6 ms·

Not really saying all that much. We earn over $250k so we're considered superich though that's not fair because we're not really rich because we spend all our

by netcan 16y ago

Not really saying all that much. We earn over $250k so we're considered superich though that's not fair because we're not really rich because we spend all our money on normal stuff like house and groceries and richer people evade taxes offshore but we're not rich enough to do that and we could evade taxes by pretending to be divorced but we're too moral to do that and if you tax us we'll have to fire our gardener and cleaner and sell our house and that's not good for the economy and who said that you can spend money better that me anyway you Marxian.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  As much as I sometimes differ with Obama's policies, you do not seem to understand what Marxism is at all and would do well to read up on it before trying to say who is or isn't a Marxist. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism. See the part about the proletarian revolution? Not exactly something Obama is pushing for, among many, many other differences between his policies and Marxism.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      > Please tell me where things went wrong. Among other things, you've failed to demonstrate that Obama believes Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Even if you'd managed that, you'd still need to prove that he also supports the other tenets of Marxism, like the one I called out in my comment. A person is not automatically a Marxist merely for having some affinity to any part of the overall philosophy. Instead, one is a Marxist if the overall body of their philosophy matches. Obama has never advocated the a revolution of the proletariat, one of the core ideas of Marxism. There is also no evidence that he sees Capitalism as inherently exploitative, nor that he endorses the view that a person is exploited if they produce more than they consume. To the extent that he has supported policies to enhance equality of well-being, they have mostly been aimed at shoring up a necessary minimum level of well-being via taxes, not by transferring the means of production from the bourgeois to the proletariat. For these reasons and many others, it is completely misguided to call him a Marxist. Say rather that he has implemented some economic policies that would be vaguely similar to a small subset of the policies that a Marxist leader might implement. Better still, say nothing at all; you have demonstrated that you are not qualified in either duty to truth nor possession of knowledge to comment.
      - thaumaturgy 16y ago
        The commenter you were replying to was just a troll, and they were just using the term "Marxist" as an epithet. Here's an incomplete list of other "red-flag epithets": communist socialist liberal democrat muslim islamist apologist etc.
        houseabsolute 16y ago
        Maybe so. He deleted his comment, which leads me to believe he at least as some capability for shame. Anyway, it'll be nice to have that written down, though, so I can refer my non-troll conservative friends to it when the idiocy builds up. It can be hard being a Republican. :(
        loewenskind 16y ago
        So you're saying a very popular news station in the US is actually a collection of trolls? :) I don't know if that should make me feel better (at least they don't believe what they're saying) or worse (so many viewers do). EDIT: silly spelling mistake
        thaumaturgy 16y ago
        Actually, yeah. I know it sounds horribly cynical and conspiracist and so forth, but they have gone so absurdly out of the way of simple, verifiable facts, that it's impossible for me to accept that they really believe what they're saying. They're just taking advantage of people's anger, and doing it well, and getting rich in the process.
- einarvollset 16y ago
  You, sir, are an idiot. I can't even be bothered to argue with it.
  - iamwil 16y ago
    This is HN. Tell him why he's wrong. No need to call him names. Attack the ideas, not the person. If you think he's just being a troll, just ignore him.
    - davidw 16y ago
      Articles like this shouldn't be here in the first place because they beget this kind of trolling and flame wars.
    - einarvollset 16y ago
      Yes this is HN and I should ignore it. But sometimes I get so god damn frustrated with the meta-comments ("uh, so this is why you shouldn't discuss politics when attempting to increase your social network influence") and the quiet acceptance of provable idioicy that all I want to do is to tell someone that they are either ignorant, stupid, selfish or evil. Now, just because the original poster's historically and politically ignorant comment contained more words than mine, doesn't make my expression if exasperation at his (?) idiocy any less valid. Don't be duped by rambling idiots. c.f. Occam's Razor
- thomasz 16y ago
  > Do you even remember the election? Obama clearly said that he wants to 'spread the wealth around Do you have any idea what Marxism means?
bpodgursky 16y ago
Your money might not be stashed offshore, but your periods and commas seem to be safely hidden.

by netcan 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

houseabsolute 16y ago
As much as I sometimes differ with Obama's policies, you do not seem to understand what Marxism is at all and would do well to read up on it before trying to say who is or isn't a Marxist. You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism. See the part about the proletarian revolution? Not exactly something Obama is pushing for, among many, many other differences between his policies and Marxism.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    > Please tell me where things went wrong. Among other things, you've failed to demonstrate that Obama believes Capitalism is inherently exploitative. Even if you'd managed that, you'd still need to prove that he also supports the other tenets of Marxism, like the one I called out in my comment. A person is not automatically a Marxist merely for having some affinity to any part of the overall philosophy. Instead, one is a Marxist if the overall body of their philosophy matches. Obama has never advocated the a revolution of the proletariat, one of the core ideas of Marxism. There is also no evidence that he sees Capitalism as inherently exploitative, nor that he endorses the view that a person is exploited if they produce more than they consume. To the extent that he has supported policies to enhance equality of well-being, they have mostly been aimed at shoring up a necessary minimum level of well-being via taxes, not by transferring the means of production from the bourgeois to the proletariat. For these reasons and many others, it is completely misguided to call him a Marxist. Say rather that he has implemented some economic policies that would be vaguely similar to a small subset of the policies that a Marxist leader might implement. Better still, say nothing at all; you have demonstrated that you are not qualified in either duty to truth nor possession of knowledge to comment.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      The commenter you were replying to was just a troll, and they were just using the term "Marxist" as an epithet. Here's an incomplete list of other "red-flag epithets": communist socialist liberal democrat muslim islamist apologist etc.
      - houseabsolute 16y ago
        Maybe so. He deleted his comment, which leads me to believe he at least as some capability for shame. Anyway, it'll be nice to have that written down, though, so I can refer my non-troll conservative friends to it when the idiocy builds up. It can be hard being a Republican. :(
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        So you're saying a very popular news station in the US is actually a collection of trolls? :) I don't know if that should make me feel better (at least they don't believe what they're saying) or worse (so many viewers do). EDIT: silly spelling mistake
        thaumaturgy 16y ago
        Actually, yeah. I know it sounds horribly cynical and conspiracist and so forth, but they have gone so absurdly out of the way of simple, verifiable facts, that it's impossible for me to accept that they really believe what they're saying. They're just taking advantage of people's anger, and doing it well, and getting rich in the process.
einarvollset 16y ago
You, sir, are an idiot. I can't even be bothered to argue with it.
- iamwil 16y ago
  This is HN. Tell him why he's wrong. No need to call him names. Attack the ideas, not the person. If you think he's just being a troll, just ignore him.
  - davidw 16y ago
    Articles like this shouldn't be here in the first place because they beget this kind of trolling and flame wars.
  - einarvollset 16y ago
    Yes this is HN and I should ignore it. But sometimes I get so god damn frustrated with the meta-comments ("uh, so this is why you shouldn't discuss politics when attempting to increase your social network influence") and the quiet acceptance of provable idioicy that all I want to do is to tell someone that they are either ignorant, stupid, selfish or evil. Now, just because the original poster's historically and politically ignorant comment contained more words than mine, doesn't make my expression if exasperation at his (?) idiocy any less valid. Don't be duped by rambling idiots. c.f. Occam's Razor
thomasz 16y ago
> Do you even remember the election? Obama clearly said that he wants to 'spread the wealth around Do you have any idea what Marxism means?

bpodgursky 16y ago

Your money might not be stashed offshore, but your periods and commas seem to be safely hidden.