Post #59364
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2009-09-06 03:52
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Just get the job done!
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
This should irritate a few people:
Came up with this one for a buddy's blog a while back. Hope it offends the political left.
As if!
The thing is that Libertarians is that the confuse the Socialism, Communism and Progressive Liberalism, but if it offends, it has served its purpose, never mind if it is dishonest with Libertarian followers who don't know their political movements proper.
I think Bush's bumbling neo-fascism is all used up with Libertarians. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59366
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2009-09-07 00:11
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
(Might want to split this thread)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Let's see, you post this is the wrong thread and try to associate National Socialism with Social Liberalism. Are we supposed to be impressed?
My apologies for wrong thread. I should have started a new one. My bad.
Actually, there isn't much of a difference between National Socialism and Social Liberalism, nor is there much of a difference between Fascism and the two previous examples.
First we have to take a look at the actual definitions of Socialism and Fascism (which I assume everyone has) in terms of economic and social engineering policies. The first paradigm that needs to be blown to hell is that Hitler and the Nazis were NOT Fascists - they were Socialists in every sense of the word. That includes their Economic policies and Social Engineering Policies. Now, Franco was a Fascists and Mussolini was a Hybrid Socialist/Fascist akin to the Liberal Fascists that are the Obama clan.
What Obama did was to seize private property by taking government ownership (albeit in most cases only a majority/controlling interest in the automotive and banking industries). That is textbook Socialism and it is exactly what the National Socialists did in Germany in the 1930's. The last leader of a nation that seized government ownership partially or completely of private property in terms of the automotive and Banking industry and fired CEO's prior to Obama was Hitler.
Now, before the metaphor is interpreted out of context, I don't think Obama is going to shove people into the ovens like Hitler. Obama is a spineless dimestore version of Hitler. He's just chosen the wrong historical mixed metaphor to follow. You have to have a private sector in order to have a real economy. The Soviets failed because they didn't realize that. The Soviets failed and it wasn't because Russia never went through the Capitalism stage (certain Marxists pseudo-intellects - and they are totally wrong - have often claimed that the reason Socialism failed in Russia was because Russia never achieved Capitalism as an ingrained part of their economic and social structure).
But the inherent similarities of conflicting systems that Obama is applying, based upon his Marxist core beliefs and his Fascist practices (note the upcoming 'address' to 'students'; his constantly changing Orwellian double speak - healthcare reform ====> healtcare insurance reform and numerous other BS he tries to fork over) frankly should scare the hell out of anyone who hasn't drunk the Neo-Socialists/Marxist bent of Obama, et al.
Post #59368
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2009-09-07 07:19
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
(Might want to split this thread)
[...]
My apologies for wrong thread. I should have started a new one. My bad.
Very well. Do you have a suggestion for a title? "How to display your political ignorance in 200 words?"
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Actually, there isn't much of a difference between National Socialism and Social Liberalism, nor is there much of a difference between Fascism and the two previous examples.
First we have to take a look at the actual definitions of Socialism and Fascism (which I assume everyone has) in terms of economic and social engineering policies. The first paradigm that needs to be blown to hell is that Hitler and the Nazis were NOT Fascists - they were Socialists in every sense of the word. That includes their Economic policies and Social Engineering Policies. Now, Franco was a Fascists and Mussolini was a Hybrid Socialist/Fascist akin to the Liberal Fascists that are the Obama clan.
What Obama did was to seize private property by taking government ownership (albeit in most cases only a majority/controlling interest in the automotive and banking industries). That is textbook Socialism and it is exactly what the National Socialists did in Germany in the 1930's. The last leader of a nation that seized government ownership partially or completely of private property in terms of the automotive and Banking industry and fired CEO's prior to Obama was Hitler.
Now, before the metaphor is interpreted out of context, I don't think Obama is going to shove people into the ovens like Hitler. Obama is a spineless dimestore version of Hitler. He's just chosen the wrong historical mixed metaphor to follow. You have to have a private sector in order to have a real economy. The Soviets failed because they didn't realize that. The Soviets failed and it wasn't because Russia never went through the Capitalism stage (certain Marxists pseudo-intellects - and they are totally wrong - have often claimed that the reason Socialism failed in Russia was because Russia never achieved Capitalism as an ingrained part of their economic and social structure).
But the inherent similarities of conflicting systems that Obama is applying, based upon his Marxist core beliefs and his Fascist practices (note the upcoming 'address' to 'students'; his constantly changing Orwellian double speak - healthcare reform ====> healtcare insurance reform and numerous other BS he tries to fork over) frankly should scare the hell out of anyone who hasn't drunk the Neo-Socialists/Marxist bent of Obama, et al.
Now, let's have a look at your "comparison" of socialism and national socialism:
NSDAP's party program is crystal clear: "In the context of a general obligation to work, and acknowledging the validity of private property, every German should have control over the fruits of his own labour. With this stipulation we specifically reject planned economic, Marxist and high finance socialization."
Hitler rejected socialism, communism and Marxism numerous times, both publicly and privately. It's well documented that he saw capitalism as beneficial as a manifestation of social Darwinism. (See e.g. the standard work Hitler: A Study Of Tyranny by Alan Bullock.)
Hitler expressed his respect and admiration for the arch-capitalist Henry Ford several times.
Countless private companies made a fortune in the Third Reich, e.g. IG Farben, Agfa, BMW, Mercedes, Siemens, IBM, and Standard Oil. A famous example of an individual capitalists is Oskar Schindler.
It's well documented that Hitler was financed by German industrialists.
Socialists, communists and other left-wing supporters were routinely imprisoned and executed in the Third Reich. Conservatives and other right-wing supporters weren't.
Most of the established definitions of socialism highlight worker ownership and administration of the means of production as the most important criterium. The workers had no such control in the Third Reich. On the contrary, the workers had fewer and lesser rights than before the take-over and all unions were suppressed.
Most of the established definitions of socialism highlight egalitarianism as one of the most important criteria. The Third Reich was stratified according to ideological, racial, genetical, Darwinists and other principles. Just like in the USSR, the party bureaucracy was more or less sanctioned to profit from corruption and wallow in luxuries.
The non-egalitarin welfare systems in the Third Reich are not socialist per se. The welfare state was invented by Bismarck as a means to prevent socialist reforms; Hitler simply maintained this policy.
You also try to lump social liberalism, socialism and fascism together. Let's have a look at this "comparison" too:
Social liberals support liberal democracy, whereas (most) socialists support more direct forms of democracy and economic democracy. Fascists reject all forms of democracy.
Social liberals support capitalism wholeheartedly, whereas socialists don't. Fascists sometimes reject capitalism in theory, but have always allowed and supported capitalism in practice.
Social liberals are not egalitarians per se - rather, they want to give capitalism a "friendly face" - whereas socialists always are egalitarians. Fascists are never egalitarians.
Both social liberals and socialists worked to democratise Europe. Fascists didn't.
As for Obama's "seizure of private property", this was supported by most politicians and capitalists, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps more importantly in this discussion, this is not an example of socialism or communism - it's a conservative/liberal attempt to save capitalism. Conservatives and liberals - both social liberals and classic/neo-liberals/libertarians - have much more in common than social liberals and socialists.
I suggest you read up on the basics of the major ideologies and socio-economic systems before engaging in political discussions. Otherwise, we'll both be wasting time.
Post #59375
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-09-08 10:39
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I thank you for your opinion.
This is actual political science textbook stuff, no mere 'opinion'. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59379
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-09-09 04:06
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
The discourse of another failed ideology:tooth fairy
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
That all depends upon which text book you are reading and what your paradigm is.
Personally, I never adhered to anything that even hits of leftist leanings.
As per historical fact, Hitler was a socialist and not a fascist.*
Socialism is a four-lettered word in my dictionary.
that's a lame come back, which 'textbook' are you reading?, must be something written by Dinesh D'Souza.
I think you need to differentiate patisan politics, propaganda and political science, but if you made it this far, it ain't my problem.
This makes me wonder how much does the average American care for the finer points of Ideological Purity where his country and his job are being destroyed as a result of this economic collapse counting in the millions, may be Republicans should register as another Religious Cult given their level zealous belief that somehow magically as if by an invisible hand will correct all the problems with the US Economy and its Big Players and economic decline. Three hail-marys to the Founding Fathers, et cetera.
"DO NOTHING" the very same thing circa 2007 had Republicans kneeling down in Capitol Hill praying the economic slide into Catastrophe would magically reverse course. It must be the pious and righteous feeling of superiority it gives to its followers in Capitol Hill.
Some excuse for the lack of action and leadership in the Conservative and 'Libertarian' Wings of the same old tart of a party. Guess what Mr Hoover did during the Great Depression? He did nothing the exact recommendation of the present Republican Party, he 'believed' his ideology that magically the economy will correct things, you know conservative thrift, frugality and masochism, how far is too far 25% unemployment not enough to drive the point home that people are starving without jobs and the downward spiral continues to accelarate, there is so much charity to be had from others who are unemployed just the same.
* Still confusing your facts on little Hitler, no wonder Hitler had Socialists and Communists hunted down and killed, can you figure what's wrong with your statement? What would ideological bedfellows do? Is FDR a Nazi-Socialist-Fascist whatever because of the New Deal Policies? Answer this question about your tortuous logic, and see what happens. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59382
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-09-10 00:48
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
I enjoyed the humor of your post.
Be aware of your history: Nazional-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party).
You fail to realize that Hitler hunted down everyone including his own people. Remember Ernst Rohm and the 'Brownshirts' (Stürm Abteilung)? So, your argument that Hitler wasn't a Socialist is a factitious, specious and a straw dog. But I do appreciate your sense of humor.
And yes, I have read Peter Schumpater's Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung and virtually every other economist that would have a say on the definition of 'Socialism'. Be aware, though, that there are many 'types' of socialism and all of them vary from the benign and the not-so-benign. It could also be argued that Communism is the most extreme form of Capitalism insofar as it is Corporate Statism in the extreme. I have a few Anarcho-Capitalists friends out there (AC's of some note or notoriety as the case may be) and a number of Communist friends in the past (including the late Mr. Guss Hall who tend to agree that Hitler was a socialist and not a fascist).
This is not a matter of partisan politics, propaganda or political sciences (the last term is a joke in and of itself) - it tends to show that socialism as it has and will always be applied in practice eventually leads to gulags and such. But that's not to say that Capitalism in the extreme doesn't eventually lead to the very same thing.
FDR was also a socialist. Who was it? Norman Thomas, that perennial Socialist Party candidate for the US Presidency who announced after the 1936 election that he no longer needed to run for president because FDR had accomplished Socialism?
Post #59384
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-09-10 07:07
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (2 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Be aware of your history: Nazional-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party).
So, Democratic Kampuchea, Deutsche Demokratische Republik, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea should be described as democracies then? Have you never heard of the expression "pay lip service"?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
You fail to realize that Hitler hunted down everyone including his own people. Remember Ernst Rohm and the 'Brownshirts' (Stürm Abteilung)? So, your argument that Hitler wasn't a Socialist is a factitious, specious and a straw dog. But I do appreciate your sense of humor.
If you want your "argumentation" to be taken seriously, you should probably start by trying to rebut the arguments in my previous post.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
And yes, I have read Peter Schumpater's Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung and virtually every other economist that would have a say on the definition of 'Socialism'.
Correction: Every liberal economist.
For the record: It's spelled Schumpeter. It's also quite confusing that you refer to Schumpeter, as he was sympathetic towards Marx and predicted that capitalism will collapse.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Be aware, though, that there are many 'types' of socialism and all of them vary from the benign and the not-so-benign.
It's a good start that you have realised that much at least.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
It could also be argued that Communism is the most extreme form of Capitalism insofar as it is Corporate Statism in the extreme.
As far as I know, there's not a single country or leader that has claimed to have achieved communism. Perhaps even more importantly, one of the main goals of communism is and has always been to create a stateless society. Having this in mind, how can you equate communism with statism? It doesn't make sense.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I have a few Anarcho-Capitalists friends out there (AC's of some note or notoriety as the case may be) and a number of Communist friends in the past (including the late Mr. Guss Hall who tend to agree that Hitler was a socialist and not a fascist).
Unfortunately, what your friends say don't make your arguments valid.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
This is not a matter of partisan politics, propaganda or political sciences (the last term is a joke in and of itself) [...]
Since you basically only post statements and few, if any, arguments to support these statements, it's easy to believe that you are a victim of propaganda and don't think for yourself.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
It tends to show that socialism as it has and will always be applied in practice eventually leads to gulags and such.
Can you give me an example of a nation where socialism has been implemented? Before you answer, remember what criteria most of the established definitions of socialism list.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
But that's not to say that Capitalism in the extreme doesn't eventually lead to the very same thing.
I think liberals and conservatives would find this line of reasoning unfair and unreasonable. I leave it to them to rebut your "arguments", though. (Again, you only post statements really, not arguments.)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
FDR was also a socialist.
What? Did he give the workers ownership of the means of production and created an egalitarian society in the USA? I didn't know that. Do you possibly have a source?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Who was it? Norman Thomas, that perennial Socialist Party candidate for the US Presidency who announced after the 1936 election that he no longer needed to run for president because FDR had accomplished Socialism?
So, you see this Norman Thomas as an absolute authority on politics?
Post #59385
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-09-10 07:38
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Which book is he reading?
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Let's see, you post this is the wrong thread and try to associate National Socialism with Social Liberalism. Are we supposed to be impressed?
I think it is any three things:
Troll,
Ignorant, or
very misinformed, this is Politics 101 Class Material so that leaves either Ignorant or Troll.
I am not in the mood to play surrogate Politics teacher to some ignorant small 'r" Libertarian. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59388
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-09-11 02:03
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Re: Which book is he reading?
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
carldiesturmer wrote:
I think it is any three things:
Troll,
Ignorant, or
very misinformed, this is Politics 101 Class Material so that leaves either Ignorant or Troll.
I am not in the mood to play surrogate Politics teacher to some ignorant small 'r" Libertarian.
Oh, bravo! Another brilliant ad hom attack lacking any connection to reality. I suggest you check your own ignorance level.
@ Ingsoc Officer - who actually appears to want to debate the points in question. I'll hit all of your points (let me know if I miss anything). Let's get serious here.
Quote:
So, Democratic Kampuchea, Deutsche Demokratische Republik, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea should be described as democracies then? Have you never heard of the expression "pay lip service"?
Democracy doesn't imply 'freedom' by any means. Neither does the term 'republic' imply freedom. And neither term implies any particular political system or economic system/philosophy. The Soviet Union was technical a Democracy and a Republic - the people voted for the one single candidate the party fielded as a general rule. In North Korea, Kim Jong Ill was 'voted' into office albeit he was the only candidate and there was no box to check for 'no'. Hitler was elected under the Constitution of The Weimar Repbublik.
Now, in countries like the US, you actually have a choice - but the choice(s) are usually the choice between the lesser of two evils. The 'powers that be' as it were, are happy and fine if you vote for who they want you to vote for. If you vote for a 'third party' candidate you are relegated to the ranks of a malcontent nut-case by the Lame Stream Media.
For example - Bush II bitched and moaned that there should be 'open and free democratic elections' in Gaza. The results of the election was a Hamas victory (the worst result possible). Then Bush II bitched at the fact the elections didn't give the desired results. Hence, even in the most democratic societies, democracy and freedom are just fine and dandy as long as the elections produce the results desired by whomever happens to have the aggregate of power at that time and that you express your freedoms in a way that is acceptable to the powers that be.*
* Read: What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World by Noam Chomsky (2007) ISBN 0805086714
Quote:
f you want your "argumentation" to be taken seriously, you should probably start by trying to rebut the arguments in my previous post.
I would love to have the time to do that, but it's hard to get through the bombardment of insults and ad hom attacks, which manner of attack I generally don't respond to because I don't waste my time with such superficial and petty 'arguments'.
After reading through heaps of posts on this board before deciding to sign up, perhaps if people spent more time presenting ideas instead of calling each other assholes at the drop of a hat, and that people were less belligerent off the bat, then perhaps there would be more current activity on the board. More important, if you want a message board to be taken seriously, it would be well heeded advice to be less belligerent and less ad hom in approach, one needs to put a lid on tasteless and gratuitous vulgarity unless humor requires it. I've watched some major political message boards whither away to a shadow of nothingness as a result of people taking things personally and treating others as though it was just one giant role playing game.
IOW, one cannot go around simply bashing anyone who disagrees with them for the sake of bashing people because they disagree with you. That is not conducive the cause of freedom (to steal a line) however one defines that term. I deal with people that span the whole political, economic and ideological spectrum on a daily basis and none of us take it personally (even when we call each other assholes, shit heads and quaint Anglo-Saxon anatomical references), as long as it's good natured humor.
Then again, it's occasionally fun to egg someone on call someone an ignorant fucker just to see their response. But doing that as a 'serious' argument is generally an ignorant course of action.
If I were a troll, you would be totally victimized. I don't waste my time with trolls nor do I condone trolls. If I encounter a troll, they generally will get totally abused in the most humorous fashion I can think of at the time. I run two message boards that have absolutely nothing to do with politics and I know how to drive trolls out from under the bridge in the most brutal fashion - and I don't even have to ban them to do it.
Quote:
Correction: Every liberal economist.
For the record: It's spelled Schumpeter. It's also quite confusing that you refer to Schumpeter, as he was sympathetic towards Marx and predicted that capitalism will collapse.
Typo error on my part. Of course Schumpeter was sympathetic towards Marx. Being a dyed in the wool free market capitalist (and often accused of being an Anarcho-Captalist, but not averse to Nationalism and certain aspects of Statism as being necessary in functional terms) there are certain analytical 'commentary' elements of Marx concerning Capitalism that I totally agree with. But that doesn't mean I want to live under a Marxist system by any means.
My course of action is to acquaint myself with all ends of the spectrum and decide for myself which elements that are to be or not to be believed or followed. I can do that because I lean towards pragmatism and Realpolitik but keep the compass pointed towards ethics and morality peculiar to my own cultural origins.
Quote:
It's a good start that you have realised that much at least.
Ah, British Orthography (realised).
While I have a cautious view of non-capitalistic systems, there are elements of Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Anarchy and Fascism that I think are very logical and can be applied successfully to any system or society/culture without compromising individual freedoms (in an economic sense). But there is a need to let society govern itself without the interference of governments and the 'state'.
I do not believe in government initiated 'patriotism' as patriotism comes from the people who support their country/nation independently and often exclusively of their 'state'.
I believe that governments do not grant "rights" as rights are preexistent to governments.
I believe in government by the consent of the governed and the right of people to revolt against oppressive governments.
I believe that governments exist only by the consent of the people and that all governments are delegated authority to govern by the people.
No system is inherently evil unless corrupted to the point that it inhibits individual rights to life, liberty and property and the enjoyment thereof.
People need to fend for themselves instead of sucking up to and becoming totally dependent upon the big nipple in the sky (welfare). People should also be given a safety net if they can't fend for themselves, but if they are simply tick on the system, they should be left twisting in the wind - root hog or die.
I believe that mandating charity by government edict is theft. While those that cannot fend for themselves for whatever reason need to be given help, that help should be a hand-up instead of a hand out with exceptions in extreme cases. Socialistic programs tend to imbue resentment from those who are forced to pay for it and childish dependence upon those who can indeed fend for themselves.
I could go on (and be thankful that I don't ) and bore the ever-loving shit out of you all.
I have no gripe with Socialists, etc., (although Mussolini and Franco style Fascists can kiss my ass as a general rule) as individuals, I think that the totality of their systems do no agree with my intestines for the most part.
Quote:
As far as I know, there's not a single country or leader that has claimed to have achieved communism. Perhaps even more importantly, one of the main goals of communism is and has always been to create a stateless society. Having this in mind, how can you equate communism with statism? It doesn't make sense.
This is why I should learn to keep my comments as simple as possible.
Castro claims success in instituting Communism but lacks the balls to call it anything by 'socialism'. This is true of the thankfully defunct Soviet Union. The problem with Communism is that it, according to theory, is really Socialism that is in a perpetual 'revolution' to achieve communism but will by it's own admission will never really get there (the Soviets and Castro always say 'the fucktieth year of the Revolution' and such crap like it's "Forever War" that will never end). You set your goal, you achieve that goal and you quit while you are ahead of that. While one can claim Communism, one can never attain it. The same is true of Capitalism or any system. The longer you take to achieve it the more it is hindered by the inherent corruption caused by human nature and you cannot change human nature no matter how hard you try. Truth decays into lies; freedom decays into slavery, Democracy decays into Totalitarianism, Communism in to Capitalism and Socialism into Fascism. And it's all human nature that is to blame and you can't change human nature no matter how much you try.
While Communism tries to accomplish a true stateless society, so does Anarchy and neither equates with the other. But given the choice between Communism and Anarchy, I would take Anarchy. The problem with my argument on this point (which I recognize) is that Pure Anarchy and Pure Communism are essentially the same thing but poles apart.
Here's the conundrum: You can have Pure Communism and Pure Anarchy but it depends upon the willing participation of those who live under those systems. Willing participation means you have rules and regulation which means you have government which means you have a 'state'. Pure Anarchy, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism or Socialism means that you must have rules to abide by. That means you must have government and that means you must have a state to preserve your system and you are back at the starting point in a death spiral of reality.
When you have one person exerting their will over another person you have government and state. The only time you have no state or government is when you are alone on a desert island. Then you still have a government and state and it dictates your own desire to survive over the potential result being your own demise. To steal a James Joyce quote, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake". There is an ultimate reality that one cannot escape no mater how delusional or misguided one is. Even lunatics are restrained by straight jackets, rubber rooms or other people's guns (to get them out of their way or out of their misery). It's just the reality of the world and the world is not perfect and only a total idiot thinks it can be perfect.
Quote:
Unfortunately, what your friends say don't make your arguments valid.
Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time with Gus Hall and Abbie Hoffman over the years to know how their arguments do support my claim.
As Abbie once said, "Never impose your language on people you wish to reach." That means quit thinking in terms of what you have been made to use. Quit using Marxist, Capitalist, etc.,,, terms that have become 'New Speak' or double talk.
Yeah, I knew a lot of the 'biggies' but I never let my personal beliefs get in the way of a good beer-binge with them.
Quote:
Since you basically only post statements and few, if any, arguments to support these statements, it's easy to believe that you are a victim of propaganda and don't think for yourself.
The same could be said for you also. Be careful of accusations because one is usually guilty of the very accusations one makes against others. I also try to hold myself to that principle as best I can. Take statements not supported by the words of others as independent thought. I could give a flying fuck what Marx or anyone else said. I'd rather run the risk of expounding my own ideas and conclusions independently rather than look like a mindless parrot vainly repeating the blathering gospel of others.
If you want to progress, you have to learn the spewings of others and then move beyond it. Create something new and stop wasting time regurgitating the words of others. You have to learn the rules in order to effectively break those rules. Nietzsche if fine, but he's tired. Move beyond the rules and paradigms that you have be forced to live by. Question authority and question what you believe. Realize how imprisoned you are by your own experience and move beyond it.
Quote:
Can you give me an example of a nation where socialism has been implemented? Before you answer, remember what criteria most of the established definitions of socialism list.
The Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba, Venezuela, The UK, Canada, Australia, etc.,,, Oh, and the US but the US is afraid to admit it since the 30's. All failures or on the way to failure. Obama is heading down the same path of failure.
Quote:
I think liberals and conservatives would find this line of reasoning unfair and unreasonable. I leave it to them to rebut your "arguments", though. (Again, you only post statements really, not arguments.)
Of course they would. Anything in the extreme is dangerous. Total Democracy is mob rule; Anarchy is, well, anarchy. Total Communism is everyone trying to suck off the labor of those who have given up and decided to quit working and suck off the labor of others who aren't working. Prove that otherwise.
To belabor the point -
You have a grading system in a college class. That system is that all grades for students will be averaged.
At first, everyone tries to make the grade, but the highest scoring and most productive students resent their grades being lowered to drag up the grades of the lazy or stupid students.
Then students say to themselves, "why should I even study because those who do better than me will bring my grades up!"
Then the top achieving students eventually say, "Fuck me! why should I work my ass off only for my grade to be reduced so someone who is a fucking moron lazy bastard can be dragged along off my labor? Shit, I'll just sit back and do nothing because what's the point?".
The point is that Socialism, devoid of the voluntary desire to support of the truly needy and punish the lazy is a total failure. If you have voluntary support of the truly needy and total punishment of the lazy who can be productive (notice I say 'can be productive' - and they can create their own jobs if no job exists. Only a stupid shit fuck works for anyone but themselves) you have Capitalism. Root Hog or die (unless you can't tie your own shoes).
Quote:
What? Did he give the workers ownership of the means of production and created an egalitarian society in the USA? I didn't know that. Do you possibly have a source?
I don't need a workable source. I only need to present the facts. FDR taxed the crap out of people by spending their money (government money) and by inflicting debt upon future generations (deficit spending) thus making people tax-slaves for the debt incurred. We're still paying for the Raw Deal to this day. The US hasn't been in the black since 1940. It's all been deficit spending and Obama has pushed it over the edge.
Here it is since Truman (of course they leave FDR out because he was the real fiscal criminal):
So, you see this Norman Thomas as an absolute authority on politics?
Well, he was the President of the Socialist Party in the US and was elected by them to be, so I would presume that he was considered an authority on politics from the socialist viewpoint. Unless you think the Socialist were idiots for putting him in charge.
Now aren't you sorry you asked my to respond point by point (I haven't even touched the first post(s) you brought up. But I would be more than happy to do so.
At any rate, here's hoping for less long-winded and more productive conversations on political matters (and the occasional ad hom insult to spice it all up!).
You may now call me a long-winded asshole of you like.
Post #59390
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-09-11 02:34
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
At your age?
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Quote:
Oh, bravo! Another brilliant ad hom attack lacking any connection to reality. I suggest you check your own ignorance level.
Like being spoon-fed?
I happen to value my time.
Quote:
I don't need a workable source.
I only need to present the facts. FDR taxed the crap out of people by spending their money (government money) and by inflicting debt upon future generations & (deficit spending) thus making people tax-slaves for the debt incurred.*
We're still paying for the Raw Deal to this day. The US hasn't been in the black since 1940. It's all been deficit spending and Obama has pushed it over the edge.
Here it is since Truman (of course they leave FDR out because he was the real fiscal criminal):
If this is 'socialism' then where does it leave The Republican Party's Military Keynesianism and unfunded borrow-and-spend tax breaks? Hope your logic is good.
Yep take the course Politics 101, because we're not running tutorials here, to help you out of your own laziness and not my problem.
& Republicans consistently vote against the needed taxes to evenly distribute the tax burden, tax breaks continue unfunded for their patrons in congress for the sake of that holy cow "incentives for wealthy" otherwise America wouldn't force to borrow in the International Markets to pay for its internal spending, in the present instance to reactivate economic activity and prevent the onset of a New Economic Depression.
* This says that you prefer a long-winded Economic Depression instead of action to restart the economic recovery, which is the present sacrifice to gain benefits of increase economic activity in the future THAT will actually pay off the present debt, notwithstanding the Legacy Debt from the eight of Borrow-&-Spend Republican Admin for which Conservatives and assorted imbeciles remained silent under the Bush's two terms.
You should find that practical people are LESS affected by the evils of Economic and Political Puritanism. The same 'socialism' epithet can be used against Republicans' pork-barrelling, are they socialists and nazis too? I am waiting for an answer.
Hope you reconcile your nonsensical premises with practical economic policies.
Either way, I don't care. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59394
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2009-09-11 23:54
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Re: At your age?
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
carldiesturmer wrote:
Quote:
Oh, bravo! Another brilliant ad hom attack lacking any connection to reality. I suggest you check your own ignorance level.
Like being spoon-fed?
I happen to value my time.
Quote:
I don't need a workable source.
I only need to present the facts. FDR taxed the crap out of people by spending their money (government money) and by inflicting debt upon future generations & (deficit spending) thus making people tax-slaves for the debt incurred.*
We're still paying for the Raw Deal to this day. The US hasn't been in the black since 1940. It's all been deficit spending and Obama has pushed it over the edge.
Here it is since Truman (of course they leave FDR out because he was the real fiscal criminal):
If this is 'socialism' then where does it leave The Republican Party's Military Keynesianism and unfunded borrow-and-spend tax breaks? Hope your logic is good.
Yep take the course Politics 101, because we're not running tutorials here, to help you out of your own laziness and not my problem.
& Republicans consistently vote against the needed taxes to evenly distribute the tax burden, tax breaks continue unfunded for their patrons in congress for the sake of that holy cow "incentives for wealthy" otherwise America wouldn't force to borrow in the International Markets to pay for its internal spending, in the present instance to reactivate economic activity and prevent the onset of a New Economic Depression.
* This says that you prefer a long-winded Economic Depression instead of action to restart the economic recovery, which is the present sacrifice to gain benefits of increase economic activity in the future THAT will actually pay off the present debt, notwithstanding the Legacy Debt from the eight of Borrow-&-Spend Republican Admin for which Conservatives and assorted imbeciles remained silent under the Bush's two terms.
You should find that practical people are LESS affected by the evils of Economic and Political Puritanism. The same 'socialism' epithet can be used against Republicans' pork-barrelling, are they socialists and nazis too? I am waiting for an answer.
Hope you reconcile your nonsensical premises with practical economic policies.
Either way, I don't care.
You assume that I am a Republican? Well, guess what, I'm not, so your inane argument peters out right there.
You make a terrible assumption on your part. Methinks thou art projecting.
Post #59400
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-09-12 05:01
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Re: At your age?
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
Quote:
Oh, bravo! Another brilliant ad hom attack lacking any connection to reality. I suggest you check your own ignorance level.
Like being spoon-fed?
I happen to value my time.
Quote:
I don't need a workable source.
I only need to present the facts. FDR taxed the crap out of people by spending their money (government money) and by inflicting debt upon future generations & (deficit spending) thus making people tax-slaves for the debt incurred.*
We're still paying for the Raw Deal to this day. The US hasn't been in the black since 1940. It's all been deficit spending and Obama has pushed it over the edge.
Here it is since Truman (of course they leave FDR out because he was the real fiscal criminal):
If this is 'socialism' then where does it leave The Republican Party's Military Keynesianism and unfunded borrow-and-spend tax breaks? Hope your logic is good.
Yep take the course Politics 101, because we're not running tutorials here, to help you out of your own laziness and not my problem.
& Republicans consistently vote against the needed taxes to evenly distribute the tax burden, tax breaks continue unfunded for their patrons in congress for the sake of that holy cow "incentives for wealthy" otherwise America wouldn't force to borrow in the International Markets to pay for its internal spending, in the present instance to reactivate economic activity and prevent the onset of a New Economic Depression.
* This says that you prefer a long-winded Economic Depression instead of action to restart the economic recovery, which is the present sacrifice to gain benefits of increase economic activity in the future THAT will actually pay off the present debt, notwithstanding the Legacy Debt from the eight of Borrow-&-Spend Republican Admin for which Conservatives and assorted imbeciles remained silent under the Bush's two terms.
You should find that practical people are LESS affected by the evils of Economic and Political Puritanism. The same 'socialism' epithet can be used against Republicans' pork-barrelling, are they socialists and nazis too? I am waiting for an answer.
Hope you reconcile your nonsensical premises with practical economic policies.
Either way, I don't care.
You assume that I am a Republican? Well, guess what, I'm not, so your inane argument peters out right there.
You make a terrible assumption on your part. Methinks thou art projecting.
Does it really matter if could call yourself something else, when the rhetoric, discourse and policies are the same? Some 'rebranding' of political labels as third choice political party.
My problem? NOPE - as for the republicans and their pork-barrelling well, I am all ears and still waiting.
"Me thinks you projecting your confusion between socialists and Liberals, chuck me another nazi on the barbecue, show me the breadth of your ignorance." _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59403
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2009-09-13 04:23
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Ignorant and Stupid Conservative trollers
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Just to illustrate my point about the level of ignorance and stupidity among conservative and libertarian hacks. Just yesterday these idiots marched on The Hill to prove their 'debate'. Evidently these guys are too ignorant to even pick a Politics 101 textbook and look up the definition of Liberal, Communist, Socialist and Nazi.
The stupid conservative says:"Hey stop nitpicking on the 'details', we just call the Socialist a Nazi and it grabbed the attention from the Great Unwashed and Ignorant and that's success in my Advertising Book of dirty tricks".
Where were these conservatives when Bush was doing his Naziism by the book minus the racist rhetoric (blacks are too organized to pick on them right now)?
Is it all because of Health Care for those who can't afford it?
I mean England, Canada and Australia and the rest of British Commonwealth, all nazi scum? LOL
They carried hand-painted posters with slogans decrying Obama's proposed healthcare reforms, or accusing the Democratic administration of leading the United States down the road to socialism.
"Abortion is not healthcare," read one sign. Another, held aloft by an immigrant from Ukraine, said: "I had enough of socialism in the USSR."
Quinn Ryan, 11, stood in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue, near the spot where Obama and his wife Michelle walked on a bitter cold day in January after he was sworn in as America's first black president, brandishing a sign reading: "Born free, taxed to death."
"With the bad economy, it can really affect some people, like the lifestyle of certain people. It's affecting us at home ... not so we can't eat at night but that's why we have to get involved now - so it doesn't get too bad," his 13-year-old sister Megan, who was holding her own sign, said.
The protest, coordinated by Freedomworks, a grassroots movement calling for lower taxes, less government and more economic freedom for all Americans, drew demonstrators from across the United States.
The march had to set off before the scheduled 11.30am start time as Freedom Plaza near the White House filled to overflowing.
Police were unable to say how many people had turned out for the rally, but at mid-afternoon the crowd stretched out of sight from the legislature and onto the National Mall.
The organisers said earlier in the week they hoped to attract between 20,000 and 30,000 people from around the country for the protest, which was supported by prominent conservatives, including former House majority leader Dick Armey.
Holly and Nick Bikakis had come from California for the protest.
"It's not convenient for us to be here, and it's costing us money we'd rather not spend, but we felt strongly enough that we decided we would come no matter what," Nick Bikakis told AFP.
The couple were among many at the protest carrying signs that read: "You lie" - the words shouted by Republican legislator Joe Wilson at Obama during the president's speech about health care to Congress this week.
The Ukrainian demonstrator, who refused to give his name, said he had come to Washington from Baltimore because "too many things remind me of what I saw in the communist countries.
"Communism didn't work over there and it's not going to work over here," he told AFP.
Many protesters carried signs depicting caricatures of Obama and other Democratic politicians.
Lois Calzone from Maryland had crafted a poster showing Obama painted as Batman character "the Joker" with the captions "Un-American" and "cap and traitor".
"He is a traitor. He's either a Marxist or a Communist and we're not. He's totally un-American," Calzone told AFP.
"I think Saudi Arabia is behind him. Where did he get all that money to fund his campaign?" she said.
Her daughter, who refused to give her name, said: "The reason he hasn't picked a church in DC is because he's not Christian. He's Muslim.
"We were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but this is too much."
Among the overwhelmingly white crowd of demonstrators was Marlon Fendall, an African American from Virginia, who said he had come to talk.
"I've been to seven town halls, I've been heckled, had stuff thrown on me, but I won't give up," Fendall told AFP.
"I still believe that people need to talk," said Fendall, who was wearing an Obama T-shirt and baseball cap.
Deep in the crowd was another person on a similar mission.
Georgetown University law student Lindsay Windsor strode into the crowd and asked demonstrators why they thought Obama was a communist or a traitor or un-American.
"A lot of the slogans are very inflammatory and I want to understand what they actually mean," said Windsor, 22, who was wearing an Obama-Biden T-shirt, as she walked over to Calzone and her friends.
"I don't want to try to convince you that I'm right. I want to try to understand you. If we are going to fix our country's problems, we need to have a conversation together," Windsor said to the group of women.
"Obama is a sleeper cell ... Go have a conversation with someone else," Calzone's daughter told her.
And these people want 'debate', there is nothing to debate with malicious propaganda pushed by idiots, ignorant and plain stupid people. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59404
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2009-09-13 04:30
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
This should irritate a few people:
Came up with this one for a buddy's blog a while back. Hope it offends the political left.
Cheap-ass job using image search google with MS Paint for the letters, too easy, should say "BUSH" though, erh "Mr Internment Camp" at Guantanamo Bay and CIA Torture Measures though, I couldn't help but correcting..
Need to increase that troll meds. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59406
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2009-09-14 00:25
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
Cheap, but effective. Why spend any more money than you need to spend? Oh, and it wasn't MS Paint that I used. It was Adobe Photoshop Pro, but the font is indeed an MS font.
And you know what your problem really is? You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...
Post #59410
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2009-09-14 04:03
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Debt flak on Obama as if people cared?
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Cheap, but effective. Why spend any more money than you need to spend? Oh, and it wasn't MS Paint that I used. It was Adobe Photoshop Pro, but the font is indeed an MS font.
And you know what your problem really is?
You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...*
I like that in a person. It shows you have guts**.
Hmmm looks like you have some inane comment made on a recycled piece of inane propaganda considered 'guts', I think you're over-rating your ability and product.
* Perhaps I don't buy confidence and bluff games from political poseurs. Either case it is deserved for posting stupidity, this is not Liberal College where your lack of capacity is praised so your feelings are not hurt.
** welcome to the Real World.
PS: there is not debating with utter time-wasting BS, not baiting, give it up. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59412
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2009-09-14 13:57
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Conservatives can afford Wars but not Health Care?
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (4 votes cast)
Just to state the obvious, where were these people when George W Bush with the help of Libertarian Separatists scum were passing unfunded war-spending and borrowing?
Well?
And in the aftermath of their destructive policies refused to do aything to rescue the American Economy from imminent economic collapse because it offended their zeal to fanatical adherence to ideology.
Amusingly enough, these pea-brain monkeys consider disagreement in the media "Liberal Media Bias" as if the media had some sort of unwritten obligation to abide by Republican/Conservative Bias or some sort, not counting Fox Network of course who side for the sake of more TV and Newspaper licenses.
More than a good reason to disrepect ignorant people who confuse Liberalism with Socialism with Nazism and that coming out of black man of actual African ancestry.
There is no debating with the ignorant, bigoted and stupid, to do otherwise is to simply give a thin veneer of credibility to what are bankrupted ideas held by bankrupted ideologues. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109628
Quote:
WND Exclusive A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA
A million or more rock Washington
Taxpayer march could be biggest rally ever in capital
Posted: September 12, 2009
9:57 pm Eastern
WASHINGTON – The capital was rocked today by a taxpayer march and rally that could be the biggest protest ever – potentially dwarfing the Million Man March and the Promise Keepers Rally.
Though crowd estimates vary from as low as 60,000 to 70,000 according to ABC News to a high of 2 million by London Daily Mail, photographs and videos of the march and rally demonstrate its enormity.
The taxpayers stormed Washington, D.C., today, taking their fight against excessive spending, bailouts, growth of big government and soaring deficits to the front door of the U.S. Capitol.
All week citizens have been heading to the Hill by the busloads for the showdown today. The Tea Party Patriots' "Tea Party Express" national bus tour has been hosting a series of tea party rallies all across the nation. A caravan of buses, speakers and entertainers arrived in Washington, D.C., just in time for the march. The taxpayers have paid their own way to the event.
The White House said Friday it was unaware of the rally. President Obama has traveled to Minneapolis, Minn., to promote his health-care plans at a rally there.
But so many taxpayers showed up on Pennsylvania Avenue that the crowd ran out of room and the march was forced to begin early.
WND was at the scene to get crowd reaction and take photos of the protest.
Live at the scene in Washington, D.C. (WND photo)
Citizens carried hand-made signs that read:
* 2010: Vote all incumbents out!
* Our Constitution has termites!
* We are under attack by our own government
* Stop the march of socialism
* You can put lipstick on communism, but it's still communism
* My family, my doctor
* Obamacare makes me sick
* Go green: Recycle Congress
* I'm not your ATM
* We had a dream. We got a nightmare
* Is this Russia?
* You Lie!
Washington march photo by Barbara Auchter
Some people donned colonial costumes while the crowd was sprinkled with U.S. and yellow "Don't tread on me" flags.
Visit the one and only "tea party store" now.
Laurie Slough (WND photo)
Others, like Laurie Slough of Orlando, Fla., also dressed in costume to demonstrate their message. Slough wore a prison costume and carried a sign that read, "Criminals in Congress, your judgment day is coming."
WND also noticed many anti-ACORN signs, following the recent controversy in which one of the organization's offices was exposed supporting prostitution and human trafficking.
Politico reported among the signs seen were those asking "Where's the Birth Certificate?" – reflections of WND's extensive coverage of the yet-unanswered questions surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president.
Fox News reported lines of citizens completely filled Pennsylvania Avenue for blocks.
"It was wall-to-wall people. I felt like I was in line for Obama health care," said participant Robert Barney of Chesapeake, Va.
Organizers have told the media they expect the event to be the largest group of fiscal conservatives to ever gather in Washington.
(Story continues below)
Richard Brigle, 57, a Vietnam War veteran and former Teamster, came from Paw Paw, Mich. He told Fox News that he believes the nation needs health-care reform – but not President Obama's plan.
"My grandkids are going to be paying for this. It's going to cost too much money that we don't have," he said while marching with a wooden cane.
Fox News live footage shows thousands at Capitol
According to the Washington Times, the "Tea Party Express" tour was the fourth most popular topic searched on Yahoo last week. Joe Wierzbicki, national coordinator of the Tea Party Express, told the Times he expected a large turnout.
"We were expecting 25,000 a few weeks ago, but now we are hoping for over 50,000," Wierzbicki said.
Get your copy of "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream" now!
Several organizations united to help organize the National Taxpayer Protest's descent on the Capitol, including: Freedom Works, Grassfire/ResistNet, Tea Party Patriots, National Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Liberty, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Our Country Deserves Better, Campaign for Liberty, Leadership Institute, Free Republic, Young America's Foundation, the National Association of Rural Land Owners and Smart Girl Politics.
Washington march photo by Barbara Auchter
Brendan Steinhauser of FreedomWorks, one of the groups that organized the event, told WND, "People want to do this. The people who have been protesting around the country want to come to Washington and do this in D.C. In a lot of ways, they are being ignored and the media is underrepresenting them and their numbers. They want to come together for one big event and send a very clear message."
_________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59414
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-09-15 17:58
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
So, Democratic Kampuchea, Deutsche Demokratische Republik, and Democratic People's Republic of Korea should be described as democracies then? Have you never heard of the expression "pay lip service"?
Democracy doesn't imply 'freedom' by any means. Neither does the term 'republic' imply freedom. And neither term implies any particular political system or economic system/philosophy. The Soviet Union was technical a Democracy and a Republic - the people voted for the one single candidate the party fielded as a general rule. In North Korea, Kim Jong Ill was 'voted' into office albeit he was the only candidate and there was no box to check for 'no'.
You don't have to lecture me on this. I've already pointed out that I'm critical of liberal representative democracy.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Hitler was elected under the Constitution of The Weimar Repbublik.
A flawed constitution doesn't mean that democracy as such is flawed.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Now, in countries like the US, you actually have a choice - but the choice(s) are usually the choice between the lesser of two evils. The 'powers that be' as it were, are happy and fine if you vote for who they want you to vote for. If you vote for a 'third party' candidate you are relegated to the ranks of a malcontent nut-case by the Lame Stream Media.
It's certainly debatable if one has a choice in the USA. The differences between the two parties are marginal by international standards. One could even claim that the USA is a one-party state.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
For example - Bush II bitched and moaned that there should be 'open and free democratic elections' in Gaza. The results of the election was a Hamas victory (the worst result possible). Then Bush II bitched at the fact the elections didn't give the desired results. Hence, even in the most democratic societies, democracy and freedom are just fine and dandy as long as the elections produce the results desired by whomever happens to have the aggregate of power at that time and that you express your freedoms in a way that is acceptable to the powers that be.*
The question begs to be asked: Is an undemocratic democracy really a democracy?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
* Read: What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World by Noam Chomsky (2007) ISBN 0805086714
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
f you want your "argumentation" to be taken seriously, you should probably start by trying to rebut the arguments in my previous post.
I would love to have the time to do that, but it's hard to get through the bombardment of insults and ad hom attacks, which manner of attack I generally don't respond to because I don't waste my time with such superficial and petty 'arguments'.
That's a surprisingly lame excuse. Libertarians are usually better at dodging difficult debates than that.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
After reading through heaps of posts on this board before deciding to sign up, perhaps if people spent more time presenting ideas instead of calling each other assholes at the drop of a hat, and that people were less belligerent off the bat, then perhaps there would be more current activity on the board. More important, if you want a message board to be taken seriously, it would be well heeded advice to be less belligerent and less ad hom in approach, one needs to put a lid on tasteless and gratuitous vulgarity unless humor requires it. I've watched some major political message boards whither away to a shadow of nothingness as a result of people taking things personally and treating others as though it was just one giant role playing game.
IOW, one cannot go around simply bashing anyone who disagrees with them for the sake of bashing people because they disagree with you. That is not conducive the cause of freedom (to steal a line) however one defines that term. I deal with people that span the whole political, economic and ideological spectrum on a daily basis and none of us take it personally (even when we call each other assholes, shit heads and quaint Anglo-Saxon anatomical references), as long as it's good natured humor.
Then again, it's occasionally fun to egg someone on call someone an ignorant fucker just to see their response. But doing that as a 'serious' argument is generally an ignorant course of action.
Hm, so you haven't figured out why the forum is quiet yet? Well, it's not so surprising. The reason is that the forum has been terrorised by a troll; not of a unique kind, but definitely of a rare one. Hopefully, he has been institutionalised by now, but I'm afraid that he might return.
Carldiesturmer and yours truly act the way we do for a reason. Drop your libertarian newspeak and we'll get off your back at once.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
If I were a troll, you would be totally victimized.
I certainly doubt that. I'm an old USENET resident.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I don't waste my time with trolls nor do I condone trolls. If I encounter a troll, they generally will get totally abused in the most humorous fashion I can think of at the time. I run two message boards that have absolutely nothing to do with politics and I know how to drive trolls out from under the bridge in the most brutal fashion - and I don't even have to ban them to do it.
Then you might be in for a treat.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
Correction: Every liberal economist.
For the record: It's spelled Schumpeter. It's also quite confusing that you refer to Schumpeter, as he was sympathetic towards Marx and predicted that capitalism will collapse.
Typo error on my part. Of course Schumpeter was sympathetic towards Marx. Being a dyed in the wool free market capitalist (and often accused of being an Anarcho-Captalist, but not averse to Nationalism and certain aspects of Statism as being necessary in functional terms) there are certain analytical 'commentary' elements of Marx concerning Capitalism that I totally agree with. But that doesn't mean I want to live under a Marxist system by any means.
My course of action is to acquaint myself with all ends of the spectrum and decide for myself which elements that are to be or not to be believed or followed. I can do that because I lean towards pragmatism and Realpolitik but keep the compass pointed towards ethics and morality peculiar to my own cultural origins.
After years of studying various socio-economic systems, my conclusion is that democratic socialism is the least worst way to deal with the problems which are awaiting us.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
It's a good start that you have realised that much at least.
Ah, British Orthography (realised).
Yes, I prefer that.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
While I have a cautious view of non-capitalistic systems, there are elements of Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Anarchy and Fascism that I think are very logical and can be applied successfully to any system or society/culture without compromising individual freedoms (in an economic sense). But there is a need to let society govern itself without the interference of governments and the 'state'.
I definitely agree with the last notion. That's why I'm a democratic socialist. From my point of view, your proposed system will simply replace crony capitalism with out-right plutocracy.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I do not believe in government initiated 'patriotism' as patriotism comes from the people who support their country/nation independently and often exclusively of their 'state'.
I believe that governments do not grant "rights" as rights are preexistent to governments.
I believe in government by the consent of the governed and the right of people to revolt against oppressive governments.
I believe that governments exist only by the consent of the people and that all governments are delegated authority to govern by the people.
Agreed.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
No system is inherently evil unless corrupted to the point that it inhibits individual rights to life, liberty and property and the enjoyment thereof.
Ah, the good old "right to property" line of reasoning. We have discussed it at great length in this forum already. I'll just ask my standard questions: Must the "right to property" always equal unlimited property? Should the "right to property" be protected if the property has been acquired in questionable ways? What says that the "right to property" doesn't equal the right to collective property?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
People need to fend for themselves instead of sucking up to and becoming totally dependent upon the big nipple in the sky (welfare).
Ah, the old welfare paradox. Why do you think the welfare state was created in the first place? It was to prevent socialist reform. If you remove welfare, the political atmosphere will become just as revolutionary as in the late 19th century and early 20th century. As a democratic socialist, I'd prefer less radical methods, so I hope that your kind doesn't get your way.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
People should also be given a safety net if they can't fend for themselves, but if they are simply tick on the system, they should be left twisting in the wind - root hog or die.
Ah, another old paradox. If people can't get food on the table, what do you think they'll do? Starve to death or commit crimes? What do you think the latter will cost society?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I believe that mandating charity by government edict is theft.
And I believe that capitalism is theft. I don't use that kind of vocabulary, though. It's a means of trying to criminalise one's opponent's opinions and doesn't belong in a serious debate.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
While those that cannot fend for themselves for whatever reason need to be given help, that help should be a hand-up instead of a hand out with exceptions in extreme cases.
The question begs to be asked: Who needs to be given help and who doesn't? Where would you draw the line?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Socialistic programs tend to imbue resentment from those who are forced to pay for it and childish dependence upon those who can indeed fend for themselves.
In a socialist society - which admittedly just is a theoretical construction so far - there would probably be less welfare. Think about it.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I could go on (and be thankful that I don't ) and bore the ever-loving shit out of you all.
Too late. But then again, you couldn't possibly know that exactly these questions have been discussed ad nauseam in this forum already.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I have no gripe with Socialists, etc., (although Mussolini and Franco style Fascists can kiss my ass as a general rule) as individuals, I think that the totality of their systems do no agree with my intestines for the most part.
Makes sense. You can't possibly have something against a socio-economic system that you don't understand.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
As far as I know, there's not a single country or leader that has claimed to have achieved communism. Perhaps even more importantly, one of the main goals of communism is and has always been to create a stateless society. Having this in mind, how can you equate communism with statism? It doesn't make sense.
This is why I should learn to keep my comments as simple as possible.
On the contrary. You should back up your comments with some proper arguments.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Castro claims success in instituting Communism but lacks the balls to call it anything by 'socialism'.
Hm, I didn't know that. Source?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
This is true of the thankfully defunct Soviet Union.
Indeed. Stalin is the Robespierre of socialism.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
The problem with Communism is that it, according to theory, is really Socialism that is in a perpetual 'revolution' to achieve communism but will by it's own admission will never really get there (the Soviets and Castro always say 'the fucktieth year of the Revolution' and such crap like it's "Forever War" that will never end). You set your goal, you achieve that goal and you quit while you are ahead of that. While one can claim Communism, one can never attain it.
Hm, I don't dare to be as dogmatic as you in this case. I'll leave it to communists to discuss this matter, though.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
The same is true of Capitalism or any system. The longer you take to achieve it the more it is hindered by the inherent corruption caused by human nature and you cannot change human nature no matter how hard you try. Truth decays into lies; freedom decays into slavery, Democracy decays into Totalitarianism, Communism in to Capitalism and Socialism into Fascism. And it's all human nature that is to blame and you can't change human nature no matter how much you try.
Ah, good old "human nature" again. Please see my rebuttal in the other thread.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
While Communism tries to accomplish a true stateless society, so does Anarchy and neither equates with the other. But given the choice between Communism and Anarchy, I would take Anarchy. The problem with my argument on this point (which I recognize) is that Pure Anarchy and Pure Communism are essentially the same thing but poles apart.
Here's the conundrum: You can have Pure Communism and Pure Anarchy but it depends upon the willing participation of those who live under those systems. Willing participation means you have rules and regulation which means you have government which means you have a 'state'. Pure Anarchy, Capitalism, Communism, Fascism or Socialism means that you must have rules to abide by. That means you must have government and that means you must have a state to preserve your system and you are back at the starting point in a death spiral of reality.
When you have one person exerting their will over another person you have government and state. The only time you have no state or government is when you are alone on a desert island. Then you still have a government and state and it dictates your own desire to survive over the potential result being your own demise. To steal a James Joyce quote, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake". There is an ultimate reality that one cannot escape no mater how delusional or misguided one is. Even lunatics are restrained by straight jackets, rubber rooms or other people's guns (to get them out of their way or out of their misery). It's just the reality of the world and the world is not perfect and only a total idiot thinks it can be perfect.
I'm an anarchist at heart, but I've realised that some kind of centralised coordination is required to maintain civilisation. Out of laziness, I'll simply copy and past an old battery of question:
1. Exactly in what ways will a libertarian society differ from our current society?
2. Exactly which state functions will be removed and which will remain?
3. Exactly which state regulations will be removed and which will remain?
4. Exactly how will government programs be made more effective?
5. Exactly how will the remaining state apparatus be financed?
6. Will market regulation and stimulation be allowed in a LibCap society?
7. How should laissez-fair capitalism and social unrest be avoided?
8. What if I claim that libertarian simply is Social Darwinism?
9. Is the Libertarianism an American system or a universal system?
So far, not a single libertarian has been able to answer these questions properly.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time with Gus Hall and Abbie Hoffman over the years to know how their arguments do support my claim.
[...]
Yeah, I knew a lot of the 'biggies' but I never let my personal beliefs get in the way of a good beer-binge with them.
Unfortunately, I don't share your faith in authorities, so I'm not impressed.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
As Abbie once said, "Never impose your language on people you wish to reach." That means quit thinking in terms of what you have been made to use. Quit using Marxist, Capitalist, etc.,,, terms that have become 'New Speak' or double talk.
These terms are used out of convenience to avoid unnecessary debates like this one; we are basically discussing semantics. Has it never struck you that they have been invented for a reason?
As for newspeak, here's some good examples for you:
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
Socialism is fascism.
Fascism is liberalism.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
Since you basically only post statements and few, if any, arguments to support these statements, it's easy to believe that you are a victim of propaganda and don't think for yourself.
The same could be said for you also.
Is that so? Please enlighten me. (How come that one always start debating debating manners with libertarians instead actual issues?)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Be careful of accusations because one is usually guilty of the very accusations one makes against others.
Says who?
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I also try to hold myself to that principle as best I can.
Take statements not supported by the words of others as independent thought. I could give a flying fuck what Marx or anyone else said. I'd rather run the risk of expounding my own ideas and conclusions independently rather than look like a mindless parrot vainly repeating the blathering gospel of others.
If you want to progress, you have to learn the spewings of others and then move beyond it. Create something new and stop wasting time regurgitating the words of others. You have to learn the rules in order to effectively break those rules. Nietzsche if fine, but he's tired. Move beyond the rules and paradigms that you have be forced to live by. Question authority and question what you believe. Realize how imprisoned you are by your own experience and move beyond it.
So, how come that you refer to other authorities in this debate, but I don't? It doesn't make sense, now does it?
Me thinks you are conceited.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
Can you give me an example of a nation where socialism has been implemented? Before you answer, remember what criteria most of the established definitions of socialism list.
The Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Bloc, China, Cuba, Venezuela, The UK, Canada, Australia, etc.,,, Oh, and the US but the US is afraid to admit it since the 30's. All failures or on the way to failure. Obama is heading down the same path of failure.
How predictable. I've already rebutted this line of reasoning. I refuse to repeat myself. If you can't debate, it's your problem, not mine.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
I think liberals and conservatives would find this line of reasoning unfair and unreasonable. I leave it to them to rebut your "arguments", though. (Again, you only post statements really, not arguments.)
Of course they would. Anything in the extreme is dangerous. Total Democracy is mob rule; Anarchy is, well, anarchy. Total Communism is everyone trying to suck off the labor of those who have given up and decided to quit working and suck off the labor of others who aren't working. Prove that otherwise.
Ah, sweeping generalisations again. Well, we have discussed exactly these questions several times in this forum, so forgive me if I can't be bothered an umpteenth time.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
To belabor the point -
You have a grading system in a college class. That system is that all grades for students will be averaged.
At first, everyone tries to make the grade, but the highest scoring and most productive students resent their grades being lowered to drag up the grades of the lazy or stupid students.
Then students say to themselves, "why should I even study because those who do better than me will bring my grades up!"
Then the top achieving students eventually say, "Fuck me! why should I work my ass off only for my grade to be reduced so someone who is a fucking moron lazy bastard can be dragged along off my labor? Shit, I'll just sit back and do nothing because what's the point?".
The point is that Socialism, devoid of the voluntary desire to support of the truly needy and punish the lazy is a total failure. If you have voluntary support of the truly needy and total punishment of the lazy who can be productive (notice I say 'can be productive' - and they can create their own jobs if no job exists. Only a stupid shit fuck works for anyone but themselves) you have Capitalism. Root Hog or die (unless you can't tie your own shoes).
A limping analogy. This could as well be an argument for striving to become a Third World country. They usually have weak social security and big wealth gaps.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
What? Did he give the workers ownership of the means of production and created an egalitarian society in the USA? I didn't know that. Do you possibly have a source?
I don't need a workable source.
Yes, you do. Your "argumentation" contradicts all established definitions. Sounds like newspeak in my ears.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
I only need to present the facts.
The problem is that you don't.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
FDR taxed the crap out of people by spending their money (government money) and by inflicting debt upon future generations (deficit spending) thus making people tax-slaves for the debt incurred. We're still paying for the Raw Deal to this day. The US hasn't been in the black since 1940. It's all been deficit spending and Obama has pushed it over the edge.
Here it is since Truman (of course they leave FDR out because he was the real fiscal criminal):
Indeed, it's a pity that FDR implemented these conservative/liberal welfare programs. If he wouldn't have, the social unrest would most probably have lead to the formation of a large social democratic party in the USA, and that would at least been a slight improvement.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Quote:
So, you see this Norman Thomas as an absolute authority on politics?
Well, he was the President of the Socialist Party in the US and was elected by them to be, so I would presume that he was considered an authority on politics from the socialist viewpoint. Unless you think the Socialist were idiots for putting him in charge.
You didn't answer my question.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Now aren't you sorry you asked my to respond point by point (I haven't even touched the first post(s) you brought up. But I would be more than happy to do so.
No, I'm not sorry. I've been down this particular path many times in this very forum and others as well. My expectations are very low.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
At any rate, here's hoping for less long-winded and more productive conversations on political matters (and the occasional ad hom insult to spice it all up!).
They will only become more productive if you drop your libertarian newspeak.
Jefferson Davis wrote:
You may now call me a long-winded asshole of you like.
Your long-windedness is not the problem.
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Tue 2009-09-15 18:05; edited 1 time in total
Post #59418
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Tue 2009-09-15 18:09
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
And you know what your problem really is? You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...
His insults are at least straight-forward. Your crudely manipulative attempts to criminalise your oponent's opinions and stigmatise them as fascists are definitely worse.
Post #59423
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-09-16 02:10
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Jefferson Davis wrote:
And you know what your problem really is? You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...
His insults are at least straight-forward. Your crudely manipulative attempts to criminalise your oponent's opinions and stigmatise them as fascists are definitely worse.
At least you realize that I am deliberately applying your tactics to your statements. Calling the kettle black, eh, what?
Essentially, you are calling your own tactics crude and manipulative. Turnabout's fair play. And it serves to illustrate the point precisely.
The problem with the Left is that they tend to 'feel' rather than think, which I suppose is a good paradigm to inflict upon manipulated masses or 'useful idiots' and Uncle Jo would call them.
A government telling people what they can spend their money on, what they can think, what they can eat, etc.,,, is fascist and the political left in the US is just as guilty as the political right is in this aspect - although it has been elevated to a new art by the Obama Clan.
Post #59427
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2009-09-16 05:03
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Jefferson Davis wrote:
And you know what your problem really is? You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...
His insults are at least straight-forward. Your crudely manipulative attempts to criminalise your oponent's opinions and stigmatise them as fascists are definitely worse&[/b].
At least you realize that I am deliberately applying your tactics to your statements. Calling the kettle black, eh, what? *
Essentially, you are calling your own tactics crude and manipulative.
Turnabout's fair play. And it serves to illustrate the point precisely. **
The problem with the Left is that they tend to 'feel' rather than think, which I suppose is a good paradigm to inflict upon manipulated masses or 'useful idiots' and Uncle Jo would call them.
A government telling people what they can spend their money on, what they can think, what they can eat, etc.,,, is fascist and the political left in the US is just as guilty as the political right is in this aspect - although it has been elevated to a new art by the Obama Clan.
Did I hear the KKK Clan?
* Good old south eh.
** whatever you're supposed to be saying with that empty sentence.
& you should be taking notes when you call the Liberal a socialist, then a Nazi then a Communist for the sake of attention-grabbing cheap tricks, thought people wouldn't noticed, that VERY DISHONEST.
Now PISS OFF! _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59430
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-09-17 00:26
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
carldiesturmer wrote:
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Jefferson Davis wrote:
And you know what your problem really is? You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...
His insults are at least straight-forward. Your crudely manipulative attempts to criminalise your oponent's opinions and stigmatise them as fascists are definitely worse&[/b].
At least you realize that I am deliberately applying your tactics to your statements. Calling the kettle black, eh, what? *
Essentially, you are calling your own tactics crude and manipulative.
Turnabout's fair play. And it serves to illustrate the point precisely. **
The problem with the Left is that they tend to 'feel' rather than think, which I suppose is a good paradigm to inflict upon manipulated masses or 'useful idiots' and Uncle Jo would call them.
A government telling people what they can spend their money on, what they can think, what they can eat, etc.,,, is fascist and the political left in the US is just as guilty as the political right is in this aspect - although it has been elevated to a new art by the Obama Clan.
Did I hear the KKK Clan?
* Good old south eh.
** whatever you're supposed to be saying with that empty sentence.
& you should be taking notes when you call the Liberal a socialist, then a Nazi then a Communist for the sake of attention-grabbing cheap tricks, thought people wouldn't noticed, that VERY DISHONEST.
Now PISS OFF!
You are one paranoid mufuckkuh, there son. You not only think every misinterpretation on your part is racist but that it's all about you. Tsk, tsk.
Post #59433
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4292
Total Words: 709,073
Average words per post: 165.21
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2009-09-17 08:50
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Currently 4.00/4
Post Rating: 4.0/4 (3 votes cast)
Jefferson Davis wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
Jefferson Davis wrote:
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Jefferson Davis wrote:
And you know what your problem really is? You are and overbearing, arrogant dine-store thug. You refuse to actually discuss a subject without going into ad hom attacks...
His insults are at least straight-forward. Your crudely manipulative attempts to criminalise your oponent's opinions and stigmatise them as fascists are definitely worse&[/b].
At least you realize that I am deliberately applying your tactics to your statements. Calling the kettle black, eh, what? *
Essentially, you are calling your own tactics crude and manipulative.
Turnabout's fair play. And it serves to illustrate the point precisely. **
The problem with the Left is that they tend to 'feel' rather than think, which I suppose is a good paradigm to inflict upon manipulated masses or 'useful idiots' and Uncle Jo would call them.
A government telling people what they can spend their money on, what they can think, what they can eat, etc.,,, is fascist and the political left in the US is just as guilty as the political right is in this aspect - although it has been elevated to a new art by the Obama Clan.
Did I hear the KKK Clan?
* Good old south eh.
** whatever you're supposed to be saying with that empty sentence.
& you should be taking notes when you call the Liberal a socialist, then a Nazi then a Communist for the sake of attention-grabbing cheap tricks, thought people wouldn't noticed, that VERY DISHONEST.
Now PISS OFF!
You are one paranoid mufuckkuh, there son. You not only think every misinterpretation on your part is racist but that it's all about you. Tsk, tsk.
You are one cantankerous sod, eh, what? *
Bwahahahah, why do you complain about being pilloried after posting factually incorrect stuff and expect instead to be given praises or waste people's time refuting stupid stuff to begin with.
* you wish bitch, now I expect more Obama compared with Naziism in Nazi propaganda paraphernalia. White Power is showing its dark face in the recycled Nazi Propaganda. _________________
WARNING & DISCLAIMER
THIS SITE ADMITS NO LIABILITY AS TO STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FORUM MEMBERS, SITE UNSUITABLE TO MINORS.
THIS IS FORUM IS FREQUENTED BY MENTALLY-ILL PERSONS, SCHIZOPHRENICS, HOMOSEXUALS, PEDERASTS AND EMOTIONALLY UNSTABLE USERS, DEEMED AT RISK.
CAUTION ANY INFORMATION GIVEN TO FORUM USERS CAN BE MISUSED.
BY HAVING READ THE ABOVE, YOU HAVE RELEASED THE FORUM FROM LIABILITY
forums.newspeakdictionary.com 2008(c) alpineethan@gmail.com ethan jeff grupp Jeff Majdic sexual pervert majdic2136 nicholas.burd@yahoo.com RYE:VIRGIN DUNCE
"if you believe in reality please put this in your signature "LY" as the qualified weasel worded statement for extra vagueness"
Post #59443
Joined: 05 Sep 2009
Posts: 31
Total Words: 8,880
Average words per post: 286.45
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2009-09-20 22:43
Politics: Constitutionalist
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (6 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Rendering my posts to the memory hole.
I can see why your forum is as active as an undiscovered Egyptian Pharoah's tomb. _________________ #1 Though Criminal
"Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
) and bore the ever-loving shit out of you all.
