Citing "Numerous Breaches" of Agreement, City Hall Tells Occupy Dallas to Clean Up or Get Out

Didn't Reagan expand Welfare, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and other social programs to a greater extent than any other president since the depression?

I'm neither right nor left, I'm a radical moderate who believes both sides are full of crap.  Just thought it was a question that needed asking.

It's a rare republican indeed who supports openly socialist movements demanding bigger government and redistribution of wealth.

You're the .000000001%.

If the city is going to provide free camping and security, why not go all the way and offer better facilities?

They are simply at this point tourist attractions, and cities are responsible for maintaining tourist attractions on city land.

Dallas has enough problem overcoming the actions of one leftist commie wannabee, we don't want to get the reputation of a city that doesn't properly maintain its hippies

you are correct, I work downtown and Ive yet to see one of them except the first day they camped out before being moved out of sight

I sympathize with them, but I don't really agree with them because they, in general, give the government a free pass where I wouldn't. So, I won't be joining in. I'm just saying that if they believe their positions (if they have any) are worth fighting for, they need to provoke a response. That doesn't mean getting violent. It just means doing things people can't ignore. What's the point of being camped out behind city hall? It doesn't accomplish anything and in the meantime, they are completely outside the general public's view. Heck, even most people who work downtown won't pass them on a daily basis in that location.

So you're saying that Dallas, like all cities, is not a capitalist town. Whatever.

My point is, Dallas is associated with business over the social.

I agree, higher taxes is not socialism. But socialism is high taxes.

I don't really care about the return Muni's offer, I was just pointing out that they are available to anyone to purchase, whether or not they need the tax-free income.

You are looking for an argument that no one is making. Did I make a comparative statement about Dallas and Chicago? I'm simply saying that the corporate-capitalist-government business environment is what built a lot of Dallas's wealth. That's true in most big cities. You are the one that singled Dallas out as being somehow more "capitalist" than elsewhere. And I'm well aware of the other people, right and left, who are making the argument. 

Higher taxes is not the same as socialism. You need to embrace a more precise vocabulary. As far as I know, no one is promoting state ownership of private enterprise. They are promoting the disentanglement of private and public that has concentrated upside among relatively few with no downside.

And most people in the 99% don't need the tax free income that munis provide because very few people in those income brackets ever maximize their tax-free or tax-deferred avenues for income and capital accumulation. To the extent that they are making those investments, they are getting bad investment advice.

We are not working from "the most notable implementation" of the terms socialism, Marxism, democracy or capitalism. What we are working from is someone like Bachmann calling other Republicans "frugal socialists." That's the alternative to Obama, the full-bore socialist.

Those usages and the implementation of them, are not of our own introspection, they're used as slings and arrows by the unthinking. Political operatives and the like. And we voraciously pick them up and hurl them at each other. If Bachmann is so convinced of the evils of US socialism, perhaps she should avail herself of the farm subsidies and medicaid payments she enjoys. Or maybe she is the "frugal socialist." 

There is a lot to your post agree with, but the other, there is no proof this is the case.

Unfortunately, we have current and historical references for what is termed socialist, marxist, democracy, capitalism, etc.  As someone told me, when I pointed out that palestinians cannot be anti-semitic, being a semitic people themselves, "There's no stuffing that genie back into the bottle".While it is great to be knowledgeable on the actual contents of Marx's writing, there really is no tangible implementation of them to refer to.  Socialism, Communism, Democracy, ad nauseum, are defined by the most notable implementations of them at hand.  True representative democracy would look nothing like what the US has, nor would that work, but the US is held up as the defining example of democracy.  The Soviet Union was not a true representation of socialism, but was held to be the defining example of it.Your argument is great in a poli-sci debate or lecture, it lacks traction in the real world.

No, I think it is used as a provocation and that very few people actually understand the term or its historical implications or even what parts of Marxist thought can be useful.

Obama is not a Marxist. As far as the Occupy Dallas crowd, haven't seen any evidence that they understand it either.I see a few hot-head young guys leading the charge, maybe they have some radical books they like to display. Let's hear about how laborers are being exploited by capitalists (those who control the capital of production), and we can talk. Or how the US government historically functions as a catalyst for both socialism and capitalism, it's not one or the other. There arguments might lead them to China, however.

It's the degree of imprecise description of almost any and all government or economic systems that riles me, not a discussion of Marxism. Really tired of anyone using socialism, Marxism, etc. 

Do you think that Marxist is an insult?

"Do you really think that Pres. Obama is a Marxist?"

I believe Marxism has influenced him through his life moreso than any other ideology.

"why is there such a lack of precision when discussing these matters?"

That is the nature of #Occupy that is acknowledged even by their own spokespersons.

"If there is the element of Marxist thought going on, I'd like to hear it."

I have already provided you that evidence in the partial list of Marxist supporters. I could go through each of their various demands and identify those with socialist/marxist roots if you'd like.

"they're just verbal land mines..."

They can be, especially in the US, where many socialists do not like to be labeled as such, unlike Europe for instance, where the term is not considered pejorative

"People are suffering, the suffering is real."

And Marxists offer Marxist solutions. That's not very difficult to understand.

"If Obama's a Marxism, please, let's hear your evidence."

No, this is a thread about #Occupy, and by extension the global socialist uprising.

I fail to recognize why you think I've used the term in a pejorative way. Simply trying to get at what your point is in using it. Take this quote for example,

"It is of little surprise that marxist effort would flourish under a historically Marxist president, and it will be little surprise when the movement fails.The question is, what's next? Anyone familiar with leftism knows the answer."

Do you really think that Pres. Obama is a Marxist?  Do you really think the movement has flourished because they are aligned with a Marxist agenda coordinated, directly or indirectly, with Obama's Marxist agenda?

Some of your comments in the beginning had some merit, but then I get to a few sentences like the one above and I ask myself, "what?" It boils down to this, whether it's you or the Occupy Dallas people, why is there such a lack of precision when discussing these matters? If there is the element of Marxist thought going on, I'd like to hear it. Frankly, I think it's just toying around with things that sound provocative. Which is sort of the same reason someone like Bachmannn would use it. And no one is the press corps ever asks for an explanation of it, or the usage of similar terms --they're just verbal land mines. If someone were to tell me in a short sentence what benefits could be gleaned from Marxist thought that could be applied to present circumstances, fine. But in the present form, it's a big waste of time for the reasons you mentioned in the beginning of your post. People are suffering, the suffering is real. 

If Obama's a Marxism, please, let's hear your evidence.

Well, that, and the body count which set a modern record, maybe.

But as we know, that's not the fault of Marxist ideals, but the flawed nature of every single leader that has governed under this ideology. As any Communist will tell you, Communism has never been attempted, the Right Man has yet to come along. But when he does, baby, it's gonna be paradise!

People often get upset when I label Obama a Marxist, but one thing I've learned about this marvelous man is that his detractors know much more about him than his sycophants.

In all the videos I've seen from Occupy, I've seen none which are anti-Obama, and why would they, given that he has for two years used classic leftist/Marxist rhetoric and is the spiritual leader of this movement.

Because Marxism was a theoretical 19th century initial reaction to the negative effects of capitalism that has been tempered by the occurrence of Stalinist purges and Maoist cultural revolutions?

I couldn't help but notice the heavy socialist themes in this movement, and the strong support from CPUSA (ask them what they consider Marxist perhaps), along with the Revolutionary Communist Party, Hugo Chavez, the CPC, and the government of N. Korea among others.

Now, I could be so ignorant of Marxism that I believed it was comedy, but when organizations, states and leaders committed to Marxism lend public support to a movement, and the participants voice Marxist ideals - there's a damn good chance the movement is, well, Marxist, don't you think?

By your tone, it's apparent you consider the label "Marxist" to be pejorative, why is that?

Wiki, cut and paste, no thanks. You know, Marx was a prolific writer. There is a Manifesto. And plenty of historical analyses of the failures of Marxism. But, really, just looking for what you--without any sources other than your own definition off the top of your head--can provide. 

I think it is fair question. You're the one slinging the terms around.

Did I say they weren't?  Jesusfuckingchrist...

Mine?  It ain't me, babe.

You know, I'm a little sick of you complaining about having to pick your shit- literally. If this were happening in your neighborhood park, you would not welcome it. At least I know I wouldn't. 

And I think it is pretty obvious that rape and child abuse are horrific crimes.

That's not what I meant, but you already knew that.  

I was talking about the last paragraph, which sounds like a hungover parent grounding their child for bullshit reasons just to get some peace and quiet.

I think it's pretty obvious to what I was referring.  

Oh so you were talking about child neglect/abuse. Glad you cleared that up.

It shows a great deal of hypocrisy to be out protesting that the entire nations social contract is broken but not be able to keep your side of a bargain with such simple requirements as don't shit in the street.

cherry-pick the sexual assault of a 14 year old girl?  You would prefer the city just treat that the same a littering?  

Wow, I must really be the 1%.