Separating America From Capitalism

[PoliticalChic]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

Golly gee, do I have to love one more than the other? The Constitution is nice, just sits there gathering dust unless some commie liberal reads it and demands something, and FDR is dead. If FDR wasn't dead he'd be president.
As for who works harder, capitalists or socialists, I'd say socialists; capitalists seem to sit around a lot, play golf or run for political office like Trump.
Speaking of Trump, will Trump pick Palin to be his running mate?

Many a true word is spoken in jest is an adage, or aphorism.

And that is the case in your post.

Roosevelt had no regard for the Constitution, and saw to it that it was no longer the law of the land.
Acolytes such as you are accomplices.

Your words about capitalists as compared to socialists could have been spoken by Marx or any of his other drones.

You've served your purpose.

Your opinion on FDR's regard for the Constitution is just that, opinion. Asking an "either/or question can be a fallacy and childish, and your question was both.

No, it is not simply an opinion....it is a fact.

Case in point: the Constitution is based on American's owning and using gold.
Roosevelt simply removed that privilege...sans an amendment.....so that he could inflate the currency.

 

[Daniyel]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

Today's modern Liberals actually stole the title when John Dewey changed the name of the Socialist Party to 'Liberal.'

Classical liberals are what would be known as conservatives today.

 

[regent]

That's an either or question.
I don't love either. Each has or had a role to play and I admire both for that role. I also admire many people for their roles and for some the courage it took to play out that role. I admire Washington for his role as the first president under our new government and many other presidents that played other roles. Fortunately most historians of note agree with me on the president thing.
As for work, if we can do it better with less labor I'm for it.

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

Golly gee, do I have to love one more than the other? The Constitution is nice, just sits there gathering dust unless some commie liberal reads it and demands something, and FDR is dead. If FDR wasn't dead he'd be president.
As for who works harder, capitalists or socialists, I'd say socialists; capitalists seem to sit around a lot, play golf or run for political office like Trump.
Speaking of Trump, will Trump pick Palin to be his running mate?

Many a true word is spoken in jest is an adage, or aphorism.

And that is the case in your post.

Roosevelt had no regard for the Constitution, and saw to it that it was no longer the law of the land.
Acolytes such as you are accomplices.

Your words about capitalists as compared to socialists could have been spoken by Marx or any of his other drones.

You've served your purpose.

Your opinion on FDR's regard for the Constitution is just that, opinion. Asking an "either/or question can be a fallacy and childish, and your question was both.

No, it is not simply an opinion....it is a fact.

Case in point: the Constitution is based on American's owning and using gold.
Roosevelt simply removed that privilege...sans an amendment.....so that he could inflate the currency.

Where in the Constitution is that found? Was using gold a mandate or a privilege.

 

[Daniyel]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

Today's modern Liberals actually stole the title when John Dewey changed the name of the Socialist Party to 'Liberal.'

Classical liberals are what would be known as conservatives today.

True, these titles are misleading..I was wondering outloud because I did actually expect this answer, in other words Socialism is only reachable throughout liberalism so it's reasonable to "advance" the title back to liberalism - considering the American diversity this is probably one of the reasons ObamaCare is doomed while the American public opinion is centralizing closer to Capitalism, I hope you got my point here.
pure Socialism is an result of years even in Europe, America is still miles away.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How about you answer some questions...
1. I asked you earlier, which do you love more, FDR or the Constitution?

2. Under which system do individuals work harder, capitalism, or socialism?
And why?

Golly gee, do I have to love one more than the other? The Constitution is nice, just sits there gathering dust unless some commie liberal reads it and demands something, and FDR is dead. If FDR wasn't dead he'd be president.
As for who works harder, capitalists or socialists, I'd say socialists; capitalists seem to sit around a lot, play golf or run for political office like Trump.
Speaking of Trump, will Trump pick Palin to be his running mate?

Many a true word is spoken in jest is an adage, or aphorism.

And that is the case in your post.

Roosevelt had no regard for the Constitution, and saw to it that it was no longer the law of the land.
Acolytes such as you are accomplices.

Your words about capitalists as compared to socialists could have been spoken by Marx or any of his other drones.

You've served your purpose.

Your opinion on FDR's regard for the Constitution is just that, opinion. Asking an "either/or question can be a fallacy and childish, and your question was both.

No, it is not simply an opinion....it is a fact.

Case in point: the Constitution is based on American's owning and using gold.
Roosevelt simply removed that privilege...sans an amendment.....so that he could inflate the currency.

Where in the Constitution is that found? Was using gold a mandate or a privilege.

You seriously doubt me???

You really are a slow learner.


1.The Roosevelt court ruled against in Article 1, section 10 in finding that Congress's retroactive voiding of 'gold clauses' in contracts was constitutional.
Congress was following Roosevelt's plan to take America off the gold standard, and remove the ability of Americans to hold, and use, gold: at the time,"gold clauses" were common,and they give creditors the option of receiving gold in payment of debts.


Four cases came before the Court in 1935, the "Gold Clause Cases," andin each the Court found it constitutional to 'impair loan contracts.'



The above is a perfect example of Progressive's use of the term 'interpret' the Constitution, when they actual rule counter to it.
(Covered in Charles Murray's "By The People")


The question in not whether the court was correct about right or wrong in each of these cases....but whether their decision was the exact opposite of the rule in the Constitution.

It was.

a. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that"the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

Today's modern Liberals actually stole the title when John Dewey changed the name of the Socialist Party to 'Liberal.'

Classical liberals are what would be known as conservatives today.

True, these titles are misleading..I was wondering outloud because I did actually expect this answer, in other words Socialism is only reachable throughout liberalism so it's reasonable to "advance" the title back to liberalism - considering the American diversity this is probably one of the reasons ObamaCare is doomed while the American public opinion is centralizing closer to Capitalism, I hope you got my point here.
pure Socialism is an result of years even in Europe, America is still miles away.

"...Socialism is only reachable throughout liberalism..."


Wait....let me get my Rosetta Stone so I can interpret that.

 

[Daniyel]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

Today's modern Liberals actually stole the title when John Dewey changed the name of the Socialist Party to 'Liberal.'

Classical liberals are what would be known as conservatives today.

True, these titles are misleading..I was wondering outloud because I did actually expect this answer, in other words Socialism is only reachable throughout liberalism so it's reasonable to "advance" the title back to liberalism - considering the American diversity this is probably one of the reasons ObamaCare is doomed while the American public opinion is centralizing closer to Capitalism, I hope you got my point here.
pure Socialism is an result of years even in Europe, America is still miles away.

"...Socialism is only reachable throughout liberalism..."


Wait....let me get my Rosetta Stone so I can interpret that.

Well, by the public mentality.

 

[regent]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

Today's modern Liberals actually stole the title when John Dewey changed the name of the Socialist Party to 'Liberal.'

Classical liberals are what would be known as conservatives today.

Ideologies are based on a few core beliefs that do not change. The means to implement those core beliefs does change, however, as do people's beliefs and intensity. Many people also have conflicting beliefs and all that can change, over time, but core liberalism remains liberalism despite Dewey's changing a party's name.
30

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Quite the coincidence: the same folks who wish to 'fundamentally change,' i.e., destroy America, hate capitalism.
And this hatred is based on a misreading of human nature.

Tragic that the same misunderstanding of human nature led to the slaughter of over 100 million human beings last century by other big government totalitarians.

The central error can be found here: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


Communists, socialists, Liberals, fascists.....the above applies to 'em all.



2. What America was, and what America is.
Contrary to the collectivist view of the contemporary eco-fascists, the colonial ideal was private ownership. The lesson was well learned from the Plymouth Colony, begun as a communal venture, but not successful until each family tilled and profited from their own plots.

William Bradford, who served as Plymouth Colony Governor five times covering about thirty years between 1621 and 1657, knew that a man who could feed his family would not be a mendicant, demanding entitlements, and was capable of standing up to tyranny. The yeoman farmer was the unit of freedom.


a. Bradford described the introduction of capitalism (1623) to replace communal use of the land:
"And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
Pilgrim Hall Museum - Beyond the Pilgrim Story - Humility Cooper


"....which before would allege weakness and inability...."
Think Liberal welfare policies.



And now for an echo of the insane asylum:

b. .....an example of this utopianism, and the Left’s willingness to destroy what is provably good, in the hope of finding this imaginary utopia...Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism “is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many…. "

So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system.” Michael Moore We re Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It RealClearPolitics



America was founded on the idea of the individual, not the collective, and the right of every free man and woman to apply labor to property and create wealth.

Of course, that was when the government answered to the people....not the other way around.

I'm not sure Liberalism qualifies for that, in fact Capitalism is probably the closest of all to Liberalism (afterwards there is the anarchism) so it's a very misleading idea coning to think of it - Capitalism can only be turn practical in a liberal societies where in America it's signed under the word Freedom.

Today's modern Liberals actually stole the title when John Dewey changed the name of the Socialist Party to 'Liberal.'

Classical liberals are what would be known as conservatives today.

Ideologies are based on a few core beliefs that do not change. The means to implement those core beliefs does change, however, as do people's beliefs and intensity. Many people also have conflicting beliefs and all that can change, over time, but core liberalism remains liberalism despite Dewey's changing a party's name.
30

Why the near total conformity between the policies of Roosevelt, Mussolini, and Hitler?

Coincidence?

 

[imawhosure]

Wonder why most nations in the world have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism including the US?

I wonder why most of your posts have more smoke and mirrors than a fire in a brothel.


I posted this: " ....who happened to understand better than his fellow investors the company must give colonists a serious stake in their enterprise."


That's capitalism.
The economic program that has never been surpassed."


You did your best to avoid this fact about human nature.

Is capitalism being surpassed today by most nations using a mixture of socialism and capitalism?
Can you name one nation with pure capitalism?
Can you name one nation with pure socialism?
How many nations can be named that have a mixture of both socialism and capitalism besides the United States?

Let me be perfectly clear; the very thing that made America the most powerful country with the highest standard of living in the world for all of its citizens, some of you wish to dismantle. As we have moved left, our standard of living has fallen or stayed stagnant.

Do any of you understand that you are not asking those with oodles of money to build more roads, bridges, sewers, or water treatment plants because someone, or the country needs them? What you are actually doing is........ punishing one person because of another. The person you want to punish did absolutely nothing wrong; and if they did, prosecute them. The only thing these people did was work hard, create something, lived the American dream that frankly, we see others trying to get in here illegally to try and do exactly the same thing, and your solution is to call these people names, claim they are greedy, evil, nasty, or downright awful; sometimes even anti-American or Oligarchs.

These people did NOT give themselves access to the politicians, oh no........the politicians did. You refuse to blame the real culprits in this fiasco, and that is the people in Washington. And then, and then, and then when you do, you point soley at republicans.

Are you telling all of us on this board, that when the democrats had the Presidency, the House, and the Senate doing the Obamacare deal, they couldn't have fixed this? If you admit at least that, then you better start pointing more than one finger, and pointing the new finger in the opposite direction.


This false idea that we want to be like Switzerland or Germany is downright laughable. We kicked all their asses economically until we turned left, kicked many of their asses in wars we had to win, and freed 1/2 of their incompetent asses while fighting said wars. And your solution is to look like them? Seriously, come on! What is wrong with you people?

You don't like the way things are going? Then why do you keep putting in democrats or rinos, lol! Reagans policies had the REAL unemployment rate down to a low in the 3s I believe, yet you cry about jobs, but elect democrats. And let me say that we aren't talking about JFK democrats or Harry Trueman democrats, we are talking about democrats that are changing the country into Switzerland, Germany, France, or beyond.

The truth is..............if you listen to liberals/socialists who keep this mantra going you are going to lose your country, and if you are young, it will be in your lifetime. While some of these libs are probably 60s radicals at times they know how to define the problem, but their answer is ALWAYS more government, or a different person running a large government entity that tells all of you what to do. We are over 100 trillion in debt, and it is all falling on to the younger people. If many of these libs are really a seasoned citizen, they won't pay back a dime of their excess, you guys will. They will be gone, just like the politicians who created this mess to start with.

The next time you try and get a raise from your employer, consider that if the libs have their way, sometime down the road BEFORE your country collapses under its debt, the government will be taking over 70% of your paycheck through taxes, obvious and hidden ones. The government will be happy you worked so hard, and if you manage to get a dollar raise through all your hard work, they will get 70 cents of it, you will get 30 cents of it! Sounds fair to me. NOT! But it sounds fair to the libs because they know what I am telling you is true; and yet, they try to convince you to listen to them.

• Edit
• Flag

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. As we have moved left, our standard of living has fallen or stayed stagnant.

This is 100% true but the liberal is way too stupid to understand. They are told we moved right, not left, thanks to Reagan and the solution is to now move left.

We are dealing with liberal insanity.

 

[Socialist]

Yeah, I don't think you understand capitalism at all, private ownership of production, the reliance on extracting surplus value, a hierarchical structure that lacks democracy, you tell me the moment private ownership ceases to exist in America and I'll listen to your garbage.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, I don't think you understand capitalism at all, private ownership of production, the reliance on extracting surplus value, a hierarchical structure that lacks democracy, you tell me the moment private ownership ceases to exist in America and I'll listen to your garbage.

PLeeeeeeezzzzzeeee.

It has been demonstrated with metronomic regularity that you are too stupid to learn.



"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Mises Daily Mises Institute



Such is the aim of the over regulation by LIberals/Progressives/Democrats in America.

 

[Socialist]

Yeah, I don't think you understand capitalism at all, private ownership of production, the reliance on extracting surplus value, a hierarchical structure that lacks democracy, you tell me the moment private ownership ceases to exist in America and I'll listen to your garbage.

PLeeeeeeezzzzzeeee.

It has been demonstrated with metronomic regularity that you are too stupid to learn.



"The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."
Mises Daily Mises Institute



Such is the aim of the over regulation by LIberals/Progressives/Democrats in America.

"I am too stupid to learn" I have rarely posted in your threads, in order for you to come to this conclusion, you must have been stalking me with your skewed analysis.
I don't think I was claiming nazi germany was capitalist, if anything, it was following state capitalism, more so, fascism. I don't see the relevance, and the "regulation" claim is utter nonsense, it's why huge amounts of land is privately owned by capitalists, capitalists are privately doing all kinds of things, regulation is healthy and needed to make capitalism somewhat sustainable. I would prefer you not quote something random about nazi germany and actually realize what capitalism is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you tell me the moment private ownership ceases to exist in America and I'll listen to your garbage.

Dear, in America we are free to own private property. Its natural law and the basis of our government.

This truth explains why a private car gets washed far more than a rented car.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

regulation is healthy and needed to make capitalism somewhat sustainable..

100% stupid of course. Soviet and Red Chinese regulators slowly starved 120 million to death. Liberals are naturally very very stupid and childlike so imagine regulators have magical intelligence and goodness.

Welcome to your fist lesson in political philosophy:

Jefferson:
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

"Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

actually realize what capitalism is.

simple, you either have best the products, prices, and jobs in the world to increase the standard of living at the fastest possible rate or the Republican free market drives you into bankruptcy.

As a liberal you will lack the IQ to understand the above.

 

[Abishai100]

Consumer Country

Would we feel better about the profiteer-aspects of capitalism if we felt more socially 'excited' about American electronics companies such as Tandy Corporation competing (in some time scale) with foreign electronics companies such as Samsung Electronics?




www.apple.com

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Damn, what happened to all the private ownership of business in the USA? Oh that's right, they are still there.....Same with farms, houses and STD's, still privately owned unless owned by a corporation which is supported by private individuals...If that ain't capitalism, I don't think it's communist...

What we have now is what I like to call corporatism - where privately owned business' are regulated by government. Government sets the perimeters in which the business is allowed to operate within. Any deviation from the regulated areas is met with financial penalties or worst case, government not allowing that business to operate. Do what government wants when government wants it done and you will succeed because you will be rewarded with tax dollars. In return for being allowed to operate, business' give considerable $ to politicians re-election funds and PAC ads.

Capitalism is bringing Goods / Service to market, have a product people want and are willing to buy. Others are free to offer the same good / service through competition. Just like in nature, the strong survive and the weak perish...the better the product and the more people want to buy it, the stronger than business will become where as the business whose service / goods arent good enough, too highly priced will go away or they will adjust and be more competitive.

I wish we would get back to Capitalism.