| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Abe would be all over Condoleeza and Michelle today...heard he had the jungle fever Can someone please explain to me how that isn't racist? I suppose it just can't be racist because it's an attempt to berate a white conservative guy. Seriously!  | ||
| Hex |
Hugo Chavez...  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
What do you get to call democracy ?.... There were open elections in the USSR, of course the ballet was dictated by the Communist Party and attendence with a vote in the election was mandatory; but hey 'your' vote 'counted' Path to Socialism Steer Education Control Currency / Exchange Seize Industry modes of production Nationalize Transportation Expand Government Authority Expand Government 'entitlements' Seize the Guns Make everyone 'equal' as 'citizens' Control Press/Media/Computer Criminalize resistence Start the 'purge' of anti Govt 'extremists' Start an expansionary war to raid other viable assets after bilking, violating, destroying domestic capabilities. Go read history.... It may not repeat, but damn it rhymes. | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Jeebus Sifo, just making a funny. I love Abe Lincoln. I liked Bush Sr, I liked Nixon. I can't stand Rosie, Janeane and think Olbermann is somehwat condescending. Relax mang. Its the interwebs!  (Message edited by b00stzx3 on April 28, 2010) | ||
| Drkside79 |
Can someone please explain to me how that isn't racist? It Was. It was a bad attempt at humor. | ||
| Blake |
Stating that someone has a preference for a certain type of woman, be it race, height or whatever isn't what I'd call "racism."
| ||
| B00stzx3 |
Ok, maybe I mistook him for Ben Franklin. Or George Washington. Who was the run who had kids with his slaves? Dayum. Whatever. Thank you Blake. I just trying to lighten the mood of the thread.... I apologize if I offended anyone. (Message edited by b00stzx3 on April 28, 2010) | ||
| Sifo |
Blake, my objection would be the phrase "jungle fever" to describe the preference. Apology has been made and I don't want to make this anymore of an issue, so...  | ||
| B00stzx3 |
Spike Lee made the movie...I doubt he would be considered racist against Black people, considering he is one but its water under the bridge. Back to politics! | ||
| Blake |
Andy, How was President Lincoln's Republican platform so different that today's Republican platform? Martin Luther King Jr. would be a Republican today, like he was before being seduced by President Johnson to switch parties. He did so after Johnson signed the civil rights act into law, though it was a much higher percentages of Republicans in congress who voted for the bill compared to Democrats. John Kennedy would surely be a Republican today. He wouldn't recognize the Democratic left that is running roughshod over the party today. | ||
| Hex |
 | ||
| Hootowl |
I don't buy Lenin's view on capitalism. Capitalism is antithetical to socialism/communism, so why shouldn't he denigrate it? Just sayin' | ||
| Drkside79 |
Blake I'm sure if I did some research I could find more but here's a few. 1 he was against organized religion. 2 He was for a STRONG central government. 3 He disliked states rights (Slavery and such) | ||
| Blake |
Try again, I said the platform of the Republican party, not the man's personal views. I don't buy your much oversimplified characterizations of his views either, "disliked states rights". Nonsense. Try "refused to allow the union to be torn apart." But again, the issue is the Republican party then versus now. What do you imagine is so different in the party platforms then versus now? (Message edited by blake on April 28, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
Imperialism has nothing to do with capitalism. The government of an imperialist nation can be of any making. imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Hitler was a Socialist and an imperialist. Stalin was a Socialist/Communist and an imperialist. Tojo was a monarch and an imperialist. Saddam... | ||
| Hootowl |
Saddam was a Nazi and therefore a socialist. Research the founding of the Baath party. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Wouldn't one's personal opinions dictate what party they chose? Oh and fine he was opposed to people who thought state law should supersede Federal law. Actually people like the majority of this board. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Majority of WHO on this board? | ||
| B00stzx3 |
 One of my early teachers...you go too far left...too far right...you end up meeting because its all a big circle... | ||
| Drkside79 |
Well you for starters. I can go back to an Obamacare thread to prove that one,  | ||
| Drkside79 |
Man i stayed out of these threads for almost a month...... Grrrrrrr | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sorry. I misread your statement. | ||
| Hex |
The parallels to our contemporary situation are striking. The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals. For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism. Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. Albert Einstein May 1949 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If I might be so bold, what a load of crap. His misguided diatribe describes in great detail the horrific blemish of the mole on Eva Mendes' face while proposing to correct it with a belt sander. | ||
| Reindog |
Hex, You seem to be a proponent of Socialism so could you please enlighten us as to how that is a preferable system? Since we are headed in that direction, I need some edumecation. I am all ears. | ||
| Hootowl |
And who would do the planning? The government or the governed? If it is the government, I don't trust the boneheads in office to wipe their own asses. If it is the governed, isn't that what capitalism is? Are we not planning our economy one business at a time? Don't you think private enterprise can react better to changes that a lumbering bureaucracy filled with political science majors? | ||
| Hex |
HootOwl, We finally got around to trying and finishing that 22-ouncer of Meed you sent me a couple of months ago. Kathleen had quit smoking and didn't want to take a chance of starting back up again, so it took me wrecking her car to get her to smoke for a week, and try your meed. Being only the second example of Honey Wine that I have sampled to date, I won't be able to give you a qualified critique, but I will tell you that it was delicious. Sweeter and more floral than the commercial variety, it had a full mouth-feel yet pronounced flowery and honey notes, and the color was light poppy. I don't think meed will be on my to make list anytime soon, I am quite happy with the effect that a couple pounds of honey do to my Brown Ale and IIPA, without the three year rest. Thanks again, PM me your address, and I'll send you a bottle of RyanBrews--Sludge IIPA, Offer goes to Fatty as well. Hex | ||
| Hex |
And Reindog. | ||
| Aesquire |
That's nicely phrased, Ft_. The ONLY real problem with socialism, is that evil men can use it for evil easier than capitalism, or pretty much any form of Govt. edit" Correction. Theocracy is worse. ( though I do contend that socialism is a religion ) Even the Plymouth Colony folk gave up christian socialism after it almost killed them. ( rare that they did, and part of our heritage, culturally ) If there were no evil men, then "each according to his needs...." is awesome! Since there are, it's hell. There's much to be said for a benign, good Monarch. There have been dozens in history. ( in 14 thousand years and Billions of people ) If you had a foolproof way of picking a wise benevolent King, I'd say go with it. But there isn't and heredity has PROVEN to be a bad way to chose leaders. Not the worst, but bad. Anarchy certainly doesn't work, unless you are young, strong and armed. And that only for a few hours, at most, since someone is going to form a govt., if only his gang, and take you out at will. The Mob Rules is a song, not a happy life. (Message edited by aesquire on April 28, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. This single sentence alone says all that needs to be said. Production isn't a means to social good. Social good can come from employment, but social good isn't the purpose. A farmer doesn't farm because there are people somewhere who need food. The farmer farms (produces) so that he can trade his labor for the ability to secure what he wants and needs economically. The baker doesn't bake bread because someone somewhere needs bread. The baker bakes (produces) so that he can trade his labor for the ability to secure what he wants and needs economically. If the labor required to bring the whole harvest in exceeds the ability of the farmer to do so by his own hands and if the sale of produced goods provides sufficient revenue to pay the worker, then others are hired by the farmer (owner of capital). If the wages paid by the farmer are fair, the worker (labor) provides his labor in return for wages to secure what he wants and needs economically. If the wages are not fair, the worker seeks employment elsewhere. It ain't nuclear science. |
