PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Link: Glenn Becks Communism special


Pages : [1] 2

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 07:50 PM
Here's a link where you can watch it if you haven't seen it.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/01/moonbat-holocau.html

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:11 PM
hahahaha

sportsman1
01-23-2010, 09:12 PM
It was pretty good. I'm sorry if he hurt your feelings about your bf Che Guevara.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:15 PM
It was pretty good. I'm sorry if he hurt your feelings about your bf Che Guevara.
Well, the funny thing is the utterly unsubstantiated implication that America is anywhere in the vicinity of replicating the barbarism of the communistic regimes of history.

petegz28
01-23-2010, 09:18 PM
Well, the funny thing is the utterly unsubstantiated implication that America is anywhere in the vicinity of replicating the barbarism of the communistic regimes of history.

Those who ignore history, etc., etc. Kids and rappers are wearing t-shirts and rapping about one of history's worst person.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:19 PM
Those who ignore history, etc., etc. Kids and rappers are wearing t-shirts and rapping about one of history's worst person.
Kids are rapping about Che?

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 09:20 PM
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w115/tawiskaro/CommunismToday.jpg

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:22 PM
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w115/tawiskaro/CommunismToday.jpg
That image is as fake as the assertion driving that episode of Glenn Beck.

petegz28
01-23-2010, 09:26 PM
Kids are rapping about Che?

I forgot who it was, Jay-Z or one of them is. I believe Beck talked about that.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:28 PM
I forgot who it was, Jay-Z or one of them is. I believe Beck talked about that.
I know, I was just picking on your sentence structure.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 09:28 PM
That image is as fake as the assertion driving that episode of Glenn Beck.


No. That image is fake.

headsnap
01-23-2010, 09:29 PM
Kids are rapping about Che?

while I have always thought RATM was cRAP... if that is what it is referencing, it's a bit outdated...

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 09:29 PM
That image is as fake

Really?

:drool:

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:29 PM
No. That image is fake.
Oh, snap. Its open mic night at The Improv.

headsnap
01-23-2010, 09:30 PM
while I have always thought RATM was cRAP... if that is what it is referencing, it's a bit outdated...

ok, maybe Jay-Z

Taco John
01-23-2010, 09:45 PM
Oh, snap. Its open mic night at The Improv.

I can't help it if you have no fundamental understanding of communism.

|Zach|
01-23-2010, 09:46 PM
Buy gold.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 09:48 PM
I'm no fan of Beck, but this video isn't inaccurate.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 09:52 PM
I'm no fan of Beck, but this video isn't inaccurate.
The implication that we're headed to what is described in the videos is.

petegz28
01-23-2010, 09:55 PM
I'm no fan of Beck, but this video isn't inaccurate.

Same here. I watch his show on occasion but this was a good piece on communism, socialism, etc, etc

Taco John
01-23-2010, 09:57 PM
The implication that we're headed to what is described in the videos is.


I think we've put the brakes on much of the threat. I mean, I know that you're not equipped to recognize that using government force to demand that every American become patrons of insurance companies is a form of communism. But your lack of understanding isn't really relevant.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:04 PM
I think we've put the brakes on much of the threat. I mean, I know that you're not equipped to recognize that using government force to demand that every American become patrons of insurance companies is a form of communism. But your lack of understanding isn't really relevant.
What I understand is that everything looks black-or-white when you subscribe to a polarizing, extreme politic. Which you clearly do, demonstrating daily your zeal and unwavering faith in the God that is the market.

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 10:06 PM
I think we've put the brakes on much of the threat. I mean, I know that you're not equipped to recognize that using government force to demand that every American become patrons of insurance companies is a form of communism. But your lack of understanding isn't really relevant.

He's an idiot.

Jenson71
01-23-2010, 10:07 PM
Those who ignore history, etc., etc. Kids and rappers are wearing t-shirts and rapping about one of history's worst person.

One of history's worst persons? Good Lord, no. Are you serious?

SNR
01-23-2010, 10:11 PM
It was pretty good. I'm sorry if he hurt your feelings about your bf Che Guevara.I hate punk ass bitch douchetarded college students with Che Guevara shirts and flags as much as the next guy, but the comparisons to the United States with Che end as soon as they began.

After that, Beck can rip into Che as much as he wants. I'll cheer him on, even.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:12 PM
What I understand is that everything looks black-or-white when you subscribe to a polarizing, extreme politic. Which you clearly do, demonstrating daily your zeal and unwavering faith in the God that is the market.

I don't even know what an extreme politic even is. "Extreme politic" is a dopey thing to say by dulled people who gorge themselves to stupidity on cultural cud.

What is an "extreme politic?"

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 10:12 PM
Buy gold.

What I understand is that everything looks black-or-white when you subscribe to a polarizing, extreme politic. Which you clearly do, demonstrating daily your zeal and unwavering faith in the God that is the market.

One of history's worst persons? Good Lord, no. Are you serious?

I'm still waiting, Koz Kids:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=222212

SNR
01-23-2010, 10:14 PM
I don't even know what an extreme politic even is. "Extreme politic" is a dopey thing to say by dulled people who gorge themselves to stupidity on cultural cud.

What is an "extreme politic?"An intense tick whose body structure is comprised of one or more other ticks?

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:18 PM
Reaper is funny to me. He thinks that his taste in clothes, music, and movies translates to having "good taste" in politics. It must frustrate him to be such a well versed guy in pop-culture, but not be able to carry any water in the politics forum when the discussion starts to get a little thick.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:20 PM
I don't even know what an extreme politic even is. "Extreme politic" is a dopey thing to say by dulled people who gorge themselves to stupidity on cultural cud.

What is an "extreme politic?"
Typographical error -- I left off the 's' at the end. It is pretty self-explanatory, I'd think. A politics that is extreme in view.

I'm still waiting, Koz Kids:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=222212
I really don't have positive things to say about how Obama is doing. That is why I haven't posted there.

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 10:22 PM
I really don't have useful things to say about how Obama is doing. That is why I haven't posted there.

FYP

So why are you posting in this thread?

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:24 PM
Reaper is funny to me. He thinks that his taste in clothes, music, and movies translates to having "good taste" in politics. It must frustrate him to be such a well versed guy in pop-culture, but not be able to carry any water in the politics forum when the discussion starts to get a little thick.
Taco John, after all, is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes argumentative water weight . :rolleyes: You act as if you're somehow above the dialogue of "what I believe is what is right, not what you believe" that the rest of us engage in. As if you have discovered objectivity and appointed yourself Lord of the Flies.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:26 PM
FYP

So why are you posting in this thread?
Because, while I don't find fault with much of the historical content of the episode, I find Beck to be mischaracterizing progressives.

BucEyedPea
01-23-2010, 10:27 PM
Well, the funny thing is the utterly unsubstantiated implication that America is anywhere in the vicinity of replicating the barbarism of the communistic regimes of history.

He's just being Fabian about it his kinder gentler kind of communism.

The Mad Crapper
01-23-2010, 10:32 PM
Because, while I don't find fault with much of the historical content of the episode, I find Beck to be mischaracterizing progressives.

Perhaps you are in denial.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:38 PM
Taco John, after all, is the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes argumentative water weight .

I don't think that I'm the ultimate arbiter. But I know I outrank you.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 10:42 PM
I don't think that I'm the ultimate arbiter. But I know I outrank you.

Lord knows where Glenn Beck fits onto your big board.

But I can take a wild guess.

|Zach|
01-23-2010, 10:43 PM
I'm still waiting, Koz Kids:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=222212

Koz kid?

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:43 PM
Because, while I don't find fault with much of the historical content of the episode, I find Beck to be mischaracterizing progressives.


This should be good. What is a progressive then?

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:43 PM
I don't think that I'm the ultimate arbiter. But I know I outrank you.
http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr123/p0pachery/DX.gif

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:45 PM
Lord knows where Glenn Beck fits onto your big board.

But I can take a wild guess.

Big board? I listened to Beck in 1999 and 2000 before he was big. I found him to be amusing, but ultimately a gas bag who I had to tune out. I knew back then that he'd be a huge media figure in the next ten years, and might have even said as much somewhere in the archives. But I put little stock in the guy. I think he's as confused about what he is as you are.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:46 PM
This should be good. What is a progressive then?
Not someone who is attempting to turn America into Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, China or North Korea.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:47 PM
http://i476.photobucket.com/albums/rr123/p0pachery/DX.gif

Reaper, you bring absolutely nothing of substance to the politics forum except a blank stare and reflex reaction to the news of the day. Animated gifs aren't going to confuse me about which of us has a handle on political theory, and which of us wears cooler sneakers and hopes that good taste will make up for all the rest.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 10:47 PM
Big board? I listened to Beck in 1999 and 2000 before he was big. I found him to be amusing, but ultimately a gas bag who I had to tune out. I knew back then that he'd be a huge media figure in the next ten years, and might have even said as much somewhere in the archives. But I put little stock in the guy. I think he's as confused about what he is as you are.

Glenn Beck's an idiot, and he doesn't suddenly become smart when he says something you agree with.

There are a ton of brilliant people that espouse your point of view. You'd do yourself a favor by hitching your wagon to them rather than Glenn Beck's Paranoid Convulsions.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 10:48 PM
Reaper, you bring absolutely nothing of substance to the politics forum except a blank stare and reflex reaction to the news of the day. Animated gifs aren't going to confuse me about which of us has a handle on political theory, and which of us wears cooler sneakers and hopes that good taste will make up for all the rest.

To be fair, he's doing the exact same thing you're doing when you jam-pack threads with taunting and ad hominems.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:49 PM
Not someone who is attempting to turn America into Nazi Germany, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, China or North Korea.

Of course not. American progressives consider those failed attempts at socialism. Wouldn't you agree?

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:53 PM
Reaper, you bring absolutely nothing of substance to the politics forum except a blank stare and reflex reaction to the news of the day. Animated gifs aren't going to confuse me about which of us has a handle on political theory, and which of us wears cooler sneakers and hopes that good taste will make up for all the rest.

Bringin' back a hit from Summer '09:
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v5204/44/65/62102954/n62102954_32962389_5400321.jpg

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:54 PM
Glenn Beck's an idiot, and he doesn't suddenly become smart when he says something you agree with.

There are a ton of brilliant people that espouse your point of view. You'd do yourself a favor by hitching your wagon to them rather than Glenn Beck's Paranoid Convulsions.


I hitch my wagon to liberty. When someone else hitches their wagon there, I'll happily join the chorus. Notice how last administration, when Bush was infringing on Liberty, I was a consistent voice talking out against it? Notice how this Administration, when it's Obama doing it, I'm doing the same thing, only with a different cast of characters around me?

I don't care that so many of you fools are so inconsistent. But when you're singing the same song as me, I'll harmonize.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:55 PM
Bringin' back a hit from Summer '09:
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v5204/44/65/62102954/n62102954_32962389_5400321.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2031/2305958867_0b489bb01a.jpg?v=0

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 10:55 PM
That's the baby chickenhawk from the "They Look To The Radio" image, one of my favorites from 2009.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 10:56 PM
I don't care that you fools are so inconsistent. But when you're singing the same song as me, I'll capitalize.

FYP

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:57 PM
Of course not. American progressives consider those failed attempts at socialism. Wouldn't you agree?
I'll agree. So why would Beck make an episode dedicated to the idea that American progressives are trying to be like not just one but every failed socialist system? He's not saying it for any honest reason, that's for sure.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 10:59 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2031/2305958867_0b489bb01a.jpg?v=0
I first typed out "Only you would confuse that Poke'mon card post of mine with something trying to be substantive" but you aren't the only one.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 10:59 PM
FYP

Even better.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 11:01 PM
Even better.

Particularly because it removes the element of shame.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:10 PM
I'll agree. So why would Beck make an episode dedicated to the idea that American progressives are trying to be like not just one but every failed socialist system? He's not saying it for any honest reason, that's for sure.


Yes, but in your agreement, you reveal a lot more than you probably realize.

American progressives believe in socialism. Sure, they don't use the word "socialism." They use the word "equality." Replace the word socialism with the word equality and you'll see what I mean.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:11 PM
Particularly because it removes the element of shame.

Shame? Why would I feel shame about you guys being so inconsistent?

I don't feel any more shame enjoying the sun rise just because I enjoyed the sight of the moon last night.

SNR
01-23-2010, 11:14 PM
I didn't get a pokemon card. Do me next!!!!

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:16 PM
I didn't get a pokemon card. Do me next!!!!

The irony of that card is that the top says "They took our insurance companies" as the guy he voted for tried to FORCE every American to become their customers.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 11:19 PM
The irony of that card is that the top says "They took our insurance companies" as the guy he voted for tried to FORCE every American to become their customers.
Yeah, I was aware of that. That's why I had to preface it with a Summer '09 time stamp. *sighs*

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 11:20 PM
American progressives believe in socialism.
Absolutely. 100% socialism? Hell no. Communism? Certainly not.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 11:22 PM
Shame? Why would I feel shame about you guys being so inconsistent?

Swing and a miss. Surprising no one.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:32 PM
Absolutely. 100% socialism? Hell no. Communism? Certainly not.


What is this nonsense with the percentage of socialism that you believe in? It's the equivalent to me to talking to a woman who is new to the sport about football and explaining that there are no home runs in football. I don't believe in 50% libertarianism. It's a dopey concept. Believing in socialism as a percentage is dopey.

And I know that you don't believe in communism. I'm sure that you're not in favor of government owning industries. You've always been pretty vocal about wanting private individuals and corporations to be on top of that. Your loud voice in these matters is always appreciated.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:33 PM
Swing and a miss. Surprising no one.

That's what I thought of your original post on this. But I find that playing along with you brings more entertainment value.

What the hell were you trying to say anyway?

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:35 PM
I like Basketball... but 100% basketball! HELL NO!

Mix some baseball into the game, and maybe a little dodge ball.

Those guys who believe in "extreme basketball" are purist idiots! Basketball needs to be balanced with other sports or it just doesn't work.

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 11:42 PM
What the hell were you trying to say anyway?

Holy tapdancing Christ, you're actually asking me what I mean rather than inventing the most egregious interpretation possible.

Who are you and what have you done with TJ.

FWIW, I am saying you're shameless. That you do not feel shame. That you will trumpet any intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt asshole at any given time when they actually shit something out of their mouths that you somehow agree with.

Fuck the source, or whatever retarded logic they may use. I could train a parrot to say the syllables "free," "mar," and "ket" and you'd consider it more politically astute than this country's population of liberals.

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 11:46 PM
What is this nonsense with the percentage of socialism that you believe in? It's the equivalent to me to talking to a woman who is new to the sport about football and explaining that there are no home runs in football. I don't believe in 50% libertarianism. It's a dopey concept. Believing in socialism as a percentage is dopey.

Percentages of socialism is what we've had for a long, long time in this country. If you would prefer services to be 0% publicly funded, all-or-nothing, then have at it. I can see where you're coming from and I respect the consistency. I'll stick with the dopiness.

SNR
01-23-2010, 11:48 PM
Holy tapdancing Christ, you're actually asking me what I mean rather than inventing the most egregious interpretation possible.

Who are you and what have you done with TJ.

FWIW, I am saying you're shameless. That you do not feel shame. That you will trumpet any intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt asshole at any given time when they actually shit something out of their mouths that you somehow agree with.

**** the source, or whatever retarded logic they may use. I could train a parrot to say the syllables "free," "mar," and "ket" and you'd consider it more politically astute than this country's population of liberals.Are you saying that if Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said something you agreed with, you would feel shamed? Just because you shared a common viewpoint with somebody you don't like?

Reaper16
01-23-2010, 11:49 PM
Are you saying that if Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said something you agreed with, you would feel shamed? Just because you shared a common viewpoint with somebody you don't like?
One time Taco John and I though the same video game was good. I wept bitter tears.

SNR
01-23-2010, 11:51 PM
One time Taco John and I though the same video game was good. I wept bitter tears.Are you upset that Taco John didn't also weep bitter tears?

I guess you wouldn't be, considering if you both wept bitter tears about the same issue, you'd technically be agreeing about ANOTHER thing, thus creating more bitter tear weeping

Direckshun
01-23-2010, 11:53 PM
Are you saying that if Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh said something you agreed with, you would feel shamed?

Not really.

It's impossible to discern if I'd ever agree or disagree with Beck or Limbaugh on anything, because they are not serious. They do not say things because they intellectually arrived at them, or because they believe them. They are words-for-hire, and you can observe how little they actually mean what they say by how often they completely reverse themselves without pause.

That's it, that's all they are.

Ed Schultz has made a ton of arguments that, if actually sharpened to mean something, I'd probably agree with. But he's words-for-hire, dishonest, and all told, pretty freaking stupid. So unlike TJ, you're not going to find me leaping into action to exclaim his virtue in any particular debate. I hitch my wagon to people I believe in, not just people who say things I like.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:56 PM
Holy tapdancing Christ, you're actually asking me what I mean rather than inventing the most egregious interpretation possible.

Who are you and what have you done with TJ.

FWIW, I am saying you're shameless. That you do not feel shame. That you will trumpet any intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt asshole at any given time when they actually shit something out of their mouths that you somehow agree with.

**** the source, or whatever retarded logic they may use. I could train a parrot to say the syllables "free," "mar," and "ket" and you'd consider it more politically astute than this country's population of liberals.


I feel no shame in promoting liberty. When someone else promotes liberty, I feel no shame in saying that they are right to do so. If I distanced myself from every idiot who promotes liberty today, but tomorrow promotes some retarded form of socialism, I'd not be able to form any coalitions whatsoever outside of "true believers" in the libertarian form government.

Beck is a tool. And I use tools.

Taco John
01-23-2010, 11:59 PM
Percentages of socialism is what we've had for a long, long time in this country. If you would prefer services to be 0% publicly funded, all-or-nothing, then have at it. I can see where you're coming from and I respect the consistency. I'll stick with the dopiness.


Percentages of socialism is why you feel the pain in the system that you feel when you look at it. To you, the imperfection doesn't lie in the actual socialism, but the way that it's imperfectly applied. That's why I don't pretend that people who advocate for socialism are anything but socialists.

I just wish more of them would be honest about it. It amuses me to have my integrity questioned by Direckshun when he can't even embrace the ideology he slings for.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 12:02 AM
Beck is a tool. And I use tools.

See, I prefer tools with sharp edges, to minimize collateral damage.

But that's because I feel shame.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 12:05 AM
Question TJ: do people who believe it's okay to occasionally torture prisoners to death believe that all murder is okay?

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 12:12 AM
Here's a link where you can watch it if you haven't seen it.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/01/moonbat-holocau.html

Excellent set of videos. And true. Those who embrace Marx do so with religious fervor. Yet so many wind up dead.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 12:12 AM
See, I prefer tools with sharp edges, to minimize collateral damage.

But that's because I feel shame.


I prefer the right tool for the job, regardless of its edges. Right now, Beck has a program about the dangers of communism. People should know about the dangers of communism, even if Beck is an idiot.

The story of the two farmers:
There were two farmers who pooled their money and bought a bag of seeds together. One farmer decided that he was going to hire only the best minds in the town with the top-most integrity to plant his seeds. The other farmer decided that he'd hire any idiot who knew that the seeds needed to be planted on top of the row mounts and two feet apart each.

When the farmer who hired the idiots produced a bumper crop, guess who came knocking demanding that shit was unfair?

Taco John
01-24-2010, 12:15 AM
Question TJ: do people who believe it's okay to occasionally torture prisoners to death believe that all murder is okay?

Your question answers itself if you remove the agenda that you're trying to drive:

People who believe it's okay to "occasionally" torture prisoners to death believe that murder is "occasionally" okay.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 12:23 AM
People who believe it's okay to "occasionally" torture prisoners to death believe that murder is "occasionally" okay.

HOLY SHIT.

Are you beginning to grasp the notion of degree?

I swear to god, you're a whole new person tonight. You understand degree, you ask me to clarify things when you misunderstand me... It's like Oz.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 12:24 AM
I prefer the right tool for the job, regardless of its edges. Right now, Beck has a program about the dangers of communism. People should know about the dangers of communism, even if Beck is an idiot.

Beck is never the right tool to use. I don't know whatever gave you that god forbidden idea.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 12:25 AM
For you, TJ.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 12:39 AM
For you, TJ.


That chart makes me recall this scene from Dumb and Dumber:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnkefjCES-4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UnkefjCES-4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



I have to say, I'm amused that your spectrum ranges from absolute freedom to absolute equality.

I prefer the word "liberty" to freedom, because dopes aren't able to differentiate between anarchism (which is total freedom) and libertarianism (which is freedom drawn around the equal rights of others). The thing is, in libertarianism, there is absolute equality. That equality, of course, is equality of liberty. This is the only measure of equality that is remotely practical. Unless, of course, government started engineering humans to come out equally equipped in all aspects. But even in that brave new world, there will be haves and have nots.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 12:42 AM
I have to say, I'm amused that your spectrum ranges from absolute freedom to absolute equality.

I prefer the word "liberty" to freedom, because dopes aren't able to differentiate between anarchism (which is total freedom) and libertarianism (which is freedom drawn around the equal rights of others). The thing is, in libertarianism, there is absolute equality. That equality, of course, is equality of liberty. This is the only measure of equality that is remotely practical. Unless, of course, government started engineering humans to come out equally equipped in all aspects. But even in that brave new world, there will be haves and have nots.

I can't believe I have to explain this, because it's political science 101, but by "freedom" and "equality" I'd essentially be measuring the degree government is involved to promote equality, and the degree government is NOT involved to preserve freedom.

I know you're just making a tangeantal rhetorical point, but let's be clear what I'm talking about.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 12:59 AM
Beck is never the right tool to use. I don't know whatever gave you that god forbidden idea.


Beck is not going to scare a socialist into being afraid of socialism. But he is going to whip people who are against socialism into a frenzy and get active towards stopping further socialist gains.

Beck is a great tool in that regard. But, it's a double edged sword for me, and I recognize it. I know where Beck and I part ways, and when that time comes, its up to me to show people where he is going wrong. You make it sound like I'm putting any amount of apples in Beck's basket. Not true at all. I use Beck to add apples to my own basket.

The funny thing about this forum - every now and again, someone will make a post or a statement about how this forum sucks because nobody changes their minds about anything, and it's nothing more than people arguing. Except that it's not true. I know that I've personally influenced at least a dozen people through the years on this forum (And probably more who don't post but just read). They come back and tell me as much. They encourage me to keep at it - that they learn from my posts and gain new perspectives on positions that they never considered before.

I see no shame in using Beck as a circuit towards achieving my greater end - which is waking people back up to the fact that the reason American government feels so shitty is because it's a libertarian system of government which has been incrementally fuQed by people who think that it's ok to steal degrees of liberty from people "on occasion." Do it long enough, and the whole thing collapses on itself.

You know me, I love my Metaphors. Ask me if it's ok to pull nails from the studs in my house, and I'll say: Hell no. Leave the nails there. But you take a nail out anyway, and the house still stands. See? I was just being unreasonable. It's ok to pull nails out of the house and start building a new addition to the structure. Look at that grand house. Taking one more nail out isn't going to affect anything. For a dozen years, I'll look like a real idiot for taking the hard line stance that no nails should be removed. But then one day the structure starts to show weakness, and nails are spread across a greater super structure and the resources all spent. I could go on with the metaphor but I don't want to water it down too much. The point is, there's a good reason to observe principles.

The principle that I observe is that all Americans should be granted liberty: unobstructed action according to their will within limits drawn around them by the equal rights of others. I don't rightfully give a damn where that fits in some pop-culture spectrum that helps people figure out what degree of socialist they are.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:00 AM
I can't believe I have to explain this, because it's political science 101, but by "freedom" and "equality" I'd essentially be measuring the degree government is involved to promote equality, and the degree government is NOT involved to preserve freedom.

I know you're just making a tangeantal rhetorical point, but let's be clear what I'm talking about.

Your idea of "equality" is about as fantastic as the idea of "leprechauns."

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:05 AM
Your idea of "equality" is about as fantastic as the idea of "leprechauns."

That's because you keep interpreting it as equality of opportunity.

The classic definition used in the chart above the distinguishes conservativism from liberalism, and so on, is equality of outcome.

Again, I did not expect to be issuing a lesson in polisci 101 at 2 in the morning, but them's the breaks on a slow night.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:08 AM
That's because you keep interpreting it as equality of opportunity.

The classic definition used in the chart above the distinguishes conservativism from liberalism, and so on, is equality of outcome.

Again, I did not expect to be issuing a lesson in polisci 101 at 2 in the morning, but them's the breaks on a slow night.

The classic definition of liberalism laughs at your fuqed chart and just shit itself in embarassment at the idea that you think you're teaching me anything.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:13 AM
That's because you keep interpreting it as equality of opportunity.


Equality of opportunity is the only equality a government can reasonably provide. There is no other equality. Nor are there leprechauns, even if we really want there to be.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:14 AM
The classic definition of liberalism laughs at your fuqed chart and just shit itself in embarassment at the idea that you think you're teaching me anything.

I'm talking about modern liberalism, dipshit.

Here I was talking to a brand new TJ that understood "degree" and asked for clarification if he misunderstood. But the old TJ came back at about 1:30, pulling the same bullshit tactics of exerting a fascist demand over language, and ignoring context or completely failing to comprehend it.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:15 AM
Equality of opportunity is the only equality a government can reasonably provide. There is no other equality.

:rolleyes:

That's beside the point, not to mention incorrect, but feel free to pour more libertarian talking points down my pants like I need the pleasure.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:16 AM
I'm talking about modern liberalism, dipshit.

Then talk right, dipshit:

The classic definition used in the chart above the distinguishes conservativism from liberalism, and so on, is equality of outcome.


Here I was talking to a brand new TJ that understood "degree" and asked for clarification if he misunderstood. But the old TJ came back at about 1:30, pulling the same bullshit tactics of exerting a fascist demand over language, and ignoring context or completely failing to comprehend it.


Just like a "modern liberal" I get taxed for your shortcoming. If you mean the classic definition, say "the classic definition." If you mean the post-socialist definition, then say "modern definition."

Your non-apology is accepted in advance.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:21 AM
Just like a "modern liberal" I get taxed for your shortcoming. If you mean the classic definition, say "the classic definition." If you mean the post-socialist definition, then say "modern definition."

Your non-apology is accepted in advance.

This is just a pathetic attempt to demand which definitions out of the dictionary I'm allowed to pluck. Get a life, girlfriend.

"Classic" does not necessarily mean "of historical renoun," and that's not how I was using it. Doy. I was using it as a way of saying "fundamental," which in the modern ideological context I'm using, is proper.

ETYMOLOGY FOR THE WIN

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:24 AM
This is just a pathetic attempt to demand which definitions out of the dictionary I'm allowed to pluck. Get a life, girlfriend.

"Classic" does not necessarily mean "of historical renoun," and that's not how I was using it. Doy. I was using it as a way of saying "fundamental," which in the modern ideological context I'm using, is proper.

ETYMOLOGY FOR THE WIN


This is a pathetic attempt to save face for your silly error.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:31 AM
This is a pathetic attempt to save face for your silly error.

I don't give a shit about silly errors, but I'm not going to sit here and be told that the word "liberalism" is forbidden unless I'm referring to classic liberalism. Same for any other word with several legit imports that you want to enforce. You're just as fascist with language as anybody.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 01:38 AM
I don't give a shit about silly errors, but I'm not going to sit here and be told that the word "liberalism" is forbidden unless I'm referring to classic liberalism. Same for any other word with several legit imports that you want to enforce. You're just as fascist with language as anybody.

Who said that?

You said "The classic definition." I interpreted it as "the classic definition of liberalism." You meant "the modern definition."

If you say "classic definition," then mean classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). Don't say "classic definition" and then mean "Modern liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States).

And then when you get burned on it, don't complain to me that I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you knew what you were talking about when you refered to "the classic definition".

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:43 AM
Beck is not going to scare a socialist into being afraid of socialism. But he is going to whip people who are against socialism into a frenzy and get active towards stopping further socialist gains.

Beck is a great tool in that regard. But, it's a double edged sword for me, and I recognize it. I know where Beck and I part ways, and when that time comes, its up to me to show people where he is going wrong. You make it sound like I'm putting any amount of apples in Beck's basket. Not true at all. I use Beck to add apples to my own basket.

The funny thing about this forum - every now and again, someone will make a post or a statement about how this forum sucks because nobody changes their minds about anything, and it's nothing more than people arguing. Except that it's not true. I know that I've personally influenced at least a dozen people through the years on this forum (And probably more who don't post but just read). They come back and tell me as much. They encourage me to keep at it - that they learn from my posts and gain new perspectives on positions that they never considered before.

I see no shame in using Beck as a circuit towards achieving my greater end - which is waking people back up to the fact that the reason American government feels so shitty is because it's a libertarian system of government which has been incrementally fuQed by people who think that it's ok to steal degrees of liberty from people "on occasion." Do it long enough, and the whole thing collapses on itself.

You know me, I love my Metaphors. Ask me if it's ok to pull nails from the studs in my house, and I'll say: Hell no. Leave the nails there. But you take a nail out anyway, and the house still stands. See? I was just being unreasonable. It's ok to pull nails out of the house and start building a new addition to the structure. Look at that grand house. Taking one more nail out isn't going to affect anything. For a dozen years, I'll look like a real idiot for taking the hard line stance that no nails should be removed. But then one day the structure starts to show weakness, and nails are spread across a greater super structure and the resources all spent. I could go on with the metaphor but I don't want to water it down too much. The point is, there's a good reason to observe principles.

The principle that I observe is that all Americans should be granted liberty: unobstructed action according to their will within limits drawn around them by the equal rights of others. I don't rightfully give a damn where that fits in some pop-culture spectrum that helps people figure out what degree of socialist they are.

Well I missed this mega-edit that you went back and added all in. Somewhere underneathe the self-aggrandizement, you make my point precisely that you feel absolutely zero shame co-opting the callow ridiculousness of Glenn Beck.

Because the ends justify the means, even if the means are through a guy who spews nothing but bullshit. What you don't care about is that this directly legitimizes the means, and gives them more import in the future on whatever scattershot invented controversy Beck wants to create next.

I'm not even disputing your point of view, misguided as it is. I'm just saying you are shameless in the ways you promote it. And you designate yourself as much, so I don't see what you're bitching about.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 01:48 AM
Who said that?

You said "The classic definition." I interpreted it as "the classic definition of liberalism." You meant "the modern definition."

If you say "classic definition," then mean classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). Don't say "classic definition" and then mean "Modern liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States).

And then when you get burned on it, don't complain to me that I gave you the benefit of a doubt that you knew what you were talking about when you refered to "the classic definition".

If I phrased it poorly, who cares?

I mean, who honestly cares? You "burned" me? That I phrased something poorly at 2 in the morning? That's a burn?

Gotcha. I've been burned.

Not on my observation of your temporary alliance with Glenn Beck, nor my observations on the multi-definitional usage of equality (and other words), nor my claim that everything to the left of you is blanket-SOCIALISM in your eyes. Nor on really much I've said in this thread at all...

But that I could have been more precise in my wording.

Boy is the egg on my face. And in no way is it on yours. Which you'd mind, I would imagine, if you felt shame.

AustinChief
01-24-2010, 02:07 AM
The funny thing about this forum - every now and again, someone will make a post or a statement about how this forum sucks because nobody changes their minds about anything, and it's nothing more than people arguing. Except that it's not true. I know that I've personally influenced at least a dozen people through the years on this forum (And probably more who don't post but just read). They come back and tell me as much. They encourage me to keep at it - that they learn from my posts and gain new perspectives on positions that they never considered before.


This tells HALF the story.. fact is.. you also have learned from and accepted other views... I know you know that... but in your statement others who haven't been around long enough may not realize that you have always made it a two way street (to your credit)...

and now I feel dirty giving a Donkey fan a genuine compliment. blech!

Taco John
01-24-2010, 02:11 AM
Well I missed this mega-edit that you went back and added all in. Somewhere underneathe the self-aggrandizement, you make my point precisely that you feel absolutely zero shame co-opting the callow ridiculousness of Glenn Beck.

Because the ends justify the means, even if the means are through a guy who spews nothing but bullshit. What you don't care about is that this directly legitimizes the means, and gives them more import in the future on whatever scattershot invented controversy Beck wants to create next.

I'm not even disputing your point of view, misguided as it is. I'm just saying you are shameless in the ways you promote it. And you designate yourself as much, so I don't see what you're bitching about.

The ends always justify the means when the means are presenting information and options to people and allowing for them to decide for themselves.

Direckshun
01-24-2010, 02:21 AM
The ends always justify the means when the means are """presenting""" """information""" and """options""" to people and """allowing""" for them to """decide for themselves."""

FYP

Psyko Tek
01-24-2010, 03:07 AM
No. That image is fake.

ya think?

Psyko Tek
01-24-2010, 03:13 AM
Those who ignore history, etc., etc. Kids and rappers are wearing t-shirts and rapping about one of history's worst person.

Ignore history?
well first off history says don't fuck with Afghanistan
Britain Russia etc

second history says don't lose manufacturing
that kills empires
Britain come to mind
but really it's don't lose technology

my semi monthly drunken incursion into DC

now carry on with your parroting of talking points

thank you

redsurfer11
01-24-2010, 07:46 AM
Because, while I don't find fault with much of the historical content of the episode, I find Beck to be mischaracterizing progressives.


Can't see a COMMIE. It's because you are one.

redsurfer11
01-24-2010, 07:52 AM
Glenn Beck's an idiot, and he doesn't suddenly become smart when he says something you agree with.

There are a ton of brilliant people that espouse your point of view. You'd do yourself a favor by hitching your wagon to them rather than Glenn Beck's Paranoid Convulsions.



Explain to us where Glen Beck is wrong with all this. Give examples you little Commie.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 07:58 AM
Can't see a COMMIE. It's because you are one.
REDsurfer, eh? Who is the commie now? Hanging-ten on those Ruskie waves. Cowabunga, commie.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2010, 08:01 AM
I scanned this thread and really after all the debate over who is what and why each is less smart than the other there seems to be little discussion on the content of Becks work without a lot of attacks upon Beck himself.

RedNeckRaider
01-24-2010, 08:05 AM
Ignore history?
well first off history says don't **** with Afghanistan
Britain Russia etc

second history says don't lose manufacturing
that kills empires
Britain come to mind
but really it's don't lose technology

my semi monthly drunken incursion into DC

now carry on with your parroting of talking points

thank you
:clap: LMAO

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 08:10 AM
Glenn Beck's an idiot

Moonbat translation: Glenn Beck isn't a propaganda tool for my hero, mmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmm.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 08:11 AM
I scanned this thread and really after all the debate over who is what and why each is less smart than the other there seems to be little discussion on the content of Becks work without a lot of attacks upon Beck himself.

Well of course, this is what Moonbats do.

Flatter us! Or else!

ROFL

HonestChieffan
01-24-2010, 08:16 AM
I took two semesters of comparitive economic systems in college and as I recall, the discussions centered on content not on if the person or persons presenting information. Not a lot to be gleaned from that foolishness.

One wonders did the beck haters watch? or for that matter did the beck supporters watch?

redsurfer11
01-24-2010, 08:20 AM
REDsurfer, eh? Who is the commie now? Hanging-ten on those Ruskie waves. Cowabunga, commie.


Nice comeback. You choose to make fun of my screen name. Not to deny that you are a COMMIE. Tells me everything. You call yourself a Progressive. I'll call you what you really are.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 08:26 AM
Nice comeback. You choose to make fun of my screen name. Not to deny that you are a COMMIE. Tells me everything. You call yourself a Progressive. I'll call you what you really are.

Moonbats are delusional. How could they not be? They worship delusional people: "“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office"

ROFL

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 08:38 AM
Nice comeback. You choose to make fun of my screen name. Not to deny that you are a COMMIE. Tells me everything. You call yourself a Progressive. I'll call you what you really are.
I have my doubts that you can make a case for me being a COMMIE.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 08:43 AM
I have my doubts that you can make a case for me being a COMMIE.

I posted a link to 4 youtube video's documenting 100 million people murdered by communism, and the first reply in the thread is this:

hahahaha

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 08:51 AM
I posted a link to 4 youtube video's documenting 100 million people murdered by communism, and the first reply in the thread is this:
Laughter? Doesn't like jumps-to-conclusion? He must be a COMMIE.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 08:57 AM
Laughter? Doesn't like jumps-to-conclusion? He must be a COMMIE.

It has nothing to do with jumping to conclusions.

What is so funny about a woman describing watching on tv her fathers execution at the hands of Che Guevara's death squad?

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Anita_Mao_Tsa_Dunn2.gif

LOCOChief
01-24-2010, 09:00 AM
I posted a link to 4 youtube video's documenting 100 million people murdered by communism, and the first reply in the thread is this:

These are the facts.

Baby Lee
01-24-2010, 09:26 AM
You know me, I love my Metaphors.
But I need those nails, and besides, you've had about enough benefit from that sweetheart deal you had with NailCorp.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 09:28 AM
Ignore history?
well first off history says don't **** with Afghanistan
Britain Russia etc

second history says don't lose manufacturing
that kills empires
Britain come to mind
but really it's don't lose technology

my semi monthly drunken incursion into DC

now carry on with your parroting of talking points

thank you

History also says that riding into combat on horseback gives you a tactical advantage, but things change.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 09:32 AM
That was a great series of youtubes, E. Norma. Thanks for posting it for those of us who don't get Beck's show. You continue to prove your critics wrong (and me right) by making valuable contributions to this forum. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 09:42 AM
History also says that riding into combat on horseback gives you a tactical advantage, but things change.

He's not talking about the equipment he's talking about occupations that guard a natural gas pipeline while moving the goalposts on who the enemy is just to remain so the sheep will keep paying for it. He nailed right!

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 09:44 AM
It has nothing to do with jumping to conclusions.

What is so funny about a woman describing watching on tv her fathers execution at the hands of Che Guevara's death squad?

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Anita_Mao_Tsa_Dunn2.gif
Nothing is funny about that. The humor comes from the attempt to connect such misdeeds to Obama & current American liberals. It is hilariously dishonest.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 09:51 AM
Nothing is funny about that. The humor comes from the attempt to connect such misdeeds to Obama & current American liberals. It is hilariously dishonest.

Anita Dunn is on film glowingly talking about Mao. Did you watch any of the videos?

You're just in denial. You can't break through your cognitive dissonance because the reality of your political narrative is just too disgusting and horrifying to look at.

Walter Duranty and George Bernard Shaw are Icons of the left, and they both dismissed the slaughter that communism creates, or lied about it. That same dishonesty and indifference is hardwired into Barack Insane Obama.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 09:52 AM
He's not talking about the equipment he's talking about occupations that guard a natural gas pipeline while moving the goalposts on who the enemy is just to remain so the sheep will keep paying for it. He nailed right!

He was talking about taking lessons from history and I correctly pointed out that lessons being taught by history are constantly in flux.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 09:54 AM
He was talking about taking lessons from history and I correctly pointed out that lessons being taught by history are constantly in flux.

But they're not. The nature of power and man do not change.

You deflected on his point which was about occupying countries for long wars that aren't doing anything, at this point, for our security but making more enemies in lands that NEVER forget and who tend to take brutal revenge later.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 09:57 AM
Anita Dunn is on film glowingly talking about Mao. Did you watch any of the videos?

You're just in denial. You can't break through your cognitive dissonance because the reality of your political narrative is just too disgusting and horrifying to look at.

Walter Duranty and George Bernard Shaw are Icons of the left, and they both dismissed the slaughter that communism creates, or lied about it. That same dishonesty and indifference is hardwired into Barack Insane Obama.
I'm really not worried about some communist takeover. I'm completely sure that our military wouldn't let it happen.

Do I count as part of the left? 'Cuz I don't think of Duranty and Shaw as icons (though, as a student of literature, I do love Shaw's writing).

patteeu
01-24-2010, 10:00 AM
But they're not. The nature of power and man do not change.

You deflected on his point which was about occupying countries for long wars that aren't doing anything, at this point, for our security but making more enemies in lands that NEVER forget and who tend to take brutal revenge later.

The degree to which your economy is based on manufacturing is not an issue revolving around the "nature of power and man". Nor is the location of Afghanistan.

Your problem of reading whatever you want to read regardless of what is written continues to plague you.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 10:07 AM
I'm really not worried about some communist takeover. I'm completely sure that our military wouldn't let it happen.


Exactly, and that is always the inevitable result of communists usurping power in the west, a military dicatorship. How could you say you are not worried?

Do I count as part of the left? 'Cuz I don't think of Duranty and Shaw as icons (though, as a student of literature, I do love Shaw's writing)

You might think that you don't but by degrees of seperation you have been indoctrinated by disciples of Shaw and Duranty.

Why were the red flags ignored by you and millions of gullible voters?


Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's childhood mentor, was a racist kook and member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA. The poetry he would read to young Obama included lines like "Smash on, victory-eating Red Army." Davis believed that American and British "rich industrialists" wanted Hitler to win WWII, so that communists could be oppressed. Nonetheless, the Hitler-Stalin pact did not cause him to leave the Party. His poetry documents his vehement hatred of Caucasians, capitalism, Christianity, and America. In Dreams From My Father, Obama quotes Davis's advice not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."

Sam Graham-Felsen runs Obama's blog. As noted earlier, he is a communist who shares Obama's philosophy of keeping the rhetoric toned down until power has been seized.

Tim Wheeler is a member of the Communist Party USA National Board and was editor of the party paper People's Weekly World for over a decade. He's an active member of the Obama campaign in Baltimore.

Barack Senior, the father who abandoned his kooky anthropologist mom, was a role model whose ideals Obama openly aspires to emulate. He was a communist, who believed in 100% taxation, communal farms, the nationalization of businesses not owned by ethnic Europeans and Asians, and most ominously of all, "active" measures to bring about a classless society — i.e., a totalitarian slave state.

Socialists for Obama wants to "change this country from the current capitalist unfair system, into a real socialist, democratic system for all." What "democratic" means in this context, only a moonbat could tell you.

Communist Party USA crows:

Barack Obama's campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not a Democrat but an actual Socialist. Nonetheless, even his voting record is to the right of Obama's. But he does support Obama, to the extent of calling him "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," though Obama had only been a Senator for two years.

Jeremiah Wright's "religion," Black Liberation Theology, to which he recruited Obama 20 years ago, doesn't just stand for hatred of Caucasians, but also for Marxism. As Reverend Bob Schenck of the National Clergy Council explains:

Reverend Wright is absolutely committed to what he calls "black liberation theology." Well, "liberation theology" has its roots in Latin American liberation theology. And if you ask the average Christian leader in this country, it is way, way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, and, in fact, it's based in Marxism. At the core of his theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous.

Michelle Obama describes her economic philosophy:

[S]omeone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who traded their careers as leftist terrorists for still more damaging ones in academia, are of course communists. Obama's political career was launched at their house. A sample of Ayers's wit and wisdom:

Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.

Here's how Dohrn responded to the Manson Family's murder of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and friends:

Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!
Communism — an ideology in whose name over 100,000,000 people have been killed by their own governments — is a natural haven for psychotic freaks like Obama's friends Ayers and Dohrn.

Daniel Ortega, being an old enemy of the USA, naturally endorses Obama.

Obama lackey Bill Richardson implies that Hugo Chavez, probably America's most obnoxiously bellicose enemy, also endorses Obama.

If the leftist ideologues running the establishment media are successful in their campaign to install Obama in the White House, no one can say we weren't warned of the disaster that will ensue.


Well, here we are.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 10:07 AM
You know who admired Che Guevara??? Murray Rothbard!

Obviously, Austrian economics and libertarin idealogy leads to mass killing and absolutism.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 10:09 AM
You know who admired Che Guevara??? Murray Rothbard!

Obviously, Austrian economics and libertarin idealogy leads to mass killing and absolutism.

Not ready to discard your Che Guevara wardrobe, I see.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 10:13 AM
Exactly, and that is always the inevitable result of communists usurping power in the west, a military dicatorship. How could you say you are not worried?

Do I count as part of the left? 'Cuz I don't think of Duranty and Shaw as icons (though, as a student of literature, I do love Shaw's writing)

You might think that you don't but by degrees of seperation you have been indoctrinated by disciples of Shaw and Duranty.

Why were the red flags ignored by you and millions of gullible voters?


Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's childhood mentor, was a racist kook and member of the Moscow-controlled Communist Party USA. The poetry he would read to young Obama included lines like "Smash on, victory-eating Red Army." Davis believed that American and British "rich industrialists" wanted Hitler to win WWII, so that communists could be oppressed. Nonetheless, the Hitler-Stalin pact did not cause him to leave the Party. His poetry documents his vehement hatred of Caucasians, capitalism, Christianity, and America. In Dreams From My Father, Obama quotes Davis's advice not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."

Sam Graham-Felsen runs Obama's blog. As noted earlier, he is a communist who shares Obama's philosophy of keeping the rhetoric toned down until power has been seized.

Tim Wheeler is a member of the Communist Party USA National Board and was editor of the party paper People's Weekly World for over a decade. He's an active member of the Obama campaign in Baltimore.

Barack Senior, the father who abandoned his kooky anthropologist mom, was a role model whose ideals Obama openly aspires to emulate. He was a communist, who believed in 100% taxation, communal farms, the nationalization of businesses not owned by ethnic Europeans and Asians, and most ominously of all, "active" measures to bring about a classless society — i.e., a totalitarian slave state.

Socialists for Obama wants to "change this country from the current capitalist unfair system, into a real socialist, democratic system for all." What "democratic" means in this context, only a moonbat could tell you.

Communist Party USA crows:

Barack Obama's campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change, while having a real possibility for victory in November.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is not a Democrat but an actual Socialist. Nonetheless, even his voting record is to the right of Obama's. But he does support Obama, to the extent of calling him "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," though Obama had only been a Senator for two years.

Jeremiah Wright's "religion," Black Liberation Theology, to which he recruited Obama 20 years ago, doesn't just stand for hatred of Caucasians, but also for Marxism. As Reverend Bob Schenck of the National Clergy Council explains:

Reverend Wright is absolutely committed to what he calls "black liberation theology." Well, "liberation theology" has its roots in Latin American liberation theology. And if you ask the average Christian leader in this country, it is way, way outside the mainstream of Christian belief, and, in fact, it's based in Marxism. At the core of his theology is really an anti-Christian understanding of God, and as part of a long history of individuals who actually advocate using violence in overthrowing those they perceive to be oppressing them, even acts of murder have been defended by followers of liberation theology. That's very, very dangerous.

Michelle Obama describes her economic philosophy:

[S]omeone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who traded their careers as leftist terrorists for still more damaging ones in academia, are of course communists. Obama's political career was launched at their house. A sample of Ayers's wit and wisdom:

Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.

Here's how Dohrn responded to the Manson Family's murder of pregnant actress Sharon Tate and friends:

Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach! Wild!
Communism — an ideology in whose name over 100,000,000 people have been killed by their own governments — is a natural haven for psychotic freaks like Obama's friends Ayers and Dohrn.

Daniel Ortega, being an old enemy of the USA, naturally endorses Obama.

Obama lackey Bill Richardson implies that Hugo Chavez, probably America's most obnoxiously bellicose enemy, also endorses Obama.

If the leftist ideologues running the establishment media are successful in their campaign to install Obama in the White House, no one can say we weren't warned of the disaster that will ensue.


Well, here we are.
And the Obama administration has acted in such a way so far as to dispel such rabble-rousing fears. memyselfi's "Bush Lite" tagline has been damn accurate so far. Which is to say that Obama has not been the threat that your campaign-time copy-and-paste warned that he'd be.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 10:19 AM
And the Obama administration has acted in such a way so far as to dispel such rabble-rousing fears. memyselfi's "Bush Lite" tagline has been damn accurate so far. Which is to say that Obama has not been the threat that your campaign-time copy-and-paste warned that he'd be.

You're clearly not paying attention. He's quadrupled the debt, took over banks and the automobile industry, is attacking media sources that don't flatter him, is using the IRS to target political enemies, and is trying to cram universal healthcare down everybody's throats. And that's the communists holy grail because once they control healthcare, everything after that is gravy. And the endgame and you even said so yourself is a military dictatorship.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 10:27 AM
You're clearly not paying attention. He's quadrupled the debt, took over banks and the automobile industry, is attacking media sources that don't flatter him, is using the IRS to target political enemies, and is trying to cram universal healthcare down everybody's throats. And that's the communists holy grail because once they control healthcare, everything after that is gravy. And the endgame and you even said so yourself is a military dictatorship.
Universal healthcare? Hardly. Its a special interest bukkake just like the stimulus plan was. This is going to be the most business oriented, corporatist form of a communist regime ever known.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 10:28 AM
Universal healthcare? Hardly. Its a special interest bukkake just like the stimulus plan was. This is going to be the most business oriented, corporatist form of a communist regime ever known.

CPUSA couldn't be happier with his agenda thus far. Yet another red flag you choose to ignore.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2010, 10:31 AM
While they fight over the minutiae, the larger picture is ignored.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 10:32 AM
CPUSA couldn't be happier with his agenda thus far. Yet another red flag you choose to ignore.
Link?

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 10:34 AM
Link?

Oh, here we go with the "link?" game. :rolleyes:

Just go to their website they love the guy

http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/1006/

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 10:36 AM
Oh, here we go with the "link?" game. :rolleyes:

Just go to their website they love the guy

http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/1006/
Published 11/07/2008. How can they "not be happier with his agenda thus far" based on that article published before he was sworn in?

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 10:37 AM
Not ready to discard your Che Guevara wardrobe, I see.

Actually, I don't own a scrap of Che Guevara clothing. But, the Murray Rothbard reference isn't a joke. I googled Che and came up with the Rothbard note in Guevara's wiki entry.

I thought it might be a wikipedia error, but then looked up Rothbard and read about his anarcho-capitalist views.

Apparently, Rothbard viewed big business having a role in promoting statism, one of the reasons Rothbard left Ayn Rand's "inner circle" of Objectivists. So there is a basis for Rothbard to admire Guevara's anti corporatistism.

The whole point of the post was to concisely assert that "guilt by idealogical association" isn't a fair characterization: not in Beck's peice or in my Rothbard assertion.

I recently joked to my mother that if I had absolute power, the only public job Nancy Pelosi would have is to clean port a potties...with her tongue.

While an amusing assertion, what's scary is when an idealogue actually achieves that kind of power and CAN INFLICT THOSE KINDS OF PUNISHMENT. Hence, we get the chinese woman kneeling on broken glass from Glenn Beck's peice. I don't think those kind of abuses necessarily reflect the idealogy, i think they spring from individuals possessing that kind of absolute power.

Idealogues are probably prone to this kind of behavior when in power, because they hold strong belief in their ideals ahd possess a certain intellectual arrogance with respect to their beliefs. If a strong libertarin were to seize absolute power, we might see him or her killing off the statists so that everyone else could live in freedom.

Bottom line, many times idealogies are the mechanism by which ambitious individuals seize power. But, their behavior is more influenced by the fact of possessing that power, rather than the idealogy they used to seize it.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 10:38 AM
You're clearly not paying attention. He's quadrupled the debt, took over banks and the automobile industry, is attacking media sources that don't flatter him, is using the IRS to target political enemies, and is trying to cram universal healthcare down everybody's throats. And that's the communists holy grail because once they control healthcare, everything after that is gravy. And the endgame and you even said so yourself is a military dictatorship.

He hasn't done enough damage to make Reaper happy yet. Where Reaper comes from, they called Nikita Khrushchev Goldwater-lite.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 10:39 AM
Universal healthcare? Hardly. Its a special interest bukkake just like the stimulus plan was. This is going to be the most business oriented, corporatist form of a communist regime ever known.

You mean since the nazis?

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 10:40 AM
Published 11/07/2008. How can they "not be happier with his agenda thus far" based on that article published before he was sworn in?

Look, if you want to continue to rationalize away that B.O. is a commie, that's your perogative. The rest of the country is finally waking up. Hopefully we can continue to thwart him.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 10:44 AM
You mean since the nazis?
No, I mean ever known. Which is what I said.

patteeu
01-24-2010, 10:49 AM
No, I mean ever known. Which is what I said.

Oh, in that case, it sounds like you forgot about the nazis.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 10:50 AM
Idealogues are probably prone to this kind of behavior when in power, because they hold strong belief in their ideals ahd possess a certain intellectual arrogance with respect to their beliefs.

What about the exceptions to your sweeping generality? Men like America's Founders and Framers? You could call them ideologues too. They just came up with a unique idea by combining different forms of govt into a new type of republic—based on limited govt power.

If the ideology limits the power of govt those abuses can't occur. That's the point you are NOT getting. It has to do with the nature of power in govt because it's force. So if the ideology advocates for a restraint such powers you're argument does not hold.

If a strong libertarin were to seize absolute power, we might see him or her killing off the statists so that everyone else could live in freedom.
This tells me you still don't understand libertarianism or any limited govt ideology for that matter. What is a strong libertarian exactly? If you're referrging to govt power then that's an oxymoron. If anything it would apply to a left libertarian more who is an egalitarian using the force of govt to restribute wealth.

A libertarian doesn't want to control the lives of others....it's as close to live and let live as you can get. And it would never take property through force or instigate mercantilist wars using lies to get the people killed.

Bottom line, many times idealogies are the mechanism by which ambitious individuals seize power. But, their behavior is more influenced by the fact of possessing that power, rather than the idealogy they used to seize it.

Funny, all an ideology is guilty of is being a particular point-of-view or a philosophy or both. In fact you have one too. It's statist in nature and has it's own threats. And ideology is spelled with no "a" in it btw.

It's not ideology or ideologues that are the problem it's what the ideology advocates. That's the flaw in your logic. It's a wrong why.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 12:04 PM
What about the exceptions to your sweeping generality? Men like America's Founders and Framers? You could call them ideologues too. They just came up with a unique idea by combining different forms of govt into a new type of republic—based on limited govt power.

If the ideology limits the power of govt those abuses can't occur. That's the point you are NOT getting. It has to do with the nature of power in govt because it's force. So if the ideology advocates for a restraint such powers you're argument does not hold.



I would like to point out that, despite all the wonderful rhetoric of the American Revolution, George Washinton STILL had the opportunity to seize monarchal power.

Had Washinton made that choice, how much different would our Amercian Revolution be from communist Russia? In this case, Washinton was not personally ambitious and therefore deserves the reputation history gives him. He made the rarest of choices: he was a political leader who acted to limit his own power.

Not many men in world history have made similar choices. Another is Mikhail Gorbachev, who created the mechanism of his own downfall.

I submit that had Washington made the royal choice, our American Revolution would have just become another ideological (thanks! I ALWAYS struggle with spelling that word. I looked it up and used it correctly in another thread, but I have a bug with it) mechanism for a dictator to seize power, just like Napoleon or Lenin.

Notice that the French revolution was inspired by, and driven by similar ideology to the American Revolution, except Napoleon and Talleyrand were quite different than Washington and Ben Franklin. Hence, it seems the difference is the personal choices of Washington and Franklin rather than the ideology that drove their movements.

I rather liked sci fi writer Robert Heinlein when I was a young man, and he actually has an appropriate reference here. Heinlein asserted American thought had a theocratic streak, but that the only reason we had religious freedom was that no one christian sect ever had enough numbers or power to drown out the rest.

Similarly, I think that elective governments only really work when you have a mature, and diverse economy. In nations driven by assymetric economies ruled by one powerful sector, that powerful faction always finds a way to subvert the constitutional checks and balances system. THe only way elective governments arise and are maintained is where you have complex economies with no single sector powerful enough to dominate the rest.

Hence, I suspect the only reasons our elective government arose is because no faction could dominate the others and the one person with the popular appeal to seize power through a "personality cult" refused to do so.

One could argue that Washington BELIEVED the revolutionary ideology, hence made his "Presidential" choice, but then we're getting into the semantics of "what is an ideologue". But, notice it still came down to INDIVIDUAL CHOICE to deterimine the American Revolution's historical fate, not the ideology that supported the revolution.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 12:08 PM
Uh huh....

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 12:09 PM
Uh huh....

ROFL

Lzen
01-24-2010, 12:31 PM
That image is as fake as the assertion driving that episode of Glenn Beck.


Translation: I'm afraid to watch it because I may find out that a lot of the ideals of the party/politicians I support may be very bad.

Lzen
01-24-2010, 12:41 PM
He's just being Fabian about it his kinder gentler kind of communism.

Because, while I don't find fault with much of the historical content of the episode, I find Beck to be mischaracterizing progressives.

I find it funny how people mis-characterize Beck. This tells me that you don't listen or watch him (with an open mind). Your only information about him is what MSNBC or daily kos tells you. I challenge you to watch this documentary and tell me exactly what you find wrong about it.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 12:44 PM
I find it funny how people mis-characterize Beck. This tells me that you don't listen or watch him (with an open mind). Your only information about him is what MSNBC or daily kos tells you. I challenge you to watch this documentary and tell me exactly what you find wrong about it.
I've already posted the answer to your question in this thread, but I'll repeat it: I think that it is a crazy leap to conclusions to say that the American progressives and liberals are desirous of what has happened in Germany, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.

KCWolfman
01-24-2010, 12:49 PM
I've already posted the answer to your question in this thread, but I'll repeat it: I think that it is a crazy leap to conclusions to say that the American progressives and liberals are desirous of what has happened in Germany, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.

As crazy as saying Conservatives want a suppressed people under a fascist rule with a leader waving the Patriot Act like a club.

Not that anyone here has ever said that.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 12:50 PM
As crazy as saying Conservatives want a suppressed people under a fascist rule with a leader waving the Patriot Act like a club.

Not that anyone here has ever said that.
Yes.

Lzen
01-24-2010, 12:51 PM
I scanned this thread and really after all the debate over who is what and why each is less smart than the other there seems to be little discussion on the content of Becks work without a lot of attacks upon Beck himself.

Lol. And you are surprised by this? That's why I don't spend much time over here. But I think this documentary is very enlightening. A lot of info that you don't get from most anywhere else. Perhaps enough info to change some people's views.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 12:54 PM
Lol. And you are surprised by this? That's why I don't spend much time over here. But I think this documentary is very enlightening. A lot of info that you don't get from most anywhere else. Perhaps enough info to change some people's views.
Change people's views about what? Communism? The only thing that is view-changing would be the segment on Che. That could get some hipsters to stop wearing Che shirts.

Lzen
01-24-2010, 01:03 PM
Change people's views about what? Communism? The only thing that is view-changing would be the segment on Che. That could get some hipsters to stop wearing Che shirts.

Socialism is a dangerous road to travel?

And yes, that part on Che was very informative. I admit, I had seen those shirts on a rare occasion but never thought anything of them. Now when I see someone wearing one, I will assume that they are an idiot (most likely) or they are evil an truly support a piece of shit like Che.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 01:08 PM
This tells me you still don't understand libertarianism or any limited govt ideology for that matter. What is a strong libertarian exactly? If you're referrging to govt power then that's an oxymoron. If anything it would apply to a left libertarian more who is an egalitarian using the force of govt to restribute wealth.

A libertarian doesn't want to control the lives of others....it's as close to live and let live as you can get. And it would never take property through force or instigate mercantilist wars using lies to get the people killed.



I don't lack understanding. I am making an assertion about human nature.

Revolutions occur at times, which throw down the existing power structures...at which point they hit their most interesting phase: what happens when the old guard has crashed and burned.

Rarely do they ever come close to upholding the rhetoric used to inflame the grunts that overthrew the old guard.

Either the are 1) some powerful individual with great personal ambition who USES ideology in a cynical manner, who never believed in the tools he uses and whose clear goal is power or 2) the person who starts as a true believer then finds himself at the pinnacle of the revolutionary movement. THen its easy to succumb to the idea that they need to seize power to "safeguard" the revolution.

In either case, the exact etiology of the dictator doesn't really matter, the needs of holding power are a better predictor of their behavior rather than their ideology.

I submit that the vast majority of historical figures at the pinnacle of revolutionary movements have made the dictatoral choice. That even most "true believers" will convince themselves that "they know best" no matter how strong or how "live and let live" their core ideology.

Of course, this taxonomy isn't exactly clean. Ideology can affect even the most cynical seizers of power in a bizarre combination of ruthlessness and ideology. Mao is a perfect example.

Mao's Great Leap Forward involved communist economic concepts about collectivization. When it didn't work, Mao insisted they continue with his policy, despite millions of deaths. But, notice that Mao eventually mollified his policies due to pragmatism: the extingencies of holding power outweighed any ideology.

My assertion is that a Libertarian who led a movement to demolish our current system, might be temped to seize "temporary" power in order to install a correct philosophy. Such an individual could be a power hunger cynic who USES libertarian philosophy as a tool OR a true believer corrupted by absolute power.

In either case, we'd end up with someone installing a gold standard by force and killing off "wrong thinkers" who threaten "freedom". You say such a thing can't happen due to the nature of the philosophy. I say that's a naive view of power and human nature. Libertarians are NOT incorruptable by virtue of their core philosophy. The only reason such things don't happen in our society is the inability to seize absolute power, most probably driven by a highly fragmented economic power structure.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 01:31 PM
Uh huh....

You forget the predicate of my assertion, IF an ideologue gets in power.

I'll admit that a strong ideologue with a "freedom" philosophy is marginally less likely to seize power if its offered, if they find themselves in the position to do so.

The reason I say "marginal" is that to get in a leadership position, usually you have to pursue it, or make choices and sacrifices to even BE in the position to take power. The rank and file ideologues DON'T make those choices and consequently never have that chance. I submit the person who makes the choices/sacrifices to have the chance to seize power is fundamentally different than the rank and file parlor "intellectual".

But, once that dictatoral choice is made, someone with a strong ideological position is likely to commit spectacular atrocities when compared to the revolutionary cynic...see Mao.

The basic fallacy of your thinking is that "if i got in power, I would never do such a thing" therefore if any true libertarian who got in power would act like me. You aren't anything like the type of person who would actuallly succeed in gaining power. For one thing, you don't have the flexibility to moderate your philosophy to the needs of rising through a heirarchy.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 01:50 PM
Uh hmmmm...

SNR
01-24-2010, 01:58 PM
Notice that the French revolution was inspired by, and driven by similar ideology to the American Revolution, except Napoleon and Talleyrand were quite different than Washington and Ben Franklin. Hence, it seems the difference is the personal choices of Washington and Franklin rather than the ideology that drove their movements.
This is nit-picking here, but I don't think it's fair to associate Napoleon with the French Revolution. The revolution started over simple grievances on how to govern effectively and resulted in a snowball-rolling-down-a-mountain effect as the revolution lurched further and further to the left. The shift to the left was unstoppable since the interpretation of "moderate" meant staying in power. The sudden lurch to the left in 1789 forced politcians who wanted to stay in power to further alter their ideologies to the left in order to avoid being too conservative and protectionist.

The result was a totally new calendar, system of governance, that kind of climaxed when the "cause" of the revolution meant if you associated with anybody on the wrong side you were put to death during The Terror around 1792-1794. Napoleon came after that, when people were pretty much revolutioned out and just wanted a consistent ruler. The shift to the left stopped and moved back. Thus, the revolution ended before Napoleon took power. What happened after that under Napoleon can be considered part of revolutionary France, since the setup for Napoleon was completely caused by the Revolution.

Just my opinion, though.

Reaper16
01-24-2010, 02:04 PM
I don't lack understanding. I am making an assertion about human nature.

Revolutions occur at times, which throw down the existing power structures...at which point they hit their most interesting phase: what happens when the old guard has crashed and burned.

Rarely do they ever come close to upholding the rhetoric used to inflame the grunts that overthrew the old guard.

Either the are 1) some powerful individual with great personal ambition who USES ideology in a cynical manner, who never believed in the tools he uses and whose clear goal is power or 2) the person who starts as a true believer then finds himself at the pinnacle of the revolutionary movement. THen its easy to succumb to the idea that they need to seize power to "safeguard" the revolution.

In either case, the exact etiology of the dictator doesn't really matter, the needs of holding power are a better predictor of their behavior rather than their ideology.

I submit that the vast majority of historical figures at the pinnacle of revolutionary movements have made the dictatoral choice. That even most "true believers" will convince themselves that "they know best" no matter how strong or how "live and let live" their core ideology.

Of course, this taxonomy isn't exactly clean. Ideology can affect even the most cynical seizers of power in a bizarre combination of ruthlessness and ideology. Mao is a perfect example.

Mao's Great Leap Forward involved communist economic concepts about collectivization. When it didn't work, Mao insisted they continue with his policy, despite millions of deaths. But, notice that Mao eventually mollified his policies due to pragmatism: the extingencies of holding power outweighed any ideology.

My assertion is that a Libertarian who led a movement to demolish our current system, might be temped to seize "temporary" power in order to install a correct philosophy. Such an individual could be a power hunger cynic who USES libertarian philosophy as a tool OR a true believer corrupted by absolute power.

In either case, we'd end up with someone installing a gold standard by force and killing off "wrong thinkers" who threaten "freedom". You say such a thing can't happen due to the nature of the philosophy. I say that's a naive view of power and human nature. Libertarians are NOT incorruptable by virtue of their core philosophy. The only reason such things don't happen in our society is the inability to seize absolute power, most probably driven by a highly fragmented economic power structure.
Indeed. See the game Bioshock

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 02:22 PM
Indeed. See the game Bioshock

i'Ve seen what i think was a infomercial on Bioshock 2, actually sounded rather interesting.

HonestChieffan
01-24-2010, 02:33 PM
Lol. And you are surprised by this? That's why I don't spend much time over here. But I think this documentary is very enlightening. A lot of info that you don't get from most anywhere else. Perhaps enough info to change some people's views.

There are times when genuine exchanges take place but its becoming more rare. Dont be a stranger. We need smart folks who can actually discuss an issue. The name callers and hair setters on fire will always be around.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 02:42 PM
I've already posted the answer to your question in this thread, but I'll repeat it: I think that it is a crazy leap to conclusions to say that the American progressives and liberals are desirous of what has happened in Germany, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.

It's not about "wanting it" it's about what always inevitably happens.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 03:21 PM
This is nit-picking here, but I don't think it's fair to associate Napoleon with the French Revolution. The revolution started over simple grievances on how to govern effectively and resulted in a snowball-rolling-down-a-mountain effect as the revolution lurched further and further to the left. The shift to the left was unstoppable since the interpretation of "moderate" meant staying in power. The sudden lurch to the left in 1789 forced politcians who wanted to stay in power to further alter their ideologies to the left in order to avoid being too conservative and protectionist.

The result was a totally new calendar, system of governance, that kind of climaxed when the "cause" of the revolution meant if you associated with anybody on the wrong side you were put to death during The Terror around 1792-1794. Napoleon came after that, when people were pretty much revolutioned out and just wanted a consistent ruler. The shift to the left stopped and moved back. Thus, the revolution ended before Napoleon took power. What happened after that under Napoleon can be considered part of revolutionary France, since the setup for Napoleon was completely caused by the Revolution.

Just my opinion, though.

The analogy isn't exact. One could argue Napoleon WAS part of the revolution since he fought for Coriscan independence from France for a Jacobin faction. He ended up fleeing TO france, after a fallout with his coriscan leader.

He then published a pro-republic pamphlet in 1793...which bought him attention from the Robespierre brothers. That got him appointed to an artillery command in the Siege of Toulon (fighting against insurgents against pro republic forces) Napoleon performed well in that battle, formulating the key plan that would allow republican artillery to dominate the harbor.

After the Robespierre's lost power, Napoleon somehow insinuated himself with their successors (The Directory) and twice saved their bacon in military battles against pro royalist forces. Once in France, Napoleon played a critical role in supporting the republican regime in the post-Capetian era contest for power.

When the republic was weak, Napoleon chose to seize power for himself, rather than support the republic. He was a popular general much like Washington; but, instead he used his position to buttress his own power.

Talleyrand was a similarly cyincal individual, who served multiple incarnations of French governments as foreign minister, before and after Napoleon. He pulled strings and plotted at every turn, mostly for his own benefit.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 03:59 PM
Funny, all an ideology is guilty of is being a particular point-of-view or a philosophy or both. In fact you have one too. It's statist in nature and has it's own threats. And ideology is spelled with no "a" in it btw.

It's not ideology or ideologues that are the problem it's what the ideology advocates. That's the flaw in your logic. It's a wrong why.


Not at all. I don't deny I have a point-of-view. An ideologue is acutally something quite different.

Merriam's defines it as:
1) an impractical idealist
2) an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Or, to put it in context of Mao, a leader with a belief in communist economics would create a small scale trial collectivized farm commity to try his concept. He wouldn't implement his concept until he could make the model work

Mao insisted on converting all of China's farms to a collective without experimentation, and waited until millions had died before he rethought his postion.

A radical ideologue would have collectivised all the farms, watched millions die, and still stubbornly insist he was correct, until the party leaders broke into his office and removed him at gunpoint. He would have insisted he was right even as he swung on a noose.

I'm the small scale experimentor. You're the one getting drug off at gunpoint.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 06:23 PM
Not at all. I don't deny I have a point-of-view. An ideologue is acutally something quite different.

Merriam's defines it as:
1) an impractical idealist
2) an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology

Or, to put it in context of Mao, a leader with a belief in communist economics would create a small scale trial collectivized farm commity to try his concept. He wouldn't implement his concept until he could make the model work

Mao insisted on converting all of China's farms to a collective without experimentation, and waited until millions had died before he rethought his postion.

A radical ideologue would have collectivised all the farms, watched millions die, and still stubbornly insist he was correct, until the party leaders broke into his office and removed him at gunpoint. He would have insisted he was right even as he swung on a noose.

I'm the small scale experimentor. You're the one getting drug off at gunpoint.

Please. Just stop the Jackassery and go to bed.

The Mad Crapper
01-24-2010, 06:35 PM
Stop the jackassery and go to bed.

Taco John
01-24-2010, 08:49 PM
Universal healthcare? Hardly. Its a special interest bukkake just like the stimulus plan was. This is going to be the most business oriented, corporatist form of a communist regime ever known.

Yes, they call that fascism.

JohnnyV13
01-24-2010, 08:53 PM
Stop the jackassery and go to bed.

Spare me. There is a very clear difference between an ideologue and a leader with ideas. BEP says the only difference is the substance of their ideas.

BEP is saying that the ideology that puts a leader in power obviates the choices of the leader. I say that a leader is likely to be corrupted by power no matter what the content of their ideology.

The fact is, libertarian philosophy isn't kryptonite for the human tendency to grab power. BEP makes herself sound like a religious radical when she tries to claim her philosophy immunizes a leader from moral temptation. No matter how much peace and love Jesus preached, the crusades still slaughtered people in his name. Something similar can happen to a libertarian who obtains the chance to grab power.

BucEyedPea
01-24-2010, 09:31 PM
Uh Hmmmmmm!

Hey Johhny, I've never claimed to be a libertarian. I have claimed to be a conservative —just not a the "neo" kind.
You need to crack a good dictionary for ideology: • political orientation: an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

alanm
01-24-2010, 10:12 PM
Because, while I don't find fault with much of the historical content of the episode, I find Beck to be mischaracterizing some progressives.
FYP.

Chiefshrink
01-24-2010, 10:13 PM
What I understand is that everything looks black-or-white when you subscribe to a polarizing, extreme politic. Which you clearly do, demonstrating daily your zeal and unwavering faith in the God that is the market.

And here is "the rub" of difference basically between a conservative and "uber liberal"(ala progressive marxist) or better yet difference between "liberty and tyranny".

The true conservative believes in some level of "absolutes" which come from a 'higher Creator' endowed to the people which allow for ethical standards and the "rule of law" so that a society can have a civilized structure of operation among the people- BASIC INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

Whereas the "uber liberal" will only tolerate "relativity" where there is no higher creater and everything is always changing and "nothing" is static in nature especially morals and ethics. Therefore choosing to ignore the 'obvious absolutes' and embracing 'chaos'. Uber liberals just love dramatic chaos at every turn with NO INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY WHATSOVER!!

alanm
01-24-2010, 10:35 PM
I prefer the right tool for the job, regardless of its edges. Right now, Beck has a program about the dangers of communism. People should know about the dangers of communism, even if Beck is an idiot.

The story of the two farmers:
There were two farmers who pooled their money and bought a bag of seeds together. One farmer decided that he was going to hire only the best minds in the town with the top-most integrity to plant his seeds. The other farmer decided that he'd hire any idiot who knew that the seeds needed to be planted on top of the row mounts and two feet apart each.

When the farmer who hired the idiots produced a bumper crop, guess who came knocking demanding that shit was unfair?
I don't believe Beck is a idiot. I think he goes overboard a lot of the time and he's too emotional to the point of hysterics when he's chasing after progressives on both sides. But I don't think he's a idiot.
I like his radio show better than his TV program because there's more humor involved. I've probably only seen the Fox show about 4-5 times. The radio program with Pat Grey and Stu cracks me up a lot. They just have more fun with politics in the morning. He's just too serious on television.

JohnnyV13
01-25-2010, 02:53 AM
Uh Hmmmmmm!

Hey Johhny, I've never claimed to be a libertarian. I have claimed to be a conservative —just not a the "neo" kind.
You need to crack a good dictionary for ideology: • political orientation: an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation

As a point of curiosity, how is your conservative philosophy different from libertarian philosophy?

As I understand it, Paul is really much more of a libertarian than a republican and actually ran as a libertarian for president well before he ran as a republican.

I have no quibble with that definition of ideology. How do you think my use of ideology contradicts that definition? I don't think that everyone that has an ideology is an ideologue.

Jenson71
01-25-2010, 06:08 AM
I have no quibble with that definition of ideology. How do you think my use of ideology contradicts that definition? I don't think that everyone that has an ideology is an ideologue.

Right. BEP -- you're an ideologue, as is your "liberty" brother Taco. It's a sad state to be in.

Taco John
01-25-2010, 10:16 AM
Right. BEP -- you're an ideologue, as is your "liberty" brother Taco. It's a sad state to be in.


Oh please. Shut up you dopey socialist. Don't tell me that I'm sad, when you don't even
recognize your own idealism. How pathetic.

Taco John
01-25-2010, 10:19 AM
(quacky college kid voice)
"Oh sure I spout nothing but socialist and anti-market rhetoric, but YOU GUYS are idealogues! It's sad!"
(/quacky college kid voice)

talastan
01-25-2010, 10:35 AM
Whether you agree with Glenn or not his points are valid IMO. Progressives are just as dangerous as the Nazi's, and the Facists. Will we end up in the same state as they led their respective countries? Only the people and time will tell. Preferably though I don't want anything to do with going down the progressive, socialist, or whatever you name it path. Socialism is a failed economic system and hasn't succeeded in the way that captialism has. History has shown that and yet there are those that would love to repeat that. No America might not militarize like the Nazis or kill millions; but the wealth, and prosperity of our country would be jeoparidized for years to come. So why would I want to even consider it? Just my $0.02

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 10:59 AM
Whether you agree with Glenn or not his points are valid IMO. Progressives are just as dangerous as the Nazi's, and the Facists. Will we end up in the same state as they led their respective countries? Only the people and time will tell. Preferably though I don't want anything to do with going down the progressive, socialist, or whatever you name it path. Socialism is a failed economic system and hasn't succeeded in the way that captialism has. History has shown that and yet there are those that would love to repeat that. No America might not militarize like the Nazis or kill millions; but the wealth, and prosperity of our country would be jeoparidized for years to come. So why would I want to even consider it? Just my $0.02

Progrerssives are pro-abortion, pro-eauthanasia, pro-balkanization, pro-centralization....

You can't get any more Third Reich than that.

Reaper16
01-25-2010, 11:51 AM
(quacky college kid voice)
"Oh sure I spout nothing but socialist and anti-market rhetoric, but YOU GUYS are idealogues! It's sad!"
(/quacky college kid voice)
What does a quacky college kid voice sound like? I'm unable to read that post correctly until I know.
Progressives are just as dangerous as the Nazi's, and the Facists.
LMAO

Taco John
01-25-2010, 12:33 PM
I've already posted the answer to your question in this thread, but I'll repeat it: I think that it is a crazy leap to conclusions to say that the American progressives and liberals are desirous of what has happened in Germany, Russia, Cuba, North Korea, or China.


Obviously. I doubt that the standard progressive back then had any clue that the power they were consolidating and handing over to the ruling class would be used so despicably. But their good intentions didn't matter in the long run.

Jenson71
01-25-2010, 01:18 PM
Oh please. Shut up you dopey socialist. Don't tell me that I'm sad, when you don't even
recognize your own idealism. How pathetic.

Me, idealism? Strange you have retained the Marxist/socialist label for me, yet abandoned it's underlying philosophy of the dialectical materialism for idealism. Of course, we can't be surprised. You know far too many labels and far too few underlying philosophies. Finally, back to the logic board with you. Idealogues are sad. You're an idealogue. Therefore, you are sad. See the validity? I hardly need a premise about me in it.

BucEyedPea
01-25-2010, 01:26 PM
Oh please. Shut up you dopey socialist. Don't tell me that I'm sad, when you don't even
recognize your own idealism. How pathetic.
Awe, it's just classic projection:
Jenson, the Liberation Theologist Marxist ideologue projecting his ideology.
JohnnyV the Keynesian ideologue projecting.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 01:27 PM
Me, idealism? Strange you have retained the Marxist/socialist label for me, yet abandoned it's underlying philosophy of the dialectical materialism for idealism. Of course, we can't be surprised. You know far too many labels and far too few underlying philosophies. Finally, back to the logic board with you. Idealogues are sad. You're an idealogue. Therefore, you are sad. See the validity? I hardly need a premise about me in it.

What part of shut up don't you understand?

Jenson71
01-25-2010, 02:37 PM
What part of shut up don't you understand?

Maybe it's the same part that causes you to return creeping like a mouse after being given an authoritative "shut up" from the administrators of this forum.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 02:40 PM
Maybe it's the same part that causes you to return creeping like a mouse after being given an authoritative "shut up" from the administrators of this forum.

grob

Taco John
01-25-2010, 02:58 PM
Me, idealism? Strange you have retained the Marxist/socialist label for me, yet abandoned it's underlying philosophy of the dialectical materialism for idealism.

Abandoned the underlying philosophy? What are you talking about? All anyone needs to do to learn what a socialist is is follow the things that you advocate. You shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone else for being an idealogue.

Taco John
01-25-2010, 03:04 PM
Jenson - if you think that you're some sort of moderate, this country has problems.

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 03:43 PM
http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Anita_Mao_Tsa_Dunn2.gif

The Mad Crapper
01-25-2010, 05:05 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-connections-big.jpg

talastan
01-26-2010, 10:13 AM
Perhaps since you defend the progressives Reaper16 or Jenson71; you could fully explain what the progressives stand for. Keeping it in Laymen format for someone like myself. I'm curious as to what draws you to these ideals.

patteeu
01-26-2010, 10:27 AM
Perhaps since you defend the progressives Reaper16 or Jenson71; you could fully explain what the progressives stand for. Keeping it in Laymen format for someone like myself. I'm curious as to what draws you to these ideals.

... and tell us how you plan to finance your top-down utopia.

BucEyedPea
01-26-2010, 10:31 AM
jenson and JohnnyV belong to the control ideologies.
Control, control, control....

patteeu
01-26-2010, 10:36 AM
jenson and JohnnyV belong to the control ideologies.
Control, control, control....

JohnnyV is pragmatic, and to you anyone who is at all pragmatic is a fan of control (which is ridiculous). You just don't like it when he exposes your radicalism as impractical pie-in-the-sky BS.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 10:38 AM
Perhaps since you defend the progressives Reaper16 or Jenson71; you could fully explain what the progressives stand for. Keeping it in Laymen format for someone like myself. I'm curious as to what draws you to these ideals.


Banyon once told me that he was a progressive because he was against the consolidation and centralization of power, because power corrupts people. Which instantly drew a laugh from me, becausew hat do you imagine his solutions to prevent the consolidtation and centralization of power are? Of course: consolidating and centralizing more power in government.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 10:40 AM
JohnnyV is pragmatic, and to you anyone who is at all pragmatic is a fan of control (which is ridiculous). You just don't like it when he exposes your radicalism as impractical pie-in-the-sky BS.

Pragmatic is just another way of saying "do what's easy." Which ultimately means "give government more control."

Buc isn't necessarily that far off.

Reaper16
01-26-2010, 10:43 AM
Perhaps since you defend the progressives Reaper16 or Jenson71; you could fully explain what the progressives stand for. Keeping it in Laymen format for someone like myself. I'm curious as to what draws you to these ideals.
I think that progressives in general want things to be more equal. Most of them are probably egalitarians. I couldn't say if I am a progressive; I don't know what to label myself. I don't really refer to myself with a label. What I want to see is equal opportunity to succeed. I'm fine with such inevitabilities as failure or economic classes. A totally free market system would provide that equality of opportunity, one might say... but I don't believe that free markets would work in that magical way where everyone benefits. I'd be a libertarian if I believed in free market capitalism the way that they do. I don't really have a post to hitch to at either extreme, so I float around all left of center.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 10:48 AM
I think that progressives in general want things to be more equal. Most of them are probably egalitarians. I couldn't say if I am a progressive; I don't know what to label myself. I don't really refer to myself with a label. What I want to see is equal opportunity to succeed. I'm fine with such inevitabilities as failure or economic classes. A totally free market system would provide that equality of opportunity, one might say... but I don't believe that free markets would work in that magical way where everyone benefits. I'd be a libertarian if I believed in free market capitalism the way that they do. I don't really have a post to hitch to at either extreme, so I float around all left of center.


You're right. Everyone would not benefit from a free market. Only the people who are driven to look for and seize opportunities thrive in a free market. People who are downtrodden, depressed, and generally not looking to capitalize on opportunity will end up with mere jobs at best. Or unemployed - depending on their level of motivation.

patteeu
01-26-2010, 10:57 AM
Pragmatic is just another way of saying "do what's easy." Which ultimately means "give government more control."

Buc isn't necessarily that far off.

No, pragmatic is actually another way of saying "do what's possible". Some pragmatic people will do what's easy and others will be more ambitious. I don't get the sense that JohnnyV13 is a wind vane.

Amnorix
01-26-2010, 10:59 AM
You're right. Everyone would not benefit from a free market. Only the people who are driven to look for and seize opportunities thrive in a free market. People who are downtrodden, depressed, and generally not looking to capitalize on opportunity will end up with mere jobs at best. Or unemployed - depending on their level of motivation.

Depends on just how free the market is. In the type of utopian "true" Adam Smith capitalism then a whole lot of people get to be exploited. Hence the rise of unions etc. in the early 20th century to balance the power between employers and employees.

Mile High Mania
01-26-2010, 11:06 AM
You're right. Everyone would not benefit from a free market. Only the people who are driven to look for and seize opportunities thrive in a free market. People who are downtrodden, depressed, and generally not looking to capitalize on opportunity will end up with mere jobs at best. Or unemployed - depending on their level of motivation.

And, I have no problem with that at all...

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 11:49 AM
Perhaps since you defend the progressives Reaper16 or Jenson71; you could fully explain what the progressives stand for. Keeping it in Laymen format for someone like myself. I'm curious as to what draws you to these ideals.

Like Reaper, I don't really label myself a progressive first and foremost. I consider myself a Roman Catholic first and foremost. Worker's rights, equality before law regardless of color or gender, and public welfare or safety nets seem to be the historic pillars of the Progressive movement. I support those, emphatically.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 12:46 PM
Depends on just how free the market is. In the type of utopian "true" Adam Smith capitalism then a whole lot of people get to be exploited. Hence the rise of unions etc. in the early 20th century to balance the power between employers and employees.


What you (and other "progressives") fail to grasp is that contrast breeds correction. New demands are contantly being formed, and the market is constantly responding to these new demands by capitalizing on them in attempts to satisfy these new demands. And when those demands are satisfied, even more demands come into focus. It never stops. It's a constant cycle of trial and error, compete and correct. Unions are a natural and welcome phenomenon. I have no problem with unions. The problem comes when government comes in and binds one side or the other's hands to favor one side or the other. This sort of government intervention ends up producing false solutions and but creating real demand to find ways to defeat the false, non-market solution. Enter the market for corruption. It's a booming one.

The rise of the unions is one of the great stories of free market capitalism. Government should get out of everybody's way.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 02:14 PM
What you (and other "progressives") fail to grasp is that contrast breeds correction.

So in that sense, you support socialist movements?

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 02:18 PM
What you (and other "progressives") fail to grasp is that contrast breeds correction. New demands are contantly being formed, and the market is constantly responding to these new demands by capitalizing on them in attempts to satisfy these new demands. And when those demands are satisfied, even more demands come into focus. It never stops. It's a constant cycle of trial and error, compete and correct. Unions are a natural and welcome phenomenon. I have no problem with unions. The problem comes when government comes in and binds one side or the other's hands to favor one side or the other. This sort of government intervention ends up producing false solutions and but creating real demand to find ways to defeat the false, non-market solution. Enter the market for corruption. It's a booming one.

The rise of the unions is one of the great stories of free market capitalism. Government should get out of everybody's way.

So what should a union do when their company refuses to recognize them?

Taco John
01-26-2010, 02:27 PM
So what should a union do when their company refuses to recognize them?

What do they have in their power to do? If they have power, then let them weild it. If they don't, then there is no common thread that creates a market for their services. The people either need to organize around one, or let it fail and move on.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 02:31 PM
So in that sense, you support socialist movements?

Private ones, sure. I have no problems with private socialist organizations. Insurance is a good example. They organize with the idea that they will socialize the risks and costs that come with life and health. I'm in favor of insurance companies. I think that there is a market for their services.

I think, however, that people should demand more of a say in how these organizations operate. I would not be opposed to a insurance holder's union that consolidates customers, and uses democratic methods to weild their own influence within the walls of the insurance organization. This sort of democratic co-op could be a very powerful force.

This, of course, is just a demonstration of opportunity cost going down the drain thanks to government intervention and involvement encroaching on potential emerging markets.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 05:14 PM
What do they have in their power to do? If they have power, then let them weild it. If they don't, then there is no common thread that creates a market for their services. The people either need to organize around one, or let it fail and move on.

Do you believe employers should be able to fire or discriminate employees who seek to join a union?

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 05:19 PM
Private ones, sure. I have no problems with private socialist organizations. Insurance is a good example. They organize with the idea that they will socialize the risks and costs that come with life and health. I'm in favor of insurance companies. I think that there is a market for their services.

I think, however, that people should demand more of a say in how these organizations operate. I would not be opposed to a insurance holder's union that consolidates customers, and uses democratic methods to weild their own influence within the walls of the insurance organization. This sort of democratic co-op could be a very powerful force.

This, of course, is just a demonstration of opportunity cost going down the drain thanks to government intervention and involvement encroaching on potential emerging markets.

Private socialist movements? LOL.

What does it mean to "socialize the risks and costs that come with life and health?"

patteeu
01-26-2010, 06:13 PM
Private socialist movements? LOL.

What does it mean to "socialize the risks and costs that come with life and health?"

You're familiar with life insurance and medical insurance, right? Ignoring any excessive state regulation, that's what it means.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 06:24 PM
Do you believe employers should be able to fire or discriminate employees who seek to join a union?

Sure. It's up to them to calculate the risks that come with that. They could very well be cutting off their nose to spite their face. If a union has power, let them yeild that power and leverage it as far as it will reach. Likewise for business. It's their property - their organization. Let them scare their union workers off to the arms of a competing interest who is willing to accommodate their demands. If there is no competing interest, then it's up to the union to question whether they have the power to deliver on their promise, and do what it takes to either acquire that power (ie. specialization and training) or fail.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 06:25 PM
Private socialist movements? LOL.

What does it mean to "socialize the risks and costs that come with life and health?"

Such a silly boy. When will you ever learn?

patteeu
01-26-2010, 06:27 PM
Great posts in this thread, Taco.

sportsman1
01-26-2010, 06:47 PM
Like Glenn says it would be great if the "progressives" really would have that open debate over what and who they are. This thread is proof all logic falls when they do.

Reaper16
01-26-2010, 07:08 PM
Like Glenn says it would be great if the "progressives" really would have that open debate over what and who they are. This thread is proof all logic falls when they do.
How so?

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 08:16 PM
You're familiar with life insurance and medical insurance, right? Ignoring any excessive state regulation, that's what it means.

Not enough, apparently. Because I have no idea how insurance companies today are private socialist movements. I don't know what it means to socialize the risks and costs. Share the risks and costs in order to avoid excessive state regulation?

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 08:27 PM
Sure. It's up to them to calculate the risks that come with that. They could very well be cutting off their nose to spite their face. If a union has power, let them yeild that power and leverage it as far as it will reach. Likewise for business. It's their property - their organization. Let them scare their union workers off to the arms of a competing interest who is willing to accommodate their demands. If there is no competing interest, then it's up to the union to question whether they have the power to deliver on their promise, and do what it takes to either acquire that power (ie. specialization and training) or fail.

Do you believe the company owner has an advantage in bargaining, or are they on equal terms? And if the owner does have the advantage, is that okay? Because it's their property?

Now, acquiring power is fine, but it should not be done by acquiring political power, because that's unfair now for the company? And that's not okay?

Taco John
01-26-2010, 09:38 PM
Do you believe the company owner has an advantage in bargaining, or are they on equal terms? And if the owner does have the advantage, is that okay? Because it's their property?

Now, acquiring power is fine, but it should not be done by acquiring political power, because that's unfair now for the company? And that's not okay?

Those with the most leverage rightfully have the advantage in bargaining. A labor union of specialized workers will rightfully have more leverage than say - a union of unskilled laborers such as a grocery clerk. It becomes the perogative of the owners to determine if the skills are so valuable that he can snub the union and replace them with non-union workers. Non-union workers, who by the way, have every right to snub the unions as they choose and freelance. I see no role for government here except to interfere.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 09:40 PM
Not enough, apparently. Because I have no idea how insurance companies today are private socialist movements. I don't know what it means to socialize the risks and costs. Share the risks and costs in order to avoid excessive state regulation?

You have no idea of what socialism is despite the fact that you can't stop advocating socialism with nearly every position you take, so this is unsuprising.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 10:36 PM
Those with the most leverage rightfully have the advantage in bargaining.

Why is that right?

A labor union of specialized workers will rightfully have more leverage than say - a union of unskilled laborers such as a grocery clerk.

Why is that right?

It becomes the perogative of the owners to determine if the skills are so valuable that he can snub the union and replace them with non-union workers. Non-union workers, who by the way, have every right to snub the unions as they choose and freelance. I see no role for government here except to interfere.

What would happen if everyone in the world belonged to a union? If there were no non-union workers that the owner could use?

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 10:40 PM
You have no idea of what socialism is despite the fact that you can't stop advocating socialism with nearly every position you take, so this is unsuprising.

Then tell me what socialism is.

And then tell me what it means to socialize risks and costs, like a private socialist movement like insurance companies do.

Because when I read your statement, all I could think about, and forgive me for bringing up the historical anecdotes which have irritated you in the past, were the Western oil companies like BP setting up shop in the Middle East post-WWI, essentially creating a three headed monopoly.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 10:55 PM
Why is that right?

Why wouldn't it be? We're talking about voluntary interaction here aren't we?



Why is that right?


Why wouldn't it be? We're talking about people who have made voluntary choices aren't we?


What would happen if everyone in the world belonged to a union? If there were no non-union workers that the owner could use?

I would never join a union. I would have to be forced into it ala Barry's plan to make everybody in America a forced customer of the health insurance industry. I have joined an agency before though, which could be considered a union of sorts, but those days are behind me - at least for now. I've worked my way up to upper management in publishing, and have no intention of having another boss once I outgrow the one that I have now. I have no need for a union of any sort right now.

But what you describe is communism. And what would happen is that the people at the top of the communist food chain would get fat and happy while they used the rest of us as their foot stools. It would get worse from there. Best not think about it.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 11:03 PM
Then tell me what socialism is.

And then tell me what it means to socialize risks and costs, like a private socialist movement like insurance companies do.

I don't know why you decided to hang yourself up on the word "movement."

Socialization of risks and costs is like an 10th grade economics class term. It's hard for me to believe that I have to explain this to you. It's essentially taking the potential risk or costs, or losses and spreading them across an entire social network of people rather than having those who incur these costs and losses having to pay for them on their own. Do you lack the intuitive understanding that this is how an insurance company works, and thus come up with the answer on your own? Or do you just think an insurance company has an endless well of money that it prints and thus should be able to pay everything from pre-existing conditions to elective surgeries.

In the case of insurance, this social network is rightfully a 100% voluntary system. At least currently.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 11:14 PM
Why wouldn't it be? We're talking about voluntary interaction here aren't we?

Why wouldn't it be? We're talking about people who have made voluntary choices aren't we?

Can you give me an actual historical example of a company that did not have the advantage when it came to bargaining?

Best not think about it.

Yes, master.

Jenson71
01-26-2010, 11:23 PM
I don't know why you decided to hang yourself up on the word "movement."

I started with the word movement. It's clear what I meant. A socialist movement in politics that could counter a capitalist movement. You know, because contrast breeds correction, and all that. So I figured under that principle, you would support socialist movements, like Eugene Debs or the Bolsheviks, to correct your preferred capitalist movements. I certainly, and this should be obvious, did not mean "socialize" in the way that insurance companies spread their product in order to carefully increase their profit, nor did I mean it in the way that I "socialized" with my friends at a party last weekend, so no need to get into a different conversation about how you support that, either.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 11:25 PM
I started with the word movement. It's clear what I meant. A socialist movement in politics that could counter a capitalist movement. You know, because contrast breeds correction, and all that. So I figured under that principle, you would support socialist movements, like Eugene Debs or the Bolsheviks, to correct your preferred capitalist movements. I certainly, and this should be obvious, did not mean "socialize" in the way that insurance companies spread their product in order to carefully increase their profit, nor did I mean it in the way that I "socialized" with my friends at a party last weekend, so no need to get into a different conversation about how you support that, either.

Privatized movements that don't infringe on anybody's life, liberty, or property, yes, I have no problems with. I might not be in a hurry to join them, but I have no problem with their existence.

Taco John
01-26-2010, 11:30 PM
Can you give me an actual historical example of a company that did not have the advantage when it came to bargaining?


Not really, because the companies typically have control of the sales operation. Sales is where the real power is, not production. Production is important, but production without sales is waste.

But if pressed to come up with one, I'd say the NFL is a good example of a specialized union with a lot of power that can't be easily replaced. It's not like they're grocery checkers who if they walk out tomorrow can't be replaced by any one of a hundred people looking to fill the job.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 07:11 AM
Can you give me an actual historical example of a company that did not have the advantage when it came to bargaining?

The Indianapolis Colts do not have the advantage when it comes to bargaining with Peyton Manning. They can't replace him with someone who is willing to work cheaper because there isn't anyone who can do what he does.

Employees with irreplaceable skills are irreplaceable and hold an advantage over their employers. Employees with run-of-the-mill skills will naturally be at a disadvantage, because they simply aren't that valuable when they are so easily replaceable.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 07:21 AM
Not enough, apparently. Because I have no idea how insurance companies today are private socialist movements. I don't know what it means to socialize the risks and costs. Share the risks and costs in order to avoid excessive state regulation?

How can you not understand this? How can you expect to be taken seriously if you don't?

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 07:51 AM
Jenson thinks people are just entitled to things. This is the basic basic of collectivist thought.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 09:57 AM
How can you not understand this? How can you expect to be taken seriously if you don't?

I understand how they work, but I wasn't getting how that was a socialist movement.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 10:08 AM
I understand how they work, but I wasn't getting how that was a socialist movement.


Just so long as you know that your failure to see the socialism in the insurance model is your failure.

patteeu
01-27-2010, 10:12 AM
I understand how they work, but I wasn't getting how that was a socialist movement.

What is special to you about the phrase "socialist movement"? Is a movement away from the every-man-for-himself of our ancient ancestors toward a scheme of private insurance that helps members of society deal with unexpected catastrophic occurrences through the socialization of risk not a movement based on socialist ideas? Is a voluntary collective less of a collective than a forced one?

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 01:59 PM
Just so long as you know that your failure to see the socialism in the insurance model is your failure.

Sure. I don't feel any shame having initially failed to see how insurance companies could be considered socialist. Thanks to the explanations given I can understand where you are coming from when you say that.

Jenson71
01-27-2010, 02:01 PM
What is special to you about the phrase "socialist movement"?

In my understanding, it was strictly a public operation. Thus, my laughing at the idea of a 'private socialist movement.'

The Mad Crapper
01-27-2010, 02:16 PM
Jenson thinks people are just entitled to things. This is the basic basic of collectivist thought.

He's never had a job and his mother still makes his bed.

Taco John
01-27-2010, 02:16 PM
They don't run exactly like pure socialism. The people are voting with their dollars instead of ballots. And the czars at the top are living like kings - well, that part is probably the same. But outside of these two things, the economic properties are there. Individuals needs are being met based on an economic model that takes from all with the expectation that all won't need to use the services all at once.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2010, 04:18 PM
He's never had a job and his mother still makes his bed.

I didn't know he was Irish?

Psyko Tek
01-27-2010, 11:51 PM
History also says that riding into combat on horseback gives you a tactical advantage, but things change.

that ain't history that's tatics

and once you quit making goods
you quit making money
once you lose technology
you just become consumers
and sheeple

patteeu
01-27-2010, 11:57 PM
that ain't history that's tatics

and once you quit making goods
you quit making money
once you lose technology
you just become consumers
and sheeple

Of course it's history.

Your grasp of economics is amazing.

JohnnyV13
01-30-2010, 03:26 PM
Can you give me an actual historical example of a company that did not have the advantage when it came to bargaining?



Yes, master.


That one is easy, and very famous. In 1981 25 year old Bill Gates negotiated with IBM for the rights to his DOS system. IBM was rushing to market with their PC to compete with the Apple II and desperately needed an operating system to make it run. Gates killed IBM at the bargaining table and retained the licensing rights to DOS. Those licensing rights were cornerstone of Gates' titanic fortune.

Gates had a couple of unusual advantages. One was the huge need of IBM to combat Apple, who had encroached upon IBM's business machine empire by introducing the first practical micro. Second, Gates had unusual resources for a small fry in that his father was a high powered corporate attorney. Hence, Gates was not outgunned at the bargaining table despite the power disparity between himself and IBM.

Gates' father wasn't his corporate attorney, but he had sorta compelled his law firm protege into being the corporate attorney for microsoft when Gates was just a college dropout with an idea. That law firm protege couldn't say no when the guy who held the key to his law firm future asked for a favor. I'm sure that young associate wasn't really happy to have another demand on his time.

Of course, that guy ended up the head of microsoft's legal dept and became a gazillionare.

JohnnyV13
01-30-2010, 04:07 PM
jenson and JohnnyV belong to the control ideologies.
Control, control, control....

How comical. If I'm a "control ideologue", how does my view that the complex tax code (chock full of exclusions) is an uncontutional power grab by the government over the liberty interests of its citizens fit?

Frankly, we'd be better off without the stupid thing, because the massive administrative burden drains our economy. Think of all the economic effort that's wasted by dealing with tax code: tax lawyers, accountants, and strategy sesssions designed to exploit loopholes.

How much personal behavior is driven by people trying to get tax breaks?

When I made the point, however, that suddenly dismantling that huge structure would probably cause a deep recession as the economy adjusted, BEP accused me of believing that "people couldn't accomplish anything without govt".

Taco, this little episode is a very clear example of a pragmatist vs. an ideologue. BEP saw nothing but benefit with deep sixing the tax code. I actually agreed, but said, in the short term, such an act would cause a deep recession.

The pragmatist sees the transition problems in actually implementing an ideology and does cost vs. benefit analysis. For example in this case, is the short term recession worth the long term benefit? (That's a simplification, the practical implementation problems would be tremendous and would need to include how to overcome entrenched congressional interests).

BEP only saw benefit and then presumed my caveat meant an ideological difference in individual capability. Her ideological view of the world meant differences are always based on ideas, and, since I thought differently than her, I must have a different (and hostile) ideology.

(Notice also how her assertion is also a backhanded attempt to position herself as morally superior, and my view as condescending to others).

What's interesting is she and I actually had the same basic philosophical position on this one issue, but her ideology blinded her to that fact. I was a "control freak" because I thought that the short term pain could make the idea politically impossible to implement and because I asserted there would be transitional economic damage rather than 100% benefit.

That's what I mean by pragmatism, not being a "weather vane".

banyon
01-31-2010, 08:40 AM
Banyon once told me that he was a progressive because he was against the consolidation and centralization of power, because power corrupts people. Which instantly drew a laugh from me, becausew hat do you imagine his solutions to prevent the consolidtation and centralization of power are? Of course: consolidating and centralizing more power in government.

No, they're not my solutions. You have to color them that way though to pigeonhole them into your narrative, which is understandable.

Progressive solutions regarding power involve (1)transparency in government (2)accountability to the public (3)checks on corruption/lobbying (4)independent audits, (5)public access to officials, inter alia.

They also involve the pretty basic acknowledgement that power can grow just as easily through the accumulation of massive sums of wealth in trusts and monopolies or dynastic wealth, which you pretend doesn't exist, despite countless historical examples of such behavior, thus your laissez-faire ideology, which has already failed to check such accumulations on multiple occasions in history, basically just enables those who want to accumulate such power into doing so.

banyon
01-31-2010, 08:49 AM
Of course not. American progressives consider those failed attempts at socialism. Wouldn't you agree?

No, that's "Communism" with a capital "c". It's a totalitarian ideology which has pure command economic structures combined with absolute government control over social issues. It was also carried out in near-dictatorial absolute terms in those historic examples.

It's actually pretty different from socialism, but that's why you don't ever want a real definition of socialism, so you can continue to make these most basic of conflation set errors and paint your ideological opponents as somehow evil.

banyon
01-31-2010, 08:54 AM
I hitch my wagon to liberty. When someone else hitches their wagon there, I'll happily join the chorus. Notice how last administration, when Bush was infringing on Liberty, I was a consistent voice talking out against it? Notice how this Administration, when it's Obama doing it, I'm doing the same thing, only with a different cast of characters around me?

I don't care that so many of you fools are so inconsistent. But when you're singing the same song as me, I'll harmonize.

Consistent? Where did you get this delusion of grandeur?

You were supporting Obama before you had your conversion by faith into the "Ron Paul Libertee underoos" movement. Who did you think you were fooling?

banyon
01-31-2010, 08:56 AM
I like Basketball... but 100% basketball! HELL NO!

Mix some baseball into the game, and maybe a little dodge ball.

Those guys who believe in "extreme basketball" are purist idiots! Basketball needs to be balanced with other sports or it just doesn't work.

This is of course a category disanalogy. You're comparing a concept that admits of degrees to one that has no relationship to degrees.

banyon
01-31-2010, 09:15 AM
You're clearly not paying attention. He's quadrupled the debt, took over banks and the automobile industry, is attacking media sources that don't flatter him, is using the IRS to target political enemies, and is trying to cram universal healthcare down everybody's throats. And that's the communists holy grail because once they control healthcare, everything after that is gravy. And the endgame and you even said so yourself is a military dictatorship.

The boldfaced portion is wrong by a factor of three.

The Mad Crapper
01-31-2010, 09:15 AM
Let’s see; Socialism, National Socialism and International Socialism…
January 30th, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments
…WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE THE COMMON LINK?

Our old friend, John Ray:

So what is the essence that Nazism and the modern Left share? Simple: A devotion to comprehensive control of everybody and every thing important in the life of the nation — a hatred of individual liberty and a yen for lockstep unity behind the current doctrines of the party. Hitler controlled everything in Germany by laws and regulations and that is the always-obvious aim of the modern-day Democratic party too. They positively SPROUT regulations of just about everything that moves. Hitler eventually had a party representative in every factory to make sure that everything done there was politically correct. America has not got quite that far yet but I am sure the Democrats would love to get there, given half a chance.

UPDATED TO THE RADIANT FUTURE:

“Frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot.”–Barack Tovarisch Hussein to the GOP

It’s not so much the Republicans saying it–its the Commies themselves!

btw, the difference between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks? Wikipedia:

Democratic centralism is the name given to the principles of internal organization used by Leninist political parties, and the term is sometimes used as a synonym for any Leninist policy inside a political party. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of “freedom of discussion, unity of action.”

In 1952 at XIX Party Congress Stalin declared: “There are no more Mensheviks. Why should we call ourselves Bolsheviks? We are not the majority, but the whole party.” According to his suggestion, the Bolshevik party was renamed the Communist Party of Soviet Union. Since that time, the term Bolshevik has been regarded as obsolete, and relevant only to the pre-Revolutionary times, during the Russian Revolution itself and the Russian Civil War which followed.

http://coldfury.com/?p=21929

________________

RUSH: So Obama says he's not a Bolshevik but, folks, the Communist Party USA loves Obama. Here are just some sample headlines. "CPUSA and Obama Platforms are Identical." August 8th, 2008: "Forget for the moment about Bill Ayers and Obama's other Communist friends and mentors of the distant past," and they go on to cite how his agenda and theirs are platforms, Obama's and the CPUSA, are identical.

Look, we had some fun with this in the first hour but Osama has come out and started spouting every talking point on global warming from Algore and Nobel Peace Prize-winning United Nations to Barack Obama: Beating up on America, America is destroying the planet, America didn't sign Kyoto; Osama's signaling his desire to destroy USA, its economy, Western civilization, capitalism. It's just what the Communist Party USA wants, just what Obama is doing. Here's another: CPUSA: Obama Will change USA Forever," and they're happy about it! August 7th, 2008: "Communist Party CPUSA Endorses Obama."

"Communist Party USA Hails Obama Victory." "'From the understandably elated editors of the Communist Party USA's people's weekly, formerly the Daily Worker, July 1st, 2009: 'Communist Party USA Eelebrates Obama's First Six Months.'" "Communist Party USA to Take the Streets for Obama," August 10th, 2009. This is to oppose the tea parties and the town hall meetings that were going on. "Communist Party USA Honors SEIU and the AFSCME Union Leaders." "CPUSA Speech Lays Out Obama Agenda." I mean, it's right there for people to see; and these are not, you know, play communists. They're not all that powerful here. Well, they are actually with Obama in office. But he says that he's not a Bolshevik. "I'm not. I'm not an ideologue," but he most definitely is.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012910/content/01125111.guest.html

banyon
01-31-2010, 09:34 AM
Yes, they call that fascism.

I thought you called it "communism" and "socialism"?

Oh yeah, ALL the same thing. :rolleyes: