Re: Why Isn't Socialism Dead?
Shawn Wilson
> >Companies COMPETE against each other for resources.
>
> Says who?
Idiocy from a jackass who can't seem to figure out that there mght be
a connection between wealth and capitalism, given that ALL the richest
countries in the world are seriously capitalist, and the poorest
socialist...
> > Labor is just
> >another resource.
>
> And there is usually an excess. Which is why workers COMPETE against
> each other for jobs. And one outcome is the fact that wages have
> remained flat for the past decade.
I ALREADY derived a demand curve for labor for you. w = Pf'(L).
Can't get around that.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 17, 11:28�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> >Companies COMPETE against each other for resources.
>>
>> Says who?
>
>Idiocy from a jackass
Yeah, we're all pretty tired of your idiocy, jackass. You insist that
competion among companies raises salaries, but you ignore the fact
that competion among workers lowers salaries.
>> > �Labor is just
>> >another resource.
>>
>> And there is usually an excess. �Which is why workers COMPETE against
>> each other for jobs. �And one outcome is the fact that wages have
>> remained flat for the past decade.
>
>I ALREADY derived a demand
Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
tooly
competition among companies keeps wages balanced with supply and
demand by being allocated 'on the margin' [as the next worker's wage
given]. Command economies control wages by 'averages', creating much
dead weight loss [inefficiency] which has been known to rob that
portion of profit that new investment is created. As companies are
managed efficiently and competently, and wages kept to market
efficacy, the salaries of all workers usually rise as the company
prospers. And not only that, MORE people are hired on as the company
'grows'. It is a major flaw of socialist command ecnomies that wages
and prices are set on the average. Socialist central control are
dinasaur brains compared to the high powered computer accurate
'invisible hands' of free markets.
There is NO argument that socialism can win over capitalism on
economic principles. The ony arguement that carries ANY weight at all
is 'social justice', and that very questionable. And of course,
environmental issues has presented us with another angle to 'slow'
consumption of natural resources down. As far as supposed 'social
justice', it is 'wrong' to take from someone, that which they have
earned or created [to give to someone else] without paying for it. I
think they call that 'theft'.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 18, 8:59�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson �<ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 17, 11:28�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Companies COMPETE against each other for resources.
>>
>> >> Says who?
>>
>> >Idiocy from a jackass
>>
>> Yeah, we're all pretty tired of your idiocy, jackass. �You insist that
>> competion among companies raises salaries, but you ignore the fact
>> that competion among workers lowers salaries.
>>
>> >> > �Labor is just
>> >> >another resource.
>>
>> >> And there is usually an excess. �Which is why workers COMPETE against
>> >> each other for jobs. �And one outcome is the fact that wages have
>> >> remained flat for the past decade.
>>
>> >I ALREADY derived a demand
>>
>> Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
>
>demand by being allocated 'on the margin' [as the next worker's wage
>given].
Only in a free market. Evidence is that the market is not free.
> Command economies control wages by 'averages', creating much
>dead weight loss [inefficiency] which has been known to rob that
>portion of profit that new investment is created. As companies are
>managed efficiently and competently, and wages kept to market
>efficacy, the salaries of all workers usually rise as the company
>prospers.
But the reality is that when companies prosper it is the executives
and the stockholders which prosper.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm curious. Who are you guys? There is no real need to defend
capitalism since in the west, there is a strong enculturation that
simply eschews it 'out of hand'. After all, we [USA] fought two wars
in Korea and Viet Nam specifically to fight the spread of communism.
Socialism has been a dead issue here since time in memoriam
really...even as we have embraced some social walfare policy and
programs. I mean, it seem alien to me that anyone would actually
argue for socialism outright...except of course communists and the
like [and they've always been around as rabble rousers of one sort or
another...but always fringe stuff...ie SDS, Weathermen, some Black
Panther etc].
It really is weird. I mean Obama gets elected and ever since, you
socialists have been everywhere...coming out of the woodwork, hanging
off the rafters, ha. It's like Speilberg's version of War of the
Worlds, and you guys have been buried in the ground all this time,
waiting silently to dig yourselves up and 'strike', hehe. At
Copenhagen, Chavez chides capitalism and he gets a rowdy standing
ovation. Wow! What's up with that?
One would have to be an idiot to NOT see there is something going on.
Socialists? I think COMMUNIST is more like it...or at least 'behind
the scenes' directing things. Global warming? No...this is all about
socialism trying to bring home it's marxist promise of world
domination. That ovation for Chavez at Copenhagen...just too damn
obvious.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT MARXISM...AND ULTIMATELY, COMMUNISM.
The enemy has landed.
Oh, and about free makets; they are based upon 'perfect
competition'...free acces, no price power, no monoplies, collusions
etc...and if not 'free', need correction [some use for government
after all].
And who are the stockholders if not workers with pensions, 401ks,
etc. There is no 'us versus them'.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh crap...typo...""There is no real need to defend
> capitalism since in the west, there is a strong enculturation that
> simply eschews it 'out of hand'.""
Obviously, by 'it' I meant 'socialism'. We eshew socialism as a
cultural value.
Michael Gordge
> After all, we [USA] fought two wars
> in Korea and Viet Nam specifically to fight the spread of communism.
> Socialism has been a dead issue here since time in memoriam
> really...
Absolute garbage, Lincoln started the socialist rot in the US,
followed by the formation of FDR (the state controlling the supply of
money) and each year since socialism has grown in the US as a
festering cancerous terminal tumour, and each and every declaration of
war that the US government declares the scourge of socialism grows,
e.g. the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror.
MG
Shawn Wilson
> >I ALREADY derived a demand
>
> Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
Do you REALLY think that vulgarity will convince anyone of anything
beyond your ignorance?
I spent three years in the infantry, it sure as hell won't impress
ME.
Either argue rationally or admit that you're wrong.
Shawn Wilson
> There is NO argument that socialism can win over capitalism on
> economic principles.
Technically, under ideal conditions, an omniscient central planner can
match, but never exceed, the economic performance of a decentralized
capitalist economy. It is a standard exercise in economics, mainly
useful in that the central planner models are somewhat easier to solve
than decentralized ones and the end results are the same.
Shawn Wilson
Literally not to mention all the employees, who have jobs rather than
being unemployed. And the customers, who are necessarily better off
buying from them because if buying from someone else would improve
their welfare they would.
tooly
Well, with all respect, his is 'just wrong'. No school is going to
teach what you just suggested. Socialism is quite antiquated
economically.
All attempts at manipulating free markets end up in inefficiency...and
lost resource. It's all in the math. Again, Free Markets work on the
margin...essentially allocating price to the NEXT unit [or wage
etc]...and that makes it very succinct to the changing dynamics of
supply and demand. Controllers of markets have no choice but to use
'averages' because they cannot know the dynamics of markets with such
succinct 'to the unit' aplomb. It's one big reason the USSR economy
shrank over time. It was actually found that the inefficient losses
due to averaging equated pretty much to what might have been new
investment, much of which may have kept infratstructure maintained
[growth needs to be at least to that degree, or capital deteriation
sets in]. And this is not even touching upon emerging markets that
were never served since incentives were destroyed. Heck, they
couldn't even supply bread to the people.
No, socialism has been quite soundly debunked on an economic basis and
even empircally, all cases where it's ever been tried has ended up in
failure. And the logic for social justice is zany as well, ignoring
the reality of segmented output. Even so, there are social conditions
that are simply repugnant to humans, which justifies SOME social
welfare...but only to that degree to prevent the most abject suffering
[catastrophic outcomes...which is what any installed social policy in
the USA was supposed address and ONLY THAT!]. Social Welfare policy
is a far different critter than socialism outright and even social
democracy is a bear of a different sort [the slippery slope swallowing
freedom in bites rather than lunching down in one bite].
If not forceful overthrow in original marxist manifesto [as Lenin
expounded], I think the cultural march is supposed to evolve from
liberalism, become progressivism [politically activated], to social
democracy, to democratic socialism, which is of corse socialism...and
the final stage communism outright. Many liberal progressives who
mean well, may actually be serving more clandestine 'behind the
scenes' direction to move society along the way to marxist goals [of
communism].
There may be a real issue of global climate change. But there is no
doubt that this issue has been pounced upon by hard core socialists to
advance their cause...and as that standing ovation for Hugo
Chavez...repeat, for Hugo Chavez of all people...shows that whatever
issue global warming may have been for honest discussion, the movement
has been absolutely taken over by old world political agiators who
could probably care less about CO2 emissions, but only want to
accomplish what Lenin and the Bolsheviks could not.
So, all freedom loving people everywhere need to resist all attempts
being made just now under the guise of 'global warming', becuase it
has become a ruse; a vehicle to give rise to evil once again in the
world; and the inevitable tyranny that socialism NECESSARILY must
embrace.
Please observe.
Wayne Throop
:: Technically, under ideal conditions, an omniscient central planner
:: can match, but never exceed, the economic performance of a
:: economics, mainly useful in that the central planner models are
:: somewhat easier to solve than decentralized ones and the end results
:: are the same.
: tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net>
: Well, with all respect, his is 'just wrong'. No school is going to
: teach what you just suggested. Socialism is quite antiquated
: economically.
Oh, no no no. It's perfectly true. The key is to define
"ideal outcome" as "what a decentralized capitalist economy produces".
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Bill Snyder
wrote:
There's a lot of that going around. Apparently a "cooperative
society" is one that triumphs over a "selfish society," even as
the gostak is that entity which distims the doshes.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Michael Gordge
>
> So, all freedom loving people everywhere need to resist all attempts
> being made just now under the guise of 'global warming', becuase it
> has become a ruse; a vehicle to give rise to evil once again in the
> world; and the inevitable tyranny that socialism NECESSARILY must
> embrace.
All taxation is based upon a lie, and the global warming tax is no
different, those who decry the global warming scam tax and who fail to
decry all other tax are the real enemy of freedom.
MG
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Usually, the loss of efficiency is passed on to the consumer as higher
prices.
Higher prices in broad terms means lower standard of living.
Wexford
Interesting comment
> I'm curious. Who are you guys? There is no real need to defend
> capitalism since in the west, there is a strong enculturation that
> simply eschews it 'out of hand'. After all, we [USA] fought two wars
> in Korea and Viet Nam specifically to fight the spread of communism.
No. We fought the wars in Korea and Vietnam to stop the spread of
totalitarian governments -- nominally "communist" -- and their allies
who were openly hostile to the United States, its allies and its
interests.
> Socialism has been a dead issue here since time in memoriam
Define "Socialism." If you mean the classic economic definition, i.e.
a state that owns the means of production, it's been around forever.
> really...even as we have embraced some social walfare policy and
> programs.
"Social welfare policy and programs" don't make a socialist state.
I mean, it seem alien to me that anyone would actually
> argue for socialism outright...except of course communists and the
> like [and they've always been around as rabble rousers of one sort or
> another...but always fringe stuff...ie SDS, Weathermen, some Black
> Panther etc].
SDS? Weathermen? The tiny, powerless fringe movements that existed 50
years ago? What decade are you in?
>
> It really is weird. I mean Obama gets elected and ever since, you
> socialists have been everywhere...coming out of the woodwork, hanging
> off the rafters, ha. It's like Speilberg's version of War of the
> Worlds, and you guys have been buried in the ground all this time,
> waiting silently to dig yourselves up and 'strike', hehe. At
> Copenhagen, Chavez chides capitalism and he gets a rowdy standing
> ovation. Wow! What's up with that?
Name a socialist with any political power in the United States.
>
> One would have to be an idiot to NOT see there is something going on.
> Socialists? I think COMMUNIST is more like it...or at least 'behind
> the scenes' directing things. Global warming? No...this is all about
> socialism trying to bring home it's marxist promise of world
> domination. That ovation for Chavez at Copenhagen...just too damn
> obvious.
Cookoo, Cookoo
>
> THIS IS ALL ABOUT MARXISM...AND ULTIMATELY, COMMUNISM.
> The enemy has landed.
>
> Oh, and about free makets; they are based upon 'perfect
> competition'...free acces, no price power, no monoplies, collusions
> etc...and if not 'free', need correction [some use for government
> after all].
> And who are the stockholders if not workers with pensions, 401ks,
> etc. There is no 'us versus them'.- Hide quoted text -
Oh, you are a nutcase, aren't you? Or are you just stupid because
you're misinformed. Go to a college, if you have finished high school,
and take a few courses in history and economics. You certainly know
nothing about either one.
Wexford
Tooly -- I follow your rant to the point of your leap from global
warming to a "socialist" plot. Who and what is alerting us to global
warming in a effort to advance a socialist agenda? Why? What does it
get them? What harm comes from reducing our carbon output and our
dependence on foreign oil? How is that socialist?
tooly
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:35:14 GMT, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
No, A 'FREE' society triumphs over one under Totalitarianism.
The idea of a cooperative society under socialism is a play on words.
Inmates in any prison will seem more orderly than the often chaotic
mix of free interaction. Cooperation. LOL. Hell yes I'll
'cooperate' [sic] with whomever 'owns the means of production', for
they also own my 'means of survival'. I really can't believe we [the
world] is having this discussion with any serious bent to it now since
socialism has been so soundly defeated in every way [by it's own
design BTW]. I think it might have to do with the youth. I mean, the
world has been relatively peaceful in the west for the last 20-30
years and kids have grown up under an increasing 'cultural marxist'
influence in our schools which has probably turned their minds slowly
away from what their forebears once taught [the wisdoms based in real
experience and heritage]. Socialism serves only a small elite group
where power becomes centralized [or did we think owning/controlling
the means of production is politically neutral?]. And the masses
become imprisoned, often by heavy handed government authority. Even
if that overseeing government tries to be benevolent, it remains such
centralized power cannot be trusted, and the people end up living in
fear for the most part...acutely 'unfree'. Dissent is often
erradicated, such as Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezeula...and freedoms
that most western people take for granted now slowly become usurped by
government oversight...and if you aren't in lockstep agreement with
that government, things can get dicey.
Communism does not provide for half way measure, and social democracy
in the eyes of the communist elites is just a 'stage' along the
inevitable path toward communism. And Marx was NOT a utopian as many
people think, but was an 'intellectual'. His 'theory' was not some
collective paradise of a higher moral order, but a final system where
intellectuals would rule over the masses. The means to that end would
be a 'moral struggle' however, as humans strived for what they saw as
'social justice'. Just 'useful idiots' in the eyes of communist
manipulators.
It is so so crazy...all these zealots now trying to put their head in
the Lion's maw...enamoured with their utopian ideals of collective
betterment...all the while just pawns in a much broader game between
good and evil.
tooly
Actually, the progressive movement dates back to Teddy Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson. There is a distinct difference in the mindset of
social welfare policy, meant to soften abject misery, and true
socialist utopianism. Socialism as an economic system has never been
embraced openly in America [oh, maybe discussed on classrooms or
something]...but the people at large are heavily enculturated with the
founder's installlation of laizez faire. Marxist socialism was always
akin almost as if someone talking about Satan...automatically seen as
an 'evil'...that is, until this last year when Obama was elected.
That enculturation still exists and the people at large will never
accept socialism as the prime system...though cultural marxists have
apparently given their utmost effort over these last several decades
to 'march through the institutions'. It seems they have captured the
media, and key elements of education...and now even the white house.
But they [the cultural marxists] have made a grave error in
misunderstanding the heart and soul of the American people
themselves. I think you should stick around and observe carefully
these next two elections to understand better. Even with 'end around'
immigration and stacking the political deck with disparate immigrants
who would tend to vote for socialist policy, the very essence of this
society remains the rugged individualism where all citizens are as
free as humanly possible. Even the invented crisis of global warming
and best efforts of Saul Alinsky strategy to capitalize on 'crisis' on
this latest financial downturn...cannot make a dent into now engrained
persona of this society. Freedom is the birthright of everyone who
exists here.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 3:50�am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >competition among companies keeps wages balanced with supply and
>
>I mean, it seem alien to me that anyone would actually
>> argue for socialism outright...except of course communists and the
>> like [and they've always been around as rabble rousers of one sort or
>> another...but always fringe stuff...ie SDS, Weathermen, some Black
>> Panther etc].
>
>SDS? Weathermen? The tiny, powerless fringe movements that existed 50
>years ago? What decade are you in?
Forty years -- the SDS was founded in the early 1960s, and the
Weathermen spun off in the late '60s or early '70s. The Black
Panthers were late '60s. I'm too lazy to look up the exact years, but
I know none of those existed in 1959.
Still, you're quite right that this guy's living in the past, even if
you had the exact decade wrong.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Ray Fischer
Fallacy of the exscluded middle.
You seem to think that the only possible states are "prosper" and
"failure". In fact companies often do quite well - enought to emply
many people. Extra profits go to the company's owners. The
stockholders. Companies that are now employee owned do not pass
along profits to workers.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 18, 11:24�pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> There is NO argument that socialism can win over capitalism on
>> economic principles. �
>
>Technically, under ideal conditions, an omniscient central planner can
>match, but never exceed, the economic performance of a decentralized
>capitalist economy.
In reality "ideal" conditions never exist.
> It is a standard exercise in economics, mainly
Get back to us when you've gotten out into the real world.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> So, all freedom loving people everywhere need to resist all attempts
>> being made just now under the guise of 'global warming', becuase it
>> has become a ruse; a vehicle to give rise to evil once again in the
>> world; and the inevitable tyranny that socialism NECESSARILY must
>> embrace.
>
>All taxation is based upon a lie, and the global warming tax is no
>different,
Idiotic propaganda.
Do you rightards get ALL of your "facts" from fatass radio blowhards?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>No, socialism has been quite soundly debunked on an economic basis and
>even empircally, all cases where it's ever been tried has ended up in
>failure.
All cases where capitalism has been tried have ended up in failure.
> And the logic for social justice is zany as well, ignoring
>the reality of segmented output. Even so, there are social conditions
>that are simply repugnant to humans, which justifies SOME social
>welfare...but only to that degree to prevent the most abject suffering
>[catastrophic outcomes...which is what any installed social policy in
>the USA was supposed address and ONLY THAT!].
And that's why capitalism is a failure - it places profits above all
else. It even fails in maximizing efficiency because it does not
account for market manipulation.
> Social Welfare policy
>is a far different critter than socialism outright and even social
Smirk. It's not "socialism" if you agree that it's necessary.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 18, 6:59�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>> >I ALREADY derived a demand
>>
>> Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
>
>Do you REALLY think that vulgarity will convince anyone of anything
>beyond your ignorance?
That coming from a moron who claims that economy of scale doesn't
exist.
>I spent three years in the infantry,
And you invented a cure for the common cold, married a supermodel,
gave political advice to Reagan, and are a practicing neurosurgeon in
your spare time.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> Actually, the progressive movement dates back to Teddy Roosevelt and
> Woodrow Wilson.
Nope, two things, there is nothing progressive about socialism, and
second, state owned (socialism) railways began with Lincoln.
> Socialism as an economic system has never been
> embraced openly in America.....
Wrong, e.g. Clinton (from memory) declared "the state's war on
welfare / poverty" thereby showing politics in the US embraces
socialism in all its ugly forms.
> themselves. I think you should stick around and observe carefully
> these next two elections to understand better.
Elections between Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum for the past 70 years
and for the next 100, and with the so called "swinging voters" show
there is nothing philosophically / fundamentally different to vote
for, the voters are doing nothing more than expressing a personal
opinion based on the personalities of those stuipid and evil enough to
want to control other human beings.
MG
Ray Fischer
>> embraced openly in America.....
>
>Wrong, e.g. Clinton (from memory) declared "the state's war on
>welfare / poverty" thereby showing politics in the US embraces
>socialism in all its ugly forms.
I don't know why you rightards so hate peoplke that you would rather
see people dead than allow anything like socialism. Johnson's war on
poverty actually did have the effect of dramatically reducing proverty
in America. Contrast that with Reagan's and Shrub's administrations
which had the opposite effect.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
William December Starr
tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> said:
> There is NO argument that socialism can win over capitalism on
> economic principles. The ony arguement that carries ANY weight at
> all is 'social justice', and that very questionable. And of
> course, environmental issues has presented us with another angle
> to 'slow' consumption of natural resources down. As far as
> supposed 'social justice', it is 'wrong' to take from someone,
> that which they have earned or created [to give to someone else]
> without paying for it. I think they call that 'theft'.
Wow, we sure are lucky to live in a world that's that simple.
-- wds
Michael Gordge
> I don't know why you rightards...
Whooops silly ewe, I am not a 'rightard', the rightard are as dopey
and as evil and as anti-human as the left.
> Johnson's war on
> poverty actually did have the effect of dramatically reducing proverty
> in America.
You failed of course to mention how big the parasitical state grew in
the process, and as a direct result of declaring that war, and of
course with no mention did you make that all of the new draconian laws
and the associated costs that came into force to "fight" that war
remain.
MG
Michael Gordge
Whoops silly ewe, there is no middle between good and evil.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Idiotic propaganda.
State your case ewe fucking ignorant commie cunt.
MG
Michael Gordge
> What harm comes from reducing our carbon output...
What good comes from it? Give the scientific version of how man
producing less than 0.0001% of the earth's total gas changes anything?
> and our
> dependence on foreign oil?
So you dont want people in other contries not to purchase goods and
services produced in the US? idiot.
> How is that socialist?
The man makes the globe hot scam is as socialist as any other fucking
dopey religous scam.
MG
Michael Gordge
> All cases where capitalism has been tried have ended up in failure.
Ewe fucking ignorant knuckle-dragging commie cockhead, how can you
being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of your
energy (capitalism) fail you?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> In reality "ideal" conditions never exist.
In reality, if the conditions were not ideal you could not survive,
and what ewe commie cunts fail to grasp is that, for man, surival does
not mean avoiding death.
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 4:52�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you rightards...
>
>Whooops silly ewe, I am not a 'rightard', the rightard are as dopey
>and as evil and as anti-human as the left.
>
>> �Johnson's war on
>> poverty actually did have the effect of dramatically reducing proverty
>> in America. �
>
>You failed of course to mention how big the parasitical state grew in
>the process, and as a direct result of declaring that war, and of
>course with no mention did you make that all of the new draconian laws
And so the rightard bitches and whines because it cost something to
help people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Rightards are incapable of understanding anything other than extremes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 12:26�pm, Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What harm comes from reducing our carbon output...
>
>What good comes from it? Give the scientific version of how man
>producing less than 0.0001% of the earth's total gas changes anything?
1) You're off by a factor of 1000
2) Higher CO2 leads to higher H2O, which is also a greenhouse gas
3) You only need to raise the temperature of ice a fraction of a
degree from 31.9 to 32.01 to get it to melt
4) See levels are already rising
>> dependence on foreign oil?
>
>So you dont want people in other contries not to purchase goods and
>services produced in the US? idiot.
You sell your life for the sake of a few pennies.
Typical rightard.
>> How is that socialist?
>
>The man makes the globe hot scam is as socialist as any other fucking
You're just a crazy wingnut.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 4:35�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> All cases where capitalism has been tried have ended up in failure.
>
>Ewe fucking ignorant knuckle-dragging commie cockhead, how can you
The "logic" of the rightard wingnut
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 4:31�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> In reality "ideal" conditions never exist.
>
>In reality, if the conditions were not ideal you could not survive,
"Oooo noooo! It's raining! It's no longer ideal!"
Stupid rightard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Shawn Wilson
> : Well, with all respect, his is 'just wrong'. No school is going to
> : teach what you just suggested. Socialism is quite antiquated
> : economically.
>
> Oh, no no no. It's perfectly true. The key is to define
> "ideal outcome" as "what a decentralized capitalist economy produces".
Feel free to run the exercise yourself. Oh, you don't have the skill
set, do you?
Ya know, you ignorant hatred of economists is entirely predicted on
your ignorance of their ways and means.
Shawn Wilson
> Name a socialist with any political power in the United States.
Well, Barak Hussein Obama comes to mind... Nancy Pelosi also. Not to
mention the other radical extremists of the Democratic Party. Just
because they don't call themselves socialists doesn't mean they
aren't. Their policies are a socialists wet dream.
Shawn Wilson
Sigh... Neat trick that.
Think it through...
Shawn Wilson
> Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 18, 11:24 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> There is NO argument that socialism can win over capitalism on
> >> economic principles.
>
> >Technically, under ideal conditions, an omniscient central planner can
> >match, but never exceed, the economic performance of a decentralized
> >capitalist economy.
>
> In reality "ideal" conditions never exist.
And thus socialism fails to deliver what capitalism does
automatically.
Shawn Wilson
> All cases where capitalism has been tried have ended up in failure.
US? UK? Hong Kong? Canada? Australia?
I mean the richest countries in the world are capitalist. Hong Kong
is approximately the purest example of capitalism anywhere at any
time. Before the Chinese takeover they managed to grow from bombed
out rubble to match the US on a per capita basis.
> And that's why capitalism is a failure - it places profits above all
> else. It even fails in maximizing efficiency because it does not
> account for market manipulation.
Market manipulation always fails in the long run.
Shawn Wilson
> Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 18, 6:59 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >I ALREADY derived a demand
>
> >> Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
>
> >Do you REALLY think that vulgarity will convince anyone of anything
> >beyond your ignorance?
>
> That coming from a moron who claims that economy of scale doesn't
> exist.
Uh, you don't know what economies of scale are, do you? (and I have
ALREADY explained this to you...) They aren't a magic rule that says
that larger is always more efficient.
BTW, in your world with economies of scale as you (falsely) envision
them, why would monopolies be bad?
> >I spent three years in the infantry,
>
> And you invented a cure for the common cold, married a supermodel,
> gave political advice to Reagan, and are a practicing neurosurgeon in
> your spare time.
Nope. I am an economist and a former infantryman.
Shawn Wilson
> 4) See levels are already rising
They have BEEN rising for about 10,000 years. Since the end of the
last ice age.
Michael Gordge
>
> And so the rightard bitches and whines because it cost something to
> help people.
Wrong again ewe lefturd retard, I am not right wing and how fucking
dare ewe tell me who I ought or not ought help and why, what fucking
disgusting arogance ewe lefturd retards have.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Rightards are incapable of understanding anything other than extremes.
Wrong again ewe lefturd retard, I am not right wing and if ewe believe
there is something between good and evil then state your case and stop
carrying on like a fucking idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
> 4) See levels are already rising
Hahahahha Where? How much? Rising on the east side of the Pacific and
not on the West side? hahahhahaha ewe lefturd brain dead retards are
sooo fucking funny, oh and stupid too.
>
> You sell your life for the sake of a few pennies.
You said you wanted to stop US citizens from importing oil from over-
seas, ewe cant have your cake and eat it too, if ewe want to stop US
human individuals purchasing oil from over-seas then ewe cant
seriously expect human individuals over-seas to want to purchase goods
and services provided US human individuals, only human individuals
exist.
> You're just a crazy wingnut.
Ewe are the lefturd idiot in denial of the fact that the warming globe
tax is just another lefturd scam, just like any and all other tax is
based upon a lefturd scams.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
Answer the question moron, how does you being left free and alone to
be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of your
energy, fail ewe? Are ewe physically retarded as well as mentally
retarded? if so where can I send ewe a donation to make Xmas a little
more miserable for ewe?
MG
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 3:09�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> And so the rightard bitches and whines because it cost something to
>> help people.
>
>Wrong again ewe lefturd retard, I am not right wing
Quack, quack, rightard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 19, 8:20�pm, Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Name a socialist with any political power in the United States.
>
>Well, Barak Hussein Obama comes to mind... Nancy Pelosi also.
Your stupid bigotry does not make anybody a socialist, rightard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 3:10�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> Rightards are incapable of understanding anything other than extremes.
>
>Wrong again ewe lefturd retard, I am not right wing
Quack, quack, rightard.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> 4) See levels are already rising
>
>They have BEEN rising for about 10,000 years.
Says who, idiot?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> 4) See levels are already rising
>
>Hahahahha Where? How much? Rising on the east side of the Pacific and
>not on the West side? hahahhahaha ewe lefturd brain dead retards are
>sooo fucking funny, oh and stupid too.
The "intellect" of the anti-science moron.
>> You sell your life for the sake of a few pennies.
>
>You said you wanted to stop US citizens from importing oil from over-
>seas,
You say you want to give your money to despotic anti-American
dictatorships.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 3:13�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> The "logic" of the rightard wingnut
>>
There's no question, asshole.
>oes you being left free and alone to
>be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of your
>energy,
You want the freedom to screw over other people. Kill whoever gets in
the way of your cult of greed.
That's not allowed.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 12:35�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> All cases where capitalism has been tried have ended up in failure.
>
>US? UK? Hong Kong? Canada? Australia?
The idiot wilson's only argument is to insist that every country that
is "successful" is wholly capitalist.
>I mean the richest countries in the world are capitalist.
As you define "capitalist".
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 12:37�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Shawn Wilson �<ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Dec 18, 6:59 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >> >I ALREADY derived a demand
>>
>> >> Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
>>
>> >Do you REALLY think that vulgarity will convince anyone of anything
>> >beyond your ignorance?
>>
>> That coming from a moron who claims that economy of scale doesn't
>> exist.
>
>Uh, you don't know what economies of scale are, do you?
Uh, you're the moron who insisted that small companies are more
efficient than large companies.
>> >I spent three years in the infantry,
>>
>> And you invented a cure for the common cold, married a supermodel,
>> gave political advice to Reagan, and are a practicing neurosurgeon in
>> your spare time.
>
>Nope. I am an economist and a former infantryman.
You're a dishonest dumbshit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
>
> You want the freedom to screw over other people.
Hahahah that's funny, ewe claiming the arrogance in pretending that
ewe would know when someone is being screwed, when ewe cant even see
that it is ewe who is being screwed by your own dopey anti-human
ideology.
MG
James A. Donald
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> They have BEEN rising for about 10,000 years. Since the end of the
> last ice age.
Shortly after the ice age, early european farmers *walked* into
Britain.
Michael Gordge
>
> Quack, quack,...........
Your mentality as a bird brain has already been established ewe
fucking moronic lefturd idiot.
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> You say you want to give your money to despotic anti-American
> dictatorships.
Perhaps ewe are deaf as well as stupid, I said that ewe and ewe alone
ought be the sole benefactor and the sole decider of the results of
your energy, in other words ewe moron, who ewe trade with why and how
ought be yours and no-body else's business but yours, why does that
scare ewe lefturd retards so much?
MG
James A. Donald
> is approximately the purest example of capitalism anywhere at any
> time. Before the Chinese takeover they managed to grow from bombed
> out rubble to match the US on a per capita basis.
Countries are as wealthy as they used to be capitalist - Sweden, for
example *was* fairly capitalist.
There is a lot of ruin in a nation. Argentina, however, illustrates
that politicians can create a lot of ruin.
Rome was not burnt in a day, but the interesting thing about the
writings from around four hundred AD is their self congratulatory
tone. Rome failed to rally and deal with the collapse because it was
in denial that collapse was in progress. Today's well cooked
government statistics on debt, inflation and unemployment manifest the
same attitude.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 6:55�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> You say you want to give your money to despotic anti-American
>> dictatorships.
>
>Perhaps ewe are deaf as well as stupid,
The rightard doesn't even know how to spell, much less think for
itself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> The rightard doesn't even know how to spell, much less think for
> itself.
Ewe stupid cunt, ewe is the single unit in a flock of brain dead
sheeple.
What is it about ewe being the sole benefactor and the sole decider of
the results of your own energy that scares ewe so much?
Why dont ewe, all by yourself, want to be the only person who decides
who, why and how you trade?
MG
James A. Donald
> >Britain.
On 20 Dec 2009 23:06:22 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> The RATE of [sea level] increase has increased.
The increase over the last few decades is within measurement error,
due to the fact that land is rising in places and sinking in other
places, and that it is simply hard to measure small changes in sea
level, which are obscured by tides, waves and weather induced surges.
So for all anyone knows, sea levels could now be falling.
Ray Fischer
>> >Britain.
>
>On 20 Dec 2009 23:06:22 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> The RATE of [sea level] increase has increased.
>
>The increase over the last few decades is within measurement error,
Bullshit.
>due to the fact that land is rising in places and sinking in other
WRONG, you stupid ashsole. Measurements are not based upon the lans
at all. Sea level is measured directly by satellites these days.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 8:07�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> The rightard doesn't even know how to spell, much less think for
>> itself.
>
>Ewe stupid cunt, ewe is the single unit in a flock of brain dead
The rightard asshole again demonstrates its stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> The rightard asshole again demonstrates its stupidity.
Hey ewe stupid lefturd knuckle-dragging ignoramous what have I ever
said that causes ewe to believe I am right wing?
MH
Michael Gordge
>
> Maximizing profits at the expense of people's lives.
Ewe fucking thick as pigshit lefturd moron, profit is a lefturd
invented concept used to describe their envy ridden perception of
those who obtain a greater for a lesser value in their trade.
MG
tooly
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Socialism as an economic system has never been
> >> embraced openly in America.....
>
> >Wrong, e.g. Clinton (from memory) declared "the state's war on
> >welfare / poverty" thereby showing politics in the US embraces
> >socialism in all its ugly forms.
>
> I don't know why you rightards so hate peoplke that you would rather
> see people dead than allow anything like socialism. Johnson's war on
> poverty actually did have the effect of dramatically reducing proverty
> in America. Contrast that with Reagan's and Shrub's administrations
> which had the opposite effect.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
Wrong. Johnson's Great Society disengrated the Black family unit by
creating incentives for poor women to have babies out of wedlock.
Even Walter Heller, Kennedy and LBJ's chief economic advisor [until
1964] wrote on the the dynamic.
We 'rightards' are trying to be responsible to you 'innocents' that
are so enamoured with socialism who apparently do not understand the
danger. Socialism looks so appealing...until the reality of it sets
in...like a spider web, in which, once caught, it takes great social
upheaval to ever get out again [if in fact one can]. Socialism means
tyranny...and even if benevolent overseers today, tomorrow, most
assuredly a more corrupt mindset will set in, as power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. Instead of goods and services
being made equally available to everyone, the economic pie
shrinks...and everyone's share becomes less and less. Socialism
cannot really sustain itself because the incentives to produce are
destroyed. Ah...but there remains government even for that, and to
'force' the issue, that once benevolent government has to become more
and more oppressive just to keep output up to levels of
sustainability.
What we 'rightards' can't fathom is how anyone alive today [you are
alive right..can read about history etc...that is, 'real' history that
has not been altered by these cultural marxist creeps]...how anyone
alive today can even entertain the idea of socialism given it's 100%
failure rate and proclivity to send the masses into abject misery,
enslavement, and mass murder. Oh...sure, sure...the 'western' version
will be so so much more benevolent; all about healthcare and
prosperity for all. Well, the promises that sent half the world into
over 70 years of profound dicatorship and political purges were the
same then as they are now. Socialism cannot work for economic
reasons, and the government will not just step aside when that becomes
reality...necessitating heavy handed totalitarianism.
Frederick Hayek proved to us that government is an entity all to
itself with self interest for survival apart from the people it
supposedly serves. No beauraucratic department ever argued for
'lesser' funding, but responsible to itself, only finds reason for
expansion.
Also, you need to understand the succinct ties socialism has to
communism. They are really the same thing in it's more universal
plan. But communism does not have the people's interests at heart,
but only the 'intellectuals'. You should read up on marxism a bit and
understand how evil the whole notion is. Marx, for example, believed
the family unit was a progenator of capitalism and should be
destroyed.
I'll say it again. The deeper struggle between capitalism and
communism [and today's social democrats are really in league with the
communists though most would vehimently deny that out of hand [to
themselves]]...is actually between good and evil.
Socialism is an evil in the world. And those experienced enough,
intelligent enough to understand the dangers, have an obligation to
save the innocents so enamoured with the promises of socialism, from
themselves.
tooly
> On Dec 19, 6:28 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 3:40 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 11:24 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > There is NO argument that socialism can win over capitalism on
> > > > economic principles.
>
> > > Technically, under ideal conditions, an omniscient central planner can
> > > match, but never exceed, the economic performance of a decentralized
> > > useful in that the central planner models are somewhat easier to solve
> > > than decentralized ones and the end results are the same.
>
> > Well, with all respect, his is 'just wrong'. No school is going to
> > teach what you just suggested. Socialism is quite antiquated
> > economically.
>
> > All attempts at manipulating free markets end up in inefficiency...and
> > lost resource. It's all in the math. Again, Free Markets work on the
> > margin...essentially allocating price to the NEXT unit [or wage
> > etc]...and that makes it very succinct to the changing dynamics of
> > supply and demand. Controllers of markets have no choice but to use
> > 'averages' because they cannot know the dynamics of markets with such
> > succinct 'to the unit' aplomb. It's one big reason the USSR economy
> > shrank over time. It was actually found that the inefficient losses
> > due to averaging equated pretty much to what might have been new
> > investment, much of which may have kept infratstructure maintained
> > [growth needs to be at least to that degree, or capital deteriation
> > sets in]. And this is not even touching upon emerging markets that
> > were never served since incentives were destroyed. Heck, they
> > couldn't even supply bread to the people.
>
> > No, socialism has been quite soundly debunked on an economic basis and
> > even empircally, all cases where it's ever been tried has ended up in
> > failure. And the logic for social justice is zany as well, ignoring
> > the reality of segmented output. Even so, there are social conditions
> > that are simply repugnant to humans, which justifies SOME social
> > welfare...but only to that degree to prevent the most abject suffering
> > [catastrophic outcomes...which is what any installed social policy in
> > the USA was supposed address and ONLY THAT!]. Social Welfare policy
> > is a far different critter than socialism outright and even social
> > democracy is a bear of a different sort [the slippery slope swallowing
> > freedom in bites rather than lunching down in one bite].
>
> > If not forceful overthrow in original marxist manifesto [as Lenin
> > expounded], I think the cultural march is supposed to evolve from
> > liberalism, become progressivism [politically activated], to social
> > democracy, to democratic socialism, which is of corse socialism...and
> > the final stage communism outright. Many liberal progressives who
> > mean well, may actually be serving more clandestine 'behind the
> > scenes' direction to move society along the way to marxist goals [of
> > communism].
>
> > There may be a real issue of global climate change. But there is no
> > doubt that this issue has been pounced upon by hard core socialists to
> > advance their cause...and as that standing ovation for Hugo
> > Chavez...repeat, for Hugo Chavez of all people...shows that whatever
> > issue global warming may have been for honest discussion, the movement
> > has been absolutely taken over by old world political agiators who
> > could probably care less about CO2 emissions, but only want to
> > accomplish what Lenin and the Bolsheviks could not.
>
> > So, all freedom loving people everywhere need to resist all attempts
> > being made just now under the guise of 'global warming', becuase it
> > has become a ruse; a vehicle to give rise to evil once again in the
> > world; and the inevitable tyranny that socialism NECESSARILY must
> > embrace.
>
> > Please observe.
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF0ysNNAyYM
>
> Tooly -- I follow your rant to the point of your leap from global
> warming to a "socialist" plot. Who and what is alerting us to global
> warming in a effort to advance a socialist agenda? Why? What does it
> get them? What harm comes from reducing our carbon output and our
> dependence on foreign oil? How is that socialist?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, the arguement being posed was presented by Hugo Chavez, as
mentioned, at the Copenhagen conference [capitalism itelf being the
ghost in the room or some such and cause of the CO2 crisis].
He got the loudest most robust standing ovation of the entire
conference. What does that tell us [about the membership at that
conference?]. This was the same guy we tried to boycott Exon for
[that uses Venezeualian oil] after he made the 'smell of sulfur'
comment at the UN [and now...standing ovations? Nope...no one at THAT
conference has much assocation to free people across the world,
especially in the USA]. Boos I'd understand. Ovations shows me only
the enemy was in attendance.
Were the 'world representitives' environmentalists wanting to save the
planet? Or are they perhaps old world socialists using a crisis to
advance world socialism?
The causes coincide along with a great many other observations that
should give us all 'great pause' as to exactly what is going on just
now.
Do we have proof? Well, if we checked the credentials of many of
these loudest zealots, I'd wager we'd find some pretty damning
evidence of close ties to marxism in some way or fashion [perhaps
where they studied, countries they are from, organizations they are
member of, people they associate with...and perhaps most damning of
all, Barack Obama himself...who not only saught out marxist professors
in his education, seeks council from publishers of 'most important
marxist publication in the world' [Robert Chesney and media matters],
carouses with former marxist agitators like Bill Ayers and Bernadine
Dorn, but he actually hires avowed communists in his very
administration [Van Jones] [and there's more, like close council
socialist Valerie Jarett and labor leader Andy Stern: "workers of the
world unite"].
How much to de we have to 'see' before we are just 'turning away' not
wanting to see?
Socialists will not just come out and say, 'yea, we are trying to take
over the world'. They use 'crisis' like this [and the financial
meltdown] to advance their cause...which BTW, is not 'socialism' as an
endpoint, but 'communism'. Do some reading about marxism and
communism. It was very sobering for me. The Hegelian Dialectic means
that communism will never be completely destroyed, but will be
something the world will have to deal with time and again. The
various forms of socialism are just 'steps' along the inevitable path
toward communism to these marxists. [hmmm...perhaps you are one, and
already know all this?]...
And the shame of it is that this is all surfacing at a time when we
perhaps do need to have full attention toward major problems that have
arisen [like global warming and financial meltdowns etc].
That ovation for Hugo Chavez was 'very very' damning if you ask me.
It closed my ears to 'all' Global warming arguments, making me realize
that even if this issue is real, it has been taken over by those with
ulterior motives to destroy capitalism. With Obama in the white
house, we cannot afford to listen at this junction in world affairs.
Perhaps in more sane times when freedom is back in the hands of true
western leaders who do not have ulterior designs.
tooly
> tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >No, socialism has been quite soundly debunked on an economic basis and
> >even empircally, all cases where it's ever been tried has ended up in
> >failure.
>
Well, statements like this show you up to NOT be a serious commenter.
We all have our normative opinions of course, but they should be based
in reality to some degree don't you think, hehe. :)
>
> > And the logic for social justice is zany as well, ignoring
> >the reality of segmented output. Even so, there are social conditions
> >that are simply repugnant to humans, which justifies SOME social
> >welfare...but only to that degree to prevent the most abject suffering
> >[catastrophic outcomes...which is what any installed social policy in
> >the USA was supposed address and ONLY THAT!].
>
> And that's why capitalism is a failure - it places profits above all
> else. It even fails in maximizing efficiency because it does not
> account for market manipulation.
First, this is not qutie true anyway [your statement about profits].
I'd argue that capitalism puts rational self interest above collective
interest is all [it's called 'FREEDOM' btw].
BTW, even if one can make the argument that a 'collective interest'
does exist, WHO speaks for that interest? How is it found, defined?
Under socialism, is it not true that the government becomes that
'voice of the collective interest'? But isn't that really just a
'lie'...that the government is only justifying their absolute power
over people by saying it IS that collective voice? And who is the
government anyway? Are they measured in the millions, the thousands,
the hundreds, or the dozens? Or even, if power is consolidated like
under Stalin and Mao, one? Once power shifts toward centralization,
it will consolodate into tighter and tighter envelopes as the natural
proclivity (once power shifts give advantages to specific parties) is
to eliminate dissent. That's exactly what Obama has done through
gargantuan spending bills and bailouts 'rationalized' as stimulus
[remember, not to waste a good crisis Raul Emanual said]. Over 80% of
that new spending has gone to 'blue counties' across the country...and
the advocacy of keeping democrats elected.
Did not Hugo Chavez just nationalize radio airwaves in Venezeuela
under such logic? For the 'better collective intersts of the
people'...'of the state'...'to faciliate his consolodation of power'?
And what do you make of Obama's appointments like Mark Lloyd as
diversity chief to the FCC who advocates chasing away conservative
talk radio by employing heavy taxation based upon general operating
funds to be reallocated to public radio [a profound political voice
for the left]? In fact, he stated how Hugo Chavez was doing such
great things. Don't such things raise RED flags of alarm to us as
FREE people?
Obama was so bold to even try and marginalize FOX news [the chief
dissenting voice] by banning it from press briefings
[unsuccessfully].
No, socialism becomes not the collective interest of the people, but
the centralization of power in goverment to become tyranny. THAT IS
THE REALITY OF SOCIALISM...and all those who too young, or innocent,
or simply not up on history, need to understand some things about
their new entrancement with the same old promises socialists have
tried to take over with since time in memoriam. They themselves are
probably dupes, like yourself, who believe in those promises, but
totally ignore what history has taught us or the logical progression
of it's reality. Socialism means government totalitarianism. There
is no half way measure; no real 'social democracy' that incorporates
something 'in between'. The slippery slope always falls to the
left...exactly as Marx said it would. The inevitable end is communism
and imprisoment of the masses. If not today, then tomorrow.
Amd Profits themselves, aren't they simply the justification for
existence if you think about it. It might be an axiom of life in
fact, that if some profit is not found in any/all activity, life will
not pursue that activity. Doesn't that sound rational? Of course, I
use the most loose concept of profit here, but it surely applies in
business and even socialistic settings.
And then you confuse the idea of 'corruption' with innate
'inefficiency' in capitalism. Does corruption exist? Sure...in all
facets of human activity. Do corrupt behaviors disprove the efficacy
of general economic theory? No...not even the same subject really.
Does capitalism invite corrupt behavior? Now that would be an
interesting discussion. First, you'd have to define 'corrupt' as
being 'illegal' since immorality is...yea, that pesky normative BS
again. And if 'illegal', it can be dealt with, such as anti-trust
laws and manditory bank holding levels etc have done...ie through
regulation. Does that make 'free markets' less free? Well, sure I
suppose it does. But it still does not discredit the fundamentals of
what makes capitalist markets peform to provide the 'highest standard
of living for the greatest number of people' [perhaps the word
'failure' means something different in your native language or
something, hehe again].
As far as controls go, these are threads compared to the bulk hemp
chains socialists might install. Are there winners and losers? Just
like in 'real life', yes there are. Should there be safety nets?
Sure, to some minimum that does not jeapordize human incentive.
Catastrophic protections only; that's what we have insurance for.
tooly
> > I'm curious. Who are you guys? There is no real need to defend
> > capitalism since in the west, there is a strong enculturation that
> > simply eschews it 'out of hand'. After all, we [USA] fought two wars
> > in Korea and Viet Nam specifically to fight the spread of communism.
>
> No. We fought the wars in Korea and Vietnam to stop the spread of
> totalitarian governments -- nominally "communist" -- and their allies
> who were openly hostile to the United States, its allies and its
> interests.
Totalitarianism IS the natural outcome of socialism and was certainly
the advanced theory of Leninist Bolsheviks. When speaking of
communism, you cannot really differentiate from Totalitarianism.
There is a dynamic that exists under socialism, that it cannot sustain
itself, and as the economy shrinks, a once benevolent [we assume
anyway] government is forced to become more and more tyrannical [as
opposition is surely to mount in the general population]. It is
already in absolute control, though those who brought it into power
[the people's movement etc] find they were duped to believe in
promises socialism simply cannot keep. But dissent is usually put
down forthwith under the justication of 'collective interests', which
is just slickspeak for 'the state'.
No, we fought in Korea and North Viet Nam to stop communism. Is it
quite on record as the well defined reason by all our leadership of
the times. No one had any doubts as to why we were in those wars. But
you are right in making the assessment that we also were fighting
totalitarianism...since they are really the same thing [as outcomes
anyway].
> Socialism has been a dead issue here since time in memoriam
>
> Define "Socialism." If you mean the classic economic definition, i.e.
> a state that owns the means of production, it's been around forever.
There really is only one kind of socialism...but in various stages,
according Marx anyway. He of course argued for the direct installment
of communism, but also wrote of the natural inevitable fall of
capitalism in time [and the evolving acceptance of socialism in
stages]. In modern terms, the stages might be seen as liberalism
being born out of humanism and a desire to correct 'social ills', such
that capitalism was wrought with during the industrailization.
Liberals, become politically active in the next stage, as
'progressives'. Progressives seek election and influence to change
policy toward more government control to correct those ills. And it
builds and evolves you see...one day slavery, the next day becoming
PETA and trying to release animals from their zoo cages etc...and the
whole progression leads into 'social democracy'...where the embrace of
socialism becomes more palatable with time, but in 'smaller' degrees,
such as universal health care [I mean, only a fifth of the economy,
not the whole pie you see...not socialism outright the people are
told].
Capitalism works upon business cycles where there are upswings and
downturns...and some downturns can be more substantial than others,
such as this last financial crisis created on failing subprime
mortgages that were made in the thousands since Clinton's
administration when the Community Reinvestment Act gave ACORN [a
marxist organization bent upon wealth redistribution in the name of
poor people's interests] clout to force banks to take on these risky
loans [or else, boycott and bad PR, even some violence etc]. Such
downturns would inevitably give progressives reason to step in and
install more government controls...just as what has happened with the
election of Obama.
So, why not all this socialism? Why can't we just pay taxes and have
the government provide for us from crib to grave?
Because it is UNSUSTAINABLE. There are several economic
mechanizations that take place [one being operating on averages rather
than on the margin as I have suggested before]...but the biggest
reason is that socialism destroys incentive for productivity. It
takes away incentives to perform, to grow, to innovate, to invest, to
generate new economic activity and works only to 'maintain'. Without
a lot of argument here, socialist economic pies 'shrink'...they are
'unsustainable'.
So, why not just revert back to capitalism IF that happens?
Ah...from the mouths of babes.
Along with centralization of markets is the centralization of POWER.
NO good socialist ever went took office thinking they were going to
enslave the people. But as the ecnomy becomes unsustainable, more and
more 'force' is needed to ensure productivity is kept up. Sure, it
will fail in the end, but no after a long arduous decline into abject
misery and provocation toward real tyranny...and yea, of the kind
Stalin and Mao and even Pol Pot may have symbolized. Even the Fidel
Castros have to shoot people trying to escape their 'paradise'
systems...who are so miserable they they are willing to risk 90 miles
of open shark infested sea in inner tubes to get away from.
So, yea, we fought communism in Korea and Viet Nam and apparently, we
have not passed on the message to ongoing generations of the real
danger of communism [and socialism] lay not in the idea of economic
reasoning, but in the centralization of power in government to become,
yes, those very totalitarian entities as you correctly mention [only
not evolved in those cases, but installed from the getgo the communist
manifesto warranted].
Fast or slow...socialism is communism is totalitarianism. Humanity
does NOT want to go there.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 4:17�pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> The rightard asshole again demonstrates its stupidity.
>
>Hey ewe stupid lefturd knuckle-dragging ignoramous what have I ever
The rightard moron who blindly follows anti-science propaganda still
can't figure out how to spell.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 2:35�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> tooly �<rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >No, socialism has been quite soundly debunked on an economic basis and
>> >even empircally, all cases where it's ever been tried has ended up in
>> >failure.
>>
>> All cases where capitalism has been tried have ended up in failure.
>
>Well, statements like this show you up to NOT be a serious commenter.
It wasn't intended as a serious comment. It was intended to highlight
the stupidity of the claim that socialism has always ended up in
failure.
In short, you're a whiny hypocrite, and if you want to be taken
seriously then you'll need to be less stupidly prejudiced.
>> > �And the logic for social justice is zany as well, ignoring
>> >the reality of segmented output. �Even so, there are social conditions
>> >that are simply repugnant to humans, which justifies SOME social
>> >welfare...but only to that degree to prevent the most abject suffering
>> >[catastrophic outcomes...which is what any installed social policy in
>> >the USA was supposed address and ONLY THAT!].
>>
>> And that's why capitalism is a failure - it places profits above all
>> else. �It even fails in maximizing efficiency because it does not
>> account for market manipulation.
>
>First, this is not qutie true anyway [your statement about profits].
Yes it is.
>I'd argue that capitalism puts rational self interest above collective
>interest is all [it's called 'FREEDOM' btw].
Oooo! Socialism!
You don't even seem to realize that "collective interest" is what
results in socialism.
>BTW, even if one can make the argument that a 'collective interest'
>does exist, WHO speaks for that interest? How is it found, defined?
That's not all that hard to figure out, if you really want to know.
>Under socialism, is it not true that the government becomes that
>'voice of the collective interest'? But isn't that really just a
>'lie'...that the government is only justifying their absolute power
>over people by saying it IS that collective voice?
You demonstrate once again the rightard stupidity of thinking of the
government as a "them" that rules over us. In reality the government
is us, and it is employed to carry out our wishes.
> And who is the
>government anyway? Are they measured in the millions, the thousands,
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 21, 7:00�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> Maximizing profits at the expense of people's lives.
>
>Ewe fucking thick as pigshit lefturd moron, profit is a lefturd
Another fine example of rightard reasoning ability.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wexford
> > > I'm curious. Who are you guys? There is no real need to defend
> > > capitalism since in the west, there is a strong enculturation that
> > > simply eschews it 'out of hand'. After all, we [USA] fought two wars
> > > in Korea and Viet Nam specifically to fight the spread of communism.
>
> > No. We fought the wars in Korea and Vietnam to stop the spread of
> > totalitarian governments -- nominally "communist" -- and their allies
> > who were openly hostile to the United States, its allies and its
> > interests.
Comments
> Totalitarianism IS the natural outcome of socialism and was certainly
> the advanced theory of Leninist Bolsheviks. When speaking of
> communism, you cannot really differentiate from Totalitarianism.
> There is a dynamic that exists under socialism, that it cannot sustain
> itself, and as the economy shrinks, a once benevolent [we assume
> anyway] government is forced to become more and more tyrannical [as
> opposition is surely to mount in the general population]. It is
> already in absolute control, though those who brought it into power
> [the people's movement etc] find they were duped to believe in
> promises socialism simply cannot keep. But dissent is usually put
> down forthwith under the justication of 'collective interests', which
> is just slickspeak for 'the state'.
>
> No, we fought in Korea and North Viet Nam to stop communism. Is it
> quite on record as the well defined reason by all our leadership of
> the times. No one had any doubts as to why we were in those wars. But
> you are right in making the assessment that we also were fighting
> totalitarianism...since they are really the same thing [as outcomes
> anyway].
Yawn, yawn. We cited "totalitarian communism" as the reason, but it
doesn't matter. If they had been peacful trading partners we wouldn't
have cared. The political philosophy was used to show they were evil,
but we've happily dealt with plenty of evil governments if it was to
our advantage. We even dealt well with Lenin and Stalin. Ever heard of
Occidental Petroleum? Petrolem exports, which relied on American
technology, sustained the USSR for decades. Have you forgotten the
fact that "Uncle Joe" Stalin was our valiant ally against Nazism, that
we fought along side the Communists during WWII?
>
> > Socialism has been a dead issue here since time in memoriam
>
> > Define "Socialism." If you mean the classic economic definition, i.e.
> > a state that owns the means of production, it's been around forever.
>
> There really is only one kind of socialism
No. Socialism is defined as government owning the means of production.
I don't care what Marx called it. He's irrelevant, except among
rightards who are continuously trying to make the argument that
everyone who thinks government can play a role in human welfare is a
Communist. You folks are like the PETA people, when they argue that "a
rat is a dog is a boy." Your argument is "a democrat is a liberal is a
socialist is a communist. EEEK!!! All the democrats are communists."
Its utterly moronic.
>...but in various stages,
> according Marx anyway. He of course argued for the direct installment
> of communism, but also wrote of the natural inevitable fall of
> capitalism in time [and the evolving acceptance of socialism in
> stages]. In modern terms, the stages might be seen as liberalism
> being born out of humanism and a desire to correct 'social ills', such
> that capitalism was wrought with during the industrailization.
> Liberals, become politically active in the next stage, as
> 'progressives'. Progressives seek election and influence to change
> policy toward more government control to correct those ills. And it
> builds and evolves you see...one day slavery,
Progressives introduced slavery to the New World? Gee, I thought it
was Mercantilists who did that.
> the next day becoming
> PETA and trying to release animals from their zoo cages etc...and the
> whole progression leads into 'social democracy'...where the embrace of
> socialism becomes more palatable with time, but in 'smaller' degrees,
> such as universal health care [I mean, only a fifth of the economy,
> not the whole pie you see...not socialism outright the people are
> told].
See my comment above. PETA: A rat is a dog is a boy. RIGHTARD: A
democrat is a socialist is a communist. Same logic. Same stupidity.
>
> Capitalism works upon business cycles where there are upswings and
> downturns...and some downturns can be more substantial than others,
> such as this last financial crisis created on failing subprime
> mortgages that were made in the thousands since Clinton's
Clinton???? The banks collapsed 8 years into Bush's administration,
you moron. You think Bush and that whole collection of corrupt
rightards in the Republican congress had nothing to do with it?
> administration when the Community Reinvestment Act gave ACORN [a
> marxist organization bent upon wealth redistribution in the name of
> poor people's interests] clout to force banks to take on these risky
> loans [or else, boycott and bad PR, even some violence etc]. Such
God, you're stupid. DO you really think anyone at ACORN or anywhere
else had the coudt to compel Bankers who command billions of dollars
in assets to do anything??? When Bush was elected, the Republicans
called an economic summit in Dallas, Texas. KEN LAY (you have heard of
Enron, haven't you) was the keynote speaker and most influential
business member. Who do think pushed the banks forward, called off the
SEC, and let the rapists among the business bureaucrats go wild? The
right-wing Republicans.
> downturns would inevitably give progressives reason to step in and
> install more government controls...just as what has happened with the
> election of Obama.
>
> So, why not all this socialism? Why can't we just pay taxes and have
> the government provide for us from crib to grave?
>
> Because it is UNSUSTAINABLE. There are several economic
> mechanizations that take place [one being operating on averages rather
> than on the margin as I have suggested before]...but the biggest
> reason is that socialism destroys incentive for productivity. It
There are no socialists in the United States government, save for one
lone member of Congress.
> takes away incentives to perform, to grow, to innovate, to invest, to
> generate new economic activity and works only to 'maintain'. Without
> a lot of argument here, socialist economic pies 'shrink'...they are
> 'unsustainable'.
>
> So, why not just revert back to capitalism IF that happens?
>
> Ah...from the mouths of babes.
>
> Along with centralization of markets is the centralization of POWER.
> NO good socialist ever went took office thinking they were going to
> enslave the people. But as the ecnomy becomes unsustainable, more and
> more 'force' is needed to ensure productivity is kept up. Sure, it
> will fail in the end, but no after a long arduous decline into abject
> misery and provocation toward real tyranny...and yea, of the kind
> Stalin and Mao and even Pol Pot may have symbolized. Even the Fidel
> Castros have to shoot people trying to escape their 'paradise'
> systems...who are so miserable they they are willing to risk 90 miles
> of open shark infested sea in inner tubes to get away from.
>
> So, yea, we fought communism in Korea and Viet Nam and apparently, we
> have not passed on the message to ongoing generations of the real
> danger of communism [and socialism] lay not in the idea of economic
> reasoning, but in the centralization of power in government to become,
> yes, those very totalitarian entities as you correctly mention [only
> not evolved in those cases, but installed from the getgo the communist
> manifesto warranted].
You're much more likely to be enslaved by a capitalist in the US than
by any communist. What you've either forgotten or try to suppress is
that capitalism is destructive of free enterprize. Capitalists are the
first to muck with government and push laws that favor established
business and open public assets to private exploitation. Why do you
think Cheney met in secret with the oil excutives to set national
energy policy? Do you think it was because the good of the country was
primary?
>
> Fast or slow...socialism is communism is totalitarianism. Humanity
> does NOT want to go there.
I could just as easily state that capitalism is fascism is
totalitarianism. Same faulty logic, different conclusion.
Bill Snyder
<wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>...but in various stages,
>> according Marx anyway. He of course argued for the direct installment
>> of communism, but also wrote of the natural inevitable fall of
>> capitalism in time [and the evolving acceptance of socialism in
>> stages]. In modern terms, the stages might be seen as liberalism
>> being born out of humanism and a desire to correct 'social ills', such
>> that capitalism was wrought with during the industrailization.
>> Liberals, become politically active in the next stage, as
>> 'progressives'. Progressives seek election and influence to change
>> policy toward more government control to correct those ills. And it
>> builds and evolves you see...one day slavery,
>
>Progressives introduced slavery to the New World? Gee, I thought it
>was Mercantilists who did that.
Historians say the Indians did it. In which of those classes do
they belong?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Quadibloc
> On Dec 21, 12:10 pm, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > No, we fought in Korea and North Viet Nam to stop communism. Is it
> > quite on record as the well defined reason by all our leadership of
> > the times. No one had any doubts as to why we were in those wars. But
> > you are right in making the assessment that we also were fighting
> > totalitarianism...since they are really the same thing [as outcomes
> > anyway].
> Yawn, yawn. We cited "totalitarian communism" as the reason, but it
> doesn't matter. If they had been peacful trading partners we wouldn't
> have cared. The political philosophy was used to show they were evil,
> but we've happily dealt with plenty of evil governments if it was to
> our advantage. We even dealt well with Lenin and Stalin. Ever heard of
> Occidental Petroleum? Petrolem exports, which relied on American
> technology, sustained the USSR for decades. Have you forgotten the
> fact that "Uncle Joe" Stalin was our valiant ally against Nazism, that
> we fought along side the Communists during WWII?
Note that we fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam.
Strangely enough, though, the U.S. government didn't fight Nazism in
Spain, which would have been comparable.
Neither Henry Ford nor Charles Lindbergh fell victim to any "witch
hunts" against people suspected of Nazi sympathies.
Thus, while Nazism and Communism are both evil totalitarian regimes,
liberals might be forgiven for thinking that businessmen have enough
control of the governments of the U. S. and Europe that they react
much more quickly to those forms of totalitarian dictatorship... that
might give ideas to working people.
John Savard
Gerry Quinn
rfis...@sonic.net says...
> Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> 4) See levels are already rising
> >
> >Hahahahha Where? How much? Rising on the east side of the Pacific and
> >not on the West side?
LOL, good point.
Over the weekend I read this:
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8411225.stm >
Seems tigers are eating people and it's all due to sea level rises due
to global warming.
Turns out, though, that tigers have been eating people for decades
(they WILL do that, the big stripey bastards) and the land in question
is rapidly subsiding (and again, has been doing so for some
considerable time)...
- Gerry Quinn
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 20, 2:52�am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Michael Gordge �<mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> > tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> �Socialism as an economic system has never been
>> >> embraced openly in America.....
>>
>> >Wrong, e.g. Clinton (from memory) declared "the state's war on
>> >welfare / poverty" thereby showing politics in the US embraces
>> >socialism in all its ugly forms.
>>
>> I don't know why you rightards so hate peoplke that you would rather
>> see people dead than allow anything like socialism. �Johnson's war on
>> poverty actually did have the effect of dramatically reducing proverty
>> in America. �Contrast that with Reagan's and Shrub's administrations
>> which had the opposite effect.
>
\Look up the poverty statistics, rightard. They prove me right.
> Johnson's Great Society disengrated the Black family unit by
Spare us the racist filth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>> > I'm curious. �Who are you guys? �There is no real need to defend
>> > capitalism since in the west, there is a strong enculturation that
>> > simply eschews it 'out of hand'. �After all, we [USA] fought two wars
>> > in Korea and Viet Nam specifically to fight the spread of communism.
>>
>> No. We fought the wars in Korea and Vietnam to stop the spread of
>> totalitarian governments -- nominally "communist" -- and their allies
>> who were openly hostile to the United States, its allies and its
>> interests.
>
>Totalitarianism IS the natural outcome of socialism
Lunatic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Michael Gordge
> Another fine example of rightard reasoning ability.
Fucking ignoramous, the only reason ewe envy ridden cunts talk about
profit is so as ewe can measure something to steal (tax).
MG
Shawn Wilson
> >> 4) See levels are already rising
>
> >They have BEEN rising for about 10,000 years.
>
> Says who, idiot?
Well, everyone. If you ignorance also extends to this I am not
surprised.
Shawn Wilson
> >And thus socialism fails to deliver what capitalism does
> >automatically.
>
> Maximizing profits at the expense of people's lives.
Capitalism values life more than socialism. Human labor is a valuable
resource, even if its source is black,Jewish, intellectual, or
counterrevolutionary. Socialism is rather known for its genocides...
Shawn Wilson
> >> >> Your bullshit won't change reality, jackass.
>
> >> >Do you REALLY think that vulgarity will convince anyone of anything
> >> >beyond your ignorance?
>
> >> That coming from a moron who claims that economy of scale doesn't
> >> exist.
>
> >Uh, you don't know what economies of scale are, do you?
>
> Uh, you're the moron who insisted that small companies are more
> efficient than large companies.
No. You seem to have the idiotic notion that either ALL big companies
are more efficient of ALL small companies are. In the real world each
industry has its optimal firm size. Just look around you.
> >Nope. I am an economist and a former infantryman.
>
> You're a dishonest dumbshit.
You imagine you swearing in lieu of reason gets you some sort of
'points'?
Shawn Wilson
Nope. It isn't like we have detailed measurements of the previous
rate of increase anyway. All we know is the long run average. The
real world bounces back and forth between high and low rates. That we
see a locally high rate doesn't mean the average rate has changed at
all. It is just a factor of when you look.
Shawn Wilson
> Strangely enough, though, the U.S. government didn't fight Nazism in
> Spain, which would have been comparable.
That there was no Nazism in Spain is probably why...
Fascism is not the same as Nazism, even if they fall along a similar
continuum. Outside of Nazi Germany, Fascism was, if not benevolent,
at least not particularly bad. No worse than what preceded it anyway.
> Neither Henry Ford nor Charles Lindbergh fell victim to any "witch
> hunts" against people suspected of Nazi sympathies.
Uh.. It got outshouted by WWII, but there was definite witch hunting
against quasi-fascists in the '30s. HUAC? Created to counter NAZI
influence first. They went after communists only later. Ironically,
the Communists and the Left in general had no problem with HUACs
tactics, until they were turned on them... Cointelpro (FBI)? First
targets are Nazis and the KKK.
Michael Gordge
>
> The rightard moron who blindly follows anti-science propaganda........
Science has not been used to create the hoax of AGW, just as science
isn't used in the creation of the god hoax, why are ewe in denial of
that?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> Quack, quack, rightard.
Bird brained lefturd.
MG
Wordsmith
blood last night.
W ; )
tooly
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:20:29 -0800 (PST), Wexford <wrya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 19, 3:50 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> > >competition among companies keeps wages balanced with supply and
>
> >I mean, it seem alien to me that anyone would actually
> >> argue for socialism outright...except of course communists and the
> >> like [and they've always been around as rabble rousers of one sort or
> >> another...but always fringe stuff...ie SDS, Weathermen, some Black
> >> Panther etc].
>
> >SDS? Weathermen? The tiny, powerless fringe movements that existed 50
> >years ago? What decade are you in?
>
> Forty years -- the SDS was founded in the early 1960s, and the
> Weathermen spun off in the late '60s or early '70s. The Black
> Panthers were late '60s. I'm too lazy to look up the exact years, but
> I know none of those existed in 1959.
>
> Still, you're quite right that this guy's living in the past, even if
> you had the exact decade wrong.
>
> --
> My webpage is athttp://www.watt-evans.com
> I'm selling my comic collection -- seehttp://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
> I'm serializing a novel athttp://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
I disagree. To understand today's marxist/socialist movement you have
to go back 4 or 5 decades to understand how cultural marxists came
here to influence things in grass roots movements, centered in
universities like Columbia and Berkley. There were over 200 SDS
chapters on college campuses. The instigators of such organizations
did not just disappear but, like Bill Ayers, came to have influential
positions like college professors where they could 'infect' the mind
of our youth. It goes back even further than just 4 or 5 decades too,
but it was those times that great inroads were made to put us on the
road to where we find ourselves today.
Marxism plays upon the innocent humanist desire to have personal
meaning in rising to fight for some cause...and in such fertile
ground, they infect the minds of youth to become radicalized and
revolutionary. Virtual 'kids' think they are fighting for great
things, but all the while often only serving the designs of the
insiduous 'clandestine' subversives whose main target is capitalism
itself [to undermine it, destroy it].
I'm arguing that all the defining social movements of the day,
including civil rights, feminism, gay rights, animal rights, and now
environmentalism...have all been influenced to varying degrees of
these subversive marxist elements from the getgo. For example, J.
Edgar Hoover had Margin Luther King under survellance for having known
communist sympathisers in his entrage. Much of the anti-war movement
in the 60's was movtivated by marxist rabble rousers as verified by
one of their own, David Horowitz [who by the way has written a good
book that explains much, titled 'Radical Son']. In the book btw, he
describes how communist sons and daughters took up the radical banner
of communist parentage, but not the name...and often became activists
for 'social justice'. If it quacks like a duck etc etc...it is a duck
[even if someone does not call themselves communist].
Cultural marxism has had design for a 'grand march through our
institutions' by subtle influence...engaging education, media, and
anything that influences opinion...and have slowly connected along a
complex network [many liberals and progressives do not even know of
their influences today].
The idea was that, this slow march would continue until some day the
people just awoke one morning and the country was 'socialist'. I
think these socialist see Obama as 'that day'...and have now become
emboldened to 'come out in the open' [thusly this great surge of
socialists vocing their views now...and 'acting up' like Cahill
etc].
They are wrong.
tooly
> Idiot.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
Idiot? That's the best you can do?
It's common practice of liberals that when they run out of argments,
they resort to ad hominen attacks.
Can you give an example of where socialism has been successful?
Or for that matter, where capitalism has not increased the standard of
living for people?
I'm sorry you take offense, but to be honest, you socialists have to
be stopped. You are a great danger to humanity.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is fun. I KNOW I'm right. You KNOW you are right. So...where
to from here? Perhaps this is when eccelesiastes says there is a time
for all things under heaven...when struggle takes on other forms other
than discussion and debate. I don't know what they could be, but just
today I heard a small business owner on the radio so angry and ready
to fight back in some way [against this socialist takeover of our
beloved country], suggest to use the radical playbook of the marxists
back upon them, and in a Clower-Piven strategy, that all business
owners across the land temporarily 'fire' half their employees just to
send a message to Washington that they no longer represent the
American people. Maybe then we'd see how socialism might work?
I suppose that particular thing will not happen, but it displays the
anger that is building out here in the hinterlands. We are watching
on as our historical enemy, marxism in all it's forms [yes, we did
fight in Korean and Viet Nam against the very mindset that has now
infiltrated our own government], is usurping our land and the freedoms
our mother and fathers fought to protect over time.
You, Sir, are the enemy...as the socialist. You may even be just a
useful idiot of the radical left, thinking this 'socialist' cause
today is limited, and no harm to the freedom of this land. But I will
not call you an idiot, but simply someone like so many tens of
thousands of others before you, who have been taken in by the promises
of socialism, only to find the lies that it's truth evolves into. You
have to see the 'BIG PICTURE' to understand that, the forest... and
not the 'trees of the day'.
SOCIALISM IS EVIL TO THE HUMAN CONDITIION; A PRISON OF THE SYMBOLIC
SOUL TO WHAT WE ARE.
End of story...and last response here.
And I do admit to my own idiocy as I only woke up here and don't
understand what all this about. But I do know, from my years at being
here, what is BAD to us. Socialism is a BAD...veiled like a mirage on
the open desert. And no, I'm not 'biased'...but 'experienced'.
Gerry Quinn
september.org>, l...@sff.net says...
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:20:29 -0800 (PST), Wexford <wry...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 19, 3:50 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >competition among companies keeps wages balanced with supply and
> >
> >I mean, it seem alien to me that anyone would actually
> >> argue for socialism outright...except of course communists and the
> >> like [and they've always been around as rabble rousers of one sort or
> >> another...but always fringe stuff...ie SDS, Weathermen, some Black
> >> Panther etc].
> >
> >SDS? Weathermen? The tiny, powerless fringe movements that existed 50
> >years ago? What decade are you in?
>
> Forty years -- the SDS was founded in the early 1960s, and the
> Weathermen spun off in the late '60s or early '70s. The Black
> Panthers were late '60s. I'm too lazy to look up the exact years, but
> I know none of those existed in 1959.
>
> Still, you're quite right that this guy's living in the past, even if
> you had the exact decade wrong.
Still, the past has a way of coming up to bite you, as Obama found when
his links to Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers were unveiled...
- Gerry Quinn
The Chief Instigator
>> rfisc...@sonic.net ?
>
>
> Idiot? That's the best you can do? It's common practice of liberals that
> when they run out of argments, they resort to ad hominen attacks.
>
> Can you give an example of where socialism has been successful? Or for
> that matter, where capitalism has not increased the standard of living for
> people?
>
> I'm sorry you take offense, but to be honest, you socialists have to be
> stopped. You are a great danger to humanity.
Bullshit. You aparently assume that anyone not in agreement with your
delusions has to be a socialist. I've only been an actual real conservative
(i.e., from the Goldwater era), as compared to you rabid bats that
cheerfully drink the purple Kool-Aid.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Grand Rapids 3 (December 20)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
James A. Donald
> are more efficient of ALL small companies are. In the real world each
> industry has its optimal firm size. Just look around you.
Large firms suffer from bureaucracy, red tape, and corruption. The
success of Walmart is because its purchasing officers are notoriously
and famously less corrupt than the purchasing officers of other big
box companies. Informix expired under a bureaucracy too labyrinthine
to make any decision, and a boss isolated from reality by a horde of
flunkies and fluffers.
The larger the organization, the harder it is to overcome these
problems.