Rafael T. Cruz, son of a Cuban who fought for and with Fidel Castro in the revolution

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Re: Rafael T. Cruz, son of a Cuban who fought for and with Fidel Castro in the revolu

Good parents can raise a kid who is bad. Bad parents can raise a kid who is good. Lots of parents raise some of both, so making any assumptions of the kid by looking at the parents can lead one very far astray from the truth.


When a kid has lousy parents the deck is stacked against that kid and there is no way to deny that. Kids are damaged when their parents abandon them. EVERY kid. Some recover, many don't, all carry the scars.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Re: Rafael T. Cruz, son of a Cuban who fought for and with Fidel Castro in the revolu

I can see your rebuttal arguments has been reduced to pointing out typos. Check mate. Ta dah!

Not really. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought maybe you were using a word I wasn't familiar with...
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Re: Rafael T. Cruz, son of a Cuban who fought for and with Fidel Castro in the revolu

I'm not a radical, nor right wing, nor a nutjob. Nevertheless, Obama is a Marxist by any criteria you choose.

How often have we heard from Obama's lips, "The rich aren't paying their fair share"?

Yet, the CBO reports based on official IRS data show the top 1% of income earners paid 39% of all federal income taxes, three times their share of income at 13%. And, the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, paid just 2.7% of total federal income taxes on net that year, while earning 15% of income. That means the top 1% paid almost 15 times as much in federal income taxes as the entire middle 20%, even though the middle 20% earned more income. Moreover, the official data, as reported by CBO and the IRS, show that the bottom 40% of income earners, instead of paying some income taxes to support the federal government, were paid cash by the IRS equal to 10% of federal income taxes as a group on net.

Any normal (non-Marxist, non-Socialist) person would say that such an income tax system is such that “the rich” pay more than their fair share. So why does President Obama keep saying that the rich do not pay their fair share? Is he ignorant? Stupid?

No, he's not ignorant or stupid. The answer is that to President Obama, this is still not fair, because he is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the fact that the top 1% earn more income than the bottom 99% is not fair, no matter how they earn it, fairly or not. So it is not fair unless more is taken from the top 1% until they are left only with what they “need,” as in any true communist system. Paying anything less is not their “fair” share, because in order for it to be fair, they can't have any more than anyone else. Not only is that the logical explanation of Obama’s statements, it is 100% consistent with his own published background.

Notice that Obama keept saying that “the rich” don’t “need” the Bush tax cuts. That "need" word is key. It's lock-step with the fundamental Marxist principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Then we have the 2012 campaign where his new slogan was FORWARD, and with Obama's snazzy logo right in the middle of it.
slogan0501_image.jpg

If you know anything about Marxism, that's a logo that should give you pause. The slogan "Forward" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism, precisely what Obama has been advocating with his class warfare and redistribution of wealth. Not only that, but a publication that began in 1844 as a bi-weekly publication of the Communist League, a publication called "Forward" was founded by some dood named Karl Marx, and had articles in it written by Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin, and posthumously, Leon Trotsky. Then there's the Social Democratic Party of Germany's official publication, "Vorwaerts" (Deutsch for "Forward").

Coincidence? I hardly think so. But, Obama will tell you (and has stated as much) that "Forward" has nothing to do with Marxism, that it simply is a collective euphemism meaning the progressive understanding of the State. The State has always been seen by the left as the engine of history. When Obama says he's about going Forward, he's saying that he thinks the government is the thing that moves us all forward, that the State is the source of Progress.

Hhhhmmmm, "the state is the source of Progress."

You know that's an actual quote of Karl Marx, right? Marx held that human societies progress through class struggle, even more quickly if you can foster class warfare, and then at that point where capitalism inevitably must self-destruct, to be replaced by a classless society, that of socialism of communism, where the State becomes the sole source of Progress, as everyone is dependent upon the State.

I'm not sure Obama is a dyed in the wool Marxist. I think if he were we would be finding a number of dissidents and detractors lying bloody in the streets. In any society currently in existence there are the haves and have nots, The Bourgeois vs. the Proletariat so to speak.

When Obama says "the rich aren't paying their fair share he is merely kowtowing to his base, in effect the "gimmegoobers, to quote a brilliant commentator. The rich, as your facts have shown, pay far, far more than the lower income people. As far as fairness goes, well, I don't know how one might determine what is fair. Being such a relative term, I submit that fairness cannot be defined. If something cannot be defined it does not, in my mind, exist.


Marxist principles are not exclusive to Marxism. All economies fall somewhere on a line between capitalism and socialism; its just a matter of how far they slide, one way or the another. It's hard to argue with the idea that human societies progress through class struggle. I personally believe this is true and am very much a capitalist. If one believes that "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" then the latter would make sense also. Capitalism will not self destruct, as long as free enterprise exists, however, a capitalistic system, by design, eats it's own.


Obama's economic policies are left wing for sure. The good news is he only has 3 more years to further his agenda. The answer is to clean house. "Vote the scum out", to quote that brilliant commentator once again. That is the beauty of our political system. If you don't like what you see it can be changed. That sliding scale has been barreling left for the past few years but if the right people are put in place it can take a 180 turn pretty quickly..
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Re: Rafael T. Cruz, son of a Cuban who fought for and with Fidel Castro in the revolu

"I'm not sure Obama is a dyed in the wool Marxist. I think if he were we would be finding a number of dissidents and detractors lying bloody in the streets."

Far too many citizens are still armed for this to happen. That is the sole reason for the big push on "gun control", which should be called "population control", in other words, controlling the masses. When a government controls the means of defense they control the People. That is the intent of the government, total control. That is the reason for Obama Care. Control. They will use Obama Care to outlaw, or restrict, may things that we take for granted today, including firearms. They will claim it is putting a "strain" on health care costs.

We may very well see the day when there are bodies of detractors laying in the streets. Time moves slowly, but it is moving in that direction right now.

I wonder, maybe off subject, but way does Ohio State University have an armored vehicle? I know they did not "buy" it, but why even have it? Seems a bit extreme for a university. Are they expecting that kind of trouble or are Ohio State tailgaiters that rowdy?

Ohio State University Police bring in military vehicle - The Lantern
 
Last edited:
Top