Socialism-the BIGGEST plight/failure to this world, EVER.

[JakeStarkey]

Intense still has not answered if the USSR, Great Britain, and the USA could have defeated the nazis, fascists, and militarists with small, limited governments.

 

[MaggieMae]

A little definition always helps.

Socialism: State ownership of the means of production. The nationalization of all land and minerals, public transportation, trade, banking and factories - with profits going to the people as a whole rather to capitalists or landlords.

Financial Capitalism: Profits are derived from the investment of money.

Anarchism: The support of no system of government; the belief that government controls, regulations and authority are oppressive.

Economics: The study of the ways in which people make a living; the study of human wants and their satisfaction; the science of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Basic agents of production in the market system: Land (natural resources); Labor (human effort); Capital (the physical necessities for production - buildings, maqchinery, tools, equipment and supplies).

Management (to plan, coordinate and direct production).

Now put the emotion aside, stop posting unproven axioms which you hear but can't explain, and post your own theory of economics which best fits the culture of our nation.

My guess is the vast number of Americans would choose a mixed economy. Not laissez faire capitalism, not government control of the means of production, but a pragmatic approach to satisfying the needs and wants of our people.

Should add

Statism- concentration of controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry. Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state

Crony Capitalism- A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.


My guess is the vast number of Americans would NOT choose either of the above, but a pragmatic approach to satisfying the needs and wants of our people.

Statism is a common word invented by the right wing noise machine and copied by every sucka who idolizes the likes of Beck and Limbaugh. It doesn't exist except in the brainwashed minds of RW extremists.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Intense still has not answered if the USSR, Great Britain, and the USA could have defeated the nazis, fascists, and militarists with small, limited governments.

They did. All of the above govt's were much smaller in every respect back in the 30's & 40's... save the Russians of course.

 

[MaggieMae]

I agree that Socialist, and Facist, and Communist governments were all based on forms of stastism, as were all the western democracies. What is your point, Neo? That some statist governments were worse than others?

Glad to see you weren't "run off the board" by those two. They've become a source of amusement more than anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Intense still has not answered if the USSR, Great Britain, and the USA could have defeated the nazis, fascists, and militarists with small, limited governments.

They did. All of the above govt's were much smaller in every respect back in the 30's & 40's... save the Russians of course.

You reveal, yet again, your ignorance. You better go read up on the USA and GB's massive governmental control, management, and direction of the war effort. They dwarfed the German and Japanese efforts, and were larger than the USSR's efforts.

You guys make the most amazing statements.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

I agree that Socialist, and Facist, and Communist governments were all based on forms of stastism, as were all the western democracies. What is your point, Neo? That some statist governments were worse than others?

Glad to see you weren't "run off the board" by those two. They've become a source of amusement more than anything.

I would assume it is funny to watch me pwn both you and Starkey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You got bitch slapped, bent over and reamed, and kicked out the door, Righteous1.

Here this will help you remember.

Righteous1 gave a perfect demonstration of idiocy today on the thread. Her Claim: “Socialism” killed more people than any other ism in history. Proof: Some stats but no comparisons. None. Comparative Analysis: none Direct argumentation of contradictions: none One estimate, in contrast, estimates hazily that more than 800 million people have died because of religion. Deaths over history: religious vs. nonreligous Bookrate

Claim: Hitler was a socialist Proof: None. Comparative Analysis: none Direct argumentation of contradictions: none. Counter Proof: could not give one example of an industry that Hitler nationalized.

Righteous 1, in other words is just another Tea Party Samurai, bigrebnc1775, US Army Retired. She is full of fury and nonsense, saying much but meaning nothing, and flatly unable to either carry or defend an OP. When called out, she instead of responding to facts simply attacks personalities, calls opponents spammers and trolls.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

You got bitch slapped, bent over and reamed, and kicked out the door, Righteous1.

Here this will help you remember.

Righteous1 gave a perfect demonstration of idiocy today on the thread. Her Claim: “Socialism” killed more people than any other ism in history. Proof: Some stats but no comparisons. None. Comparative Analysis: none Direct argumentation of contradictions: none One estimate, in contrast, estimates hazily that more than 800 million people have died because of religion. Deaths over history: religious vs. nonreligous Bookrate

Claim: Hitler was a socialist Proof: None. Comparative Analysis: none Direct argumentation of contradictions: none. Counter Proof: could not give one example of an industry that Hitler nationalized.

Righteous 1, in other words is just another Tea Party Samurai, bigrebnc1775, US Army Retired. She is full of fury and nonsense, saying much but meaning nothing, and flatly unable to either carry or defend an OP. When called out, she instead of responding to facts simply attacks personalities, calls opponents spammers and trolls.

Thank you for further humiliating yourself by posting the same BS I refuted over and over again yesterday.

You're really a glutton for punishment huh. You ran away once, came back, proceeded to get your troll spam on, and my exposes with a separate thread sealed your fate.

This moron doesn't even grasp common knowledge, IE the points I highlighted in my manifesto, the most socialist ones, which were all implemented. This troll has NO grasp of any history that doesn't suit him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You got bitch slapped, bent over and reamed, and kicked out the door, Righteous1.

Here this will help you remember.

Righteous1 gave a perfect demonstration of idiocy today on the thread. Her Claim: “Socialism” killed more people than any other ism in history. Proof: Some stats but no comparisons. None. Comparative Analysis: none Direct argumentation of contradictions: none One estimate, in contrast, estimates hazily that more than 800 million people have died because of religion. Deaths over history: religious vs. nonreligous Bookrate

Claim: Hitler was a socialist Proof: None. Comparative Analysis: none Direct argumentation of contradictions: none. Counter Proof: could not give one example of an industry that Hitler nationalized.

Righteous 1, in other words is just another Tea Party Samurai, bigrebnc1775, US Army Retired. She is full of fury and nonsense, saying much but meaning nothing, and flatly unable to either carry or defend an OP. When called out, she instead of responding to facts simply attacks personalities, calls opponents spammers and trolls.

Thank you for further humiliating yourself by posting the same BS I refuted over and over again yesterday.

You're really a glutton for punishment huh. You ran away once, came back, proceeded to get your troll spam on, and my exposes with a separate thread sealed your fate.

This moron doesn't even grasp common knowledge, IE the points I highlighted in my manifesto, the most socialist ones, which were all implemented. This troll has NO grasp of any history that doesn't suit him.

How droll! You simply kept repeating your opinion, unable to defend yourself with logic or facts or stats. Common knowledge is that you failed.

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Ladies and gentlemen. I will now display possible psychic abilities. I will predict Starkey troll's responses for the rest of this thread.

*More smoke and mirrors.

*Petty personal attacks.

*Asinine historical revisionism.

*Amusing delusion in thinking that the above troll spamming, and pathetic denial of obvious common knowledge, somehow wins him debates.

Watch.

Just another wacko left knotch on my belt

 

[JakeStarkey]

We all know that the wacks of the far right project their failings on others. So:

Righteous1 (Tea Party Samurai) has made "More smoke and mirrors" then accuses others of it.

Righteous1 (Tea Party Samurai) has made "Petty personal attacks" then accuses others of it.

Righteous1 (Tea Party Samurai) has made "Asinine historical revisionism" then accuses others of it.

Righteous1 (Tea Party Samurai) does "Amusing delusion in thinking that the above troll spamming, and pathetic denial of obvious common knowledge, somehow wins him debates" then accuses others of it.

She has added her own scalp to her own belt. Simply trashy tea party behavior.

 

[JBeukema]

Did R1 just call Jake a wacko leftist?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righteous1,the alter ego of Tea Party Samurai, thinks anyone one step to her left politically is a "wacko leftist". She is a lot of fun to mess with.

 

[JBeukema]

R1, as a Leftist, I can assure you Jake is no far left wingnut

 

[Neotrotsky]

You are SUCH an ignorant person. Hitler woo'd the German people by making them THINK he was one of them. Good God, man, WOULD YOU FUCKING READ SOME HISTORY????

Well the question was for Jake

I hear you. Next I will think that you can't use school vouchers at Sidwell



You assume a lot in your answer. You must be one of those that bought the "Hope and Change" hook line and sinker





Since you like to answer questions for other people


you would agree that a Socialist or a Fascist or a Communist state are all forms of Statisim?

While you are at it

You have never answered
Why Papa Obama wants to deny poor black children from going to the same schools as his children?

He reversed is decision on the DC vouchers. So? But that doesn't mean the debate over the effectiveness of the voucher system really works, because not ALL children are lucky enough to attend better schools. You can read all the pros and cons here.

Topic A: Obama's Compromise on D.C.'s School Vouchers Program - washingtonpost.com

You left this part...

He allowed it ONLY for the who have it now- but no more new ones (obviously when the press starting asking the poor black mothers about how they felt when their kids were going to get kicked out of Sidwell- it looked bad)


Again, why is he denying poor black children the chance to go school with his kids

(truth is hard for the left; in fact it is their worst enemy)

 

[Neotrotsky]

I agree that Socialist, and Facist, and Communist governments were all based on forms of stastism, as were all the western democracies. What is your point, Neo? That some statist governments were worse than others?

Glad to see you weren't "run off the board" by those two. They've become a source of amusement more than anything.

Oh please,

Jake and I have civil discussions- ask him. "Run off" was never my intention- you must be thinking of yourself (honestly- you know I am right about that)


You say that about everyone you can't not win a debate with-

oh speaking of......


Again, why does Papa Obama deny poor black children the ability to go to school with his kids at Sidewll?

 

[Neotrotsky]

A little definition always helps.

Socialism: State ownership of the means of production. The nationalization of all land and minerals, public transportation, trade, banking and factories - with profits going to the people as a whole rather to capitalists or landlords.

Financial Capitalism: Profits are derived from the investment of money.

Anarchism: The support of no system of government; the belief that government controls, regulations and authority are oppressive.

Economics: The study of the ways in which people make a living; the study of human wants and their satisfaction; the science of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Basic agents of production in the market system: Land (natural resources); Labor (human effort); Capital (the physical necessities for production - buildings, maqchinery, tools, equipment and supplies).

Management (to plan, coordinate and direct production).

Now put the emotion aside, stop posting unproven axioms which you hear but can't explain, and post your own theory of economics which best fits the culture of our nation.

My guess is the vast number of Americans would choose a mixed economy. Not laissez faire capitalism, not government control of the means of production, but a pragmatic approach to satisfying the needs and wants of our people.

Should add

Statism- concentration of controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry. Sovereignty is vested not in the people but in the national state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, the prestige, and the well-being of the state

Crony Capitalism- A description of capitalist society as being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.


My guess is the vast number of Americans would NOT choose either of the above, but a pragmatic approach to satisfying the needs and wants of our people.

Statism is a common word invented by the right wing noise machine and copied by every sucka who idolizes the likes of Beck and Limbaugh. It doesn't exist except in the brainwashed minds of RW extremists.

Doesn't exist- there are millions of Chinese, Russians, Cambodians, German Jews who would disagree with you

But they can't

They were all killed by their gov't

Doesn't exist- only in your little nutroot fister mind


Let me guess- you still think communism could have worked in the Soviet Union

 

[JakeStarkey]

The governments of the USA and Great Britain, by the logic of wing nut right reactionary verbiage here, required massive statist operations to defeat the nazis, fascists, and militarists.

I have asked repeatedly if small, limited governments could have defeated the WII bad guys.

Waiting for an answer, guys.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The governments of the USA and Great Britain, by the logic of wing nut right reactionary verbiage here, required massive statist operations to defeat the nazis, fascists, and militarists.

I have asked repeatedly if small, limited governments could have defeated the WII bad guys.

Waiting for an answer, guys.

Probably the same answer to

Could a small, limited government allowed Germany start WW II ?

(by the logic of nutroot fisters reactionaries )





(centralization alone does not make a gov't statist- The US and GB were not statists gov'ts. )

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo, there is no such thing as "statism" in the real world. Modern technology and communications have centralized societal, political, social, and cultural interactions. That requires a growth in the control of energy sources and a demand for quicker, surer, more effective services, both government and business.

We are never going back to pre-World War I society unless an apocalyptic event occurs. I don't think you would like that world very much.