Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Apt Description of the Recent “Anti-War” Protest

You know the one I'm referring to...

Yahoo! News - The Home Front: The media have pushed the idea that the demonstration this weekend at the White House was an "anti-war" gathering. What they didn't say was who was behind it.

No doubt, many fine, sincere people demonstrated this weekend against the U.S. liberation of Iraq. Being Americans, they're certainly entitled to do so.

Maybe they even endorsed the view of those who organized the demonstrations. On Thursday, the organizers ran a two-page ad. On one, they called the Bush administration liars. On the other, they ran the names of all those who have died in Iraq.

But we'd be surprised if those well-meaning folks understood whose banner they were marching under, because the media aren't reporting it. For the record, the lead organizer is ANSWER, which the media routinely refer to as an "antiwar group."

It is nothing of the sort.

In fact, ANSWER is a front group for the Stalinist Workers World Party. And any group that qualifies for that epithet in front of its name deserves special scrutiny, since Josef Stalin was responsible for the murder of as many as 25 million human beings.


Which begs the question - why doesn't the MSM report what International A.N.S.W.E.R. is and why don't they report what their views are? If the MSM is really the "right-wing media" or the "conservative media" as many on the left will tell you, why aren't they broadcasting this information far and wide?

So why do communists -- particularly those who march under Stalin's flag -- get different treatment? And why do thousands of average people feel comfortable marching arm in arm with them?

It's a puzzle. After all, according to the "Black Book of Communism" -- a widely cited and respected compendium of communism's crimes in the 20th century -- communist regimes murdered as many as 100 million people over the last century.

That's quite a record. Indeed, all the century's great mass murders -- Mao Zedong (65 million), Stalin (25 million), Hitler (21 million), Pol Pot (2 million) -- were communists or socialists.

Yet many well-meaning people who marched this weekend perhaps didn't know all this. Or perhaps they don't mind having their cause besmirched by people who aren't really anti-war at all, but anti-America, anti-West, anti-freedom and anti-capitalist.

It's disappointing that so many marchers will demonstrate, heedless that they're being used by people who hold them -- and their bourgeois pacifism -- in contempt.

Maybe it proves the old adage: Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.


Well said. Notice that the author properly recognizes that Hitler was a socialist. Bringing that fact up always makes those on the left froth at the mouth for some reason.

Comments

Avatar for Dave

Well said. Notice that the author properly recognizes that Hitler was a socialist. Bringing that fact up always makes those on the left froth at the mouth for some reason.

He was also a pro-life Christian.

However, that is as pertinent to the discussion as his economic views.

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

He was also a pro-life Christian.

Yeah whatever Dave. You have a distorted and upside down view.

likwidshoe on September 27, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for Paul L.

He was also a pro-life Christian.

How about link to back up your “fact”
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Hitler was a pagan, vegan and believed in euthanasia (master Race) and animal rights.

Paul L. on September 27, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for keep it simple

so should everybody have worn an identical t-shirt? I don’t care about organizations of acronyms, I’m against the administration doing what they’re doing. If I had attended, I would have liked my presence to be recognized as belonging to general dissent. It’s sad that so many think of peaceful resolve being the will of moonbatty wingnuts...real people want reform, but that’s lost in the media as well and certainly not given support by posts like above.

keep it simple on September 27, 2005 at 12:09 pm
Avatar for Dave

http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/issuehol/

By some yard-sticks, Adolph Hitler might have been labeled as “pro-life”. He was outspoken in his opposition to abortion for German women, seeing them simply as the breeders for the Aryan master race he envisioned. While abortion had been widespread in Germany prior to the rise of Nazism, Hitler issued a law which made the act of helping in an abortion a penal offense.

And Paul, your link shows that Hitler was a Christian, so I’m not sure why you posted it. Thanks for saving me the time of proving every last point, no matter how well-known to the general populace, to the the anal-retentive members of this site.

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Notice that the author properly recognizes that Hitler was a socialist. Bringing that fact up always makes those on the left froth at the mouth for some reason.

Probably because he wasn’t a socialist. Socialism is properly understood as an economic system and is usually contrasted with capitalism. Hitler was certainly statist, a belief he shared with Stalin, but I doubt that any serious observer would label Hitler socialist while keeping a straight face.

As for A.N.S.W.E.R. being a front for some other sinister group...I’ve never looked into them so I don’t know.

MikeAdamson on September 27, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for Dave

Btw likwid, with which claim of mine did you disagree?

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for Paul L.

Dave the site you linked has a section called Reproductive Rights that shows that they have chosen/support the pro-abortion/choice side and I would not take them as a unbiased information source.
http://rac.org/advocacy/issues/issuereprts/
Please note in the line “the opposition to abortion for German women, seeing them simply as the breeders for the Aryan master race.” in your retort.
Does Hitler oppose abortion for Jews/Blacks/Gypsies or any other people he considered inferior?

As for Hitler being a Christian,
This link indicates he was probably neither a Christian or atheist.
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html
Also of interest.
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=29530

Paul L. on September 27, 2005 at 01:10 pm
Avatar for Dave

Interesting links. Perhaps we can all take the lessons of the second one to heart:

As for your chat-room experiences, well, my friend and source David Gehrig noted that Hitler still sets the gold standard for “easiest rhetorical cheap shot.” He related a comment from Usenet that there is an empirical law: As a Usenet discussion gets longer, the probability that someone in it will compare someone else in it to Hitler asymptotically approaches 1. In other words, atheists looking for a quick cheap-shot may claim Hitler was a Christian; similarly, Christians looking for a quick shot may claim he was an atheist. Know what? Hitler was a vegetarian! Oooh, those evil vegetarians! He also recommended that parents give their children milk to drink instead of beer and started the first anti-smoking campaign. (So by the “reasoning” used in these types of arguments, if you are truly anti-Hitler, you should smoke heavily and only give your baby beer!) Better watch out, though he was an oxygen-breather, too! In other words, does it really matter whether Hitler was an atheist or a Christian or whatever? Just because somebody may hold a particular worldview (along with other views) doesn’t make him a spokesman for that view, or even remotely representative of others who hold that view. No matter how his madness is painted, he was still evil incarnate.

I have one more quote to share on this topic. This, again, from David Gehrig: “Let’s save the rhetorical comparisons to Hitler and Nazis for those who really deserve them--hate groups who proudly assume the Nazi mantle, and ‘Holocaust revisionists’ who would fantasize away Hitler’s genocidal crimes.”


Eh?

Mine was a cheap shot. I apologize.
Likwid’s was a cheap shot. (........)

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 02:09 pm
Avatar for robert108

Firstly, Hitler was a socialist.  The name of his Party was the National Socialist Party.  “Nazi” is the first syllable of “national”, which is German for national. In German, “t” is pronounced as “ts”. Volkswagen, commisioned by Hitler, means “peoples car”.  In the usual socialist way, it was to be the car for the masses in the glorious Third Reich.  The difference between Hitler’s socialism and socialism in general is that Hitler meant it only for the Germans.  Socialism is generally an utopian philosophy for everyone.  It is only an economic system in the sense that economics in the socialist view is to attain social goals, not economic ones.  The sort of economics socialists use has some degree of government control of supply, ranging from ownership of the major means of production to ownership of everything, including the population.  This last form is generally known as communism.  It is the most extreme form of socialism.
What I find amusing about this so-called protest is how violent it is.  To me, protest or dissent is disagreement, not advocacy of an anti-US ideology, in this case.  What they are doing looks a lot like treason:  advocating the violent overthrow of the government of the United States.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 03:09 pm
Avatar for Dave

Good post, Robert.

For the hell of it: Is treason ever justified?

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

Well, no. As is typical of the left, they have tried to hide the true nature of their behavior by relanguaging it.  Instead of treason, they call it protest or dissent, and then pretend it’s OK and perfectly legal and American.  Some of them, like Hillary, assert that they are being patriotic by advocating the overthrow of our government.  They want the power, can’t get it by legal means(voter majority), so they say they are entitled to overthrow the wishes of the voters.  They also insist, without any evidence, that the elections were fixed(only the ones that went against them) to justify their treasonous activities.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

ds, you need to back off the ‘shrooms, acid, and meth before you forget how to swallow and drown to death on your own spit.

2Hotel9 on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for WOOF

You need to go to Belgium, France, Holland and explain to those boys buried under the crosses in the 1940’s that they were fighting not Fascists but Socialists.

What ridiculous revisionist history you espouse.

WOOF on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

Those Fascists were Socialists.  Not political parties, but their way of governing.  You either have freedom, or you don’t.  What you call yourself when you aren’t free is irrelevant.  What brand of slavery do you prefer?

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

woofie, they don’t need anything explained to them. They knew the enemy and destroyed it where they found it. To bad they did not make it home to kill the perptuators of the anti-human,anti-freedom, anti-America BS you have been taught to spew.

2Hotel9 on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

One more thing.  The original subject of this thread was about the “anti-war” protest.  It’s really an anti-US protest.  The proof:  They aren’t protesting the war the terrorists are carrying on.  It’s not new, and it has nothing to do with current US policy.  They just hate the US.  Woof has a good point, though-they’re undoubtedly all Democrats.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for davesmith

this country was founded on treason.  just because it has the word social in it does not mean the idea has anything to do with hitler or stalin...that is pure ignorance and one sided lemming thinking...as if there where only two sides and all things fit into either one or the other.  Do you not understand complexity....police, firemen, water pumped to your home, gas, electricity are all social services.  Without more social control of for instance the enviroment, we will repeat the mistakes of the last 60 years and completly deplete nature past any point of regeneration, the regeneration rely on to EAT, DRINK, and BREATHE.  A capitalist model of necessary free input GAUARANTEES this.  And funny thing is even if we were to attempt to use our massive science and technology and inteligence to fix the problem, we get shut down and laughed at and labled liberals and hippies.  The fact is that any attempt to fix any of the major problems that threaten to destroy the human race go completely against the capitalist model...only small attemtps are made to CONTROL THE PROBLEM, but with necessary expodential growth of the market to sustain itself, no amount of small fixes can compete the speed of the beast’s growth.  Socialism in nature cannot not be accomplished without socialization of the market for nature along with only one other factor...man as a laborer, constitutes the ultimate necesarry input to run capitalism.  How else is it possible...this is pure logic...if you deplete the water suply, you MUST FIND MORE somewhere else...elements cannot be created out of nothing. Do yourself some favors and read some books, read many because our system is geared to educated you to only a very thin slice of the pie.  Weather or not global warming exists as result of man *which it sureley does ha ha to you idiots who say no( or weather it is a natural cycle of the planet makes no difference at all.  AT ALL.  The fact is the source of our existence is being destroyed FASTER THAN IT CAN REGENERATE and let me reiterate once more this is do to the fact that this is a necessary requirement for the survival of a capitalist system.  Whatever you want to say about socialism, however you want to blindly link it to some dictators who used the WORD to propagate their agendas, just as the United States uses the word DEMOCRACY to propagate our agenda’s, socialism of nature is the only way to save ourselfs.  socialism in nature by default must include the market.
on Treason, it is only a simple division of those who have fallen for the bait and been so thuroughly mind fucked and conformed that they resist common sense on a univeral level, vs those people who have learned to actualy seperate themselves from mindset of the capitalist system and see reality.  Just one second of truth with litteraly awaken you to a process of learning that will make your old brainwashed assumptions remind you of when you believed in santa claus.  Anyway, why should you lable someone as treasonous for simply advocating an intense study and discussion of a more intelligent and effective way of life for everyone...is is because you fear to lose your hot showers.  Do you really think that the fourth branch of the goverment AKA the media exists simply because it generates huge amounts of revenue...why not just sell everyone opium and educate them to think that it is not so bad for them...the MEDIA exists to control and shape your thought overtly and subconciously, and from madison ave to Hollywood to washington DC there are billions and billions of dollars being spend to perfect the mindstate that has been seered into the majority of people who participate in this Blog.  Read a book.  And when your done, do the research to make a logical descion, even if that requires reading ten more books.  Also do yourself a favor and travel the world so you can get a first hand reality check of what people outside the mindfuck device think about your foolishness.  HOW ABSOLUTLEY FUCKING RETARTED ARE YOU to think that democrats advocate the overthrow of the goverment...seriously....HOW FUCKIN UNEDUCATED ARE YOU you really don’t think that there are billionaire democrats....these two parties are so tied to together its not even funny....the only reason the illusion of seperation exists is to keep the people seperated, and to hash out minute superficial issues between corporations.  Global corporations and WALL STREET completly own both parties....you really think that on one hand they advocate a facist state and on the other the overthrow of goverment...your thought process is a joke.  Both sides advocate the MARKET.  Wall street is the emperer of the world, Capitalism must be fed at all times.  Republican power is called into play to make the necessary advances and overhalls of the system that the people...or some of us...are still smart enough to distrust.....when the people grow to unrully the democrats are called into play to offer sugar candies and appease the massess to stave of revolution.  THEY ALL WORK FOR WALL STREET you blind morons.  Have fun and take all the time you want to rip apart this post...that is after all your job as a facist minion of wall street.....your just taught to believe that you represent a SIDE that stands for certain MORAL and LEGAL ideas.....fools will one day awake from there illusion but it may take more bombs, floods, etc to do the trick for you lemmings.  catch you on the frontlines sucka’s....Long Live Cindy Sheehan, the GAZA strip, and the education system you attempt to dismantle and subvert that thankfully at this point at least still produces more intelligent people than you angry fucks can deal with. peace on earth and realize that the universal conciousness will grind the capitalist system into the dust if when it becomes necessary as means of planetary survival....if we do nothing or only minimal mind fuck little fake attempts to stop this, the human race may not be so lucky.

davesmith on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

Ah yes-Woof’s liberal rant.  It’s good we have the elitists to tell us, the proletariat(in their view) how to live.  Your use of “environmentalism” to sell your slave rant is a nice touch.
Two things:  the free enterprise system is creative, not destructive, and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will never lead to the utopian communist state you envision.  You don’t get freedom from slavery.  Reductio ad absurdem.
Oh, yes.  How is it that the government, which is elected and appointed, is so wise and all-knowing?  It isn’t.  They are self-serving parasites, in most cases.  At best, they are well-intentioned fools.  Why should I trust them?  I trust myself first.  That’s the difference between conservatives and liberals.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for Dave

They just hate the US. Woof has a good point, though-they’re undoubtedly all Democrats.

From what I’ve heard of them, they’re mostly Greens, Socialists, Communists, and radical libertarians. You can’t have it both ways--they can’t be radicals AND members of the second most popular political party in the country.

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 07:09 pm
Avatar for WOOF

Likwid: better link on Federal revenues
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
in constant 2000 dollars in Billions
2000 2025.2

2002 1780.5

2005 1833.1

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/Tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?DocID=200&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=23

WOOF on September 27, 2005 at 07:09 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Firstly, Hitler was a socialist. The name of his Party was the National Socialist Party.

The National Socialist Party was no more socialist than the Church of Jesus Christ Christian is Christian.

As is typical of the left, they have tried to hide the true nature of their behavior by relanguaging it.

“Relanguaging” is apparently not the sole property of the left if we are to believe that socialism is not to be understood as a system of economic relationships but rather the new name for statism leading towards totalitarianism as you seem to be saying in your posts.

You either have freedom, or you don’t. What you call yourself when you aren’t free is irrelevant.

This is true when it comes to the bottom line but it speaks to something different from competing models of economic organisation. I could accept the argument that every socialist believes in the curtailment of individual liberties but I don’t accept your premise that every believer in the curtailment of liberties is a socialist.

What should we call those who opposed the rights of the individual before socialism was born? Was Henry VIII a commie? Were the advocates and defenders of slavery socialists?

MikeAdamson on September 27, 2005 at 07:10 pm
Avatar for davesmith

your analysis is as ignorant as my rant.  one point i was saying that there are billionair democrats, and you completly reversed my point as you did with some of my other points that by the way no i don’t care to elaborate on because precisely i don’t care and i’m sure thats the one peace of information you want anyway so congradulations the bible was written in esoterics by the way so stop the diss and just to answer the one question you asked the PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE FREE MARKET IS IT PROMOTES WASTE AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT ON RENEWEBILITY FOR THE MARKETS TO SURVIVE IS JUST WRONG.  they don’t want it to survive for ever they just want to take control of everything wich aparently takes some time but when they do your preciuos free market will be abondoned why can’t you see that i am not so angry as you think just playing the roll of what you blindly hate.  why did you get rid of your picture anyway lik wid is it because your mind is as one dimensional as your chest....see playing like that so put down the gun before you hurt somebody.
“my soul is prepared....how bout yours doctor jones” EXCERTY FROM INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
“hey Lama” CADDY SHACK

davesmith on September 27, 2005 at 08:09 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

Dave said, Likwid’s was a cheap shot. (……..)

Please, show me where the cheap shot is Dave.

davesmith said, this country was founded on treason. just because it has the word social in it does not mean the idea has anything to do with hitler or stalin…that is pure ignorance and one sided lemming thinking…

Agreed. It is a good thing that nobody here did that. Or were you just speaking in generalities and making a point?

Without more social control of for instance the enviroment, we will repeat the mistakes of the last 60 years and completly deplete nature past any point of regeneration, the regeneration rely on to EAT, DRINK, and BREATHE. A capitalist model of necessary free input GAUARANTEES this.

No it doesn’t. A capitalist model coupled with the necessary private property rights and environmental laws gives us the opposite result. A business’ primary purpose is to make profit and to stay in business. One can’t do that if there is nothing left to utilize.

And funny thing is even if we were to attempt to use our massive science and technology and inteligence to fix the problem, we get shut down and laughed at and labled liberals and hippies. The fact is that any attempt to fix any of the major problems that threaten to destroy the human race go completely against the capitalist model…only small attemtps are made to CONTROL THE PROBLEM, but with necessary expodential growth of the market to sustain itself, no amount of small fixes can compete the speed of the beast’s growth.

Would you please elaborate on these points? I think I see where you are going, but I would like to actually know before I make any comment.

Do yourself some favors and read some books, read many because our system is geared to educated you to only a very thin slice of the pie.

What in dear heavens are you talking about?

Weather or not global warming exists as result of man *which it sureley does ha ha to you idiots who say no...

Oh goodie! You have undeniable evidence then! I await your answer.

( or weather it is a natural cycle of the planet makes no difference at all. AT ALL.

Nice cover. Did you say this to excuse yourself for having no evidence? It certainly appears that way.

The fact is the source of our existence is being destroyed FASTER THAN IT CAN REGENERATE and let me reiterate once more this is do to the fact that this is a necessary requirement for the survival of a capitalist system.

You have asserted this twice now. Care to elaborate on why?

Whatever you want to say about socialism, however you want to blindly link it to some dictators who used the WORD to propagate their agendas, just as the United States uses the word DEMOCRACY to propagate our agenda’s, socialism of nature is the only way to save ourselfs.

How in the world does that make sense?

on Treason, it is only a simple division of those who have fallen for the bait and been so thuroughly mind fucked and conformed that they resist common sense on a univeral level, vs those people who have learned to actualy seperate themselves from mindset of the capitalist system and see reality.

You certainly have it out for capitalism, which is nothing more than economic freedom. I wonder though, why you believe that one can only see if one seperates oneself from the mindset of economic freedom.

Just one second of truth with litteraly awaken you to a process of learning that will make your old brainwashed assumptions remind you of when you believed in santa claus.

You sure make a lot of assumptions and vague colorful illiterations.

...and from madison ave to Hollywood to washington DC there are billions and billions of dollars being spend to perfect the mindstate that has been seered into the majority of people who participate in this Blog. Read a book. And when your done, do the research to make a logical descion, even if that requires reading ten more books. Also do yourself a favor and travel the world so you can get a first hand reality check of what people outside the mindfuck device think about your foolishness.

I don’t care what people outside of the “mindfuck device” think about. When I look at the world, I can see who and where the “mindfuck devices” are. I also look to see where people are moving to and immigrating to. America tops that list. Apparently “people outside the mindfuck device” disagree with you.

HOW ABSOLUTLEY FUCKING RETARTED ARE YOU to think that democrats advocate the overthrow of the goverment…seriously….

You only have to pay attention and listen. Many of them are advocating in no uncertain terms exactly that.

HOW FUCKIN UNEDUCATED ARE YOU you really don’t think that there are billionaire democrats….

Huh. You must have never heard of Theresa Heinz Kerry. Her husband ran for President in the last election. You must have never heard of Bill Gates. He’s the owner and founder of Microsoft. You must have never heard of George Soros. He is the multi-billionaire Hungarian market manipulator who happens to be a chief funder of a lot of Democrat causes. You must have never heard of Peter Lewis. He is the billionaire owner of Progressive insurance and gives many millions to a smorgasboard of Democrat groups.

It appears that it is you who is “ABSOLUTLEY(sic) FUCKING RETARTED(sic)” and “FUCKIN(sic) UNEDUCATED”. You also appear more than a bit,..shall we say..unhinged.

YOU you really don’t think that there are billionaire democrats….these two parties are so tied to together its not even funny….the only reason the illusion of seperation exists is to keep the people seperated, and to hash out minute superficial issues between corporations. Global corporations and WALL STREET completly own both parties….you really think that on one hand they advocate a facist state and on the other the overthrow of goverment…your thought process is a joke.

So you claim. Completely missing from your increasingly comical diatribe is any explanations of why you believe the above.

Both sides advocate the MARKET.

And yet one side (and increasingly the other) do so much to tear down the market through higher taxes, expensive and burdensome regulations, usurpation of private property rights, and etcetera. How would you explain those contradictions? Or is that just a “FUCKING RETARTED” question to ask? Perhaps you don’t know?

Republican power is called into play to make the necessary advances and overhalls of the system that the people…or some of us…are still smart enough to distrust…..

I have to know: why do you distrust economic freedom?

...when the people grow to unrully the democrats are called into play to offer sugar candies and appease the massess to stave of revolution.

Yes. The Democrats are “generous” with other people’s money. It is that socialism screed they follow and that you endorse. “Sugar candies to appease” succinctly describes.

THEY ALL WORK FOR WALL STREET you blind morons.

Is that so? Well isn’t that special?

Have fun and take all the time you want to rip apart this post…that is after all your job as a facist minion of wall street…..

Could you define “facist” for us? I looked into the dictionary and have found that you are using a different definition. Please do provide it for us.

...your just taught to believe that you represent a SIDE that stands for certain MORAL and LEGAL ideas…..fools will one day awake from there illusion but it may take more bombs, floods, etc to do the trick for you lemmings. catch you on the frontlines sucka’s…

Let me guess good sir: everybody is blind and you can see the light? Why should I believe your seemingly unhinged rant over someone who is, shall we say, more fluid with the language and who offers a better explanation?

Long Live Cindy Sheehan, the GAZA strip, and the education system you attempt to dismantle and subvert that thankfully at this point at least still produces more intelligent people than you angry fucks can deal with.

Are you talking of the education system that is failing more and more people with lower grades and higher drop out rates? That education system? Perhaps, davesmith, if you took the time to listen to the complaints instead of pigeonholing everybody who has a different opinion as “facist” and “angry fucks”, you could begin to form an argument instead of the petty namecalling and perhaps, just perhaps, understand why some of us have issues with the education system and how it is currently run.

peace on earth and realize that the universal conciousness will grind the capitalist system into the dust if when it becomes necessary as means of planetary survival….if we do nothing or only minimal mind fuck little fake attempts to stop this, the human race may not be so lucky.

Last question before you angrily exit: why do you believe the capitalist system or economic freedom is inheriently a bad thing for planetary survival?

I do have to thank you davesmith, for you have aptly and positively affirmed the point of the post. The point being that the “anti-war protests” aren’t anti-war. They are anti-America, anti-West, anti-freedom and anti-capitalist. Your angry screed contained all of those elements in abundance. For that, dear sir, I thank you.

likwidshoe on September 27, 2005 at 08:09 pm
Avatar for WOOF

Il Duce
THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM

BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)

Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts

The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people

WOOF on September 27, 2005 at 08:09 pm
Avatar for robert108

For the most part, the Greens, socialists, communists and radical libertarians(in name only), are the Democrat Party these days, thanks to Howard Dean and George Soros.  All the real American Democrats have become Republicans.  The Republican Party is the only party that espouses American values anymore.  They aren’t perfect(what political group could be?) but at least they represent American values like personal and economic freedom, private ownership of property, stuff like that.
The stuff Dave Smith spews is based on a certain premise, which originated before the Industrial Revolution:  There is only so much stuff, and if one person has more than another, they must have stolen it.  We “should” all have the same amount of stuff.  This is the “equality” promised by all the variations of socialism, most notably communism.  To get there, it is only necessary to entirely give up your freedom and subjugate yourself to the all-knowing State.
Good question about Henry VIII.  Marxism is really monarchism dressed in dowdy, unstylish clothes.  The State(or the Party) is the monarch, and the proletariat are the peasants.  No matter how you language it, the outcome is the same.  No personal or economic freedom, the State(King) owns everything, including you.  What’s the functional difference?  The new and different idea is government of, by, and for the people.  Bottom up, not top down.  It’s real, it’s alive in the US, and it will eventually be coming to a country near you.  The reason:  humans really are free, and when they aren’t brainwashed with marxist bullsh*t, they choose it every time they get the chance.  That is why marxism needs the dictatorship of the proletariat; people would never choose it if they had a chance at choosing freedom.  You have to take away their choice first. 
Dave, I trust you to make your choices, even though I may disagree with them(I do).  The difference is, you don’t trust me to make my choices.  You would be a slavemaster.
Oh, yes.  In your ideology, everything must be perfect, which makes all that control necessary.  Freedom is messy by nature.  Free enterprise, by contrast, only claims to do the greatest good for the greatest number.  Perfection is not required for it to work, which is why it works so well.  Free enterprise kicks ass, if you haven’t noticed.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 08:09 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

Dave said, From what I’ve heard of them, they’re mostly Greens, Socialists, Communists, and radical libertarians. You can’t have it both ways–they can’t be radicals AND members of the second most popular political party in the country.

Explain. There are plenty of Greens, Socialists, and Communists in the Democrat part.

likwidshoe on September 27, 2005 at 08:09 pm
Avatar for Dave

Davesmith, are you running for office any time soon? With ideas like that, I don’t see how you could lose!

Dave on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for davesmith

nice document woof sounds like home sweet home

davesmith on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for davesmith

htims evad is my name backwards is dave smith
not dave stewart or dave draviki or kevin smith
the ultimate waste of time but time to waste
a man a plan a canal panama spelled backwards is
a man a plan a canal panama kind of like race car
the paladrims can be fun and educational instead
of video games but i sure love grand theft auto
perpetrating jacks and playing black jack or blast
back jakes for high stakes hunger pains got me on
some migrane shit but ima maintain hope street dean
streets presidents fuck the dumb west syde frisco
cusco, peru bolivia venezuela chili columbia brazil
some other like argentina that i don’t care about
paraguay and paramillitary and uruaguay and your a
guy who supports the soldiers cause you scared of
everything cause your dick is reversed, up your neck
and nurologicly eclipses the cycles of your thoughts
to just repeat the same old bullshit 88 percent of each
day of your life and fuck your wife i didn’t mean it
you misinterpreted i only meant lets talk about you
lets talk about bull shit, red necks with mullits, police with bullets and gangstas with bullets and churchs for bullets for shamans and toltecs in central america to support some gangstas and murders and rapers for pockets of papers and millitary lazers to distant star gazers with ages of papers from manuals from sages in relation to ages and geo stratejic places like iraq and mind crack from tv like e.t. to speak spell your words so freely, so eloquently, the rest is left to me to be a t3 mc like swartzenger, blood courses through the vein on his dome like porche racer, of course lakers are fuck faces from los scandalous aint ghost projection camera tricks this mike bibby sick with the flick of wrist for a 3 pointer kung fu reverse crip walk niga got no sense talking about sucking my penis on meth like wu tang but who came like the boom rang to hand back without a flash back because i’m mentaly supperior to the acid i took in my you inferior to my daoist candle mediation elevations to hot ever handle the basis of thesis its just to big like penis introvenous in your mouths and now i got to go blow breath outside my house its a technique like water boxing got your daughters sopping wet on hairy balls, and if you wanna try to number 2
pencil test you can get on my hairy balls....

davesmith on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for Seth Yantiss

Thanks DaveSmith or “BS” for short…

That was… um… a… um… Nice… post… I guess.

Anyway, I have one question for you, well… make that two:

1) you said

Without more social control of for instance the enviroment, we will repeat the mistakes of the last 60 years and completly deplete nature past any point of regeneration, the regeneration rely on to EAT, DRINK, and BREATHE. A capitalist model of necessary free input GAUARANTEES this.

In the past 60 years, we have completely depleted the Earth’s natural resources?  Um… what are we living on now?

2) What thickness aluminum foil do you recommend?

I have a word of advice for you.  Spell check can be your friend!  And, ‘weather’ is different than ‘whether’.

Seth Yantiss on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for Seth Yantiss

BS said:

2hotel9
fuck you soldier boy

Was that necessary?  You may not agree with 2H9’s assessment of your drug use, but do you have to be disrespectful?  2H9 is DESERVING of all of our respect for helping to provide the freedom to dissent at all.  For this, you, and everyone else here, owe him some respect!

Seth Yantiss on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for davesmith

cheerios fuckers one more down the gullet and ima pass out bye bye i really would love to stay and chat but i really really really lik 2 spel thngs wrong so maybe if i drink enough all never remember about this cursed web blog and we would both be left to our private desires without a completly pointless point to pontificate on in such a manner that time is watsted as you could be and i certainly have been known to be adios

davesmith on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for davesmith

2hotel9
fuck you soldier boy

davesmith on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

davesmith drivels out, your analysis is as ignorant as my rant.

Well I thank you for admitting that your rant was ignorant. Can you tell me why my analysis is ignorant?

one point i was saying that there are billionair democrats, and you completly reversed my point

Sir, this is what you said:

HOW FUCKIN UNEDUCATED ARE YOU you really don’t think that there are billionaire democrats…

Now I’ll admit that I have a somewhat hard time deciphering such gibberish and apologize if I took away an opposite conclusion.

...you completly reversed my point as you did with some of my other points that by the way no i don’t care to elaborate on because precisely i don’t care and i’m sure thats the one peace of information you want anyway so congradulations...

That would be, “congratulations”. You’ll have to forgive me for thinking that you can’t elaborate.

...the bible was written in esoterics by the way so stop the diss...

I don’t care what the Bible says. You can now tuck away that straw man argument.

...the PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE FREE MARKET IS IT PROMOTES WASTE AND WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT ON RENEWEBILITY FOR THE MARKETS TO SURVIVE IS JUST WRONG.

And yet the free market is the cleanest in the world and the dirties are in the command and control economies you endorse. How do you explain?

...they don’t want it to survive for ever they just want to take control of everything wich aparently takes some time but when they do your preciuos free market will be abondoned why can’t you see that i am not so angry as you think just playing the roll of what you blindly hate.

Why wouldn’t they want it to survive if they are trying to take control of what is assumedly great riches? Something doesn’t wash with your theory. And you are very angry for you use multiple swear words in all capitals. And you’re half-right, I “blindly hate” anything that takes away my freedom. It is not blind. What I can do, and what you are not, is provide an argument. I am therefore led to conclude that it is you who is blindly hating.

why did you get rid of your picture anyway lik wid is it because your mind is as one dimensional as your chest….see playing like that so put down the gun before you hurt somebody.

I didn’t get rid of any picture davesmith. The “Gravatar” service started acting up earlier today and has been out all day. I find it humorous that you are accusing me of having a “one dimensional” mind when it is you who can’t stop talking about my Gravatar’s chest and chest size. Compensating for something davesmith? Perhaps you should ponder why you are so enamored.

likwidshoe on September 27, 2005 at 08:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

I thought all this was pretty obvious, but maybe not.

Your description of a free enterprise system is very clear but your description of socialism is essentially anything that is not free enterprise. You can do that if you want just like Hitler can call his party Socialist if he wants but any defintion of a socialist that includes Henry VIII won’t be taken too seriously.

MikeAdamson on September 27, 2005 at 09:09 pm
Avatar for robert108

I thought I made it clear:  If it’s top down, with the State lording it over the individuals in the economic realm, it’s what I call socialism(small s).  The economic system is not there to create and distribute prosperity according to the wishes of the people, but to fit the social goals of some ideology or another.  If the system is bottom up, that is to say the aggregate of individual decisions for the most part, especially in the economic realm, then it is free enterprise.  Nitpicking the words changes nothing. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Free enterprise works best in an atmosphere of personal and religious freedom.  Some free enterprise states have less personal freedom than others, but as long as the State has very little say in matters of supply and demand, it will reap the benefits of the free enterprise system. Those benefits will also accrue to those who are the smartest and most productive.  I thought all this was pretty obvious, but maybe not.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 09:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

It’s real, it’s alive in the US, and it will eventually be coming to a country near you.

Just so I’m clear then...socialism is any political system or philosophy that is different than the American model?

MikeAdamson on September 27, 2005 at 09:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

Just so I’m clear then…socialism is any political system or philosophy that is different than the American model?

No.

likwidshoe on September 27, 2005 at 09:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

I’ll give it one more try.  Any sort of slavery imposed by a State to accomplish social goals of the ruling elite is really a form of monarchism(rule of one).  If it’s an hereditary monarch, it’s straight out monarchism.  If it uses an elite group, like a political party, it’s small-s socialism.  For true socialism, the manipulation and control of supply and demand to achieve the aforementioned social goals is necessary.  Socialists hold themselves as being superior to hereditary monarchists is in their social goals.  Hereditary monarchs just want power over others, but socialists want to control you for your own good. Not a big difference, in my opinion.  It’s all slavery to me. All socialists are essentially monarchists, but not all monarchists are necessarily socialists.  I can’t express it any more plainly.

robert108 on September 27, 2005 at 10:10 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

ds, or perhaps another incarnation of Jadegold, since that was the only poster here that always called me that. You need to learn to type paragraphs from your talking points better. That way people would not know you were doing it, instead of thinking for yourself. Loser.

2Hotel9 on September 28, 2005 at 02:09 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

robert108...I appreciate your patience and I do finally get what you’re saying. I’ve never seen your “socialism as monarchism” before...how did you arrive at it?

MikeAdamson on September 28, 2005 at 05:10 am
Avatar for robert108

MikeA: Thanks for the compliment.  I think you overstate the case a bit.  I think Karl Marx actually was intending to come up with a solution to the problem posed by Malthus, and set out to design the perfect state.  Because of his own limitations and the standards of the time, he came up with what was an idealized monarchism.  He removed the source of evil, in his view, the hereditary monarchy, but substituted an atheistic elite(he had to get rid of God, to eliminate competition) serving the same function.  He didn’t call it that, though.  Nevertheless, it served the same function. 
The people were led to do the right thing by the all-knowing State, which was technically the people themselves, but was really an elite ruling class(Marx was a member of the intellectual elite).  There isn’t enough space here to go into all the details, but it comes from my personal study of economic and political history.  One of these days, a book will be forthcoming, I suppose.
I regard Karl Marx as the father of modern socialism.  His premises about human beings are almost completely wrong, which explains why his system needs to be forced on people through propaganda and ultimately through force.

robert108 on September 28, 2005 at 09:10 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

His premises about human beings are almost completely wrong…

It’s funny that you should mention this as one of my major beefs with Marx is that he doesn’t account for individual human behaviour outside of the individual’s position in the economic system. His analysis of the structural relationships in capitalist society has much to commend IMO but his economic determinism really does lead him to a dead end.

I will agree with you that the monarchy and socialism do share a common vision of society as comprising more than the sum of its individual parts in contrast to classical liberalism’s view of society as the aggregation of the interests of each and every individual member. We called it the organic versus the atomic views of society when I went to school back in the stone age. In this sense I would place Hitler and Stalin on the same team with the monarchs but also with tradtional Conservatives like Burke against the classical liberal tradition of Locke, Mill and down through to contemporary libertarianism. It still doesn’t make Hitler a socialist but at least I can understand now where you’re coming from. I appreciate your thoughtful contribution.

MikeAdamson on September 28, 2005 at 02:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

One of the problems here is languaging.  “Liberal” used to mean standing for individual rights over those of the State, and Conservative(Royalist) meant that you supported the monarchy.  Those terms have become completely reversed in the modern US.  Part of this confusion is due to the marxist insistence that they were for the people against the capitalists, who they equivalenced with royalty.  Just one of the many mistakes Marx made.  The reality today is that capital and labor cooperate to create prosperity.  The job of capital is to make labor more productive. 

Socialism, strictly speaking, is subverting the economic system to serve social goals as determined by the governing elite.  In the beginning, the Marxists sought to overthrow the existing governments, which put them squarely against the Royalists, so they were considered liberals, or Leftists.  In reality, they seek domination of the population(for their own good, of course) which makes them really right-wingers(dictatorship).  Today’s conservatives, on the other hand, favor the individual over the state, and want personal independence to reign supreme over the power of the state, in most instances.  Go figure!

robert108 on September 28, 2005 at 03:09 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

I don’t know, mike. The fact Adolf called himself a socialist, set up a classical socialist system, top to bottom, I am pretty sure that makes him a socialist. And a complete nutjob. Anybody with the intelligence equivalent to a god sized dog turd should be able to figure that out.

2Hotel9 on September 28, 2005 at 03:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Now where the heck is my gravatar? 2Hotel9’s works as does lik’s. Conspiracy?

MikeAdamson on September 28, 2005 at 04:09 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

robert108...I hear you on the language and the flipping of liberal and conservative does confuse discussions. I’m going to have to disagree with you on your point about Marxists overthrowing the Royalists though. The classical liberal ideology was pretty much predominant by the time that socialism had become a significant force. Socialism became popular in response to the development and expansion of laissez faire economics and the State’s role in promoting capitalism. I know that Marx had no love for kings and queens but it was the owners of capital that were his target and not royalty.

I think that modern liberals can also be called “welfare state” liberals in the sense that they support restrictions on the unfettered capitalism of the 19th century. Modern conservatives are really classical liberals...they seek to conserve the existing system while old style traditional Conservatives have pretty much faded into oblivion. Socialists oppose capitalism and the classical liberal ideology that underpins it but I know that they’re called liberals/communists in the U.S. Socialism is on the road to oblivion as well...it’s hard to believe that Tony Blair is leader of Britain’s socialist party. Times change and the language has to change with them but it does get confusing.

MikeAdamson on September 28, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

2Hotel9...agree that he was a nutjob but the only definition of socialist that he meets is robert’s.

BTW...a god sized dog turd must be pretty big. wink

MikeAdamson on September 28, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

MikeA: Pardon my unclarity.  What Marx did was equivalence the “Capitalists” to the royalty, in the sense that they had total control over the economy the way royalty controlled everything.  The workers were the peasants in Marx’s view.  You are technically right, although the first communist revolution, the one that happened in 1917 in Russia, was against the Tsar, and was about distributing the land to the peasants, at least on the surface. 
The reality of “capitalism” is that there is a lot of upward and downward mobility, not to mention opportunity for all.  This refutes Marx’s model of capital and labor.  There’s also that cooperation thing I mentioned in an earlier post.  None of this is possible in a monarchial or a socialist system.

robert108 on September 28, 2005 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

No conspiracy, mike. We just don’t like you.

2Hotel9 on September 28, 2005 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

It’s okay everyone...it’s back.

MikeAdamson on September 28, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

robert108 said, In reality, they seek domination of the population(for their own good, of course) which makes them really right-wingers(dictatorship).

Hahaha! Completely backwards. Marxists and dictatorships = “right-wingers”. Hah. Thanks for the laugh.

MikeAdamson said, 2Hotel9…agree that he was a nutjob but the only definition of socialist that he meets is robert’s.

He meets the dictionary’s definition of socialist as well.

Socialism is on the road to oblivion as well…

I wish I could agree. I see the U.S., for example, becoming more and more socialist. It really started taking off in 1933 with the Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs (which gave us Social “Security") and got a greater boost with Johnson’s 1964/5 “Great Society” programs (which we have federally spent 6.6 trillion dollars on so far). Now this country is in a serious conversation about socialist health care. We are losing more economic freedoms and becoming more socialist.

Now where the heck is my gravatar? 2Hotel9’s works as does lik’s. Conspiracy?

I was wondering if I was the only one who saw that. Right now I don’t see 2Hotel9’s but I do see mine and Seth Yantiss’. I wonder what is up.

likwidshoe on September 29, 2005 at 09:10 am
Avatar for robert108

Whoops!  Wrong thread, sorry.  This one should have gone to the “Muslim Intolerance” discussion.

Your point here seems to be that since the US is becoming “more socialist”, that we are the same as they are.  Not true.  We have a foundation of personal freedom and individual independence in this country that trumps everything else.  Since FDR, we have been sold this bill of goods, mostly by the Democrats, that we can have free enterprise tempered by some social manipulation of the economy.  The ultimate folly of this culminated in “Keynesian Economics” which has now been discredited.  Someone should tell Bill and Hillary.  We are still a free enterprise society, burdened with an inappropriate amount of government interference in the name of social engineering, in my opinion.  That doesn’t make us socialists, who believe that the primary function of the economy is to achieve their ideological social ends.  Big difference. I don’t like our amount of social manipulation, by the way.

Traditionally, the right wing was the royalists, the left wing was labor.  By that definition, the right wingers were for centralized government and the left wingers were for the people, against centralized government. In the present day US, we have reversed those definitions, essentially. So, anyone who is for central control, either by military force or theocracy, is a right winger.  Socialists are for central control, so they are more right wing than those who support individual rights and limited government.  You can find this stuff in most history books.  They don’t spoon feed it to you, but it’s there.

robert108 on September 29, 2005 at 10:09 am
Avatar for robert108

For all of you who think Islam isn’t into spreading itself to the rest of the world by any means possible.  Here’s a link for you.  If you don’t like this one, I have a lot more.  Or, you could read some history.

http://newsbusters.org/node/1491

robert108 on September 29, 2005 at 10:10 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Nope...if you read the definition and you still hold to your position then I’ll let it go.

MikeAdamson on September 29, 2005 at 11:09 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

Whoops! Wrong thread, sorry. This one should have gone to the “Muslim Intolerance” discussion.

So you were trying to change the subject here. Okay...that’s where I thought you meant to put it.

Your point here seems to be that since the US is becoming “more socialist”, that we are the same as they are. Not true.

No, my point was spelled out. Socialism isn’t on it’s way to “oblivion” as MikeAdamson had said. It is getting stronger and growing.

The ultimate folly of this culminated in “Keynesian Economics” which has now been discredited. Someone should tell Bill and Hillary.

Egh...Bill and Hillary don’t get the “cut taxes” part of Keynesian economics.

So, anyone who is for central control, either by military force or theocracy, is a right winger. Socialists are for central control, so they are more right wing than those who support individual rights and limited government. You can find this stuff in most history books.

What history book will tell me that socialists “are more right wing than those who support individual rights and limited government”? I’ve never heard that. I understand that the definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” have been switched in this country (mostly by the cultural Marxists redefining the terms), but I’ve never heard it explained anywhere that socialism is more right wing than libertarianism.

likwidshoe on September 29, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for robert108

Not trying to change the subject; just reinforcing my point about Islamic imperialism by “peaceful” methods, like firing an employee who doesn’t follow Islamic dietary rules.

I’m not sure that “oblivion” is the word I would use, but it’s a failed system, so it will eventually pass on, as it should.  You don’t mention how socialist countries, like China, are becoming more free enterprise in their economic policies.  I guess you could call it “creeping capitalism”. 

I think the socialistic practices in this country are more in the nature of why a dog licks his balls; because he can.  Our system works so well in creating and distributing prosperity that we can afford to divert some of our wealth for social engineering without significantly harming our economic progress.  It would be better without it, but we can afford it, in a nutshell.  It doesn’t work, which is evidenced by needing to spend more and more each year on it.  If it worked to make things better, we would need to spend less and less on it each year.  We will figure that out eventually. 

No, they buy into the taxes=investments part.

As I said, the history books won’t spoonfeed it to you.  You have to look at history and put things together.  Look at the history of the British Parliament for the right wing and left wing references, and figure it out for yourself.

robert108 on September 29, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for robert108

I’m right there with you on the tax thing.  I like the fact that the Presiden cut taxes, but he didn’t cut them nearly enough.  Historically, any time the effective tax rate goes over 20%, people start avoiding them.  In other words, taxation is ineffective in raising money above a certain level, which is why we have this “national debt” thing.  They can’t get enough money from us, but they spend it anyway. 
I’m not the pessimist you are, though, so we disagree on some things.  I don’t agree with you that socialism is growing in power, which was the point of my saying that there is “creeping capitalism” in the world as well as creeping socialism.  The truth will eventuall win out in this area, which makes me an optimist, I guess.

robert108 on September 29, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

Really. Wow…who knew?

Yeah! Check out your taxes sometime and see where they are going!

Really. Wow…who knew?

Here’s the definition I’m using. I’d love to see yours.

Same definition Mike. Cue the “Really. Wow...who knew?” comment now.

likwidshoe on September 29, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for likwidshoe

Not trying to change the subject; just reinforcing my point about Islamic imperialism by “peaceful” methods, like firing an employee who doesn’t follow Islamic dietary rules.

It is easier than responding to the points.

I’m not sure that “oblivion” is the word I would use, but it’s a failed system, so it will eventually pass on, as it should.

Naw. It’s a failed system alright which is why they will force it upon us. Social “Security” that I can’t opt out of, Medi"care" that I have to pay for and don’t recieve nor want to recieve, and now the national discussion of a single payer health care system administered by the government. I can’t opt out. It is forced upon me.

You don’t mention how socialist countries, like China, are becoming more free enterprise in their economic policies.

That’s true. I did not mention it both because it wasn’t brought up and because goes against the point. Socialism is not completely disappearing. That all controlling state will allow a bit of free enterprise because they just can’t deny its benefits any longer, but all in all they are a socialist nation with no indication that that is changing.

Our system works so well in creating and distributing prosperity that we can afford to divert some of our wealth for social engineering without significantly harming our economic progress. It would be better without it, but we can afford it, in a nutshell. It doesn’t work, which is evidenced by needing to spend more and more each year on it. If it worked to make things better, we would need to spend less and less on it each year.

Totally agreed. I’ve made this point in the past.

We will figure that out eventually.

Not so sure about this one. There are a lot of rich Americans and Western Europeans who look to North Korea and Cuba as examples of a model economy. Probably because they are not the ones eating grass and tree bark to survive, but regardless. Socialism and communism fail in the real world every time it is tried and yet there are tons of people who still believe and subscribe to it. And every time they use force (here in the U.S. it is increasingly through our courts) to implement their ideas.

As I said, the history books won’t spoonfeed it to you. You have to look at history and put things together. Look at the history of the British Parliament for the right wing and left wing references, and figure it out for yourself.

Hmmm...whatever.

likwidshoe on September 29, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

likwidshoe said

Socialism isn’t on it’s way to “oblivion” as MikeAdamson had said. It is getting stronger and growing.

Really. Wow...who knew?

and also

He meets the dictionary’s definition of socialist as well.

Really. Wow...who knew?

Here’s the definition I’m using. I’d love to see yours.

MikeAdamson on September 29, 2005 at 11:10 am
Avatar for robert108

You are correct in stating that socialism is growing in this country.  I stated, as did MikeA, that socialism isn’t growing worldwide. One does not determine the other, as the US is a special case, Tom Friedman notwithstanding.
The increasing socialism in this country, I believe, will bring about its own demise.  In fact, I am very sure of this, for several reasons.  These programs, along with the belief that social engineering is possible, started with FDR, and were believed to be the antidote to the Great Depression.  The inertia of our government is considerable, so that these programs, despite their abject failure(social security doesn’t give us any security, the war on poverty hasn’t made a dent in poverty, etc, etc.) continue to this day.  I think it’s time for the American public to take action, but there’s a problem with that.  They need to be made aware that their money is being wasted.  The problem is one of information, not politics.  All change in this country, by definition, has to come from the people, and the people have to be informed of the truth about things, which is why those of us in the blogosphere are so important.

robert108 on September 29, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

You are correct in stating that socialism is growing in this country.

Thank you.

I stated, as did MikeA, that socialism isn’t growing worldwide.

Not sure I believe that. Source?

The increasing socialism in this country, I believe, will bring about its own demise.

I hope you’re right. At the same time I think of the many people who claim that we just haven’t done enough of it yet. Poverty isn’t any better (in fact it is worse) since the start of the “Great Society” programs because we haven’t spent enough money. Note that this is their argument, not mine. The same is said of the school system. The Washington D.C. school district is well known for its dismal test scores and high drop out rates. It is less well known for spending nearly the most per student per year at over 11,000 dollars which is less than the national average of around $7,500. The response? We’re not spending enough money! Same thought process, same solution: liberals (which are really Marxists anymore) never believe that what they’re doing doesn’t work; they believe that we haven’t spent enough money.

likwidshoe on September 29, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

I’m not the pessimist you are, though, so we disagree on some things.

It’s not “pessimism” to recognize all of these social programs we pay for robert. It’s also not “pessimism” to recognize that they are growing in size and scope.

I don’t agree with you that socialism is growing in power...

Then how do you explain the growing redistributionist welfare state? How do you explain Social “Security”? Medi"care"? WICC? Food stamps? These programs are all socialistic in nature and they are growing, not shrinking.

The truth will eventuall win out in this area, which makes me an optimist, I guess.

Huh. Well than I gather that you have some explanations.

likwidshoe on September 29, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Then how do you explain the growing redistributionist welfare state? How do you explain Social “Security”? Medi"care"? WICC? Food stamps? These programs are all socialistic in nature and they are growing, not shrinking.

If you guys think these programs constitute socialism then it’s good that you live in the U.S. because you’d faint if you lived anywhere else in the world. Redistribution of wealth through taxation and government spending on social programs are not features of socialism except in the minds of conservatives pining for the good old days.

As a Canadian I don’t care much how you label and brand stuff but to say that America is on the road to Socialism is defintely thinking waaaaay outside the box.

MikeAdamson on September 29, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

Since you are a Canadian, I defer to your experience.  However, the aforementioned programs are too close to socialism for those of us “down here”.

robert108 on September 29, 2005 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

MikeAdamson said, As a Canadian I don’t care much how you label and brand stuff but to say that America is on the road to Socialism is defintely thinking waaaaay outside the box.

I’ll remember that the next time we are talking about instituting socialist health care Mike.

Thanks for adding nothing.

likwidshoe on October 1, 2005 at 09:11 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

lik...What do you want? I present a contrary opinion, back it up with a reference to the dictionary, acknowledge your right to label anything you don’t like as socialistic and still you’re unhappy. You’re a hard fellow to please.

MikeAdamson on October 1, 2005 at 04:10 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

lik...you never cease to amaze me. Don’t forget to check under the bed tonight...darned socialists are everywhere.

MikeAdamson on October 1, 2005 at 04:11 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

lik…you never cease to amaze me. Don’t forget to check under the bed tonight…darned socialists are everywhere.

Great answer Mike.

Clap Clap Clap

Thanks again for adding nothing. It is becoming a habit of yours.

likwidshoe on October 1, 2005 at 04:11 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Thanks for adding nothing.

not like this brilliant conversation helper I suppose.

MikeAdamson on October 1, 2005 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

What’s all this “pleasing” stuff?  I thought we were dukeing it out in the areana of ideas.  hahaha

robert108 on October 1, 2005 at 05:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

Likwid:  You are doing a “Bill Bennett” here, by saying something that is true, but makes MikeA uncomfortable.  That thing is that the damned socialists are everywhere.  Read “The Venona Tapes”, and you will see that they have been amongst us for a long time, pushing their agenda incrementally.  I believe it is called “frog boiling”.  You put the frog in cold water, then raise the heat very gradually until the frog is cooked before he knows what is happening.  If you turn up the heat too fast, he just jumps out, so doing it very slowly is the key.

robert108 on October 1, 2005 at 05:11 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

robert108...lik really doesn’t make me uncomfortable. He has a reputation for willfull blindness and spontaneous combustion that can be off-putting but his willingness to support his side in any and every situation can be admired.

MikeAdamson on October 1, 2005 at 05:11 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

lik…What do you want? I present a contrary opinion, back it up with a reference to the dictionary, acknowledge your right to label anything you don’t like as socialistic and still you’re unhappy.

Except I’m not doing that Mike. What is socialist health care if not socialist? Explain that one and back up your claims instead of the ridiculous comments and I’ll be an easy fellow to please even if I disagree. At the very least it is socialistic. Sarcastically saying “darned socialists are everywhere” doesn’t help along the conversation, ya know?

likwidshoe on October 1, 2005 at 05:11 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

I’ve already provided my definition of socialism here.  Healthcare in Canada is not provided by the Government but by doctors, clinics and hospitals just like in America. The difference is that in Canada the Government acts as the single payer while in America there are multiple private sector payers or the patient is resposnsible for paying. As I’ve already indicated...you can call that socialism if you want but I don’t.

MikeAdamson on October 1, 2005 at 05:11 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

MikeAdamson had said, Healthcare in Canada is not provided by the Government but by doctors, clinics and hospitals just like in America.

You mean if you survive the pathetically long waiting lines to get your pathetically administered “service” with your pathetically inadequate and outdated technology.

Among women who are diagnosed with breast cancer, only one fifth die in the United States, compared to one third in France and Germany, and almost half in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Among men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer than one fifth die in the United States, compared to one fourth in Canada, almost half in France, and more than half in the United Kingdom.

You can keep your whatever you want to call it “health care”. I will fight to keep my country’s health care system from going to shit like yours. I will also continue to recognize your health care for what it is - socialist.

likwidshoe on October 1, 2005 at 06:10 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

MikeAdamson said, The difference is that in Canada the Government acts as the single payer while in America there are multiple private sector payers or the patient is resposnsible for paying. As I’ve already indicated…you can call that socialism if you want but I don’t.

Fine. Then call it “socialized”. Your own government does. It is a not-so-sly way of hiding the truth from...people like you I guess.

He has a reputation for willfull blindness and spontaneous combustion that can be off-putting but his willingness to support his side in any and every situation can be admired.

“Willfull blindness” and “willingness to support his side in any and every situation”? Get real Mike. You’ve been around long enough and should know better. What is my “side” anyways?

likwidshoe on October 1, 2005 at 06:11 pm
Avatar for robert108

From my point of view, what distinguishes free enterprise from socialism is direct feedback.  In a free enterprise health care system, the consumer of the care pays for it, thus creating a direct relationship between the payer and the provider, which is the best way to guarantee performance.  If anyone other than the consumer pays, performance is reduced.  That is socialism, because it is thought to accomplish some social goal rather than the economic one of getting the most for your money.  This is the reason, btw, that free enterprise will always outperform socialism in the creation of prosperity.

robert108 on October 1, 2005 at 07:10 pm
Avatar for robert108

"Canada’s healthcare system is cheaper to administer than America’s.” A popular misconception.  In a socialized system, money is constantly taken out of the private sector through taxes, thus reducing the ability to create prosperity.  In a fee for services system, there are no administrative costs.  Only those who need healthcare use it, and so they are the ones who pay the doctors.  Canada’s system may be cheaper than other socialized systems, but it’s not cheaper than a free market system.  Making America’s healthcare system more efficient isn’t about choosing another form of socialization, a la Hillary, but in returning healthcare to the free market.

robert108 on October 1, 2005 at 07:11 pm
Avatar for MikeAdamson

I will fight to keep my country’s health care system from going to shit like yours.

Fine