Buys Ad To Warn About Socialism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Do you even know the definition of socialism???

Invented by Marx as temporary state occuring after capitalism concentrates wealth to point where workers take over commanding heights on route to full take over of communism. Little did Marx know that his liberal presense on earth killed about 150 million innocent people very very slowly mostly through en mass starvation that resulted from liberal, stimulus, Solyindra, A123, bridge to no where, lost decade, housing crisis, mal-investment.

Jefferson gave us freedom because he saw it all coming. Liberals have seen it but still lack the IQ to know what they have seen.

Can any human beings really be that liberal and stupid?? I'm so sorry but what other explanation is possible? Please tell me as I hate to be in conflict with so many of my fellow human beings. Thank you.

Depending on the defintition of socialism there are a number of types of socialism, Marx put forth one type "Scientific Socialism" which was a step toward communism. Other types of socialism are found throughout the world and most industrial nations are a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

most importantly class warfare liberals like Barry hate the idea of a mixed economy and are always pushing toward communism. This explains why he voted to the left of Bernie Sanders.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

of course that's perfectly idiotic and perfectly liberal given that conservatives from Jefferson forward are 100% opposed to authoritarian governments while liberals are for them as in the obvious case of Obamacare which seeks to domintate 20% of the economy.

 

[daveman]

Political Chic, it is nice to see that you got a puppy. Did he come from the ASPCA, or did he follow you home?

He is so ugly that he is cute.

Look, kid, it's really not my fault you get pissed when someone points out your love of authoritarianism.

Don't like it? Start supporting freedom. Simple, huh?

Political Chic. Your puppy is barking and annoying the neighbors. Perhaps a rolled up newspaper across the snout would straighten him out.

Your feeble attempt at condescension is amusing. Who told you you had the chops to pull it off? He lied to you.

 

[daveman]

My, what a condescending little shit you are. You must suffer from severe insecurity.

'Any damn fool can be complicated. It takes a genius to be simple, but great. ' Woody Guthrie

Are you talking to Rshermr?

No, to Edmund Belafonte

Then you're leaving out an insecure, condescending little shit.

 

[daveman]

The most hardcore Communists in the former Red China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea referred to themselves as “Socialists.”

Socialists invariably maintain, in essence, that all the bad stuff done in the name of socialism is communism, and all the good stuff is socialism. Free healthcare? That’s socialism. Political repression? That’s communism. Public pensions? Socialism. The Gulag? Communism…Whether one describes a particular arrangement as socialist or communist, one is talking about different expressions of a single phenomenon…The great communist leaders regularly describe themselves, their work, and their philosophy as socialist.

When Paul Sweezy, a prominent Marxist economist and founder of the Monthly Review (“a leading voice of independent Marxian socialism&#8221 and Socialist coeditor Leo Huberman were asked to explain the difference between Socialism and Communism, they gave the following response:

"Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism…is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or 'higher stage' of socialism…Socialism is…the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism."

Here is a better explanation:

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

Still pulling that absurdly wrong Altmeyer quote out of your ass as if it's something more than leftist pap, huh?

Well -- at least you're consistently wrong. As is the idiot you quoted.

 

[Rshermr]

The definition of socialism and communism, from an economic point of view, are different. Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Communism is the ownership of the goods and services by the state. Quite simple, if you really want to find know.
Communist economic system definition of Communist economic system in the Free Online Encyclopedia.
All of this hysteria about the two types of economics are stupid. Neither system is bad, if it works. Neither system is good if it does not. You are placing values on the system based on your own beliefs. It is the people who live in nations with that system that will determine which works for them. People have their own ideas of what they want their economies to provide.

So, having said that, socialism is working for a number of countries. Communism, on the other hand, is not and never has. It goes completely against the basic nature of the human condition. So, you can say the USSR was a communist nation. But it was not when washed against the ideal and the definition of communism. Same for Communist China. And so on.

What is common is mixed socialism and capitalism. Happens frequently, and works over time. Generally state ownership of things in the commons - roads, bridges, park systems, defense organizations, police, and so on. And generally private ownership of other goods and services - cars, tools, airlines, and everything not considered part of the commons.

So, cons are having apoplexy over the concept of socialism. So, lets see. What new socialist systems do you have in mind, cons. Where is the socialism you are so worried about. And where, for gods sake is the communism????

 

[MikeK]

all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

of course that's perfectly idiotic and perfectly liberal given that conservatives from Jefferson forward are 100% opposed to authoritarian governments while liberals are for them as in the obvious case of Obamacare which seeks to domintate 20% of the economy.

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. And I should mention that I was a registered Republican going back to the Goldwater era and my thinking was more conservative than liberal. But having watched a gradual but distinct drift of the right wing toward authoritarian corporatism I re-registered as a Democrat in 2003, but only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey.

While you are quite correct in noting that conservatives of the Jefferson era were rigidly opposed to authoritarian governments, mainly because of their proximity with the Revolution, the present political situation is quite a bit more complicated. The concept of corporatism was not a relevent factor back then but it imparts an increasingly powerful influence on government today (e.g., Citizens United) and is walking the U.S. Government toward a state of fascism at a rapidly increasing pace.

It appears you embrace the Libertarian ideology which I believe is functionally incompatible with contemporary American society. The size and complexity of the United States is such that without the attention and management of a proportional government it would soon devolve into pandemonium with unsafe streets and highways and the trappings of widespread destitute misery.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. Jefferson started the Republican party in 1793 100% in opposition to big liberal government; modern Republicans hold the identical position. Jefferson proposed the first Balanced Budget Amendment to limit government while successive Republicans have proposed 30 more over the centuries. Liberals have killed them all and spied for Stalin to boot!!

What does that tell you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a gradual but distinct drift of the right wing toward authoritarian corporatism .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. There are millions of corporations all over the world locked in life and death competition with each other to please us with lower prices and higher quality!!
Under Republican capitalism consumers are the authortarians but you simple lack the IQ to understand it!

Ask your Dad how it would be possible for millions of corporations in different countries all competing with each other for life and death to be authoritarian.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

is walking the U.S. Government toward a state of fascism at a rapidly increasing pace.

OMG too completely stupid and 100% liberal !! Obama just took over 20% of the economy with Obamacare and with the same logic would take over the rest of the economy!! Afterall, he had two communist parents and voted communist in the Senate. Yet, the perfect 100% idiot liberal is worried that Citizens United is the source of fascism????? This, even when we are in the middle of an election and Citizens United has been 1000% irrelevent. OMG!!!

Its too stupid for words!!! and of course perfectly liberal. From now on you must show your Dad your posts before submission!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The size and complexity of the United States is such that without the attention and management of a proportional government it would soon devolve into pandemonium with unsafe streets and highways and the trappings of widespread destitute misery.

too stupid!! That exactly what happend in the USSR and Red China when the had proportional liberal government!! Too stupid!!!. I insist from now on that you show your DAD before you dare post on your own!

 

[Rshermr]

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. Jefferson started the Republican party in 1793 100% in opposition to big liberal government; modern Republicans hold the identical position. Jefferson proposed the first Balanced Budget Amendment to limit government while successive Republicans have proposed 30 more over the centuries. Liberals have killed them all and spied for Stalin to boot!!

What does that tell you?

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-wat

 

[Rshermr]

a gradual but distinct drift of the right wing toward authoritarian corporatism .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. There are millions of corporations all over the world locked in life and death competition with each other to please us with lower prices and higher quality!!
Under Republican capitalism consumers are the authortarians but you simple lack the IQ to understand it!

Ask your Dad how it would be possible for millions of corporations in different countries all competing with each other for life and death to be authoritarian.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow???

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-wat

 

[Rshermr]

The size and complexity of the United States is such that without the attention and management of a proportional government it would soon devolve into pandemonium with unsafe streets and highways and the trappings of widespread destitute misery.

too stupid!! That exactly what happend in the USSR and Red China when the had proportional liberal government!! Too stupid!!!. I insist from now on that you show your DAD before you dare post on your own!

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-wat

 

[Rshermr]

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. Jefferson started the Republican party in 1793 100% in opposition to big liberal government; modern Republicans hold the identical position. Jefferson proposed the first Balanced Budget Amendment to limit government while successive Republicans have proposed 30 more over the centuries. Liberals have killed them all and spied for Stalin to boot!!

What does that tell you?

U of Arkansas study Study “Proves” Conservatism Linked To Stupidity - The Ulsterman Report

British Cohort study Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and conservative politics can lead people to be racist | Mail Online

LiveScience study Social conservatives have a lower I.Q.? (probably) | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine

Watching Fox makes you stupid http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-wat

 

[MikeK]

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. Jefferson started the Republican party in 1793 100% in opposition to big liberal government; modern Republicans hold the identical position. Jefferson proposed the first Balanced Budget Amendment to limit government while successive Republicans have proposed 30 more over the centuries. Liberals have killed them all and spied for Stalin to boot!!

What does that tell you?

It tells me you are capable of making casual comparisons between today's America and America in an era of candlelight and buggy whips and you're aware of no significant differences.

I suggest you keep in mind that this nation was getting along pretty well until you brainwashed right-wing fanatics saw fit to elect such corporatist puppets as Ronald Reagan, Bush-1 and Bush-2. Keep in mind that W. Bush inherited a projected surplus from Clinton and deliberately ran the economy into the ground. So what does that have to do with "spying for Stalin?"

The main problem this Nation is facing today is the condition of its Economy. Everything that is wrong with it is the fault of the right wing, beginning with Ronald Reagan and his so-called "trickle down" nonsense, which has in fact siphoned up the bulk of the Nation's wealth into the hidden caches of the upper four percent, thus draining the purchasing power of the middle class -- which is the engine of the Economy.

You jump from fanciful notions about Thomas Jefferson to such obscure and irrelevant issues as "spying for Stalin" while completely ignoring the obvious and critically relevant.

What you're doing is raving and there is no other word for it.

 

[Rshermr]

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. .

of course thats perfectly idiotic and liberal. Jefferson started the Republican party in 1793 100% in opposition to big liberal government; modern Republicans hold the identical position. Jefferson proposed the first Balanced Budget Amendment to limit government while successive Republicans have proposed 30 more over the centuries. Liberals have killed them all and spied for Stalin to boot!!

What does that tell you?

It tells me you are capable of making casual comparisons between today's America and America in an era of candlelight and buggy whips and you're aware of no significant differences.

I suggest you keep in mind that this nation was getting along pretty well until you brainwashed right-wing fanatics saw fit to elect such corporatist puppets as Ronald Reagan, Bush-1 and Bush-2. Keep in mind that W. Bush inherited a projected surplus from Clinton and deliberately ran the economy into the ground. So what does that have to do with "spying for Stalin?"

The main problem this Nation is facing today is the condition of its Economy. Everything that is wrong with it is the fault of the right wing, beginning with Ronald Reagan and his so-called "trickle down" nonsense, which has in fact siphoned up the bulk of the Nation's wealth into the hidden caches of the upper four percent, thus draining the purchasing power of the middle class -- which is the engine of the Economy.

You jump from fanciful notions about Thomas Jefferson to such obscure and irrelevant issues as "spying for Stalin" while completely ignoring the obvious and critically relevant.

What you're doing is raving and there is no other word for it.

But ed, of course, is a con TOOL. Not just a con, but a con TOOL, He lives in and preaches con dogma, crap made up for him by higher level tools of the money that drives the con movement. The current repub party. The tea party. The con politicians.
But ed is but one on this site. There are many. And all are totally uninterested in, and for the most part, incapable of, actual conversation or critical thought. Their job is simply to post con dogma. Period. Spew dogma and hatred. A really sad group of clowns.
So they say something stupid, and you try to engage them, and they know better. They are incapable of arguing the points they are trying to make. And it simply evolves into insults. Shows you who they are. And why they are not worth engaging.

 

[Rshermr]

all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

of course that's perfectly idiotic and perfectly liberal given that conservatives from Jefferson forward are 100% opposed to authoritarian governments while liberals are for them as in the obvious case of Obamacare which seeks to domintate 20% of the economy.

The point you're ignoring, whether deliberately or not, is that political conservatism in the era of Thomas Jefferson bears no significant resemblance to what today is best referred to as neo-conservatism. And I should mention that I was a registered Republican going back to the Goldwater era and my thinking was more conservative than liberal. But having watched a gradual but distinct drift of the right wing toward authoritarian corporatism I re-registered as a Democrat in 2003, but only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey.

While you are quite correct in noting that conservatives of the Jefferson era were rigidly opposed to authoritarian governments, mainly because of their proximity with the Revolution, the present political situation is quite a bit more complicated. The concept of corporatism was not a relevent factor back then but it imparts an increasingly powerful influence on government today (e.g., Citizens United) and is walking the U.S. Government toward a state of fascism at a rapidly increasing pace.

It appears you embrace the Libertarian ideology which I believe is functionally incompatible with contemporary American society. The size and complexity of the United States is such that without the attention and management of a proportional government it would soon devolve into pandemonium with unsafe streets and highways and the trappings of widespread destitute misery.

Ed has made the statement that he is a libertarian. You are quite correct. When I asked him to name a country that was ever a successful libertarian example, he said the united states was quite close. Which proves his inability to hang on to rationality.

Here is an interesting quote relative to Jefferson and the origination of the Democratic Party:
"Several factions arose in opposition to the Federalists, broadly referred to as the Anti-Federalists, including two groups who called themselves Democrats and Republicans. Jefferson pulled them together by 1794 into the Democratic Republican Party (which dropped the word Republican from its name in the early 1830s, today known as the Democratic Party, the world’s oldest and longest-lived political party), united in their opposition to the Federalists’ ideas of a strong central government that could grant the power to incorporate a national bank and bestow benefits to favored businesses through the use of tariffs and trade regulation."
Unequal Protection: Jefferson Versus the Corporate Aristocracy
Kind of like a breath of fresh air after some of the dogma being thrown around by a number of clowns on this thread.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jefferson pulled them together by 1794 into the Democratic Republican Party .

As an idiot liberal you know history as well as you know economics. I'll bet you $10,000 you cant find a primary source from the 1790's like a Jefferson speech, newspaper article, letter, or Congressional Record refering to the Party as anything other than Republican!!

Bet or hop away with your liberal tail between your legs once again.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the world’s oldest and longest-lived political party), united in their opposition to the Federalists’ ideas of a strong central government that could grant the power to incorporate a national bank and bestow benefits to favored businesses through the use of tariffs and trade regulation."

too stupid!! only libertarians today are against a central bank! Any opposition to corporations then was because they there government monopolies. You know less than nothing. You are a liberal.