The Death of the Liberal Class
Immortalist
the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
country toward oligarchy.
The traditional beacons of the liberal class - the universities,
media, church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed themselves
completely to the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded
capitalism.
The liberal class has abandoned its traditional role in democracy and
has instead endorsed unfettered capitalism and globalization as well
as profit driven wars, and as a result, any realistic check on the
power of corporate interests has been obliterated.
Without a robust liberal voice to engage in this debate, there is a
very real danger that things will degrade into violence as the middle
and working classes become increasingly disenfranchised, angry and
confused.
The liberal class has been swept aside and the social safety nets for
the middle and working classes are being relentlessly destroyed - and
it is happening just as we will have the most need for those safety
nets.
The real division in America today is not between Democrats and
Republicans, but between average citizens and the corporate and
financial elite. Addressing, or even discussing, the problem is nearly
impossible because doing so involves transgressing the taboo of class
warfare and invoking the "vocabulary of Marx." Those who draw
attention to it are banished and booed.
Our leaders our serving their masters - the problem is that those
masters are not the people of this country - they are the corporate
interests who now are the ones who get what they need and want from
the government. They have compromised their principles because of the
allure of power and wealth.
We are all to blame and everything moral about our democracy stands to
be lost...
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586442
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s
Marvin
> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
> toward oligarchy.
HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing more than
Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and Socialism, the
state OWNS the means of production and distribution of goods, and the
"citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
Karl Marx was far from disapproving of Feudalism, he wanted in on the
game!
And devastated? How stupid is that? You got 53% of the American people
who voted for a Marxist President. You have a Marxist congress that
promises the people any and everything they want (they Chinese are
writing the check for it all). You're not even right.
> The traditional beacons of the liberal class - the universities, media,
> church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed themselves completely to
> the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded capitalism.
Good hell, both of the universities I went to, for my undergraduate and
graduate degrees, are more dedicated to Marxism than ever.
Where did you cut and paste this idiot tripe?
Immortalist
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> > The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> > the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> > co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
> > toward oligarchy.
>
> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
> or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing more than
> Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and Socialism, the
> state OWNS the means of production and distribution of goods, and the
> "citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>
Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals and
conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West. Maybe
you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally conservatives
care more about individual rights while liberals are more concerned
with communitarian values.
> Karl Marx was far from disapproving of Feudalism, he wanted in on the
> game!
>
Please stop making wild claims with no evidence. This is just like the
wild news media which should be held accountable for shouting fire in
crowded theaters when there is none.
> And devastated? How stupid is that? You got 53% of the American people
> who voted for a Marxist President. You have a Marxist congress that
> promises the people any and everything they want (they Chinese are
> writing the check for it all). You're not even right.
>
Wrong, I refuse to accept the way your using "Marxist" since this
could endanger human life in various circumstances. I take it you set
at home and talk this kind of nonsense to your tv instead of risking
an ass-whupping down at the coffe shop. Maybe the people where you
live are pussies and thats why you risk talking in such nonsensical
ways and then having the nerve to offer not one shread of evidence to
back up your fantasy stories. Alice in Beckland blows the devil!
> > The traditional beacons of the liberal class - the universities, media,
> > church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed themselves completely to
> > the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded capitalism.
>
> Good hell, both of the universities I went to, for my undergraduate and
> graduate degrees, are more dedicated to Marxism than ever.
>
Wrong. We have not agreeded to how we shall use this word Marxism and
I refuse to agree to any sentence you use it in till we agree on how
to use it. Try and dominate some weaklings with that stuff, not me
idiot.
> Where did you cut and paste this idiot tripe?
I am setting in a library and noticed the book on the new book shelf,
picked it up and read it for a half hour, went out on the web looking
for something that would reflect my impression, copied, then edited
sentences and sentence locations (combining different authors) and
copied that mess, and pasted in yo face brau! Now whats your problem
again fool?
deepdudu
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>
>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
>> toward oligarchy.
>
>HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
>or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing more than
>Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and Socialism, the
>state OWNS the means of production and distribution of goods, and the
>"citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
goddamned you wingnuts get dumber every day. No, moron feudalism is
the opposite of socialism. Think about it numbnuts.
>Karl Marx was far from disapproving of Feudalism, he wanted in on the
>game!
>
>And devastated? How stupid is that? You got 53% of the American people
>who voted for a Marxist President. You have a Marxist congress that
>promises the people any and everything they want (they Chinese are
>writing the check for it all). You're not even right.
>
>> The traditional beacons of the liberal class - the universities, media,
>> church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed themselves completely to
>> the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded capitalism.
>
>Good hell, both of the universities I went to, for my undergraduate and
>graduate degrees, are more dedicated to Marxism than ever.
>
>Where did you cut and paste this idiot tripe?
Oh the irony !
Rod Speed
That was just the smell of his feet.
Immortalist wrote:
> The liberal class, which historically has spoken
> for the interests of the poor and middle classes,
Oh bullshit.
> has largely been devastated,
More bullshit.
> or at least co-opted, by a corporate elite that is
> relentlessly driving the country toward oligarchy.
More utterly mindless drivel.
You wouldnt know what a real oligarchy was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> The traditional beacons of the liberal class - the
> universities, media, church, labor unions, and arts
More utterly mindless silly stuff.
> –have sacrificed themselves completely to the dominance
> of corporate greed and unbounded capitalism.
More utterly mindless drivel.
> The liberal class has abandoned its traditional role in democracy
More utterly mindless drivel.
> and has instead endorsed unfettered capitalism and globalization
More utterly mindless drivel.
> as well as profit driven wars,
Have fun listing even one of those in the last century.
> and as a result, any realistic check on the power
> of corporate interests has been obliterated.
More utterly mindless drivel.
> Without a robust liberal voice to engage in this debate,
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> there is a very real danger that things will degrade into violence
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> as the middle and working classes become
> increasingly disenfranchised, angry and confused.
Have fun explaining why we never saw anything like that as the result
of the great depression or the most recent complete implosion of the
entire world financial system that has affect the middle class quite a bit.
> The liberal class has been swept aside
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> and the social safety nets for the middle and
> working classes are being relentlessly destroyed
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> - and it is happening just as we will have the most need for those safety nets.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> The real division in America today is not between Democrats and Republicans,
> but between average citizens and the corporate and financial elite.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Addressing, or even discussing, the problem is nearly impossible
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> because doing so involves transgressing the taboo of class warfare
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> and invoking the "vocabulary of Marx."
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> Those who draw attention to it are banished and booed.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
The net allows a hell of a lot more of that then anything ever has, fuckwit.
> Our leaders our serving their masters
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> - the problem is that those masters are not the people of this country
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> - they are the corporate interests
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> who now are the ones who get what they need and
> want from the government. They have compromised
> their principles because of the allure of power and wealth.
> We are all to blame and everything moral about our democracy stands to be lost...
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
> http://www.amazon.com/Death-Liberal-Class-Chris-Hedges/dp/1568586442
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s
No wonder the net truffle pig was away for so long, this completely mindless steaming turd must have taken some finding.
Ray Fischer
>On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>
>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
>> toward oligarchy.
>
>HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
>or the liberal arts.
Except for the fact that people like Franklin and Jefferson and Adamas
were liberals.
> They advocate socialism,
To the fascist extremist anything other than anarchy is "socialism",
proviing that they have no idea what the word means.
> which is nothing more than
>Feudalism with a press agent.
Feudalism is exactly like the oligarchy that the fascist right demands.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That was just the smell of his feet.
>Oh bullshit.
>More bullshit.
>More utterly mindless drivel.
>More utterly mindless silly stuff.
>More utterly mindless drivel.
>More utterly mindless drivel.
>More utterly mindless drivel.
Rod Speed
> Let's look at the intellectual rebuttal of a typical rightard ...
You wouldnt know what a real rightard was if one bit you on your lard arse.
I believe that any country should have a decent govt health
care funding system, and a decent welfare system too, fuckwit.
tooly
Marvin's got it spot on here [except for the feudalism thingy...have
to think on that one]. But Obama is INDEED a Marxist. And no
Immort...the struggle today IS between Democrats and Republicans...or
Progressives versus Conservatives. Forget the historical definitions;
what has evolved, has evolved and no battle line could ever be more
clear in history as it is today between right and left in America.
I see it as marxists trying to undo the establishment...but it's
something that has been in the works for decades, so hard for many to
see [especially anyone born after, say, 1990]. It is communism [cum
Socialist] trying to bring down western civilization. Of course, you
have to have a villain to sell the masses so they'll charge the
Bastille or whatever...so...Corporation it is [for the lefty].
Thusly, Fox News becomes product of corporate maniplation, and not
simply people voting with their feet [precarious logic meant to drive
an effort to undermine those free markets, ha]. Would be funny if not
so vile and evil [ergo, net neutrality and organization like media
matters etc defile the mass mind to paint invalid masks on good vital
institutions that marxists can supplant their own faces].
If you really 'mean' what you write here, I start to understand better
the problem, for you are so far off the mark, it is silly. But I
think more, that it is the socialist mindset trying to 'construct'
arguement for his cause, by villifying Corporations as some one eyed
giant et.al. that has come to eat us all.
Marvin
> On Feb 22, 5:47 pm, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>> > The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>> > the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>> > co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
>> > country toward oligarchy.
>>
>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing
>> more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and
>> Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production and distribution of
>> goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>>
>>
> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals and
> conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West. Maybe
> you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally conservatives
> care more about individual rights while liberals are more concerned with
> communitarian values.
I explained it: In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns the
means of production and distribution of goods.
That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
(1) "The Trivium" by Sister Miriam Joseph.
< The rest of the Asswipe's denials have been deleted >
Come back when your serious and not going to act like a silly little
idiot.
Marvin
> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>>On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>>> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>>> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
>>> country toward oligarchy.
>>
>>HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>liberty, or the liberal arts.
>
> Except for the fact that people like Franklin and Jefferson and Adamas
> were liberals.
In the true meaning of the word liberals, yes. They were versed in logic,
grammar, rhetoric, math, science and music. They were dependent upon no
one to tell them what to think: and they advocated liberty and not the
government ownership of the means of production and distribution of
goods.
Your reply, btw, was irrelevant and mostly gibberish.
Marvin
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:47:15 -0600, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>
>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>>> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>>> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
>>> country toward oligarchy.
>>
>>HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing
>>more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and
>>Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production and distribution of
>>goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>
>
> If you're going to regurgitate Faux snooze bullshit---at least include a
> disclaimer
Cite where I quoted Fox News, or admit you are a liar and an ass.
> FYI, "liberalism" Was the genesis of AMerica, Was the force that kept
> the Union together in mid 19th century, was the ideology that saved
> America in early 20th century, was the ideology that stopped slavery,
> child labor, gave us workers rights, childrens rights---and ALL the
> things that allowed the Middle class to rise to prominence
You're having a problem with definitions here. There are three
definitions of liberal in play.
1) Liberal as in the student of the liberal arts. The Liberal arts are
the non-useful arts like logic, grammar, math and science that frees the
student from having to have someone else tell them what to think. Thus,
the liberal arts liberates the student.
2) Liberal as the political term for being in opposition to the existing
government. Conservative being the advocate to preserve the existing
government.
3) "Liberal" as being the rat bastard socialist who wants to trash the
constitution, the rule of law, sell the people on the lie that only the
government can take care of the people and that the people need the nanny
state. Quite the opposite from wanting liberty or to liberate anyone,
this type of self described "liberal" seeks to make the entire population
into slaves.
You're trying to give the good works of the true liberal (definition 1)
to the rat bastard socialist self called liberal (definition 3), and that
is a total fail. All that the definition 3 liberal have given the US is
the great depression, two stupid world wars, and trillions of dollars in
debt.
robert bowman
> Except for the fact that people like Franklin and Jefferson and Adamas
> were liberals.
John Adams certainly was a liberal; q.v. Alien and Sedition Acts.
Immortalist
sarge
> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
> country toward oligarchy.
Yay. It pleases me to know end to see a dire analysis like this from
what I would have assumed was a liberal. I think the oligarchy has
been here for a while, but still.......
Yes, the the rest also. I think it is important for liberals, as
well as the rest of us, to notice, via looking back in time and
introspection, how this frog got slowly boiled. In what ways are each
of us complicit? How did liberals come to align themselves with
radically conservative economic policies? How did conservatives get
manipulated into supported huge shifts of taxpayer money to arms
manufacturers, reconstructions companies, an ever larger prison and
police system, etc? And both allowing rights they once considered
important get cut away.
jmh
> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>
> >> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> >> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> >> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
> >> toward oligarchy.
>
> >HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
> >or the liberal arts.
>
> Except for the fact that people like Franklin and Jefferson and Adamas
> were liberals.
They were Classical Liberals, closer to the UK Liberal party than
to the USA Liberal party (Democrats).
> > They advocate socialism,
>
> To the fascist extremist anything other than anarchy is "socialism",
> proviing that they have no idea what the word means.
>
> > which is nothing more than
> >Feudalism with a press agent.
>
> Feudalism is exactly like the oligarchy that the fascist right demands.
Possibly, depending on just who you're lumping into
"fascist right".
jmh
jmh
> > And devastated? How stupid is that? You got 53% of the American people
Not even close, assuming we're talking about the presidential
election. He got
53% of the votes, only about 57% of the voting age population showed
up. So
the president was elected by a whopping 30% of the American people.
Immortalist
I do not understand how the media has created this broad donation of
Marxist, so broad that anything left of Hitler is socialist. No as-
swipe, you failed. It's like the black and white, all or nothing
fallacy, where everything is with Nazi or Commy, fuck that thump sucks.
Immortalist
Sorry about the spelling, have not learned how top post from a
smartphone yet.
Rod Speed
> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
You wouldnt know what a real marxist was if one bit you on your lard arse.
Obama is a socialist at most. He didnt even go for a proper universal health care
funding system, just went for an abortion of a compulsory insurance system instead.
> And no Immort...the struggle today IS between Democrats and Republicans...
Yep, thats the way the US electoral system works.
> or Progressives versus Conservatives. Forget the historical definitions;
> what has evolved, has evolved and no battle line could ever be more
> clear in history as it is today between right and left in America.
Thats overstating it when the Dems went for an abortion of a compulsory insurance system.
> I see it as marxists trying to undo the establishment...
More fool you. Compulsory health insurance is nothing like that.
> but it's something that has been in the works for decades,
> so hard for many to see [especially anyone born after, say, 1990].
The number of actual marxists is much lower than it used to be, but the
claim that there is none of that in universitys anymore is just plain silly.
> It is communism [cum Socialist]
They aint the same thing.
> trying to bring down western civilization.
Even sillier. Social Security and Medicare are trying to do the exact opposite.
Free public education in spades.
> Of course, you have to have a villain to sell the masses so they'll
> charge the Bastille or whatever...so...Corporation it is [for the lefty].
Even sillier. We dont do Bastilles in the great democracys, stupid.
> Thusly, Fox News becomes product of corporate maniplation, and
> not simply people voting with their feet [precarious logic meant to
> drive an effort to undermine those free markets, ha]. Would be funny
> if not so vile and evil [ergo, net neutrality and organization like media
> matters etc defile the mass mind to paint invalid masks on good vital
> institutions that marxists can supplant their own faces].
You wouldnt know what a real marxist was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> If you really 'mean' what you write here, I start to understand
> better the problem, for you are so far off the mark, it is silly.
You in spades.
> But I think more, that it is the socialist mindset trying to 'construct'
> arguement for his cause, by villifying Corporations as some one
> eyed giant et.al. that has come to eat us all.
He has to run some outrageous line like that to have any hope
of flogging any copys of that steaming turd of a book.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ray Fischer wrote
>>> Let's look at the intellectual rebuttal of a typical rightard ...
>> You wouldnt know what a real rightard was if one bit you on your lard arse.
> Well---how about:
> Jesse helms
> Strom thurmond
> David Dukes
> Gov Wallace
> Neut Gingrich
> Tom Delay
> Ted Stevens
> For a start......
You aint Ray, stupid.
Rod Speed
> Immortalist wrote
>> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests
>>>> of the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at
>>>> least co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving
>>>> the country toward oligarchy.
>>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is
>>> nothing more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both
>>> Feudalism and Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production and
>>> distribution of goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals
>> and conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West.
>> Maybe you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally
>> conservatives care more about individual rights while liberals are
>> more concerned with communitarian values.
> I explained it:
Like hell you did.
> In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns
> the means of production and distribution of goods.
Even sillier. That isnt true of either. It is true of communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
You aint presented a shred of evidence whatever.
Rod Speed
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the
>>>>> interests of the poor and middle classes, has largely been
>>>>> devastated, or at least co-opted, by a corporate elite that
>>>>> is relentlessly driving the country toward oligarchy.
>>>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is
>>>> nothing more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both
>>>> Feudalism and Socialism, the state OWNS the means of
>>>> production and distribution of goods, and the "citizens" or
>>>> serfs belong to the state.
>>> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals
>>> and conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West.
>>> Maybe you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally
>>> conservatives care more about individual rights while liberals are
>>> more concerned with communitarian values.
>> I explained it: In both socialism and Feudalism the government
>> owns the means of production and distribution of goods.
>> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>> (1) "The Trivium" by Sister Miriam Joseph.
>> < The rest of the Asswipe's denials have been deleted >
>> Come back when your serious and not going to act like a silly little idiot.
> I do not understand how the media has created this broad donation of Marxist,
It aint the media doing it.
> so broad that anything left of Hitler is socialist.
Hitler was himself a socialist, stupid.
> No asswipe, you failed. It's like the black and white, all or nothing fallacy,
JLS
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:47:15 -0600, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>
> >> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> >> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> >> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
> >> toward oligarchy.
>
> >HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
> >or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing more than
> >Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and Socialism, the
> >state OWNS the means of production and distribution of goods, and the
> >"citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>
>
> goddamned you wingnuts get dumber every day. No, moron feudalism is
> the opposite of socialism. Think about it numbnuts.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Karl Marx was far from disapproving of Feudalism, he wanted in on the
> >game!
>
> >And devastated? How stupid is that? You got 53% of the American people
> >who voted for a Marxist President. You have a Marxist congress that
> >promises the people any and everything they want (they Chinese are
> >writing the check for it all). You're not even right.
>
> >> The traditional beacons of the liberal class - the universities, media,
> >> church, labor unions, and arts have sacrificed themselves completely to
> >> the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded capitalism.
>
> >Good hell, both of the universities I went to, for my undergraduate and
> >graduate degrees, are more dedicated to Marxism than ever.
>
> >Where did you cut and paste this idiot tripe?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Under feudalism the feudal lord owned the land and tenements, and the
serfs farmed the land but had no ownership interest in it. The
usufruct of the land belonged to the feudal lord, who dispensed only
so much of it to the serfs to keep them alive but very poor.
Sounds like our present-day form of corporatism to me. Corporate
capitalism has defeated communism, and now it's in the process of
strangling democracy.
Poor Marv. He's about as dumb as a gum stump.
Rod Speed
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Fantasy.
> In what ways are each of us complicit?
We aint.
> How did liberals come to align themselves with radically conservative economic policies?
They didnt.
> How did conservatives get manipulated into supported
> huge shifts of taxpayer money to arms manufacturers,
They didnt, that was mostly to oppose communism, one of their pet hates.
> reconstructions companies, an ever larger prison and police system, etc?
Conservatives have always been into locking up criminals.
> And both allowing rights they once considered important get cut away.
They always do that when the shit hits the fan with a world war or something like 9/11.
They have enough of a clue to realise that there is no viable alternative.
Not Sure
How much did you charge for that one, whore? :)
pyjamarama
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 07:44:54 -0800 (PST), jmh <999...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Except for the fact that people like Franklin and Jefferson and Adamas
> >> were liberals.
>
> >They were Classical Liberals, closer to the UK Liberal party than
> >to the USA Liberal party (Democrats).
>
These do....
The Amazing Usenet Intellect Of Gary 'Yoorg' Roselles:
"She should be at least shot" -- Gary Roselles calling for the
shooting death of duly elected US government official Katherine
Harris
"I call Kathering Harris a nazi/fascist right wing ideologue whore.
What didwe do to German nazis right wing whores?" -- Roselles clearly
states his motive for gunning down Katherine Harris in cold-blood
"I consider hating RIGHT WING nazi/fascist fucks like you a God
inspired emotion." -- Sociopath Roselles enters Charles Manson
territory as he claims his foam-flecked hatred and calls to murder are
divinely 'inspired'
"Hating RIGHT WINGERS is doing God's work, Dumbapropyl." -- More
Manson-like megalomania from usenet sociopath Gary Roselles
"Who gives a shit what these nuts (religious groups) want or don't
want -- KORESH THEM ALL" -- Psychopath Gary Roselles calls for
widespread fiery deaths of US Religious Groups by the ATF.
"May a real american have the honor of putting a bullet between her
eyes." -- Gary Roselles calls for the brutal shooting death of Rob
Robertson's teenage daughter.
"Go Ahead and put his face there. I ain't blowed a mountain up today.
I can make it (blowing up Mt. Rushmore) look like a mining accident"
-- Ex-miner <chuckle> and Rapid City resident Gary Roselles threatens
to blow up Mt. Rushmore.
"Hinckley TRIED to do a good thing" -- Gary Roselles praises would-be
presidential assassin John Hinckley
"That slut Barbara Olsen (9/11 victim) is dead? GOOD!" On 12 Sept 2001
08:42:54 GMT Gary Roselles <rosell19@idt...> wrote. That's right
folks -- sociopath Gary Roselles really did gloat about the 9/11 death
of fellow citizen Barbara Olsen ON SEPTEMBER TWELFTH!!!
"God turned Olsen into jelly" -- Psychopath Gary Roselles says "God
killed" US 9/11 victim Barbara Olsen
"Then why was you mother stupid enough to fuck all them black guys?" -
Gary 'yoorg' Roselles, racist prick
What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (Distinguished African-
American Scholar, Thomas) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never
having
worked a day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?" -- Gary
Roselles
"Both are traitors to their race" -- Race Purist Gary Roselles on the
importance of Race Loyalty
"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking people
is going to gain anything with real minorities?" -- Gary Roselles,
Racist
"Them brown niggers need to be taken out" -- Gary Roselles, Racist
"He (African-American scholar Thomas Sowell) goes against his own
kind." Race loyalist Gary Roselles, insisting once again that “them
blacks” should "stick
to their own kind"
"His appointment will bridge nothing. It's apparant he's being an
uncle tom to appease voters." -- White trash, racist asshole Gary
Roselles
slurs African-American Hero General Colin Powell
"Group Negro Poster Pyjamarma admits to being a coconut headed coon"
-- Gary Roselles, pathetic racist
"Say "yes Massa", Uncle Tom." – Vile racist Gary Roselles pathetically
mocks and
slurs prominent African-American man-of-the-cloth Jesse Lee
Peterson
"How does a pampered, Stanford based, Scaife funded, Uncle Tom make
judgements on "the bottom", McFly?" -- Another day, another racial
slur on an educated, successful, independent black man from Gary
Roselles
"Nope, Don't have to hire blacks" -- Gary Roselles, Racist Prick
"Che (Guevara) was a conservative ideologue" - Gary Roselles
"Marx and Engels were RIGHT-WINGERS you dumb cocksucker" -- Gary
Roselles
"The United States is obligated to follow the DEMOCRATIC rule of the
UN" -- Gary Roselles
"The Soviet Union should've kept Afghanistan" -- Gary Roselles
>
> The writings of European liberals influenced the "founders" in
> formulating a reason why legitimate government could, or should be
> dissolved.
>
> THe history of Monarchies in Europe provided much of the reasoning of
> that writing
>
> Whether or not "liberal" meant exactly the same in the 1700's---must
> be compared to "conservative" in the same era.
>
> Sure as shit cannot say a 18th century conservative resembles one of
> today----except to say Conservative means resistance to change. That
> principle follows conservatism to the 21st century---as does the
> willingness to make society better by "changing" when necessary for
> liberals.
>
> Conservatives have fought ALL change, in all eras, because it
> generally means loss of power and /or control.
>
> Your agument falls flat with those parameters.
>
> >=============================================================
>
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Kurtis T. Nicklas of
> 1293 Westbrook Ave, Elon, NC 27244-9372"
>
> <nickl...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >I don't pay much attention to him these days, but I'd wager he's not
> >happy.
>
> You sure as shit paid attention when you got caught
> making all those late-night hang-up phone calls, didn't
> ya, Nickkkkers?
>
> CLICK ! ! !
Rod Speed
> Deep Dudu wrote
>> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>> Oh the irony !
> Under feudalism the feudal lord owned the land and tenements,
> and the serfs farmed the land but had no ownership interest in it.
That utterly mangles the real story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism#Classic_feudalism
> The usufruct of the land belonged to the feudal lord, who dispensed
> only so much of it to the serfs to keep them alive but very poor.
And that in spades.
> Sounds like our present-day form of corporatism to me.
More fool you. The middle class are nothing even
remotely resembling anything like alive but very poor.
The next level up from that in spades.
> Corporate capitalism has defeated communism,
Nope, communism imploded under its own internal
contradictions, it was never gunna work for long.
Even the most basic communism like kibbutz imploded the
same way, nothing to do with corporate capitalism at all.
> and now it's in the process of strangling democracy.
Pigs arse it is.
> Poor Marv. He's about as dumb as a gum stump.
You're not much better.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> How did conservatives get manipulated into supported
>>> huge shifts of taxpayer money to arms manufacturers,
>> They didnt, that was mostly to oppose communism, one of their pet hates.
> Minor correction
Nope.
> Conservatism largely depends on "Fear" of enemies to remain viable
Nope. That wasnt what happened in the runnup to WW2.
> The years after WW2 saw a rise in influence of neocons and conservatives
> who pushed threats of war to maximize their political advantage
Nope, the military industrial complex just after WW2 had nothing to do
with threats of war, the US had just proved that it could fuck over anyone
and at that time was the only one with nuke which could do that in spades.
> The collapose of the soviet Union threw Conservatives in a tizzy---
Pure fantasy. It was just a problem for those who
wanted to keep the massive military industrial complex.
Then fools like bin Laden gave them what they needed to justify their existence.
> First China was the focus of their fear---
Mindlessly silly. The US never feared china militarily after the soviet union had collapsed.
> until it was shown that trade was the bonus we got from them---
Conservatives are more likely to oppose that.
> Then it was N. Korea---headlines about China and N. Korea were replete with "impending doom"--
Headlines aint conservatives, thats just stupid journos.
Murdoch aint anything like a conservative.
> while Jesse Helms ran around with "sky falling" fear.
There's always mindless hysterics doing that.
> Then Bush steps in and calls several islamic nations "evil"
It would have been a fucking sight more surprising if he didnt given 9/11.
> and conservatives have been raking in the benefits of Fear ever since.
The fear is valid given 9/11, stupid.
Strabo
> Marvin wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> Marvin<mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>
>
>> I explained it:
>
> Like hell you did.
>
>> In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns
>> the means of production and distribution of goods.
>
> Even sillier. That isnt true of either. It is true of communism.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
>
>> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>
> You aint presented a shred of evidence whatever.
>
>
I'll tell you.
The evidence is self-evident.
Feudalism did, through the 'right of kings', control the means of
production and distribution. In that sense Feudalism was similar
to modern Socialism through one or more of with its variants:
Marxism, Fascism, or Communism.
In essence, Socialism is the replacement of traditional or de facto
societal functions, usually through the imposition of law, with state
licensed regulations and procedures.
Socialism is the process of a power elite controlling the structure
and will of a society. Socialism, usually through the application of
positive law, subverts the individual free will and initiative and
places him in a 'collective' and then passes law to control the
collective.
Under Socialism as under Feudalism, the 'state' (or the king) controls
key elements of social behavior, ostensibly, 'for the good of all.'
As an ideology, modern Socialism typically uses the term 'democracy'
to describe its methods in relation to the collectivized members of
society when in fact goals and the means to achieve them are determined
by a central committee of elites who stand outside the collective
spheres of influence. These goals are then achieved by manipulating
information and events in order to illicit an appropriate 'democratic'
response. This response gives legitimacy to the followup actions of the
elite and convinces the members of society of their rightness.
In theory, in a well-ordered socialist society, the ties between the
elite caste and its collectives are seamless and its members,
satisfied. However, no form of Socialism has lasted for more than
three generations before falling into disrepute with catastrophic
consequences.
The reality of life is that there is no free lunch. No form of
government can satisfy the demands and whims of the governed.
Unlike Feudalism, which at least in the beginning was an honest deal
between a selected protective warrior chief within an agrarian society,
Socialism is a sham from the beginning. The 'good for all' collective
mantra of the Socialist is actually 'good for a few at the expense of
all others.'
'Collectivism', 'utopianism', 'commutarian', 'unionism', 'communities
of interest', 'communism' and 'democracies' are synonyms for the
socialist mindset.
JLS
Wrong link, dimwit. Work on your GED.
Immortalist
> Marvin wrote
>
>
>
> > Immortalist wrote
> >> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
> >>> Immortalist wrote
> >>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests
> >>>> of the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at
> >>>> least co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving
> >>>> the country toward oligarchy.
> >>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
> >>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is
> >>> nothing more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both
> >>> Feudalism and Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production and
> >>> distribution of goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
> >> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals
> >> and conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West.
> >> Maybe you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally
> >> conservatives care more about individual rights while liberals are
> >> more concerned with communitarian values.
> > I explained it:
>
> Like hell you did.
>
Well idiot, for once I agree with you, he didn't explain anything but
like you most of the time just made hollow claims.
> > In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns
> > the means of production and distribution of goods.
>
> Even sillier. That isnt true of either. It is true of communism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
Immortalist
Wrong, the media have helped greatly create the case that everything
besides Foxnews is Marxism ass wipe. Are you really that stupid? I
realize that you rarely have anything to offer but when you do, you
put your foot in your mouth.
> > so broad that anything left of Hitler is socialist.
>
> Hitler was himself a socialist, stupid.
>
I should have said either left socialism (Communism) as opposed to
right socialism (Fascism)
Immortalist
Wrong, you are so wrong, most nation states are currently socialist to
some degree. There has never been a capitalist nation state.
A "mixed" economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. It is a
hodgepodge of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of
the lack of principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of
intellectual chaos. It is the attempt to gain the advantages of
freedom without government having to give up its power.
A mixed-economy is always in flux. The regulations never produce
positive results, because they always force people to act against
their own interests. When a particular policy fails, it is propped up
by other regulations in the hopes that more control will produce
better results. Sometimes the results are so destructive they must
either be removed, or the people must be violently oppressed to make
them accept it.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_MixedEconomy.html
In economics and politics, a mixed economy is an economy which
combines regulated free market capitalism and a limited number of
socialist institutions and state ownership of some sectors of the
economy such as
social security environmental regulation, labor regulation, product
safety regulation, progressive taxation public education health care
Most democratic countries, including the United States, have mixed
economies. It is nearly impossible to have pure capitalism (the
government regulates nothing) or pure socialism (the government runs
everything), but the term mixed economy is generally used when an
economy has reasonably significant portions of both socialism and
capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Mixed Economies Somewhere between the complete laissez-faire
capitalism of the market economy and the strict central controls of
the command economy lie the territories of the mixed economies. In
practice, every economy in the world is some form of a mixed economy,
but there are vast differences between them in terms of how much of
each economic theory they support. Generally, however, mixed
economies will have areas that are public (closest in principle to the
command economy) and areas that are private (most similar to a market
economy).
Private Sector These are areas of a nation's economy that are left to
the self-regulating devices of the market economy. If the government
is involved in this sector at all, it is only to function as a referee
(to ensure fair competition between all competitors). In Canada, many
areas of the economy are within the private sector. A quick trip to
the mall will expose us to competition, profit motive, entrepreneurs,
privately owned land, labor and capital, and the laws of supply and
demand.
Public Sector These are areas of a nation's economy deemed too
important or not profitable enough to be left to the private sector.
Governments in mixed economies will get involved in the production of
some goods or services in order to guarantee essential services to all
citizens or to try and encourage private interest in the economy. In
Canada, services like public transportation and postal service are
examples of areas deemed too important to all citizens to leave to the
instabilities of the marketplace. Recently, in a wave of
privatizations (selling public sector companies to private owners),
services like telephone companies, liquor stores and registry services
have been taken from the public sector and placed in the private
sector.
http://www.cssd.ab.ca/tech/social/tut9/lesson_25.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qIcskmYvAA
Rod Speed
Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.
Immortalist
> ""first of all liberals had nothing at all to do with liberty....they
> advocate socialism..." etc
>
Liberals always advocate left socialism (communism) while
conservatives always advocate right wing socialism (Fascism). That
sentence is false and doesn't explain all liberals and conservative
but if liberals advocate communism then conservative advocate fascism.
Totalitarianism is a form of government in which all societal
resources are monopolized by the state in an effort to penetrate and
control all aspects of public and private life, through the state's
use of propaganda, terror, and technology. Totalitarian ideologies
reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform,
project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be
redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the
alternative order. These ideologies, supported by propaganda
campaigns, demand total conformity on the part of the people.
Totalitarian forms of organization enforce this demand for conformity.
Totalitarian societies are hierarchies dominated by one political
party and usually by a single leader. The party penetrates the entire
country through regional, provincial, local and "primary" (party-cell)
organization. Youth, professional, cultural, and sports groups
supplement the party's political control. A paramilitary secret police
ensures compliance. Information and ideas are effectively organized
through the control of television, radio, the press, and education at
all levels.
Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished:
Nazism and Fascism which evolved
from "right-wing" extremism,
Communism, which evolved
from "left-wing" extremism.
Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes.
Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn their popular
support primarily from middle classes seeking to maintain the economic
and social status quo.
Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class
movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class
distinctions.
Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and enforced the
private ownership of industrial wealth.
A distinguishing feature of Communism, by contrast, is the collective
ownership of such capital.
http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html
Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a
mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests
subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of
national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic,
cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different
characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually
seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism,
militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, collectivism,
corporatism, populism, and opposition to economic and political
liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo)
refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to
civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian,
social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies,
known as corporations (not necessarily in the same sense as
contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with an
internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their
respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a
steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business
leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common
policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power
rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in
place....
...Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe
a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of
licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious,
economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their
leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority
by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well
as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill
corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East
Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.
Rod Speed
> Wrong,
Nope.
> the media have helped greatly create the case that
> everything besides Foxnews is Marxism ass wipe.
> Are you really that stupid? I realize that you rarely
> have anything to offer but when you do, you
> put your foot in your mouth.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
>>> so broad that anything left of Hitler is socialist.
>> Hitler was himself a socialist, stupid.
> I should have said either left socialism (Communism)
> as opposed to right socialism (Fascism)
Mindlessly silly.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Marvin wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the
>>>>>> interests of the poor and middle classes, has largely been
>>>>>> devastated, or at least co-opted, by a corporate elite that is
>>>>>> relentlessly driving the country toward oligarchy.
>>>>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>>>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is
>>>>> nothing more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both
>>>>> Feudalism and Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production
>>>>> and distribution of goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to
>>>>> the state.
>>>> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals
>>>> and conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West.
>>>> Maybe you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally
>>>> conservatives care more about individual rights while liberals are
>>>> more concerned with communitarian values.
>>> I explained it:
>> Like hell you did.
> Well idiot, for once I agree with you, he didn't explain anything
> but like you most of the time just made hollow claims.
Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort, child.
>>> In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns
Rod Speed
>>> and conservatives have been raking in the benefits of Fear ever since.
>> The fear is valid given 9/11, stupid.
> 9-11 happened because your lying sack of shit
> was working on tax cuts for the wealth class---
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, child.
> to bother with what he was told about the
> mess his neocons were causing in diplomacy
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, child.
> 9-11 was conservatives god-send to remain a viable political party.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, child.
> Fear, fear, and fear is conservative fundamentals.
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, child.
Too_Many_Tools
> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
> country toward oligarchy.
>
> media, church, labor unions, and arts–have sacrificed themselves
> completely to the dominance of corporate greed and unbounded
> capitalism.
>
If the liberal class dies, who will the conservatives steal from?
TMT
tooly
>
> >>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> >>> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> >>> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
> >>> country toward oligarchy.
>
> >>liberty, or the liberal arts.
>
> > were liberals.
>
> grammar, rhetoric, math, science and music. They were dependent upon no
> one to tell them what to think: and they advocated liberty and not the
> government ownership of the means of production and distribution of
> goods.
>
> Your reply, btw, was irrelevant and mostly gibberish.
You guys are forgetting that our founders were staunch 'free
marketers'...ergo, why our country was setup as laizez
Faire...'Government Hands off'. Private ownership IS the cornerstone
of FREEDOM..and our founders were stanch advocates of private
ownership above all else [ergo again, 'pursuit of life, liberty, and
PROPERTY' as being synonymous to 'HAPPINESS' in Jefferson's mind].
Today's so called 'liberal' as exemplified by the NEW Democrat Party,
is essentially a Democratic Socialist at best [the more moderate
wing], but is pervase with a radical wing that is profoundly 'Marxist'
in scope [ who's entire political stance is about social justice and
the REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH]. Obama comes from that RADICAL wing.
Why would Obama be so profoundly against business? Because he wants
government control over everything, seeing government as the end-all
'savior' of the poor, abused, underclasses [whomever they may be].
SPENDING, btw, translates into BIG GOVERNMENT; and the only way to
sustain such spending [if it can be sustained] is through heavy
taxation [a jobs killer btw]. Or another option, but totally
irresponsible and wreckless, is to monetize the public debt.
But monetizing the debt 'destroys' value in the dollar...and one
wonders what Obama was after from the getgo...ie 'To Transform' this
society to something OTHER than what our forebears established.
No, this guy IS no doubt, a true, bonafide Marxist. He writes in his
own book how he wants to be 'like his father' [Dreams of My FAther],
who was anti-colonialist [which is synonym to African marxist]. His
early on mentor was a marxist, Frank Marshal Davis. He 'saught' out
marxist professors while at Columbia. He taught Saul Alinsky methods
for community organizing and overturn establishment policies. His
mother was a professed marxist. His associations were with people
like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn; his personal council with people
like Valerie Jarret [who parents are reknown socialists in the Chicago
area]. He actually hires people like Van Jones, a 'declared'
communist; and Anita Dunn, who professes to a high school audience
that her most respected 'philosopher' was Mao Tse Tung. Obama uses
Robert McChesney, an established Marxist and socialist in Illionois,
for designing 'net neutrality' [now policy]. He appoints a Mark Lloyd
as 'diversity Chief' of the FCC [what is that anyway]...who finds Hugo
Chavez's taking over of the media in Venezeula as something to cheer
on.
I mean...how much evidence do we want anyway? As soon as Obama took
office, he set about upon a spending spree [under various rationale
given the public, but all a matter of 'redistribution' of other
people's "earnings"] that still is quite amazing [that he could get
away with]. IS he really trying to destroy the economy? Or is it
just incompetence?
We should all realize something. Marxist = Communist. One does not
have to be a card carrying member of the party itself to be a died-in-
the-wool advocate. Yes, the people were mesmerized with the skin
color thing and drunk with some notion of PROVING once and for all,
how so color blind and magnanimous we were as a society. The news
media [already infiltrated through our university with quite cultural
marxist leanings] jumped into bed as well as many social zealots...and
the more liberal element of the country went drunk with elation at
'electing a black man'. They were so drunk they disregarded his
associations, his writing, his former speeches, his familial
ties...and he was not vetted at all. Hell, he might not even be a
citizen...but all conveniently overlooked even to this day by a
certain adoring 'element' in this society [as well, as perhaps some
subversive elements as well...ie the socialist movment et.al].
There is no doubt for he sober minded. Obama IS a MARXIST. And the
radical fringe HAS taken over the Democrat Party now. The land of
Benjamin, Jefferson, and Washington is being assaulted 'from within'
by COMMUNIST elements that have actually gained control of the White
House of all things. It is so unbelievable, that few Americans really
see it [or want to see it for what it really is]...but they do see
Obama wild spending habits and continual behaviors that seem to
actually go against our national interests [time and again].
He is an enemy of our state [as founded by our forebears]...but
politically, he is clever enough to understand that he cannot
'transform' us overnight, but only put us on a path that in baby
steps, will bring us to his IDEOLOGICAL end...and that is
'socialism'. For now, the left settles with 'social democracy'...but
ultimately, there is no 'in-between' socialism, no 'socialism-lite'.
The radical left understands that large government programs cannot be
sustained in the long run...such as conservatives are now trying
desperately to 'reign this gargantuan' spending back in to save the
Constitutional Republic. But so much damage has been done now, and
people are so accustomed to these large transfer programs [the design
of the marxist to implode the system in time]...that one wonders if we
can save the Republic.
We teter on destruction now, and few people really see it. If Obama
is elected again, I fear it is our final death knell. I pray the
American people are not so stupid. But macro economics is not an easy
thing to grasp...by anyone. That he has gotten away with his antics
to date is miraculous. The news media remains in bed with this guy
[the main reason he still survives politically].
Immortalist
Fuck you grandpa pa little bitch fool.
Immortalist
>
> If the liberal class dies, who will the conservatives steal from?
>
The Moderates, and other sub-human species of the working class?
A capitalist is walking through his factory with a friend.
Friend asks, "What did you tell that man just now?"
"I told him to work faster", answers the capitalist.
"How much do you pay him?" asks the friend.
"Fifteen dollars a day" answers the capitalist.
"Where do you get the money to pay him?" asks the friend.
"I sell products", answers the capitalist.
"Who makes the products?" asks the friend.
"He does", answers the capitalist.
"How many products does he make in a day?" asks the friend.
"Fifty dollars worth", answers the capitalist.
"Then", concludes the friend, "Instead of you paying him, he pays you
thirty-five dollars a day to tell him to work faster".
"Huh", and the capitalist quickly adds, "Well, I own the machines".
"How did you get the machines?" asks the friend.
"I sold products and bought them", answers the capitalist.
"And who made those products?" asks friend.
To which the capitalist can only respond—to his friend, but also to
the media and to the schools—"Shut up! He might hear you".
> TMT
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no 'mixed economy' in the 'LONG RUN'...get it? When FDR
established social security, the conservative naysayers warned it was
not sustainable. Ok, took 60 some odd years to come to a head...but
we all know now that these large transfer programs are simply NOT
sustainable. Human nature is to take a mile once given an inch [why
all these pension programs have become ridiculous in the public
sector...actually better than private sector pensions and benies].
I think 'socialist' understand the 'long tern' reality...and see these
'MIXED' programs a their 'wedge' to obtain their long term
goal...COMMUNISM [for the more radical]. It is the dialectic
continuing it's zig zag through history, making it's way to that final
'long term' goal.
So, if not resisted in the short term 'pet project' social goals of
each new 'mixed system' program, it WILL end up in the long term
reality of exactly what Karl Marx predicted. So much damage
already...we teter on global ruin already. But the people march in
the streets...
Immortalist
Oh, I take that back, the media has had absolutely no influence upon
the shift in the populace from moderate to slightly conservative. The
media also had no influence on the media to, stunningly twerp.
> >>> so broad that anything left of Hitler is socialist.
> >> Hitler was himself a socialist, stupid.
> > I should have said either left socialism (Communism)
> > as opposed to right socialism (Fascism)
>
> Mindlessly silly.
>
I know you cannot answer this question idiot, but, why is it
mindlessly silly?
tooly
> On Feb 23, 6:52 am, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:00:59 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> > > On Feb 22, 5:47 pm, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> > >> > The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
> > >> > the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
> > >> > co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
> > >> > country toward oligarchy.
>
> > >> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
> > >> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is nothing
> > >> more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism and
> > >> Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production and distribution of
> > >> goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to the state.
>
> > > Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals and
> > > conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West. Maybe
> > > you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally conservatives
> > > care more about individual rights while liberals are more concerned with
> > > communitarian values.
>
> > I explained it: In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns the
> > means of production and distribution of goods.
>
> > That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>
> > (1) "The Trivium" by Sister Miriam Joseph.
>
> > < The rest of the Asswipe's denials have been deleted >
>
> > Come back when your serious and not going to act like a silly little
> > idiot.
>
> I do not understand how the media has created this broad donation of
> swipe, you failed. It's like the black and white, all or nothing
>
> - Show quoted text -
Slippery slopes are hard to 'prove' as being marxist in design. But
if one reads what Karl Marx prophesized, it is explained how the
'liberal' mindset is 'used' to gain the ultimate ends of the radical
left. Progressives, through various 'pet project' social issues,
slowly undermine [defacto] free markets with 'bigger and bigger'
government, that eventually become so top heavy, it topples over in
collapse. Ergo, Capitalism's eventual 'end' is to collapse. Most
liberals, progressives...do not see themselves as advocates of such
'collapse', but serve the final end in the same vein as Lenin's
'useful idiots' by promoting socially conscious programs that more and
more 'redistribute' wealth away from those that 'earn and produce'
toward those that 'don't'. In time, we find the exact sequence of
events now taking place, where laizez faire [supposed; quickly
becoming social democrat] government cannot 'sustain' these large
transfer programs without heavy taxation, which stifles productivity,
creating a downward deteriating 'cycle'...and eventual collapse.
The vileness of Marxism is the 'advocacy' of that collapse 'before'
it's natural unfolding. Ergo, they are 'subversives' by ideology.
So, it is hard to differentiate the 'useful idiots' who are simply
advocating social change to improve some groups' lot [under the
supposed guise of social justice...which is an 'invention' and not
'real' in nature]...from the true 'subversive' that is the hallmark of
the real marxist.
Bill Ayers is a subversive. Bernadine Dohrn is a subversive. Frank
Marshall Davis was a subversive. Saul Alinsky was a Subversive. These
and many other associations of Obama worked to 'change' things in a
radical way, even advocating things like 'collapsing' the system
[Davis's advocacy of overwhelming the welfare sysem etc, or Alinsky's
advocacy of 'Lucifer emulating' tactics of 'ends justify means'
philosophy, or Ayers and Dohrn's tactics of real violence and murder
to accomplish 'transformation']. Just off the cuff; there are other
associations.
When Obama reveled to an adoring minion that he was going to
'transform' this society, not many really understood what he meant.
Far more damaging than blowing up a few post offices or police
departments [ayers and dohrn], a sitting President has the power to
'inflate' government spending in big big big way...and a coinciding
'economic crisis' to justify such spending. In his first year, Obama
expanded the eventual money supply by over 120% [compared to his next
big spending president, Jimmy Carter, who expanded the supply by only
about 15%]. We do remember 'stagflation'...right? We had Volker's
insistence to 'protect the dollar' back then [to raise fed interest
rates to a whopping 20+%], and Reagan's tax cuts to coincide with
rising 'confidence' [due to Volker protecting the dollar]...and an
exploding computer innovation of business [to increase productivity,
ergo, growth]...to save us from Jimmy Carter [and LBJ's great society
and nixon's wage freezes of the previoius decade...but the biggest
culprit, Jimmy Carter's spending].
Obama and 120%...and we do not have any rising industry to compare to
the computer tech boom to bring us back out this time. And all Obama
knows to do is 'chastise' business with threats of new taxation [cap
and trade, health care, energy]...and 'spend, spend, spend' under the
guise of 'stimulus'. Horse puckey. Business confidence couldn't be
lower now. I say the guy is intentionally trying to destroy us. Or a
total idiot with horrible advisors. FDR's policies were debunked long
ago as being 'aggravative' to the Great Depression...not helping. But
somehow, Obama has managed to obtain advisors who didn't know that I
guess [or is it more subversive his intent?]. That 'transform' thingy
sure is haunting.
Immortalist
Good thing the right wing fascists national socialists in corporate
America don't do any of those terrible things, right?
Immortalist
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There is no 'mixed economy' in the 'LONG RUN'...get it? When FDR
> established social security, the conservative naysayers warned it was
> not sustainable. Ok, took 60 some odd years to come to a head...but
> we all know now that these large transfer programs are simply NOT
> sustainable. Human nature is to take a mile once given an inch [why
> all these pension programs have become ridiculous in the public
> sector...actually better than private sector pensions and benies].
>
> I think 'socialist' understand the 'long tern' reality...and see these
> 'MIXED' programs a their 'wedge' to obtain their long term
> goal...COMMUNISM [for the more radical]. It is the dialectic
> continuing it's zig zag through history, making it's way to that final
> 'long term' goal.
>
Bullshit spin, worse than the news. Definitely a one sided view.
Whatever side I was on, if I knew any rhetoric I would reject you
approach here.
tooly
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > There is no 'mixed economy' in the 'LONG RUN'...get it? When FDR
> > established social security, the conservative naysayers warned it was
> > not sustainable. Ok, took 60 some odd years to come to a head...but
> > we all know now that these large transfer programs are simply NOT
> > sustainable. Human nature is to take a mile once given an inch [why
> > all these pension programs have become ridiculous in the public
> > sector...actually better than private sector pensions and benies].
>
> > I think 'socialist' understand the 'long tern' reality...and see these
> > 'MIXED' programs a their 'wedge' to obtain their long term
> > goal...COMMUNISM [for the more radical]. It is the dialectic
> > continuing it's zig zag through history, making it's way to that final
> > 'long term' goal.
>
> Bullshit spin, worse than the news. Definitely a one sided view.
> Whatever side I was on, if I knew any rhetoric I would reject you
> approach here.
>
>
Well, you are a 'socialist' there Immort. I would expect you to
'reject' it. I don't see you as a 'useful idiot' however. I wonder
about the motivations of many who espouse all this 'socialist'
claptrap these days. Since Obama, it has surged; like termites coming
out of the woodwork or something, ha.
Marvin
< snip a toned down version of the communist manifesto >
The only part you omitted is that the "employee" risked nothing and
agreed to exchange his labor for a flat wage.
The capitalist could lose his entire investment, and go broke.
Rod Speed
> Liberals always advocate left socialism (communism)
No they dont, plenty of the early liberals didnt advocate anything of the sort.
And left socialism as seen in western europe is nothing like communism anyway.
> while conservatives always advocate right wing socialism (Fascism).
Wrong, as always. Plenty dont advocate any socialism at all
and most of them are too stupid to even realise that every
modern economy is a mix of capitalism and socialism, even
HongKong before it was handed back to china and the US.
And none of the great democracys have anything to do with fascism either.
> That sentence is false and doesn't explain all liberals and conservative
> but if liberals advocate communism then conservative advocate fascism.
Mindlessly superficial.
> Totalitarianism is a form of government in which
> all societal resources are monopolized by the state
Thats wrong too with Hitler etc.
> in an effort to penetrate and control all aspects of public and private life,
Plenty dont do that either.
> through the state's use of propaganda, terror, and technology.
Thats just one approach that totalitarianism can take.
> Totalitarian ideologies reject the existing society as corrupt, immoral, and beyond reform,
Some do, some dont.
> project an alternative society in which these wrongs are to be
> redressed, and provide plans and programs for realizing the
> alternative order. These ideologies, supported by propaganda
> campaigns, demand total conformity on the part of the people.
Some do, some dont.
> Totalitarian forms of organization enforce this demand for conformity.
Some do, some dont.
> Totalitarian societies are hierarchies dominated
> by one political party and usually by a single leader.
Yes.
> The party penetrates the entire country through
> regional, provincial, local and "primary" (party-cell)
> organization. Youth, professional, cultural, and
> sports groups supplement the party's political control.
Some do, some dont.
> A paramilitary secret police ensures compliance.
They dont all have that.
> Information and ideas are effectively organized
> through the control of television, radio, the press,
> and education at all levels.
They dont all have that either.
> Two types of totalitarianism can sometimes be distinguished:
> Nazism and Fascism which evolved from "right-wing" extremism,
> Communism, which evolved from "left-wing" extremism.
> Traditionally, each is supported by different social classes.
> Right-wing totalitarian movements have generally drawn
> their popular support primarily from middle classes
> seeking to maintain the economic and social status quo.
Oh bullshit.
> Left-wing totalitarianism has often developed from working class
> movements seeking, in theory, to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions.
And often hasnt too.
> Right-wing totalitarianism has typically supported and
> enforced the private ownership of industrial wealth.
You claimed the opposite above.
Cant even manage a consistent line in mindless bullshit.
> A distinguishing feature of Communism, by
> contrast, is the collective ownership of such capital.
> http://remember.org/guide/Facts.root.nazi.html
> Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a
> mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests
> subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of
> national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic,
> cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different
> characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually
> seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism,
> militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, collectivism, corporatism,
> populism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.
And thats nothing like your mindless shit above.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
> Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo)
> refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to
> civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian,
> social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies,
> known as corporations (not necessarily in the same sense as
> contemporary business corporations) are unelected bodies with
> an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over their
> respective areas of social or economic life. Thus, for example, a
> steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business
> leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common
> policy on prices and wages. When much political and economic power
> rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place....
And thats nothing like your mindless shit above.
> ...Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe
> a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of
> licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious,
> economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their
> leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority
> by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well
> as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill
> corporations. This usage is particularly common in the area of East
> Asian studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
And thats nothing like your mindless shit above.
Rod Speed
Everyone else, stupid.
Rod Speed
He isnt, most obviously with the car industry.
> Because he wants government control over everything,
Pigs arse he does. If he did, he wouldnt have gone for that half arsed
health care funding system that involved compulsory insurance.
> seeing government as the end-all 'savior' of the
> poor, abused, underclasses [whomever they may be].
Pigs arse he does. If he did, he wouldnt have gone for that half arsed
health care funding system that involved compulsory insurance.
He'd have made medicare universal instead.
> SPENDING, btw, translates into BIG GOVERNMENT;
How odd that the shrub and raygun were the biggest spenders of their respective times.
> and the only way to sustain such spending [if it can be
> sustained] is through heavy taxation [a jobs killer btw].
Another pig ignorant lie. Works fine in western europe.
> Or another option, but totally irresponsible
> and wreckless, is to monetize the public debt.
Corse the shrub never ever did anything like that, eh ?
None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
Immortalist
What makes you think I am a socialist? According to yours and tv's
twisted logic all people on earth are socialists, either left
socialist (communists) or right corporatist national socialists
(fascists). I still have not seen any good arguments for why that
widely held myth story is true.
Rod Speed
>>> Wrong,
>> Nope.
>> Mindlessly silly.
Because it is, just like you are a terminal fuckwit because of your ear to ear dog shit.
Rod Speed
Immortalist
Somehow I knew you would fuck up the answer to that question and yes,
you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, loser.
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> > Liberals always advocate left socialism (communism)
>
> No they dont, plenty of the early liberals didnt advocate anything of the sort.
>
> And left socialism as seen in western europe is nothing like communism anyway.
>
> > while conservatives always advocate right wing socialism (Fascism).
>
> Wrong, as always. Plenty dont advocate any socialism at all
> and most of them are too stupid to even realise that every
> modern economy is a mix of capitalism and socialism, even
> HongKong before it was handed back to china and the US.
>
Well said.
Immortalist
I have heard of "comparative advantage" but never of "comparative
risk", interesting. So are you saying risks justify abuse and
thievery?
England may be so circumscribed, that to produce the cloth may require
the labour of 100 men for one year; and if she attempted to make the
wine, it might require the labour of 120 men for the same time.
England would therefore find it in her interest to import wine, and to
purchase it by the exportation of cloth. To produce the wine in
Portugal, might require only the labour of 80 men for one year, and to
produce the cloth in the same country, might require the labour of 90
men for the same time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to
export wine in exchange for cloth. THis exchange might even take
place, nothwistanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England.
--David Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
Rod Speed
> Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the
>>>>>> interests of the poor and middle classes, has largely
>>>>>> been devastated, or at least co-opted, by a corporate
>>>>>> elite that is relentlessly driving the country toward oligarchy.
>>>>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>>>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is
>>>>> nothing more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both
>>>>> Feudalism and Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production
>>>>> and distribution of goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to
>>>>> the state.
>>>> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals
>>>> and conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the
>>>> West. Maybe you don't understand what "institution" means.
>>>> Generally conservatives care more about individual rights while
>>>> liberals are more concerned with communitarian values.
>>> I explained it: In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns
>>> the means of production and distribution of goods.
>>> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>>> (1) "The Trivium" by Sister Miriam Joseph.
>>> < The rest of the Asswipe's denials have been deleted >
>>> Come back when your serious and not going to act like a silly little idiot.
>> I do not understand how the media has created this broad donation
>> of Marxist, so broad that anything left of Hitler is socialist. No asswipe,
>> you failed. It's like the black and white, all or nothing fallacy, where
>> everything is with Nazi or Commy, fuck that thump sucks.
> Slippery slopes are hard to 'prove' as being marxist in design.
Impossible, actually.
> But if one reads what Karl Marx prophesized, it is explained
CLAIMED, actually, a different matter entirely.
> how the 'liberal' mindset is 'used' to gain the ultimate ends of the radical
> left. Progressives, through various 'pet project' social issues, slowly
> undermine [defacto] free markets with 'bigger and bigger' government,
> that eventually become so top heavy, it topples over in collapse.
Just more of Marx's utterly mindless pig ignorant shit.
It was actually HIS stupid scheme that toppled over in collapse instead.
> Ergo, Capitalism's eventual 'end' is to collapse.
It was actually HIS stupid scheme that toppled over in collapse instead.
> Most liberals, progressives...do not see themselves as advocates
> of such 'collapse', but serve the final end in the same vein as Lenin's
> 'useful idiots' by promoting socially conscious programs that more and
> more 'redistribute' wealth away from those that 'earn and produce'
> toward those that 'don't'. In time, we find the exact sequence of
> events now taking place, where laizez faire [supposed; quickly
> becoming social democrat] government cannot 'sustain' these large
> transfer programs without heavy taxation, which stifles productivity,
> creating a downward deteriating 'cycle'...and eventual collapse.
It was actually HIS stupid scheme that toppled over in collapse instead.
None of the rest of this even sillier drivel worth bother with.
Marvin
> On Feb 23, 6:52 am, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:00:59 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>> > On Feb 22, 5:47 pm, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
Hitler was just a different flavor of socialist. He outlawed owning
common shares of a company, for example. He did allow private ownership
of a company.
Marxist because Karl Marx was a big advocate of socialism as a step to
communism.
> No as-
> swipe, you failed. It's like the black and white, all or nothing
> fallacy, where everything is with Nazi or Commy, fuck that thump sucks.
You're still fucking brain dead, I see. Socialism is the government
ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods. Communism
is the government ownership of all property. Both are Marxist.
What is NOT socialism is the idea that the individual has the right to
own the means of production. Since his very own hands are a means of
production, the difference becomes a matter of slavery under socialism
(the government owns whatever the individual produces with his own hands)
or freedom. Freedom in the sense of the Ancient greeks where the
individual is not a serf who has to pay a king or other ruler for the
very right to exist - where that king or ruler has a RIGHT to what the
serf makes with his own hands.
But you're too stupid for that. All you see is a free ride on someone
else's back for your stupid, lazy ass. You're such a loser you can't make
it in the world, and you want a nanny state to take care of you. You want
to suckle off Uncle's Sam's hairy teat. Well, boy, his milk is pretty
bitter and you'll find that your wish to become a slave of the state is a
fool's wish!
Marvin
> Oh, I take that back, the media has had absolutely no influence upon the
> shift in the populace from moderate to slightly conservative. The media
> also had no influence on the media to, stunningly twerp.
To be honest, most of the electorate is too damned ignorant (being the
product of socialist schools, they are DESIGNED to be ignorant) to
understand the difference between socialist (what you call moderate) and
libertarian (what you call conservative).
All they know is that Obama promised them a bunch of free money and not
only did they not get all the money promised, but many of them lost their
jobs as a result of failed socialist policies - policies that have failed
everywhere they've been tried to the extent they've been tried.
Most people are too damned stupid to care about political philosophy.
They're just pigs voting themselves money and to hell with the country.
Marvin
> Marvin wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>
>>>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests
>>>>> of the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at
>>>>> least co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving
>>>>> the country toward oligarchy.
>
>>>> HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>>> liberty, or the liberal arts. They advocate socialism, which is
>>>> nothing more than Feudalism with a press agent. Under both Feudalism
>>>> and Socialism, the state OWNS the means of production and
>>>> distribution of goods, and the "citizens" or serfs belong to the
>>>> state.
>
>>> Care to provide any evidence for these wild claims? Both liberals and
>>> conservatives have contributed to the institutions of the West. Maybe
>>> you don't understand what "institution" means. Generally conservatives
>>> care more about individual rights while liberals are more concerned
>>> with communitarian values.
>
>> I explained it:
>
> Like hell you did.
>
>> In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns the means of
>> production and distribution of goods.
>
> Even sillier. That isnt true of either. It is true of communism.
No, socialism is defined as the government ownership in the means of
production and distribution of goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or
common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production
and allocation of resources."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
so·cial·ism
/ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting
of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution,
of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. "
As I said, and you're both ignorant of and too lazy to check for
yourself, is the government ownership of ALL property, means of
production and just plain old goods.
"com·mu·nism
/ˈkɒmyəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all
property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a
whole or to the state."
So please stop prattling your ignorant misconceptions in public. Words
have meaning, or do you lack the capacity for human speech?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
Under the feudal system, who owned the land? The King, and then he
granted land to his vassals. Land WAS the means of production because
they had a privative agricultural society! The Serfs DIDN'T OWN the land
- the means of production; The "government" did.
Under the feudal system, the serf didn't own the product of his own
labors. Under socialism, the citizen doesn't own the product of his own
labors. Same thing in action. Like I said, socialism is just feudalism
with a press agent.
>> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>
> You aint presented a shred of evidence whatever.
One can present evidence, but to the fucking brain dead, it won't matter.
Not Sure
>
> If the liberal class dies, who will the conservatives steal from?
When liberals produce anything, get back to us :)
>
> TMT
Marvin
> On Feb 23, 5:45 pm, Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:57:47 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>> < snip a toned down version of the communist manifesto >
>>
>> The only part you omitted is that the "employee" risked nothing and
>> agreed to exchange his labor for a flat wage.
>>
>> The capitalist could lose his entire investment, and go broke.
>
> I have heard of "comparative advantage" but never of "comparative risk",
> interesting. So are you saying risks justify abuse and thievery?
First of all, the very basis of capitalism is that the government will
act to preserve the rights of ownership.
Your calling the right of ownership "abuse and thievery" just shows
you're a Marxist liar.
The worker agrees to work for a given wage, the capitalist agrees to pay
that wage in exchange for work. There's a quid pro quo, a contract. No
"abuse", and no "thievery". If there was abuse and thievery, then the
government needs to step in and stop whomever is committing it.
You Marxist, you always presume this silly straw horse of capitalism
means anarchy and no government. That's a big damned lie.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
>> < snip a toned down version of the communist manifesto >
>> The only part you omitted is that the "employee" risked
>> nothing and agreed to exchange his labor for a flat wage.
>> The capitalist could lose his entire investment, and go broke.
> I have heard of "comparative advantage" but never of "comparative
> risk", interesting. So are you saying risks justify abuse and thievery?
Nope, he is saying that paying someone to operate the plant
that you have paid for and are risking your capital is nothing
even remotely resembling anything like abuse or thievery.
No one is holding a gun to the employee's head and making it work for the wage on offer.
In spades with the professionals the capitalist employs.
<reams of shit that has nothing to do with what is being discussed flushed where it belongs>
Rod Speed
>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>> No asswipe, you failed. It's like the black and white, all or nothing
>> fallacy, where everything is with Nazi or Commy, fuck that thump sucks.
> You're still fucking brain dead, I see. Socialism is the government
> ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Like hell it is in western europe and the US.
> Communism is the government ownership of all property. Both are Marxist.
Pigs arse socialism as seen in ALL modern economys is.
> What is NOT socialism is the idea that the individual has the right to
> own the means of production. Since his very own hands are a means of
> production, the difference becomes a matter of slavery under socialism
You wouldnt know what real slavery was if it bit you on your lard arse, child.
> (the government owns whatever the individual produces with his own hands)
Thats communism, not socialism, child.
> or freedom. Freedom in the sense of the Ancient greeks where
> the individual is not a serf who has to pay a king or other ruler for
> the very right to exist - where that king or ruler has a RIGHT to
> what the serf makes with his own hands.
> But you're too stupid for that. All you see is a free ride on someone
> else's back for your stupid, lazy ass. You're such a loser you can't
> make it in the world, and you want a nanny state to take care of you.
> You want to suckle off Uncle's Sam's hairy teat. Well, boy, his milk
> is pretty bitter and you'll find that your wish to become a slave of
> the state is a fool's wish!
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
Rod Speed
>>> I explained it:
>> Like hell you did.
> No,
Yep.
> socialism is defined as the government ownership
> in the means of production and distribution of goods.
Only by fools. Real socialism is whats seen in EVERY modern
economy which are ALL a mixture of capitalism and socialsm,
even HongKong before it was handed back to china and the US.
Most socialism isnt even about the production and distribution
of goods at all, its about stuff like public educaton, welfare etc.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
> "Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating
> public or common ownership and cooperative management
> of the means of production and allocation of resources."
Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
> so·cial·ism
> /'so????l?z?m/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
> -noun
> 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the
> vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and
> distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. "
Mindlessly superficial. Doesnt even cover the extensive
socialism seen in western europe that aint anything like that.
> As I said, and you're both ignorant of and too lazy to check for
> yourself, is the government ownership of ALL property, means of
> production and just plain old goods.
Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.
> "com·mu·nism
> /'k?my??n?z?m/ Show Spelled[kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
> -noun
> 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of
> all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
> community as a whole or to the state."
> So please stop prattling your ignorant misconceptions in public.
Go and fuck yourself.
> Words have meaning, or do you lack the capacity for human speech?
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudalism
> Under the feudal system, who owned the land?
> The King, and then he granted land to his vassals.
It was MUCH more complicated than that, most obviously with yeomen.
> Land WAS the means of production because they had
> a privative agricultural society! The Serfs DIDN'T OWN the
> land - the means of production; The "government" did.
Utterly mangled all over again. Fuck all was owned by goverment.
> Under the feudal system, the serf didn't own the product of his own labors.
Pity about the yeomen.
> Under socialism, the citizen doesn't own the product of his own labors.
Wrong, as always. Everyone in western europe does.
> Same thing in action.
Pigs arse it is.
> Like I said, socialism is just feudalism with a press agent.
You can chant that pathetic little mantra till the cows come home
if you like, all it proves that you dont have a fucking clue.
>>> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>> You aint presented a shred of evidence whatever.
> One can present evidence,
You never ever have.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote
>>>>> and conservatives have been raking in the benefits of Fear ever since.
>>>> The fear is valid given 9/11, stupid.
>>> 9-11 happened because your lying sack of shit
>>> was working on tax cuts for the wealth class---
>> Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys, child.
> Tell that to the 5,000 dead American sericemen ya nazi asshole.
No one held a gun to their head and forced them to get involved, child.
Bret Cahill
Now what did they tell you about getting argumentative?
Bret Cahill
Rod Speed
> Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Liberals always advocate left socialism (communism) while
>> conservatives always advocate right wing socialism (Fascism).
> Yer talking economic vehicles.
Nope.
> Speak to the leaders and the POLITICAL ideology they exhibit
He just did.
> Both are usualy despotic and totalitarian---
Pigs arse the great democracys are, child.
> and THAT is "rightwing conservative" politically.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, child.
Rod Speed
> He sure as shit aint stupid enough to defend a lying sack of shit like
> bush or reagan who started us down the path of pissing the world off
> at us by our support of terrorists and despots.
Corse there was never ever any support for despots before raygun, eh child ?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> the media have helped greatly create the case that
>>> everything besides Foxnews is Marxism ass wipe.
>>> Are you really that stupid? I realize that you rarely
>>> have anything to offer but when you do, you
>>> put your foot in your mouth.
>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
> What a stunning admission that you think he's right.
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
> He is, of course
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For a halfwit using a perjorative like you do, a child seems far beyond your intellect.
Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.
Ray Fischer
You provide the cites but you don't even read them.
Typical rightard dumbass.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or
>common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production
>and allocation of resources."
Not "government". Common. Societal.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Ray Fischer
>>>
>>>> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>>>> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>>>> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the
>>>> country toward oligarchy.
>>>
>>>HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with
>>>liberty, or the liberal arts.
>>
>> were liberals.
>
>In the true meaning of the word liberals, yes. They were versed in logic,
>grammar, rhetoric, math, science and music.
And you are educated in none of those.
> They were dependent upon no
>one to tell them what to think:
And you are. You get all of your talking points from corporate-run
right-wing media.
> and they advocated liberty
And you oppose liberty.
> and not the
>government ownership of the means of production and distribution of
>goods.
And not the oligarchy that you stupidly demand.
Ray Fischer
>On Feb 23, 2:25 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Marvin <mar...@ontmars.org> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:21:20 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>> >> The liberal class, which historically has spoken for the interests of
>> >> the poor and middle classes, has largely been devastated, or at least
>> >> co-opted, by a corporate elite that is relentlessly driving the country
>> >> toward oligarchy.
>>
>> >HUh? First of all, the "Liberals" have nothing at all to do with liberty,
>> >or the liberal arts.
>>
>> Except for the fact that people like Franklin and Jefferson and Adamas
>> were liberals.
>
>to the USA Liberal party (Democrats).
And far from the big-government pro-corporate GOP.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Let's look at the intellectual rebuttal of a typical rightard ...
>
>You wouldnt know what a real rightard was
Smirk. Another one of your intellectual responses.
Rod Speed
>>> Let's look at the intellectual rebuttal of a typical rightard ...
>> You wouldnt know what a real rightard was
> Smirk. Another one of your intellectual responses.
Corse yours was stunningly intellectual, eh ?
Zerkon
> The liberal class, which historically
... evolved from the humanists.
An example of liberal philosophy begins with "When in the Course of human
events..." punctuated with the very liberal idea of "all are".
> We are all to blame and everything moral about our democracy stands to
> be lost...
I have read a lot of Hedges', at times, excellent stuff.
( http://www.truthdig.com/ ). but he wallows here. No 'we' are not all to
blame and the moral foundation has been lost not "stands to be lost".
There is no "our" democracy as there has not been even a constitutional
republic for well over 100 years.
Here is an American liberal yesterday:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Harris_Jones
Here is another today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges
what is missing between yesterday and today is the 'death' he speaks of.
Strabo
>>>>> the media have helped greatly create the case that
>>>>> everything besides Foxnews is Marxism ass wipe.
>>>>> Are you really that stupid? I realize that you rarely
>>>>> have anything to offer but when you do, you
>>>>> put your foot in your mouth.
>>>> Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, child.
>>> the shift in the populace from moderate to slightly conservative. The
>>> media also had no influence on the media to, stunningly twerp.
>>
>>
>>>>> I should have said either left socialism (Communism)
>>>>> as opposed to right socialism (Fascism)
>>>> Mindlessly silly.
>>> I know you cannot answer this question idiot, but, why is it mindlessly silly?
>>
>> Because it is, just like you are a terminal fuckwit because of your ear to ear dog shit.
>>
>
> Somehow I knew you would fuck up the answer to that question and yes,
> you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, loser.
>
That's the best you'll get out of him.
Strabo
> On Feb 23, 1:09 pm, Strabo<str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2011 1:29 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Marvin wrote
>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>> Marvin<mar...@ontmars.org> wrote
>>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>>
>>
>>>> I explained it:
>>
>>> Like hell you did.
>>
>>>> In both socialism and Feudalism the government owns
>>
>>
>>>> That you ignore the evidence shows you're fucking brain dead.
>>
>>> You aint presented a shred of evidence whatever.
>>
>>
>> The evidence is self-evident.
>>
>> Feudalism did, through the 'right of kings', control the means of
>> production and distribution. In that sense Feudalism was similar
>> to modern Socialism through one or more of with its variants:
>> Marxism, Fascism, or Communism.
>>
>> In essence, Socialism is the replacement of traditional or de facto
>> societal functions, usually through the imposition of law, with state
>> licensed regulations and procedures.
>>
>> Socialism is the process of a power elite controlling the structure
>> and will of a society. Socialism, usually through the application of
>> positive law, subverts the individual free will and initiative and
>> places him in a 'collective' and then passes law to control the
>> collective.
>>
>> Under Socialism as under Feudalism, the 'state' (or the king) controls
>> key elements of social behavior, ostensibly, 'for the good of all.'
>>
>> As an ideology, modern Socialism typically uses the term 'democracy'
>> to describe its methods in relation to the collectivized members of
>> society when in fact goals and the means to achieve them are determined
>> by a central committee of elites who stand outside the collective
>> spheres of influence. These goals are then achieved by manipulating
>> information and events in order to illicit an appropriate 'democratic'
>> response. This response gives legitimacy to the followup actions of the
>> elite and convinces the members of society of their rightness.
>>
>> In theory, in a well-ordered socialist society, the ties between the
>> elite caste and its collectives are seamless and its members,
>> satisfied. However, no form of Socialism has lasted for more than
>> three generations before falling into disrepute with catastrophic
>> consequences.
>>
>> The reality of life is that there is no free lunch. No form of
>> government can satisfy the demands and whims of the governed.
>>
>> Unlike Feudalism, which at least in the beginning was an honest deal
>> between a selected protective warrior chief within an agrarian society,
>> Socialism is a sham from the beginning. The 'good for all' collective
>> mantra of the Socialist is actually 'good for a few at the expense of
>> all others.'
>>
>> 'Collectivism', 'utopianism', 'commutarian', 'unionism', 'communities
>> of interest', 'communism' and 'democracies' are synonyms for the
>> socialist mindset.
>
> Wrong, you are so wrong, most nation states are currently socialist to
> some degree. There has never been a capitalist nation state.
>
> A "mixed" economy is a mix between socialism and capitalism. It is a
> hodgepodge of freedoms and regulations, constantly changing because of
> the lack of principles involved. A mixed-economy is a sign of
> intellectual chaos. It is the attempt to gain the advantages of
> freedom without government having to give up its power.
>
Hmmm, I didn't mention 'capitalism' nor did I compare econometrics.
I can't tie your response to my post. Perhaps you missed your target.
<snipped>
Strabo
> On Feb 23, 8:13 pm, Immortalist<reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 3:59 pm, tooly<rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
<snipped>
>>> There is no 'mixed economy' in the 'LONG RUN'...get it? When FDR
>>> established social security, the conservative naysayers warned it was
>>> not sustainable. Ok, took 60 some odd years to come to a head...but
>>> we all know now that these large transfer programs are simply NOT
>>> sustainable. Human nature is to take a mile once given an inch [why
>>> all these pension programs have become ridiculous in the public
>>> sector...actually better than private sector pensions and benies].
>>
>>> I think 'socialist' understand the 'long tern' reality...and see these
>>> 'MIXED' programs a their 'wedge' to obtain their long term
>>> goal...COMMUNISM [for the more radical]. It is the dialectic
>>> continuing it's zig zag through history, making it's way to that final
>>> 'long term' goal.
>>
>> Bullshit spin, worse than the news. Definitely a one sided view.
>> Whatever side I was on, if I knew any rhetoric I would reject you
>> approach here.
>>
>>
>
> Well, you are a 'socialist' there Immort. I would expect you to
> 'reject' it. I don't see you as a 'useful idiot' however. I wonder
> about the motivations of many who espouse all this 'socialist'
> claptrap these days. Since Obama, it has surged; like termites coming
> out of the woodwork or something, ha.
>
Motivation? 'Socialist' Claptrap?
There is an increasing awareness in the US that there is a
socio-political agenda levied against Americans which is antithetical
to the principles of liberty and freedom, and it has a name - Socialism.