PDA

View Full Version : Shining light on Liberal Socialists



Unified Serenity
18th May 2012, 17:25
I read this article and thought everyone who likes this stuff should examine those who preach it, and see how much they are willing to share their wealth. Facts speak for themselves:

Thanks to Kyle Becker (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/author/kylebecker/) at Conservative Daily News (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/).


http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tsp-300x200.jpg?w=600 (http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tsp-300x200.jpg)

(http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)
Millionaire Socialists and the Morons Who Love Them (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)

(http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)
Nothing is as moronic about the modern left as its espousing of socialist values, like wealth redistribution and state-determined equality of outcomes, and its simultaneous backing of politicians and leftist celebrities who defy every one of those purported values. The cognitive dissonance it takes to support a left-wing party headed by wealthy oligarchs is truly breathtaking. Such radical fat cats in the main use the state as a way to suppress competition, flaunt the radical environmentalist claptrap through carbon-belching air and motorcade travel, and even crush the market system that got them to their lofty positions.
READ MORE HERE (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)

(http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)
Ladies and gentlement, here are your socialist one-percenters.


Francois Hollande, the new socialist president of France, is a great example of a man who talks the talk, but in no wise walks the walk. As Bloomberg aptly put it, “French President-elect Francois Hollande, who portrayed himself as a ‘normal man’ during the election campaign, owns properties worth… $1.51 million, according to a government publication.” Not too shabby for a man who is supposed to be ‘down for the little people.
Dominic Strauss-Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn), the former managing director of the IMF, recently embroiled in a sexual assault case that was dismissed. Also a member of the French Socialist Party, he is estimated to be worth $10 million. French socialists recently denounced (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/socialists-turning-their-backs-on-dominique-strauss-kahn/story-e6frf7lf-1226180080393) DSK as a way of getting some ideological distance from the creep. Nice try, shysters.
Hugo Chavez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez), unofficial dictator (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2012/05/15/sacha_baron_cohen_strikes_again/)-for-life in socialist Venezuela. Born in a mud hut, he rose to tyrannical control over the country, and is now worth (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/hugo-chavez-net-worth/) an estimated $1 billion dollars. Chavez claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/12/hugo-chavez-cancer-treatment-success) to have recovered from cancer treatment provided in Cuba, and will “run” again for tinpot dictator over the country. He would have been constitutionally forbidden to do so, but he supposedly won a referendum in 2009 to ban term limits. Because, you know, he’s for democracy and stuff.
Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro), communist leader of Cuba, is worth (http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm) a cool $900 million, according to a Forbes estimate. After ruling Cuba with an iron fist from 1961 until 2011, he finally turned power over to his brother Raul Castro. (Because communists have evolved past all that nepotism business.) In any event, while the Cuban communist brothers lived high off the hog, the majority of Cubans struggled to put food on the table. Is that a lifestyle we Americans are supposed to envy? While it is debatable whether or not Fidel Castro is dead, it’s not debatable that communism is a dead ideology, except in the minds of delusional fools.
Daniel Ortega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ortega) is the new socialist leader on the Latin American block, and is said to be worth at least $1 million (http://opinion.vivenicaragua.com/blogmentario/2009/10/15/nicaraguas-newest-tycoon-socialist-president-daniel-ortega.html). Bankrolled by fellow lefty Hugo Chavez, this budding Nicaraguan despot is sure to be worth more than this low-ball estimate. Extensive real estate holdings attained through state expropriation give this man a healthy boost in the wealth category. Although he sounds like he could be the heir to a taco empire, he got his money the old-fashioned socialist way — by stealing it.
Julia Gillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard) is the current prime minister of Australia. Notorious for posing as an environmentalist moderate during her election, and then pivoting to a hardline “green” stance, she is currently worth (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/julia-gillard-net-worth/) $2 million. Gillard’s predecessor and mentor as Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has been described as the “Richie Rich (http://www.watoday.com.au/national/rudd-richie-rich-of-pms-20100526-we7r.html)” of prime ministers, and is himself estimated to be worth around $156 million. There is also solid evidence that a Gillard staffer engineered a mini-race riot (http://jamesboard.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/australias-mini-race-riot-defending-the-indefensible/) on Australia Day, showing the left’s shared penchant for scumbaggery transcends national borders.
Paul Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin) is a former prime minister of Canada. Although he attained a fortune of $225 million as CEO of CSL Group, among other things, he felt compelled to co-author the Liberal Party platform of “Creating Opportunity,” colloquially known as the “Red Book.” Since 1993, when the Liberal Party won a landslide, the Canadian economy is yet to break free of the seven percent to nine percent unemployment range.
Vladimir Putin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin) is the authoritarian head of Russia, an ex-KGB colonel who has maintained many socialist policies from the USSR days, as both president and prime minister. Putin has been slow to privatize the numerous industries of the Soviet era, and has allowed little economic freedom, bullying any industry titans unless the predatory controllers of those firms pay obeisance to the Kremlin. Worth (http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/politician/minister/vladimir-putin-net-worth/)about $40 billion.
Al Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore) was vice president under Clinton and ‘almost the next president of the United States.’ A global warmist by occupation, he has called for increasingly tight controls over the market economy. An “unregulated” market is supposedly going to lead to a manmade climate change apocalypse, that is, unless we fork over — $76 trillion dollars. As a man who jet sets around the planet preaching the green gospel, while racking up a hefty utilities bill in his numerous mansions (including ocean front property), he is worth (http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/politician/democrat/al-gore-net-worth/) about $100 million.
Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) is the historic first black president of the United States. A man who was backed big time by Wall Street in his 2008 campaign and yet claimed that the Occupy Wall Street kids were the reason he ran for office, he has constantly demagogued the class warfare argument for wealth redistribution. Although he has constantly framed America as a country that is heartless and oppresses minorities, he is a walking parody of that insipid line of attack. Since writing a couple of biographies, sold mainly in the capitalist market (though it’s questionable if any read them), he is now worth about $10.5 million.



p0rdry_gY_E



http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/brain_socialist_550_gif_pagespeed_ce_ix8jod5aty.gi f?w=600

the_vast_mystery
18th May 2012, 20:38
Taxation is a collective thing, you can't fault someone for being rich and supporting higher taxes for the wealthy. It's just like me cutting the government an extra $50.00 isn't going to cover the millions of children who need healthcare. But if everyone say, making $10,000,000 or more a year paid an extra 1% of their income it would make a huge dent in the problem. The idea behind progressive taxation is that as you benefit far more collectively by being able to own a business, own fancy homes and therefore enjoy the pristine lifestyle afforded by being high up the rung in civilization. So because if that and because you are infinitely more able to afford it, that you should pay it forward so that civilization can keep functioning as well as it does. Because all of that wealth wouldn't be worth anything without police, military, etc. to keep roving bands of marauders from deciding they wanted to help themselves to your home, your wife and so on and your business wouldn't function if your workers were too poor to afford transportation to work without public roads and/or public metro transportation via buses, subways, etc. As well, if your workers were living in crime infested areas or were too poor to feed themselves or even buy your products there wouldn't be much of a market to even sell them in. Demand drives the market, and if the population can't buy your goods then you're not going to do so well.

The wealthy don't see the most direct benefits of their taxation, as the poor would, but they reap far more collectively through the indirect benefits of the civil society having a strong social safety net provides. If they collectively don't want to have that safety net though then they need to renounce their citizenship and stop doing business here. As being born into privilege was entirely enabled by the blood, sweat and tears born by countless previous generations laboring to make American society what it is today. To try to duck taxes is to stick the finger at your forefathers for wanting a better life for you and to the countless children yet to be born that you don't care that they grow up in a hellhole so long as you can buy a small fortress guarded with private security.

CdnSirian
18th May 2012, 22:31
Boy do I get this! Been thinking it for a lot of years!

ghostrider
18th May 2012, 22:55
liberals think that if the world was just run by them , all the problems would go away. those pesky tea party folks just get in the way. we should be lucky that liberal let us breathe the same air they do. ha ha . joking of course , uncle GR is a hard core freedom loving meat sack..... anything that takes my freedom , I am against it no matter who is running the movie....

aranuk
18th May 2012, 23:09
I read this article and thought everyone who likes this stuff should examine those who preach it, and see how much they are willing to share their wealth. Facts speak for themselves:

Thanks to Kyle Becker (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/author/kylebecker/) at Conservative Daily News (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/).


http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tsp-300x200.jpg?w=600 (http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/tsp-300x200.jpg)

(http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)
Millionaire Socialists and the Morons Who Love Them (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)

(http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)
Nothing is as moronic about the modern left as its espousing of socialist values, like wealth redistribution and state-determined equality of outcomes, and its simultaneous backing of politicians and leftist celebrities who defy every one of those purported values. The cognitive dissonance it takes to support a left-wing party headed by wealthy oligarchs is truly breathtaking. Such radical fat cats in the main use the state as a way to suppress competition, flaunt the radical environmentalist claptrap through carbon-belching air and motorcade travel, and even crush the market system that got them to their lofty positions.
READ MORE HERE (http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)

(http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/05/millionaire-socialists-and-the-morons-who-love-them/)
Ladies and gentlement, here are your socialist one-percenters.


Francois Hollande, the new socialist president of France, is a great example of a man who talks the talk, but in no wise walks the walk. As Bloomberg aptly put it, “French President-elect Francois Hollande, who portrayed himself as a ‘normal man’ during the election campaign, owns properties worth… $1.51 million, according to a government publication.” Not too shabby for a man who is supposed to be ‘down for the little people.
Dominic Strauss-Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn), the former managing director of the IMF, recently embroiled in a sexual assault case that was dismissed. Also a member of the French Socialist Party, he is estimated to be worth $10 million. French socialists recently denounced (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/socialists-turning-their-backs-on-dominique-strauss-kahn/story-e6frf7lf-1226180080393) DSK as a way of getting some ideological distance from the creep. Nice try, shysters.
Hugo Chavez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez), unofficial dictator (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2012/05/15/sacha_baron_cohen_strikes_again/)-for-life in socialist Venezuela. Born in a mud hut, he rose to tyrannical control over the country, and is now worth (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/hugo-chavez-net-worth/) an estimated $1 billion dollars. Chavez claims (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/12/hugo-chavez-cancer-treatment-success) to have recovered from cancer treatment provided in Cuba, and will “run” again for tinpot dictator over the country. He would have been constitutionally forbidden to do so, but he supposedly won a referendum in 2009 to ban term limits. Because, you know, he’s for democracy and stuff.
Fidel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro), communist leader of Cuba, is worth (http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-05-04-castro_x.htm) a cool $900 million, according to a Forbes estimate. After ruling Cuba with an iron fist from 1961 until 2011, he finally turned power over to his brother Raul Castro. (Because communists have evolved past all that nepotism business.) In any event, while the Cuban communist brothers lived high off the hog, the majority of Cubans struggled to put food on the table. Is that a lifestyle we Americans are supposed to envy? While it is debatable whether or not Fidel Castro is dead, it’s not debatable that communism is a dead ideology, except in the minds of delusional fools.
Daniel Ortega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ortega) is the new socialist leader on the Latin American block, and is said to be worth at least $1 million (http://opinion.vivenicaragua.com/blogmentario/2009/10/15/nicaraguas-newest-tycoon-socialist-president-daniel-ortega.html). Bankrolled by fellow lefty Hugo Chavez, this budding Nicaraguan despot is sure to be worth more than this low-ball estimate. Extensive real estate holdings attained through state expropriation give this man a healthy boost in the wealth category. Although he sounds like he could be the heir to a taco empire, he got his money the old-fashioned socialist way — by stealing it.
Julia Gillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard) is the current prime minister of Australia. Notorious for posing as an environmentalist moderate during her election, and then pivoting to a hardline “green” stance, she is currently worth (http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/presidents/julia-gillard-net-worth/) $2 million. Gillard’s predecessor and mentor as Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has been described as the “Richie Rich (http://www.watoday.com.au/national/rudd-richie-rich-of-pms-20100526-we7r.html)” of prime ministers, and is himself estimated to be worth around $156 million. There is also solid evidence that a Gillard staffer engineered a mini-race riot (http://jamesboard.wordpress.com/2012/02/13/australias-mini-race-riot-defending-the-indefensible/) on Australia Day, showing the left’s shared penchant for scumbaggery transcends national borders.
Paul Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Martin) is a former prime minister of Canada. Although he attained a fortune of $225 million as CEO of CSL Group, among other things, he felt compelled to co-author the Liberal Party platform of “Creating Opportunity,” colloquially known as the “Red Book.” Since 1993, when the Liberal Party won a landslide, the Canadian economy is yet to break free of the seven percent to nine percent unemployment range.
Vladimir Putin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putin) is the authoritarian head of Russia, an ex-KGB colonel who has maintained many socialist policies from the USSR days, as both president and prime minister. Putin has been slow to privatize the numerous industries of the Soviet era, and has allowed little economic freedom, bullying any industry titans unless the predatory controllers of those firms pay obeisance to the Kremlin. Worth (http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/politician/minister/vladimir-putin-net-worth/)about $40 billion.
Al Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore) was vice president under Clinton and ‘almost the next president of the United States.’ A global warmist by occupation, he has called for increasingly tight controls over the market economy. An “unregulated” market is supposedly going to lead to a manmade climate change apocalypse, that is, unless we fork over — $76 trillion dollars. As a man who jet sets around the planet preaching the green gospel, while racking up a hefty utilities bill in his numerous mansions (including ocean front property), he is worth (http://www.therichest.org/celebnetworth/politician/democrat/al-gore-net-worth/) about $100 million.
Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) is the historic first black president of the United States. A man who was backed big time by Wall Street in his 2008 campaign and yet claimed that the Occupy Wall Street kids were the reason he ran for office, he has constantly demagogued the class warfare argument for wealth redistribution. Although he has constantly framed America as a country that is heartless and oppresses minorities, he is a walking parody of that insipid line of attack. Since writing a couple of biographies, sold mainly in the capitalist market (though it’s questionable if any read them), he is now worth about $10.5 million.



p0rdry_gY_E



http://cryandhowl.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/brain_socialist_550_gif_pagespeed_ce_ix8jod5aty.gi f?w=600


I know lots of friends who if they sold their houses would have more than a million US dollars. THAT is NOT wealth my dear US. THAT is what inflation does. Most of the friends that I referred to still work for a living. They can afford a holiday every year. That is IT. A dollar millionare is NOT rich in my book. You can put a million US dollars in 100 dollar bills into a polybag and it is only half way full. The rich people have trillions like the Rothschild family does. A trillion dollars in 100 dollar bills would fill a football stadium two mtr cube pallets two high. That is rich. Disgustingly rich. You US use this forum for publicising your right wing political views. You are in the wrong forum methinks. You use this forum as a soap box for your right wing fascist opinions.

Just my take on things.

Stan

aranuk
18th May 2012, 23:18
You say Obama is worth $10.5 million? I have many friends who are richer than that and they take buses instead of their cars. I read on this forum that Obama got 10 Billion from Bush senior and the banks hid it for him in overseas accounts and that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutche Bank helped hide it. Are you helping Obama hide $9.89 billion are you?

Stan

aranuk
18th May 2012, 23:33
My political viewpoint is be fair to everyone. Be fair to rich people and poor people and people who are neither rich nor poor. I fit in the middle somewhere. If my brother earns a fortune honestly I think he would take care of his crippled sister or brother so that they can lead a sort of normal life. Look after his old parents who brought him up. I would do the same. If you want to call me a ****ing communist or liberal then that is what you do. I say it is an honest thing to do.

Stan

buckminster fuller
18th May 2012, 23:35
Seriously, comparing Chavez to Obama... Is like comparing Palestine to Israel, I don't see any correlation in terms of geo-political behaviour, nor on the way social systems are implemented. This stuff is propaganda, period.

the_vast_mystery
19th May 2012, 02:34
liberals think that if the world was just run by them , all the problems would go away. those pesky tea party folks just get in the way. we should be lucky that liberal let us breathe the same air they do. ha ha . joking of course , uncle GR is a hard core freedom loving meat sack..... anything that takes my freedom , I am against it no matter who is running the movie....

Yeah, because it's not like Conservatives seriously think Liberals (http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/glenn-beck-jokes-about-poisoning-nancy.html) and (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/23/36996/oreilly-terkel/) those they support (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/18/1092823/-MS-legislator-suggests-gays-should-be-put-to-death-claims-they-spread-disease) should (http://freakoutnation.com/2011/11/10/another-gop-candidate-invokes-2nd-amendment-solution/) all be (http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149470/let%27s_get_this_straight%3A_there_is_no_progressi ve_equivalent_to_the_right%27s_violent_rhetoric/) shot (http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/01/08/sarah-palins-hit-list/), hung (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122100035445220.html) or (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/secret-service-investigates-ted-nugent-remarks-on-obama/) otherwise murdered (http://www.americablog.com/2006/01/cnn-host-condoned-murder-of-michael.html) for daring to step up and speak their minds.

GCS1103
19th May 2012, 03:03
US- I always enjoy your threads and I enjoyed this one. You're entitled to your viewpoint, just like anyone else here.

Stan- Why, if you disagree with a post by US, do you need to get personal and call her a right wing fascist and imply she's on the wrong forum? If you have a different opinion than her, how about posting it without name calling? It diminishes your point, don't you think??

Unified Serenity
19th May 2012, 04:10
The information speaks for itself. These leftist socialist commies love to preach about equality while they really mean, give me all you have and let me decide how to use it, but don't touch my stuff! Will Smith said he did not mind giving money in taxes because he loves his life in America, and basically implied there were no limits, but then the talk show host revealed that in France anyone making more than 360,000 euros would be taxed at 75% and Mr. Smith was shocked. He seemed to not approve of taking that much of his hard earned money and proclaimed "God bless America" because for now the left only want some 39% of his millions.

The hypocrisy is very evident. These leaders live the life of fat cats and let the people grovel for some bread and water. There was no comparison between Obama and Chavez. The issue was they don't practice what they preach. Hell, Obama and his wife couldn't even bother to try to take the same plane twice and took two planes for the same vacations! Talk about waste! How many children could that money have provided for? How many needed elderly could that waste have helped? The left elites are all just a bunch of users and hypocrites.

I'm a constitutional conservative, and I will speak my heart and if you don't like my threads than you have my permission to ignore me and stay off of them.

Fred Steeves
19th May 2012, 11:16
I'm a constitutional conservative, and I will speak my heart and if you don't like my threads than you have my permission to ignore me and stay off of them.

Aw, no need for that US.:) I will add though that it's very important to share our varying viewpoints, but the manner in which it's done is vital.

Now having said that, before I took the proverbial axe to them, my roots were deeply entrenched in conservatism. While of course the 'left' IS cookoo for coco puffs, so is the 'right'. I don't do research nearly as deep as you, but I'll ask Bill to eat his hat if a duplicate of this thread couldn't be made about hard core conservatives.

I remember studying communism and fascism to see what the difference was, and I still don't really know what it is, other than semantics. Can we expect a thread soon highlighting the likes of Rumsfeld, Bush, Kissinger, Limbaugh, etc.?

Cheers,
Fred

GCS1103
19th May 2012, 13:19
I'm a constitutional conservative, and I will speak my heart and if you don't like my threads than you have my permission to ignore me and stay off of them.

Aw, no need for that US.:) I will add though that it's very important to share our varying viewpoints, but the manner in which it's done is vital.

Now having said that, before I took the proverbial axe to them, my roots were deeply entrenched in conservatism. While of course the 'left' IS cookoo for coco puffs, so is the 'right'. I don't do research nearly as deep as you, but I'll ask Bill to eat his hat if a duplicate of this thread couldn't be made about hard core conservatives.

I remember studying communism and fascism to see what the difference was, and I still don't really know what it is, other than semantics. Can we expect a thread soon highlighting the likes of Rumsfeld, Bush, Kissinger, Limbaugh, etc.?

Cheers,
Fred

Hey, Fred-

I would enjoy reading a thread on Bush, et als. Hopefully, if someone takes the time and effort to research and post their thoughts, no one here will attack them personally. It's beneficial to all of us to have as much information presented on the forum. We may not agree with another's point of view, but we should respect the time and work they put into their posts.

That being said, you need to remove Kissinger from your list of "conservatives". ;) We can have a third group that makes for a much more fascinating study. Let's add him here: Kissinger, Soros, Brzezinski, Rockefeller.

jagman
19th May 2012, 14:51
US, I think this was a well constructed thread but I also think you knew it would be controversial. A few months back Carmody posted
"finally proven (Science tests republicans) Using less effort to think, opinions lean more conservative" Some of you might remember this
thread. IMO it was a well constructed thread but i also thought it was flawed & deviciive.

Two threads at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Can you guess what they both have in common? I support Carmody's right to post such
threads like i support your right to post this thread. In my humble Opinion these threads make for good reading but they can also hurt the
community by causing division.

sdv
19th May 2012, 15:26
Perhaps this thread should be called 'why I am anti liberal socialists' - that would be more honest, and more accurate.

I am a liberal socialist (bordering on being a commie - you know those really scary people that had a whole generation of American school children hiding under their desks ;)), and I don't mind if you want to be a conservative, as long as you do not impose your rules onto me, my community, my society and my country. Americans can do what they like in their own country, but they MUST stop bullying the rest of the world.

And please remember dear that it is conservatives that push whatever they don't like (their fears and shadows) underground and into the darkness. This thread highlights what conservatives fear so much about liberalism and socialism, and how very ignorant and backward they are (e.g. as a liberal I regard execution as frighteningly barbaric) so it is educational in a way.

However, the title of this thread invites debate (which will unfold into squabbling) rather than advertising itself as a space for conservatives to elaborate on the reasons why they hate liberal socialists (which would be educational for those who don't) :hippie:.

Carmody
19th May 2012, 15:45
Socialism is only a dirty word, primarily in one country. the USA of A.

The word has been purposely perverted by the politically leaning system that is colloquially called 'the right' --as a method, a direct attempt at perverting fundamentals. To banish any attempt of the people to unite for common cause.

Socialism, in it's most basic terms, is simply: uniting for common cause.

Under that, the entire idea and reality of the US 'revolution' that took place in 1776, or thereabouts, is 'socialism', as is any attempt to band together and stop this 'horrific feudally oriented extreme capitalism' that is now rampant in the USA.

Thus, be careful about how one sees or maligns an important and fundamental word.

For that is one of the deeper components of how one controls a society. By undermining movements and their meanings. Even to the point of changing the meaning of a word.

Enlargen the circle of logic and view... or one will be trapped in a corral of someone eles's making.

So, in the eyes of the US population, who now has an extremely perverted understanding of the word socialism, this strongly helps block attempts at uniting for common cause.

A perverted (at the base understanding level) form of polarizing people into an unreal understanding and mental state.

Can you see it now?

aranuk
19th May 2012, 15:58
Another thing I would like to point out to US is that a few days ago she started a thread with a video of Charlie Chaplin giving the speech of the century and obviously she was in agreement with the speech. Can I remind you that Charlie Chaplin was expelled from USA during the McCarthy era for being a communist sympathiser. Reminds me of the quote that if someone like Mother Teresa feeds the poor she is a Saint and that if someone asks why there are poor people they are branded as a Communist. So in the course of one week US posts a thread about the greatness of Charlie Chaplin's speech and this one about the evils of socialism, communism, seems suspicious to me. Was it done to create division here I wonder? This is a very critical time for you Americans. Either there will be an imminent state of marshall law enforced upon the people and being chipped will be the next thing OR Drake and the military are coming out on the side of the American people. With these two choices, it is my opinion that this situation is at a critical point in the history in the making. Posting controversial threads all over here in my opinion is a self defeating strategy for the people. You have a Fascist system backed by the cabal. Fot ya gonna doo peeps?

Stan

AlternativeInfoJunkie
19th May 2012, 15:59
Perhaps this thread should be called 'why I am anti liberal socialists' - that would be more honest, and more accurate.

I am a liberal socialist (bordering on being a commie - you know those really scary people that had a whole generation of American school children hiding under their desks), and I don't mind if you want to be a conservative, as long as you do not impose your rules onto me, my community, my society and my country. Americans can do what they like in their own country, but they MUST stop bullying the rest of the world.

And please remember dear that it is conservatives that push whatever they don't like underground and into the darkness. This thread highlights what conservatives fear so much about liberalism and socialism, and how very ignorant and backward they are (e.g. as a liberal I regard execution as frighteningly barbaric) so it is educational in a way.

As a conservative, I find execution frighteningly barbaric as well. I don't like this thread because it just focuses on "democrats". It doesn't point out the neo-conservative "republicans" for what they are: socialists and corporatists.

This is my point of view:

Both parities in the U.S. want a form of socialism so that the people have to rely on the welfare state and various government bureaucracies for everything. There are may reasons for this but here are just a few:

-If healthcare is run by the government then the government can decide what soft-kill treatments we receive. (soft-kill = something that kills slowly)
-If the population relies on welfare from the government they are less likely to rise up against such a government.
-If the government receives a lot of tax money from the people it can use some of that money to accomplish it's military objectives and fund secret projects.

Basically they all want a form of socialism but they don't want true socialism because they don't want the power to be in the hands of the people. However, they would rather have a socialist society (which can be easily taken over by them through various forms of infiltration) than a true liberty minded form of government based on a liberty minded document like the bill of rights. That is just my opinion. No disrespect is intended towards Unified Serenity who I happen to agree with a lot of the time.

risveglio
19th May 2012, 16:04
This thread like everyone one of these threads like it has the same problem. Few seem to really understand socialism or capitalism. They have become words that no longer have the same meaning to the same people.

Mises wrote "The market economy, or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalism and in part socialism. The market economy is the product of a long evolutionary process. It is a strategy, as it were, by the application of which man has triumphantly progressed from savagery to civilization"

So for all of the people blaming capitalism for all our problems, you are far from being "awakened" since we have not had capitalism in at least 100 years. To say that socialism is only a dirty word in America is a joke. People that have any understanding of history know that socialism is not something feasible and only centralizes power, does not share it.

sirdipswitch
19th May 2012, 16:56
Personally I find Dictatorship to be my prefered choice. I just follow the Dictatorship of Source, and I'm quite happy with it. You can live in the world, or above it. The choice is yours.

Be all that you are... quitcherbitchin and Go Astral... commune with Source... and none of this will matter to you any longer... chuckle chuckle

love and peace
sirdipswitch

modwiz
19th May 2012, 16:57
Shining the light? Interesting lighting. Even more interesting shadows created by the set up of the lighting.

'Nuff said.

Toodles.

The Arthen
19th May 2012, 17:09
Shining the light? Interesting lighting. Even more interesting shadows created by the set up of the lighting.

'Nuff said.

Toodles.


Hehehe. :)

Unified Serenity
19th May 2012, 17:33
Yes, facts about the liberal leaders, dictators, and celebrities who espouse socialism do hit hard. There is imbalance on both sides, but I think a thread revealing some of these facts is appropriate, after all, those of you who do not like it and show it by your posts don't seem to have any problems with threads about evil capitalism and right wing subjects. We don't need government officials telling us how to live our lives. Government should be very limited and power held locally as those who live there are the ones who can best control those local leaders who would abuse said power. How far removed and impotent do the people seem because all of the power is centralized in a big government set up?

In America, the states were to be the ones with the most power, not the Federal government. The Fed has used the interstate commerce clause to usurp power and blackmail states into doing what the Feds want. When the people are free and can keep most of what they earn then they can reinvest it. If a company is monopolizing an area then the state can put in corrections to stop a monopoly. The people would have more control and I do believe if one company or a very small group were enjoying the fruits of the labors then the people would ensure some corrections were made.

The problem is we now have global corporations whose profits are greater than some countries entire GDP. They dictate to governments. They make back room deals, and the politicians / leaders are being controlled by very special groups. So, the elite who want total global control are using both sides, but those who refuse to see it and continue to buy into the feel good stories while ignoring the hypocrisy will continue to be useful idiots.

Bezmenov spelled it out for us. Once the socialist machine gains control and power, the very people who preach this utopian belief system are the first to be killed because the true power players have no desire for the people to be truly free. How well are "alternative" lifestyle and views carried out in said countries? How much freedom of religion is there? Is there any religion allowed and if it is, then is it state controlled? What about homosexuals? Are they free to live in peace and have equal rights or any rights? What about immigration? How do socialist countries feel about immigration? What about the arts and speech? Are the people free to express themselves in socialist countries without fear of reprisal or is the media tightly controlled by the state?

Right now, in America we have the extremes of society running it. I liken it to a pendulum. You see it in every movement. There would have been no Unions had the Business leaders treated people fairly. There would have been no exodus from America had the Unions not destroyed the Business' ability to profit. As each side goes to it's furthest controls the backlash begins. America is a young country and it's probably had just enough time to have both extremes come to maturity. It is those in the middle who can embrace a balance that must come to power. There are no easy answers, but I chose to bring this thread forward because very little light is shown on the left side. Those who speak out on this forum have well identified leanings. Mine are just as important as yours. If we can come to some understanding and find balance, then we may have a chance to gain some answers all can live with.

Khaleesi
19th May 2012, 17:47
You US use this forum for publicising your right wing political views. You are in the wrong forum methinks. You use this forum as a soap box for your right wing fascist opinions.

Just my take on things.

Stan

Did you really just go there? I have had many conversations with Serenity on politics. I can tell you she is NOT a fascist but I am amazed at the speed with which you pull out the name calling instead of using logic to argue a point. Do any of you EVER attempt to talk to Serenity? EVER? Or do you just call her names because you disagree with her? You certainly don't use logic to deal with her posts and this reply is a fine example.

Unified Serenity
19th May 2012, 18:35
I'm a constitutional conservative, and I will speak my heart and if you don't like my threads than you have my permission to ignore me and stay off of them.

Aw, no need for that US.:) I will add though that it's very important to share our varying viewpoints, but the manner in which it's done is vital.

Now having said that, before I took the proverbial axe to them, my roots were deeply entrenched in conservatism. While of course the 'left' IS cookoo for coco puffs, so is the 'right'. I don't do research nearly as deep as you, but I'll ask Bill to eat his hat if a duplicate of this thread couldn't be made about hard core conservatives.

I remember studying communism and fascism to see what the difference was, and I still don't really know what it is, other than semantics. Can we expect a thread soon highlighting the likes of Rumsfeld, Bush, Kissinger, Limbaugh, etc.?

Cheers,
Fred

Thanks Fred, and I agree about extremists on the right who want to control your lifestyle and love corporatopoly. Let me help you a little bit Fred, there is no difference between Fascism and Communism. In fact, Hitler had to redo his advertising / propaganda because it was a mirror image of the Soviet propaganda. The Germans hated the Russians and the propaganda was just too closely mirroring the Russian images used. The fascists used different bad guys, but the nationalistic pride was used in both.


J_uC0wy_O90

Unified Serenity
19th May 2012, 18:42
This is a great video showing the plan of socialists... the goal shown in our movies of the new man.... the images in music videos of the new creation.... the lady gaga coming out of the egg and birthing a new man...... It's all propaganda.

Make the world so awful we must have a new way. It's contrived and the world is in the sh*thole that it is because of these manipulators. Don't be fooled.

i5vUo1eJyBc

Unified Serenity
19th May 2012, 19:19
How brainwashing and behavior modification works is shown in these two videos. Excellence is out, competition is out, and it's gone on in the west to our detriment! Look at the outcome of this crap that turns children into robots who take orders, strive for mediocrity, and is done through clever people who preach a Marxist ideology. Note that the countries who are excelling in education do not practice this methodology.

Y076KwibGIk

D9MTN5VOXVU

The truth sucks doesn't it? Yes, shine a little more light and see what is revealed. This has been going on for decades folks, and their end game is around the corner!

Remember the 4 stages of the Marxist plan to take over the world country by country:

Demoralize

Destabilize

Chaos

Normalization

Unified Serenity
19th May 2012, 20:21
I enjoy these guys various takes, and I am sure we can have fun pointing out the problems on the right and left side. In my mind there is no difference between the political parties in the United States because we are given the choice of the elites in our final voting. They make back room deals, they fight in public and go to parties in private laughing at our stupidity. It's time for the people to be heard, for liberty to be respected, and for big brother to say goodnight or better yet, goodbye.


You have to love Carlin:

q8_YL3q1--U


VlKMy65dyz4

Let's heare from Rush:

xSu1MVmKalM

Glen Beck Schools a liberal

HXhCSz_GHGg

the_vast_mystery
19th May 2012, 20:46
US, I'm going to say this as nicely as someone like myself can manage. You do have a point, but, and big but, that point has been obscured through years of indoctrinated hatred programmed into you using trigger words. Think about how you're phrasing yourself, you're using terms like communism, marxism, socialism that for all practical intents and purposes have no real meaning like you're implying. There is no more USSR, there is no more Red Curtain threatening Democracy. (Arguably the Red Curtain itself was an NWO perversion of the original theories behind communism to demonize communities arranged around common causes and cooperation based economies. The NWO works today mostly via manipulating the capitalist free market economy to pressure governments into enacting its plans.)

You're railing against a phantom that does not exist and you're instead letting your definitions of Communism, Socialism and Marxism be redefined by the current political orthodoxy. This is a mistake, those words are intentionally being thrown around to confuse you into violently opposing people and ideas without a second thought. You are not even making a rational case for what is going wrong you're just throwing out a bunch of fear-mongering political programming built to try and make others fear this same invisible boogeyman.

Why would the NWO want a centrally planned or communist government? It takes far too much work to centrally plan an economy and that's exactly why the USSR died and China right now is barely communist. If anything right now the headwinds are pointing towards a new Fascist 2.0 government system with China being one of the biggest models for that. If China can be just totalitarian enough to prevent labor from organizing then eventually it'll get to the point where China turns into a full on capitalist society. They're doing it slowly because if the people realize too fast what's happening they might actually try to organize. So the cult of the State is being manipulated so that the people never notice that their economy is on track to be a lot more like ours (minus the whole organized labor unions and equal rights we have here.)

Privatized Profits, socialized losses, that's the new model that countries are falling under. After all, have you forgotten what the central banks and their too-big-to-fail subordinates are doing? It's an upwards redistribution of wealth, now tell me, how are we ever going to be free if the top 400 families on the planet "own" all property on Earth thanks to central banks...we're to grovel and beg them for the right to live on this green Earth? Sometimes you have to redistribute people's ill-gotten gains, we don't let drug dealers keep their drug money why should we allow the central bankers to keep their illegally earned assets?

Carmody
19th May 2012, 22:18
Personally I find Dictatorship to be my prefered choice. I just follow the Dictatorship of Source, and I'm quite happy with it. You can live in the world, or above it. The choice is yours.

Be all that you are... quitcherbitchin and Go Astral... commune with Source... and none of this will matter to you any longer... chuckle chuckle

love and peace
sirdipswitch


There are stages to go through, my friend.

thank you for saying the requisite piece in this here thread.

I'm playing the part of the guy who clarifies and gives Unified a slightly hard time, while preaching to the choir. (this time around)

Next thread ...I'll play your part.

Or sumpthin.

aranuk
19th May 2012, 22:36
US, I'm going to say this as nicely as someone like myself can manage. You do have a point, but, and big but, that point has been obscured through years of indoctrinated hatred programmed into you using trigger words. Think about how you're phrasing yourself, you're using terms like communism, marxism, socialism that for all practical intents and purposes have no real meaning like you're implying. There is no more USSR, there is no more Red Curtain threatening Democracy. (Arguably the Red Curtain itself was an NWO perversion of the original theories behind communism to demonize communities arranged around common causes and cooperation based economies. The NWO works today mostly via manipulating the capitalist free market economy to pressure governments into enacting its plans.)

You're railing against a phantom that does not exist and you're instead letting your definitions of Communism, Socialism and Marxism be redefined by the current political orthodoxy. This is a mistake, those words are intentionally being thrown around to confuse you into violently opposing people and ideas without a second thought. You are not even making a rational case for what is going wrong you're just throwing out a bunch of fear-mongering political programming built to try and make others fear this same invisible boogeyman.

Why would the NWO want a centrally planned or communist government? It takes far too much work to centrally plan an economy and that's exactly why the USSR died and China right now is barely communist. If anything right now the headwinds are pointing towards a new Fascist 2.0 government system with China being one of the biggest models for that. If China can be just totalitarian enough to prevent labor from organizing then eventually it'll get to the point where China turns into a full on capitalist society. They're doing it slowly because if the people realize too fast what's happening they might actually try to organize. So the cult of the State is being manipulated so that the people never notice that their economy is on track to be a lot more like ours (minus the whole organized labor unions and equal rights we have here.)

Privatized Profits, socialized losses, that's the new model that countries are falling under. After all, have you forgotten what the central banks and their too-big-to-fail subordinates are doing? It's an upwards redistribution of wealth, now tell me, how are we ever going to be free if the top 400 families on the planet "own" all property on Earth thanks to central banks...we're to grovel and beg them for the right to live on this green Earth? Sometimes you have to redistribute people's ill-gotten gains, we don't let drug dealers keep their drug money why should we allow the central bankers to keep their illegally earned assets?

Hi there TVM I couldn't have put it better buddy.


Stan

aranuk
19th May 2012, 22:53
Socialism is only a dirty word, primarily in one country. the USA of A.

The word has been purposely perverted by the politically leaning system that is colloquially called 'the right' --as a method, a direct attempt at perverting fundamentals. To banish any attempt of the people to unite for common cause.

Socialism, in it's most basic terms, is simply: uniting for common cause.

Under that, the entire idea and reality of the US 'revolution' that took place in 1776, or thereabouts, is 'socialism', as is any attempt to band together and stop this 'horrific feudally oriented extreme capitalism' that is now rampant in the USA.

Thus, be careful about how one sees or maligns an important and fundamental word.

For that is one of the deeper components of how one controls a society. By undermining movements and their meanings. Even to the point of changing the meaning of a word.

Enlargen the circle of logic and view... or one will be trapped in a corral of someone eles's making.

So, in the eyes of the US population, who now has an extremely perverted understanding of the word socialism, this strongly helps block attempts at uniting for common cause.

A perverted (at the base understanding level) form of polarizing people into an unreal understanding and mental state.

Can you see it now?

Well described here Carmody! Anyone poking around asking embarassing questions to or about a certain paedophile are branded conspiracy theorists too. It eventually creates a taboo, so nobody wants to ask these questions as they are labelled with that description.

Stan

aranuk
19th May 2012, 22:57
If you ask me about politics, I will say I don't trust ANY of them, they all seem to conform to the Cabal/elites strategies. The only persons you can trust are the people who don't want to be a politician.
But when the time comes we may be able to convince them to represent us in some kind of government. A reluctant representative shall we say.

Stan

aranuk
19th May 2012, 23:03
This thread like everyone one of these threads like it has the same problem. Few seem to really understand socialism or capitalism. They have become words that no longer have the same meaning to the same people.

Mises wrote "The market economy, or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalism and in part socialism. The market economy is the product of a long evolutionary process. It is a strategy, as it were, by the application of which man has triumphantly progressed from savagery to civilization"

So for all of the people blaming capitalism for all our problems, you are far from being "awakened" since we have not had capitalism in at least 100 years. To say that socialism is only a dirty word in America is a joke. People that have any understanding of history know that socialism is not something feasible and only centralizes power, does not share it.

Have you read any of Gramchi the Italian political writer. His works sets the groundwork for a capitalist / socialist state?


Stan

aranuk
19th May 2012, 23:25
US it is not Liberalism, socialism and communism that got USA into this Fascist state, it is the industrial, military complex and fascist ideology and ugenics that got into the mess for the people. You speak about Socialism as if it were happening now. It is NOT. It doesn't exist anymore. It didn't work. It was out of time. Time wasn't ready for it. Russia went from a feudalistic country to a Socialist way. Marx never advocated this. It is now understood that the cabal/elite ****ing bankers instigated it with Lenin, Trotsky paid shills/puppets for the cabal to do their dirty work for them. It was doomed from the start. Marx explained that socialism would be the next evolutionary stage for mankind after the collapse of Capitalism. Same with China feudal to Socialism. Cuba? Capitalism hadn't got to its position of decay in Cuba.

Stan

jagman
19th May 2012, 23:25
US, I'm going to say this as nicely as someone like myself can manage. You do have a point, but, and big but, that point has been obscured through years of indoctrinated hatred programmed into you using trigger words. Think about how you're phrasing yourself, you're using terms like communism, marxism, socialism that for all practical intents and purposes have no real meaning like you're implying. There is no more USSR, there is no more Red Curtain threatening Democracy. (Arguably the Red Curtain itself was an NWO perversion of the original theories behind communism to demonize communities arranged around common causes and cooperation based economies. The NWO works today mostly via manipulating the capitalist free market economy to pressure governments into enacting its plans.)

You're railing against a phantom that does not exist and you're instead letting your definitions of Communism, Socialism and Marxism be redefined by the current political orthodoxy. This is a mistake, those words are intentionally being thrown around to confuse you into violently opposing people and ideas without a second thought. You are not even making a rational case for what is going wrong you're just throwing out a bunch of fear-mongering political programming built to try and make others fear this same invisible boogeyman.

Why would the NWO want a centrally planned or communist government? It takes far too much work to centrally plan an economy and that's exactly why the USSR died and China right now is barely communist. If anything right now the headwinds are pointing towards a new Fascist 2.0 government system with China being one of the biggest models for that. If China can be just totalitarian enough to prevent labor from organizing then eventually it'll get to the point where China turns into a full on capitalist society. They're doing it slowly because if the people realize too fast what's happening they might actually try to organize. So the cult of the State is being manipulated so that the people never notice that their economy is on track to be a lot more like ours (minus the whole organized labor unions and equal rights we have here.)

Privatized Profits, socialized losses, that's the new model that countries are falling under. After all, have you forgotten what the central banks and their too-big-to-fail subordinates are doing? It's an upwards redistribution of wealth, now tell me, how are we ever going to be free if the top 400 families on the planet "own" all property on Earth thanks to central banks...we're to grovel and beg them for the right to live on this green Earth? Sometimes you have to redistribute people's ill-gotten gains, we don't let drug dealers keep their drug money why should we allow the central bankers to keep their illegally earned assets?

T.V.M I liked your response but I think it's flawed. Russia is currently ran by x KGB.
Vladimir Putin is a very powerful man and he is also a very dangerous man.
But i would like to say I love the Russian people. :biggrin1:

This is who Obama BOWS too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JpPU-SwcbE&feature=player_detailpage

write4change
19th May 2012, 23:33
US, I'm going to say this as nicely as someone like myself can manage. You do have a point, but, and big but, that point has been obscured through years of indoctrinated hatred programmed into you using trigger words. Think about how you're phrasing yourself, you're using terms like communism, marxism, socialism that for all practical intents and purposes have no real meaning like you're implying. There is no more USSR, there is no more Red Curtain threatening Democracy. (Arguably the Red Curtain itself was an NWO perversion of the original theories behind communism to demonize communities arranged around common causes and cooperation based economies. The NWO works today mostly via manipulating the capitalist free market economy to pressure governments into enacting its plans.)

You're railing against a phantom that does not exist and you're instead letting your definitions of Communism, Socialism and Marxism be redefined by the current political orthodoxy. This is a mistake, those words are intentionally being thrown around to confuse you into violently opposing people and ideas without a second thought. You are not even making a rational case for what is going wrong you're just throwing out a bunch of fear-mongering political programming built to try and make others fear this same invisible boogeyman.

Why would the NWO want a centrally planned or communist government? It takes far too much work to centrally plan an economy and that's exactly why the USSR died and China right now is barely communist. If anything right now the headwinds are pointing towards a new Fascist 2.0 government system with China being one of the biggest models for that. If China can be just totalitarian enough to prevent labor from organizing then eventually it'll get to the point where China turns into a full on capitalist society. They're doing it slowly because if the people realize too fast what's happening they might actually try to organize. So the cult of the State is being manipulated so that the people never notice that their economy is on track to be a lot more like ours (minus the whole organized labor unions and equal rights we have here.)

Privatized Profits, socialized losses, that's the new model that countries are falling under. After all, have you forgotten what the central banks and their too-big-to-fail subordinates are doing? It's an upwards redistribution of wealth, now tell me, how are we ever going to be free if the top 400 families on the planet "own" all property on Earth thanks to central banks...we're to grovel and beg them for the right to live on this green Earth? Sometimes you have to redistribute people's ill-gotten gains, we don't let drug dealers keep their drug money why should we allow the central bankers to keep their illegally earned assets?

T.V.M I liked your response but I think it's flawed. Russia is currently ran by x KGB.
Vladimir Putin is a very powerful man and he is also a very dangerous man.
But i would like to say I love the Russian people. :biggrin1:

The problem remains the labeling. It doesn't matter who is x KGB or whatever. What matters is who is running the economy and how our they running it for whose benefit? There is no free market. It is total manipulations. All frontier towns began cooperating by house raising, barn raising, school raising etc. When too big to fail also becomes too big to watch--everyone can say anything about anyone. The bigness of the web allows us for the first time to see the bigness of the problems and the bigness of the pictures. Focusing on only one aspect of anything is narrow minded and ultimately death because economics is war of another kind. You are watching a distraction while you are being gutted from behind.

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 00:05
US it is not Liberalism, socialism and communism that got USA into this Fascist state, it is the industrial, military complex and fascist ideology and ugenics that got into the mess for the people. You speak about Socialism as if it were happening now. It is NOT. It doesn't exist anymore. It didn't work. It was out of time. Time wasn't ready for it. Russia went from a feudalistic country to a Socialist way. Marx never advocated this. It is now understood that the cabal/elite ****ing bankers instigated it with Lenin, Trotsky paid shills/puppets for the cabal to do their dirty work for them. It was doomed from the start. Marx explained that socialism would be the next evolutionary stage for mankind after the collapse of Capitalism. Same with China feudal to Socialism. Cuba? Capitalism hadn't got to its position of decay in Cuba.

Stan

So let me see if I understand what you are saying. There is no such thing as socialism anymore? Really? Let me ask this question. How many votes did the USSR have in UN? One, correct? The USSR dissolved and there are now 15 'independent' countries where there used to be one. Hmmm didn't the whole Polish government DIE in an airplane crash IN RUSSIA not that long ago? So Russia really has no control over it's former 'republics' right?

Unified Serenity
20th May 2012, 00:29
That is the funny thing, that they keep changing names to try to confuse people as to what is going on. Are you trying to say that Russia in not socialist / communist / and loves Marxist ideology? Are you saying China is not communist? Are you saying that the 10 planks of communism have not been implemented here in America? Yes, the liberals love to change names once people understand what they are really selling. The Eugenists socialist Marxist loving elites had to change their groups name to planned parenthood.

Liberals changed that name usage to progressives, but that word is now coming into ill repute. We're progressing alright, right into a dirt poor, uneducated, socialist dependent people who have no idea what made America great, and it wasn't Washington D.C.

Watch these 5 videos for some facts about communism here in America

mtoIfLgzpx4

zVBT83qd13s

dbvg5D-p45A

kS5PlSt0d_8

pBvwhHBQJig



Alice Ann Bailey, a leading disciple of the Russian theosophist Madame Helena Blavatsky, formed the Lucifer Trust in 1920. 1922 saw the organization’s name changed to Lucis Trust though the advancement of the Luciferian beliefs remained true.
Beliefs that in Blavatsky’s words:

“oppose the materialism of science and every dogmatic theology, especially the Christian, which the Chiefs of the Society regard as particularly pernicious.”
Lucis Trust promulgates the work of an "Ascended Master" who was working ’through’ Alice Bailey for some 30 years.

The Lucis Trust Publishing Company and their many fronts and organizations worship an "Externalized Hierarchy (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/externalisation/contents.html)" of "Ascended Masters," who carry out the work of a Luciferian "master plan" for the establishment of a permanent "Age of Aquarius" ruled by one "Sanat Kumara", the "Lord of the World."

This is no ordinary third rate occult organization. Lucis Trust is a powerful institution that enjoys "Consultative Status" with the United Nations (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_un.htm), which permits it to have a close working relationship with the U.N., including a seat on the weekly sessions, but most importantly influence with powerful business and national leaders throughout the world.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_lucytrust05.htm#Alice%20Bailey,%20Wor ld%20Goodwill%20and%20the%20False%20Light%20of%20t he%20World


What else did Alice Bailey preach which appears to have been the program all countries around the world are following:





“The new world order (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_nwo.htm) must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.
In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organize any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation.
The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis...
We are concerned with only one subject, the ushering in of the new world order.
...the present world order (which is today largely disorder) can be so modified and changed that a new world and a new race of men can gradually come into being. Renunciation and the use of the sacrificial will should be the keynote for the interim period after the war (WWII), prior to the inauguration of the New Age.”
- Alice Bailey: Quotes From Various Works




So, you think there is no plan? That the socialist and Marxists are all misunderstood and not out to destroy America? Many of the things happening today in America are done in order to subjugate the people, ruin capitalism and encourage dependence on the government for your basic needs.



Here is an excellent bit of information:



By Way of Deception, We Shall do War



Lenin (Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov) said, “The establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation.”1 Worldwide control obviously requires extraordinary organization, superior weaponry and high technology (like HAARP), political power and monopoly control of all the resources. On February 17, 1950, James P. Warburg declared to the U.S. Senate, “We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.”2 In Russia and China and other countries, the elite used thugs for their violent conquest of existing leaders.


Populations wouldn’t knowingly consent to their own demise. But distracted, naïve, ignorant citizens, by their consent, relinquish their liberties by placing their trust in others, (1) two-faced lying politicians who have abandoned the constitution and sold their souls and, (2) the persuasive profit-driven elite media.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Articles/By_Way_of_Deception.htm


America suffers from cultural Marxism:




by: Dr. Ted Baehr and Pat Boone

Advances in cultural Marxism


With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx's view that culture was merely part of society's "superstructure," which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.


Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. "Liberating" everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism's main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.
Today, when Hollywood's cultural Marxists want to "normalize" something like homosexuality (thus "liberating" us from "repression"), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.


The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.


New developments


Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.


Critical Theory


To serve its purpose of "negating" Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called "Critical Theory." What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the "studies" departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.


Studies in prejudice


The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as "prejudice" in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno's immensely influential book, "The Authoritarian Personality," published in 1950. They invented a bogus "F-scale" that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is "fascist."


Domination


The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or "dominance" over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled "oppressors," while other groups were defined as "victims." Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the "transvaluation of all values." What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil "fascist." That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right "attitudes" on certain questions.)


Media and entertainment


Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought "commodified" culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin's view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism's most powerful weapon.


The growth of Marxism in the United States


After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.
But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book "Eros and Civilization" used the Frankfurt School's crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only "liberate non-procreative eros" through "polymorphous perversity," we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. "Eros and Civilization" became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School's intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals - the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred "victims groups" of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness's favorite words, "tolerance," and gave it a new meaning. He defined "liberating tolerance" as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for "tolerance," they mean Marcuse's "liberating tolerance" (just as when they call for "diversity," they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).


The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous "guru," he injected the Frankfurt School's cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute's beginning, Marcuse and the few other people "in the know" did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America's traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America's traditional culture lies in ruins.
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Paul_Streitz_67/Who_Stole_Our_Culture10626.shtml

the_vast_mystery
20th May 2012, 00:31
The problem remains the labeling. It doesn't matter who is x KGB or whatever. What matters is who is running the economy and how our they running it for whose benefit? There is no free market. It is total manipulations. All frontier towns began cooperating by house raising, barn raising, school raising etc. When too big to fail also becomes too big to watch--everyone can say anything about anyone. The bigness of the web allows us for the first time to see the bigness of the problems and the bigness of the pictures. Focusing on only one aspect of anything is narrow minded and ultimately death because economics is war of another kind. You are watching a distraction while you are being gutted from behind.

Spot on, yes! Right now we're losing control to an invisible monster. I'm currently calling it stealth colonialism. We're being controlled entirely through the economy and we have a bloated banking system and an irrational money market that are the heads of it. The problem is economics has this dogma of rationality that they use to hide market manipulations. It provides the perfect excuse for most if any investments because economics as a science is actually about rationalizing people's irrational market behavior. Economists, by design, will subconsciously seek to provide a fully rational explanation to explain why the market behaves in way X, missing the fact that their models always fail to be useful at predicting future spending? why? Because they assume people are actually following their rationalized excuses for purchasing (rather then the excuses being rationalizations of people's generally only partly rational spending behavior.)

But investments are actually being made by the top players in the financial pyramid according to their agenda for the "New World Order." Rather than overtly even needing to plan for these things all they have to do is use a carrot/stick made of money (or lack thereof) to motivate anyone to do what they want. If you don't play ball? Well good luck affording food, housing, or medicine let alone anything else. They can easily rationalize any of their decisions in an innocuous way thanks to the accepted rationalizations for irrational behaviors we've learned due to economics. This provides the perfect cover for why we can't ever manage to nail down a target other than the banks. The banking system is the single central source of power on this planet and that's reflected both by the obscene salaries and bonuses for bankers as well as that they are being given legal immunity for their illegal acts of thievery in 2008.

This doesn't mean governments are NOT complicit in this, for it to ever get this far they had to be. But the new model of Fascism is designed specifically to give you the illusion of freedom by making you think you're in an illusory free market based on merit and open democratic government. When in fact what you are entering is a system of Neo-Feudal control where the bourgeois is no longer a population of Nobles but rather a collection of global mega-corporations who effectively control The media, medicine, etc. These then, through leveraging their capital assets influence world governments to follow their wills. War becomes entirely an exercise of protecting the nobility interests via securing compliance of foreign economies. We send the troops to any country that won't allow our control system in and we invent every excuse to do this.

The Media of course, manufactures consent just well enough that we have these superficially democratic elections. But the majority of the population has been subliminally coerced into voting according to pre-determined NWO outcomes so the elections are just a sham to cover up the fact that if you weren't born into a privileged family you won't make it anywhere. You can't claim you live in a true meritocracy when you may be fired for any irrational reason, denied a loan for any irrational reason, etc. The banks get free money from our government, yet they don't have to loan to anyone? At-will work laws, etc. All of these provide convenient covers and rationalizations to enforce a hidden caste system that you would never notice if we didn't have so many lovely people on the Internet today compiling the statistics to show that despite this "free market" the poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer, and the ability to go from poor to Rich is lower than it ever has been in history. Incomes for all but the top are stagnating, prices rising, etc.

That isn't to say that Capitalism itself is purely evil, but the real question becomes what do we want out of our economy? Do we want a meritocratic economy that rewards experience and cleverness or do we want a "free market" that is so free it can be freely conquered and owned by a chosen few? Do we want an economy that rewards compassion and public service, or one that rewards selfish behavior and punishes those who try to aid others? I don't think the NWO would ever be as obvious as 1984 or any film portrays. It would be a system of control so insidious that it would be able to exist entirely in plain sight and claim boldly to be "For the public good" while in effect only enriching only the "elites" at the top. If anything, that NWO seems almost in place today thanks to central banking.


Edit: US, your problem is this. You are only superficially paying attention to the words being used. If I yell very loudly at you "I'm a duck you ******!" yet I do not walk like a duck, quack like a duck, or have feathers like a duck, I am most likely not a duck. If a hundred other people say "he's a duck!" are you going to go along with them as well?

China claims to be communist, yes, but if you look at how they're opening their economy and experimenting you'll see what it is they're doing. They're trying to experiment with a new capitalist formula that will enable their elites to remain in power by using state partnerships to cement the early relationships between big business and the Chinese state. Slowly their economy is becoming more open (while their social prohibitions against dissent are still there those mostly exist to prevent people from challenging any propaganda put out by the state) the ability to run a business (so long as you conform to the cult of the state) is becoming easier.

They are attempting to turn their rural population into an urban one, much like ours. Just without any of those pesky labor rights or citizen's rights like we have today. Just because they call that communism doesn't make it communism, just like me calling an orange a peach doesn't change acid inside of it to sweet nectar.

Unified Serenity
20th May 2012, 00:36
We were warned long ago by Robert Welch who created the John Birch society. The left has demonized the JBS for years. They love to mock and ridicule the truth so those who believe it will stay quiet because no one likes to be ridiculed or mocked, but as one great man once said,



First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.



It's often attributed to M. Ghandi, but there is no record of his having said this.


Mr. Birch left us with this warning:

AZU0c8DAIU4

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 00:41
Socialism is only a dirty word, primarily in one country. the USA of A.

The word has been purposely perverted by the politically leaning system that is colloquially called 'the right' --as a method, a direct attempt at perverting fundamentals. To banish any attempt of the people to unite for common cause.

Socialism, in it's most basic terms, is simply: uniting for common cause.

Under that, the entire idea and reality of the US 'revolution' that took place in 1776, or thereabouts, is 'socialism', as is any attempt to band together and stop this 'horrific feudally oriented extreme capitalism' that is now rampant in the USA.

Thus, be careful about how one sees or maligns an important and fundamental word.

For that is one of the deeper components of how one controls a society. By undermining movements and their meanings. Even to the point of changing the meaning of a word.

Enlargen the circle of logic and view... or one will be trapped in a corral of someone eles's making.

So, in the eyes of the US population, who now has an extremely perverted understanding of the word socialism, this strongly helps block attempts at uniting for common cause.

A perverted (at the base understanding level) form of polarizing people into an unreal understanding and mental state.

Can you see it now?

Let's see just how perverted (your word) an understanding of socialism WE (in the US) have.

Merriam-Webster defines socialism as:
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Basically, Government owns all property. Government makes the decisions. Big Government.

Let's click the next link in the list I got. From the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. Yet the idea and the ideal of socialism linger on. Whether socialism in some form will eventually return as a major organizing force in human affairs is unknown, but no one can accurately appraise its prospects who has not taken into account the dramatic story of its rise and fall.

Centrally planned GOVERNMENT CONTROLS ALL MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Big Government again.

Britannica give a slightly better 'spin' if you will, but still points out there are two schools of thought within socialism:

On the centralist side are socialists who want to invest public control of property in some central authority, such as the state—or the state under the guidance of a political party, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Those in the decentralist camp believe that decisions about the use of public property and resources should be made at the local, or lowest-possible, level by the people who will be most directly affected by those decisions. This conflict has persisted throughout the history of socialism as a political movement.

Oh wait, we have the World Socialist Movement, but socialism doesn't exist anymore right? Shall I keep posting just how perverted (your word) the definition of socialism has gotten? It hasn't gotten perverted (your word). It has a reputation for a very good reason.

the_vast_mystery
20th May 2012, 01:00
Yes, and if you notice, there is no country currently entirely controls the means of production in all sectors or in other words centrally plans the entire economy. No, asking government to take over certain market sectors, such as banking or transportation is not flat-out socialist. It's simply recognizing the reality of public goods. People are very poorly able to recognize the benefits they get by having a few valuable and critical pieces of infrastructure centrally managed. In certain cases, people's cognitive behaviors and self-serving bias can lead to good outcomes and in many others it leads to bad outcomes. We can either recognize and deal with these or we can say we'd rather have a market so free that too-big-to-fail can exist. That said of course before we could talk about such changes to the economy we need to entirely reform our current system of electoral politics and big money elections.

We need government by the people, not by the corporations. Of course you're not going to get that by gutting every part of the constitution that restrains business interests. Total freedom also means total freedom to control others, Locke talked about Life, Liberty and Property and the current free market system, by enabling people or businesses to make stupid economic decisions with no necessary cause enables just that. Again, how are you going to be free if central bankers own all of the land? you still haven't answered that.

US, I'd like for you to please begin to directly address me. This dodging the question is starting to evidence just how uncomfortable my statements are making you and I'd like to have a productive discussion rather than another endless series of us talking past one another. If you want to disagree address me and my points directly rather than attempting to make a sideways shot across the bow by posting yet more political material that in no way corresponds to the current discussion.

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 01:16
US, I'd like for you to please begin to directly address me. This dodging the question is starting to evidence just how uncomfortable my statements are making you and I'd like to have a productive discussion rather than another endless series of us talking past one another. If you want to disagree address me and my points directly rather than attempting to make a sideways shot across the bow by posting yet more political material that in no way corresponds to the current discussion.
Jeez, you've made some pretty long posts that were mostly STATEMENTS and you pull out the ACCUSATIONS. Go look at my first post in this thread. Try civility. You made mostly STATEMENTS and I think one paragraph of one post asked 2 questions. So she's supposed to stroke your ego and you get all pissed if she doesn't recognize you personally and your STATEMENTS?

Unified Serenity
20th May 2012, 01:18
tvm, why don't you post a real question instead of accusing me of not answering what appear to be accusations against me or apologetics about socialism by you. I have seen treatise by you and no real question to talk about the issues. I have not defended the Neo-cons who are called Rhinos. I have spoken plainly about big business, bribery and such of global businesses. I do not see how you're ranting about my views and defending some odd idea that socialism and communism are dead makes any sense. They change names but the chess game continues.

You have not dealt with the facts about how America has been taken over by socialists who preach tolerance and show none for those who disagree with them. Socialists who teach our children to not excel and competition is bad. We know how Socialists work:

Get in the back of the bus.

Yes, Obama has driven America so well, right? LOL :rolleyes:

Whiskey_Mystic
20th May 2012, 01:30
Unifed Serenity, this thread appears to be about anti-socialism. What are you for? What would your pro thread be?

Unified Serenity
20th May 2012, 01:34
Why, I am for Truth, Justice and the American Way :)

Here's my favorite video which sums up my warrior way:

wN2dAQmjWoM

Unified Serenity
20th May 2012, 01:50
HDRA3XFfDr4

I believe the right of the individual to pursue happiness unencumbered by government's heavy hand or the stealing of your hard earned resources, and charity to those who are suffering through no fault of their own and kindness to those suffering. I support fair play and equal treatment with no special rights for any, but liberty for all. Where we are judged by the quality of our character and not the color of our skin, the religion we believe, or the family we were born to... but respect because we are all divine children created to become great and to accomplish great things as our hearts yearn to do without being controlled by those who would choose a different way for us. I believe in the United States Constitution and want my country to follow it completely.

Seikou-Kishi
20th May 2012, 02:24
I know lots of friends who if they sold their houses would have more than a million US dollars. THAT is NOT wealth my dear US. THAT is what inflation does. Most of the friends that I referred to still work for a living. They can afford a holiday every year. That is IT. A dollar millionare is NOT rich in my book. You can put a million US dollars in 100 dollar bills into a polybag and it is only half way full. The rich people have trillions like the Rothschild family does. A trillion dollars in 100 dollar bills would fill a football stadium two mtr cube pallets two high. That is rich. Disgustingly rich. You US use this forum for publicising your right wing political views. You are in the wrong forum methinks. You use this forum as a soap box for your right wing fascist opinions.

Just my take on things.

Stan

Stan, I think the problem is a lot of people in the United States rail against socialism as though it's the greatest of all evils in some asbolute sense, when really it's nothing more than a historical aversion rooted in the founding of the United States by the rich for the rich. The constitution says 'We the people...' but it should probably say 'We the rich people'. There is a complete lack of distinction between socialism and Marxism or Communism and a general view that people deserve no help whatsoever – we've even seen it in Ron Paul who, other good points aside, thinks anybody who can't afford health insurance doesn't deserve to live if they get in an accident.

I wrote a post elsewhere about the one-sidedness between a citizen's responsibilities and a government's responsibilities, and said how I'd seen a story of a building that had burnt down and the newscaster casually reported that the former residents were being looked after by the Red Cross. We tend to think of the Red Cross as a charity largely operating in the war field, and it just struck me as so awful that people have to rely on charity when something that bad happens, but I'm sure in America it's standard protocol. In the end, nobody wants to help anybody out if they're going to have to pay for it.

The argument started in what would become the US as a minimalist government – a government that would do as little as possible, the bare essentials necessary to avoid anarchy. This, as I said above, had its root in the fact that the government was one arranged by the wealthier people of the then colonies; if a government was going to do more than the bare essentials, it was going to cost and they didn't want to be the ones footing the bill.

And so they got a government that would justify doing absolutely nothing for the people on the grounds of minimalism and liberty (the staple of American mythology). Over time, of course, one half of minimalism fell away, while the other didn't. Now the US government is certainly not minimalist, but it still does next to nothing for the people. Now there are people being tortured in Guantanamo Bay, drone strikes over the Middle East and sexually abusive 'border' agents the TSA molesting people at airports, undergrounds and random spots throughout the highways. What minimalism.

The very worst thing is all the American people who really believe they have a good government. They genuinely think hard work is all that is necessary to realise the American dream despite the fact that the economic and circumstantial deck is stacked against the vast majority of Americans – and always overlooking, of course, the fact that to realise the American dream you have to be asleep. You can dream when you're awake, and it might be more fitting to call it the "American daydream", but that is skirting far too close to the flight of fancy that it actually is.

Don't pay for that cancer patient to get the treatment they need, that's socialism and it's interfering with my American dream!

panopticon
20th May 2012, 02:25
G'day All,

What seems to be getting discussed here is one sub-section of Socialism, that which predominately uses the Marxist ideology of State owned centralised authoritarianism. All very Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist Communist propaganda (that has been critiqued the hell out of) which, in my opinion, only leads to a failed central economy unless somehow "modified" to exist (as is happening in China). The prophetic words of Bakunin (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/The_Anarchist_FAQ_Editorial_Collective__An_Anarchi st_FAQ__09_17_.html), from 1868, in his criticism of Marxist/Communist ideology still I feel holds true:

I hate Communism because it is the negation of liberty and because for me humanity is unthinkable without liberty. I am not a Communist, because Communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of the State . . . I want to see society and collective or social property organised from below upwards, by way of free associations, not from above downwards, by means of any kind of authority whatsoever
So essentially the discussion is around State-socialism and not the broader socialist tradition.

Dictionary definitions reflect only the dominant discourse on a topic and not its entirety.
Kind Regards, :yo:
Panopticon

the_vast_mystery
20th May 2012, 02:31
Jeez, you've made some pretty long posts that were mostly STATEMENTS and you pull out the ACCUSATIONS. Go look at my first post in this thread. Try civility. You made mostly STATEMENTS and I think one paragraph of one post asked 2 questions. So she's supposed to stroke your ego and you get all pissed if she doesn't recognize you personally and your STATEMENTS?

Yes, and so was the subject of this thread. I was directly providing information which counteracts the given statements that were made prior to mine. Namely regarding central planning and the current trends which evidence where the big picture is moving. I can provide more detailed and citation based evidence as is necessary but I am only responding in kind to the subject matter of the thread. If someone says "The Sky is Red!" and I say "No, it's Blue!, look at this photo!" it's not a good idea to ignore the person who says the sky is blue rather than engage them to understand and determine why there is such a divergence between the two people's statements and why.

Ignoring that contradiction means you don't recognize the other person in the discussion has any merit whatsoever and that's the same as basically shouting them down or calling them names. Only done far more indirectly by implying that you're too high and mighty to acknowledge those you feel are beneath you. I'm actually attempting to provide serious debate and engage in serious discussion. I really don't see any other way to do this to the person making some rather bold claims right out of the gate other than by directly challenging them. I'm not about to let someone go on their soap box and make an implied rant about murdering liberals anymore than I'd let a klansman rant on their soap box to try and incite others to murder minorities, Nazis the murdering of the Jewish people, Muslims murdering Christians, or Wiccans murdering the whole of humanity.


tvm, why don't you post a real question instead of accusing me of not answering what appear to be accusations against me or apologetics about socialism by you.

Well, now that I have your attention I will! :P

1: How do we have a free country when central banks own all property and wealth may never be redistributed?

2: what is the difference between upwards redistribution of wealth via the central banking system and downwards redistribution through social services programs?

3: How can a country be communist without a centrally planned economy?

4: How do you prevent market collusion in an entirely free market with no regulations?

5: Are all regulations bad? Please explain good regulation (if it exists) versus bad regulation, citing specific examples as to when it goes overboard and why.

6: Why should employers be free to hire and fire at-will if that is a direct contradiction to economic theory that we should always make decisions that trend towards optimal use of resources?

7: If employers are free to hire and fire at will then why are we basing economic decisions on market theory that insists all decisions must be made rationally towards optimal use of resources?

8: Why are insurance companies and their Death panels any different than government healthcare? The only difference is the insurance industry has every reason to want to avoid paying for people's healthcare (due to it being in their rational interest to maximize profits) while a government would not have the same incentives. In either case end of care decisions are being made by a bureaucracy, one is however elected and responsible to the people and the other is just a bunch of guys with MBAs out to make as much money as they can and everything else be damned?

9: Why is it we don't need government officials telling us how to run our business, but we do need them policing every woman's uterus and deciding who may or may not be married? It seems like a direct contradiction to talk about small government in one breath while paying lipservice to the fact that these small governments will be entirely free to discriminate in as totalitarian a fashion as possible against people or beliefs they don't like. Doesn't freedom mean we shouldn't be writing laws entirely because of people's subjective and unquantifiable beliefs? Just because at a local level they will be more accountable alone does not prevent this. Arizona is a great example, Sheriff Arpaio while elected democratically has been openly caught discriminating against Latinos, his jails are brutal, his deputies were caught beating suspects in custody to death. He's documented as ignoring cases of rape and sexual abuse in favor of raiding people's homes on shaky claims and wasting taxpayer money on buses and other things entirely unnecessary to law enforcement. He was elected locally and yet he still managed to do all of that, this is not making a good case for local accountability.

10: If you do not agree with all or most of the above then why do you cite sources who do? Such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the John Birch Society. This is not making a very strong case because by sourcing people who are for these things you are implying you support them and that makes it hard to believe in your message when you're regularly saying you agree with people who are calling for all of these things.

11: Why is tolerance bad? When is tolerance bad? When does it go too far? When not far enough? Please give specific examples and explain why.

12: How is tolerance of intolerance different than a victim complex where you let others abuse you?


I have seen treatise by you and no real question to talk about the issues. I have not defended the Neo-cons who are called Rhinos. I have spoken plainly about big business, bribery and such of global businesses.

How can you believe that and rely on sources who don't for making these conclusions? That doesn't make any sense. I sometimes agree with Paul Krugman but I haven't sourced him directly once here. I haven't because I understand that Keynesianism, while it may make sense as a release valve in the immediate future is not a long term solution to our problems and I don't want to dilute my information by sourcing an individual as having speaking authority if I don't believe in the full message. This is why my sources, if you'll notice come from a basket of isolated news clippings and blogger commentary to show how I'm trying to bring from all over the internet to reflect what appears to be an actual trend rather than me just buying up someone's dogma at face value.


I do not see how you're ranting about my views and defending some odd idea that socialism and communism are dead makes any sense. They change names but the chess game continues.

Political correctness as a dogma is just as bad as any other dogma but still there's this kernel of mutual respect that can be plucked from it and multiculturalism. By decrying both entirely without understanding why they're appealing you throw the baby out with the bathwater. People want to be respected and treated decently if they're not harming others and by entirely railing against that you are establishing yourself as someone pro-discrimination. This may not be what you mean, but it is certainly the impression given when you imply acceptance is a bad thing by making such bold declarations regarding the intent.


You have not dealt with the facts about how America has been taken over by socialists who preach tolerance and show none for those who disagree with them. Socialists who teach our children to not excel and competition is bad. We know how Socialists work:

Get in the back of the bus.

Yes, Obama has driven America so well, right? LOL :rolleyes:

Tolerance in what way? Tell me, are you going to tolerate someone robbing you? Are you going to tolerate someone attempting to say it's their right to rape you? What about someone who says if you believe other than they do you should be murdered? There's a line tolerance crosses where it becomes a victim complex and unless you can suitably establish that then your cries of "Intolerance!" just seem like an attempt to create a smoke screen over the actual argument of wanting an affirmative right of freedom to bully, harass and discriminate against anyone for any reason. Boundaries must be clearly established and in failing to do that your argument defaults to arguing for the status quo.

By saying we should remove minority protections, and failing to address how that will not result in horrible abuse and discrimination, you are, in effect, directly arguing for that discrimination and abuse by knowingly failing to address that point. It's simply doing it in a very disingenuous way.

Children are being taught not to excel not because of "socialists" but because the entire school system was designed, from the start, by foundations and Rich industrialists who wanted a factory line to produce docile, obedient workers and taxpayers. It was the capitalists, in essence, who corrupted the school systems. The entire thing was about producing non-thinking workers from day one. I'll be happy to cite multiple sources on that one if you'd like.

P.S. I don't necessarily like Obama's Presidency at all, but for actual reasons. His failure to break up the banks, the horrible foreclosure coverup, Fast and Furious, the illegal CIA drone program, Indefinite detention in the NDAA, secret interpretation of the patriot act, NSA expanding its surveillance capacity in Utah, assassinating American Citizens without due process, our dogmatic involvement with Israel even though they sell our arms to the Chinese, etc. That being said, compared to President McCain, who would've sent us to war in Iran, I at least feel Obama was the lesser of the two choices.

We could've had a new war on our hands and also we might've had even worse austerity measures put in place if we hadn't had a Democratic surge. Keynesianism may not fix the economy but Austerity has turned Europe inside out and it looks about ready to pop.

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 02:34
Ron Paul who, other good points aside, thinks anybody who can't afford health insurance doesn't deserve to live if they get in an accident.

I want you to show me a video or a report of an interview where Ron Paul has said anything even remotely like that. I call this utter BS. In fact I will go even further. This statement is a flat out LIE. Ron Paul has treated people without insurance. Show me proof of this statement or my statement stands that this is a LIE.

the_vast_mystery
20th May 2012, 02:37
Ron Paul who, other good points aside, thinks anybody who can't afford health insurance doesn't deserve to live if they get in an accident.

I want you to show me a video or a report of an interview where Ron Paul has said anything even remotely like that. I call this utter BS. In fact I will go even further. This statement is a flat out LIE. Ron Paul has treated people without insurance. Show me proof of this statement or my statement stands that this is a LIE.

Ron Paul the Doctor hasn't, but Ron Paul the politician is advocating for a healthcare system that would just allow the uninsured to die. It was the audience who said "let him die" but it was still highlighting that if we followed what he was advocating and removed EMTLA (which mandates hospitals must treat people with emergency conditions even if they can't pay) then the uninsured would die. If we don't remove EMTLA though? The government still pays for the healthcare of the poor, only in a much more expensive and totally inefficient way via emergency rooms. So what else is there to do?

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 02:39
it's not a good idea to ignore the person who says the sky is blue rather than engage them to understand and determine why there is such a divergence between the two people's statements and why.

I would recommend that several people on this forum take that piece of advice! Namely the ones that like to start name calling and making accusations. Start passing that around to a few other members, please. You can start on all the Drake threads!

jagman
20th May 2012, 02:41
No poor person ever gave me a job. I dont hate rich people. I want to be one. (Not for selfgratification) but to help people by giving them a job
and a chance at a dream. As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address to the nation, 'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'"
God bless America & PA

mosquito
20th May 2012, 02:48
I live in a country where -

- People value money over and above everything else
- Depending on where you live, 10 - 20% of vehicles are SUVs
- There are (apparently) labour laws, which are flagrently ignored by all employers, who continue to treat their workers as slaves
- Children are encouraged to be competetive (contrary to the OP's view) from an early age
- The education system is geared toward a highly competitive, poiints-based (and largely irrelevant) final exam
- The gap bewteen the extremely rich and the poor is widening at a frightening rate
- The rich can and DO buy whatever they want and behave in whatever way they want, regardless of the law
- On the rare occasions you see a policeman, he will likely be sitting with his mates, smoking and playing cards
- People are free to practise whatever their religion, but are NOT free to impose it on others (which doesn't stop missionaries working here)

Exactly how does this match your definition of "communism" ??

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 02:49
Ron Paul who, other good points aside, thinks anybody who can't afford health insurance doesn't deserve to live if they get in an accident.

I want you to show me a video or a report of an interview where Ron Paul has said anything even remotely like that. I call this utter BS. In fact I will go even further. This statement is a flat out LIE. Ron Paul has treated people without insurance. Show me proof of this statement or my statement stands that this is a LIE.

Ron Paul the Doctor hasn't, but Ron Paul the politician is advocating for a healthcare system that would just allow the uninsured to die. It was the audience who said "let him die" but it was still highlighting that if we followed what he was said and removed EMTLA (which mandates hospitals must treat people with emergency conditions even if they can't pay) then the uninsured would die. If we don't remove EMTLA though? The government still pays for the healthcare of the poor, only in a much more expensive and totally inefficient way via emergency rooms. So what else is there to do?
Ummm, calling BS on that one too! I am a healthcare worker. Hospitals CAN NOT turn away a person with an EMERGENCY condition. People misuse the Emergency Room. They go because they don't want to call in sick to work, so instead of making a doctor appt. during business hours and calling in sick, they wait and go to the ER. Other reasons also. That's just the first one to pop in my head. I repeat Hospitals CAN NOT turn away a patient that will die without care. I call BS. It is a lie. They HAVE to treat the person, get them in a stable condition. Stable meaning will survive without further IMMEDIATE treatment. I am a health care worker. I know my duty and have NEVER EVER seen a patient turned down for lack of insurance, even for minor treatment.

the_vast_mystery
20th May 2012, 02:52
No poor person ever gave me a job. I dont hate rich people. I want to be one. (Not for selfgratification) but to help people by giving them a job
and a chance at a dream. As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address to the nation, 'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'"
God bless America & PA

The Market doesn't work according to your ideals though. It works according to profit maximization. You want to get a loan? You need to convince a bank you're worth that loan. You want to start a business? First you need something to sell. Capital and investment are important parts of the market ecosystem but not the most important part. The most important part is in meeting public demand for a good or service that solves a problem.

Rich people don't create jobs, they invest in someone else who they think they can get a return from. Whether or not that return comes from providing a meaningful good (like Apple) or in destroying something useful (Such as the banks did during the housing crisis. They existed only to make a profit off of the inevitable evictions on people who they knew couldn't afford their loans) is entirely irrelevant. The market works according to profit. That you want to change that is absolutely commendable.

However, how are you going to get everyone else to play along with your idea? How are you going to get capital from a bank if your only plan is to "hire people and provide them with a good salary." How are you going to get customers? how are you going to compete with a mega corp who will undercut you with sweatshop labor? Etc. Intention alone isn't going to alter the reality of the situation, which is that you must appease the current gatekeepers of this economy if you want to make it. Before someone like yourself will ever have a chance to own that business that means you either need to decide to play ball with them, or find a way to first fundamentally alter how the economy works.

edit:


Ummm, calling BS on that one too! I am a healthcare worker. Hospitals CAN NOT turn away a person with an EMERGENCY condition. People misuse the Emergency Room. They go because they don't want to call in sick to work, so instead of making a doctor appt. during business hours and calling in sick, they wait and go to the ER. Other reasons also. That's just the first one to pop in my head. I repeat Hospitals CAN NOT turn away a patient that will die without care. I call BS. It is a lie. They HAVE to treat the person, get them in a stable condition. Stable meaning will survive without further IMMEDIATE treatment. I am a health care worker. I know my duty and have NEVER EVER seen a patient turned down for lack of insurance, even for minor treatment.

If you're an healthcare worker, then why don't you know what EMTLA (http://www.emtala.com/) is? It was exactly what I was referring to, and what you just said. Either we remove EMTLA and patients are required to die, or the government will already pick up the tab and in a far, far more expensive way. Thus we already have government healthcare, only a very over-priced, inefficient system of government healthcare.

So either you're "No government healthcare!" and against EMTLA, or you're "pro government healthcare" and you want to perhaps alter that to make it more efficient. Which is it?

Khaleesi
20th May 2012, 03:09
I do know what EMTLA is and I also know I worked everyday of my career with doctors. Whether you believe me or not, I don't know a single doctor that would let a person die in front of them, regardless of EMTLA or not. Most of them may think they are gods, but every last one of them would bust their asses to save a life regardless. I am not pro government health care. Government never did anything efficiently. I don't have to be for or against EMTLA because I have seen doctors in action, even the ones that are assholes. NONE of them would let someone die if EMTLA was not the law.

Unified Serenity
20th May 2012, 03:09
Well, now that I have your attention I will! :P [All you had to do was ask a question and I would gladly reply, but you choose to make statements and I never felt the need to reply. I have read all the posts, few have offered anything but denial, but I will give a good college try at illuminating your mind since you so desperately want my attention]

1: How do we have a free country when central banks own all property and wealth may never be redistributed?
Why do you seem to think I am for central banks? Since I don't then your question is illogical. I prefer free market economy and few regulations.

2: what is the difference between upwards redistribution of wealth via the central banking system and downwards redistribution through social services programs?
I don't like either because I believe when people worked within a community they cared for one another. When the government hands stuff out then people see no sacrifice on the part of others to help them. Helping one another builds gratitude and communities that have more because they are not taxed have more to give. People who are taking in a time of need do not want to be a burden on their friends and thus seek to get on their feet and make their own way so they can help when one of their friends is in need. At one time, people actually knew their neighbors and cared for one another. I don't like the government taking wealth or distributing it. I think we know best how to care for one another, and eventually as proven in communist countries the ones who try to work quit because it didn't matter anymore. There are college experiments that prove this outcome.

3: How can a country be communist without a centrally planned economy?
I never said the could. Again, your questions seem to indicate you have no understanding of my pov regarding government and freedom.

4: How do you prevent market collusion in an entirely free market with no regulations?
I think markets self correct if government does not get involved and try to save their buddies. I believe in a few regulations, but I am very much against the plethora of regulations that have destroyed the opportunity of millions due to all the "red" tape involved.

5: Are all regulations bad? Please explain good regulation (if it exists) versus bad regulation, citing specific examples as to when it goes overboard and why.
All regulations are not bad, but having people making them who are not accountable is bad. I believe we need some safety regulations for protecting the public, and some business regulations for keeping people honest. Monopolies are very bad in a free market and I am for controlling that side, but there must be very good evidence of a monopoly existing. I am for laws, but I believe we have far too many on the books. We have so many laws that no one can possibly know them all and at any time someone could be in violation of a law through no fault of their own. We need to go back to the golden rules and live by them. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't lie, cheat, steal, harm your neighbor or their property and if you do make recompense for it at fair market value.

6: Why should employers be free to hire and fire at-will if that is a direct contradiction to economic theory that we should always make decisions that trend towards optimal use of resources?
Because it's their damn business! If the people dislike it they can choose not to buy products or services from said business. Boycotts work wonders to put someone in proper line who is an a$$hole. The business is created to make a profit. It is not created to provide jobs. Jobs are a nice outcome of business growth and a smart business knows that employee satisfaction makes their business run better and produce more, thus gains them more profits. Stupid businesses don't learn that and go out of business. From my experience, business is making optimal use of resources when they fire an employee who wastes time and resources and hires someone who appreciates the job and looks for ways to improve the work and outcome.

7: If employers are free to hire and fire at will then why are we basing economic decisions on market theory that insists all decisions must be made rationally towards optimal use of resources?
Are you over excited at having my attention? I do believe you just asked me that question, but in case you are confused and need to learn this lesson twice I shall provide my answer again:
Because it's their damn business! If the people dislike it they can choose not to buy products or services from said business. Boycotts work wonders to put someone in proper line who is an a$$hole. The business is created to make a profit. It is not created to provide jobs. Jobs are a nice outcome of business growth and a smart business knows that employee satisfaction makes their business run better and produce more, thus gains them more profits. Stupid businesses don't learn that and go out of business. From my experience, business is making optimal use of resources when they fire an employee who wastes time and resources and hires someone who appreciates the job and looks for ways to improve the work and outcome.

8: Why are insurance companies and their Death panels any different than government healthcare? The only difference is the insurance industry has every reason to want to avoid paying for people's healthcare (due to it being in their rational interest to maximize profits) while a government would not have the same incentives. In either case end of care decisions are being made by a bureaucracy, one is however elected and responsible to the people and the other is just a bunch of guys with MBAs out to make as much money as they can and everything else be damned?
They are not any different and the cold blooded bastards who find ways to cheat their members of life saving alternative treatments should be drawn and quartered at dawn and their savings be given to their victims in fair treatment. The fact is two wrongs don't make a right. Government run health care will be as cost effective as medicare and medicaid. It's a cash cow and will suck us dry. America has the best health care in the world. Anyone who needs emergency care can go to a hospital and receive excellent care. Just as the illegal immigrants who do it daily. I much prefer a medical saving account. Just so you know, I am very knowledgeable about Health Insurance and helped many people settle claims for little money by using the system found at hospitalvictims.org. It's a great site. If you do not have health insurance and have been charged an ungodly sum of money for a procedure, please avail yourself of the knowledge there and you should be able to reduce your bill (Yes, your bill which YOU should pay) to just 25% over medicaid payment. Doctors deserve to be paid as well as all the other staff who give such excellent care no matter who you are.

9: Why is it we don't need government officials telling us how to run our business, but we do need them policing every woman's uterus and deciding who may or may not be married? It seems like a direct contradiction to talk about small government in one breath while paying lipservice to the fact that these small governments will be entirely free to discriminate in as totalitarian a fashion as possible against people or beliefs they don't like. Doesn't freedom mean we shouldn't be writing laws entirely because of people's subjective and unquantifiable beliefs? Just because at a local level they will be more accountable alone does not prevent this. Arizona is a great example, Sheriff Arpaio while elected democratically has been openly caught discriminating against Latinos, his jails are brutal, his deputies were caught beating suspects in custody to death. He's documented as ignoring cases of rape and sexual abuse in favor of raiding people's homes on shaky claims and wasting taxpayer money on buses and other things entirely unnecessary to law enforcement. He was elected locally and yet he still managed to do all of that, this is not making a good case for local accountability.
My, your questions are turning more into statements. Can't you simplify them or are you trying to prove a point and don't really care about my answer? I don't care for people controlling others lives, but I do respect those who try to enforce the law regarding illegal aliens. Are you even in Arizona? Have you seen what is going on there? I do not support brutality in any form. I do support rounding up every illegal immigrant and taking them to a central location by region and flying them back to their countries. At this point I would approve of a tattoo across their foreheads that says "ILLEGAL ALIEN" so when they come this way again, they will be easy to spot and/or our cops can profile people wearing bandanas and hats. :D


10: If you do not agree with all or most of the above then why do you cite sources who do? Such as Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the John Birch Society. This is not making a very strong case because by sourcing people who are for these things you are implying you support them and that makes it hard to believe in your message when you're regularly saying you agree with people who are calling for all of these things.
Just because Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity are asses sometimes does not mean they are always wrong. I site the facts they share which I agree with.

11: Why is tolerance bad? When is tolerance bad? When does it go too far? When not far enough? Please give specific examples and explain why.
When did I every say tolerance is bad? I just pointed out that the liberals idea of tolerance is nobody disagreeing with them publicly, compromising all your beliefs to their pov, and giving up all your rights as they see fit. Yes, "Get in the back of the bus" per Obama. Can you imagine if a Conservative President uttered those words? The Russians have used our tolerant society and free speech to manipulate the system. Our children are being brainwashed by liberal indoctrinated teachers who don't give a damn about their future success, just can they pass an FCAT exam and be a good little cog in a wheel. Liberal's have ruined our educational system. At one time American's led the world in scientists, engineers, critical thinkers, but those disciplines are not taught properly today. Go figure... a critical thinker would understand what I am saying.

12: How is tolerance of intolerance different than a victim complex where you let others abuse you?
Again, what is it with the tolerance crap? I certainly don't let anyone abuse me, and that is why I am still on this forum because I won't run away. I may take a break, but I don't let people tell me to leave and this "isn't my forum" like Stan said. I have seen the most intolerant behavior from those who disagree with me. You all are a fine group to talk about tolerance. :rolleyes:






Now tvm, why don't you answer the same questions you posed to me and I'll see where we disagree because at this point, I don't think you have a clue as to what I believe, and I am beginning to think you don't give a tinkers damn because if you did you would not be this obtuse and confused.

sirdipswitch
20th May 2012, 03:17
"jagman:
No poor person ever gave me a job. I dont hate rich people. I want to be one. (Not for selfgratification) but to help people by giving them a job
and a chance at a dream. As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address to the nation, 'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'"
God bless America & PA "


Yeeeaaahhhh!!! jagman for President
I wanna live in Your town!!

love and peace
sirdipswitch

¤=[Post Update]=¤

oops! that wuz sposed ta be bold, dunno wut hapen

[Mod-edit; bold fixed - needed a slash / before the second, closing B. -Paul.]

Whiskey_Mystic
20th May 2012, 08:25
I believe the right of the individual to pursue happiness unencumbered by government's heavy hand or the stealing of your hard earned resources, and charity to those who are suffering through no fault of their own and kindness to those suffering. I support fair play and equal treatment with no special rights for any, but liberty for all. Where we are judged by the quality of our character and not the color of our skin, the religion we believe, or the family we were born to... but respect because we are all divine children created to become great and to accomplish great things as our hearts yearn to do without being controlled by those who would choose a different way for us. I believe in the United States Constitution and want my country to follow it completely.

Sounds like a die hard libertarian to me.

I'll bet if you asked most people they would say they believe the same things you do. They just don't vote that way. Funny that.

Paul
20th May 2012, 20:21
Ron Paul who, other good points aside, thinks anybody who can't afford health insurance doesn't deserve to live if they get in an accident.

I want you to show me a video or a report of an interview where Ron Paul has said anything even remotely like that. I call this utter BS. In fact I will go even further. This statement is a flat out LIE. Ron Paul has treated people without insurance. Show me proof of this statement or my statement stands that this is a LIE.
Let's not shout :).

If we confuse the collective ("us") with our federal government, then whether the government is responsible for providing healthcare becomes the same as whether "we" provide healthcare.

I doubt (without clear evidence) that Ron Paul thinks someone deserves to die if they lack health insurance.

But I will wager that he doesn't think this is a proper responsibility of our federal government.

Any government in which we place ultimate responsibility for our well being is granted sufficient power to destroy our well being.

There will always be limitations on how much support we can provide each other, and those limitations will vary by the wealth and influence of those needing support. We are reluctant to face this harsh reality, so we tend to wish that the most powerful entity that we know of will push back those limitations as far from view as possible. We end up granting "them" far more power over our lives, our well being, our freedom and our wealth than is good for us.

Those who would take back some of that power, who would limit the powers (and hence the responsibilities) of the almighty federal government (or the church, in other times and places) are decried as wanting to kill the innocents, women, children, poor and sick. Those granted such unlimited (for we can not bear to face our limits) power end up doing just that ... killing, torturing, raping and enslaving millions and billions of innocents, women, children, poor and sick (and able bodied adult men), with their power run amuck.

I presume that Ron Paul has compassion for his fellow human. I presume that he does not trust any government that is granted, or has taken, excessive powers. I suppose he is opposed to any such granting of powers by any people to any institution.

write4change
20th May 2012, 20:46
Ron Paul had a man in his 40s or 50s who was a major employee of his campaign who died of cancer lacking health insurance. He was employed full time by the campaign that did not provide health insurance to its employees nor were they paid enough to afford it. It is a type of walmart campaign. I suppose you are supposed to be able to afford to work for them. The family put up a website to try and get enough donations to pay for his care. He died owing about 450,000 which the medical providers have been trying to collect from the family. This story is about a year old and had major play on almost all the political sites. I know I read about it extensively and read lots of various comments about it. I consider this a major American problem and I am one that feels medicine should not be a commodity and should be a civil right. If Taiwan can afford it so can we. That is my position. I have read all the other side for years. I am a nurse and I am not pursuaded. I want Medicare for all.

I also have a problem with his son Rand Paul who is a self certified eye doctor who had made millions doing cataract surgery on the old. He wants everything cut but medical payments to doctors.

All of these issues are complex and complicated and none will be resolved here. I post this because there are specifics that illustrate people's positions.

risveglio
20th May 2012, 22:48
Ron Paul had a man in his 40s or 50s who was a major employee of his campaign who died of cancer lacking health insurance. He was employed full time by the campaign that did not provide health insurance to its employees nor were they paid enough to afford it. It is a type of walmart campaign. I suppose you are supposed to be able to afford to work for them. The family put up a website to try and get enough donations to pay for his care. He died owing about 450,000 which the medical providers have been trying to collect from the family. This story is about a year old and had major play on almost all the political sites. I know I read about it extensively and read lots of various comments about it. I consider this a major American problem and I am one that feels medicine should not be a commodity and should be a civil right. If Taiwan can afford it so can we. That is my position. I have read all the other side for years. I am a nurse and I am not pursuaded. I want Medicare for all.

I also have a problem with his son Rand Paul who is a self certified eye doctor who had made millions doing cataract surgery on the old. He wants everything cut but medical payments to doctors.

All of these issues are complex and complicated and none will be resolved here. I post this because there are specifics that illustrate people's positions.

Rand Paul just did 4 cataract surgeries pro bono. The fact is if we didn't have government involved in health care, it wouldn't be priced ridiculously. Every time someone that needed medical help but couldn't afford it, they would be charged the least possible price instead of the people being charged the highest possible price. People would do a better job taking car of themselves because they would know there would be no safety net and finally, we would not have to treat doctors like slaves so that the number of quality physicians will not have to reduce here like it has in many of the failing "universal healthcare" countries.

risveglio
20th May 2012, 23:11
If you ask me about politics, I will say I don't trust ANY of them, they all seem to conform to the Cabal/elites strategies. The only persons you can trust are the people who don't want to be a politician.

But when the time comes we may be able to convince them to represent us in some kind of government. A reluctant representative shall we say.

Stan

You can't trust any of them and 9 of the 10 you can trust can and probably will be corrupted if you convinced them to try anyway. It's the simple reason why I don't understand we, the collective, can not realize the only solution is that we do need laws but we certainly do not need leaders.

The spiritual message on this forum is often either a. You are your God. b. you create your own path and/or c. you can only change things for yourself, but yet politically we are still desperate to give up some freedom. Why?

This is Bastiat vs Rousseau. Hasn't history already proven Bastiat was right?