Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Only if they have a partner in government dancing with them. Otherwise, they're just corporations competing in a free market.Corporatism is for Wall Street and other assorted "takers."Corporatism is for collectivists. Capitalism is for free people. We all know which you support.
Free market capitalists and politicians that restrain their meddling to the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.Why don't you tell us who you support?
Why did your hero murder the Communists, Cracker?
"...those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary brownshirts.
"Adolf Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power..."
"Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm's outspoken support for a 'second revolution' to redistribute wealth. (In Röhm's view Hitler's election had accomplished the "nationalistic" revolution but had left unfulfilled the 'socialistic' motive in National Socialism.)"
Hitler came to power because rich capitalists in Germany (including many Jews) thought he would be good for business. Authentic socialists saw Hitler for the tool of the rich he really was. (Not unlike your other hero, Money Mitt)
Then there is a Mall shooting, so armed guards need to be placed there. Then a Church shooting and armed guards are placed there. Then a bus station shooting....and
You getting the message? The NRA would be happy if everyone is packing. Back to the old west. More guns will not solve the problem.
It isn't more guns everywhere, it is armed guards everywhere. THAT leads to a police state. Considering where those armed guards are supposed to be placed, it leads to a populace accustomed TO the police state. WHAT (rather than who) will that police state "protect?' NOT "the people" for sure.
Private security guards lead to a police state? Someone needs a dictionary.
po·lice state
country repressively controlled by its government: a country in which the government uses police, especially secret police, to exercise strict or repressive control over the population
Now, I'm no fan of a police state, but please, tell us how private citizens hiring private security has anything to do with a government exercising strict control over the population with government employed, or secret police, guards?
Only if they have a partner in government dancing with them. Otherwise, they're just corporations competing in a free market.Corporatism is for Wall Street and other assorted "takers."
Free market capitalists and politicians that restrain their meddling to the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.Why don't you tell us who you support?
"Free market capitalists" HAVE no powers to "restrain" under our "Constitution."
Under our Constitution, the way it was originally construed, corporations had regulations and restrictions. The "we want our country back" folks might want to visit THAT part of our vainglorious past.
It isn't more guns everywhere, it is armed guards everywhere. THAT leads to a police state. Considering where those armed guards are supposed to be placed, it leads to a populace accustomed TO the police state. WHAT (rather than who) will that police state "protect?' NOT "the people" for sure.
Private security guards lead to a police state? Someone needs a dictionary.
po·lice state
country repressively controlled by its government: a country in which the government uses police, especially secret police, to exercise strict or repressive control over the population
Now, I'm no fan of a police state, but please, tell us how private citizens hiring private security has anything to do with a government exercising strict control over the population with government employed, or secret police, guards?
Are you fucking kidding me? Anything regulated by the government, as security forces would have to be, is sanctioned by the government.
Private security guards lead to a police state? Someone needs a dictionary.
po·lice state
country repressively controlled by its government: a country in which the government uses police, especially secret police, to exercise strict or repressive control over the population
Now, I'm no fan of a police state, but please, tell us how private citizens hiring private security has anything to do with a government exercising strict control over the population with government employed, or secret police, guards?
Are you fucking kidding me? Anything regulated by the government, as security forces would have to be, is sanctioned by the government.
A private guard at a local store must be regulated by government, eh?
Well, we now see how your mind works. Collectivist to the core.
Are you fucking kidding me? Anything regulated by the government, as security forces would have to be, is sanctioned by the government.
A private guard at a local store must be regulated by government, eh?
Well, we now see how your mind works. Collectivist to the core.
If he's armed, he is regulated by law. You say no?
Only if they have a partner in government dancing with them. Otherwise, they're just corporations competing in a free market.
Free market capitalists and politicians that restrain their meddling to the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.
"Free market capitalists" HAVE no powers to "restrain" under our "Constitution."
Reading comprehension issue? Politicians are supposed to restrained to the enumerated powers, not free citizens.
Under our Constitution, the way it was originally construed, corporations had regulations and restrictions. The "we want our country back" folks might want to visit THAT part of our vainglorious past.
I call bullshit. But please, provide us a link or use your own words to back up your assertion.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.174
Then there is a Mall shooting, so armed guards need to be placed there. Then a Church shooting and armed guards are placed there. Then a bus station shooting....and
You getting the message? The NRA would be happy if everyone is packing. Back to the old west. More guns will not solve the problem.
"Free market capitalists" HAVE no powers to "restrain" under our "Constitution."
Reading comprehension issue? Politicians are supposed to restrained to the enumerated powers, not free citizens.
I call bullshit. But please, provide us a link or use your own words to back up your assertion.
Hartman, Thom, Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class-and what we can do about it, 100-101
you'll have to look up a book.
Once upon a time in America, it was a criminal act, punishable by prison time and a painful financial penalty, for a politician to collude with corporate sponsors regarding anything political, legal or having to do with elections.174
Gee, I remember the left being giddy over Clinton's Cops in Schools proposal.
Gee, I remember the left being giddy over Clinton's Cops in Schools proposal.
"Two weeks ago, President Clinton announced a program called Cops in Schools, aimed at making it easier for school districts to get money to hire police officers in hopes of preventing the types of shootings that have resulted in the deaths of students and teachers in half a dozen schools in the last three years."
Read more: Call Clinton crazy? Bill once backed school guards | Times 247
How does anyone as ignorant and stupid as you are expect to ever explain anything?"Collective responsibility is a concept or doctrine, according to which individuals are to be held responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions."Collective responsibility...where do I find that in the Constitution? What collectivist nonsense.
When guns kill without a human operator, I'll join your crusade to sue the manufacturers. Until then, you're talking out your ass.
Corporations are collectives, as is the nation you live in and profit from.
Multi-billion dollar corporations earning hundreds of millions in profits from gun sales in the US Collective should be required to pay for the negative externalities their product produces.
Or maybe conservatives believe those costs should be paid by the victims of gun sales?
"Collective responsibility" is a concept invented by the Nazis to justify mass murder. It isn't any less despicable when it's used to justify persecuting innocent people to push your social agenda.
It's hard to believe you continue to push this despicable idiocy even after the origins of the doctrine have been explained to you.
How many mentally ill homeless people have gone on a shooting binge? How many do you think even own a gun?
The loon in CN was mentally ill. His mother was attempting to put him in a facility for treatment.
Yet she allowed him access to weapons, go figure. You want someone to blame, she is the one that screwed up and it cost her everything.
Only if they have a partner in government dancing with them. Otherwise, they're just corporations competing in a free market.Corporatism is for Wall Street and other assorted "takers."
Free market capitalists and politicians that restrain their meddling to the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.Why don't you tell us who you support?
"Free market capitalists" HAVE no powers to "restrain" under our "Constitution." Under our Constitution, the way it was originally construed, corporations had regulations and restrictions. The "we want our country back" folks might want to visit THAT part of our vainglorious past.
How does anyone as ignorant and stupid as you are expect to ever explain anything?"Collective responsibility is a concept or doctrine, according to which individuals are to be held responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions."
Corporations are collectives, as is the nation you live in and profit from.
Multi-billion dollar corporations earning hundreds of millions in profits from gun sales in the US Collective should be required to pay for the negative externalities their product produces.
Or maybe conservatives believe those costs should be paid by the victims of gun sales?
"Collective responsibility" is a concept invented by the Nazis to justify mass murder. It isn't any less despicable when it's used to justify persecuting innocent people to push your social agenda.
It's hard to believe you continue to push this despicable idiocy even after the origins of the doctrine have been explained to you.
"It is first documented in the medieval period in an expanded version of the Russkaya Pravda that mandated that certain communities would be collectively responsible for apprehending murderers or paying fines to the prince.
"In the Muscovite period collective responsibility was frequently invoked to make communities collectively responsible for the actions and financial obligations of their members.
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, state officials shifted much of the responsibility for apprehending criminals and preempting misdeeds to groups that could monitor and discipline their members"
Collective responsibility: Definition from Answers.com
Only if they have a partner in government dancing with them. Otherwise, they're just corporations competing in a free market.
Free market capitalists and politicians that restrain their meddling to the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution.
"Free market capitalists" HAVE no powers to "restrain" under our "Constitution." Under our Constitution, the way it was originally construed, corporations had regulations and restrictions. The "we want our country back" folks might want to visit THAT part of our vainglorious past.
As a matter of fact, Barb, 'construed' sounds like the way a lib reads the Consttution. Badly. And I guess the ten commandments were really just the ten suggestions.
And it wasn't said capitalists have the right to restrain anything. The post was about politicians keeping their noses out of the free market because if they don't pretty soon it won't be free anymore.
If Hitler was a socialist, why did he kill communists instead of capitalists?Why did your hero murder the Communists, Cracker?
"...those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary brownshirts.
"Adolf Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his newly gained political power..."
"Additionally, Hitler was uncomfortable with Röhm's outspoken support for a 'second revolution' to redistribute wealth. (In Röhm's view Hitler's election had accomplished the "nationalistic" revolution but had left unfulfilled the 'socialistic' motive in National Socialism.)"
As you already admitted, Hitler killed the Brownshirts because they were a threat to his power. Your attempt to paint them as "true socialists," as opposed to the rest of the Nazis is absurd. Röhm and the Brownshirts wore the Nazi armbands just like all the other Nazis. Hitler declared himself to be a socialist, just like Röhm. When a country succumbs to socialism, there are often a number of factions vying for control. Those factions often attempt to kill each other off. It's a normal part of the socialist political process.
Hitler came to power because rich capitalists in Germany (including many Jews) thought he would be good for business. Authentic socialists saw Hitler for the tool of the rich he really was. (Not unlike your other hero, Money Mitt)
absolute horseshit. In the first place, that claim is non-falsifiable. In the second, Hitler came to power because his party received more votes than any other party. That result had nothing to do with the imagined desires of rich capitalists. Hitler was an authentic socialist. Only morons are buying the con that commies like you get to determine who is "authentic" and who isn't.
You claimed "'collective responsibility'" is a concept invented by the Nazis..."How does anyone as ignorant and stupid as you are expect to ever explain anything?"Collective responsibility" is a concept invented by the Nazis to justify mass murder. It isn't any less despicable when it's used to justify persecuting innocent people to push your social agenda.
It's hard to believe you continue to push this despicable idiocy even after the origins of the doctrine have been explained to you.
"It is first documented in the medieval period in an expanded version of the Russkaya Pravda that mandated that certain communities would be collectively responsible for apprehending murderers or paying fines to the prince.
"In the Muscovite period collective responsibility was frequently invoked to make communities collectively responsible for the actions and financial obligations of their members.
"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, state officials shifted much of the responsibility for apprehending criminals and preempting misdeeds to groups that could monitor and discipline their members"
Collective responsibility: Definition from Answers.com
You're talking about two entirely unrelated things, you lying hosebag. On the one hand, you're talking about a group of people collectively being responsible for performing some task, and on the other you are referring to a group being assigned guilt for some kind of offense. The later case is offensive to any notion of justice. However, it's a notion that you wholeheartedly endorse. Your scheme to hold all gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed by others is based on exactly the same notion as the SS's idea of executing entire towns for sabotage committed by partisans.
It's good to see you reveal your fascist cloven hoof. You're making it easy to demonstrate the true nature of collectivism.
