What do Communist, Socialist mean?

[Crackerjack]

Now is the portion of the discussion in which Fakey turtles up.

Predictable fucker, ain't he?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Now is the portion of the discussion in which Fakey turtles up.

Predictable fucker, ain't he?

Well, I've never seen an "individual" attempt to assert that it's possible to be a "right wing," fascist (or authoritarian) libertarian. That's exactly what Jake the Flake was implicating...

I think our culture uses words too loosely, that or people are just idiots..

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

David Woolner: Franklin D. Roosevelt: Socialist or "Champion of Freedom"?

One of the consistent arguments that conservative Republicans are hurling against the Democrats is that their support for federal intervention in the economy represents an attack on individual liberty and is socialism. The use of such tactics is not new, of course. Franklin Roosevelt faced similar charges.

FDR brushed aside these attacks in part by insisting that we were a rich nation that could "afford to pay for security and prosperity without having to sacrifice our liberties into the bargain." He also turned to our nation's history, reminding the American people that in the first century of our republic, when "we were short of capital, short of workers, and short of industrial production, but... were rich... in free land, and free timber and free mineral wealth," the federal government "rightly assumed the duty of promoting business and relieving depression by giving subsidies of land and other resources." Thus, he said, "from our earliest days we have had a tradition of substantial government help to our system of private enterprise."

democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself." , but from the "heedless self interest" of those in positions of vast wealth and power, whose greed crushed individual initiative and so restricted "the field open for free business" that private enterprise "became too private... it became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise." In such a system, the political equality the American people once enjoyed became "meaningless in the face of economic inequality," and as such "life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness."

For Roosevelt, then, government intervention in the economy was not about destroying individual liberty; it was about restoring individual liberty. It was about making capitalism work in such a way as to ensure equal economic opportunity for all Americans, not just the privileged few at the top.

There's a lot I can agree with here.

Oh? So you see no difference in governmental action that hands public assets over to private ownership and management, which is the case in FDR's cynical analogy regarding the opening up of the frontier to encourage the acquisition and development of private wealth and resources, and governmental intervention that confiscates or redistributes private wealth and resources? This contradiction, this false analogy makes sense to you? Hmm. That's odd, just like your Pollyannaish belief that the wealth of free enterprise could ever pose the sort of threat to liberty that the government does. FDR was a phony-ass, his policies destructive, and as I said before, like Wilson, he admired fascist socialism in his youth before he got a wake up call from the emergence of Nazi fascist socialism.

As for his wife, that muff-munching degenerate, she was a flaming socialist of the Marxist kind!

 

[kwc57]

Why is that libertarians talk jack and don't know anything about libertarianism. I had one person trying to tell me that George Washington was a libertarian. Wow! Wacks, all of them.

Time to put up or shut up Jake. You're good at making single sentence posts railing against conservatives. Let's see a well thought out, comprehensive post of coherent thought. I'm guessing that you only have time to post between the fryers dinging and have to keep it short and simple. Prove me wrong.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Why is that libertarians talk jack and don't know anything about libertarianism. I had one person trying to tell me that George Washington was a libertarian. Wow! Wacks, all of them.

But he was a classical liberal, having decidedly more in common with the libertarian than any post-modern leftist.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Why is that libertarians talk jack and don't know anything about libertarianism. I had one person trying to tell me that George Washington was a libertarian. Wow! Wacks, all of them.

If George Washington wasn't a classical liberal (libertarian) he would have never been a General and he never would have fought in the Revolutionary War against Great Britain (or the French).

Washington would have just tolerated the authoritarian Bits in his front yard...

 

[francoHFW]

The French won the war for Washington, idiot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The French won the war for Washington, idiot.

Clueless fuck

Try reading anything at all on the Revolutionary War

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Socialist? Communist? I often notice some of you extreme righties throw the invective, “communist” or “socialist” around. It looks like these invectives mean to you anyone to your left.

For some conservatives it indicates their ignorance; for others on the right who know better, the words are used as political weapons.

Perhaps some use them as political weapons, like you, with your derogatory “extreme righties” (LOL! In the same breath no less), but as Crusader Frank pointed out about contemporary leftists: from liberal to socialist to communist, we have a scale of graduation, variations on the same theme. In other words, we have persons who prefer to be called liberals and claim not to be socialists or communists who, nevertheless, mindlessly compare the classical liberalism of this nation's founding (the antithesis of authoritarian/totalitarian statism) to fascism (incessantly calling classical liberals “extreme righties, for example) just like Leninists and Maoists do, persons who embrace much of the modes and policies of Leninists and Maoists.

So they hate the socio-political ideology of their nation's founding as they embrace Marxist dogma and spout Marxist rhetoric; just don't call them socialists or communists, eh? Obama's administration, like no other Democratic administration before it, is chalk full of this sort of "liberal".

To be sure, there are still plenty of old-school liberals who genuinely love the principles of our founding, albeit, a slightly revised version of them, and despise the modes and rhetoric of Marxism as much as I, but they are becoming an extinct breed, ostrizied more and more by the dominate, new left.

BTW, can we call those celebrities and politicians who admit to being socialists and communists, socialists and communists? There are in fact plenty of them. Or do you just object to calling those who share the very same worldview socialists or communists merely because they prefer the label of "liberal".

You see, we classical liberals get the fact that many "liberals" wish to conceal their inner Lenin and Mao, as Crusader Frank puts it, as a means of mainstreaming an increasingly more radical agenda.

The ACLU has been at it for decades.


BTW, manage to get laced up on Title 8, Section 1401 yet? ROTFLMAO! Nothing to do with natural-born citizenship, eh?

 

[francoHFW]

There were more French soldiers at Yorktown than Americans, and 26 French ships of the line trapping the British Navy in NY, and Cornwallis. Idiot.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

There were more French soldiers at Yorktown than Americans, and 26 French ships of the line trapping the British Navy in NY, and Cornwallis. Idiot.

True. The majority of the American contingent had yet to arrive as French troops poured out of the ships. In fact, there where still more French troops on the ground at the time of Cornwallis' surrender..

 

[francoHFW]

Libertarians, Classical Liberals, and Neocons are ALL BS for the dupes. Unregulated big business in this day and age of HUGE money does result in a fascist government/mega rich/corporate domination of the country, a disaster for the nonrich AND the country as we saw, and see, under VOODOO and Reaganism. The GOP humors the ignorant with empty slogans, talking points, and bumper sticker politics, then in power ignores them.AGAIN AND AGAIN> Pub dupes!!

 

[Mr.Nick]

The French won the war for Washington, idiot.

The French were more interested in fighting with Native Americans and Brits well north of the Canadian/US border. They didn't do anything except bring over the occasional ship of supplies - which were intended for the slaughter of Indians - not the revolutionaries...

French and Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington didn't like the French one bit.... As a matter of fact he would attack the French at will....

 

[francoHFW]

Socialist? Communist? I often notice some of you extreme righties throw the invective, “communist” or “socialist” around. It looks like these invectives mean to you anyone to your left.

For some conservatives it indicates their ignorance; for others on the right who know better, the words are used as political weapons.

Perhaps some use them as political weapons, like you, with your derogatory “extreme righties” (LOL! In the same breath no less), but as Crusader Frank pointed out about contemporary leftists: from liberal to socialist to communist, we have a scale of graduation, variations on the same theme. In other words, we have persons who prefer to be called liberals and claim not to be socialists or communists who, nevertheless, mindlessly compare the classical liberalism of this nation's founding (the antithesis of authoritarian/totalitarian statism) to fascism (incessantly calling classical liberals “extreme righties, for example) just like Leninists and Maoists do, persons who embrace much of the modes and policies of Leninists and Maoists.

So they hate the socio-political ideology of their nation's founding as they embrace Marxist dogma and spout Marxist rhetoric; just don't call them socialists or communists, eh? Obama's administration, like no other Democratic administration before it, is chalk full of this sort of "liberal".

To be sure, there are still plenty of old-school liberals who genuinely love the principles of our founding, albeit, a slightly revised version of them, and despise the modes and rhetoric of Marxism as much as I, but they are becoming an extinct breed, ostrizied more and more by the dominate, new left.

BTW, can we call those celebrities and politicians who admit to being socialists and communists, socialists and communists? There are in fact plenty of them. Or do you just object to calling those who share the very same worldview socialists or communists merely because they prefer the label of "liberal".

You see, we classical liberals get the fact that many "liberals" wish to conceal their inner Lenin and Mao, as Crusader Frank puts it, as a means of mainstreaming an increasingly more radical agenda.

The ACLU has been at it for decades.


BTW, manage to get laced up on Title 8, Section 1401 yet? ROTFLMAO! Nothing to do with natural-born citizenship, eh?

You're a brainwashed idiot. Getting some control over a corrupt, ridiculously expensive and cruel health "system" with a mainly private pub plan is NOT Marxism- NO one is advocating everything being nationalized by government- OR ANYTHING. Change the channel, dupe.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There were more French soldiers at Yorktown than Americans, and 26 French ships of the line trapping the British Navy in NY, and Cornwallis. Idiot.

Yorktown was 1781 Dickship

Washington and God got us through 1776.

 

[francoHFW]

The French won the war for Washington, idiot.

The French were more interested in fighting with Native Americans and Brits well north of the Canadian/US border. They didn't do anything except bring over the occasional ship of supplies - which were intended for the slaughter of Indians - not the revolutionaries...

French and Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington didn't like the French one bit.... As a matter of fact he would attack the French at will....

Wrong war, moron. LOL. The only French soldiers in the Revolutionary War were fighting for US. Jeebus.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The French won the war for Washington, idiot.

The French were more interested in fighting with Native Americans and Brits well north of the Canadian/US border. They didn't do anything except bring over the occasional ship of supplies - which were intended for the slaughter of Indians - not the revolutionaries...

French and Indian War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington didn't like the French one bit.... As a matter of fact he would attack the French at will....

Wrong war, moron. LOL. The only French soldiers in the Revolutionary War were fighting for US. Jeebus.

I was merely demonstrating Washington's hatred of the French...

Besides, the French were still fighting with and against Native Americans during the Revolutionary war....

By that time the majority of French were settled (and fighting with natives) way west in which would become the Louisiana Purchase and up around Montreal...

It is true some French were fighting Brits during the Revolutionary War - to say "the French won the war for us" is absolutely inaccurate...

 

[francoHFW]

Read something. The French basically won Yorktown, the end of the war. Spain owned Louisiana, the British all of Canada by this time.. Just plain clueless. The poor Indians chose the wrong side every time. They liked the French because there were fewer here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is that libertarians talk jack and don't know anything about libertarianism. I had one person trying to tell me that George Washington was a libertarian. Wow! Wacks, all of them.

Time to put up or shut up Jake. You're good at making single sentence posts railing against conservatives. Let's see a well thought out, comprehensive post of coherent thought. I'm guessing that you only have time to post between the fryers dinging and have to keep it short and simple. Prove me wrong.

I have done that before, sister, and you ran away. Go look it up and read it again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is that libertarians talk jack and don't know anything about libertarianism. I had one person trying to tell me that George Washington was a libertarian. Wow! Wacks, all of them.

If George Washington wasn't a classical liberal (libertarian) he would have never been a General and he never would have fought in the Revolutionary War against Great Britain (or the French).

Washington would have just tolerated the authoritarian Bits in his front yard...

Nick, that sounds like birfer logic. Are you a birfer? No, libertarians are not classic liberals. You certainly aren't. GW was for some big government ideas in his day (including public works for a national capitol, supervised by himself), so, no, you continue to flounder.