Who Needs the Family?

[Obamanation]

A trend is a movement, but not all movements are trends.

Trend - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

LMAO!!! really??? give it up...

Is Obama a socialist or was Italy???? One of the two you can't have both!!! I know it pains you guys to not be able to work both sides of the same argument, but I'm not gonna let you!!

Thanks for playing and have a nice day!!

Trending away from, or tending toward is a gradual process (as with the tweaking of our still-private healthcare "system").

On the other hand--quite differently--the movement of the Nazi government against Marxism was one which struck suddenly and violently and "stamped it out"

The mention of Italy, "trending away from socialism" is even more ludicrous. Before fascism, Italy was a constitutional monarchy with an essentially market based economy, much like England had at that time.

So, Obama is the socialist --- We can go with that.

 

[Obamanation]

During the rise of Mussolini, the facists and the communists were fighting the the streets. The facists' stated goal was the installation of a corportist state.

I know the conservatives on this board you people try to label anything you hate as "liberal", and claim anyone you like (hence trying to label Kennedy as a conservative), but you can't decide a loathesome political movement like facism is left wing just because you don't like it.

There have been and continue to be a lot of violent, evil right wing governments. Countries where people have few rights, the press isn't free, and neither are the people. Fundamentalist ideologies demand strict adherence. On either side.

I didn't label anything liberal except the education of agit8er - which led him to think trending meant "popular now" and that he could play both sides of the the arguement to box me in. Both are sure signs of liberalism.

I didn't even have to check to see if either of you had liberal backgrounds on this board even though I have never had discussion with either of you. You wear your leftist intention on your sleeves by spewing propaganda ridden crap that tries make make socialism appear to be anything but a certain path to failure.

 

[Dragonlady]

I didn't even have to check to see if either of you had liberal backgrounds on this board even though I have never had discussion with either of you. You wear your leftist intention on your sleeves by spewing propaganda ridden crap that tries make make socialism appear to be anything but a certain path to failure.

Yes, the Scandanavian Countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, all of Europe - failures all.

Sorry, but social democracy is alive and well. Mixed economies are stronger, more stable, and better able to ride out the economic ups and downs of a capitalist economy.

Countries which lean strongly in favour of the free market, have stagnant wages, high unemployment, and a lot more poor people, but the corporations make buckets of money.

 

[Londoner]

The Reagan administration declared war on middle class working families when it gave Capital the mobility to seek ultra-cheap labor from dictator-run, sweatshop nations like Communist China.

One of the GOP's largest contributors, Walmart, gets over 50% of its products made in Communist China.

This was Reagan's dream: to expand profits by giving investors access to cheaper labor. -to send the jobs of hard working American families to places where their products could be made for pennies a day by unfree workers who lived in hovels.


The Reagan Revolution (which Clinton supported) sent the manufacturing jobs upon which middle class families depended overseas, to places where ultra-cheap labor translated directly into higher profits. John Galt's partnership with the sweatshops of Communist China, Korea, Taiwan, Grenada and Vietnam has destroyed the middle class. (Patriotism? Nope, not our capitalists. They have sold the American worker down river. They have gotten in bed with freedom-hating nations in order to get cheap labor.)

This move by Reagan (and every president thereafter) lead to the dangerous expansion of credit (debt) to American families. That's right - our loyal hard working families replaced high wages/benefits with credit cards.

This was a wet dream for the capitalist, who Reagan was sent to Washington to protect. After Reagan, instead of paying high wages to Americans, they leant hard working Americans money to survive. That is, the capitalist leant the worker the money he used to make in wages.

Which is to say: they leant the American worker money for consumption at a very high interest rate. Rather than a free, well educated and powerful middle class, the capitalist created an indebted and disenfranchised middle class - (... a middle class that was so drained of political power that it could not strike for livable wages so American Families could afford for the mother to stay home and raise the kids. This is why the 50's were the "heyday" of American Conservatism, because Washington and Unions extracted higher wages/benefits from corporations so that the mother could stay home and raise the kids. This meant that the mother wasn't forced into the labor market, and that we didn't, as a result, end up with "latchkey" kids who were raised by television or gangs. Regan's gift to capital - i.e., lower labor costs - ended the American Middle Class family). To top it off, Reagan and his uber-capitalist policy makers cut off funding to programs which created affordable middle class education (ending the GI Bill and its many successors) in order to make room for tax cuts. This ended upward mobility for the middle class and resulted in the kind of wealth inequality that is seen in 3rd world nations, i.e., nations where labor is ultra-cheap. (hmmm?)

Meaning: the Reagan war on the postwar middle class wage/benefit system has destroyed the middle class.

What is pathetic and disgusting about the Reagan War on Families is that it was covered up in true Orwellian fashion by a false ideology of "Family Values".

America swallowed poison in 1980.

This is why we are finally in the never-ending recession which Clinton and Bush tried to avoid with their Tech/Housing bubbles. We have spent 30 years shipping jobs to places where the capitalist could make higher profits. And we have spent 30 years replacing the high wages of those lost jobs with credit cards (i.e., debt). Now, we have finally bumped into our borrowed-against future and there are not enough solvent consumers left. The Reagan Revolution has irreparably destroyed consumer demand. Of course, this doesn't bother the capitalist, who doesn't need the American Consumer. He has a global marketplace of consumers to choose from. [This was one of the purposes of the global market system, which was created w/the help of the Cold War, where the U.S. used the Soviet Threat to intervene in the developing world in order to create trading "partners". By un-burdening the Capitalist from expensive middle class labor, it meant that the Capitalist could benefit from expensive taxpayer-provided Pentagon support (who do you think stabilizes the capitalist's overseas supply chains?) without having to include that taxpayer in the gains of economic growth. This meant they could drain the resources of the host nation - in this case the USA - without having to reciprocate by providing jobs or making the nation stronger (like during the postwar years when the wages of American families were tied to economic growth. Reagan ended this so that he could increases profits on top)]

The defeat of the American working family is now complete. In order to expand profits, the Reagan Revolution got rid of high American labor costs, and with it, the American middle class. The only thing that remains is a smoldering nation punctuated by the moronic cheerleading of the Tea Party who do not see what was lost in the Reagan victory of Capital over expensive middle class labor, anti-trust laws and affordable education.

1980 = poison.

 

[Agit8r]

LMAO!!! really??? give it up...

Is Obama a socialist or was Italy???? One of the two you can't have both!!! I know it pains you guys to not be able to work both sides of the same argument, but I'm not gonna let you!!

Thanks for playing and have a nice day!!

Trending away from, or tending toward is a gradual process (as with the tweaking of our still-private healthcare "system").

On the other hand--quite differently--the movement of the Nazi government against Marxism was one which struck suddenly and violently and "stamped it out"

The mention of Italy, "trending away from socialism" is even more ludicrous. Before fascism, Italy was a constitutional monarchy with an essentially market based economy, much like England had at that time.

So, Obama is the socialist --- We can go with that.

wow...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs]Idiocracy - Brawndo - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ScienceRocks]

I need family. No ones going to take it away from me.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

If people had any concept of TRUE evil, they would bring up the name of Stalin and not Hitler.

This picture brought back memories of growing up in communist Hungary, where the teachers instructed us to tell if anyone at home does not like Comrade Stalin or Comrade Rakosi. I saw fathers and/or mothers disappear, leaving children as wards of state, while those of us children whose parents escaped the love of Comrades Stalin and Rakosi were taught singing hymns of their glory. Communists and their thin-blooded, weak-spined and pale imitators, the progressives/liberals know fully well that if and when they destroy the family unit, they have the children of those destroyed families as their willing slaves for a life time. If you need proof or example look at the core of all large cities in America.

When I saw duped children chanting "Obama, Obama" I made a connection. It took about 40 or so years after Stalin's death for the Soviet Union to collapse.

.

How many people have disappeared under Obama?

0.

Two - W and Dick Cheney

 

[Saigon]

I need family. No ones going to take it away from me.

Apparently, the US government is outside the door right now to take your kids.

You better hide.

 

[American_Jihad]

I had relatives live in the soviet bloc states, don't fucking tell me whats what, each leader had their own style. You fucking liberals THINK you have an answers to everything. Maybe you fucking morons should use your liberal google sometimes, ah...

The answer you posted was written by someone like you, with no knowledge of history or politics.

The European leaders of the 1930's though facism was a GOOD thing because it was, and is, the antithesis of communism. Hilter and the other facist leaders opposed communism and were right wing. I know conservatives hate hearing/reading that but it is true. Facism is a right-wing ideaology.

Right /left wing means a lot of different things in other countries. You can have a mix of ideologies also like liberal republican, progressive/liberal, progressive/socialist, etc...

socialism vs communism vs marxism vs fascism - Google Search

Ya that's right you can have crossovers and all kinds of mixed up crap...

 

[American_Jihad]

So to you stalin was only known for murdering.

Stalin was a fascist/Communist and had to control everyone and everything,

Firstly - No, Stalin WAS NOT A FASCIST, genius. He fought against fascism. He was a Communist.

Secondly, yes he was known largely for murdering his own people. He did not have control of everything, and that simply isn't what people think of when they think of Stalin.

That's why he murdered a lot of folks so he could have CONTROL, ya moron...

By the way when you said you were a journalist, you made my SHIT LIST...

 

[Saigon]

Right /left wing means a lot of different things in other countries

Nonsense. They mean exactly the same thing in all countries. Check any dictionary.

 

[Saigon]

That's why he murdered a lot of folks so he could have CONTROL, ya moron...

Again - nonsense. Try and post with a little dignity.

If you don't know - and you don't - why not read a book?

I'd recommend Sebag Montefiore's biography as being the best around.

 

[American_Jihad]

That's why he murdered a lot of folks so he could have CONTROL, ya moron...

Again - nonsense. Try and post with a little dignity.

If you don't know - and you don't - why not read a book?

I'd recommend Sebag Montefiore's biography as being the best around.

Journalist

 

[American_Jihad]

Right /left wing means a lot of different things in other countries

Nonsense. They mean exactly the same thing in all countries. Check any dictionary.

Hellstinki, don't pull that salunski crap on me. The direction of right/left mean the same not the political ideologies. Why don't you get a job with msnbc, you'd fit right in...