Plutocracy...

[The T]

------wealthy class that controls a government,

Do you mean like George Soros???

Yep...and he is known for bringing economies down...He throws a few boubles and trinquets toward leftist sites as donations...causes for the very destruction of this Republic...and the left applauds him while doing it.

How convoluted is that?

 

[California Girl]

I often think Pluto is running our government.

I voted for Mickey.

 

[Trajan]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

It's clear that you don't grok that Socialism is just a front for a particularly nasty form of Plutocracy.

That's because for the most part..

It's not.

does todays Russia qualify as a "part" for the most part? Or China?

 

[Trajan]

------wealthy class that controls a government,

Do you mean like George Soros???

hush your mouth!!!

 

[The T]

I often think Pluto is running our government.

I voted for Mickey.

Minnie or Daisy are more my speed...

 

[Trajan]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

It's clear that you don't grok that Socialism is just a front for a particularly nasty form of Plutocracy.

No I don't. But I understand that Soviet Communism and Marxism in China resulted in a very conservative totalitarian form of government.

what is a "conservative totalitarian form of government" exactly?

And that the leadership in both nations were wealthy and enjoyed benefits denied to the hoi polloi. Kind of like the member of congress in our country today.

and to both snips.....dude......

A Business Martyr in Putin's Russia
After seven years in Siberia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is about to be railroaded again.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former head of the Yukos oil company and once Russia's richest man, is in the eighth year of a jail sentence.

His crime? Wanting to forge partnerships with Western firms to modernize the industry. The Putin regime wanted to keep natural resources under strict control. When Mr. Khodorkovsky refused to give up his plans, the Kremlin concocted tax evasion charges against him and his colleagues. With its leader behind bars, Yukos was quickly dismantled and its parts handed out to Putin's closest allies at the state-owned firm, Rosneft.

Nevertheless, the Putin regime is still afraid of Mr. Khodorkovsky, who has added "martyr" to his formidable résumé. And so, with his release scheduled for 2011, prosecutors have brought new charges against him—he's now accused of stealing all the oil he was originally convicted of not paying taxes on. The latest judicial travesty came to a close on Nov. 2. A decision by Moscow's Khamovnichesky court is expected on Dec. 15.

Mr. Khodorkovsky's closing statement at his trial was a powerful indictment of what 10 years of Putinism have done to Russia both economically and morally. "What must be going through the head of the entrepreneur," Mr. Khodorkovsky said, "the high-level organizer of production, or simply any ordinary educated, creative person, looking today at our trial and knowing that its result is absolutely predictable? The obvious conclusion a thinking person can make is chilling in its stark simplicity: The security services can do anything. There is no right of private property ownership. A person who collides with 'the system' has no rights whatsoever."

There has been little Western coverage of this latest chapter of Mr. Khodorkovsky's plight. Perhaps this is due to not wanting to embarrass the U.S. administration, whose "reset" with Russia was called "Obama's central foreign policy achievement" by the New York Times just days after the Khodorkovsky trial ended. The drama of Cold War-style summits and nuclear treaties has made it easy to ignore the values those weapons and treaties were created to defend.

Although the Khodorkovsky verdict is imminent, there is yet time for the Western world to speak out for a brave man and his imprisoned associates, and in defense of the ideals the West professes to value.

In 2005, Sen. John McCain and then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden co-sponsored a resolution recognizing Mr. Khodorkovsky and Platon Lebedev (a colleague who was also sent to prison on tax evasion charges) as political prisoners. Now President Obama has regular meetings with President Medvedev—or "my friend, Dmitri," as he calls him, the man who could free Mr. Khodorkovsky with a stroke of his pen. It is up to the president, who in 2009 called the new charges against Mr. Khodorkovsky "odd," to live up to his convictions as a senator.

The Obama administration knows the truth. In one of the WikiLeaks documents released this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Herve Morin, the French defense minister, last February that "Russian democracy has disappeared." But the administration has been afraid to voice this conclusion publicly.

In his closing statement, Mr. Khodorkovsky invoked one of Barack Obama's campaign themes, which means more coming from someone who has spent seven years in a Siberian prison camp. "I remember the end of the '80s," he said. "I was 25 then. Our country was living on hope of freedom, hope that we would be able to achieve happiness for ourselves and for our children. . . .


rest at-

Garry Kasparov: A Business Martyr in Putin's Russia - WSJ.com

think of why the above trail etc. took place ......do you get the point?

 

[uscitizen]

Neither form of government will long last.

 

[AmericanFirst]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

You are an idiot, what do you think socialism is? It is the rich controlling the gov't controlling you. If you are trying to make this a repub vs dem thing you are doing it wrong. The dimwits blame the republicans for bigger gov't when it is actually the dimwits that love big gov't. Look at the current dimwit administration. Big gov't on steroids, the socialists heaven. IDIOTS!!!

 

[AmericanFirst]

That's because for the most part..

It's not.

How naive.

Socialist Leaders lead lavish lifestyles on the backs of their state owned slaves.

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

All socialist states. This made up term, plutocrat, just a denial of what we have now in office, a socialist.

 

[Sallow]

It's clear that you don't grok that Socialism is just a front for a particularly nasty form of Plutocracy.

That's because for the most part..

It's not.

does todays Russia qualify as a "part" for the most part? Or China?

Both those governments are in a weird transition period. People can vote..but it's for different candidates in the same party.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's clear that you don't grok that Socialism is just a front for a particularly nasty form of Plutocracy.

No I don't. But I understand that Soviet Communism and Marxism in China resulted in a very conservative totalitarian form of government. And that the leadership in both nations were wealthy and enjoyed benefits denied to the hoi polloi. Kind of like the member of congress in our country today.

Chairman Mao and Stalin were responsible for the murders, hangings, beatings, slayings, rapes, stonings, drownings, tortures of tens of millions of their own citizens. Mao even let his own red army kill his first wife. There is no comparison of these two murderers and our congress.

Really? Are you sure? Think, real hard - I know it's hard work, but try.

 

[Sallow]

How naive.

Socialist Leaders lead lavish lifestyles on the backs of their state owned slaves.

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

All socialist states. This made up term, plutocrat, just a denial of what we have now in office, a socialist.

It's a modern term..which basically maps to the old favorite conservative ideal governments..aristocracy..and monarchy. Wealth..replacing divinity as the justification for absolute power.

Conservatives like strong leaders..like Kings..or messiahs.

 

[Sallow]

No I don't. But I understand that Soviet Communism and Marxism in China resulted in a very conservative totalitarian form of government. And that the leadership in both nations were wealthy and enjoyed benefits denied to the hoi polloi. Kind of like the member of congress in our country today.

Chairman Mao and Stalin were responsible for the murders, hangings, beatings, slayings, rapes, stonings, drownings, tortures of tens of millions of their own citizens. Mao even let his own red army kill his first wife. There is no comparison of these two murderers and our congress.

Really? Are you sure? Think, real hard - I know it's hard work, but try.

Well if you kill people in other lands..there really is no comparison. So if the Chinese invaded say..Vietnam..and killed people..it would be alright (which they did do..by the way after we left).

[/sarcasm]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No I don't. But I understand that Soviet Communism and Marxism in China resulted in a very conservative totalitarian form of government. And that the leadership in both nations were wealthy and enjoyed benefits denied to the hoi polloi. Kind of like the member of congress in our country today.

Chairman Mao and Stalin were responsible for the murders, hangings, beatings, slayings, rapes, stonings, drownings, tortures of tens of millions of their own citizens. Mao even let his own red army kill his first wife. There is no comparison of these two murderers and our congress.

Really? Are you sure? Think, real hard - I know it's hard work, but try.

Quite sure but thanks for the concern. I know our country has endured some pretty pathetic leaders before but I will not compare them to Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao or any other despotic dictator.

 

[Wry Catcher]

a greater threat than socialism?

The term "plutocracy" is formally defined as government by the wealthy, and is also sometimes used to refer to a wealthy class that controls a government, often from behind the scenes. More generally, a plutocracy is any form of government in which the wealthy exercise the preponderance of political power, whether directly or indirectly.

Which is the greater threat to our Republic, socialism or plutocracy? And, Why?

You are an idiot, what do you think socialism is? It is the rich controlling the gov't controlling you. If you are trying to make this a repub vs dem thing you are doing it wrong. The dimwits blame the republicans for bigger gov't when it is actually the dimwits that love big gov't. Look at the current dimwit administration. Big gov't on steroids, the socialists heaven. IDIOTS!!!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Revere]

Public employees unions are the closest thing to plutocracy.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

But you do have a point, WryCatcher, if you're referring to the mandarins of China who decreed punishing laws to the citizens. And, you could make a comparison of how Mao and Stalin sacked and stole the assets of the private citizens to become all powerful and rich BUT that was at the hands of ruthless governments. Both men worked against the working business class citizens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Chairman Mao and Stalin were responsible for the murders, hangings, beatings, slayings, rapes, stonings, drownings, tortures of tens of millions of their own citizens. Mao even let his own red army kill his first wife. There is no comparison of these two murderers and our congress.

Really? Are you sure? Think, real hard - I know it's hard work, but try.

Quite sure but thanks for the concern. I know our country has endured some pretty pathetic leaders before but I will not compare them to Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao or any other despotic dictator.

Nor would I. Which is why I suggested 'you' think real hard. Sometimes the same or a similar result can be achieved with less obvious and more insidious policies.

 

[georgephillip]

Public employees unions are the closest thing to plutocracy.

Closer than the Koch brothers?

Or the US Chamber of Commerce?

the Pentagon?

 

[Trajan]

Yes and no, depends on what "Socialist" state you are talking about (And seriously, states are rarely, if ever..fully Socialist).

But Plutocrats are rarely elected.

All socialist states. This made up term, plutocrat, just a denial of what we have now in office, a socialist.

It's a modern term..which basically maps to the old favorite conservative ideal governments..aristocracy..and monarchy. Wealth..replacing divinity as the justification for absolute power.

Conservatives like strong leaders..like Kings..or messiahs.

uh huh and say the Vietnamese? think they like strong leaders?