geauxtohell
Choose your weapon.
Why do I doubt that a political mentality that has been around for hundreds of years is going to suddenly cease to exist?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The could have called themselves the Kumquat Brigade. That wouldn't make them all Kumquats. Racism is devoid of party affiliation. But it is odd that the strongest racists now seem to be professing liberalism.I'm not convinced it was a regional/geographical issue. It may have had some elements to it, but largely, I think it was ideology and party affiliation.
And why did the bi-partisan group that opposed civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's call itself the CONSERVATIVE COALITION?
...again...
We have not had at times the type of regulation of capitalism that has been needed since the 1880s. Otherwise, we would not have had the horrible experiences of 1893, 1929, 2007.
The Panic of 1893 was the result of bad economic policy coupled with no regulation. In this we agree. It helped bring about some reforms to the banking and finance system.
The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was ultimately brought about by holes in safe trading practices that brought about the stronger regulations that went, without problem till 2007.
The current financial collapse more accurately set in 2008 to present was brought about by rampant corruption and collusion between government regulators and greedy profiteers and exacerbated by horrid governmental policies that have interfered with proper market function... aka OVER-regulation and inconsistent application thereof.
You try but you fail to blame the Free Market for the machinations of bad government. How're those sweetheart loans going for Chris Dodd and Barney Fwank? Jamie Gorelick profiteer much from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Corruption in government? Nooooooo... couldn't be. Goldman Sachs being too close to the government causing conflicts of interest? Preposterous! Never happen >cough< Bear Stearns >cough<
Political Chic, marxism and fascism were horrible. But your red herring stinks. Regulation of free market forces is neither marxism or facism, and the lack of such regulation harms the working family and the cultural structure of our society. Why do you avoid that truth?
Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society. She draws a false comparssion to avoid recognizing the terrible atrocities produced by unregulated capitalism throughout the world since the 2nd Industrial Revolution.
Marxism and unregulated free market forces are both the enemies of mankind. Any good Republican recognizes this fact.
I have as one of my hobbies, reading. You must try it some time.
And a book that I am adding to my 'wishlist' is Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, by Jean-Francois Revel, (Encounter, 300 pp., $23.95)
From a review of same:
'Revel tried to explain this utopian yearning through Rousseaus influential doctrine: man was inherently good, society bad. Therefore, as Rousseau had it, reforming societystarting with the suppression of private propertywould allow mans fundamentally good nature to shine forth. Another source of the utopian fantasy, he believed, came from the European Catholic canon: good intentions count most.
He wondered why educated scholars would elevate utopian fantasy above reality? The failures of the Soviet Union, its mass cruelties, had been known in the West since the 1930s: André Gide had denounced them in his book, Return from the USSR. Scholars and journalists in the West did not need to wait for Solzhenitsyn to learn about the existence of the Gulag. Yet these truths had little consequence. Leftist intellectuals rationalized any bad news by explaining that the Soviet Union did not practice real socialism.'
I'm guessing that I'll probably read it before you do.
Yep. When Freddie and Fannie guaranteed bad loans they effectively took away the risk, thereby encouraging the moral hazard. If you had not both guaranteed the loans, AND demanded they be given to those unable to pay them back you essentially took the bankers off the hook and put the tax payer on it. Combine this by allowing the resale of risky derivatives, creating a phantom investment market that was all but unregulated or ignored by regulators as dangerous (because EVERYBODY was making tons of dough on illusion) you all but guaranteed this disaster with the toxic investment mix.We have not had at times the type of regulation of capitalism that has been needed since the 1880s. Otherwise, we would not have had the horrible experiences of 1893, 1929, 2007.
The Panic of 1893 was the result of bad economic policy coupled with no regulation. In this we agree. It helped bring about some reforms to the banking and finance system.
The Stock Market Crash of 1929 was ultimately brought about by holes in safe trading practices that brought about the stronger regulations that went, without problem till 2007.
The current financial collapse more accurately set in 2008 to present was brought about by rampant corruption and collusion between government regulators and greedy profiteers and exacerbated by horrid governmental policies that have interfered with proper market function... aka OVER-regulation and inconsistent application thereof.
You try but you fail to blame the Free Market for the machinations of bad government. How're those sweetheart loans going for Chris Dodd and Barney Fwank? Jamie Gorelick profiteer much from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Corruption in government? Nooooooo... couldn't be. Goldman Sachs being too close to the government causing conflicts of interest? Preposterous! Never happen >cough< Bear Stearns >cough<
It was OVER-regulation that caused banks to under-capitalize, over-leverage, and take too much risk?
lol
play semantic games on your own damn time. These games got old on Hannity too.The could have called themselves the Kumquat Brigade. That wouldn't make them all Kumquats. Racism is devoid of party affiliation. But it is odd that the strongest racists now seem to be professing liberalism.And why did the bi-partisan group that opposed civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's call itself the CONSERVATIVE COALITION?
...again...
So the CONSERVATIVES, who called themselves CONSERVATIVES, who opposed civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's, weren't conservatives? That's funny.
Still waiting for you to tell us who in the DNC is currently in the KKK. And waiting.
Political Chic draws a red herring with any reference to the atrocities of fascism and Marxism while ignoring the very real fact that unregulated capitalism has led at times to the terrible degradation of the working and poor classes in society. She draws a false comparssion to avoid recognizing the terrible atrocities produced by unregulated capitalism throughout the world since the 2nd Industrial Revolution.
Marxism and unregulated free market forces are both the enemies of mankind. Any good Republican recognizes this fact.
I have as one of my hobbies, reading. You must try it some time.
And a book that I am adding to my 'wishlist' is Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, by Jean-Francois Revel, (Encounter, 300 pp., $23.95)
From a review of same:
'Revel tried to explain this utopian yearning through Rousseaus influential doctrine: man was inherently good, society bad. Therefore, as Rousseau had it, reforming societystarting with the suppression of private propertywould allow mans fundamentally good nature to shine forth. Another source of the utopian fantasy, he believed, came from the European Catholic canon: good intentions count most.
He wondered why educated scholars would elevate utopian fantasy above reality? The failures of the Soviet Union, its mass cruelties, had been known in the West since the 1930s: André Gide had denounced them in his book, Return from the USSR. Scholars and journalists in the West did not need to wait for Solzhenitsyn to learn about the existence of the Gulag. Yet these truths had little consequence. Leftist intellectuals rationalized any bad news by explaining that the Soviet Union did not practice real socialism.'
I'm guessing that I'll probably read it before you do.
Isn't the European Union socialist? Why try to pretend that the now defunct Soviet Union is the be-all end-all one and only example of socialism?
Did you add that before or after I got here?a book that I am adding to my 'wishlist' is Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, by Jean-Francois Revel, (Encounter, 300 pp., $23.95)
☭proletarian☭;1818417 said:Blanquism =/= Marxism
Classical Marxism distinguishes between Marxism as broadly perceived, and what Marx believed; thus, in 1883, Marx wrote to the French labour leader Jules Guesde and to Paul Lafargue (Marxs son-in-law) both of whom claimed to represent Marxist principles accusing them of revolutionary phrase-mongering and of denying the value of reformist struggle; from which derives the paraphrase: If that is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist.[4] To wit, the US Marx scholar Hal Draper remarked, there are few thinkers in modern history whose thought has been so badly misrepresented, by Marxists and anti-Marxists alike.[5]
"All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx, on the wide use of his name by people who've never read his works
☭proletarian☭;1824387 said:Did you add that before or after I got here?a book that I am adding to my 'wishlist' is Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era, by Jean-Francois Revel, (Encounter, 300 pp., $23.95)
The USSR wasn't communist, btw, and the Bolsheviks weren't Marxists
☭proletarian☭;1818417 said:Blanquism =/= Marxism
"All I know is that I am not a Marxist."
-Karl Marx, on the wide use of his name by people who've never read his works
I see that you have carefully studied and assiduously enforce the 'Liberal Libretto."
And you will receive full credit for the use of Rule #7, at least a version of 7e:
7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
a. Claim to idolize despots and tyrants. But always state how their people love them.
b. The corollary applies: never support traditional American values. Important terms: imperialist, oppressor
c. Deny atrocities by tyrants. If not possible, explain they were necessary. Finally, justify them, and, show how America was ultimately at fault.
d. Support government officials and appointees.
I. This does not apply to uniformed government employees such as police or military.
e. When endorsing a plan that has clearly failed in the past, it is entirely appropriate to maintain a cognitive disconnection from the failures, by claiming:
1. it wasnt tried long enough
2. enough money wasnt provided
3. or, the ever-popular: Its different this time.
Your bonus:
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCFibtD3H_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCFibtD3H_k&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
The country is more liberal than it was 20 years, 40 years ago, 80 years ago, 200 years ago. It will be more liberal 20 years from now. Progress always wins eventually.
7. Never, never criticize in any way any government or movement that is totalitarian, homicidal or anti-American.
☭proletarian☭;1824468 said:
Is PC always such a liar. I have never defended the Soviets or any other totalitarian regime. If I loved authoritarian police states with no respect for human rights, I'd have voted for Bush Nor have I ever denied any atrocities committed by the USSR or anyone else.
That you feel the need to insult me for calling you out on your ignorance of Marxism stands as evidence that everthing I have said is correct.
For the record, I prefer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovAfRU2oF8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoQnuD_ONdw
☭proletarian☭;1824493 said:Awesome, you're shown to be a liar and you change the subject to the NAZIS and the Chinese oligarchy which took root after Mao chased the foreigners and the Kuomintang out of China.
No wonder we take you so seriously
☭proletarian☭;1824493 said:Awesome, you're shown to be a liar and you change the subject to the NAZIS and the Chinese oligarchy which took root after Mao chased the foreigners and the Kuomintang out of China.
No wonder we take you so seriously