Slain beauty queen mourned in Venezuela

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


You seem like a nasty person. Are you sure you know what a strawman is...err...of course you do because you just tried to build one against me. You can call me a rich socialist , comm, or whatever you want and claim I back regimes if you want, but it doesn't make it true.

You open up with don't twist your words then start to do just that. Oh well you are not really worth my time. So go ahead and rant maybe it will make you feel better, but I see there is no conversation to be had here with you because your mind is set, and your eyes and ears are shut.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So, more strawmen arguments while I presented evidence of the truth...

I can see why you don't want to continue the discussion.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I already told you why. Because you seem to be a very nasty person. Not worth my time.

In your previous post you called me a

rich brainwashed pro-socialist/communist

who loves to back socialist/fascist, or even communist countries because they redistribute wealth first based on political belief

You also called me a

hypocrite. By backing the leftist regime in Venezuela you want in fact for the leftist/socialist regime of Chavez to take away the rights, and the businesses of people based on political grounds

And you said

you brag about "travelling all over central and south America" which makes you a rich pro-socialist/fascist, or even pro-communist

A person can learn a lot by traveling and I have traveled all over the world as both US Soldier and a civilian. Neither made me rich and neither made me pro- socialist/fascist, or even pro-communist.

So all yo have done is attack. You don't know how to have a conversation. I find you as a crude individual with a very narrow mind. Besides Bonco has pretty much covered everything.


BTW

Chavez has been bragging quite a bit about the fact that castro was not only his friend but a mentor

You know Hugo Chavez is dead don't you? You act like he is controlling things from the grave.

Well maybe you didn't know.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Hitler implemented socialist legislation, and regulations, he started a youth movement and used it against their parents, he was a socialist but with some small differences which is why his, and Mussolini socialist form of government are called fascism... Just like ALL communists are socialists, because for communism to exist there must be first socialism... Fascism is a form of socialism.

Okay.

But, no, not really.

Caveat: There are some inherent pitfalls trying to offer simple, bite sized definitions of capitalism, socialism, communism and fascism – the first being that these are complex concepts concerning both economics and government, so short definitions will be incomplete; the second being that these concepts are not always mutually exclusive (most modern states combine elements of more than one)

Unlike communism, fascism is opposed to state ownership of capital and economic equality is not a principle or goal. During the 1930s and WWII, communism and fascism represented the extreme left and right, respectively, in European politics. Hitler justified both Nazi anti-Semitism and dictatorship largely on the basis of his working to fight-off communism.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Heck the communist government of China calls itself "The People's Republic of China..."

The North Korean government calls itself "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea..." While these, and others are really socialist/communist dictatorships.

The lines are blurry even in "capitalist" countries…

For a point of reference, the United States is a Constitutional Democratic Republic that has long embraced both capitalism (free markets) and socialism (public schools and universities, and public works – parks, roads and highways, sewer and water, dams, harbors, as well as social welfare, such as worker’s comp, unemployment insurance, social security etc.).

The two examples you gave are examples of authoritarianism or totalitarianism.

BTW, it is obvious you don't know squat about socialism, because even in socialist websites you will find that for socialism to really exist in a country there must be, among many things, "the abolition of private property" .

But, like always socialists try to find a way to twist things around, and give new meanings to the same old BS that is socialism/fascism, and communism. Like for example, in the following website, like in other socialist websites, socialists try to claim that there is a "difference between private property and what they call personal property"... The fact keeps being that "personal property IS private property"...

I think you just have trouble understanding anything beyond your bias.

Most generally, socialism refers to state ownership of common property, or state ownership of the means of production. A purely socialist state would be one in which the state owns and operates the means of production. However, nearly all modern capitalist countries combine socialism and capitalism.

The University of Idaho, and any other public school or university, is a “socialist” institutions, and those who attend it or work for it are partaking in socialism, because it is owned and operated by the state of Idaho. The same is true of federal and state highways, federal and state parks, harbors etc.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
But, that statement right there catches them in ANOTHER LIE, the claim from socialists and communists that "the people own and control the means of production"...

Yet, you will still find socialists and communists who either knowingly or unknowingly keep backing these repressive systems even after learning the truth behind them.

After learning what truth about them? You are talking about authoritarianism or totalitarianism as if it's mutually exclusive to socialism.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Anyway... is "PRIVATE PROPERTY ABOLISHED" in either "Denmark
Finland, Netherlands, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, Belgium" etc?... No, hence they are NOT socialist countries, YET.

In various forms, yes it is. See nationalized or state owned industries. Socialized medicine, etc.

No different than there is private owned industries and xyz in China. You really show your ignorance here because China is so far from communism that most people there don't even mention it in their daily lives. Under Mao maybe, but even party members could care less about communism, instead about lining their pockets. China has injected a huge amount of capitalism into itself in years of late because leaders realized how much money would come in.

Again, if you had to describe it in one word it would be authoritarianism.

Heres a post which kinda hits on a few notes.

China is communist is name only. They honor Mao Zedong, who was a communist, mainly because he unified the country, fought Japan, and eliminated the war lords, but that doesn't make them communist. Today, the only aspect of China that is communist is the fact that they have a Leninist state, that is, they only allow one political party. But I exect that will change before Taiwan becomes part of the same mainland government.

China is actually better described as a Confuscian state. They have been very accommodating to capitalist investors and the descendants of former war lords. My Chinese teacher had her property return to her in the 1990s, a 99 room house just outside of the Forbidden City and a vacation cottage where the Great Wall reaches the sea, which are worth many millions today.

Like the USA and other modern nations, they have a mixed economy of both capitalism and socialism.

As I said before you cannot sum up these complex dichotomies with a few word answer. And you really have no idea what you are talking about.


www.webpages.uidaho.edu...
answers.yahoo.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Grimpachi



Didn't you brag about travelling all over Central and South America? To do that you must have quite a bit of money, and in countries like Venezuela, and Cuba, the people will call you rich for being able to do that... So, how does that makes me a nasty person?... You were the one bragging about being able to travel all over Central and South America.

reply to post by boncho



Like I wrote before, those countries have some laws, and regulations that are socialist, but they have not embraced socialism completely YET.

Also, there are some laws that many leftists claim are socialist when they are not, or at least they didn't start being so socialist.

What you are claiming would be similar to claim that because several people live in a community and "socialize" it must be socialism, when it isn't.

ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Didn't you brag about travelling all over Central and South America? To do that you must have quite a bit of money, and in countries like Venezuela, and Cuba, the people will call you rich for being able to do that... So, how does that makes me a nasty person?... You were the one bragging about being able to travel all over Central and South America.

The said employed by the military in some of their travels.

Grimpachi
A person can learn a lot by traveling and I have traveled all over the world as both US Soldier and a civilian. Neither made me rich and neither made me pro- socialist/fascist, or even pro-communist.

Which actually is funny, because technically the military is a socialized arm of government. It is not owned with private shares. At one time security be it national or individual was capitalist or free market. This was the time when you had to hire someone to track down a criminal, or rely on community policing. Also, there used to be private militias which were hired or called on by the state to defend the nation, etc.

www.oldbaileyonline.org...

So ironically, Grimpachis "rich" travels were somewhat related to a form of socialized industry.

ElectricUniverse
reply to post by boncho

 

Like I wrote before, those countries have some laws, and regulations that are socialist, but they have not embraced socialism completely YET.

Pure socialism or communism is probably not obtainable. Just like pure capitalism is not really possible. Which is why we never define these things so simply.

You also keep failing to address the fact that your definition of socialism or communism is when a country crosses the line to authoritarianism.

Also, there are some laws that many leftists claim are socialist when they are not, or at least they didn't start being so socialist.

What you are claiming would be similar to claim that because several people live in a community and "socialize" it must be socialism, when it isn't.

Huh?

reply to post by boncho


But AGAIN, in order for a nation to be socialist/fascist or communist there must be, among many others "the abolition of private property".

People in the military can own private property, so it is not "socialized" either. The United States of America, among many other countries are getting CLOSER to becoming socialist, and then communist, but so far thanks to Americans who are still awake it hasn't happened YET.

BTW, didn't you know that the "progressive/democrat" government we have now considers veterans, among other people such as those who still believe in the U.S. Constitution, or believe in the right to bear arms, conservative, don't agree with Obama's policies, etc are considered "extremists"?... This, among many things is happening because the current administration in the U.S. is very leftist, and at least for a large group in the U.S. government, and for the current administration the end goal is socialism which they have named as "progressivism".

Didn't you also know that there have been and there are in the U.S. government RINOs(Republicans In Name Only?) These RINOs side with the progressive ideas of Democrats and have even united with Democrats and other leftists to integrate in the U.S. socialist policies.

But, let's not change subject... The thread is about Venezuela and the socialist oppression that is occurring there.

Also, didn't you know that many Germans agreed with Hitler in murdering what for them were second class citizens?...

Just because a mob of people back a dictator doesn't make it any less of a dictatorship.

boncho

You also keep failing to address the fact that your definition of socialism or communism is when a country crosses the line to authoritarianism.

No, you keep on not understanding that in "socialism" there must be the "abolition of private property", the centralization of government, centralization of all the means of production, and a central bank, like the Federal Reserve, among other things, for the country to be "socialist". Some of those things have been implemented in many countries, but they are not "socialist" yet...

boncho
Huh?

edit on 22-2-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)

It's called "an analogy". People use analogies when others don't seem to understand the argument by presenting a similar situation.

Just because a mob of people are backing Chavez, in which MANY poor people have changed their minds about Chavez's government, just like there were Obama supporters who don't support him anymore.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse

But AGAIN, in order for a nation to be socialist/fascist or communist there must be, among many others "the abolition of private property".

No actually. the two are not the same.

In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state

You are still confused by what "private property" means. So even your definition of socialism isn't right.

Tell us what you consider are "real communist/socialist states". You will probably find even they don't adhere to your definition.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
People in the military can own private property, so it is not "socialized" either.

Um. So could people in Soviet Russia.

To distinguish "capitalist" and "socialist" types of property ownership further, two different forms of individual property were recognized: private property (частная собственность, chastnaya sobstvennost) and personal property (личная собственность, lichnaya sobstvennost). The former encompassed capital (means of production), while the latter described everything else in a person's possession. This distinction has been a source of confusion when interpreting phrases such as "socialism (communism) abolished private property"; one might conclude that all individual property was abolished, when this was in fact not the case.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
BTW, didn't you know that the "progressive/democrat" government we have now considers veterans, among other people such as those who still believe in the U.S. Constitution, or believe in the right to bear arms are considered "extremists"... This, among many things is happening because the current administration in the U.S. is very leftist, and at least for a large group, and the current administration the end goal is socialism.

Bush administration's record with veterans.

Bush also bailed out the banks. Hardly letting the free market decide. You can continue with this and notice that party lines mean absolutely nothing in an intelligent conversation, although I suspect you don't have many of those.

Useless bias diatribe.

I am bowing out of this thread because you are incapable of having a reasonable discussion. Have fun plugging your propaganda to others!

boncho
Pure socialism or communism is probably not obtainable. Just like pure capitalism is not really possible. Which is why we never define these things so simply.

You also keep failing to address the fact that your definition of socialism or communism is when a country crosses the line to authoritarianism.
...

So, do tell me of a country which has fully embraced some form of socialism/fascism, or communism and it isn't authoritarian...

For crying out loud, just look at how western nations are turning up which have slowly, but surely, embraced parts of the socialist dogma... Is it really turning up better or worse the more socialist countries become?...

And of course "the lines have become blurred", when for example and again, the United States under progressive Democrats implemented the Federal Reserve Act/Bank, the IRS as it exists now, and other legislation to "regulate the markets, and businesses" since 1913.

Did it help that Republicans, and even when some leaders from other nations who hadn't been bought by the international bankers and understood what was happening, and tried to warn Americans that the Feds were a group of international bankers led by rich families trying to take over the U.S. did it help? Not one bit. Most Americans even back then didn't want to believe that was possible.

It has been talked about quite a bit about in these forums that groups of international bankers, and their rich families had been trying to infiltrate and destroy the Republic of the U.S. since it's concept, and it has been working quite well.

You see, way before 1913, and actually still for a while after 1913, the "party that was helping the people" the most was the Republican party. Although yes, it is true that even back then there were more Democrats as well who weren't so..."progressive" as the word is used now.

Anyway, which was the party that was created because many Americans back then believed that the Rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution should also be rights for ALL people and not just whites?

Heck, why was it that the founding Fathers of what was to become the United States, even when many had different ideas of how the government of the people should work, they still agreed that a Republican form of government was the one with the best interest for the people.

It is written in Article 4 section 4 that, and I quote.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

www.usconstitution.net...

How come such a group of diverse minds come to the agreement that a Republican Government was the one that served best the people? Also, it is very important to know that those same people which believed in a "We the People" kind of country wrote in that same U.S. Constitution that there should be an "electoral college" and the election of a U.S. President and vice-President shouldn't be left just to the decision of the people. Why would they do that if they believed in a "We the People" kind of country?

...
The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism of presidential elections that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
...

people.howstuffworks.com...

Just because a majority of people agree on something it doesn't mean they are right, or that their decision would be right to the minority, or minorities. Just like giving all, or most power to one branch of government is also a bad idea.

To make it short, have the lines become blurred? of course it has, more than ever before, because the power over what would become for many decades since at least 1913 one of the most powerful nations was given to the rich elites and bankers. It all has come downhill not only in the U.S. but around the world since then, and more and more but surely, more and more people in power over the U.S. and other nations have been bought off.

Since then, 1913, more and more politicians, and other people in power have been corrupted to the bone by these groups of international rich families and bankers to whom were given power over the United States economy, and over all Americans, and slowly but surely they have also taken over almost completely other nations.