The problem in America and axis of democracy is not capitalism, but dictatorship

[Mephisto]

LOL at the USSR=socialism. The USSR was a Communist country, not socialist

 

[pvsi]

LOL at the USSR=socialism. The USSR was a Communist country, not socialist

By LOLing I assume you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert, even though I suspect you do not know the difference without checking on google, but reality is that USSR was called United Socialist Republic

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem in America and axis of democracy is not capitalism, but dictatorship

No, the problem in America is the ignorance of the fundamental workings of our Constitutional Republic by you and a significant number of others.

 

[bedowin62]

The problem in America and axis of democracy is not capitalism, but dictatorship

No, the problem in America is the ignorance of the fundamental workings of our Constitutional Republic by you and a significant number of others.

I agree leftard; our "constitutional scholar" is a dictator wannabe

 

[Mephisto]

LOL at the USSR=socialism. The USSR was a Communist country, not socialist

By LOLing I assume you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert, even though I suspect you do not know the difference without checking on google, but reality is that USSR was called United Socialist Republic

No, I am lol'ing because you're a dumbass. I am far from an expect

The USSR was a Marxist state...The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism.

just because it has the words socialist in it, does not make it socialist...in fact it was communist.

Marxism-Leninism is a combination of Marx's theory of socialism with Lenin's theoretical contributions, namely the understanding of imperialism and the development of monopoly capitalism as predicted by Marx, as well as organizational principles applied within the context of the 20th century communist movement. This body of thought formed the basis for all existing communist movements in the 20th century and, as such, in the Western world, the term "communism" came to refer to social movements and political regimes associated with the Marxist-Leninist Communist International (or "Comintern"). However, the distinction should be made that the systems that these movements presided over were in fact not fully developed into communism, and the degree to which they had achieved socialism in itself is debated


In Marxism you go from Capitalism-socialism-communism. This never happened in teh USSR. What happened was that the Bolsheviks replaced the Tsar and everything stated the same. In socialism the proletariat own the means of production, this again did not happen in the USSR, the state owned the means.

 

[PratchettFan]

We aren't a democracy. And we aren't a dictatorship yet.

Obama wants to be one though

And Boehner wants to a fairy princess. I said it so it must be true.

you're an idiot; I said it and it is true

Obama's actions; not the words of right-wingers; lead one to suspect he wants to be a dictator.

Thank you. You have demonstrated my point.

As to the President's actions, saying it leads one to suspect does not make it true. Unless, of course, that is what you want to suspect. He hasn't done a thing no other president has done before. He hasn't done anything which would lead a rational person to suspect he wants to be a dictator. Maybe he does, if so he hides it well.

 

[pvsi]

The problem in America and axis of democracy is not capitalism, but dictatorship

No, the problem in America is the ignorance of the fundamental workings of our Constitutional Republic by you and a significant number of others.

Always the fault of others, and ordinary people are always easiest to blame: "stupid voters, stupid presidents" - never touch the real power who selects and controls the real presidents, you will become a nut job like me

 

[pvsi]

LOL at the USSR=socialism. The USSR was a Communist country, not socialist

By LOLing I assume you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert, even though I suspect you do not know the difference without checking on google, but reality is that USSR was called United Socialist Republic

No, I am lol'ing because you're a dumbass. I am far from an expect

The USSR was a Marxist state...The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism.

just because it has the words socialist in it, does not make it socialist...in fact it was communist.

Marxism-Leninism is a combination of Marx's theory of socialism with Lenin's theoretical contributions, namely the understanding of imperialism and the development of monopoly capitalism as predicted by Marx, as well as organizational principles applied within the context of the 20th century communist movement. This body of thought formed the basis for all existing communist movements in the 20th century and, as such, in the Western world, the term "communism" came to refer to social movements and political regimes associated with the Marxist-Leninist Communist International (or "Comintern"). However, the distinction should be made that the systems that these movements presided over were in fact not fully developed into communism, and the degree to which they had achieved socialism in itself is debated


In Marxism you go from Capitalism-socialism-communism. This never happened in teh USSR. What happened was that the Bolsheviks replaced the Tsar and everything stated the same. In socialism the proletariat own the means of production, this again did not happen in the USSR, the state owned the means.

So you agree that USSR like USA were both systems functioning under a fraudulent name?

 

[PratchettFan]

It is PRECISELY the ‘against’ option that is destroying our nation. That is how politicians are elected right now – with votes going to one or the other solely because they are voting against the opposition.

This is very twisted logic, opposite of what you say is true: people vote for the opposite, they vote AGAINST, EXACTLY, BUT THE ONLY WAY they can vote against the puppet is to vote FOR ANOTHER FRAUD. If they could vote AGAINST, then neither democrat nor republican party has any chance to win what so ever, because masses already know who they are and what they can do.

Which does what? If candidate A get 51% of the for votes and candidate B gets 49% of the for votes but 80% of the actual votes are "against", then candidate A wins the election. "Against" can't take office. So aside from increasing the costs of elections by having us revamp all of the equipment, what exactly have you accomplished?

 

[PratchettFan]

We aren't a democracy. And we aren't a dictatorship yet.

Obama wants to be one though

And Boehner wants to a fairy princess. I said it so it must be true.

Difference is Obama is the one who said that he wanted to be a dictator.

Really? That certainly escaped me. Can you provide a valid source for that statement?

 

[PratchettFan]

It is PRECISELY the ‘against’ option that is destroying our nation. That is how politicians are elected right now – with votes going to one or the other solely because they are voting against the opposition.

simply idiotic.
both sides have substantive disagreements on policy and ideology

to dismiss everybody as only voting against things for the sake of being against what the other side wants is just a cheap shot meant to stifle debate

No, its not. the bigger debate is who and why to vote for them. Pointing out the reality that many people already cast votes against rather than for is NOT shutting down debate. The reality is clear though throughout these boards. I never used the qualifier 'everybody.' That is your black and white view coming out.

YOU might have reasons but the majority here show time and time again that they are voting against rather than for anyone. When I asked for reasons to vote for Romney do you think I got a list of Romney's positions? No, I did not. Instead I was told that the nation simply could not take another Obama presidency. i was told all the terrible things that Obama stood for and passed. Then, when I pointed out that there were great reasons for not voting Obama but not reasons to vote Romney, I was declared a defacto Obama supporter solely because I did not vote Romney.

The other side is no different. The left is mad at Obama, he does not embody what they thought yet they will vote for him. Why? Because the right is full of 'nutters' and are 'insane.' Just ask them. They crone all the time here about how crazy they are and how they cannot allow them any place in government.

That is the mentality that exists all over the place. J8ust because you are blind to it does not mean it is not there or that it is not pervasive. Open your eyes.

I could not agree more.

 

[pvsi]

It is PRECISELY the ‘against’ option that is destroying our nation. That is how politicians are elected right now – with votes going to one or the other solely because they are voting against the opposition.

This is very twisted logic, opposite of what you say is true: people vote for the opposite, they vote AGAINST, EXACTLY, BUT THE ONLY WAY they can vote against the puppet is to vote FOR ANOTHER FRAUD. If they could vote AGAINST, then neither democrat nor republican party has any chance to win what so ever, because masses already know who they are and what they can do.

Which does what? If candidate A get 51% of the for votes and candidate B gets 49% of the for votes but 80% of the actual votes are "against", then candidate A wins the election. "Against" can't take office. So aside from increasing the costs of elections by having us revamp all of the equipment, what exactly have you accomplished?

I do not understand your logic, but I will explain your question: If a candidate A gets 3,000,000 FOR votes because of the media buzz and 6,000,000 against votes because people do not trust politicians on the media, and similarly candidate B that was publicized as the alternative on the media, but a candidate C that was ignored by the media gets only 50,000 for votes, but only 25,000 against votes, then OBVIOUSLY candidate C who is not part of the establishment circus WINS elections if you do the math, and it proves that the only reason candidates A and B were popular was due to the establishment media PUBLICITY NOT because the people liked them. THEN you include candidate C in the debates on the establishment media and allow for people to vote again. if you think that is too expensive I have nothing further to discuss with you, you can simply acknowledge candidate C as the winner, which he clearly is.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is very twisted logic, opposite of what you say is true: people vote for the opposite, they vote AGAINST, EXACTLY, BUT THE ONLY WAY they can vote against the puppet is to vote FOR ANOTHER FRAUD. If they could vote AGAINST, then neither democrat nor republican party has any chance to win what so ever, because masses already know who they are and what they can do.

Which does what? If candidate A get 51% of the for votes and candidate B gets 49% of the for votes but 80% of the actual votes are "against", then candidate A wins the election. "Against" can't take office. So aside from increasing the costs of elections by having us revamp all of the equipment, what exactly have you accomplished?

I do not understand your logic, but I will explain your question: If a candidate A gets 3,000,000 FOR votes because of the media buzz and 6,000,000 against votes because people do not trust politicians on the media, and similarly candidate B that was publicized as the alternative on the media, but a candidate C that was ignored by the media gets only 50,000 for votes, but only 25,000 against votes, then OBVIOUSLY candidate C who is not part of the establishment circus WINS elections if you do the math, and it proves that the only reason candidates A and B were popular was due to the establishment media PUBLICITY NOT because the people liked them. THEN you include candidate C in the debates on the establishment media and allow for people to vote again. if you think that is too expensive I have nothing further to discuss with you, you can simply acknowledge candidate C as the winner, which he clearly is.

Ok. I understand your system now. I agree with you, we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[pvsi]

Which does what? If candidate A get 51% of the for votes and candidate B gets 49% of the for votes but 80% of the actual votes are "against", then candidate A wins the election. "Against" can't take office. So aside from increasing the costs of elections by having us revamp all of the equipment, what exactly have you accomplished?

I do not understand your logic, but I will explain your question: If a candidate A gets 3,000,000 FOR votes because of the media buzz and 6,000,000 against votes because people do not trust politicians on the media, and similarly candidate B that was publicized as the alternative on the media, but a candidate C that was ignored by the media gets only 50,000 for votes, but only 25,000 against votes, then OBVIOUSLY candidate C who is not part of the establishment circus WINS elections if you do the math, and it proves that the only reason candidates A and B were popular was due to the establishment media PUBLICITY NOT because the people liked them. THEN you include candidate C in the debates on the establishment media and allow for people to vote again. if you think that is too expensive I have nothing further to discuss with you, you can simply acknowledge candidate C as the winner, which he clearly is.

Ok. I understand your system now. I agree with you, we have nothing further to discuss.

How about we discus how to change system to make this type of voting official?

 

[Mephisto]

By LOLing I assume you are trying to pass yourself off as an expert, even though I suspect you do not know the difference without checking on google, but reality is that USSR was called United Socialist Republic

No, I am lol'ing because you're a dumbass. I am far from an expect

The USSR was a Marxist state...The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism.

just because it has the words socialist in it, does not make it socialist...in fact it was communist.

Marxism-Leninism is a combination of Marx's theory of socialism with Lenin's theoretical contributions, namely the understanding of imperialism and the development of monopoly capitalism as predicted by Marx, as well as organizational principles applied within the context of the 20th century communist movement. This body of thought formed the basis for all existing communist movements in the 20th century and, as such, in the Western world, the term "communism" came to refer to social movements and political regimes associated with the Marxist-Leninist Communist International (or "Comintern"). However, the distinction should be made that the systems that these movements presided over were in fact not fully developed into communism, and the degree to which they had achieved socialism in itself is debated


In Marxism you go from Capitalism-socialism-communism. This never happened in teh USSR. What happened was that the Bolsheviks replaced the Tsar and everything stated the same. In socialism the proletariat own the means of production, this again did not happen in the USSR, the state owned the means.

So you agree that USSR like USA were both systems functioning under a fraudulent name?

yes. The US is not even a democracy anymore. It's a plutocracy.

 

[KNB]

If the will of the People was truly respected then we wouldn't have a President or Congress or Supreme Court.

If you want to change the system, vote for this:

How will this change the system? Please read the 1938 Popular Mechanics article titled "New Billion Dollar Crop":

American farmers are promised a new cash crop with an annual value of several hundred million dollars, all because a machine has been invented which solves a problem more than 6,000 years old. It is hemp, a crop that will not compete with other American products. Instead, it will displace imports of raw material and manufactured products produced by underpaid coolie and peasant labor and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.
Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop

 

[pvsi]

No, I am lol'ing because you're a dumbass. I am far from an expect

The USSR was a Marxist state...The Marxist conception of socialism is that of a specific historical phase that will displace capitalism and precede communism.

just because it has the words socialist in it, does not make it socialist...in fact it was communist.

Marxism-Leninism is a combination of Marx's theory of socialism with Lenin's theoretical contributions, namely the understanding of imperialism and the development of monopoly capitalism as predicted by Marx, as well as organizational principles applied within the context of the 20th century communist movement. This body of thought formed the basis for all existing communist movements in the 20th century and, as such, in the Western world, the term "communism" came to refer to social movements and political regimes associated with the Marxist-Leninist Communist International (or "Comintern"). However, the distinction should be made that the systems that these movements presided over were in fact not fully developed into communism, and the degree to which they had achieved socialism in itself is debated


In Marxism you go from Capitalism-socialism-communism. This never happened in teh USSR. What happened was that the Bolsheviks replaced the Tsar and everything stated the same. In socialism the proletariat own the means of production, this again did not happen in the USSR, the state owned the means.

So you agree that USSR like USA were both systems functioning under a fraudulent name?

yes. The US is not even a democracy anymore. It's a plutocracy.

OK, friends.

 

[pvsi]

If the will of the People was truly respected then we wouldn't have a President or Congress or Supreme Court.

If you want to change the system, vote for this:

How will this change the system? Please read the 1938 Popular Mechanics article titled "New Billion Dollar Crop":

American farmers are promised a new cash crop with an annual value of several hundred million dollars, all because a machine has been invented which solves a problem more than 6,000 years old. It is hemp, a crop that will not compete with other American products. Instead, it will displace imports of raw material and manufactured products produced by underpaid coolie and peasant labor and it will provide thousands of jobs for American workers throughout the land.
Vote Hemp: Why Hemp?: New Billion-Dollar Crop

As far as hemp, I completely agree that it should be legalized, I used to use it for the enforcement of some of my building products and now it's harder and harder to get, but I'm tired of crackpots in government, THIS is who I'm voting for:

 

[MikeK]

As for my friend georgephilip who thinks capitalism guarantees rising inequality, maybe you can tell me what socialism guarantees?

Either socialism or capitalism is good for the ruling class. But neither system is good for the working class.

So rather than convey the impression that George Philip, or any of those who agree with him, are promoting the adoption of socialism, which is not the case, please understand that based on the evidence seen throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, the best system quite clearly is capitalism which is rigidly controlled by certain socialist regulations.

I have lived in Soviet Union, which was called socialism[...]

It might have been called socialism, but it wasn't socialism. It was also called communism but it wasn't communism, either. It was Stalinism, which was totalitarian dictatorship.

and the only thing that was guaranteed if you spoke out against that system was imprisonment. Now I do not know how strict it was under Adolf Hitler, and how much what about national socialist Germany was true[...]

Germany under Hitler might have been called socialism but it wasn't. That designation was a ploy. Germany under Hitler was a military dictatorship, plain and simple.

If you want to know what true socialism is refer to Denmark, which is widely regarded as the "happiest" country on Earth. (Google it if you doubt it.)

but I DO know that USSR and USA has been controlled by the same puppet masters, designed to bounce us back and forth. And perhaps make us feel guilty of seeking capitalism, when in fact USSR was not real socialism itself, but a dictatorship. And today political stooges who write history will claim that Joseph Stalin robed banks to fund his socialist revolution (what a hero), but in reality with a little bit of research it is OBVIOUS that Stalin/Lenin’s Ukraine style revolution was actually backed by international bankers (no need to rob banks)...we have been brainwashed, and until we become as one, we are rightfully screwed, and I will even enjoy watching my fellow countrymen, my friends, and others suffer for their ignorance. ignorance is crime. And every time I hear America being called a free or democratic country, I am offended.

I can't disagree with all you are saying here but suffice it to say the best designation for the United States with regard to the past four decades is that of an emerging plutocracy, which means rule by the wealthy class. I say emerging because the full-blown plutocracy hasn't evolved as yet. But it's coming -- as evidenced by the increasingly obvious formation of the American police state, which will facilitate plutocratic rule.

 

[SAYIT]

As for my friend georgephilip who thinks capitalism guarantees rising inequality, maybe you can tell me what socialism guarantees?

Either socialism or capitalism is good for the ruling class. But neither system is good for the working class.

So rather than convey the impression that George Philip, or any of those who agree with him, are promoting the adoption of socialism, which is not the case, please understand that based on the evidence seen throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, the most prosperous and productive decades in our history, the best system quite clearly is capitalism which is rigidly controlled by certain socialist regulations.

I have lived in Soviet Union, which was called socialism[...]

It might have been called socialism, but it wasn't socialism. It was also called communism but it wasn't communism, either. It was Stalinism, which was totalitarian dictatorship.

and the only thing that was guaranteed if you spoke out against that system was imprisonment. Now I do not know how strict it was under Adolf Hitler, and how much what about national socialist Germany was true[...]

Germany under Hitler might have been called socialism but it wasn't. That designation was a ploy. Germany under Hitler was a military dictatorship, plain and simple.

If you want to know what true socialism is refer to Denmark, which is widely regarded as the "happiest" country on Earth. (Google it if you doubt it.)

but I DO know that USSR and USA has been controlled by the same puppet masters, designed to bounce us back and forth. And perhaps make us feel guilty of seeking capitalism, when in fact USSR was not real socialism itself, but a dictatorship. And today political stooges who write history will claim that Joseph Stalin robed banks to fund his socialist revolution (what a hero), but in reality with a little bit of research it is OBVIOUS that Stalin/Lenin’s Ukraine style revolution was actually backed by international bankers (no need to rob banks)...we have been brainwashed, and until we become as one, we are rightfully screwed, and I will even enjoy watching my fellow countrymen, my friends, and others suffer for their ignorance. ignorance is crime. And every time I hear America being called a free or democratic country, I am offended.

I can't disagree with all you are saying here but suffice it to say the best designation for the United States with regard to the past four decades is that of an emerging plutocracy, which means rule by the wealthy class. I say emerging because the full-blown plutocracy hasn't evolved as yet. But it's coming -- as evidenced by the increasingly obvious formation of the American police state, which will facilitate plutocratic rule.

Just for shits and giggles ('cause I weary of you "experts"): socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Democracies and dictatorships (of any stripe) are political systems. Capitalism pretty much requires some form of democracy to flourish and socialism pretty much requires some form of dictatorship to survive. Carry on.