Ignore function to screen out distrurbances to her settled sentiments, that she was one of those babies who, when handed to a stranger to hold, screamed the patterns off the wallpaper.

And her remark also has the effect of raising the anxiety levels of those who live near power lines that the pulsing electricity has a deleterious effect upon their mental states despite scientific research to the contrary. As it is known scientifically that increased anxiety causes sickness her remark easily is seen as one tending to cause illness.

In case anyone thinks that these considerations are off topic I might remind them that ever since female persons were given the vote and came to have a decisive influence on political matters, the direction of the American economy becomes dependent on their attitudes and if POM's are anything to go by, which I have just shown to be idiotic, contradictory and given to blurts of gratuitious and smug self-comforting assertions which care not a jot for the welfare of others, that direction can safely be predicted to be towards the edge of a cliff.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Sugar, all totalitarians are on the right.

Even if we did not have the other mountains of evidence, that statement alone amply demonstrates or renders your opinions to be totally without any credibility whatsoever. In fact, I wonder why I have wasted any time on any of your posts, even readin them is a waste, let alone bothering to try to convince you of the error of your reasoning process.

Pom, I bear no animosity toward you at all, but seriously you are so far into left field as to be almost a little mentally off. I think you may need some help? I am serious about that. I've always thought of leftists as being liberal and leftward leaning, but I perhaps mistakenly thought they would at least have some mild measure of ability to reason. I may need to rethink that impression for you. Seriously, I think you need to talk to someone about some of your deep seated resentments, hatreds, and indoctrinations, to see if something could be done to help you. In contrast, cyclops being an example, he is an ultra leftist, but I think he still has some ability to reason, and might still have a conservative or common sense bone somewhere in his body. In fact, he claims to have been somewhat conservative at points in his past, so maybe there is some hope there.

2 Replies

@okie,

I am not, by the way, an 'ultra-leftist.' I am a Liberal, but hardly some sort of Communist or revolutionary.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Okay, sorry. Maybe I overstated it by using the term "ultra-leftist."

Sometimes its a tough call, for example Obama, I think he is an ultra-leftist down deep in his heart, however he may not come forth with the ultra part of his liberal tendencies in all of his policies. So it becomes a guessing game for liberals that are not entirely honest, but in your case I believe you are honest and have been honest with your opinions here. I agree you are a liberal, but perhaps not an extremist yourself. Again, sorry.

2 Replies

Please refrain from spamming posts across multiple topics, Ican.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Okay, sorry. Maybe I overstated it by using the term "ultra-leftist."

Sometimes its a tough call, for example Obama, I think he is an ultra-leftist down deep in his heart, however he may not come forth with the ultra part of his liberal tendencies in all of his policies. So it becomes a guessing game for liberals that are not entirely honest, but in your case I believe you are honest and have been honest with your opinions here. I agree you are a liberal, but perhaps not an extremist yourself. Again, sorry.

No worries. Nobody likes being labeled an 'extremist,' after all.

I think we should judge people by their actions, not what we suspect their opinions are, don't you?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

It's well known Cyclo that some people are faking in their actions and that their opinions are sometimes the opposite of what the actions imply.

I prefer to judge people by odd things they say when off guard or when in a passion of one sort or another.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No worries. Nobody likes being labeled an 'extremist,' after all.

I think we should judge people by their actions, not what we suspect their opinions are, don't you?

Cycloptichorn

I agree with that. You may have noticed however that I mentioned in the case of Obama, we have to guess about the guy to a large extent, as to what he really is about and what he really believes. I think that most people have been guessing about the guy from the day he entered politics and especially during the campaign there was a wide divergence of opinion about who and what he really is, he is not an open book so to speak, he is instead kind of a cryptic personality.

With some politicians, one can honestly feel that what you see is what you get, there is little deception, and I think I would classify Bush as one of those people, he is pretty much what he portrays himself to be. In contrast, ever since Obama has entered the scene, I have made it no secret that I belong to the group of people that does not trust Obama, that he is possibly far more radical than what the press has led most people to believe and what he himself attempts to portray himself as. I am of course repeating myself, but I base this upon his actions and associations with radicals, and perhaps some of his words when he lets them slip occasionally. Otherwise, most of his words are carefully crafted to cloak himself as some kind of moderate or middle of the road guy, but I don't believe it.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I agree with that. You may have noticed however that I mentioned in the case of Obama, we have to guess about the guy to a large extent, as to what he really is about and what he really believes.

Wait - why do we have to do this? Why not judge him by his actions and the programs he has proposed?

I don't think you have any real reason to speculate about some hidden agenda the guy has, other than the fact that you wish to damn him through innuendo and association.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The people he appoints to his administration are part of his actions. When you appoint radicals, it generally indicates that he has some agreement and identification with them, and agreement with how they will perform their jobs, likely in radical directions. And this is not inconsistent with his previous associations with radicals.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

The people he appoints to his administration are part of his actions. When you appoint radicals, it generally indicates that he has some agreement and identification with them. And this is not inconsistent with his previous associations with radicals.

None of the people he has appointed are radicals, any more than I am an 'ultra-leftist.' You have a real flair for exaggeration, Okie, and you turn right around and use those exaggerations to justify damning people - in direct contradiction to the actions that they have taken. It isn't logically sound in the slightest, and it's why most people - even Republicans here on A2K - don't agree with your assertions.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Surely you do not wish to go there, cyclops? Are you that blind to the radicals that have been appointed? If need be, we could spend much time reviewing all of them, but for now I will mention just one of the many, Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar, a black activist with strong anti-white views, also a member of the American communist Party and San Francisco Communist Party. He also claimed Bush caused the 911 attack and wanted Bush investigated by the World Court for war crimes. Now, I think being openly communist and claiming Bush instigated 9/11 and should also be tried for war crimes is not only radical, but a dangerous personality. As I said, this is but one example, and there are many more. I would find it frankly a waste of time to cite all of the radicals appointed by Obama to you when the information is readily available and commonly known to folks that have just a casual knowledge of today's current events. If you are apparently too dense to have known about them already, I doubt there is much hope for you to accept the information when given to you. I am about to revert to my previous impression of you, that you are so married to liberal politics that you are virtually blinded to reality, and you really are perhaps an ultra radical yourself. After all, if you think Obama has not appointed ultra radicals, then your understanding of what an ultra radical is would certainly be different than mine, and what I think most reasonable Americans would also think.

1 Reply

@okie,

Do you have evidence to back up these allegations of yours, Okie? Or are they just something you read on a website somewhere and took as gospel without proof? Post some links documenting Jones' involvement with the 'San Francisco Communist Party.' My guess is that you will have nothing other than similar smears from right-wing websites, with no real documentation.

This attempt by you to damn by association is nothing more than Bullshit, Okie. Seriously. I repeat once again that you don't know what a Radical even is...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Oh come on, cyclops. These are more than allegations, in fact that is why Jones was withdrawn or he resigned. Cyclops, you need to become more informed. If you want to become more informed, the following website would be a start, but simply google Van Jones and you will get more information than you will ever need, more than I can waste my time here in giving you.
One last comment, you are not going to convince me that when Obama appoints such radicals, that he is not aware of who and what they are. I believe he appoints them because he believes that they think like he does.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/09/06/van_jones_resigns.html
"White House Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy Over Past Activism"

1 Reply

@okie,

Nothing in that link says anything at all about the 'San Francisco Communist Party.' So did you just make that up? It appears so.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

No, of course not, I did not make that up. I saw it on another website. The site I posted did have this:
"His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, had also become an issue."
So if you wish to be real technical, it would take more research, but maybe it was not actually the communist party, but it might have been this "STORM" organization that had Marxist roots, that the other website may have been referring to. If you wish to nitpick, I don't see much difference in the seriousness of what he was involved in, and in fact the STORM organization was probably just as radical as the communists, and perhaps even more so. After all, the organization's name openly admits they are revolutionary in nature, which would obviously be very radical.

Come on, cyclops, wake up.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

No, of course not, I did not make that up. I saw it on another website. The site I posted did have this:
"His one-time involvement with the Bay Area radical group Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), which had Marxist roots, had also become an issue."
So if you wish to be real technical, it would take more research, but maybe it was not actually the communist party, but it might have been this "STORM" organization that had Marxist roots, that the other website may have been referring to.

So, you did make it up. You just created the words and wrote them as if they were true, but they were not. Do you believe this is a good way to get people to trust what you write - to make things up?

Quote:

If you wish to nitpick, I don't see much difference in the seriousness of what he was involved in, and in fact the STORM organization was probably just as radical as the communists, and perhaps even more so. After all, the organization's name openly admits they are revolutionary in nature, which would obviously be very radical.

Ah, we're back to 'probably' and 'perhaps.' The words which define your criticisms to a T.

Are you figuring out why people don't find your characterizations to be persuasive, yet? They rely on the shallowest of analysis and liberal amounts of suspicion and conjecture.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know