Right Wing Warning???

[PubliusInfinitum]

It's AG-whats-her-name alright... let there be no doubt.

Well that's what I suspected... you offered a position and when it wasn't contested, by virtue of the simple fact that it wasn't read, you erroneously concluded that the position was superior; and superior to the extent that you concluded that the opposition could not even mount a contest...

Such an assumption did not even need to be made.

Of course fallacious conclusions aren't necessary... But that is nonetheless what ya advanced... thus your former failure... and i see you've returned to offer a brand NEW failure. Well that's SUPER, let's get right to it...

Your prior inadequacies already indicated your woeful incompetence, and accordingly, I expected that you would be unable to provide a sufficient response.

You already lost on this one sis... You projected that your flaccid little screed wasn't responded to, and that the reason for this absence of a response was due to the inadequacy of your opposition, in the face of your superior position. We've been over this... it's long since been discredited. So let's move on...

You legitimize these expectations with drivel such as this:

Your position is invalid... thus illegitimate...

Facism is purely, wholly, solely, utterly, thoroughly and without exception a function of the ideological left... European fascism is American Progressivism... which is to say the US Progressive is the ideological equivilent to the European facist. The ONLY THING that separates the Fascist from the socialist is the "nationalist' bent which fascism (Progressivism) utilizes... where the Socialist rejects national sovereignty focusing it's loyalty upon Socialism itself.

Yeah that was good stuff and while brilliant, immutable fact; what we're lookig for here is a position which CONTESTS IT... and one which speaks ot the practical application of both fascism and socialism and decidely NOT the insipid ranting of leftwing advocactes espousing one discredited theory or another.

There are flagrantly obvious divergences between fascism, socialism, and liberal democratic capitalism.

No there's not... you want to imply that various unstated pedantic theoretical distinctions represent vast gulfs of distinctions... when in fact, left-think rejects sustainable, valid human rights of the natural order... that's all there is sis... enthereal leftism and the cosmic complexity of all that represents and the natural order where people of good faith trade fair value for fair value... period.

ROFLMNAO... Capitalism is merely the natural order... to even believe that it CAN fail, forces one to redefine FAILURE...

That's not the case, I'm afraid!

No doubt you are afraid... but that IS the case. And your stating otherwise isn't going to change it.

The greatest failure of capitalism is embedded in the inefficient labor market that it promotes, which is plagued by the twin problems of influence and agency costs, those caused by the prevalence of information asymmetries between economic agents, resulting in the agency problems of adverse selection and moral hazard, just to illustrate an example.

Does anyone needs anything else to know that this IS AG-WHATS-HER-NAME ?

There is no more efficient use of labor, than where labor comes to the table to SOLVE THE PROBLEMS WHICH THAT RESPECTIVE LABOR SEEKS TO SOLVE... through exchanging the fair value of their labor for what THEY ACCEPT AS FAIR VALUE IN TRADE.

THEORIES on the issue which suggest otherwise have been DISPROVEN time and AGAIN where Socialism, Fascism and Communism HAVE FAILED...

An invalid theory is a BAD THEORY... and your need to reject their failure has NO BEARING ON THOSE FAILURES.

The leftists thus feel that to spare the pain born of an ebbing economy, their solution is to maintain economy in an ethereal constant state of inadequacy... which is absurd because such will only feed the natural desire of the individual to excell beyond that state of inadequacy, promoting revolution, generating an imbalance and BAM... an ebbing fall back to balance; causing vastly MORE suffering through the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of failed leftist policy, than would otherwise have occurred.

This global meltdown that we're currently experiencing is a direct result of leftist manipulation of the financial markets, it is being EXTENDED due to leftist manaipulation of those markets and the PAIN AND SUFFERING IS BEING INTENSIFIED AND PROLONGED by the leftist policies which CREATED THE PAIN TO BEGIN WITH.

All existing capitalist markets are reliant on economic planning.

Super... Sadly... leftist policy failures are BAD PLANS... Leftism FAILS... it MUST FAIL... it cannot SUCCEED... meaning that the PLAN that left-think conjures, is absent sound financial PRINCIPLE... THUS IT IS DOOMED TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES BORN UPON THE ATTEMPT TO PRACTICE ABSENCE SOUND, VIRTUOUS PRINCIPLE WHICH ASSURE SUCCESS... or at least gets as close to an assurance as humanity can get.

... but AGAIN AG... that was a great "TRY" comrade... ya FAILED MISERABLY... but 'lose' is what LOSERS DO... now isn't it?

Ya did the BEST ya could, Godbless ya.

 

[Agnapostate]

As far as I can tell, there is not a single reply to any of my points contained in that incoherent, jumbled mess. Care to try again?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

As far as I can tell, there is not a single reply to any of my points contained in that incoherent, jumbled mess. Care to try again?

That's because you want to focus the debate upon theoretical nonsense and reject the inherent failure of leftism and that which points to that failure.

When you post more nonsense, where I find it, you can rest assured that I'll shove it directly up your rhetorical ass...

At this point your rhetorical colon is JAMMED to the HILT with the failure that is your stated argument.

 

[Agnapostate]

That's because you want to focus the debate upon theoretical nonsense and reject the inherent failure of leftism and that which points to that failure.

When you post more nonsense, where I find it, you can rest assured that I'll shove it directly up your rhetorical ass...

At this point your rhetorical colon is JAMMED to the HILT with the failure that is your stated argument.

I've done nothing but describe the real-life failures of capitalism and the reasons for these failures. Your inability to understand rudimentary concepts of political economy is no fault of mine. It is not, however, an excuse for spamming the board with obtuse imbecility.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've done nothing but describe the real-life failures of capitalism and the reasons for these failures. Your inability to understand rudimentary concepts of political economy is no fault of mine. It is not, however, an excuse for spamming the board with obtuse imbecility.

the failures of Capitalism?.....for the past 200 years the "bastion of capitalism" has done pretty damed good.....why dont you tell us why none of the bastions of socialism or any other system has done as well....

 

[Agnapostate]

the failures of Capitalism?.....for the past 200 years the "bastion of capitalism" has done pretty damed good.....why dont you tell us why none of the bastions of socialism or any other system has done as well....

I've just described several regards in which capitalism fails to function efficiently. The form of socialism that I favor would not suffer from such inefficiencies due to its basis around worker-owned enterprises, which enjoy superior productivity levels than the conventional capitalist firm.

Socialism cannot have functioned in the same regard for the mere reason that it has not enjoyed the benefit of widespread implementation. No form of ideal market socialism has ever been implemented, for instance (one could refer to China, but I wouldn't think that appropriate), and the only other variety of socialism that I've seen implemented is municipal-level participatory socialism, such as that of the Israeli kibbutzim, for instance. Republican socialism was implemented to some degree in the Free Territory of Ukraine whilst it was defended by Nestor Makhno's Black Army. We could also refer to the anarchism that occurred in the social revolution of the Spanish Civil War, though that potentially suffers from the deficiency of being a war-time system, and therefore unsuitable in peacetime.

The state capitalism of the USSR, of course, was not a socialist economic system, and few socialists that I've ever encountered claim otherwise. Its consolidation of managerial authority in the hands of a party elite necessarily caused a divergence from the participatory and democratic nature of legitimate socialism.

 

[DiveCon]

the failures of Capitalism?.....for the past 200 years the "bastion of capitalism" has done pretty damed good.....why dont you tell us why none of the bastions of socialism or any other system has done as well....

I've just described several regards in which capitalism fails to function efficiently. The form of socialism that I favor would not suffer from such inefficiencies due to its basis around worker-owned enterprises, which enjoy superior productivity levels than the conventional capitalist firm.

Socialism cannot have functioned in the same regard for the mere reason that it has not enjoyed the benefit of widespread implementation. No form of ideal market socialism has ever been implemented, for instance (one could refer to China, but I wouldn't think that appropriate), and the only other variety of socialism that I've seen implemented is municipal-level participatory socialism, such as that of the Israeli kibbutzim, for instance. Republican socialism was implemented to some degree in the Free Territory of Ukraine whilst it was defended by Nestor Makhno's Black Army. We could also refer to the anarchism that occurred in the social revolution of the Spanish Civil War, though that potentially suffers from the deficiency of being a war-time system, and therefore unsuitable in peacetime.

The state capitalism of the USSR, of course, was not a socialist economic system, and few socialists that I've ever encountered claim otherwise. Its consolidation of managerial authority in the hands of a party elite necessarily caused a divergence from the participatory and democratic nature of legitimate socialism.

of course, YOUR brand of socialism has NEVER been tried

LOL

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's because you want to focus the debate upon theoretical nonsense and reject the inherent failure of leftism and that which points to that failure.

When you post more nonsense, where I find it, you can rest assured that I'll shove it directly up your rhetorical ass...

At this point your rhetorical colon is JAMMED to the HILT with the failure that is your stated argument.

I've done nothing but describe the real-life failures of capitalism and the reasons for these failures. Your inability to understand rudimentary concepts of political economy is no fault of mine. It is not, however, an excuse for spamming the board with obtuse imbecility.

Did ya Ag? Now what SPECIFIC failure of capitlaism have you pointed out?

All I saw was your patented reference to theoritical projections wherein Capitalism is said to be ineffiicent.

Leftist 'feelings' that capitalism is inefficient does NOT a failure make.

Ya see, sis, there is absolutely NOTHING on earth less efficient than leftism... which is of course based upon the long and indisputable history which PROVED IT, with every failure of every leftist 'experiement' that has ever been tried... and those presently FAILING.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

the failures of Capitalism?.....for the past 200 years the "bastion of capitalism" has done pretty damed good.....why dont you tell us why none of the bastions of socialism or any other system has done as well....

I've just described several regards in which capitalism fails to function efficiently. The form of socialism that I favor would not suffer from such inefficiencies due to its basis around worker-owned enterprises, which enjoy superior productivity levels than the conventional capitalist firm.

Socialism cannot have functioned in the same regard for the mere reason that it has not enjoyed the benefit of widespread implementation. No form of ideal market socialism has ever been implemented, for instance (one could refer to China, but I wouldn't think that appropriate), and the only other variety of socialism that I've seen implemented is municipal-level participatory socialism, such as that of the Israeli kibbutzim, for instance. Republican socialism was implemented to some degree in the Free Territory of Ukraine whilst it was defended by Nestor Makhno's Black Army. We could also refer to the anarchism that occurred in the social revolution of the Spanish Civil War, though that potentially suffers from the deficiency of being a war-time system, and therefore unsuitable in peacetime.

The state capitalism of the USSR, of course, was not a socialist economic system, and few socialists that I've ever encountered claim otherwise. Its consolidation of managerial authority in the hands of a party elite necessarily caused a divergence from the participatory and democratic nature of legitimate socialism.

of course, YOUR brand of socialism has NEVER been tried

LOL

Yep... not many 'anarcho-communist' running around... of course, that's because anarchy and communism are antithetical notions; parallel concepts that can never intersect... thus there is no anarcho-communism... there can never be an anarcho-communist, just idiots that so desperately NEED to be different that they're prepared to humiliate themselves at every opportunity... with their absurd notions of theoretical politics.

 

[Agnapostate]

of course, YOUR brand of socialism has NEVER been tried

LOL

I'm a libertarian socialist. Libertarian socialists condemned the state capitalism of the USSR from its conception (and indeed, earlier anarchists condemned the authoritarian inclinations of Marxism). Moreover, I'm a market socialist, mainly due to the fact that it's economic democracy that enables legitimately competitive enterprise. Your poor attempt at a snide comment is thus rather misinformed.

Did ya Ag? Now what SPECIFIC failure of capitlaism have you pointed out?

All I saw was your patented reference to theoritical projections wherein Capitalism is said to be ineffiicent.

Leftist 'feelings' that capitalism is inefficient does NOT a failure make.

Ya see, sis, there is absolutely NOTHING on earth less efficient than leftism... which is of course based upon the long and indisputable history which PROVED IT, with every failure of every leftist 'experiement' that has ever been tried... and those presently FAILING.

Not at all. My chief focus was and remains on the labor market. I noted that the prevalence of asymmetric information in a capitalist labor market was conducive to the twin problems of agency and influence costs, and was related to other agency problems such as adverse selection and moral hazard (the principal-agent problem being an example of the latter). I also noted the paradox of inefficiency in the labor market in that external inefficiency was a necessary condition of internal efficiency because shirkers were threatened by unemployment. Since a system of market socialism based around democratic worker-owned enterprises would not be based on such crude negative incentives, it's therefore preferable to capitalism. They are also able to circumvent the distributed and tacit knowledge problems brought up by Hayek in the socialist economic calculation debate.

It is for this reason that worker-owned enterprises are thus superior to conventional capitalist firms even in our current capitalist economy. This empirical evidence can be extrapolated to models of a socialist economy.

 

[Agnapostate]

Yep... not many 'anarcho-communist' running around... of course, that's because anarchy and communism are antithetical notions; parallel concepts that can never intersect... thus there is no anarcho-communism... there can never be an anarcho-communist, just idiots that so desperately NEED to be different that they're prepared to humiliate themselves at every opportunity... with their absurd notions of theoretical politics.

I never advocated anarcho-communism because of an unfortunate tendency of communism to focus on egalitarianism even in cases where it may become inefficient, but your comment that anarcho-communism is effectively nonexistent seems inaccurate nonetheless. What would you call Peter Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, or Nestor Makhno? What would you call the ideology advocated in Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yep... not many 'anarcho-communist' running around... of course, that's because anarchy and communism are antithetical notions; parallel concepts that can never intersect... thus there is no anarcho-communism... there can never be an anarcho-communist, just idiots that so desperately NEED to be different that they're prepared to humiliate themselves at every opportunity... with their absurd notions of theoretical politics.

I never advocated anarcho-communism because of an unfortunate tendency of communism to focus on egalitarianism even in cases where it may become inefficient, but your comment that anarcho-communism is effectively nonexistent seems inaccurate nonetheless. What would you call Peter Kropotkin, Errico Malatesta, Emma Goldman, or Nestor Makhno? What would you call the ideology advocated in Kropotkin's Anarchist Communism: Its Basis and Principles?

Ag... come on... get serious. Anarcho-communism is a JOKE. Anarchy is a state absent LAW... COMMUNISM IS A STATE OF LAWS WITHOUT END... AGAIN, jackass, the issue is the PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THESE IDEAS... NOT THE ETHEREAL "GEE WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF... nonsense of addle-minded poli-sci academics. Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron dipstick, you're simply not bright enough to recognise it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The state capitalism of the USSR, of course, was not a socialist economic system, and few socialists that I've ever encountered claim otherwise. Its consolidation of managerial authority in the hands of a party elite necessarily caused a divergence from the participatory and democratic nature of legitimate socialism.

Well that's the nature of Democracy... nature requires that such will produce the elite class who will naturally see to it that the participatory nature of legitimate socialism is usurped...

THUS THE REASON THAT IT'S TO BE AVOIDED!

 

[Agnapostate]

Ag... come on... get serious. Anarcho-communism is a JOKE. Anarchy is a state absent LAW... COMMUNISM IS A STATE OF LAWS WITHOUT END... AGAIN, jackass, the issue is the PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THESE IDEAS... NOT THE ETHEREAL "GEE WOULDN'T IT BE NICE IF... nonsense of addle-minded poli-sci academics. Anarcho-communism is an oxymoron dipstick, you're simply not bright enough to recognise it.

I'm not interested in discussions of anarcho-communism. I'm not an anarcho-communist; I'm a market socialist. However, I can say that your misidentification of state capitalism as "communism" is your major failure and constitutes the major impediment to your ability to understand these theories. In reality, Soviet state capitalism has been rejected by anarcho-communists. We could refer, for instance, to Peter Kropotkin's attacks on Lenin. Any study of Kropotkin will cause one to realize a major and critical divergence between anarcho-communism and state capitalism. For instance:

We are communists. But our communism is not that of the authoritarian school: it is anarchist communism, communism without government, free communism. It is a synthesis of the two chief aims pursued by humanity since the dawn of its history—economic freedom and political freedom.

But again, my objections to anarcho-communism are still plenty, and accordingly, I prefer to discuss the viability of market socialism.

 

[Agnapostate]

Well that's the nature of Democracy... nature requires that such will produce the elite class who will naturally see to it that the participatory nature of legitimate socialism is usurped...

THUS THE REASON THAT IT'S TO BE AVOIDED!

I don't know what basis you have for making that claim, considering that democracy (and participatory socialism), was effectively never implemented in the USSR to begin with. Early history reveals a hostility to the participatory nature of socialism on the part of the Bolsheviks, as with the dispatch of Cheka agents to assassinate Nestor Makhno (and the later betrayal and execution of members of his anarchist Black Army), and the brutal suppression of the Kronstadt Rebellion by the Red Army. Such a legacy is far from democratic. Indeed, Ukraine's Free Territory (protected by Makno's Black Army), was effectively an example of republican socialism, and thus far more worthy of the label than the USSR.

 

[oreo]

On Ayers killing people. I don't know whether he personally did that. Looking at his picturres and having seen him speak, I doubt it.

But as a former intelligence officer, I assure you that the leader is ultimately responsible for any killing that occurs. He sets the tone and the strategy, and looks for people willing to take extreme steps as called for. That is how I see Ayers and on that basis see him as a murderer. And please spare me the "righteous war on the man" nonsense.

Accomplices--no matter what they're role in a crime are always charged the same as the person who fired the shot.

 

[oreo]

The Washington Times -- The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff's departments across the United States on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

It says the federal government "will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months" to gather information on "rightwing extremist activity in the United States."

When Janet Napolitano was warning about right-wingers and mentioning Tim McVeigh, too bad she didn't also warn of left-wingers like Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dorn, (Obama friends) conducting a campaign of bombing public buildings.

I believe this is the first time I have heard of Timothy McVeigh being referred to as a "right-winger." I have heard him referred to as a "white supremist" filled with racial hate, hate toward this government & this country. The term right-winger is normally reserved for conservative law-abiding, hard working, tax paying Americans.

I have never heard a "right wing" conservative talk about this country in the manner that Obama's 20 year pastor has. Nor would a "right-wing" conservative hang around the likes of convicted American terrorist Bill Ayers.

Her language was beyond belief. She referred to U.S. veterans being suspect of possibly becoming an American terrorist someday. She later apologized to veterans, but has yet to apologize to everyone else in her remarks.

 

[theunbubba]

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2009/04/16/dhs-leftwing-extremists-cyber-attacks-26-january-2009.pdf

Thanks.

I wonder why our conservative friends don't know about this?

Or maybe it doesn't suit their paranoia agenda to portray the govt as doing anything but targeting them.

Oh I think it may have something to do with the idea that the leftists would only be checked for Cybercrimes, and the conservatives would be suspected of BLOWING THINGS UP!
kinda different don't ya think?

That's right you don't think. I forgot. You're a lib. You feel.

 

[Ravi]

Anglo-saxon? what does that have to do with anything?

Oh, it's probably another psuedonym of Ag-whats-her-name... at best it's another Central or south American communist... a sychophant of the Che, Fidel and more recently Hugo...

Ravi would liked to have offered a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound response to this, but being that she lacks the intellectual means to do so, she was relegated to offering up a flaccid retort, born of her importent leftist rage, wherein she lamented the feminized nature of leftist males... projecting my observation of such as representing a hatred of woman; of course she was unable to state a reasoned basis for such... but that is after all the nature of the irrational, now isn't it?

I don't read your rants anymore, Pubic. I just check to see if you've again called a male poster a she. Yes, it displays your disrespect and probable hatred of women and I will neg rep you when I see you do it.

 

[Newby]

THE VET 'THREAT' - New York Post

Threat from the vets!
By Ralph Peters Sunday, April 19, 2009


Hollywood and countless professors warned us:

Military vets are drooling trailer trash who beat their wives and, at best, wind up as homeless street people and, at worst, as homicidal psychos deformed by war.

Now, thanks to our ever-vigilant Department of Homeland Security, the full extent of the danger has been revealed:

Our so-called "war heroes" are rushing back to join right-wing-extremist hate groups to overthrow our government.

Let's not quibble about little things like evidence. The Obama administration just knows that vets are all racist, Jew-hating crazies waiting to explode. Thank God, DHS has a fearless leader, Janet-from-another-planet Napolitano, who isn't afraid to call white trash "white trash."

In this administration's published opinion, those who've served in our military are a menace to society and the state. And DHS's racist, bigoted implication is that the only danger comes from white, Christian vets (there's not a whisper about minority violence).

Thanks for bringing us together, Mr. President.

Racism is racism (unless you're a left-wing celebrity; then it's just humor). The left-wing propaganda document, published officially by your government under the title "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," might be the shabbiest U.S. government publication of our time.

The report warns that "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists ... carrying out violent attacks."

The document's evidence? None.

The report contains no hard data, no statistics. It's nothing but a racist, anti-military opinion column that might pass muster in The New York Times but shouldn't be issued by our government.

The report continues by saying "rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans" who "possess combat skills."

The point? Our hayseed, uneducated, unskilled, wacko vets aren't able to think for themselves and will be patsies for right-wing fanatics. Guess that's how things look from Harvard.

Then the report warns us that "a prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that 'large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.'"

Which civil-rights organization? The Rev. Wright's? Why not name it? Why accept this bigoted hearsay? Where's the proof? Where's the data?

And where are those "large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis," anyway? Last time I checked, American Nazis had trouble mustering a couple dozen overweight losers in Halloween costumes.

Of course, Timothy McVeigh is invoked. Repeatedly. He's the sole example of a violent anti-government vet the report's drafters could produce. And there's no mention of the fact that, when he tried to join Special Forces, McVeigh promptly washed out and soon found his butt on the street.

No, McVeigh will serve as eternal evidence that a homicidal nut lurks within every former soldier.

In just eight-and-a-half pages of text, the report manages to link our veterans to anti-Semitism, racism, economic failure and those dangerous citizens who think illegal immigration's a bad idea. Oh, and vets can't be trusted with firearms.

Your tax dollars at work.

Obama's commissars at the Department of Homeland Security have already responded that DHS simultaneously issued a report on extremist danger from the left. Its title? "Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade."

Get the point? Leftwing extremists aren't violent (and rightwingers are too stupid to understand computers).

Timothy McVeigh can be invoked but let's not mention Bill Ayres, our president's good buddy (until he became inconvenient) or his murderous wife. Left-wing fanatics might make a little online mischief, but, hey, kids will be kids.

Read both reports. You'll find that those on the political right (not just vets) are unable to cope with the stress of economic hardship, the real-estate crisis or job loss. Not a word about those issues driving leftists to extremes.They're just defending animal rights and the environment (honest -- read the reports).

Narco gangs aren't a threat, either. And the real and present danger from Islamist fanatics resident in our country goes unmentioned -- even though there's plenty of data on that threat.

The only anti-government violence DHS fears comes from crackers with carbines.

And from chimps so dumb they joined the military.

We're the threat to our fellow citizens. You and I.

Our first minority president just took a giant step toward creating the most bigoted administration since that of arch-segregationist Woodrow Wilson.

Apologize to our veterans, Mr. President.

And send Ms. Napolitano back to the minors.