[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Boy this thing turned into one big cluster fuck in a hurry didn’t it.[/quote]
It’s a raving fucking nuthouse, this forum.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The goal of Socialism IS destruction. That’s the goal of the Left.
[/quote]
x2
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Don’t you watch him? How may examples would you like to see? How did he feel about limiting corporate profits?
With regard to who?
How did he feel about capping salaries of executives?
Fine- just like he should’ve felt when these cocksuckers were accepting (begging for) federal bailout money.
There’s no reason that execs should get million dollar bonuses from tax money- nevermind the point that they put their companies in that position in the first place.
That’s not socialistic as much as it is common sense.
By the way, you and Trib got your own militia yet? Or do you guys just share ideas for now?[/quote]
fine. Maher is a shining beacon of capitalism. I have no energy to argue this stupid point with you. even your insults are too weak to address.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Boy this thing turned into one big cluster fuck in a hurry didn’t it.
It’s a raving fucking nuthouse, this forum.[/quote]
yawn…yet you are still here.
[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.
Read a book, please. Do you even know what communism is?
Free education to all children, centralized banking, and a progressive income tax are all part of the socialist movement to bring about the classless utopia that it called Communism.
Sound familiar to you?[/quote]
Those are also part of social democracy. What’s your point? The important part that makes it socialism is expropriation of the capitalists and the common ownership of the means of production.
By your standards, many mainstream economists would be socialists.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.
Read a book, please. Do you even know what communism is?
Free education to all children, centralized banking, and a progressive income tax are all part of the socialist movement to bring about the classless utopia that it called Communism.
Sound familiar to you?
Those are also part of social democracy. What’s your point? The important part that makes it socialism is expropriation of the capitalists and the common ownership of the means of production.
[/quote]
No. Socialism is a movement by which expropriation of the capitalists and the collective ownership of the means of production come to fruition. Communism is the sought after reality brought about by socialism.
Social democracy is an intermediary between capitalism and communism that includes socialist transitional policy.
My point is that any individual socialist policy, perpetuates ALL other socialist policies. This is the very foundation of communism: that is it the inevitability that arises from capitalist class struggle.
The problem, though, is that men are not ants and that class struggle is also an inevitability.
Totalitarianism out of socialism is the end-game outlet for creative-destruction on the sovereign level.
[quote]
By your standards, many mainstream economists would be socialists.[/quote]
Many certainly are.
Most modern(Keynesian) economists support 3 or 4 of the conditions for transition to communism.
But, many also support price caps and other price controls, which is de facto ownership of the means of production being regulated. With the inclusion of price controls and open ended authority to confiscate private land or rental property for public appropriation, almost the complete model of conditions of transition to communism is included.
The remaining relevant conditions: abolition of inheritance rights, centralization of communication and transport, and confiscation of emigrant property, come to fruition through totalitarian measures.
At this point It’s clear to me that you’re unfamiliar with many of the tenets of socialism.
Everything I’ve written describing socialism and socialists(except in **) in this thread I’ve taken exclusively from The Communist Manifesto or Marx’s related writings.
Have you read Marx?
If not, I suggest you do before commenting further on the vehicle he enumerated.
lim@infinity
Ryan seems to be the only person here who actually knows what socialism is. Maybe this whole debate is just the result of people not knowing terminology?
[quote]limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.
Read a book, please. Do you even know what communism is?
Free education to all children, centralized banking, and a progressive income tax are all part of the socialist movement to bring about the classless utopia that it called Communism.
Sound familiar to you?
Those are also part of social democracy. What’s your point? The important part that makes it socialism is expropriation of the capitalists and the common ownership of the means of production.
No. Socialism is a movement by which expropriation of the capitalists and the collective ownership of the means of production come to fruition. Communism is the sought after reality brought about by socialism.
Social democracy is an intermediary between capitalism and communism that includes socialist transitional policy.
My point is that any individual socialist policy, perpetuates ALL other socialist policies. This is the very foundation of communism: that is it the inevitability that arises from capitalist class struggle.
The problem, though, is that men are not ants and that class struggle is also an inevitability.
Totalitarianism out of socialism is the end-game outlet for creative-destruction on the sovereign level.
By your standards, many mainstream economists would be socialists.
Many certainly are.
Most modern(Keynesian) economists support 3 or 4 of the conditions for transition to communism.
But, many also support price caps and other price controls, which is de facto ownership of the means of production being regulated. With the inclusion of price controls and open ended authority to confiscate private land or rental property for public appropriation, almost the complete model of conditions of transition to communism is included.
The remaining relevant conditions: abolition of inheritance rights, centralization of communication and transport, and confiscation of emigrant property, come to fruition through totalitarian measures.
At this point It’s clear to me that you’re unfamiliar with many of the tenets of socialism.
Everything I’ve written describing socialism and socialists(except in **) in this thread I’ve taken exclusively from The Communist Manifesto or Marx’s related writings.
Have you read Marx?
If not, I suggest you do before commenting further on the vehicle he enumerated.
lim@infinity
[/quote]
Well, if your definition of “socialist” is “someone who supports something proposed in the Communist Manifesto” then we have no choice but to conclude that, oh, Otto von Bismarck was a socialist. Also pretty much every other politician of any party everywhere in the world since about 1900.
If Keynes is a socialist - could you maybe quote the page in the General Theory where he calls for government ownership of the means of production?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Full blown socialism means no one in the medical field will profit from their work. Do you understand the consequences of this?
The goal of Socialism IS destruction. That’s the goal of the Left.
[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Ryan seems to be the only person here who actually knows what socialism is. Maybe this whole debate is just the result of people not knowing terminology?[/quote]
Actually, it’s a bunch of people who all of a sudden, because of popular trend, think that socialism is a really swell idea.
Isn’t it obvious? 1 year ago I didn’t hear anything positive about this so called “socialist society”, but then after the election, EVERYONE is a fucking expert on how socialism is the best cure for “the economy dude”, and how capitalism is “the fucking worst dude” for the country.
The same rolls for how EVERYONE is a fucking expert on what conservatism is… The same assholes that were badmouthing “Barry Goldwater conservatism”, are now in favor if it??? WTF?
This is just fucking stupud… And so are these “say one thing, mean another” assholes. Go fuck yourselves.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we should go full blown socialized medicine
You really aren’t playing with a full deck are you? I really hope your joking and I just missed it.
Let’s leave aside whether it’s even a good idea or not (it’s not). Let’s just talk about money. There is no fucking way on God’s green earth that we can afford that right now or for the foreseeable future. That amount of spending is simply not feasible.
You are allowed to disagree, just my opinion. I believe the Ins. Companies are making too much profit on the whole thing as we know it. You do know where that profit comes from?
Profit drives free market business. It provides jobs. Are you promoting unemployment? Are you promoting spending on credit?
Is profit evil to you?
Profit is the excess of the money spent
The excess of what?
what the costs were[/quote]
But at the same time they drive costs down in order to stay competitive?
Surely there must come a point in time where that competition more than sets off that initial disadvantage?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we should go full blown socialized medicine
You really aren’t playing with a full deck are you? I really hope your joking and I just missed it.
Let’s leave aside whether it’s even a good idea or not (it’s not). Let’s just talk about money. There is no fucking way on God’s green earth that we can afford that right now or for the foreseeable future. That amount of spending is simply not feasible.
You are allowed to disagree, just my opinion. I believe the Ins. Companies are making too much profit on the whole thing as we know it. You do know where that profit comes from?
yeah, it comes from the productivity of the employees and assets of the company.
Insurance companies are basically banks today and banks are Insurance companies. It is a big Goat fuck. There are no mechanics, it is all shuffling paper and creating wealth.
So what?
As long as they are creating wealth?
they are creating wealth at your expense (maybe not yours)but any body that has medical ins.[/quote]
Oh, no if they are “creating wealth”, which they do, they do not do it on anybodys back.
Your argument is the tired old, “OMG, OMGm, they profit from other peoples disease and misfortune!”
Well, a baker profits from your hunger, a tailor from your need of clothes, there are even people who have the audacity to demand money for electricity, gas and water!
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Full blown socialism means no one in the medical field will profit from their work. Do you understand the consequences of this?
Everybody would make a wage, maybe not the best system, but I believe it to be better than the INS companies running everything.
There is a word for people who have this ideal…COMMUNISTS. Insurance companies do not run everything Mr. Baldwin.
what you do not want our government to tax us but it is ok for a private corporation to do so[/quote]
Yes, because they have no guns and I can switch companies if they fuck up.
Do you know what happens when your Ford sucks?
You get a Toyota.
Do you know what happens when your Trabant sucks?
You weep like a little girl.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we should go full blown socialized medicine
You really aren’t playing with a full deck are you? I really hope your joking and I just missed it.
Let’s leave aside whether it’s even a good idea or not (it’s not). Let’s just talk about money. There is no fucking way on God’s green earth that we can afford that right now or for the foreseeable future. That amount of spending is simply not feasible.
You are allowed to disagree, just my opinion. I believe the Ins. Companies are making too much profit on the whole thing as we know it. You do know where that profit comes from?
yeah, it comes from the productivity of the employees and assets of the company.
Insurance companies are basically banks today and banks are Insurance companies. It is a big Goat fuck. There are no mechanics, it is all shuffling paper and creating wealth.
So what?
As long as they are creating wealth?
They’re supposed to be providing a service at the same time, not merely creating wealth.
and for a fuck lot of people, they’re not providing the service they claim to be and are really just robbing them.
creating wealth is fine and dandy when you provide a reasonable service.[/quote]
Then I guess that would be a good time to get a new insurance provider.
Or, if you feel that their service is not worth it, cancel your contract as soon as you can.
Since you just bitch and probably are insured, their service is a) either worth your money our b) you just cannot be asked for some reason to shop around a little bit so everyone has to have Stalinist health care.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious of what everybody would say to do away with public education and create companies to find land, build schools, hire teachers and staff, maintain landscape and buildings and allow them to make a profit. How many people think we would have a better system than we do now? I would bet we pay twice as much and get half of what we get now. And the corporations we pay would be smoking wealthy, and they would be part of the right wing which would have itâ??s puppets saying Oh we need to keep our education private, it does not matter that only half of the kids in America get an education, it does not matter that all these private corporations do is add on profit to every thing they pay for. [/quote]
Really?
Look at the Washington school voucher programs and weep.
The beginninghttp:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32805-2004Jun10.html
The results:
The end:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/133248.html
To sum it up for you:
Private schools are safer, have less dropouts and better academic achievements at far less costs then public schools, especially for minorities that do not do so well in the public school system.
Unfortunately teachers unions do not like the idea because people prefer private schools if they can choose so and they contribute lots of money to the Democrats so this program had to die.
The private school where Barack Obama will send his kids too will miss two students this year, because the school voucher program was ended.
Interestingly enough that means that the people you would entrust with building a public school system that works prefer to send theirs to private schools.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
As far as me being a comunist, I am not I say we need to socialize medicine
Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.
Let me ask you 2 questions:
-Is social security being run well or is it broke?
-Is Medicare running well or is it on the brink of being broke?
Let’s add universal healthcare to that, but this time it will be full of hope…and…(please help me finish this statement)
Let me ask you something. Is your precious private enterprise doing a good job providing medical care? (I’ll give you a hint: hell no.) Have a discussion, but don’t pretend we can do nothing.
[/quote]
Let me ask you something:
Is there a free market in the US when it comes to healthcare?
For if not, how can it have failed?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
limitatinfinity wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Rockscar wrote:Every time you type you prove to us more and more that you have communist ideals.
Read a book, please. Do you even know what communism is?
Free education to all children, centralized banking, and a progressive income tax are all part of the socialist movement to bring about the classless utopia that it called Communism.
Sound familiar to you?
Those are also part of social democracy. What’s your point? The important part that makes it socialism is expropriation of the capitalists and the common ownership of the means of production.
By your standards, many mainstream economists would be socialists.[/quote]
What he quotes is directly from the 10 point of the communist manifesto.
It is a “How to destroy the bourgeoisie in 10 easy steps” manual.
[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Ryan seems to be the only person here who actually knows what socialism is. Maybe this whole debate is just the result of people not knowing terminology?[/quote]
yeah, he is a real wealth of knowledge. Way to latch on to one of the least intellegent posters on the board. You two will get along just fine.
[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Ryan seems to be the only person here who actually knows what socialism is. Maybe this whole debate is just the result of people not knowing terminology?[/quote]
???
There are plenty of people here who know what socialism is. There are also people who understand why it is bad for society.
The person you name does not fall into the latter category.
Just in case there are really people who want to know more about socialism and the ills it seeps out onto the masses here is Ludwig Von Mises’ 600 page meisterwerk, Socialism: