They Took R Jobs!

Atleast you're honest and admit you believe socialism rocked the CRADLE of liberty, even if a right wing idiot like hitler participated. See, that's the difference between us: I believe socialism was meant to help humanity, not destroy it.
Maybe you have good intentions, I don't know and I'm trying to care

Originally posted by brukernavn
reply to post by HamrHeed

 

Your narrow-minded response reminded me of a quote by Bertrand Russel: "Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."

How streamlined your thoughts are. We appear to have much in common

Originally posted by Goldcurrent

Yes I will do without a TV, I will suffer without beer, movies of make believe I can do without. What I hate is seeing our people starve, I hate seeing our people live in filth, I hate seeing children not knowing how to read, I hate seeing our people not knowing how to write.

I will not got without TV.

I will not go without Internet.

I will not go without a beer.

I will not have the Gov't dictate what I can or cannot read, watch, or do.

I will fight tooth and nail against any and all encroachments of our freedom!


BTW: last time I looked, there weren't too many starving people in Amerika. In fact obestity has never been higher. Healthy eating should be taught but not mandated

edit on 24-5-2012 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)

I did not or never would suggest to encroach on your freedom, nor would or does socialism encroach on your freedom of education in its pure form.

You will not go without TV....cant miss that all important episode of "american idol"...

Socialism does not mean you need go without the internet. In fact it relies on your input to sustain it.

Socialism does not mean you can not drink what ever your drink of choice is...My statement just said I could do without if others needed the resources more than I did.

You need to check your self on the facts of starving children in america. The commercials don't do us(america) justice when it comes to covering america on the truth of starving children and adults here.

Originally posted by Germanicus
reply to post by muse7

 

Yeah. Its strange. Its like people are intent on cheering for their own demise.

And yeah,the word socialism has a stigma. I say highball with socialsim then switch to saying 'nationalization' which sounds more patriotic when we are closer to critical mass

Then we nationalize Oil and Banking. Next we nationalize Education and offer debt relief to students,then we nationalize the Medical Industry and sell that to retiring Baby Boomers. It should be easy. Nationalization sounds better than Austerity. I think Americans will begin to come around when they start to comprehend that Greece is no tv show. Austerity in America is coming. It will be harsh and it will hurt. All for the sake of maintaining the standard of living of the mega-rich. Its insane. People will see it eventually.

edit on 24-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)

You must be young? You honestly think the richest people will take a hit for the middle class for more socialism?
LOL
You're going under the bus with everyone else. That is the ultimate truth

American jobs went overseas due to several things greed being the foremost motivator. Globalization has been pushed through the Rockefeller-funded United Nations with the following owing their origins there:

Check out the map on the right hand margin - en.wikipedia.org...
North Korea should also be blue. Most of these countries are under threat by NATO or by civil uprisings sponsored by the CIA. Note Syria, Iran, Libya, Sudan are all represented as observers, i.e. non-members. Hmmmmm....

World Trade Organization - en.wikipedia.org...
US industry was able to compete for several reasons: We had tariffs on imported goods which made them more expensive, safety requirements which foreign goods could not meet and intellectual property rights that kept counterfeit goods out. The formation of the WTO was integral to destroying these barriers.

National treatment means that imported goods be treated no less favorably than domestically produced goods (at least after the foreign goods have entered the market) and was introduced to tackle non-tariff barriers to trade (e.g. technical standards, security standards et al. discriminating against imported goods).

North American Free Trade Agreement - en.wikipedia.org...
Sent many US manufacturing jobs to Mexico, destroyed many environmental regulations, allowed GMO crops to take over Mexican agriculture, made governments liable for "damages" to corporations for income "lost" due to changes in domestic regulations, etc.

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank -
www.economicshelp.org...

The drive for globalization began even before WW2 but never really took off until Reagan/Bush and has expanded under every administration since using either trade, currency manipulation, open warfare or provoked internal revolt to achieve it's goals.

There is National Socialism, and then there is national socialism.

The first is the historical ideology of the Nazi party.

The second is socialism coupled with nationalism.

Yes, I think national socialism (not National Socialism!) has plenty to offer now. Altrough national social capitalism would be even better.

Originally posted by mileysubet

Originally posted by HamrHeed
I stopped reading at "National socialism is a good idea"

Father have mercy on this clownship

Which part of that phrase is a bad word? I am assuming that socialism is the word that stopped you in your tracks...

What is socialism?

Socialism: A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time.[5][6] Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

Man that sound absoulutly horrible...A system of government based on our needs...

The problem with you and many others is that they associate a term such as "socialism" with an evil empire and not a true means of government.

How's it paid for? The money is taken from the citizens, whether they need services or not.

Who owns all the land? The government.

Who owns the means of production? The government.

Who owns you? The government.

Every truly socialist state that has ever been created has become a disgusting dictatorship, and then thankfully failed. China has seen the light and is beginning to embrace capitalism. So is Cuba. It's because capitalism=freedom.

/TOA

I will not got without TV.

I will not go without Internet.

I will not go without a beer.

I will not have the Gov't dictate what I can or cannot read, watch, or do.

I will fight tooth and nail against any and all encroachments of our freedom!

BTW: last time I looked, there weren't too many starving people in Amerika. In fact obestity has never been higher. Healthy eating should be taught but not mandated

edit on 24-5-2012 by Goldcurrent because: (no reason given)

Under socialism, where everyone had a role to play, the entertainment would dwarf what we currently have. Given the age of moderization and productivity there would be no place left for people to work except in recreation oriented jobs. Once we can stop worrying about our next paycheck and all things associated we can start to live. Work a bit and enjoy life the rest of the time. And the arts. Wonder things could happen without the constraints of modern day life.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


I don't know where your idea that socialism is some utopian wonderland. What advancements in modernization can we expect from a society that has no competition?

I have lived in what can be attributed the most Socialist state in North America of the past 100 years. Our population remained stagnant for those 100 years, economic advancements were little, and recreation/leisure/entertainment was only what one could imagine in their heads.

Without some form of competition, society (people in general) become lazy. Take the Soviet/U.S. space race as an example. Neil Armstrong even stated that had the U.S. not had such fierce competion from the Russians, you never would have made it to the moon.

Under socialism, There is no incentive to try, invent, capitalize.

I understand that the capitalist system has been corrupted through corporate greed, monopolization, profiteering, inflated executive bonuses, benefit cutting, offshoring, outsourcing, consultant overload, etc, etc. etc.

But the capitalist system has been proven to create human progress at a rate much faster and naturally than any other.

Oh, Stalin starved 10 million Ukrainians during the holomodor to gain artificially quick industrializtion through redistribution and collectivization, but no. Socialism breeds stagnancy.

I AM however proud of some of my provinces socialist breakthroughs in Universal Healthcare (first of its kind) and oversight of generally corrupt industries such as liquor, insurance, gambling, and such.

However, when bureaucracy begins to take hold on the overall free markets, stagnation and decay will always be the result. Trust me..Our gov't for 50 years were socialsts of the highest order.