Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science."

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Kali74

 

Hi Kali74, you aren't going to convince thirdeye of anything. She is the queen of hyperbole. Think sex-ed is a good idea? Then she will label you a pedophile. Think social programs are ok? You and the government of the biggest and strongest capitalist nation in the world are "devil communists". Of course she has no proof or even an argument, but you will hear how right she is. Funny thing, as we all work for a living, that we live in a communist state. Hyperbole, and a lot of it.

CJ

I have to tell you that you have absolutely no idea of any thing I say. Your entire vision is going to be through a Progressive lens, and I understand that.
But I understand the whole lexicon of Progressive agendas of depopulation, as I outlined in my last post, and the Marxist solution to the bourgeois family, which is the children belong to the State, and therefore Statists believe that the State better understands the needs of the children than his own parents.
I think many people unwittingly fall for the whole argument that parents are pedophiles and/or stupid backwards Republicans and therefore it falls upon the State and the kindergarten teacher to get hold of these children before the evil parents do. Alas, this is part of the whole Statist solution.
But you are right, you will never convince me that Statist, Progressive solutions are adequate or even truly caring.
I might even have more in common with Kali than I do with you, due to the fact that she and I both know that the banksters are to blame for a lot of stuff.
I have yet to see you buck the establishment.
I knew someone would ridicule me for my description of "devil communists", but in fact that is what they are. Feel free to interpret it whatever way you will.
There are also devil Capitalists and I don't subscribe to monopolistic or oligopolistic Capitalism, but I don't hate Capitalism the way communists do. Communists view all bourgeois merchants as evil regardless of how benevolent an individual may be.
I understand that the principle behind "worker ownership of the means of production" is meant to take away control from bourgeois individuals or a corporate board, and distribute control and money equally to the workers. But the reality is that it never happens that way or if it does, no one has any real wealth and there will always be someone at the top of the pyramid and that somebody almost always has their personal interests in mind.
In the case of public unions, you just have both public and private money redistributed to union members. It is so corrupt as to boggle the mind. Why do Progressives insist that everyone be equally poor for the common good? In fact the communist agenda eliminates the middle class, and we are seeing that today aren't we?
Someone told me recently about a situation in our local community where money had been available to upgrade a public utility but that money ended up in the public unions pensions and paychecks, so now they have to raise the money again in the millions, so this comes to the community as a need to improve the community, but I have been informed that our rates would not have had to be raised if the money hadn't been spend on the unions.

Sooooooo that is how things roll.

Public utility has monopoly and unions have monopoly. Isn't that what is supposed to be wrong with corporations and Capitalists?
As parting note, I might mention that the Austrian economist Von Mises stated that those who support or promote the socialist solutions mostly themselves would never give their own monies to the poor and destitute but will always expect it to come their way. He said it more eloquently of course, but I will have to search out the webpage where I saw it.

reply to post by muse7


By the way muse, why have you hijacked the Libertarian "Don't Tread on Me" symbol? It does not in any way represent socialism.

reply to post by Danbones

I find it interesting that Gloria Stienem ( Mz magazine ) the queen of radical feminism was on the CIA payroll.

I saw that yesterday actually, and I had never heard that before. Something I intend to research. Thanks for mentioning.

reply to post by ColoradoJens

Funny thing, as we all work for a living, that we live in a communist state

Maybe you are mixing up the terms "community" with "Communist". Communist with a Capital C is distinct from merely living and cooperating in a community by it's focus on centralized control of the means of production. That is the State runs pretty much everything centrally. The Soviet Union showed us the flaws in such a system, as economists understand that such a system cannot possibly predict the true needs of a society and produce those needs efficiently, whereas the free market system more accurately describes one in which the market itself produces that which is needed by society. Centralized planning has not hitherto work, and it will not work. And it will not work by rationing resources, which is what Obamacare does and will do, what Agenda 21 does and will do. It cannot and will not ever produce abundance and wealth. It is not even a truly fair and equitable distribution, as with those who are working, they are punished by having their just payment confiscated.
Socialism was set up to help those who could not work for whatever means, were too young to care for themselves or otherwise could not provide for themselves. But the system overrides individual charity based on the individual's ability to share after providing his own family with a means. IN other words, the State now decides what an individual is capable of sharing.
It is a sickening eclipse of individuality, as all individuals have to be brainwashed and indoctrinated to accept the system.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I have to tell you that you have absolutely no idea of any thing I say. Your entire vision is going to be through a Progressive lens, and I understand that. But I understand the whole lexicon of Progressive agendas of depopulation, as I outlined in my last post, and the Marxist solution to the bourgeois family, which is the children belong to the State, and therefore Statists believe that the State better understands the needs of the children than his own parents.

You are right. I "have absolutely no idea of anything 'you' say." It isn't due to a "progressive lens" distorting my understanding however. I don't understand you because you see in absolutes. I realize that there are many people who believe what they believe but are willing to accept they may be wrong...they don't frame their arguments by trying to belittle or show how smart they are, or by dolling out the hyperbole card as you seem to do. Ask any American "Who feels the state understands the needs of their kids more than they do?" I bet it's one out of a thousand if that. Why are you so scared of communists when the reality is we live in the biggest capitalist experiment in the world?

I think many people unwittingly fall for the whole argument that parents are pedophiles and/or stupid backwards Republicans and therefore it falls upon the State and the kindergarten teacher to get hold of these children before the evil parents do. Alas, this is part of the whole Statist solution.

That's funny. You called me a pedophile for arguing sex-ed is important in school curriculums. What does that make you?

I might even have more in common with Kali than I do with you, due to the fact that she and I both know that the banksters are to blame for a lot of stuff. I have yet to see you buck the establishment. I knew someone would ridicule me for my description of "devil communists", but in fact that is what they are. Feel free to interpret it whatever way you will.

What do you mean by "I have yet to see you buck the establishment" exactly? And I'm glad you know bankers are bad; is this some secret you've just figured out? Finally, regarding your words "devil communists" - who exactly are they - is Obama one? And what leads you to this conclusion? Modern arena please.

There are also devil Capitalists and I don't subscribe to monopolistic or oligopolistic Capitalism, but I don't hate Capitalism the way communists do. Communists view all bourgeois merchants as evil regardless of how benevolent an individual may be.

I agree there are devil capitalists; do you not then say questioning the capitalist experiment we are in that lead to these people/corporations is a good thing? Am I a communist because I want to make capitalism better as a system? Commies may view bourgeois merchants as you say, but again I'd like some concrete examples of who, in 2013 USA is pushing this agenda.

In regard to unions, may I ask; do you disagree with them on a structural/operating basis or with workers rights or both?

As parting note, I might mention that the Austrian economist Von Mises stated that those who support or promote the socialist solutions mostly themselves would never give their own monies to the poor and destitute but will always expect it to come their way. He said it more eloquently of course, but I will have to search out the webpage where I saw it

I wouldn't doubt it one bit. My question is why is it so much on your tongue? Where are all these commies hidden in the cupboards? Maybe they are in the open - I have to ask again, is Obama a commie in your eyes? Who else in government is and how are they promoting it?

CJ

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Funny thing, as we all work for a living, that we live in a communist state

Maybe you are mixing up the terms "community" with "Communist". Communist with a Capital C is distinct from merely living and cooperating in a community by it's focus on centralized control of the means of production. That is the State runs pretty much everything centrally. The Soviet Union showed us the flaws in such a system, as economists understand that such a system cannot possibly predict the true needs of a society and produce those needs efficiently, whereas the free market system more accurately describes one in which the market itself produces that which is needed by society. Centralized planning has not hitherto work, and it will not work. And it will not work by rationing resources, which is what Obamacare does and will do, what Agenda 21 does and will do. It cannot and will not ever produce abundance and wealth. It is not even a truly fair and equitable distribution, as with those who are working, they are punished by having their just payment confiscated.
Socialism was set up to help those who could not work for whatever means, were too young to care for themselves or otherwise could not provide for themselves. But the system overrides individual charity based on the individual's ability to share after providing his own family with a means. IN other words, the State now decides what an individual is capable of sharing.
It is a sickening eclipse of individuality, as all individuals have to be brainwashed and indoctrinated to accept the system.

Last I checked I live in a free market economy. You might want to look at all the ads ATS now has popping up as an example. I don't disagree with your interpretation of centralized planning - it just isn't happening.

Obamacare is not communism. It isn't the best laid of plans for sure, but look to other industrialized nations and see how much better universal healthcare works than the bs we have here. It needs to be addressed.

Agenda 21 is a UN program. The UN is constantly putting forth absurd ideas.

The system, Capitalism, has lead us to where we are. I suggest it is response to the breakdown of the Capitalist system that we have the issues we have today. Not because communism is bad, but because our system is not equitable.

CJ

Well if we're talking pure science and anatomy here, Then yes, Men are the dominant sex, Physically. This isn't sexist, This is fact. The more intelligent sex? No, The "better" sex? Of course not, But the stronger of the 2 sexes? Yes. (Of course there are exceptions when it comes to things like women MMA fighters and such, but they are a rarity) I believe there is a disconnect here where people are afraid to point out legitimate differences in Sex/Races in fear of being labelled a bigot. It isn't sexist to point out that Men are physically stronger than Women, Just the same as it isn't sexist to point out that Women are better at multi-tasking than Men.

I think the problem Fox news ham fistedly tried to point out is that when women demand equality in the workplace (Which of course is fair) but in the same turn demand that Women have the right to be Firefighters/Front line soldiers etc.. I have no problem with Women filling these roles if said women can also pass the same physical fitness tests Men have to pass to acquire those high stress, high strength roles. The bar should not be lowered for Women in the name of "equality"

reply to post by ColoradoJens

It isn't due to a "progressive lens" distorting my understanding however. I don't understand you because you see in absolutes.

okie doke then, so if I expose Bush as a Bonesman and the Bush family as financial contributors to the Nazi party I must be an absolute partisan...whateva Jens. You may see things as you wish. It's just that I cannot find very many Democrats who aren't signed on to the Big Govt Statist socialist agenda and I'm sorry you find it so difficult to understand a breakdown of it.

Last I checked I live in a free market economy.

Well, I don't know where you live then, because I live in a country dominated by a mixed economy involving Keynesian solutions and so many Big Government bureaucratic regulations as to make the head spin.

reply to post by Mart0

Men are physically stronger than Women

This is one of the reasons men tended to do things requiring heavy labor and/or dangerous tasks, it was also because men were the protectors of women and children. I've been ridiculed on this very thread for daring to suggest that this was the case with men providing for women. I had always wondered why a woman would even want to climb a telephone pole, but you know I ended up in a job that required me to operate a forklift, and I was definitely out of my element with it, but I'm glad I learned and glad I was able to move out of my comfort zone.
But if you hold a door open for me, I will always thank you and appreciate it.

By the way, many men have been gifted and famous chefs for decades. No logical reason to force women to stay in the kitchen...

reply to post by ColoradoJens

Agenda 21 is a UN program

Yes, that is correct. However you ought to consider researching things more thoroughly before making assumptions. Your assumption seems to be that because it is a "UN program", that means it isn't happening here in the States. And you would be thoroughly and very definitely wrong, and I don't mind saying it emphatically, because I know I am correct beyond the shadow of a doubt.

reply to post by LordDerpingtonSmythe



Or me... I'm quite aggressive in my work. I am better, and I make more than many men. Does that mean that all women are like me? Of course not. The world is a shade of grey, and anyone who tries to make such simplistic arguments is probably not very bright.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Well, I don't know where you live then, because I live in a country dominated by a mixed economy involving Keynesian solutions and so many Big Government bureaucratic regulations as to make the head spin.

Ok then, at least you are admitting the failures of the capitalist experiment. Or is it democracy you have an issue with?

CJ

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

Agenda 21 is a UN program

Yes, that is correct. However you ought to consider researching things more thoroughly before making assumptions. Your assumption seems to be that because it is a "UN program", that means it isn't happening here in the States. And you would be thoroughly and very definitely wrong, and I don't mind saying it emphatically, because I know I am correct beyond the shadow of a doubt.

No assumptions made by anyone other than you, as usual.

CJ