Most republicans are parrots to conservative talk radio. They repeat what they are told to believe by the political propaganda they hear on conservative talk radio.
Hugo Chávez and Cristina Kirchner? I thought you later said they were extreme-left and that you were suggesting that there was a distinction between an extreme-left politician and a socialist one.
If not, then I understand that POV - I agree that Obama is no Chávez. But IMO it's appropriate to call socialists to, say, the members of the Socialist International - and I can't imagine Chávez being invited to the club any time soon. Is Raul Castro a socialist leader as well?
It seems to me a very restrictive and radical use of "socialist" though. I certainly hope it's not the concept shared by the majority of the democrats that see "socialism" as a positive thing.
I've listed more than two: the TARP extension, the stimulus, the budgets.
Most republicans are parrots to conservative talk radio. They repeat what they are told to believe by the political propaganda they hear on conservative talk radio.
None of those are socialist policies in my opinion. Or, better said, I don't see how those policies scream "socialist" at Obama but not at any of his predecessors in the past century.
Both of them will tell you they identify with socialism. I agree with them.
Fidel was.
As already stated on this thread, the definition of socialism is like assholes: everybody got one.
Parrot, meet parrotter.![]()
logic class? Is that a math type class?
You've never heard of a logic class?
I believe it.
Logic class can be a math class, a CS class, an engineering class, and a philosophy class rolled into one... whatever you want to make it. Every one of those fields you're completely screwed if you don't have it down cold. You may not be required to take the class for each of those degrees, but you better have studied and understood it on your own then.
Roughly, yes.
Sweet Jesus.
You need a class for logic. That is sad. Accounting degrees I guess don't need them.
Let me know when you masted field manual 3-06.
pussies.
I didn't take logic in college, but I certainly knew the class existed.
Pussy.
I can understand not having taken the class, man -- but not being aware that there is a class? Accounting is based on arithmetic, which is based on geometry, which is based on logic.
+++++++++
Edit:
Looks like CD beat me to it.
Anyways, where on the political spectrum do we place a law which would require by law individuals to hand over a significant amount of their income and wealth to Fortune 100 corporations annually with certain penalties for non-compliance?
Lots of your arguments prove you could use a logic class, provided you could pass it. I have my doubts.
I would say the same to you baseline. In fact it's pretty hillarious that the ones making a big deal about a logic class use logic so sparingly. I still find a logic class sad - especially with the alumni it has. If you need to spend money on learning logic-godspeed.
It's really hilarious that you were completely ignorant of the existence of logic classes. You display that kind of ignorance so often.
sort of like..if saying re is a bad thing .. that would logically conclude that anyone who uses the word is wrong.. oh wait one was democrat never mind...
You would say the same because you don't understand logic in your arguments. For example, I remember this conversation where you tried to discredit Darwin's book as trash with this line:
Of course you ducked it, as you should have considering how re ed your argument was.
I was more intrigued of the curriculum of a logic class.
I used a marx quote. That's great and it shows your illogical retort to a quote I put. Good job. I would love to know how you could logically say a quote from someone else is an argument of mine.
So you were ignorant of that too.
You used a Marx quote as a claim to invalidate Darwin's work.
Your response is so illogical how can anyone respond to it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)