One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
We have ordinary people from all over the world reporting information that the media simply doesn't release to you.
Read this:
 

We are not some political camp blindly advocating an agenda by following a pre-set list of bullet points. Instead, we let individuals voice their opinions and back them with facts and logical reasoning.

Among our users we have influential business owners in various industries, active and retired military, former and current government employees who share their insight and provide unprecedented level of access to information that you won't find anywhere else. Some speak anonymously using aliases, others disclose their identities (it's up to them), and we provide a way for you to hear what they have to say. Some of them only post information on our website and nowhere else! So you won't find it anywhere.

We are a community of people who gathered together specifically to discuss politics and uncover the truth behind what's happening in the world today, right this minute.

Daily, you'll be receiving our political forum digest with the latest hottest news, analysis, discussions and some things the media simply won't report to you.

Here are just some of the things being uncovered on One Political Plaza right now:

• What hurts the economy more: the welfare or the defense spending? (The answer isn't what you thought. I guarantee it.)

• Do immigrants bring more money into the economy by being consumers or do they send more "back home"? We have some hard numbers posted.

(What if we take into account the new immigrants from Syria currently headed to the US? How does that change the immigration debate?)

• Why do politicians lie? You hear people always say that politicians are all crooks. But why is that? Why can't there be more honest politicians? Or can there? (This will surprise you, as it surprised me when I found out.)

• Is the minimum wage all about the union contracts or about actually helping those at the bottom? Does it actually help? (This will definitely change your mind about the issue.)

• Furthering LGBT equality rights through lawsuits to the point of forcing businesses to serve against their beliefs. Does that violate the rights of business owners? Or does the notion of equality trump it all?

• Will Obamacare actually solve the healthcare problem in the long run, or is just a fad that will be reversed eventually? (Some interesting arguments in favor of one of the sides. Something you probably haven't considered.)

• Join in and see for yourself. This will shock you. And it's all completely FREE!

• Let me repeat that. Since for some reason a lot of people contact us asking if the membership is really free or if there is some catch: we are a social website for people who like to discuss politics and know what's happening out there. So we don't sell anything, we don't solicit for political donations, and we don't work as a recruiting front for any party or agenda. It's as simple as that.

Here is how to proceed:

Enter your name and e-mail address below, and you'll be instantly added to our political mailing list distribution. Right away, you'll get access to more thought provoking content than you could imagine. And you'll get all that for free, completely unrestricted.

Don't delay! Join the best political community on the Internet.

First name:

E-mail address:

(The next digest will be released in just a few hours. So if you don't sign up now, you'll miss everything covered in it.)

 
Main
DHS insider: It’s about to get very ugly
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 next>>
Jun 11, 2013 11:17:20   #
zonkedout1
 
oldroy wrote:
How about applying these words from that outstanding Democrat Congresswoman from California to this story? Then you can tell us whether either of them is fiction or not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIA1lQBqH1s


That woman is anything but ashamed or subtle.
 
Jun 11, 2013 11:18:45   #
AvJoe
 
Instead of a Communist conspiracy it is necessary to look at this as a political conspiracy. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot act there has been a push to limit free speech and action in this country. The NSA has become the gestopo of the U.S. The threat to our rights under 1st, 4th and even 5th amendments are threatened not by the left but from the right. It has been said that safety comes at the cost of freedom. Now President Obama, who I supported not only is giving in to the pressure to preserve "safety" but has made statements which support and preserve secrecy. While some secrecy is necessary to drag it to this level threatens the very fiber of this country. Unless of course we the people rise up to protect our freedom. It is not to late......yet!
Jun 11, 2013 11:22:01   #
zonkedout1
 
KG wrote:
I don't think you guys understand what Marxism is.

And I think either the author of that article also has no clue or he does have a clue but assumes that his readers don't. (Which seems to be the correct assumption, at least based on your replies.) So he uses a scary word for dramatic effect even though it makes no sense in the context.

Here is Karl Marx's (misguided) explanation for the need of the tyranny in a nutshell:

There is the rich elite and then there are the poor masses. We need to take from the rich and give to the poor to create a better society. The rich, obviously, won't give up their riches voluntarily. Therefore, we need to use force to take from them. This is what the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is based on.

Now tell me, why would the owners of Ford, McDonalds, IBM, Chase, etc. ( you know, the people who pay for the presidential campaigns, run the congress, and pretty much own the country) would ever want to see themselves in a situation when they are being forced to give up what they have under the tyranny of the poor? And it's not just the super-rich who would be targeted. That includes the politicians on both sides who are millionaires (pretty much all of them). And their successful friends and family members. Why would they want that? The hit list of a typical Marxist would contain Obama himself (and Pelosi and pretty much every other democratic leader out there).

So the whole Marxism reference doesn't make any sense. Which leads me to believe that the whole article is fiction.

The author should have stopped at this: "It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list."

This is believable. The government breaking laws and moral boundaries to squash dissent is believable. It happens all the time. Obama does it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Bush did it. And so on. And whoever else comes after Obama will be doing it too. And it's getting worse.

But none of them will ever do anything that might turn themselves (and all their donors) into the repressed class.

There are different types of and causes for tyrannies. And we might see tyranny in the US someday. But it will most definitely not be based on the Marxist values.

The ending of the article is the conservative equivalent of the "Oh my God, Obama is going to pay my gas bill" stupidity seen on the left. And such stupidity hurts the conservatives.
I don't think you guys understand what Marxism is.... (show quote)


Tyranny is tyranny and all forms should be fought against. Because, when someone you like is in power, it's all well and good, but they aren't always going to be there. And someday, the barrel of the gun may be pointed in a direction you don't like. The force you ascribe to becomes something ugly to you. But, it was already ugly to someone else and you just nodded your head in approval.
Jun 11, 2013 11:57:28   #
LAwrence
 
Realy; do you think Marx realy believed what he wrote?
Anyway, we are not amarxist state, we are now a fascist state. What the government doesn't own it controls completely.
Jun 11, 2013 12:33:36   #
russ1945
 
Definition -- "Obamunism" -- Obama and the people around him are are Obamunists -- Obama is the prototypical Obamunist -- a blend of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Capone, Billy Sunday, Boss Tweed, Muhammad, and Tupac -- they are hybrids -- they use all the tools -- whatever will get them power and keep them in power.

An Obamunist believes the orders come from them, the enlightened ones, through the bureaucracy, to the People. They wrap their stuff up in fancy slogans, but their goal is power -- and they believe they are entitled to it.

(from theobamafile.com)
Jun 11, 2013 14:19:47   #
The Dutchman (suspended)
 
russ1945 wrote:
Definition -- "Obamunism" -- Obama and the people around him are are Obamunists -- Obama is the prototypical Obamunist -- a blend of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Capone, Billy Sunday, Boss Tweed, Muhammad, and Tupac -- they are hybrids -- they use all the tools -- whatever will get them power and keep them in power.

An Obamunist believes the orders come from them, the enlightened ones, through the bureaucracy, to the People. They wrap their stuff up in fancy slogans, but their goal is power -- and they believe they are entitled to it.

(from theobamafile.com)
Definition -- "Obamunism" -- Obama and t... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
And the useful idiots that support this obozo are to stupid to comprehend the FACT that the obozo was educated in these teachings and hates this country so much he is implementing those teachings...
 
Jun 11, 2013 14:41:15   #
The Dutchman (suspended)
 
AvJoe wrote:
Instead of a Communist conspiracy it is necessary to look at this as a political conspiracy. Ever since 9/11 and the Patriot act there has been a push to limit free speech and action in this country.
The Patriot act was to protect this country against terrorists and the obozo has declared all normal people in this country to be terrorist there by allowing him to push the envelope to what ever ends he sees fit to control everyone in the U.S.
The NSA has become the gestopo of the U.S.
Under the obozo's design to form his own private army (brown Shirts if you will) to completely control our daily lives.
The threat to our rights under 1st, 4th and even 5th amendments are threatened not by the left but from the right.
Extreme bovine excrement! The obozo has taken a good useful National Security program and turned it into his own spy network to use against "We The People" just like Hitler did calling for people to spy on their neighbors!
It has been said that safety comes at the cost of freedom. Now President Obama, who I supported
Well I guess you pretty well described your self to what you really are as defined here:
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-2341-1.html
not only is giving in to the pressure to preserve "safety" but has made statements which support and preserve secrecy. While some secrecy is necessary to drag it to this level threatens the very fiber of this country. Unless of course we the people rise up to protect our freedom. It is not to late......yet!
Instead of a Communist conspiracy it is necessary ... (show quote)
Jun 11, 2013 14:57:59   #
The Dutchman (suspended)
 
KG wrote:
I don't think you guys understand what Marxism is.

Marxism is an economic and sociopolitical worldview and method of socioeconomic inquiry based upon a materialist interpretation of historical development, a dialectical view of social change,
Just like your beloved messiah with his change you can believe in!

and an analysis of class-relations within society and their application in the analysis and critique of the development of capitalism. In the mid-to-late 19th century, the intellectual tenets of Marxism was inspired by two German philosophers: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxist analyses and methodologies have influenced multiple political ideologies and social movements throughout history. Marxism encompasses an economic theory, a sociological theory, a philosophical method, and a revolutionary view of social change. There is no one definitive Marxist theory; Marxist analysis has been applied to a variety of different subjects and has been misconcieved and modified during the course of its development, resulting in multiple and sometimes contradictory theories that fall under the rubric of Marxism or Marxian analysis.
Marxism is based on a materialist understanding of societal development, taking as its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena — including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology — arise (or at the least by which they are directly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, for which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production (most notably technology) improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress. These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in the form of class struggle.
According to Marxist analysis, class conflict within capitalism arises due to intensifying contradictions between highly-productive mechanized and socialized production performed by the proletariat, and private ownership and private appropriation of the surplus product in the form of surplus value (profit) by a small minority of private owners called the bourgeoisie. As the contradiction becomes apparent to the proletariat, social unrest between the two antagonistic classes intensifies, culminating in a social revolution. The eventual long-term outcome of this revolution would be the establishment of socialism - a socioeconomic system based on cooperative ownership of the means of production, distribution based on one's contribution, and production organized directly for use. Karl Marx hypothesized that, as the productive forces and technology continued to advance, socialism would eventually give way to a communist stage of social development. Communism would be a classless, stateless, humane society based on common ownership and the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
Marxism has developed into different branches and schools of thought. Different schools place a greater emphasis on certain aspects of Classical Marxism while de-emphasizing or rejecting other aspects of Marxism, sometimes combining Marxist analysis with non-Marxian concepts. Some variants of Marxism primarily focus on one aspect of Marxism as the determining force in social development - such as the mode of production, class, power-relationships or property ownership - while arguing other aspects are less important or current research makes them irrelevant. Despite sharing similar premises, different schools of Marxism might reach contradictory conclusions from each other. For example, different Marxian economists have contradictory explanations of economic crisis and different predictions for the outcome of such crises. Furthermore, different variants of Marxism apply Marxist analysis to study different aspects of society (e.g.: mass culture, economic crises, or Feminism).
These theoretical differences have led various socialist and communist parties and political movements to embrace different political strategies for attaining socialism, advocate different programs and policies. One example of this is the division between revolutionary socialists and reformists that emerged in the German Social Democratic Party by the [Revisionist] during the early 20th century
Jun 11, 2013 16:14:09   #
Yankee Clipper
 
KG wrote:
Yankee Clipper in bold red

I don't think you guys understand what Marxism is. A major in Marxism in college are you? I studied Marxism enough that I don't think either Marx or Engels meant for it to be concise. Very little is definite to allow the principles to be altered as needed. Friedrick Hegel and his dialectic reasoning was also influential upon their thinking in case you didn't know that.

And I think either the author of that article also has no clue or he does have a clue but assumes that his readers don't. (Which seems to be the correct assumption, at least based on your replies.) So he uses a scary word for dramatic effect even though it makes no sense in the context. Which scary word do you reference?

Here is Karl Marx's (misguided) explanation for the need of the tyranny in a nutshell:A small one at that.

There is the rich elite and then there are the poor masses. We need to take from the rich and give to the poor to create a better society. I believe what ole Karl described is supposed to be a workers paradise or utopia. The rich, obviously, won't give up their riches voluntarily. Therefore, we need to use force to take from them. This is what the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is based on. However all attempts to create this better society have fallen short and ended up being oligarchies controlled by the dictator elites who helped finance the revolution usually from the start. The workers utopia/paradise/better society ends up being an equal life of misery for the workers and a grandiose life for the Marxist/socialist elites. And that only works until the wealth runs out, then it's revolution again.

Now tell me, why would the owners of Ford, McDonalds, IBM, Chase, etc. ( you know, the people who pay for the presidential campaigns, run the congress, and pretty much own the country) would ever want to see themselves in a situation when they are being forced to give up what they have under the tyranny of the poor? Those companies, corporations and certain elites of the super-rich will be among the oligarchy's chosen and will be allowed to continue their operations to finance the communist government that comes with them. And it's not just the super-rich who would be targeted. That includes the politicians on both sides who are millionaires (pretty much all of them). Some politicians depending on their ideology and what they bring to the table will also survive, maintain their wealth and remain part of the ruling elite. And their successful friends and family members. Why would they want that? Those not chosen will end up in the FEMA externination, er, re-education camps along with other useful idiots. Also included will be citizens like me who are and will resist to the end. The hit list of a typical Marxist would contain Obama himself (and Pelosi and pretty much every other democratic leader out there). I believe some politicians will miss the cut and go to the camps of no return, hell the government has already got Chinese made guillotines and plastic coffins ready to go for them. What I can't understand is why are they not building crematories at these FEMA camps. Perhaps the smoke stacks would give away their future plans for malcontents. Obama's Marxist buddy, Bill Ayers is prepared to kill as many as 25 million citizens in an effort to re-educate the masses.

So the whole Marxism reference doesn't make any sense. Which leads me to believe that the whole article is fiction. Most of Obama's regime doesn't make any sense and is made up of members or former members of either the communist party or socialist party. Obama himself is trained in Saul Alinski's tactics and a believer in the Cloward/Piven strategy. You believe what you want, but don't be surprised if you are wrong.

The author should have stopped at this: "It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy threat list." And the difference is what, semantics?

This is believable. The government breaking laws and moral boundaries to squash dissent is believable. It happens all the time. Obama does it. Bush did it. Clinton did it. Bush did it. And so on. And whoever else comes after Obama will be doing it too. And it's getting worse.
And you plan to do what about it?


But none of them will ever do anything that might turn themselves (and all their donors) into the repressed class.

There are different types of and causes for tyrannies. And we might see tyranny in the US someday. But it will most definitely not be based on the Marxist values. We're seeing tyranny being advanced now by this current regime and I cannot see how you can say re-distribution of wealth is not a Marxist value.

The ending of the article is the conservative equivalent of the "Oh my God, Obama is going to pay my gas bill" stupidity seen on the left. And such stupidity hurts the conservatives. I haven't seen too many stupid conservatives on this site, I have seen more than a couple of Marxist ones though. Emme ehkä säädösten olla oikeassa, mutta emme ole koskaan väärässä! Paraphrase of a Dave Gardner quote.
b Yankee Clipper in bold red /b br br I don't t... (show quote)
Jun 11, 2013 18:05:04   #
AuntiE (a regular here)
 
rumitoid wrote:
OMG, a voice of reason...and intelligence. So nice to meet you, KG.

The Push for the Patriot Act (talk about irony) after 9/11 was part of the Cheney agenda, but of course it would not have passed without Democrat votes. What was done under Bush, a scandal revealed toward the end of his presidency, was the illegal compilation of files on Americans. When FISA passed in 2008, much of it was made "legal" and the terms included in that bill that had a more limited approach, without the parameters being clearly outlined, were re-defined in broader terms.
OMG, a voice of reason...and intelligence. So nice... (show quote)


No one disagrees the Patriot Act is an abomination and a violation of not only the 4th Amendment but the 1st as well. Having said that, the current administration has put it on steroids and Congress has allowed it. It needs to be overturned NOW!

There is very old saying to the effect the proof is in the pudding. Very little proof of substantial success of this particular pudding has been shown.
Jun 12, 2013 12:19:14   #
tin can navy
 
Well said. :thumbup: :lol:
 
Jun 29, 2013 23:49:13   #
AvJoe
 
russ1945 wrote:
Definition -- "Obamunism" -- Obama and the people around him are are Obamunists -- Obama is the prototypical Obamunist -- a blend of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Che, Capone, Billy Sunday, Boss Tweed, Muhammad, and Tupac -- they are hybrids -- they use all the tools -- whatever will get them power and keep them in power.

An Obamunist believes the orders come from them, the enlightened ones, through the bureaucracy, to the People. They wrap their stuff up in fancy slogans, but their goal is power -- and they believe they are entitled to it.

(from theobamafile.com)
Definition -- "Obamunism" -- Obama and t... (show quote)

If we are to take your definition seriously than George W. Bush would have to be considered an Obamunist as well. As a matter of fact almost every President Republican and Democrat since the end of WWII has attempted to move the balance of power from the other two branches to the executive branch. Now The Judicial Branch is being challenged as carrying their power too far. This should be very interesting.
Jun 30, 2013 03:24:57   #
AuntiE (a regular here)
 
AvJoe wrote:
If we are to take your definition seriously than George W. Bush would have to be considered an Obamunist as well. As a matter of fact almost every President Republican and Democrat since the end of WWII has attempted to move the balance of power from the other two branches to the executive branch. Now The Judicial Branch is being challenged as carrying their power too far. This should be very interesting.


An honest question to you. Do you believe the Judicial Branch is going beyond their defined roll?
Jun 30, 2013 03:41:03   #
rumitoid
 
Wow and lol, much ado about nothing. Snowden is an admitted opportunist. He said he looked to get his job in order to turn on the agency. He did not add to gain fame and make lots of money nor did he state that he originally had altruistic goals in joining.

Whistleblower or hero? Decide, but he is not, as several widely circulated emails of late have suggested, an Obama front man to feed Classified info to Kenyan Mao-Maos or Arab Jihadists.
Jun 30, 2013 09:41:00   #
Nuclearian (a regular here)
 
KG wrote:
Oh, thank God for this paragraph.
Government wanting more power and less opposition makes sense. That's just the nature of the government. Any government. But the whole Marxist thing was a bit too much in this fiction piece. I think the author just got carried away and overdid it a bit with the drama.


This government CAN be marxist also. Look at China. It is communist AND wealthy. You CAN have both.
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9 next>>
          
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.