The End of Liberalism....

[CrusaderFrank]

mdn2000 clearly has no idea what 'socialism', 'marxism', 'social democracy', or 'socialism' means.

Your boy RR had no trouble with deficits or debts, which was stupid, I agree, and I wish the Pubs and the Dems would cut spending way way back. Don't you?

"Jake is a for real Republican" --K.Marx

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Successes of American Progressives.

Record Deficits. Check
Record Debt. Check
Record number of people in poverty. Check
Cities and States going bankrupt. Double Check

Victory in WWI.
Victory in WWII.
Record low % of people in poverty.*
Cities and State going bankrupt in the Reagan years.

* Frank, check the % of Americans in poverty now compared to before the Great Society, hmmm. Be honest, bucko.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png

Frank has demonstrated why his ilk need to read, read, read, and discuss, discuss, discuss.

The fool doesn't understand his own talking points.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn2000 clearly has no idea what 'socialism', 'marxism', 'social democracy', or 'socialism' means.

Your boy RR had no trouble with deficits or debts, which was stupid, I agree, and I wish the Pubs and the Dems would cut spending way way back. Don't you?

"Jake is a for real Republican" --K.Marx

Frank thinks Karl Marx is Groucho's older brother.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn2000 clearly has no idea what 'socialism', 'marxism', 'social democracy', or 'socialism' means.

Your boy RR had no trouble with deficits or debts, which was stupid, I agree, and I wish the Pubs and the Dems would cut spending way way back. Don't you?

"Jake is a for real Republican" --K.Marx

Frank is a for real bozo.

Google Image Result for http://farm1.static.flickr.com/48/138028590_d00edf284f.jpg

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now, you reactionaries beyond the reasonable right, before you post again, please read the following, think about the definitions, and then you can apologize to the rest of us for your stupid postings.

Marxism: A social, political and economic philosophy that examines the effect of capitalism on labor, productivity and economic development. Marxism posits that the struggle between social classes, specifically between the bourgeoisie (capitalists) and proletariat (workers), defines the development of the state, and that the bourgeoisie seek to gain control of the factors of production from the "masses". Only by eliminating the control of the economy from private ownership will the economy continue to grow.
Read more: Marxism: Definition from Answers.com


so•cial•ism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods or : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state or a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


social democracy: : a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means or a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices Social democracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market (and) Capitalism is at once far too rational, trusting in nothing that it cannot weigh and measure, and far too little as well, accumulating wealth as an end in itself. —Terry Eagleton, Harper's, March 2005 from Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[mdn2000]

mdn2000 clearly has no idea what 'socialism', 'marxism', 'social democracy', or 'socialism' means.

Your boy RR had no trouble with deficits or debts, which was stupid, I agree, and I wish the Pubs and the Dems would cut spending way way back. Don't you?

All I need to know is what Liberty is, as far as Marxism goes your here to educate me, so go ahead. Marxism as the government of Communism was great for the people of Hungary, in the late forties and fifties they could not even feed their families or make a living on chickens they raised for years, they all became property of the Communist.

I know under Marxism people risked death to escape Communism.

I know that Che Guevara shot a child to death for stealing food during the Cuban revolution.

I also no that Che mistaken attributed all the poverty he saw while riding a motorcycle across south America as a result of the USA.

Yes we continue to see people flee Marxism in Cuba, risking the life of their families crossing the Gulf to Florida in old trucks made into boats.

I know Oppenheimer was a Communist and should never been involved in building the bomb.

I have books on the subject, I wont have to go to Wikipedia, I have all the major work by Marx, a big boring platitude of pure bullshit written by a literal bum.

I know in theory Marxism is perfect, in theory the Marxist works in the factory making forks, of course under Capitalism, in theory I own the fork industry.

Marxism is a failure only because its flawed. Its pure elitist bullshit, there is no other way to describe it.

Death is all Marx has brought to the earth.

Che was a wheezing pussy, murders a child without a trial, a child who was hungry. Che is Marxism's greatest symbol and the guy was nothing more than a low life criminal. A complete idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Much of that is true, some of it is propaganda, and we can do that with both the Union and Confederate troops butchering and murdering people on either side during the Civil War. Or the civil war within the civil war of the War of Independence that made North Carolina, South Carolina, George, and north Florida run red.

Yes, communsim in the USSR and China and other places was awful.

Now, will you talk about the horrors of unregulated capitalism in Europe and America during the 19th century: the poverty, the horrid living situations, the poor sanitation and sewage and water, the riots that killed thousands upon thousands of workers each year?

You need to think clearly before espousing just one side. So listen carefully: there is a reason the pope condemned both communism and unregulated capitalism.

Only in the 20th century with social democracy working within the capitalistic system (a regulated capitalistic system) did the plight of the working man and woman and their families dramatically rise to heights never before reached. Since 1980, Big Business and its minions have been doing their level best to return the working classes to poverty.

Naw, you have nothing to offer. You are nothing but a minion of the far, far right.

 

[mdn2000]

Much of that is true, some of it is propaganda, and we can do that with both the Union and Confederate troops butchering and murdering people on either side during the Civil War. Or the civil war within the civil war of the War of Independence that made North Carolina, South Carolina, George, and north Florida run red.

Yes, communsim in the USSR and China and other places was awful.

Now, will you talk about the horrors of unregulated capitalism in Europe and America during the 19th century: the poverty, the horrid living situations, the poor sanitation and sewage and water, the riots that killed thousands upon thousands of workers each year?

You need to think clearly before espousing just one side. So listen carefully: there is a reason the pope condemned both communism and unregulated capitalism.

Only in the 20th century with social democracy working within the capitalistic system (a regulated capitalistic system) did the plight of the working man and woman and their families dramatically rise to heights never before reached. Since 1980, Big Business and its minions have been doing their level best to return the working classes to poverty.

Naw, you have nothing to offer. You are nothing but a minion of the far, far right.

Yes, speak clearly when defining an adequate comparison, first and foremost you can not compare events of the 20th century communism to 19th century monarchies. You can only compare Communism to that in which it was competing with, that occurred in the 20th century.

Living conditions of the 19th century had nothing to do with capitalism. Doctors had no idea of the danger of germs in the 1800's, More than half of Europe was barely emerging from the dark ages. No lights or electricity in the 1800's, you blaming that on capitalism. Yes, magically capitalism being practiced by one country in the world should of transformed the ignorant non-educated masses of the 18th century into Buick driving families overnight.

The Kings of Europe allowed free unrestricted capitalism. Pure bullshit on your part jake.

You can do better than this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are patently wrong as usual. When systems are compared, then yes an equitable comparison can be made. Communist societies have been failures (except where they haven't). Capitalistic societies have survived because of social democratic regulations. I said nothing about lights or electricity, mdn2000, and that is beating a dead horse. You fail to address democratic America and democratic/autocratic/monarchic countries of Europe. You do note "Yes, magically capitalism being practiced by one country in the world should of transformed the ignorant non-educated masses of the 18th century into Buick driving families overnight", but it should be the workers of 20th century America protected by a socially democratic government regulating capitalism.

You prove clearly that you are unread and a minion tool.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Regardless of what we call them there will always be people interested in changing society and always people in opposition to change.

This is NOT a bad thing.

In fact, I think its really a good thing.

Change for the sake of change fails 100% of the time.
The only change that is necessary is logical and useful change.
Famous quote used very frequently...."If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Successes of American Progressives.

Record Deficits. Check
Record Debt. Check
Record number of people in poverty. Check
Cities and States going bankrupt. Double Check

Victory in WWI.
Victory in WWII.
Record low % of people in poverty.*
Cities and State going bankrupt in the Reagan years.

* Frank, check the % of Americans in poverty now compared to before the Great Society, hmmm. Be honest, bucko.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png

Frank has demonstrated why his ilk need to read, read, read, and discuss, discuss, discuss.

The fool doesn't understand his own talking points.

You are implying a massive expansion of welfare programs and social spending made the nation more prosperous?
Wiki is NOT a credible source. You know that. Find three others that agree with the info you pulled from wiki and you have shot.
75 years of welfare programs, two revisions of welfare state spending that was supposed to eliminate poverty has resulted in trillions of taxpayer dollars being wasted. The only change made with regard to the poor is the federal government has created a permanent dependency class that has for 30 years or more believed they are owed.

 

[shintao]

The Successes of American Progressives.

Record Deficits. Check
Record Debt. Check
Record number of people in poverty. Check
Cities and States going bankrupt. Double Check

Victory in WWI.
Victory in WWII.
Record low % of people in poverty.*
Cities and State going bankrupt in the Reagan years.

* Frank, check the % of Americans in poverty now compared to before the Great Society, hmmm. Be honest, bucko.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png

Frank has demonstrated why his ilk need to read, read, read, and discuss, discuss, discuss.

The fool doesn't understand his own talking points.

You are implying a massive expansion of welfare programs and social spending made the nation more prosperous?
Wiki is NOT a credible source. You know that. Find three others that agree with the info you pulled from wiki and you have shot.
75 years of welfare programs, two revisions of welfare state spending that was supposed to eliminate poverty has resulted in trillions of taxpayer dollars being wasted. The only change made with regard to the poor is the federal government has created a permanent dependency class that has for 30 years or more believed they are owed.

If you starve the dog he won't bark. Why not attempt putting enough money into poverty to solve it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Victory in WWI.
Victory in WWII.
Record low % of people in poverty.*
Cities and State going bankrupt in the Reagan years.

* Frank, check the % of Americans in poverty now compared to before the Great Society, hmmm. Be honest, bucko.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png

Frank has demonstrated why his ilk need to read, read, read, and discuss, discuss, discuss.

The fool doesn't understand his own talking points.

You are implying a massive expansion of welfare programs and social spending made the nation more prosperous?
Wiki is NOT a credible source. You know that. Find three others that agree with the info you pulled from wiki and you have shot.
75 years of welfare programs, two revisions of welfare state spending that was supposed to eliminate poverty has resulted in trillions of taxpayer dollars being wasted. The only change made with regard to the poor is the federal government has created a permanent dependency class that has for 30 years or more believed they are owed.

If you starve the dog he won't bark. Why not attempt putting enough money into poverty to solve it?

Trillions of dollars is not enough to convince you and your lefty brothers and sisters that doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result is not only a waste of time but is illogical?
The history of government giveaways has shown that no problem can be solved by throwing money at it.
Examples? Tons...
One, the Kansas City School district.....The school board with liberal taxing powers decided to spend over a Billion dollars on new gleaming schools with all kinds of frills and goodies. The goal was to improve education and raise test scores. Neither occurred.
The result was massive tax increases which caused those with the means to essentially vote with their feet. They sold their homes and left the district. That not only resulted in less achievement but created the opposite of the desired result of racially diverse schools. The City saw it's tax base eroded at an alarming rate..
Detroit looks the way it does because the city government threw money into social programs designed ot fight the burgeoning poverty rate. Taxes rose dramatically and those with the means left the city. The result was a poverty rate so high, it became a nationally recognized disgrace. Detroit lost so many people, it became the first US City to exceed population of 1 milllion then fall back below that. Detroit once had over 2 million people living within it's limits. Now there are less than 900,000. That happened long before the Government bailout of GM and Chrysler.

 

[mal]

women and blacks are on a more equal footing with white men in just about every arena in America; business, politics, religion, the military...

If the DemocRAT Conscience of the Senate, Robert "There are White *******" Byrd (D) had anything to do with it, they wouldn't be...

And he just "Retired" from the US Senate Recently... In the same Decade he was Tossin' around "******" like he says it at Christmas Dinner back in the Holler!

How long did he Filibuster Civil Rights for Blacks?... And what was his Party's Vote on that again back in '64?



peace...

 

[mdn2000]

You are patently wrong as usual. When systems are compared, then yes an equitable comparison can be made. Communist societies have been failures (except where they haven't). Capitalistic societies have survived because of social democratic regulations. I said nothing about lights or electricity, mdn2000, and that is beating a dead horse. You fail to address democratic America and democratic/autocratic/monarchic countries of Europe. You do note "Yes, magically capitalism being practiced by one country in the world should of transformed the ignorant non-educated masses of the 18th century into Buick driving families overnight", but it should be the workers of 20th century America protected by a socially democratic government regulating capitalism.

You prove clearly that you are unread and a minion tool.

You said nothing about lights and horses, Jakey, you compared 1965 communist to people of the 1600's and 1700's. One had lights, the other had horses, you cannot compare the two. If this is the only way you can state Communism is a success then I have nothing more to do, you have shown the failure of Communism as well as Marxism, one must compare Marxism to an era one or two centuries prior in order for Marxism to appear successful.

If challenged, just through out some bullshit and hope the other forgets the comparison.

Even in theory Marxism fails.

 

[geauxtohell]

Is liberalism still around?

Yes?

Okay, just checking.

/unsubscribe.

 

[shintao]

You are implying a massive expansion of welfare programs and social spending made the nation more prosperous?

You didn't get it. I am saying social programs have never been properly funded, you get what you pay for, and don't expect positive results until you do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Regardless of what we call them there will always be people interested in changing society and always people in opposition to change.

This is NOT a bad thing.

In fact, I think its really a good thing.

Change for the sake of change fails 100% of the time.
The only change that is necessary is logical and useful change.
Famous quote used very frequently...."If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Change for the sake of change fails 100% of the time.

This is why discussing with you is fruitless. What a stupid statement.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Successes of American Progressives.

Record Deficits. Check
Record Debt. Check
Record number of people in poverty. Check
Cities and States going bankrupt. Double Check

Victory in WWI.
Victory in WWII.
Record low % of people in poverty.*
Cities and State going bankrupt in the Reagan years.

* Frank, check the % of Americans in poverty now compared to before the Great Society, hmmm. Be honest, bucko.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Poverty_59_to_05.png

Frank has demonstrated why his ilk need to read, read, read, and discuss, discuss, discuss.

The fool doesn't understand his own talking points.

You are implying a massive expansion of welfare programs and social spending made the nation more prosperous?
Wiki is NOT a credible source. You know that. Find three others that agree with the info you pulled from wiki and you have shot.
75 years of welfare programs, two revisions of welfare state spending that was supposed to eliminate poverty has resulted in trillions of taxpayer dollars being wasted. The only change made with regard to the poor is the federal government has created a permanent dependency class that has for 30 years or more believed they are owed.

Find three others that disagree with it, and I might reconsider your point. Until then you have nothing other than "I don't believe it", and I don't care if you don't believe it because your opinion does not matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are patently wrong as usual. When systems are compared, then yes an equitable comparison can be made. Communist societies have been failures (except where they haven't). Capitalistic societies have survived because of social democratic regulations. I said nothing about lights or electricity, mdn2000, and that is beating a dead horse. You fail to address democratic America and democratic/autocratic/monarchic countries of Europe. You do note "Yes, magically capitalism being practiced by one country in the world should of transformed the ignorant non-educated masses of the 18th century into Buick driving families overnight", but it should be the workers of 20th century America protected by a socially democratic government regulating capitalism.

You prove clearly that you are unread and a minion tool.

You said nothing about lights and horses, Jakey, you compared 1965 communist to people of the 1600's and 1700's. One had lights, the other had horses, you cannot compare the two. If this is the only way you can state Communism is a success then I have nothing more to do, you have shown the failure of Communism as well as Marxism, one must compare Marxism to an era one or two centuries prior in order for Marxism to appear successful.

If challenged, just through out some bullshit and hope the other forgets the comparison.

Even in theory Marxism fails.

You are failing, so now you are lying. Go back and read carefully and clearly. You have failed to (1) adequately restate what I wrote, and then (2) to offer credible rebuttal and evidence.

Fail on your part.