It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why my mind is closing towards Capitalism

page: 36
92
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth

Whats wrong with it? I'm going to have to be the one that pays for it. You are willing to steal from someone else to pay for your own mistakes.


Capitalists have been stealing from the people since the end of feudalism.

They steal from workers when they take profit from the workers. Why should someone get rich off my labour?


edit on 2/3/2012 by ANOK because: typo


Why should laborers get rich off of my ideas?


Why not ensure that everyone has a good existence since we all have live here?


So you think retractable needles, and pace-makers were invented for "the good of existence"?


We were talking about education weren't we?

Are you saying that the investment in one education is comparable to the retractable needle?

Education is an investment and education greatly effects the prosperity of entire societies




posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

La Contra Dora

.........

Gee, well on the planet Earth politics generally have two sides, are you telling me that
Hitler didn't have any opposition?

So if Hitler is a left winger you can tell us the name of the party that opposed his Left
wing ideology.

La Contra Dora


Gee, well several nations have had no political oposition, and only one side existed/exists...

Or are you going to rewrite that fact about history as well?...

Let's see, North Korea, China, the old U.S.S.R., Cuba, and others...

Or according to you none of them existed...

BTW, what the heck is "La Contra Dora"?...

That makes no sense in Spanish at all...


edit on 3-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth

Whats wrong with it? I'm going to have to be the one that pays for it. You are willing to steal from someone else to pay for your own mistakes.


Capitalists have been stealing from the people since the end of feudalism.

They steal from workers when they take profit from the workers. Why should someone get rich off my labour?


edit on 2/3/2012 by ANOK because: typo


Why should laborers get rich off of my ideas?


Why not ensure that everyone has a good existence since we all have live here?


So you think retractable needles, and pace-makers were invented for "the good of existence"?


We were talking about education weren't we?

Are you saying that the investment in one education is comparable to the retractable needle?

Education is an investment and education greatly effects the prosperity of entire societies


So invest in it, why do you have to make me invest in it also?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth

Whats wrong with it? I'm going to have to be the one that pays for it. You are willing to steal from someone else to pay for your own mistakes.


Capitalists have been stealing from the people since the end of feudalism.

They steal from workers when they take profit from the workers. Why should someone get rich off my labour?


edit on 2/3/2012 by ANOK because: typo


Why should laborers get rich off of my ideas?


Because you can't enact your ideas without your laborers help. What have you to lose if you give them some dignity and real say in their position at the table??


Oh yes I can, I did it for years, like I said earlier, I could automate the entire process and fire everyone, it would save me a ton of money in the long run.


Ok... then why not do that??


I'm actually planning on doing just that, but thats years away. I know, I'm everything wrong with the world.
edit on 3-2-2012 by aravoth because: (no reason given)


See I have no problem with that, until it starts screwing a large deal of people, which I
doubt it will do...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
I can agree to a large extent. I'm uneasy in considering any room for right/libertarian... perhaps the spectrum could be altered in a geometric way... where the libertarian right can have some of its depth shaved off of the libertarian axis and the left would have a deeper libertarian potential?


I just think the left should reapropriate the term and the right stop using it.

Either that, or they realise they are actually more left than right.

Reform in government, i.e. smaller government, is a left wing idea, not right wing. Right wing is more authority, not less.

The only reason Americans think the opposite is because of right wing propaganda that started after WWII, which along with the war, was done to weaken the power of the working class. in the 1930's the workers were extremely left wing and politically aware, it's why the revolution in Spain happened, and was supported from all over the world. Including American doctors and nurses who went to help with the struggle.

It scared the establishment.


edit on 2/3/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

So invest in it, why do you have to make me invest in it also?



Because these people have no idea what it means to have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. At least on things like paying for their own education and such...

Heck, soon enough they are going to want free housing, and free cars, after all they need to sleep, and need a mode of transportaion to attend college/university...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by aravoth

Whats wrong with it? I'm going to have to be the one that pays for it. You are willing to steal from someone else to pay for your own mistakes.


Capitalists have been stealing from the people since the end of feudalism.

They steal from workers when they take profit from the workers. Why should someone get rich off my labour?


edit on 2/3/2012 by ANOK because: typo


Why should laborers get rich off of my ideas?


Why not ensure that everyone has a good existence since we all have live here?


So you think retractable needles, and pace-makers were invented for "the good of existence"?


We were talking about education weren't we?

Are you saying that the investment in one education is comparable to the retractable needle?

Education is an investment and education greatly effects the prosperity of entire societies


So invest in it, why do you have to make me invest in it also?



I don't want you to invest in it, you can go live in a cave and befriend a rock for all I care.
But America is a prosperous nation exactly because we valued education and its power.

Can you truly not understand or comprehend the concept of usury?

Or

The intrinsic value of education?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by aravoth

So invest in it, why do you have to make me invest in it also?



Because these people have no idea what it means to have PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. At least on things like paying for their own education and such...

Heck, soon enough they are going to want free housing, and free cars, after all they need to sleep, and need a mode of transportaion to attend college/university...


Are you wearing a patriot costume?

Its everyones personal responsibility to have a social conscience.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

I just think the left should reapropriate the term and the right stop using it.

Either that, or they realise they are actually more left than right.

Reform in government, i.e. smaller government, is a left wing idea, not right wing. Right wing is more authority, not less.




Jezz, you surely are completely ignorant, yet you seem to want to profess to be an authority figure on this topic...

In socialism/communism the state OWNS THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION , as in it has power over all factories, and other means of production...

In socialism/communism private property is abolished, which means the state owns EVERYTHING...

EVERYTHING about socialism/communism is about consolidating power, and forming centralized control over EVERYTHING...

But you want to claim that means "less government"...



edit on 3-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by theubermensch

Are you wearing a patriot costume?

Its everyones personal responsibility to have a social conscience.


No, I left my "patriot costume" when my parents and I escaped Cuba...

So you agree with FORCING people to do your will...

Ok master, you win, I shall turn to the dark side master...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by mastahunta

La Contra Dora

.........

Gee, well on the planet Earth politics generally have two sides, are you telling me that
Hitler didn't have any opposition?

So if Hitler is a left winger you can tell us the name of the party that opposed his Left
wing ideology.

La Contra Dora


Gee, well several nations have had no political oposition, and only one side existed/exists...

Or are you going to rewrite that fact about history as well?...

Let's see, North Korea, China, the old U.S.S.R., Cuba, and others...

Or according to you none of them existed...

BTW, what the heck is "La Contra Dora"?...

That makes no sense in Spanish at all...


edit on 3-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Are you OK man/girl?

I might embarass you, but I will list it like you are 10 years old with an undeveloped
logic center...

1. You claimed that Hitler was a leftwinger

2. I hold that Hitler was a right winger opposed by left wingers, I proved my point
Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands – KPD was Hitlers opposition. LEFTWINGERS

3. You still claimed Hitler was a leftwinger, I asked you to prove it by establishing the
opposition and their contrary ideas. (THERE IS NO SUCH THING)

You failed, because you believe in made up narratives not history



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wow... do tell us, what in the world does that have ANYTHING to do with HItler being a SOCIALIST?...

Ok, let's do this, can you tell us the name of the rightwing party in Cuba that has opposed castro's party since the Cuban revolution?...

clock is ticking...go...


La Contra Dora

.........

Gee, well on the planet Earth politics generally have two sides, are you telling me that
Hitler didn't have any opposition?

So if Hitler is a left winger you can tell us the name of the party that opposed his Left
wing ideology.

La Contra Dora


You are painting the issue in a way too simple manner. Post-WW1 German politics revolved around opposing vs upholding the Weimar republic, with one side hoping to keep the democratic system and the other hoping to return to a more authoritarian model. For example the Germans national peoples party were conservative monarchists, who at first opposed the National Socialist welfare programs and then joined forces with the party to attempt to contain its growth and implementation of policies. As the Nazi party grew it was only logical to support it if you were against the Weimar republic and the Versailles treaty. As it was after all still a democracy, the parties and individuals tried to find democratic means to stop the Nazis from gaining too much power. Paul von Hindenburg is a good example of this.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by theubermensch

Are you wearing a patriot costume?

Its everyones personal responsibility to have a social conscience.


No, I left my "patriot costume" when my parents and I escaped Cuba...

So you agree with FORCING people to do your will...

Ok master, you win, I shall turn to the dark side master...




Not forcing. What if Cuba had not been a victim of Imperialism? What if 'upward mobility' was not bs. Dont you think things could be better for all? Not just some?



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Are you OK man/girl?

I might embarass you, but I will list it like you are 10 years old with an undeveloped
logic center...

1. You claimed that Hitler was a leftwinger

2. I hold that Hitler was a right winger opposed by left wingers, I proved my point
Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands – KPD was Hitlers opposition. LEFTWINGERS

3. You still claimed Hitler was a leftwinger, I asked you to prove it by establishing the
opposition and their contrary ideas. (THERE IS NO SUCH THING)

You failed, because you believe in made up narratives not history



Wow, first of all, I am a man, which really has no say on whether I am right or wrong...

Second, you fail to understand that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NEED FOR AN OPOSITION PARTY...

Many nations have had, and still have only ONE PARTY...

Your argument has no validity WHATSOEVER...

Who failed MISERABLY is you...

There are many different branches of socialism/communism, and socialists/communists can run against other socialists/communists simply BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS ON HOW TO RUN THEIR COUNTRIES...

If I am 10 years old to you, you surely seem like a toddler to me...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by theubermensch

Not forcing. What if Cuba had not been a victim of Imperialism? What if 'upward mobility' was not bs. Dont you think things could be better for all? Not just some?


Oooh boy... Cuba was not "a victim of imperialism"... Cuba was a victim to the socialist/communist ideas of castro...

Since the start of the castro revolution Cuba has been for the worst...

There is enough land in Cuba to cultivate harvests to feed the people, but instead most of it is sold, or sent to other countries "to spread the revolution" and to keep the rotten idea of the communist revolution alive...

Before castro, even during Batista, things were a lot better for the majority of Cubans, including farmers...



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shred

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wow... do tell us, what in the world does that have ANYTHING to do with HItler being a SOCIALIST?...

Ok, let's do this, can you tell us the name of the rightwing party in Cuba that has opposed castro's party since the Cuban revolution?...

clock is ticking...go...


La Contra Dora

.........

Gee, well on the planet Earth politics generally have two sides, are you telling me that
Hitler didn't have any opposition?

So if Hitler is a left winger you can tell us the name of the party that opposed his Left
wing ideology.

La Contra Dora


You are painting the issue in a way too simple manner. Post-WW1 German politics revolved around opposing vs upholding the Weimar republic, with one side hoping to keep the democratic system and the other hoping to return to a more authoritarian model. For example the Germans national peoples party were conservative monarchists, who at first opposed the National Socialist welfare programs and then joined forces with the party to attempt to contain its growth and implementation of policies. As the Nazi party grew it was only logical to support it if you were against the Weimar republic and the Versailles treaty. As it was after all still a democracy, the parties and individuals tried to find democratic means to stop the Nazis from gaining too much power. Paul von Hindenburg is a good example of this.


I am painting it that way specifically because, opposition will indicate the the bent of their opposition.

Logically speaking, if two parties are in unity there will be no conflict, however the Nazi party
actively hunted and murdered Communist and Communist tried to murder Hitler on several
occasions.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Oh and btw, in case you didn't know, so far seem to be increadibly ignorant on history, the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands was the COMMUNIST PARTY...Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST...


Yes, both leftwingers, but with different ideas on how Germany should be run...
edit on 3-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by Shred

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Wow... do tell us, what in the world does that have ANYTHING to do with HItler being a SOCIALIST?...

Ok, let's do this, can you tell us the name of the rightwing party in Cuba that has opposed castro's party since the Cuban revolution?...

clock is ticking...go...


La Contra Dora

.........

Gee, well on the planet Earth politics generally have two sides, are you telling me that
Hitler didn't have any opposition?

So if Hitler is a left winger you can tell us the name of the party that opposed his Left
wing ideology.

La Contra Dora


You are painting the issue in a way too simple manner. Post-WW1 German politics revolved around opposing vs upholding the Weimar republic, with one side hoping to keep the democratic system and the other hoping to return to a more authoritarian model. For example the Germans national peoples party were conservative monarchists, who at first opposed the National Socialist welfare programs and then joined forces with the party to attempt to contain its growth and implementation of policies. As the Nazi party grew it was only logical to support it if you were against the Weimar republic and the Versailles treaty. As it was after all still a democracy, the parties and individuals tried to find democratic means to stop the Nazis from gaining too much power. Paul von Hindenburg is a good example of this.


I am painting it that way specifically because, opposition will indicate the the bent of their opposition.

Logically speaking, if two parties are in unity there will be no conflict, however the Nazi party
actively hunted and murdered Communist and Communist tried to murder Hitler on several
occasions.


You do realize that the left has multiple nuances just like the whole political spectrum? Not all leftists are communists.



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse




No man, if the majority of English speaking people on this Globe heard you, you would
be laughed at like you are completely uneducated. That is a fact...

I talked about this in pubs in Crouch End and in Glasgow and the guys were floored,
even the Tory's in the group thought the idea was bizarre. FOX news is not the gospel,
dude...
edit on 3-2-2012 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by mastahunta
 


Oh and btw, in case you didn't know, so far seem to be increadibly ignorant on history, the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands was the COMMUNIST PARTY...Hitler was a NATIONAL SOCIALIST...


Yes, both leftwingers, but with different ideas on how Germany should be run...
edit on 3-2-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Too bad Stalin and Hitler didn't get a chance to talk they could have avoided the whole war.
Wait a minute wasn't the US allied with the communists during the war??



new topics

top topics



 
92
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join