Class War Illustrated

[Oddball]

Nonsense.

USSR is merely one in a litany of historical examples of how central planning and economic control is an abysmal failure.

You really don't pick up on metaphors and historical examples very well, do you?

 

[Foxfyre]

When China has some of the worst class divisions in the world with some of the richest of the rich coupled with some of the poorest of the poor, and started from such a low threshhold, it had nowhere to go but up. Compared with older more settled world economies, the USA was once a boom country too when it was in its heaviest building phase.

So trying to compare growth in China with growth in the USA is definitely comparing kumquats to squash.

Further China is still a communist country in which unalienable rights are neither recognized nor respected. That will catch up with them and slow them down in time, just as erosion of our own has had that effect here.

 

[Cuyo]

Nonsense.

USSR is merely one in a litany of historical examples of how central planning and economic control is an abysmal failure.

You really don't pick up on metaphors and historical examples very well, do you?

Re-stating your point doesn't make it less of a strawman. That's not how it works.

I did not advocate Communism, and you continue to speak to me as if I had. THAT's the strawman.

my eye muscles are starting to cramp up, please, no more.

 

[Oddball]

You're advocating the same kinds of authoritarian central planning and economic control utilized by the communists.

That you think you can somehow get different results by dressing it up under the monikers of "liberal" or "progressive" is plain old naïve.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nonsense.

USSR is merely one in a litany of historical examples of how central planning and economic control is an abysmal failure.

You really don't pick up on metaphors and historical examples very well, do you?

Re-stating your point doesn't make it less of a strawman. That's not how it works.

I did not advocate Communism, and you continue to speak to me as if I had. THAT's the strawman.

my eye muscles are starting to cramp up, please, no more.

You don't have to advocate Communism though. You imply intellectual/emotional support for it, however, if you advocate policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government rather than support recognition of and respect for the unalienable rights of the people, a free market economy, and no more regulations or restrictions than are necessary to secure the rights of the people.

There is no unalienable right to be rich or even richer. There is only an unalienable right to make your best effort to become rich if that is what you want in life.

 

[Cuyo]

Nonsense.

USSR is merely one in a litany of historical examples of how central planning and economic control is an abysmal failure.

You really don't pick up on metaphors and historical examples very well, do you?

Re-stating your point doesn't make it less of a strawman. That's not how it works.

I did not advocate Communism, and you continue to speak to me as if I had. THAT's the strawman.

my eye muscles are starting to cramp up, please, no more.

You don't have to advocate Communism though. You imply intellectual/emotional support for it, however, if you advocate policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government rather than support recognition of and respect for the unalienable rights of the people, a free market economy, and no more regulations or restrictions than are necessary to secure the rights of the people.

There is no unalienable right to be rich or even richer. There is only an unalienable right to make your best effort to become rich if that is what you want in life.

Okey doke then.

This whole exchange started when Kaz said this:

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

...And I said this.

O rly?

What do you do for a living? Does it involve producing or consuming anything that spends some time on an Interstate highway?

Here's the permalink:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158978-class-war-illustrated-28.html#post3427781

Can you scan over the exchange since that time, and direct me to the quote that most manifested my advocacy for "policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government?"

Hint: It's not there. Not even with an Evil Knieval jump.

I'm just advocating for smart government and debunking the myth that government can only do harm. I'd like to explore those avenues more, but you guys just won't stop calling me a damn Communist.

 

[JBeukema]

You're advocating the same kinds of authoritarian central planning and economic control utilized by the communists.

Where, exactly, did he advocate any such thing?

 

[signelect]

A business owner is entitled t what he makes and if he wants to have good workers he will pay a fair wage and benefits. I can assure you that no owner does this without risk and the risk has to be worth the return.

 

[The T]

The only thing government to do to help commerce is to stay outta the way and cease punishing those that work hard to achieve to give to those that don't.

Total nonsense.

It's Tommy. What did you expect?

I love how the hard ideologues just glazed over the fact that I just shattered their theories. It actually annoys me a little. *sigh* Guess I ought to be used to it by now.

Son? You haven't shattered a damned thing except show the world that you're a Marxist with Communist leanings...in any case a Big Gubmint type that worships at the Gubmint trough.

 

[Foxfyre]

Re-stating your point doesn't make it less of a strawman. That's not how it works.

I did not advocate Communism, and you continue to speak to me as if I had. THAT's the strawman.

my eye muscles are starting to cramp up, please, no more.

You don't have to advocate Communism though. You imply intellectual/emotional support for it, however, if you advocate policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government rather than support recognition of and respect for the unalienable rights of the people, a free market economy, and no more regulations or restrictions than are necessary to secure the rights of the people.

There is no unalienable right to be rich or even richer. There is only an unalienable right to make your best effort to become rich if that is what you want in life.

Okey doke then.

This whole exchange started when Kaz said this:

You obviously don't own a business and you have to stop reading political marketing brochures. Our government is a yoke on business. It enables nothing.

...And I said this.

O rly?

What do you do for a living? Does it involve producing or consuming anything that spends some time on an Interstate highway?

Here's the permalink:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158978-class-war-illustrated-28.html#post3427781

Can you scan over the exchange since that time, and direct me to the quote that most manifested my advocacy for "policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government?"

Hint: It's not there. Not even with an Evil Knieval jump.

I'm just advocating for smart government and debunking the myth that government can only do harm. I'd like to explore those avenues more, but you guys just won't stop calling me a damn Communist.

Okay. My intent was not to call you a communist. My intent was to illustrate that one can believe he is not a communist and at the same advocate communistic/socialist policies and systems. And I intended that as a rhetorical 'you' but didn't make that clear so my bad there.

It starts with an intellectual inability to understand the different between. . . .

shared government services incorporated into a social contract--such government services that are indifferent to the socioeconomic status of anybody but are intended to benefit all equally who wish or need to use them--

as opposed to

Those government policies and systems that are intended to benefit any person or group because they are of a particular race or ethnicity or of a particular socioeconomic group. . .

as opposed to those who think they want the government to provide them with what they want and/or relieve them of the responsibility of providing it for themselves.

The first concept is market driven and is perfectly reasonable and practical for a free people who govern themselves.

The second concept starts us down the slippery slope of dependency.

The third group embraces the full concept of communism.

 

[Oddball]

You don't have to advocate Communism though. You imply intellectual/emotional support for it, however, if you advocate policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government rather than support recognition of and respect for the unalienable rights of the people, a free market economy, and no more regulations or restrictions than are necessary to secure the rights of the people.

There is no unalienable right to be rich or even richer. There is only an unalienable right to make your best effort to become rich if that is what you want in life.

Okey doke then.

This whole exchange started when Kaz said this:

...And I said this.

O rly?

What do you do for a living? Does it involve producing or consuming anything that spends some time on an Interstate highway?

Here's the permalink:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158978-class-war-illustrated-28.html#post3427781

Can you scan over the exchange since that time, and direct me to the quote that most manifested my advocacy for "policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government?"

Hint: It's not there. Not even with an Evil Knieval jump.

I'm just advocating for smart government and debunking the myth that government can only do harm. I'd like to explore those avenues more, but you guys just won't stop calling me a damn Communist.

Okay. My intent was not to call you a communist. My intent was to illustrate that one can believe he is not a communist and at the same advocate communistic/socialist policies and systems. And I intended that as a rhetorical 'you' but didn't make that clear so my bad there.

It starts with an intellectual inability to understand the different between. . . .

shared government services incorporated into a social contract--such government services that are indifferent to the socioeconomic status of anybody but are intended to benefit all equally who wish or need to use them--

as opposed to

Those government policies and systems that are intended to benefit any person or group because they are of a particular race or ethnicity or of a particular socioeconomic group. . .

as opposed to those who think they want the government to provide them with what they want and/or relieve them of the responsibility of providing it for themselves.

The first concept is market driven and is perfectly reasonable and practical for a free people who govern themselves.

The second concept starts us down the slippery slope of dependency.

The third group embraces the full concept of communism.

I'm absolutely stunned that this has to be spelled out to people who supposedly see all this nuance and shades of gray in everything.

Good job, though.

 

[The T]

Okey doke then.

This whole exchange started when Kaz said this:

...And I said this.


Here's the permalink:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/158978-class-war-illustrated-28.html#post3427781

Can you scan over the exchange since that time, and direct me to the quote that most manifested my advocacy for "policies and systems Communists use to establish more totalitarian forms of government?"

Hint: It's not there. Not even with an Evil Knieval jump.

I'm just advocating for smart government and debunking the myth that government can only do harm. I'd like to explore those avenues more, but you guys just won't stop calling me a damn Communist.

Okay. My intent was not to call you a communist. My intent was to illustrate that one can believe he is not a communist and at the same advocate communistic/socialist policies and systems. And I intended that as a rhetorical 'you' but didn't make that clear so my bad there.

It starts with an intellectual inability to understand the different between. . . .

shared government services incorporated into a social contract--such government services that are indifferent to the socioeconomic status of anybody but are intended to benefit all equally who wish or need to use them--

as opposed to

Those government policies and systems that are intended to benefit any person or group because they are of a particular race or ethnicity or of a particular socioeconomic group. . .

as opposed to those who think they want the government to provide them with what they want and/or relieve them of the responsibility of providing it for themselves.

The first concept is market driven and is perfectly reasonable and practical for a free people who govern themselves.

The second concept starts us down the slippery slope of dependency.

The third group embraces the full concept of communism.

I'm absolutely stunned that this has to be spelled out to people who supposedly see all this nuance and shades of gray in everything.

Good job, though.

And they can stay shrouded in their shades of gray. Most things in life are black and white...yes or no...on or off...a 1 or a 0.

The shades just tell me that they're AFRAID of reality...that by their living in 'gray areas' just staves off the inevitable...and they scream like banshees when reality comes home to smack them in the face when that 0 turns to a 1.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's quite easy to understand really.

One example:

Before federalized education, a community, as part of its social contract, may decide that it is far more efficient to pool resources and create public schools rather than it is for each parent to provide or arrange for the education of their children. Once the school was established, all citizens of that community, rich, poor, and everything in between, used the schools in exactly the same way. Everybody, rich, poor, and everything in between paid the same percentage in taxes, paid the same registration fees, paid the same for extra curricular activities. Everybody expected to send their kid to school with a sack lunch or lunch money for the cafeteria, and everybody expected to pay for a tutor or remedial classes for their own kids if they weren't keeping up or the kids would just repeat the class until they got it.

No class warfare of any kind. Everybody paid the same and got the same services regardless of socioeconomic standing.

When it was like that, we had a national school system envied by most of the world and were educating kids that could compete with anybody.

But once we started the school system on the slippery slope into federal dependency, only kids from certain ethnicity or socioeconomic standing qualify for certain programs, only some kids qualify for free breakfasts and lunches and/or remedial classes or Head Start or special education. The system itself separated the kids by class and ushered in a 'class warfare' mentality in education along with deficiencies created for some groups due to resources being mandated to be provided for others.

And we now have a national school system that lags behind most of the free world in both competence and excellence.

The intellectually honest recognize the truth of this. Those who are embracing socialism and/or communism will strongly resist that truth.

 

[The T]

It's quite easy to understand really.

One example:

Before federalized education, a community, as part of its social contract, may decide that it is far more efficient to pool resources and create public schools rather than it is for each parent to provide or arrange for the education of their children. Once the school was established, all citizens of that community, rich, poor, and everything in between, used the schools in exactly the same way. Everybody, rich, poor, and everything in between paid the same percentage in taxes, paid the same registration fees, paid the same for extra curricular activities. Everybody expected to send their kid to school with a sack lunch or lunch money for the cafeteria, and everybody expected to pay for a tutor or remedial classes for their own kids if they weren't keeping up or the kids would just repeat the class until they got it.

No class warfare of any kind. Everybody paid the same and got the same services regardless of socioeconomic standing.

When it was like that, we had a national school system envied by most of the world and were educating kids that could compete with anybody.

But once we started the school system on the slippery slope into federal dependency, only kids from certain ethnicity or socioeconomic standing qualify for certain programs, only some kids qualify for free breakfasts and lunches and/or remedial classes or Head Start or special education. The system itself separated the kids by class and ushered in a 'class warfare' mentality in education along with deficiencies created for some groups due to resources being mandated to be provided for others.

And we now have a national school system that lags behind most of the free world in both competence and excellence.

The intellectually honest recognize the truth of this. Those who are embracing socialism and/or communism will strongly resist that truth.

And they resist it for their own gain in the form of Control of the masses on many levels.

 

[georgephillip]

Who gained from "separate but equal" control of local education in the American south prior to the mid-1960s? When Americans with white skins engaged in all manner of class war with those without white skins?

As I recall it was the Conservatives of the day (Republican AND Democrat) who supported segregation and condemned the "slippery slope of federal dependency" that federally enforced integration implied.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who gained from "separate but equal" control of local education in the American south prior to the mid-1960s? When Americans with white skins engaged in all manner of class war with those without white skins?

As I recall it was the Conservatives of the day (Republican AND Democrat) who supported segregation and condemned the "slippery slope of federal dependency" that federally enforced integration implied.

Isn't it embarrassing to display your ignorance of history that badly?

But in any case, how about we focus on the here and now instead of more than fifty years ago? I bet if you tried really really hard, you could do that.

 

[Vanquish]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a *****.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a *****.

Yes I am. Parents should be feeding their kids, not the federal government. Parents can do it amazingly more efficiently, economically, and will almost always provide superior nutrition than the government will do. Further, when social norms are that PARENTS feed their children or see to it that they are fed, parents are far more likely to tend to other needs of their children as well. The more the nanny state takes over the job of parenting, the more parents don't have to bother and the more parents there will be who won't.

Going back to the nonfederalized era, when kids came to school hungry more than once or twice, they got a visit from the teacher or social services. Parents who could not or would not take care of their kids were required to or voluntarily gave them over to somebody who would until the parents could and would do that job themselves. Of course sometimes a kid forgets his lunch money and gets a temporary freebie, but s/he is expected to bring it the next day.

There are many things that work so much better if the federal government does not do them.

 

[Oddball]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a *****.

Typical leftist rebuff...Can't argue the point on the merits, so you resort to emotional blackmail.

Good job.

 

[JBeukema]

You're really speaking out against federal lunch programs? THAT's what you've got?

Wow. You're a cold-hearted son of a *****.

1) show that the Fed is needed and the States can't do it themselves

2) Why does this program exist? Isn't that what food stamps/TANF are for?