The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[orogenicman]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

We do not want Capitalism to "run " countries.

We want Capitalism to produce goods and services in a setting where government bureaucrats have no authority to dictate to them.

If that is not acceptable to you then you and your buddy skylar can fly to Venezuela.


.

Well, you are going to have to take your business elsewhere then, because our constitution makes it clear that the Federal government has the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce and commerce with foreign entities. Jeez, you right wingnuts really need to read the friggin law.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To "regulate " business among the states merely means to ensure that commerce proceeds/flows FREELY AMONG the states.

Once the Constitution is restored and enforced that is precisely what will happen.


.

Again, you people need to READ the law.

Once the constitution is "restored and enforced"? Wow, that's weird.

 

[orogenicman]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

We do not want Capitalism to "run " countries.

We want Capitalism to produce goods and services in a setting where government bureaucrats have no authority to dictate to them.

If that is not acceptable to you then you and your buddy skylar can fly to Venezuela.


.

Well, you are going to have to take your business elsewhere then, because our constitution makes it clear that the Federal government has the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce and commerce with foreign entities. Jeez, you right wingnuts really need to read the friggin law.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Regulation of something, does not equate to 'interfering' with the nature of that thing.

The Constitution does not require the Federal Government to INTERFERE with Commerce. The word "regulate" meant to provide for the effective exercise... .

Take the 'well regulated militia', refers to well equipped and trained, effective... not interfered with through inane, irrational bureaucracy.

It's a subtle distinction for the objective thinker, but those limited to subjective reasoning will struggle with this truth, as they struggle with all truth.

Wrong. As an example, Congress, in passing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) gave the EPA authority to issue regulations governing the production, shipping, processing, ands storage of hazardous materials and waste products. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. This "interference" is, in fact, legal, and a good thing as well since it has resulted in forcing polluting industries to clean up their act and stpop endangering the American public. In the worst cases, they either jailed the offenders, put them out of business, or in cases where the responsible parties were never found, cleaned up the mess anyway. But no doubt, you prefer to live next door to one of these, right?

 

[Chris]

Capitalism without regulation is the Mafia.

 

[AntiParty]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Not a smart post at all.

Capitalism is when certain individuals own and run a business.
Socialism is when the Government owns the business but certain individuals run it.
Communism is when Government owns and runs that business.

^NOTHING MORE.

The additions to these processes is where many get confused.

 

[AntiParty]

Let me go further here.

America has (crony) Capitalism and the people voted for welfare
Austrailia has (crony) Socialism and the people voted for welfare.
In both cases, the Corporations are controlling the Government. Austrailia, based on Socialism, is supposed to let the PEOPLE vote for wages. Yet in Austrailia's process, the Politician sets the wage. So the Corporations buy the politicians who set that wage. Very similar to our own system.

 

[defcon4]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

We do not want Capitalism to "run " countries.

We want Capitalism to produce goods and services in a setting where government bureaucrats have no authority to dictate to them.

If that is not acceptable to you then you and your buddy skylar can fly to Venezuela.


.

The problem is with these people that they do not want move to countries where their fucked up philosophy is actually implemented. They want to change the system for those who are happy. BTW, I love the recent attention about the evil capitalistic Cuba so we can see how fucked up it is over there. Dilapidated buildings because the rich doesn't want to maintain them. But I admire the healthy lifestyle such as walking a lot in lack of other means of commuting, eating less since they don't have too much. Did you see the streets with old cars from the 50-es? It would be good business to buy them up and sell them here. Many of those old cars are very sought after around here.

 

[kaz]

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

The end of what story, Orgasmman? I didn't say anything about capitalism running a country, what are you talking about? You doing coke? What if you actually read the post and respond to what I actually said? Just a thought.

 

[kaz]

Well, you are going to have to take your business elsewhere then, because our constitution makes it clear that the Federal government has the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce and commerce with foreign entities. Jeez, you right wingnuts really need to read the friggin law.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And that is a point regarding what exactly? Maybe you should come down from the coke before your next post.

 

[kaz]

The government has a legal obligation to regulate the economy. Get over it already.

Whoa there Cowboy. You accurately pointed out the Federal government has the authority to regulate trade between the States and with foreign countries. You were tripping a bit by saying that means authority to means they are required to. You have the authority to paint your house pink, that doesn't require you to paint it pink, but that government loving orgasm part aside, what you said was essentially true.

But now that right to regulate trade between States turns into the "obligation" to regulate the entire economy? You didn't study logic in school, did you amorous guy?

 

[kaz]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

We do not want Capitalism to "run " countries.

We want Capitalism to produce goods and services in a setting where government bureaucrats have no authority to dictate to them.

If that is not acceptable to you then you and your buddy skylar can fly to Venezuela.


.

Well, you are going to have to take your business elsewhere then, because our constitution makes it clear that the Federal government has the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce and commerce with foreign entities. Jeez, you right wingnuts really need to read the friggin law.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To "regulate " business among the states merely means to ensure that commerce proceeds/flows FREELY AMONG the states.

Once the Constitution is restored and enforced that is precisely what will happen.


.

Again, you people need to READ the law.

Once the constitution is "restored and enforced"? Wow, that's weird.

And you need to read the writings of the people who wrote the law. The commerce clause was written so the Feds could prevent States from putting duties and otherwise restricting trade between the States. Contumacious is dead on accurate in that. You not only turned it into just a blatant federal power but you added intrastate commerce as a power. Then you tell someone else to "READ?" Damn, liberal intelligence, talk about an oxymoron.

 

[kaz]

Capitalism is when certain individuals own and run a business.

No, capitalism is when anyone can own and run a business. And then anyone else can and does blow that business up. You can work for anyone, you can hire anyone. It is economic freedom.

Socialism is when the Government owns the business but certain individuals run it.

Communism is when Government owns and runs that business.

Actually socialism is an economic system, communism is a political system, so that's a non-sequitur. All communist countries are socialist, if you read the Communist manifesto it is clear why. But all socialist countries are not communist But ignoring that for a second, what is the difference between those two? If you own a business, the business leaders report to you.

 

[orogenicman]

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

The end of what story, Orgasmman? I didn't say anything about capitalism running a country, what are you talking about? You doing coke? What if you actually read the post and respond to what I actually said? Just a thought.

My user name has nothing to do with orgasms, dude. If you don't know what 'orogenic' means, there are online dictionaries that can aid you in this matter.

 

[orogenicman]

The government has a legal obligation to regulate the economy. Get over it already.

Whoa there Cowboy. You accurately pointed out the Federal government has the authority to regulate trade between the States and with foreign countries. You were tripping a bit by saying that means authority to means they are required to. You have the authority to paint your house pink, that doesn't require you to paint it pink, but that government loving orgasm part aside, what you said was essentially true.

But now that right to regulate trade between States turns into the "obligation" to regulate the entire economy? You didn't study logic in school, did you amorous guy?

Well, that is a silly argument. Using your logic, they also have the power to provide for the common defense, but according to you, that doesn't mean that they are required to. Of course it does, silly. That is what it means to govern.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[orogenicman]

Capitalism cannot, does not, and should not run countries. Governments do. End of story.

We do not want Capitalism to "run " countries.

We want Capitalism to produce goods and services in a setting where government bureaucrats have no authority to dictate to them.

If that is not acceptable to you then you and your buddy skylar can fly to Venezuela.


.

Well, you are going to have to take your business elsewhere then, because our constitution makes it clear that the Federal government has the responsibility of regulating interstate commerce and commerce with foreign entities. Jeez, you right wingnuts really need to read the friggin law.

Commerce Clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

To "regulate " business among the states merely means to ensure that commerce proceeds/flows FREELY AMONG the states.

Once the Constitution is restored and enforced that is precisely what will happen.


.

Again, you people need to READ the law.

Once the constitution is "restored and enforced"? Wow, that's weird.

And you need to read the writings of the people who wrote the law. The commerce clause was written so the Feds could prevent States from putting duties and otherwise restricting trade between the States. Contumacious is dead on accurate in that. You not only turned it into just a blatant federal power but you added intrastate commerce as a power. Then you tell someone else to "READ?" Damn, liberal intelligence, talk about an oxymoron.

Do I really need to cite SCOTUS rulings wrt the commerce clause, or are you able to look those up on your own? Because the SCOTUS has ruled in several cases that the clause means much more than you assume. And I said nothing about "intrastate commerce", so, straw man.

 

[Uncensored2008]

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{"The Federal Trade Commission and Congress must act to prevent Fox News from using the deceptive and misleading trademark 'Fair and Balanced.'"}

MoveOn.org Civic Action Unfair and Unbalanced

{
Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!
Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW! }

Stop Fox News Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW

{It's up to this grassroots movement -- individuals, organizations, and hundreds of independent organizers, like the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities -- to keep up the pressure. Together, their efforts and your participation are having a tremendous impact.}

Join The Fight To Stop Rush - Media Matters Take Action

Hmmm, looks like the Fascist democrats today are pretty much the same as the Fascist of Italy under Il Deuce.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{g on, library staff told her that they had been given orders to remove all Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books by Christian publishers. The charter school’s Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer confirmed the book ban in a letter to the Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI”), a religious freedom litigation organization who took the case on the behalf of the concerned parent. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristi...christian-books-library#sthash.omUQbDbd.dpuf}

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, that is a silly argument. Using your logic, they also have the power to provide for the common defense, but according to you, that doesn't mean that they are required to. Of course it does, silly. That is what it means to govern.

Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Shouldn't you be off worshiping the volcano god and sacrificing virgins to Quetzalcoatl to appease for carbon sins lest Gaia destroy the world?

 

[defcon4]

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{"The Federal Trade Commission and Congress must act to prevent Fox News from using the deceptive and misleading trademark 'Fair and Balanced.'"}

MoveOn.org Civic Action Unfair and Unbalanced

{
Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!
Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW! }

Stop Fox News Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW

{It's up to this grassroots movement -- individuals, organizations, and hundreds of independent organizers, like the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities -- to keep up the pressure. Together, their efforts and your participation are having a tremendous impact.}

Join The Fight To Stop Rush - Media Matters Take Action

Hmmm, looks like the Fascist democrats today are pretty much the same as the Fascist of Italy under Il Deuce.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{g on, library staff told her that they had been given orders to remove all Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books by Christian publishers. The charter school’s Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer confirmed the book ban in a letter to the Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI”), a religious freedom litigation organization who took the case on the behalf of the concerned parent. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristi...christian-books-library#sthash.omUQbDbd.dpuf}

Come on now! Can't you see that all the above is for promoting free speech??? Suppressing opposing opinion ensures speaking freely about the stupidest shit as fact with no outlet to refute it.

 

[JoeNormal]

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{"The Federal Trade Commission and Congress must act to prevent Fox News from using the deceptive and misleading trademark 'Fair and Balanced.'"}

MoveOn.org Civic Action Unfair and Unbalanced

{
Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!
Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW! }

Stop Fox News Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW

{It's up to this grassroots movement -- individuals, organizations, and hundreds of independent organizers, like the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities -- to keep up the pressure. Together, their efforts and your participation are having a tremendous impact.}

Join The Fight To Stop Rush - Media Matters Take Action

Hmmm, looks like the Fascist democrats today are pretty much the same as the Fascist of Italy under Il Deuce.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{g on, library staff told her that they had been given orders to remove all Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books by Christian publishers. The charter school’s Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer confirmed the book ban in a letter to the Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI”), a religious freedom litigation organization who took the case on the behalf of the concerned parent. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristi...christian-books-library#sthash.omUQbDbd.dpuf}

Come on now! Can't you see that all the above is for promoting free speech??? Suppressing opposing opinion ensures speaking freely about the stupidest shit as fact with no outlet to refute it.

Really? You see Fox News as refuting the stupidest shit as fact? Fox 'News' is a bullshit factory that foists its crap on the people who are too stupid to know any better and they're sure as hell too stupid to look anywhere else for opposing information. Fox News is as close to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater as the law allows.

 

[defcon4]

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{"The Federal Trade Commission and Congress must act to prevent Fox News from using the deceptive and misleading trademark 'Fair and Balanced.'"}

MoveOn.org Civic Action Unfair and Unbalanced

{
Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!
Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW! }

Stop Fox News Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW

{It's up to this grassroots movement -- individuals, organizations, and hundreds of independent organizers, like the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities -- to keep up the pressure. Together, their efforts and your participation are having a tremendous impact.}

Join The Fight To Stop Rush - Media Matters Take Action

Hmmm, looks like the Fascist democrats today are pretty much the same as the Fascist of Italy under Il Deuce.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{g on, library staff told her that they had been given orders to remove all Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books by Christian publishers. The charter school’s Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer confirmed the book ban in a letter to the Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI”), a religious freedom litigation organization who took the case on the behalf of the concerned parent. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristi...christian-books-library#sthash.omUQbDbd.dpuf}

Come on now! Can't you see that all the above is for promoting free speech??? Suppressing opposing opinion ensures speaking freely about the stupidest shit as fact with no outlet to refute it.

Really? You see Fox News as refuting the stupidest shit as fact? Fox 'News' is a bullshit factory that foists its crap on the people who are too stupid to know any better and they're sure as hell too stupid to look anywhere else for opposing information. Fox News is as close to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater as the law allows.

You lost me. I did not promote nor diminish the importance of Fox News. My reference was to silencing opposition in order to eliminate the flow of information as pro and con. I do not give a flying fuck if it is MSNBC, CNN, Fox or ABC you should not silence them. Pushing your agenda for censorship makes you a Democrat who believes in free speech as HIS free speech only applying to him only.

 

[JoeNormal]

'Much as' the democrats today demand, huh? Under Fascist Italy, any newspaper could be confiscated by the government for containing 'inaccurate information' or that might lead to contempt of the government.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{"The Federal Trade Commission and Congress must act to prevent Fox News from using the deceptive and misleading trademark 'Fair and Balanced.'"}

MoveOn.org Civic Action Unfair and Unbalanced

{
Stop Fox News: Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW!
Help us take Fox News off the air—get the FCC to revoke Rupert Murdoch’s broadcast licenses NOW! }

Stop Fox News Tell FCC To Revoke Broadcast License NOW

{It's up to this grassroots movement -- individuals, organizations, and hundreds of independent organizers, like the Flush Rush and #StopRush communities -- to keep up the pressure. Together, their efforts and your participation are having a tremendous impact.}

Join The Fight To Stop Rush - Media Matters Take Action

Hmmm, looks like the Fascist democrats today are pretty much the same as the Fascist of Italy under Il Deuce.

Books from ideologies not favored by the Fascist government were banned. Nothing from Marx, nothing about Jews nothing about freemasonry, etc could be distributed. It could be held on only in 'special sections' of library that you had to get a permit to enter.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Letters were routinely opened and checked by State censors. Phone calls were routinely interrrupted by censors if the topic of the conversation was opposed by the Ministry of Popular Culture.

There's nothing like that in our country.

Nothing, huh?

{g on, library staff told her that they had been given orders to remove all Christian books, books by Christian authors, and books by Christian publishers. The charter school’s Superintendent Kathleen Hermsmeyer confirmed the book ban in a letter to the Pacific Justice Institute (“PJI”), a religious freedom litigation organization who took the case on the behalf of the concerned parent. - See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristi...christian-books-library#sthash.omUQbDbd.dpuf}

Come on now! Can't you see that all the above is for promoting free speech??? Suppressing opposing opinion ensures speaking freely about the stupidest shit as fact with no outlet to refute it.

Really? You see Fox News as refuting the stupidest shit as fact? Fox 'News' is a bullshit factory that foists its crap on the people who are too stupid to know any better and they're sure as hell too stupid to look anywhere else for opposing information. Fox News is as close to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater as the law allows.

You lost me. I did not promote nor diminish the importance of Fox News. My reference was to silencing opposition in order to eliminate the flow of information as pro and con. I do not give a flying fuck if it is MSNBC, CNN, Fox or ABC you should not silence them. Pushing your agenda for censorship makes you a Democrat who believes in free speech as HIS free speech only applying to him only.

I'm all for free speech. But journalistic standards have fallen so low that no one has the information it takes to make informed decisions any longer. In this respect, I think FOX news has lead the way in the race to the bottom.