West's Communist Party claim about Democrats

[occupied]

Nothing in this world was, nor is a greater threat to American liberty than Communism.

We can analyze this mathematically: the danger posed by any ideology to American liberty is equal to the amount of damage that would be done by that ideology if it came to power, times the chance that it will come to power. If we set the index of potential harm to a scale from 1-100, I don't even mind putting Communism at 100, although I think that's exaggerated, because it doesn't matter. The chance of Communists coming to power in America is zero, and therefore the danger posed by Communism to American liberty is 100 time zero which is equal to zero.

Anti-communism on a McCarthyist scale actually DID damage American liberty. It produced a chilling effect on free speech, got people blacklisted from their careers and their livelihoods ruined, and targeted First-Amendment protected free association for a host of unofficial and semi-official repression. Not as bad as a full-fledged Stalinist regime, let's call it a 40 on the scale of damage potential. In 1950, anti-communism actually WAS in power, so the chance of success then was 1, and so the danger to American liberty was 40 -- much, much more than that of Communism.

Today, it's not in power, and I would not rate its chances of coming to power very highly; maybe as much as ten percent. That reduces the danger to American liberty from anti-communism all the way down to 4, but it's still more dangerous than Communism, which remains at zero.

There's a hundred percent chance of you being called a commie for making entirely too much sense.

 

[Political Junky]

Most conservatives aren't any more fascist than Obama.

Obamafuck is a fascist - potentially a corporate/union fascist.

At the same time most progressives view any part of a dominate industry despite the competition in the private sector "fascism."

When there is competition there is no fascism, hence only the government can create a fascist economy via regulation..

Capitalism cannot be fascist via rule...

Better check the last statement with the capitalist fascists in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. Capitalism can easily be the economy of a dictatorship.

There is no difference between fascism and socialism...

Do you just make it up as you go along?

 

[occupied]

Better check the last statement with the capitalist fascists in Germany and Italy in the 1930s and 1940s. Capitalism can easily be the economy of a dictatorship.

There is no difference between fascism and socialism...

Do you just make it up as you go along?

That particularly dangerous idea is from the Beck school of political science and pretty widespread. Never heard such a thing until he came along and started pulling things like this out of his ass.

 

[bripat9643]

bripat is thinking that he is 'winning' here, much like Santorum thought he was winning but in a very different way. bir, your winning is known as losing. And you are indeed a loser. Not being mean here, guy: simply the truth. Live with it.

You're a moron, Jakey.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no difference between fascism and socialism...

Do you just make it up as you go along?

That particularly dangerous idea is from the Beck school of political science and pretty widespread. Never heard such a thing until he came along and started pulling things like this out of his ass.

Fascism and socialism are two varations on the same theme. They are both based on government control of the economy. They accomplish it by different means. Socialism does it by outright expropriation. Fascism does it with regulation to the point that the so-called "owners" of productive enterpriseds are reduced to little more than factory managers. They have no real control over their enterprises. Government makes all the decisions.

In short, they are both variations of the command economy, which has never produced the results claimed for them.

You haven't hear these things before because you're a brainwashed drone.

 

[occupied]

Do you just make it up as you go along?

That particularly dangerous idea is from the Beck school of political science and pretty widespread. Never heard such a thing until he came along and started pulling things like this out of his ass.

Fascism an socialism are two varations on the same theme. They are both based on government control of the economy. They accomplish it by different means. Socialism does it by outright expropriation. Fascism does with regulation to the point that the so-called "owner" of productive enterprised are reduced to little more than factory managers. They have no real control over their enterprises. Government makes all the decisions.

In short, they are both variations of the command economy, which has never produced the results claimed for them.

You haven't hear these things because you're a brainwashed drone.

Fascism has a wider definition than "what Hitler did".

 

[bripat9643]

See what I mean? It's obvious to everyone not suffering from bripat's disease. You've delivered several on this very page, insisting that they were facts, but without presenting any factual evidence to back them up, and in the face of easily-identified factual evidence that disproves them.

I did present facts and documentation. What do you want, the verbatam text of the Venona cables? The people I listed were all named in FBI files recently de-classified and/or the transcripts of the Venona cables. They were guilty as hell.

We haven't been talking about McCarthy for a while now, so obviously that wasn't what I was referring to. But in fact, no, you didn't present any supporting evidence on that subject, either. You SAY such evidence exists, but we haven't seen any of it here so far.

Yes, I did present supporting evidence. You simply ignored it. You quoted your 40 year-old wikipedia propaganda. If you want the verbatam transcripts of the Venona cables, you can find them here:

Venona - NSA/CSS

There are also 50000 pages of declassified FBI documents from the era.

 

[bripat9643]

Fascism an socialism are two varations on the same theme. They are both based on government control of the economy. They accomplish it by different means. Socialism does it by outright expropriation. Fascism does with regulation to the point that the so-called "owner" of productive enterprised are reduced to little more than factory managers. They have no real control over their enterprises. Government makes all the decisions.

In short, they are both variations of the command economy, which has never produced the results claimed for them.

You haven't hear these things because you're a brainwashed drone.

Fascism has a wider definition than "what Hitler did".

Where did I even mention Hitler?

Fascism is an economic system. I described it precisely. Strangely enough, it's indistinguishable from the economic program endorsed by the Democrat Party.

 

[bripat9643]

There is no difference between fascism and socialism...

Do you just make it up as you go along?

That particularly dangerous idea is from the Beck school of political science and pretty widespread. Never heard such a thing until he came along and started pulling things like this out of his ass.

Libturds believe all facts told about libturds are "dangerous."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Believing facts to be "malarky" is a classic symptom of left-wing brain damage.

What the . . . foolish bripat?

Aren't you the one who thought Anne Frank was hiding in a cupboard because she was trying to avoid the rent? You thought the Nazis were like some sort of landlord.

You are so loony you simply can't be thought of as normal. You just don't think very well at all.

 

[bripat9643]

Believing facts to be "malarky" is a classic symptom of left-wing brain damage.

What the . . . foolish bripat?

Aren't you the one who thought Anne Frank was hiding in a cupboard because she was trying to avoid the rent? You thought the Nazis were like some sort of landlord.

You are so loony you simply can't be thought of as normal. You just don't think very well at all.

No, I never made such a claim, Jakey the Fakey. So far, you're batting zero when it comes to your understanding of what I believe. Also, almost everything you have posted is worse than idiotic. If the above is your idea of normal well adjusted quality thought, you must have ridden the short bus to school.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a freaky goof ball, britpat, with absolutely nothing of worth to say here. If you don't get satire, that is your problem. You are really as goofy as I have portrayed you. The three of you who think as you do are out of step with the world. Tis what tis.

 

[regent]

A nation's economy is one part of a country and the government another, so what would be an ideal economy for the United States and what would be the ideal government?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A regulated market system that guarantees competition, good products at low prices, and well-compensated consumer work force in a democratic republic.

 

[bripat9643]

A regulated market system that guarantees competition, good products at low prices, and well-compensated consumer work force in a democratic republic.

Your ideal system is an oxymoron. The purpose of regulation is prevent competition, not gaurantee it. REgulation also increases prices and reduces economic growth. Democracy is an arrnagement designed to facility plunder and looting, not good wages.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, and you know it. Regulation to guarantee competition and great prices and good products and good-earning consumer class is exactly what we had from 1945 to 1980. Then the supply siders took over, transferred the wealth to the rich, broke the economy, and want to blame everybody else.

You are not any good at this, bripat.

 

[bripat9643]

Nonsense, and you know it. Regulation to guarantee competition and great prices and good products and good-earning consumer class is exactly what we had from 1945 to 1980. Then the supply siders took over, transferred the wealth to the rich, broke the economy, and want to blame everybody else.

You are not any good at this, bripat.

Let me get this straight - before I start laughing: you think we had more regulation in 1980 than we have now?

 

[occupied]

A regulated market system that guarantees competition, good products at low prices, and well-compensated consumer work force in a democratic republic.

Your ideal system is an oxymoron. The purpose of regulation is prevent competition, not gaurantee it. REgulation also increases prices and reduces economic growth. Democracy is an arrnagement designed to facility plunder and looting, not good wages.

Why would anyone put their faith in an unregulated industry? Is faith in an investment even possible in a such a wild west scenario?

 

[bripat9643]

A regulated market system that guarantees competition, good products at low prices, and well-compensated consumer work force in a democratic republic.

Your ideal system is an oxymoron. The purpose of regulation is prevent competition, not gaurantee it. REgulation also increases prices and reduces economic growth. Democracy is an arrnagement designed to facility plunder and looting, not good wages.

Why would anyone put their faith in an unregulated industry? Is faith in an investment even possible in a such a wild west scenario?

Investors don't rely on faith. They rely on a proven track record. What regulations existed during the late 1800s when Standard Oil became the largest company on the planet? Do you imagine no one thought standard oil was a good investment? How about Ford motor company? Did the SEC exist when Ford Mother company became the largest manufacturer on the planet?

Your belief that economic activity can't proceed without government's constant interference isn't justified by the historical record. In short, your understanding of economics is pure fantasy and delusion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The proven track record of a lightly regulated American economies are massive busts.

That's the proven track record, bripat. You are weird.