Absolutely shocking facts about the GOP

page: 4
87
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


And neither of you understand communism.

If you did, you wouldn't support free market idealism, because you would recognize it as communism.




posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


And neither of you understand communism.

If you did, you wouldn't support free market idealism, because you would recognize it as communism.




I support the free market. If you did, you would not support socialism. But you are mixing socialism with capitalism and then calling it free market. In other words, you are hiding the collectiveness aspect of socialism inside the free market mechanism and all the good reaped from Capitalism you then claim a result of socialism. It's nothing but but an illusion created by staging.
Socialism is communism lite. Even Marx and Lenin admit that socialism is a bridge to communism. Socialism uses the Capitalist mechanism because it does not work on its own.
Again, you don't seem to understand that communism is the polar opposite of the free market. Do you understand the difference between free enterprise and other forms of monopolistic competition? Monopolistic corporatism is what ruins free enterprise. Socialists hate free enterprise because it goes against their love of Statist control. Corporatism can be Statist or not, and it can be competitive or monopolistic.
I think your problem is that you understand neither communism nor capitalism.'
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
A poor man can never vote republican... -my grandfather.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I am looking at the result of free market policies, and see communism. You think because they call it capitalism, means that it actually is a part of the market system, but it is not.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 
It's important to remember that the term liberal in the 19th century and the term now in the 20th century have significantly different meanings. Nineteenth century liberalism was based on the writings of men like John Locke, Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say, and John Stuart Mill.

Classical liberalism was based on the concept of a laissez-faire economy, individual freedom, and limited government. This included the concepts of natural rights, individual property rights, human rationality, free markets, limited government, and the protection of civil liberties, all radical, even revolutionary, concepts at the time. In short, they were 19th century "socialist" principles which you rail against.

On the other had, at the time classical conservatism believed in the status quo. Conservatism as defined by Samuel Francis was “the survival and enhancement of a particular people and its institutionalized cultural expressions.” Thus White Supremacy, anti-immigrant bias, limited upward social mobility, and slavery were quite consistent with classical conservatism.

Perhaps you find it surprising that Marx would laud the ascendancy of a middle class and antislavery as helping the working class. I suppose you find that objectionable. So it's telling from your article that at the end you describe the Republican Party as being formed by Communists and Jews. I don't think that is by accident.

So I'll openly state that I'm a conservative, or better put, a nineteenth century liberal. What do you support? Do you support Rep. Ron Paul who is a racist, Israeli hater, and anti-Semite?
edit on 10/09/2011 by Recce1 because: Corrections to spelling & better sentence structure.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 





1. I do not believe in Capitalism as it is a materialistic construct


We live in a material world. I hope you have learned how to precipitate from the Universal Supply like the Comte de St. Germain, the famous alchemist.
Hegelianism and communism is dialectical materialism.

In fact here is Merriam Webster's definition of dialectical materialism


"Dialectical Materialism ... 1 : the Marxist theory that maintains the material basis of a reality constantly changing in a dialectical process and the priority of matter over mind."


www.crossroad.to...

Here is Merrian webster's definition of Hegelianism


"Dialectic ....the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite... development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism ....any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict ...
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I am looking at the result of free market policies, and see communism. You think because they call it capitalism, means that it actually is a part of the market system, but it is not.



No, the result of communism is communism. If it were not so, communists would not be spending so much time fighting free enterprise and private property. You must know that communism is State control of all property. You may say that it is proletariat control, but it isn't the individual only the collective, or rather the State, and even Lenin admitted that the elite rulership runs things and has the wealth. Read Lenin, since I already know you don't take my word for it.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 





A cap placed on the size of all businesses enforced by the government


Lovely to know you believe yourself to be the only true conservative living in America and that you believe in govt controlling the market by placing caps on wealth.




It goes without saying that the modern Republican Party’s membership is largely Dixiecrats who left the Democratic Party


Oh really? I've never been in the Democrat Party and neither were my parents. Condoleeza Rice said her father was denied by the Democrats and so he went to the Republican Party. Maybe you meant the Neocons like Wolfowitz and Perle. I know a lot of Repubs who were never in the Democrat Party.
I think that is a generalization which cannot be substantiated.
edit on 16-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Misoir
 


I cannot believe you are trying to convince everyone here it is really the conservatives who are the socialists and the progressives really the classical liberals. No no and no. As much as I appreciate your history lesson, I see an attempt to somehow justify the progressive nature of the Democrats while blaming the conservatives for all the socialist chaos that the Democrat party has wreaked on our society. I am sorry I must object to this treatment of things.
It doesnt't change the Progressive ( Democrat ) origin of eugenics.


Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics, progressive reformers saw the opportunity to attack social problems efficiently by treating the cause (bad heredity) rather than the effect. Much of the impetus for social and economic reform came from class conflict in the period 1880-1930,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Why should anyone listen to you anyways?

Really... you have ignored addressing and backing up the majority of your charges and claims
time and time again.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Try reading it again. I was not trying to defend anyone; I threw everyone under the bus in that post. What was stated is that Constitutionalists are in fact intellectual descendants of Classical Liberals, Socialists are also intellectual descendants of Classical Liberalism, and the Progressives were former Socialists around the Civil War who still clung to individualism. Progressivism or, Social Democracy, is the part of the Socialist movement which abandoned revolutionary politics in favor of a social revolution instead or what they call ‘social progress’.

Eugenics, as you had mentioned, was just one aspect of this movement and once again shows the inherently materialist conception of Liberalism/Socialism/Communism/Progressivism. It relied upon actually visible substances to determine their views of things; Hitler adopted this same materialistic conception of the world, hence the reason he, like the rest of the Fascists, were former Socialists. The Fascists were correct in many things but failed overall because their ideology was too dependent upon the very ideas that they were trying to destroy.

Conservatism, in its purest form, is inherently opposed to the Lockean Liberalism of the Enlightenment which influenced the Founding Fathers. It was this rebellion by laborers, craftsmen, and merchants, which was spawn out of class warfare (bourgeois v. aristocratic/royal) which Liberalism has as an inherent trait. Every ‘good’ Liberal is opposed to a hierarchical society not based on merit, hence their hatred for aristocrats, nobles, and royalty.

Socialists just modified this class warfare begun by Liberals as a new class had developed; the laborers. These were men who were poor, without land, and sold their labor for money. This was the proletariat who Karl Marx wrote about. His ideas were the rebranding of Liberalism into a class conflict not only against aristocrats but also against the newly enfranchised bourgeois.

The only reason America never actually went down the road to Socialism as Europe had is because of our founding as a staunchly Liberal and Individualist nation. Collectivism was adopted by pre – Civil War Socialists but only in a limited form and this is what Progressivism became.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I am looking at the result of free market policies, and see communism. You think because they call it capitalism, means that it actually is a part of the market system, but it is not.



No, the result of communism is communism. If it were not so, communists would not be spending so much time fighting free enterprise and private property. You must know that communism is State control of all property. You may say that it is proletariat control, but it isn't the individual only the collective, or rather the State, and even Lenin admitted that the elite rulership runs things and has the wealth. Read Lenin, since I already know you don't take my word for it.
edit on 15-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


You do NOTHING to explain why the most successful capitalist ventures in America are also the
most invested in the political system. So by your measure the communists are also the capitalists
you are trying to free of regulation. It is soooooooo mind numbingly obvious that it is big business
(who are the capitalists you champion) buying the government and the political system. Yet you
claim that there are a secret group of communists running the show, care to look at the list of the
biggest donors in America?

You have got to be kidding us by now dude.
edit on 16-1-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I have always backed up my positions with materials even from the horse's mouth, from Marx and Lenin. Perhaps you could try that. I use the writings of Antony Sutton a lot. SInce you seem to read my posts, surely you know that.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You seem, like most Americans, to confuse Conservatism with Classical Liberalism. It has never been Classical Liberalism, in fact during the 19th century Conservatism was the main enemy of Liberalism. Conservatism does not bow to any form of economics; it believes the state is the master of the economy and not the other way around. Being a Conservative definitely does not require believing in free – markets either, remember this was also a Liberal idea brought into popularity by 18th and 19th century merchants as a way to gain the upper hand in nations.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I have always backed up my positions with materials even from the horse's mouth, from Marx and Lenin. Perhaps you could try that. I use the writings of Antony Sutton a lot. SInce you seem to read my posts, surely you know that.



I want to hear it from your brain, not some other persons brain.

The US political system is directly funded by the most capitalist companies in the world.
So explain why these companies would continue to invest into a "communist" political
system that is trying to impoverish the companies making the donations/investments?
That would be funding their own demise if we are to believe your narrative.

You have a huge hole in your logic that you have never reconciled, do so now, please.

Thanks
edit on 16-1-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Thank you for clarifying your position. I am thinking your posts through some more.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


You seem, like most Americans, to confuse Conservatism with Classical Liberalism. It has never been Classical Liberalism, in fact during the 19th century Conservatism was the main enemy of Liberalism. Conservatism does not bow to any form of economics; it believes the state is the master of the economy and not the other way around. Being a Conservative definitely does not require believing in free – markets either, remember this was also a Liberal idea brought into popularity by 18th and 19th century merchants as a way to gain the upper hand in nations.


In my view there is very little in the Democrat Party today resembling anything of the Founding Fathers. Statism is in both parties.
I read somewhere that the Democrat Party tends toward liberalness in social arenas, whereas the Republicans tend toward laissez faire concerning the economy. Democrats clearly do not support laissez faire. Republicans more and more are accepting the the Progressive ideals of the welfare state. Whatever the Republican Party may have been before, there is nothing to suggest the Democrats espouse the values of our Founding Fathers. A Constitutionalist is one who adheres to the Constitution. Progressives today insist that the welfare state is what was meant by the General Welfare clause. I believe nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever the Democrat Party may have been, it certainly is not the party of our Founding Fathers.
My point before was that Hegelian Dialectic has entered the arena of politics and invaded both parties so that neither one is a true reflection of the Founding principles. Our Founding Fathers may have taken ideas from the Enlightenment, but as you said, the collectivist element was much more toned down, and individual liberty was espoused instead of the collective.
More and more there is a blending of the two opposites and so it is confusing. This is the result of the conflict producing a synthesis.
That is why people often remark that the two parties seem alike. Antony sutton said that the synthesis was neither right nor left.

Can you really tell me with a straight face that Progressives today represent the values of our Founding Fathers? Eugenics really has clouded things so much, that depopulation is called liberty and seizing of private property is considered financial safety. It is so turned upside down as to warrant, I think, a serious makeover.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


well the Intl Bankers make money from the conflicts produced around the world. After the "fall of communism" they had to find another avenue, which has turned out to be globalism. Communism is a tool to make millions of fools believe in a system in which the elite get all the money and the proletariat have a worker's paradise in which they think they own the means of production, but which in fact is entirely controlled by the elite. Even lenin said it. And he also said there would have to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but that the controlling entitiy would have the wealth.

But remember their goal is a One World Order. It has been since the start. Hegelianism was brought to Yale and hence was introduced into the American system. Marx and Engels embraced Hegelianism.
Sutton says the end result will be the New World Order.
The problem with OWS is that although they are protesting the wealthy elite, they are demanding the very things the elite want to impose, a socialist One World Order. Remember the Elite will be exempt from all the things they impose on the rest of us. It will work as long as they can convince people that the proletariat will run things. Sure the proletariat may very well run things on a day to day basis, but the wealthy will still have the money.
Don't you love being a slave to your socialist owners?
edit on 16-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
This whole thing is a scam. It's like those casino's that have electric magnets under the roulette tables. At a flick of a switch you lose your money. You can't win against the house!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by mastahunta
 


I have always backed up my positions with materials even from the horse's mouth, from Marx and Lenin. Perhaps you could try that. I use the writings of Antony Sutton a lot. SInce you seem to read my posts, surely you know that.



I want to hear it from your brain, not some other persons brain.

The US political system is directly funded by the most capitalist companies in the world.
So explain why these companies would continue to invest into a "communist" political
system that is trying to impoverish the companies making the donations/investments?
That would be funding their own demise if we are to believe your narrative.

You have a huge hole in your logic that you have never reconciled, do so now, please.

Thanks
edit on 16-1-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)


No, there are just some things you may not understand about this. I assume you mean corporate lobbyists controlling the actions of Washington. What makes you think all lobbyists are corporations which make stuff?
You do know that Unions are some of the biggest lobbyists in Washington and their lobbying got them special waivers from Obamacare. No, wait, lobbyists absolutely have to be only the mosters who are Goldman Sachs or Monsanto right? That is liberal thinking, and I would bet that many who espouse this little gem know it's an absolute crock.
Ever hear of La Raza? They lobby Washington, Why aren't the liberals screaming about them? It's because liberals support their cause.
www.opensecrets.org...

CAIR lobbies Washington. They are special interest group.

So, truly it is not fair for liberals to be whining about how people are influencing politics and elections when they are so guilty of it themelves.
As I said before communism is a mechanism for control. The Elite are always exempt from that which they expect us to live under. Take Pelosi for example. Congress is exempt from Obamacare and a few other things including rules on insider trading. Pelosi is quite wealthy and also did insider trading. She is outside of the very rules she makes up for the rest of us. And she is DSA. Democratic Socialists of America.
Yes Pelosi is a perfect example of a wealthy elite who forces us into socialism while she herself enjoys the spoils of the market,
Are you getting this yet?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


While I was researching further into the topic of my OP I stumbled across something that both fit the topic at hand and your post.

The Young America movement began in 1845 inspired by the social reforms occurring in 1830s Europe, specifically Young Italy (Liberal Republican movement) and Young Hegelians. I find it most interesting that they drew much of their influence from the Young Hegelians as their philosophy was that in order to topple political establishments was to attack its religious principles. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engles, August von Cieszkowski, Karl Schmidt, and Edgar Bauer were all Young Hegelians at the time.

In the United States the ‘Young Americans’ advocated for free – trade, social reform, expansion southwestward, and anti – aristocratic movements abroad. By the 1850s it had become a key faction in the Democratic Party after already bringing into its realm two Democratic Presidents, a Democratic Representative who was the party nominee, and had much of its financing done by a man who was an apprentice to the Rothschilds. President Polk, President Pierce, Rep. Douglas, and financier August Belmont were all major leaders of the movement who embraced commerce, technology, regulation, reform, and internationalism. They also coined the term ‘Manifest Destiny’.


All history is to be re-written; political science and the whole scope of all moral truth have to be considered and illustrated in the light of the democratic principle. All old subjects of thought and all new questions arising, connected more or less directly with human existence, have to be taken up again and re-examined.


In 1851 the core newspaper the movement centered around, ‘Democratic Review’, was purchased from O’Sullivan by George Nicholas Sanders who was a member of the Consul in London under Polk but was recalled due to involvement in British anarchist movements and plans to assassinate British heads of state to bring about democracy. He was also believed to be involved in the assassination of President Lincoln.

Under Sanders, Democratic Representative and candidate for President Stephen A. Douglas; remarked that:


The Democratic Review has been heretofore not a partisan paper, but a periodical that was supposed to represent the whole Democratic Party... I have observed recently a very great change.


By the mid – 1850s the Free Soil Democrats (largely ‘Yong Americans’) and abolitionist Whigs founded the Republican Party. After that the ‘Young Americans’ replaced the ‘Democratic Review’ with Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune as its major political outlet. Another group known as the Locofocos also joined the party. The Locofocos were largely labor union veterans from America’s first labor union called the ‘Working Men’s Party’ who opposed monopolies and strongly favored laissez – faire politics and economics. Ralph Waldo Emerson said of the Locofocos:


“The new race is stiff, heady, and rebellious; they are fanatics in freedom; they hate tolls, taxes, turnpikes, banks, hierarchies, governors, yea, almost laws.”


What does all of this mean? It means that the Young America movement was inspired by Hegelian Dialectics and became the overwhelming force in the Democratic Party during the 1850s; even having two of their own Presidents. They were largely Free Soil Democrats and got together with Abolitionist Republicans and Locofocos (Labor Unionists) to become the intellectual founders of the Republican Party centered on Socialist Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune.

So I guess we could say that Socialism was a powerful force in 1850s American politics and influenced both major political parties. Perhaps this is about the time they became so similar?





new topics
top topics
 
87
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join