The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Political Ammunition => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on October 30, 2008, 04:30:50 PM
-
http://www.orthodoxnet.com/news/WhySocialismAlwaysResultsInTyranny.html
By Adrian Krieg
WAKE-UP CALL AMERICA - 1998
The Controlling Elite Love Socialism for the People-Control Properties of the System, But for the Average Citizen the Results Have Always Been Disastrous.
In the 20th century there have been numerous political systems, but in the latter half of the century there were only two survivors, Socialism and Capitalism. So we have at this time in the Western world, which for all practical purposes controls the world, two opposing political systems. (I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).
It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.
The reason for this is inherent to socialism. It promises things that it cannot possibly deliver. When socialist politicians in power come to the realization that it is impossible to deliver on their promises and political unrest develops, they have two options if they plan to stay in power. First, they must locate a scapegoat on whom they can blame their inability to deliver. Any Jew can tell you who that was for the Germans and the Russians. The second is to develop, and rapidly so, a state security apparatus to keep them in office - the SS, the KGB, [Securitate, Stasi] etc.
The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism cannot work because the cost of services must be collected in the form of taxes, and this is not a sustainable possibility. The reason is that since government pays for all services, neither the producer nor the consumer cares about the cost, and hence there is an uncontrolled spiral of inflation (today's medical costs are a case in point and healthcare is not yet totally socialized). Furthermore, the government has no funds or assets. It only has the funds it confiscated from its citizens. The total inefficiency of a centralized bureaucracy does not help either.
Once citizens are weaned on this cradle-to-grave concept and are no longer self-reliant, they become wards of the state and will not accept any reduction of services. The government subsequently has no option but to reduce services, and as popular resistance develops State repression begins. This is the socialist cycle. It has been found to occur in every socialist state in existence to date.
The current most outrageous examples of this are North Korea and Cuba. These two societies share much in common - both are socialist, both are totalitarian, both have more political prisoners then any nation close to their size, both have non-working universal health care, in both the citizens suffer malnutrition, and both have food and fuel rationing. Their leaders and party members, in the meantime, eat caviar and drink champagne.
Socialism can never work in any environment. It violates human nature and logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The capitalist economic system differs greatly from its socialist adversary in numerous ways. While the socialist system is a top down centralized arrangement, the capitalist system, which can only exist in a free market economy that recognizes the right of private property, is totally controlled by the market itself. Interestingly, personal freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can also only thrive in free market economies. Capitalism is a sort of volatile and confusing situation where the capital markets dictate demand, price, and methods of distribution. The reason that the left is so very successful in criticizing capitalism is because it is not regulated and therefore difficult to explain. The reason capitalism works so well is that demand dictates production as well as price, thus avoiding market inequities and shortages.
Socialism's principal theorem is centralization of markets under government control. This has never worked and there is not one single instance in world history where centralized governmental market manipulation has been successful. This, however, does not deter the Robert Reichs (America's socialist Secretary of Labor who said, "Greedy corporations are screwing their employees, squeezing down wages while increasing profits." This statement, from an economic illiterate who has never in his entire life worked for, or in, a business that made a profit. He appears to me to be a little man with a Napoleon complex, who, while having no clue about anything to do with economics, presents himself as a great expert. Corporate downsizing, mergers, and staff reductions has a great deal to do with international trade policies, NAFTA, EC, WTO, etc. and very little to do with greed.) of this world, who continuously make every effort to centralize economic as well as social and political power for themselves and their Satori masters (the ruling elite).
George Washington said it best: "Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a fearful master." All capitalist functions are directed at free market concepts. A free market is one that serves society with little government interference. This concept is unpopular with the Satori because in order to attain more and more power they require centralization of all economic, social, and political functions. Because of their poor performance in the political frame they have altered their modus operandi and are now implementing their schemes through judicial activism. These judicial incursions, which by the way, in the United States are in violation of constitutional law, have been sold to the public based on the false misnomer that greedy capitalists don't care about the people, their welfare, safety, or health, but that politicians do.
This, without doubt, is a ludicrous statement. The capitalist must perform to market standards. Competition will put him out of business if he provides an inferior product or service. He is furthermore constrained by his customers, stockholders, board of directors, lending institutions, as well as numerous laws, and, if all else fails, product liability statutes. In addition there is a veritable alphabet soup of governmental agencies which oversee his product, conduct with employees, public safety, product safety, environmental compliance, and financial performance.
In fact capitalists are over-regulated, which causes a considerable burden to be put on the public in the form of increased prices. A noteworthy fact is: the most egregious acts against the consumer, the environment, and the public in general, have all been made by socialist states.
-
Almost every tyrannical rule were socialists, Soviet Union, Third Reich, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Camobidia, and Baathist Iraq. Need I say more.
-
Almost every tyrannical rule were socialists, Soviet Union, Third Reich, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Camobidia, and Baathist Iraq. Need I say more.
And now, the USA.
-
And now, the USA.
We are certainly headed in that direction.
-
And now, the USA.
We are losing freedoms and government is getting BIGGER.
-
So how much more will the people stand for, to regain our freedoms. Will we split? Are will we ride this horse right into communism? A million dollar questions.Will our constitution be next?????
-
Will our constitution be next?????
It will be if the liberals get their way.
-
Socialism is inevitably despotic because it cannot, by its very nature, permit competition, especially political competition.
In an economic sense it claims to provide service X. Ordinarlily service X would be supplied by providers A or B who in turn compete by providing better service at lower cost to attract ever-increasing shares of the market. In a free market system the exception to this is the monopoly, where one of the producers absolutely controls the entire market share. It no longer needs to compete because it can dictate cost and quality with impunity because the consumer has no place to go, i.e. voicing an economic vote.
In socialism the government steps and becomes that monopoly. If the commodity in question were healthcare the government cannot allow fre market healthcare to exist side-by-side. If the non-governemnt healthcare proves superior the amount of money collected for government supplied healthcare dwindles...or worse. The worse being a system supported by taxes which means only those who can afford private care while paying government taxes for a service provider they do not use could afford private care. Thus government services exacerbate the disparity between the haves and have-nots rather than alleviating them as promised.
But healthcare is a commodity that can come from numerous sources...political power is not. There can only be one federal government. Socialism is a monopoly on political power with all the attending ills economic monopolies bring, only with the power of the police and military behind them. A socialist system that is constantly dogged by competitors cannot exist even in definition. The role of president may transfer between parties every 4 to 12 years on average but centralized control of the means of the production cannot be turned off and on as if by a light switch. Once socialist policies are in place they must remain in place.
As conservatives we missed a golden opportunity to espouse the principles of federalism. We should have proclaimed loud and proud that if they want their government healthcare, gay marriage, welfare, public education, etc etc etc they were free and welcome to have it only with 1 caveat:
They must implement on a state level only.
We have 50 working social laboratories that can learn from each others successes and failures. We should be trumpeting the wisdom of that system and invite the left to enact their policies where they dominate politically while leaving the rest of the nation at peace.
-
Socialism is both tyrannical and a failure, because it allocates resources to where they do not belong.
The NY Times recently received 250 million dollars in bailout money. Not only is that inefficient (the Times should have been allowed to fail, so that its resources would go to more efficient uses), but that bailout money will be used to promote undemocratic propaganda.
-
Socialism cannot work because it is impossible to get more out of government than you put in.
-
(I have already previously stated that there is no basic difference between socialists and communists. There are, however, some very important factors relating to socialism of which you should be aware. Socialism will not work in a free market economy and, as a consequence it invariably deteriorates into a totalitarian state. Anyone wishing to argue that point is asked to point to one single instance where this was not the result).
Okay now, Socialism is NOT Communism
There are TWO branches of socialism.
1. Marxist Socialism
2. Non Marxist Socialism
Marxist socialism has the objective of becoming communism.
Marxist socialism is REJECTED now adays.
The modern idea of Socialism can coexist in a capitalist system.
It therefore behooves us to remember who the worst despotic governments of this century were: Nazis in Germany, Fascists in Italy, Communists in the USSR, [Romania, East Germany, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc.] and China - each and every one of them a paragon of socialist endeavor. Their leaders; Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin [Ceausescu, Tito, Pol Pot, etc.] and Mao Tse Tung. The outstanding legacy of these individuals is that they each tried to out-do the others in the total number of their own citizens which they murdered. It is a fact that each of these men killed more of their own civilian citizens than they lost in military conflict.
Nazi's were Facist, Fascism is extreme Conservative Authoritarianism
Modern Socialism is Moderate Liberal Moderate Libertarianism.
USSR was obviously communist not socialist. The USSR failed because of Price Controlling created inflation.
The reason for this is inherent to socialism. It promises things that it cannot possibly deliver. When socialist politicians in power come to the realization that it is impossible to deliver on their promises and political unrest develops, they have two options if they plan to stay in power. First, they must locate a scapegoat on whom they can blame their inability to deliver. Any Jew can tell you who that was for the Germans and the Russians. The second is to develop, and rapidly so, a state security apparatus to keep them in office - the SS, the KGB, [Securitate, Stasi] etc.
Once again Nazi's =/= Socialist
The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents
Guns have nothing to do with it, Taxes are a result of social programs not the motive.
Socialistic Capitalism. A regulated market is reasonable to avoid monopolies and promote competition.
Socialism has nothing to to with national police.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialism cannot work because the cost of services must be collected in the form of taxes, and this is not a sustainable possibility.
I challenge you to find a nation that doesn't have taxes.
Hell, ROADS are a bad social program under this guys definition.
The reason is that since government pays for all services, neither the producer nor the consumer cares about the cost, and hence there is an uncontrolled spiral of inflation
Once again. Communism.
Socialism can never work in any environment. It violates human nature and logic.
Not true. Socialism is a type of social contract. So is Democracy and totalitarianism.
Both Capitalism and Socialism are HUGELY flawed. Thats why there's socialistic capitalism, its a middle ground.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The capitalist must perform to market standards. Competition will put him out of business if he provides an inferior product or service. He is furthermore constrained by his customers, stockholders, board of directors, lending institutions, as well as numerous laws, and, if all else fails, product liability statutes. In addition there is a veritable alphabet soup of governmental agencies which oversee his product, conduct with employees, public safety, product safety, environmental compliance, and financial performance.
In fact capitalists are over-regulated, which causes a considerable burden to be put on the public in the form of increased prices. A noteworthy fact is: the most egregious acts against the consumer, the environment, and the public in general, have all been made by socialist states.
Different industries require different levels of regulation. We can't see laissez faire as a one size fits all solution.
-
Socialism is both tyrannical and a failure, because it allocates resources to where they do not belong.
The NY Times recently received 250 million dollars in bailout money. Not only is that inefficient (the Times should have been allowed to fail, so that its resources would go to more efficient uses), but that bailout money will be used to promote undemocratic propaganda.
What? The New York times is THE best newspaper on the entire planet.
It's objective and widespread. I can't find any evidence that they gave bailout money either.
-
Hey, Bert, sir, how about explaining the difference between "socialism" and "communism"?
I've looked up and down, high and low, hither and yon, here and there, over and under, and can't discern it.
Illuminate us, please.
-
What? The New York times is THE best newspaper on the entire planet.
It's objective and widespread. I can't find any evidence that they gave bailout money either.
Cancer is "objective and widespread" too, but being objective and widespread doesn't make the NY Slimes "THE best newspaper on the planet."
I'm not going to have time to get into a huge discourse with you on this issue, Bertram, but let's just say that divulging classified information - deliberately - is not a hallmark of responsible journalism.
Are you saying that such a practice is acceptable?
-
It's humorous how liberals always attempt to distance themselves from their like-minded ilk in the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei simply because their ethos was of white racial purity and the context of the day is to enslave those of other races outside of Caucasian in the U.S. to the modern Democrats' party banner.
-
Why Socialism Always Results in Tyrannical Rule
It's simple. The lazy, the slack, the not so bright have to driven with a whip while the bright, the industrious, the ambitious have to be restrained with a chain.
-
Okay now, Socialism is NOT Communism
There are TWO branches of socialism.
1. Marxist Socialism
2. Non Marxist Socialism
Marxist socialism has the objective of becoming communism.
Marxist socialism is REJECTED now adays.
The modern idea of Socialism can coexist in a capitalist system.
Nazi's were Facist, Fascism is extreme Conservative Authoritarianism
Modern Socialism is Moderate Liberal Moderate Libertarianism.
USSR was obviously communist not socialist. The USSR failed because of Price Controlling created inflation.
Wrong. Communism is a governmental model that incorporates Socialism as it's economic model. There are three types of economic models, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
Socialism - The government owns all means of production
Capitalism - The means of production are owned by private citizens
Fascism - The means of production are owned by private citizens, but controlled by the government
Socialism and Capitalism cannot coexist. Any merging of the two essentially forms Fascism.
As for Communism, again, it's a governmental model in the same way a Republic, a Democracy, a Constitutional Monarchy, and so forth are governmental models.
-
Hey, Bert, sir, how about explaining the difference between "socialism" and "communism"?
I've looked up and down, high and low, hither and yon, here and there, over and under, and can't discern it.
Illuminate us, please.
Basically, there are different forms of socialism, but none meet the definition in that thing that guy wrote above.
What he should be saying is totalitarianism. All the governments he mentioned are totalitarian. The Nazi's weren't socialist.
Cancer is "objective and widespread" too, but being objective and widespread doesn't make the NY Slimes "THE best newspaper on the planet."
I'm not going to have time to get into a huge discourse with you on this issue, Bertram, but let's just say that divulging classified information - deliberately - is not a hallmark of responsible journalism.
Are you saying that such a practice is acceptable?
Socialism to wikileaks in one transition. Awesome.
The times and the Gaurdian went through every document and censored it accordingly.
There was a thing on CSPAN about it a month ago or so. And the Pentagon came out and said that what they did isn't going the harm the United States.
Wikileaks aids transparency and forces accountability.
Much of what they have released just paints the picture of a wasteful and unnecessary secret world, it counters corruption.
And as for objective news media, there's no argument that objective news media is bad. And a tip: Your argument stemmed directly from an analogy without any positive matter to enforce it. At least, the analogy was far too unrelated to your point.
Anyways, isn't it the medias responsibility to point out when our government is involved in questionable practices?
-
Basically, there are different forms of socialism, but none meet the definition in that thing that guy wrote above.
No, there aren't. It's a simple definition and no matter what kind of new ways you try to redefine it, it doesn't make it true. You can have your own opinions; you cannot, however, have your own facts.
-
Wrong. Communism is a governmental model that incorporates Socialism as it's economic model. There are three types of economic models, Socialism, Fascism, and Communism.
Socialism - The government owns all means of production
Capitalism - The means of production are owned by private citizens
Fascism - The means of production are owned by private citizens, but controlled by the government
Socialism and Capitalism cannot coexist. Any merging of the two essentially forms Fascism.
As for Communism, again, it's a governmental model in the same way a Republic, a Democracy, a Constitutional Monarchy, and so forth are governmental models.
Communism is an economic model not a government model. Any first year political science major knows that.
Socialism can and does coexist with capitalism. And it does. Look at the United States. Social Security and Medicare are socialized programs, some of our markets are heavily regulated. We still are capitalist system.
-
Communism is an economic model not a government model.
Wrong.
-
No, there aren't. It's a simple definition and no matter what kind of new ways you try to redefine it, it doesn't make it true. You can have your own opinions; you cannot, however, have your own facts.
You understand that there is Marxist Socialism and Non Marxist Socialism right?
-
Socialism to wikileaks in one transition. Awesome.
The times and the Gaurdian went through every document and censored it accordingly.
There was a thing on CSPAN about it a month ago or so. And the Pentagon came out and said that what they did isn't going the harm the United States
I believe Eupher was refering to the leaks the New York Times was solely responsible for on the Treasury Dept. monitoring of Al-Qaeda's international money transfers that had led to the capture of wanted Al-Qaeda planner and financier Hambali. You might want to educate yourself on that incident a bit further before coming up with a rebuttal.
-
You understand that there is Marxist Socialism and Non Marxist Socialism right?
By the ordering of the terms you're under the false impression that Socialism is a governmental model. Again, wrong.
-
I believe Eupher was refering to the leaks the New York Times was solely responsible for on the Treasury Dept. monitoring of Al-Qaeda's international money transfers that had led to the capture of wanted Al-Qaeda planner and financier Hambali. You might want to educate yourself on that incident a bit further before coming up with a rebuttal.
So the times ****ed up. That's doesn't nullify justification for there existence.
Can you give me a link for that though? I can't find one that talks about the times. It will be useful when arguing against wikileaks in the general sense.
-
So the times ****ed up. That's doesn't nullify justification for there existence.
Can you give me a link for that though? I can't find one that talks about the times. It will be useful when arguing against wikileaks in the general sense.
They, didn't just "**** up". They are responsible for doing Al-Qaeda's leg work for them, stole an arrow from the U.S. DoD's quiver and are collaterally resposible for subsequent deaths resulting from the absence that this program could've been employed for in the quicker destruction of Al-Qaeda's operational ability.
-
We can kind of split hairs wordsmithing definitions to the point of a haze that no one understands.
To me Communisim is inevitably failing socialism being inflicted on the people via the barrel of a gun to the personal gain of a few and the misery of all the rest.
-
So the times ****ed up. That's doesn't nullify justification for there existence.
Can you give me a link for that though? I can't find one that talks about the times.
It will be useful when arguing against wikileaks in the general sense.
First off, it's "their" not "there". Secondly, only an idiot cites Wikipedia. While helpful as a repository, there are links at the bottom of the page to verify claims that should be cited. Lastly, the NY Times is the most left-wing biased MAJOR newsprint in the nation. They spin shit ALL the time.
-
By the ordering of the terms you're under the false impression that Socialism is a governmental model. Again, wrong.
I didn't say socialism was a government model. Or if I did, I did not intend to. If I implied it, it was unintentional.
Communism is an economic system which, in Marxist Theory may be a form of Government. But in reality it has always under a totalitarian government. If you can find an example to the contrary I am interested.
This is why arguing about isms is annoying. It's all theory, and often reality contradicts the definitional theory. But still. Nazi's weren't socialist. National Socialist yes, but that's a fascist ideology/party. And socialism in itself does not reflect the article the OP posted. Marxist Socialism can lead to communism and a totalitarian government that reflects it, but not in and of itself.
-
I didn't say socialism was a government model. Or if I did, I did not intend to. If I implied it, it was unintentional.
Communism is an economic system which, in Marxist Theory may be a form of Government. But in reality it has always under a totalitarian government. If you can find an example to the contrary I am interested.
This is why arguing about isms is annoying. It's all theory, and often reality contradicts the definitional theory. But still. Nazi's weren't socialist. National Socialist yes, but that's a fascist ideology/party. And socialism in itself does not reflect the article the OP posted. Marxist Socialism can lead to communism and a totalitarian government that reflects it, but not in and of itself.
How about you explain the differences between Socialism as an economic model and Communism as an economic model.
This should be interesting. I promise you, I won't buy it, but it'll be interesting nonetheless. :whatever:
-
First off, it's "their" not "there". Secondly, only an idiot cites Wikipedia. While helpful as a repository, there are links at the bottom of the page to verify claims that should be cited. Lastly, the NY Times is the most left-wing biased MAJOR newsprint in the nation. They spin shit ALL the time.
I didn't cite Wikipedia. And back in MY day, you could site Wikipedia, but that's anther story for another day.
Also, misuse of there/their/they're is acceptable as this is an informal grapholect. So correction of grammar is unnecessary. Not to mention it takes away from your substantive matter.
But you brought up an interesting idea. Whether it's objective or not is subjective. Subjective enough that it might not be worth discussing whether or not it is.
-
How about you explain the differences between Socialism as an economic model and Communism as an economic model.
This should be interesting. I promise you, I won't buy it, but it'll be interesting nonetheless. :whatever:
I haven't taken Political Philosophy yet so I don't feel confident enough to explain it.
-
I haven't taken Political Philosophy yet so I don't feel confident enough to explain it.
Is Bill Ayers taking time off?
-
I didn't cite Wikipedia. And back in MY day, you could site Wikipedia, but that's anther story for another day.
Also, misuse of there/their/they're is acceptable as this is an informal grapholect. So correction of grammar is unnecessary. Not to mention it takes away from your substantive matter.
But you brought up an interesting idea. Whether it's objective or not is subjective. Subjective enough that it might not be worth discussing whether or not it is.
When was "back in your day"? 2007? As for defending the misuse of their, they're, and there, just damn. Acceptable? What school do you attend?
-
"Cite" not "site". ....and when was "back in your day"? 2007? As for defending the misuse of their, they're, and there, just damn. Acceptable? What school do you attend?
It's my sleep deprivation that's leading to my errors. I attend Cape Cod Community Lollege.
As far a community colleges go, it's on the better side. We get all the professors that used to teach at other institutions that then came to the Cape to retire, then decided that without spreading their knowledge their lives were meaningless.
-
It's my sleep deprivation that's leading to my errors. I attend Cape Cod Community Lollege.
As far a community colleges go, it's on the better side. We get all the professors that used to teach at other institutions that then came to the Cape to retire, then decided that without spreading their knowledge their lives were meaningless.
You mean...discovered they couldn't afford to retire in the socialist hell hole they had helped to create.
-
You mean...discovered they couldn't afford to retire in the socialist hell hole they had helped to create.
So education is bad?
What?
-
So education is bad?
What?
NO. The dumbasses voted for a lot of socialist programs in that area. That in turn drove up prices and property taxes to a point that their retirement income won't support them in that area. We get a lot of those idiots moving in down south here because they can no longer afford to live up there. ...and GAWDDAMMIT, they want to repeat the same DAMN mistakes here.
-
NO. The dumbasses voted for a lot of socialist programs in that area. That in turn drove up prices and property taxes to a point that their retirement income won't support them in that area. We get a lot of those idiots moving in down south here because they can no longer afford to live up there. ...and GAWDDAMMIT, they want to repeat the same DAMN mistakes here.
Ask the Coloradans. Ask people in Wet Washington what happened when they were "Californicated". Liberals fled California due to the policies they helped create and then went somewhere else to do the same shit. Liberals think all failed policies didn't work because "they" didn't do'em right. They're obtuse to the fact that they're failed due to their very nature of existing. They're trying something now that even William Bradford determined wouldn't/couldn't work.
-
NO. The dumbasses voted for a lot of socialist programs in that area. That in turn drove up prices and property taxes to a point that their retirement income won't support them in that area. We get a lot of those idiots moving in down south here because they can no longer afford to live up there. ...and GAWDDAMMIT, they want to repeat the same DAMN mistakes here.
Yeah... Our taxes are pretty high.
-
Yeah... Our taxes are pretty high.
Ergo the high cost of socialism.
-
Socialism to wikileaks in one transition. Awesome.
~rest of drivel snipped due to Bert's failure to stay on topic.
Nobody said a thing about wikileaks until you started yapping about it. Wake up, Bert. We're talking the NY Slimes, not Assange.
And as for objective news media, there's no argument that objective news media is bad. And a tip: Your argument stemmed directly from an analogy without any positive matter to enforce it. At least, the analogy was far too unrelated to your point.
Anyways, isn't it the medias responsibility to point out when our government is involved in questionable practices?
WTF are you talking about? Since when is OBJECTIVE news media "bad?"
You are in no position to give me a "tip" on anything, Bert. It didn't take long for my bullshit detector to detect bullshit. Once you put the crack pipe down and sober up, you'll realize just how much of a dumbass you're appearing to be.
And when the NY Slimes and the LA Slimes start determining what "questionable practices" are, we're all in trouble -- which is exactly my point. Both newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal in scope and flavor and their editorial process is therefore tainted in that direction.
And btw - classified information is just that - classified.
When you sober up, tell me how long you've worked in or for the government and when that approximates my time in that regard, we can talk further. Until then, pound sand up your ass, Bert buddy.
-
I believe Eupher was refering to the leaks the New York Times was solely responsible for on the Treasury Dept. monitoring of Al-Qaeda's international money transfers that had led to the capture of wanted Al-Qaeda planner and financier Hambali. You might want to educate yourself on that incident a bit further before coming up with a rebuttal.
Thanks, Odin, but the NY Slimes is responsible for a shitload of leaks -- not just those you cited. But those will do for our illustration with our latest dumbass.
-
So the times ****ed up. That's doesn't nullify justification for there existence.
Can you give me a link for that though? I can't find one that talks about the times. It will be useful when arguing against wikileaks in the general sense.
Keep looking, Bert buddy. I'm not going to do your research for you.
-
It's my sleep deprivation that's leading to my errors. I attend Cape Cod Community Lollege.
As far a community colleges go, it's on the better side. We get all the professors that used to teach at other institutions that then came to the Cape to retire, then decided that without spreading their knowledge their lives were meaningless.
Nappy time for the youngster. And those "professors" that you're citing? They're all liberal moonbats feeding their bullshit straight down your gullet. You might want to belch before you continue - otherwise you'll explode from the gas.
-
It appears that someone needs to spend more time learning spelling and grammar so an intelligent statement can be posted. No one "sites" anything here; some may "cite" things, however.
Now where is that "IGNORE" button?
-
As for Wikileaks relationship with the times. I don't like this one bit.
The reason the Washington Post didn't get to put out the cables, and the Times did is because the Post printed something about Jillian that Wikileaks didn't like....
Obviously the Times does not want to be in that position, so it's being held hostage, so to speak, into printing only good thinks about Mr. Assange.
Shaddy....
-
Ergo the high cost of socialism.
:thatsright: A flock of missed epiphanies wantonly winging about this thread in abundance :huh?:
-
The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents
You know there are enough things wrong with socialism that you dont need to make up stuff to discredit it. None of these things except mabye 4 have much to do with socialism. I dont even know how you got 3.
-
You know there are enough things wrong with socialism that you dont need to make up stuff to discredit it. None of these things except mabye 4 have much to do with socialism. I dont even know how you got 3.
Point out where ANY of the tenants are wrong, and why.
-
I dont even know how you got 3.
FFS!...here we go again!
Junior, do your research on the Nazi "Waffengesetz" of 1938, the USSR's "Art. 182 Penal Code" of 1929 and China's "Art. 9 Security Law" of Oct. 22, 1957 during "The Great Leap Forward" and then get back to us.
-
Point out where ANY of the tenants are wrong, and why.
Ok.
Socialism according to the dictionary.
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.
Socialism according to a Socialist(Noam Chomsky)
control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions",
Socialism according to a Capitalist(Ayn Rand)
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,'
Points 1 2 and 4 could perhaps be applied to socialism. Perhaps. But 3 5 and 6 have nothign to do with it except in your paranoid Glenn Beck fantasy.
-
FFS!...here we go again!
Junior, do your research on the Nazi "Waffengesetz" of 1938, the USSR's "Art. 182 Penal Code" of 1929 and China's "Art. 9 Security Law" of Oct. 22, 1957 during "The Great Leap Forward" and then get back to us.
But there are lots of non-socialist nations that dont have guns(The UK), as well as socialist countries that do have guns(Switzerland) and there is no doctrine within the ideology of Socialism that I can find(mabye you can find it for me) that calls of disarming the populace.
-
But there are lots of non-socialist nations that dont have guns(The UK), as well as socialist countries that do have guns(Switzerland) and there is no doctrine within the ideology of Socialism that I can find(mabye you can find it for me) that calls of disarming the populace.
Bitchslapped for refusing to do your own homework.
-
Bitchslapped for refusing to do your own homework.
I did do my homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Now do you have anything to add that will support your case or criticize mine or are we just exchanging plesantries here?
-
But there are lots of non-socialist nations that dont have guns(The UK), as well as socialist countries that do have guns(Switzerland) and there is no doctrine within the ideology of Socialism that I can find(mabye you can find it for me) that calls of disarming the populace.
So what you're saying is if I were a British or Swiss citizen that did not approve of the socialist system I could opt-out and still live my life as I saw fit within those nations.
Is that what you're saying?
-
But there are lots of non-socialist nations that dont have guns(The UK), as well as socialist countries that do have guns(Switzerland) and there is no doctrine within the ideology of Socialism that I can find(mabye you can find it for me) that calls of disarming the populace.
The U.K. isn't socialist? With marginal personal-income tax rates at 50%? WTF are you smoking?
To own a firearm in Switzerland you MUST be a member of the state militia. How's that for personal liberty?
It is never about disarming the ENTIRE populace. It is about disarming cultural segments of the society (Jews in Germany, political rivals of said faction, etc.) that are deemed undesirable by those with aspiration for politburo power.
Here's a couple of quotes from the most ardent practioners of socialism in history on their views on universal gun rights for individuals:
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -Mao Zedong's Little Red Book
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead."~Adolf Hitler in his Chancelor's Speech in 1935
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." Vladimir Lenin's April Theses
-
The U.K. isn't socialist? With marginal personal-income tax rates at 50%? WTF are you smoking?
To own a firearm in Switzerland you MUST be a member of the state militia. How's that for personal liberty?
It is never about disarming the ENTIRE populace. It is about disarming cultural segments of the society (Jews in Germany, political rivals of said faction, etc.) that are deemed undesirable by those with aspiration for politburo power.
Here's a couple of quotes from the most ardent practioners of socialismAuthoritarianism in history on their views on universal gun rights for individuals:
"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -Mao Zedong's Little Red Book
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead."~Adolf Hitler in his Chancelor's Speech in 1935
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." Vladimir Lenin's April Theses
Every man in Switzerland is a part of the Swiss militia you dolt. That means that EVERYONE HAS A GUN.
Who is it in America that the socialists plan on disarming? So far the only people being disarmed are known felons.
All those people you mentioned also had another thing in common, they were dictators. Could it perhaps be that this is the reason they disarmed people?
-
Every man in Switzerland is a part of the Swiss militia you dolt. That means that EVERYONE HAS A GUN.
Who is it in America that the socialists plan on disarming? So far the only people being disarmed are known felons.
All those people you mentioned also had another thing in common, they were dictators. Could it perhaps be that this is the reason they disarmed people?
Damn, you are dumb. The fact that they MUST be a member of the militia means they are part of the collective whims of the state's decrees and cannot own a firearms without being so. Personal liberty is cast aside to do so.
Who are they planning on disarming? The same people that tyrants always attempt to disarm...their political rivals.
Another unifying feature is that they (dictators) all used SOCIALISM as their mechanism and ideology for expanding and wielding control over the citizenry.
-
Damn, you are dumb. The fact that they MUST be a member of the militia means they are part of the collective whims of the state's decrees and cannot own a firearms without being so. Personal liberty is cast aside to do so.
But everyone in every nation is already that, those "decrees" you are talking about are called laws. Just because they are "part of the collective" doesnt mean that they dont personally own guns and couldnt use them just as effectivly as a man not "part of the collective".
Who are they planning on disarming? The same people that tyrants always attempt to disarm...their political rivals.
In other words... you? Oh my, how self-important we are.
Another unifying feature is that they (dictators) all used SOCIALISM as their mechanism and ideology for expanding and wielding control over the citizenry.
If there was an Olympic medal for missing points youd win the Gold.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation
Please start making an argument or go home.
-
But everyone in every nation is already that, those "decrees" you are talking about are called laws. Just because they are "part of the collective" doesnt mean that they dont personally own guns and couldnt use them just as effectivly as a man not "part of the collective".
And "Laws" can conflict with personal values. To be forced to comply with a "law" against one's personal moral code and therefore be held as treasonous just to "own arms" is about as collective (socialist) as you can get. Effectivity is irrelevant.
In other words... you? Oh my, how self-important we are.
Sure, me...or anyone like me across the globe.
If there was an Olympic medal for missing points youd win the Gold.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_equal_causation
Please start making an argument or go home.
The reduction of opposition is essential to gaining power. Disarming the strength of an opponent to inflict violence upon you or your followers is "the cause". The most tyrannical individuals in the history of the planet all share this same doctrine of socialism as the means. That is a cold, hard fact a smarmy ***** like you will never be able to distort.
-
And "Laws" can conflict with personal values. To be forced to comply with a "law" against one's personal moral code... is about as collective (socialist) as you can get. Effectivity is irrelevant.
Laws within themselves are socialist. You heard it here folks!
Sure, me...or anyone like me across the globe.
So its a GLOBAL socialist conspiracy now. Me thinks you need to stop watching so much Glenn Beck.
The reduction of opposition is essential to gaining power. Disarming the strength of an opponent to inflict violence upon you or your followers is "the cause". The most tyrannical individuals in the history of the planet all share this same doctrine of socialism as the means. That is a cold, hard fact a smarmy ***** like you will never be able to distort.
There have been lots of Dictators in the history of the world, even before Marx. You still havent shown me
any sort of causation.
-
Nazis Germany
Soviet Union
Maoist China
Khmer Rouge Cambodia
North Korea
Burma/Myanmar
Mengistu Ethiopia
Baathist Iraq
Baathist Syria
Hmmmmmmm. What they have in common? They are all socialists!
-
Nazis Germany
Soviet Union
Maoist China
Khmer Rouge Cambodia
North Korea
Burma/Myanmar
Mengistu Ethiopia
Baathist Iraq
Baathist Syria
Hmmmmmmm. What they have in common? They are all socialists!
No one is arguing that Socialism isnt a stupid system. Just dont start spouting stupid shit about centralized national police and taking away guns.
-
I did do my homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
Now do you have anything to add that will support your case or criticize mine or are we just exchanging plesantries here?
You are a complete moron, evidently. And apparently you have to be shown just how stupid you are.
No problem, I have a few minutes to oblige. First, you said this:
But there are lots of non-socialist nations that dont have guns(The UK), as well as socialist countries that do have guns(Switzerland) and there is no doctrine within the ideology of Socialism that I can find(mabye you can find it for me) that calls of disarming the populace.
The bolded part is why you got bitchslapped. And that's why you're getting bitchslapped again.
I'd engage in your conversation, but since you're having your ass handed to you so easily by Odin's Hand, I'll just observe. :popcorn:
-
You are a complete moron, evidently. And apparently you have to be shown just how stupid you are.
No problem, I have a few minutes to oblige. First, you said this:
The bolded part is why you got bitchslapped. And that's why you're getting bitchslapped again.
I'd engage in your conversation, but since you're having your ass handed to you so easily by Odin's Hand, I'll just observe. :popcorn:
How do you figure that?
-
How do you figure that?
:rotf:
I rest my case.
-
Laws within themselves are socialist. You heard it here folks!
Laws are a social contract. They exist to the end that the suppression of liberty by ALL within their national scope must be adhered to. In Switzerland, to adhere to this law is the suppression of an individual's liberty to own a firearm without a blessing by the state government unless the citizen is a resource of the state (militiaman) and executes the commands of the government fully.
So its a GLOBAL socialist conspiracy now. Me thinks you need to stop watching so much Glenn Beck.
Yep...ever hear of the U.N? You know, that "governing" entity liberals like yourself worship? You know, UNODA and their Arms Trade/Small Arms Treaty? Yeah, that's what you call "global".
Recently, we even had Washington D.C. try to ban arms from citizen's ownership, outside of government officials security details, etc. until it was struck down in Heller vs. the District of Columbia
There have been lots of Dictators in the history of the world, even before Marx. You still havent shown me
any sort of causation.
Yet, every single socialist that rises to nationalistic power seems to be vehemenant in installing weapon limitations on undesirables. That was the premise of your first smart-assed comment. You stated that no "socialist documents advocated taking away firearms from citizens". I provided quotes and historical examples of where they did and you still disregard them. It's simple, if the ownership of arms doesn't serve these dictator's desires, they remove the weapons by force (Waffen-SS, NKVD/KGB Directorates, Stasi, Red Guard, etc.)
To end, I'll quote Marx himself when he said in his "10 Planks of Communism" from the Communist Manifesto..."Confiscation of the property (weaponry especially) of all emigrants and rebels."
and also Thomas Jefferson's quote of "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"~Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, pg. 334
-
Yet, every single socialist that rises to nationalistic power seems to be vehemenant in installing weapon limitations on undesirables. That was the premise of your first smart-assed comment. You stated that no "socialist documents advocated taking away firearms from citizens". I provided quotes and historical examples of where they did and you still disregard them. It's simple, if the ownership of arms doesn't serve these dictator's desires, they remove the weapons by force (Waffen-SS, NKVD/KGB Directorates, Stasi, Red Guard, etc.)
To end, I'll quote Marx himself when he said in his "10 Planks of Communism" from the Communist Manifesto..."Confiscation of the property (weaponry especially) of all emigrants and rebels."
But they were not exclusively socialists. They were also authoritarians and dictators. I gave you an example of a non-authoritarian socialist state which allowed gun ownership. What I am arguing is that the confiscation of Firearms is not something inherent in Socialism.
You added the "(weaponry especially)" to that. If you look at the other "planks" youll find things like the abolishment of inheritance and abolishing the distinction between city and country and other things I dont think most socialists in the west seriously advocate.
-
But they were not exclusively socialists. They were also authoritarians and dictators. I gave you an example of a non-authoritarian socialist state which allowed gun ownership. What I am arguing is that the confiscation of Firearms is not something inherent in Socialism.
You added the "(weaponry especially)" to that. If you look at the other "planks" youll find things like the abolishment of inheritance and abolishing the distinction between city and country and other things I dont think most socialists in the west seriously advocate.
BS, Switzerland is not a "socialist government". They hold free elections regularly, have a MULTI-party legislature (a violation of Marxism's "one people, one party"), and their personal, marginal tax rates are below 50%.
Remember this do ya? When the government tried to disarm the nation? It was shot down in a national referendum by the citizens of the nation.
http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/2011/02/swiss-to-lose-their-rifles.html
Let's see what a "Western Socialist" like Hugo Chavez has to say on these issues.
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/17/venezuela-congress-grants-hugo-chavez-decree-powers/
"Rule by decree". Don't like it? You can rot in prison then.
http://www.hispanicprwire.com/News/in/14012/10/venezuelan-president-hugo-chavez-confronted-on-political-prisoners-at-summit-of
This is socialism in practice today as it has been since it's inception. You may live in a fantasy land of words and not actions, but this the actions of the modern, Western socialist.
-
But they were not exclusively socialists. They were also authoritarians and dictators. I gave you an example of a non-authoritarian socialist state which allowed gun ownership. What I am arguing is that the confiscation of Firearms is not something inherent in Socialism.
You added the "(weaponry especially)" to that. If you look at the other "planks" youll find things like the abolishment of inheritance and abolishing the distinction between city and country and other things I dont think most socialists in the west seriously advocate.
Socialism is collectivism. All collectivist governments end up at the authoritarian end of the political spectrum no matter how well intentioned they begin, and authoritarianism requires that the citizenry have a disadvantage in firepower versus the police and/or military. Under collectivism, only the group (nation/race/religion/ideology/majority) has rights. Not individuals.
The National Firearms Act of stripped the citizenry of the right to possess class-three weapons manufactured after 1986. After hurricane Katrina, our semi-socialized government disarmed the residents of New Orleans their firearms. Those who think it cannot happen here are blind.
-
Id like to just restate that Im not at all for Gun Control or Socialism. I just think its stupid that people keep drawing that conclusion. There ARE gun control advocates and there ARE socialists who want to implement their agenda. But this kind of paranoid wacking off isnt the way to stop them, in fact it HELPS them by making those on the Right look like nutjobs(I still to this day think Glenn Beck is a liberal plant. No one is that stupid on accident).
We have to argue with them on their own terms, we have to argue against the actual arguments they are making(No socialist in the western world is arguing for a national police force to round up dissidents). The reason we do that is if we go "WELL THATS WHAT HE SAYS BUT WHAT HE REALLY MEANS IS______" then the debate is pointless. Then they can pull the same thing on us "THEYRE REALLY JUST RACISTS" "THEY JUST HATE POOR PEOPLE" and then the discussion goes nowhere, its not a discussion at all its just name calling.
-
Socialism seems pretty cool until you meet actual party affiliated socialists. Those ****ers are crazy.
-
It's humorous how liberals always attempt to distance themselves from their like-minded ilk in the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei simply because their ethos was of white racial purity and the context of the day is to enslave those of other races outside of Caucasian in the U.S. to the modern Democrats' party banner.
I love reminding liberals of this. They always stand in shock after hearing the Nazis were socialists. It's true and political spin and the media has warped peoples minds so that they'll forget. Professors in colleges have something to do with the spin as well of course.
-
Very interesting to read this thread since the coronation of Emperor Obinga. All that stuff that the banned liberals posting here, were screaming would never happen?
Guess what? Like it was put in overdrive.
:ownit:
You stupid bastards
The basic tenants of socialism are:
1. Seduce the populace into accepting the government as the arbitrator of all problems; government from cradle-to-grave
2. Begin delivering on those services to make the citizens dependent
3. Take away the citizens' guns
4. Increase taxes on all services while destroying any free market alternative services
5. Blame the chosen scapegoat for the inability to meet demand for services
6. Have the centralized national police force round up any dissidents
1. Went to plaid starting in '09.
2. ObingaCare. Own it.
3. Boy, are you little assholes trying.
4. ObingaCare. Own it. It's whole purpose is to destroy the private insurance industry.
5. Blame the Tea Party. For everything.
6. This is happening. Disbelieve it, at your peril.
Nice list. Very prescient.