I must be getting on the socialist partys nerves, page 3

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 18 times

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:00 PM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by buster2010

Yeah Ive heard that argument before.

Its probably the stupidest thing Ive ever heard.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:01 PM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by thehoneycomb

Rockerfeller and Rothschild are bankers and industrialists. Dealing in the business of capital. They are the ownership class. I doubt they have a political ideology. There concern is to make more money. That is what they do. They don't care if it's a republican or democrat. As long as they hold the power. How could they possibly Marxists in the true sense of the word.

But they certainly have supported Marxists and socialists and related causes quite a bit.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:02 PM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Openeye

Historically though. Those in favor of slavery have always been primarily democrats. Neither was the KKK any different. Like I said, there is a lot of that time period which is not cut and paste and really easy to understand, revisionist history.

Point is, nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for that, but in those days there was a lot of infighting.

Also I dont care for Bush, I think America was on the wrong path long before he came along.
edit on 10-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

It's funny you mention history maybe you should take a course or two to help you understand it. Have you forgotten that the parties switched sides? You say the Democrats favor slavery but if you are going to put in today's terms of parties then you should say the Republicans favor slavery.

They do? How? By wanting people of all colors to be independent and able to take care of themselves?

The Democrats seem to be the ones who want to keep AA in a perpetual state of dependency.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:11 PM by Ojeus4Unless

Dear all,

Just for the heads up, since this seems to be socialism against capitalism thread:

General definition of socialism:

A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

General definition of capitalism:

"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit."

Best regards,
Ojeus

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:30 PM by yorkshirelad

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
I have a confession also.

I used to buy into this stuff, not socialism, but I used to consider myself liberal. Until one day the light bulb went off. I looked into socialism and to my horror it landed me on the spusa site.

I try to get people that promote this stuff to look deeper, I try to even explain in detail, sometimes in a backwards way or I play mind games with people on this site. Not because I want to mess with them. I want them to actually look at this evil straight in the eyes and see if it is really something you want.

But I am getting to the point now where I just dont care. I have tried to explain over and over, but some people are so stubborn, naive or arrogant to look or even care until it bights them in the ass, they usually blame capitalism or the evil zionist jewish bankers.

I am at the point now where I am tired of explaining, tired of defending or looking out for these people. If its not worth your time then maybe its time, you get what you have been asking for. I will not stand beside you though when you do.

This darkness will cover the entire earth, because people let it, because they want it, so let them have it.

unbelievable. You US folks seem to think you have this broad church of views with politics swaying around some central point.

The US is the MOST RIGHT WING "democratic" country ON THE PLANET. The most left wing party you can EVER vote in is still to the right of every single middle of the road party in every european country.....even Germany!

Jesus H................................

The reason why you have so many problem is that the centre of your politics too far to the right. Your whole economy is based on flawed right wing monetarist theories. I mean come on wake up. Even that bastian of right wing economics (the IMF) has recently had to change all its views about cause and effect bringing it a hairs breadth from Keynesian (left) economics. WOW!!!!! Nothing like reality to make groups of people wake up is there? What a shame millions of people have had to suffer poverty whilst the millionaire economists screw up and realise they made a mistake.

Totally immoral.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:35 PM by sligtlyskeptical

I'm not really sure what I am, I guess you would call it a mix of the idealogies. I think there are elements of each that when combined would make any country greater.

I don't think capitalism should play much of a role in the realm of what people need to survive on a minimum level. That would be housing, healthcare, food, utilities/internet/cell phones, transportation. These things should always be provided at the lowest profit-free costs as possible. Anything outside of that realm should be available for capitalists to exploit, including services in those same areas mentioned above which exceed what would be deemed customary for a modest existence.

If you want to eat steak every night you will have to earn it, but if you simply need to eat something it will be available. If you need a phone for work you can get one, if you need a smartphone to watch movies all day you will need to earn it.

I also think the government should own and lease out our telecom and energy infrastructures. These items are too important to be controlled by those with purely a profit interest. It's no accident we are years behind most other developed countries with our infrastructure It is simply what happens when profit is put ahead of the national good. .

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:38 PM by pajoly

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:45 PM by poloblack

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I have to admit that socialism is not a system that would work in America, but to completely espouse the current form of capitalism and not try to correct it , is just as dangerous to America and the world. The current form of capitalism in America and the world is moving towards a Corporatocracy. Where it is corporations rather than elected governments, that hold the power over our day to day lives. This is just as dangerous as socialism in my opinion.

To ignore the power of the financial institutions and corporations that have more power over national governments than ever before is being willfully blind. You don't go with corporatism just because you hate socialism. That makes no sense, you try and improve what we have so it works for more people not less.

What you're referring to is a Plutocracy, and we're already living in it.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 02:59 PM by poloblack

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by woodwardjnr

Revisionist history, alot of it. Blacks were undocumented much like illegals today. Doesn't mean they were all slaves, but define the word. Hell my family dates back before the revolutionary war and fought in it, later on my fathers side, they had a couple 'slaves' (they lived in the south) , but as far as I know they didn't whip them torture or beat them, they worked on a plantation and were fed and clothed and cared for and respected.

Point is, nowhere in our original bill of rights does it condone slavery. The civil war was about states rights more than it was about slavery. One day the Africans came over by the boat load during a time of transgression and landed on our southern shores, as most were still reeling from the revolutionary war courtesy of England, but also building a society, people didnt really know what to do with them. Its not like they knew they were coming and had homes ready to put them in, they really didn't know what to do with them.

Of course, my grandmother helped author a book that documents my families history back beyond the revolutionary war, then it gets fuzzy as we are scots irish who rebelled and alot of the records before then were lost. I haven't read the book because she is the only person I know of with a copy and its about 6 hundred pages long. I am 1/64 native american as one of our ancestors did breed with one of the souther tribes way back. But as the story goes, there was still a history with the rebellion of England and England had convinced most native tribes to fight along side with them as they had greater wealth and resources available. It was not simply the white people coming over and oppressing everyone, there was a rebellion and a revolutionary war going on, things got really weird.

Of course, I dont know if thats entirely accurate, but I am hoping to learn more and possibly finish reading that book if given the chance.

Surely, you jest! How in the hell can a SLAVE be ''cared for and respected''? You gotta be kidding. You're right about one thing though, the Civil War was about states' rights, the right to own slaves. I may be wrong, but with your mindset, if it was up to you, I'd still be picking cotton. But maybe that wouldn't be so bad, since I'd be ''cared for, and respected''.

edit on 10-10-2012 by poloblack because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 03:36 PM by timetothink

There is more than one type of socialism, this administration seems to favor the government control version ie: General Motors, green companies etc.

Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

www.merriam-webster.com...

edit on 10-10-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 03:41 PM by timetothink

reply to post by pajoly

Like I just said in my above post, he is a socialist who favors the government model.......people need to study more on socialism. Everyone believes the media utopia version which is not what it is.

Obama is not corporatist, he does not believe in private ownership of companies which creates the evil rich in his eyes. He believes the government should own companies because the government built them. ( his belief)

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 03:59 PM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by poloblack

Surely, you jest! How in the hell can a SLAVE be ''cared for and respected''? You gotta be kidding. You're right about one thing though, the Civil War was about states' rights, the right to own slaves. I may be wrong, but with your mindset, if it was up to you, I'd still be picking cotton. But maybe that wouldn't be so bad, since I'd be ''cared for, and respected''.

No sir, I do not condone slavery in any way shape or form. Do not blame me for things that happened well over 100 years before I was born. Either way, there is no need or place for me to apologize to you.

edit on 10-10-2012 by thehoneycomb because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:04 PM by poloblack

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by poloblack

Surely, you jest! How in the hell can a SLAVE be ''cared for and respected''? You gotta be kidding. You're right about one thing though, the Civil War was about states' rights, the right to own slaves. I may be wrong, but with your mindset, if it was up to you, I'd still be picking cotton. But maybe that wouldn't be so bad, since I'd be ''cared for, and respected''.

No sir, I do not condone slavery in any way shape or form. Do not blame me for things that happened over 100 years ago. Either way, there is no need or place for me to apologize to you.

You've got the wrong black guy. I have no want or need for your apology. For what? You've done no harm to me. And I wasn't blaming you for anything. Don't know where you got that from in my post. You said the slaves were cared for and respected, and I called bullcrap on that.

edit on 10-10-2012 by poloblack because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:08 PM by pajoly

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:11 PM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by poloblack

You seem to be missing the point though. I stated that to my knowledge in family history there was a 'slave' who worked on the plantation. It does not mean that my family passed the law onto the books or even supported it, that is just the way it was back in those days in the south, I am not trying to justify it. I was simply stating that not in all cases, were slaves treated brutally and with disrespect, however I do not deny that it happened.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:15 PM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by poloblack

Also it is worth mentioning, that presently blacks in the south (not in all cases) have a better lot in life in the southern states, then many in the northern states, they are more independent and dare I say thrive in a lot of cases.

Just consider, the bronx, Detroit or Chicago for that matter.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:19 PM by poloblack

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by poloblack

You seem to be missing the point though. I stated that to my knowledge in family history there was a 'slave' who worked on the plantation. It does not mean that my family passed the law onto the books or even supported it, that is just the way it was back in those days in the south, I am not trying to justify it. I was simply stating that not in all cases, were slaves treated brutally and with disrespect, however I do not deny that it happened.

Ok, let me put it like this...if I'm your slave, there is no respect factor for me. Patting a slave on the head and saying ''good boy'' is not respect, my friend.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:21 PM by poloblack

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by poloblack

Also it is worth mentioning, that presently blacks in the south (not in all cases) have a better lot in life in the southern states, then many in the northern states, they are more independent and dare I say thrive in a lot of cases.

Just consider, the bronx, Detroit or Chicago for that matter.

I live in the south, Georgia to be exact. Born and raised here, though, I've been to many different states(relatives, plus I like traveling) and a few different countries. I love it here.

edit on 10-10-2012 by poloblack because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:24 PM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by poloblack

What I am saying, is back in those days, if you were fresh off of the boat, there was little infrastructure or housing to put you in. So as a result, you could either work on a plantation, or be thrusted into a survival situation.

reply posted on 10-10-2012 @ 04:24 PM by Hefficide

reply to post by thehoneycomb

Have you been to downtown Atlanta, or the south side of it? Or Macon? Or Birmingham, Alabama? Or Mississippi? In pockets there is prosperity and a good life. But in the inner cities and most of the rural areas? It's still like 1950 here in a LOT of ways.

I live here. Oh, and I'm a WHITE guy. So you can be pretty sure I'm not crying foul for personal reasons or agendas.

~Heff