Nah, No Socialism Here

[Hammerhead]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/25/dem_senator_health_legislation_will_address_the_ma l-distribution_of_income_in_america.html

Sen. Max Baucus (D): "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

[wallypiper]

Wow. Income redistribution. Come on in Karl.

[Phatmax]

This country is being killed by these liars. The irony is some of those "most wealthy" SUPPORT THE LEFT.

[TarzanMan]

Alright. Humor me. How uneven should you let the distribution of wealth get before the govt should take action?

Or do you think that the govt shouldn't do anything on principle?

[Dan43]

Alright. Humor me. How uneven should you let the distribution of wealth get before the govt should take action?

Or do you think that the govt shouldn't do anything on principle?The only job the government has in reguards to business is to regulate for fraud and abuse. It is not governments job to police the distribution of wealth.

[wallypiper]

What Dan said. Distribution of wealth is not a government function. People misunderstand the meaning of wealth. When the press reports that Bill Gates is worth $50 billion, it doesn't mean he has $50 billion in bags in his basement. For the most part, that wealth is in ownership of shares of businesses, and that is true of most of the huge wealth numbers you hear. That wealth is the capital that finances our economy. It is the source of economic growth. If you take it from them and redistribute it to people that want to use it to buy TV's and Slapchops, the growth stops, or rather it moves overseas. Watch it happen over the next couple of years. I truly hope I'm wrong but in my 50+ years in this country, I've never seen it work the other way around.

[TarzanMan]

While noble in principle, sticking to a laissez faire policy of not doing anything to address massively spiraling differences in wealth distribution will ultimately weaken a country (or destroy it in extreme circumstances)

Do you REALLY believe that there is no such point? Or that its not in the government's best interests to prevent the country from reach such a point?

[G_MAN]

Let them eat CAKE

[TarzanMan]

let them eat cake
lol

[Dan43]

While noble in principle, sticking to a laissez faire policy of not doing anything to address massively spiraling differences in wealth distribution will ultimately weaken a country (or destroy it in extreme circumstances)

Do you REALLY believe that there is no such point? Or that its not in the government's best interests to prevent the country from reach such a point?I think that a large portion of the income disparity has it's root in fraud and abuse in the financial sector. If the government would actually perform it's legitimate functions and regulate fraud and abuse the disparity would to a large extent police itself.

[Phatmax]

While noble in principle, sticking to a laissez faire policy of not doing anything to address massively spiraling differences in wealth distribution will ultimately weaken a country (or destroy it in extreme circumstances)

Do you REALLY believe that there is no such point? Or that its not in the government's best interests to prevent the country from reach such a point?



1: We have not had laissez faire in the US in decades, if truely ever.

2: In a CAPITALIST society, when people get wealthy (and I am not talking about using position to commit criminal acts), they do it by HIRING others to work for them... This actually gives people jobs and earning and growth potential.

3: There are fabulously wealthly people with unreal amounts of money. However, they are CREATING wealth and not STEALING it from the hands of others. This is the biggest fallacy that is so simply to understand, yet most people who are simply JEALOUS of others, ignore it. See the quote below....if there are MILLIONS more Millionaires in America in 2000 then in 1982.... how come the average household income also went up?



In 1982, Forbes magazine began its now much-read annual list of America's richest men and women. At the time of the first list, there were 12 billionaires in the country and fewer than 200,000 millionaires. By the year 2000, there were nearly 300 billionaires and about 5 million millionaires. Smith's account of the rise of the rich and super-rich tells the story of five types of individuals: entrepreneurs, dealmakers, investors, tycoons (corporate executives, who are distinguished from
entrepreneurs), and entertainers.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg.png

Engaging in "Wealth Control" is nothing but Class Warfare straight out of Karl Marx's mouth and his acolytes.

[Karl Hungus]

What's your definition of a millionaire? $1 million in net worth? Yep, there's lot of those.

[wallypiper]

While noble in principle, sticking to a laissez faire policy of not doing anything to address massively spiraling differences in wealth distribution will ultimately weaken a country (or destroy it in extreme circumstances)

Do you REALLY believe that there is no such point? Or that its not in the government's best interests to prevent the country from reach such a point?

I don't believe it can reach that point without government interference. Paint me a scenario of how it will weaken or destroy us.

[Phatmax]

I don't believe it can reach that point without government interference. Paint me a scenario of how it will weaken or destroy us.

I think he is confusing an open market system, in which anyone who really has a good idea and works hard can succeed and create wealth; to a system that has an Oligarchy, in which a small group of elites control the means of production / regulation and end up stealing the wealth from the people.

ETA: Which is where we are now headed with extreme rapidity.

[impalanar]

What's your definition of a millionaire? $1 million in net worth? Yep, there's lot of those.

What is your definition of a millionaire?

[TarzanMan]

1: We have not had laissez faire in the US in decades, if truely ever.
I don't think you understand what laissez faire means. It basically means "hands off" (which is very similar to its meaning within the context of macroeconomics, but not what I was referring to in my statement). What I was referring to was a government willfully deciding to NOT act to address an distribution of wealth spiraling out of control.

I ignored the rest of the trickle-down-theoronomics in your post because you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying?

[Hammerhead]

What I was referring to was a government willfully deciding to NOT act to address an distribution of wealth spiraling out of control.



It's not the government's place. Are you that dense?

[TarzanMan]

Ah, recursion (http://www.georgiasportbike.com/showthread.php?944-Nah-No-Socialism-Here&p=10242&viewfull=1#post10242)

I don't know... can you keep anything in memory for more than 3 minutes?

[Phatmax]

Ah, recursion (http://www.georgiasportbike.com/showthread.php?944-Nah-No-Socialism-Here&p=10242&viewfull=1#post10242)

I don't know... can you keep anything in memory for more than 3 minutes?

I have begun to remember that every time you start to lose control of a thread or lose an arguement, you become very derisive, childish and mocking. I kind of remember why I also left this board for so long.

[TarzanMan]

Or... I get tired when people ask questions or raise points that were already addressed.

[Wheedle]

I think that a large portion of the income disparity has it's root in fraud and abuse in the financial sector. If the government would actually perform it's legitimate functions and regulate fraud and abuse the disparity would to a large extent police itself.


I think he is confusing an open market system, in which anyone who really has a good idea and works hard can succeed and create wealth; to a system that has an Oligarchy, in which a small group of elites control the means of production / regulation and end up stealing the wealth from the people.

ETA: Which is where we are now headed with extreme rapidity.

I think that these two pretty much said it...

[TarzanMan]

I guess. Reminds me of the saying that "if all men were angels, no government would be necessary" (or something to that effect).

..So, what do you do in the real world where copyright is 120 years and corporations avoid paying their taxes?

[impalanar]

I think that a large portion of the income disparity has it's root in fraud and abuse in the financial sector. If the government would actually perform it's legitimate functions and regulate fraud and abuse the disparity would to a large extent police itself.

I think a large portion of the income disparity has it's roots in work ethic, self control and natural ability.

[Butthead]

corporations don't pay taxes.


I guess. Reminds me of the saying that "if all men were angels, no government would be necessary" (or something to that effect).

..So, what do you do in the real world where copyright is 120 years and corporations avoid paying their taxes?

[TarzanMan]

Seeing as how the money I give a corporation becomes their property, they most certainly DO pay taxes (at least they should).

They set prices based on a supply demand/market environment and lower costs do not auto-magically become lower prices for the customer. Only in a 'perfect' market do such elasticities exist and most large corporations get that way because they don't have to compete in perfect markets.

I've heard the argument (I am pretty sure that) you're about to make, and its weak. Comcast doesn't lower my basic cable rate after Motorola refines the manufacturing process for cable boxes (or benefits from economy of scale). They charge the same price and pocket the savings (and then dont' pay taxes on it).

Similarly, if motorola charges them more for cable boxes, Comcast only raises the price as much as they dare before they lose me as a customer.

[Dan43]

I don't think you understand what laissez faire means. It basically means "hands off" (which is very similar to its meaning within the context of macroeconomics, but not what I was referring to in my statement). What I was referring to was a government willfully deciding to NOT act to address an distribution of wealth spiraling out of control.

I ignored the rest of the trickle-down-theoronomics in your post because you seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying?Please show me ANYTHING in the Constitution or in the writings of the men who wrote the Constitution that says the government is supposed to control the distrubution of wealth.

[Dan43]

Or... I get tired when people ask questions or raise points that were already addressed.You have not addressed any of the points that have raised. You just keep repeating yourself and insulting people.

[Dan43]

I think a large portion of the income disparity has it's roots in work ethic, self control and natural ability.I think the outsized disparity between the average worker (I am not really worried about disparity with people who don't have the drive to work) and the upper income levels we are seeing have more to do with people in the financial markets and the board rooms abusing their positions and the system.

[BUD]

I have begun to remember that every time you start to lose control of a thread or lose an arguement, you become very derisive, childish and mocking. I kind of remember why I also left this board for so long.

Sal Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." They know they can't win the argument so they have to resort to attacking the messenger. Liberalism/Socialism/Marxism can't be defended on its merits because there are none.

[BUD]

Seeing as how the money I give a corporation becomes their property, they most certainly DO pay taxes (at least they should).

They set prices based on a supply demand/market environment and lower costs do not auto-magically become lower prices for the customer. Only in a 'perfect' market do such elasticities exist and most large corporations get that way because they don't have to compete in perfect markets.

I've heard the argument (I am pretty sure that) you're about to make, and its weak. Comcast doesn't lower my basic cable rate after Motorola refines the manufacturing process for cable boxes (or benefits from economy of scale). They charge the same price and pocket the savings (and then dont' pay taxes on it).

Similarly, if motorola charges them more for cable boxes, Comcast only raises the price as much as they dare before they lose me as a customer.So start a cable company and compete with them and charge less. It's called competition and a free market system. It's not the government's job to tell someone how much profit they can make. Price controls do not work.

[ogle-z]

"...to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare..." Not: "provide for the general welfare" or "the individual welfare".

[Wheedle]

So start a cable company and compete with them and charge less. It's called competition and a free market system. It's not the government's job to tell someone how much profit they can make. Price controls do not work.

Uhm... all the signal goes over the same cable, and its a regulated business, so the local governments do have a hand in who can start a cable company.

[wallypiper]

Right. Cable companies are a bad example because the nature of cable forces at least local governments to choose a provider for a given area and, more or less, regulate them.

Corporations don't pay taxes. Liberals seem to have the hardest time with this.

[BUD]

Right. Cable companies are a bad example because the nature of cable forces at least local governments to choose a provider for a given area and, more or less, regulate them.

Corporations don't pay taxes. Liberals seem to have the hardest time with this.I should have said satellite company. There is still a measure of competition even though not as pure.

[Butthead]

tarzan is partially correct. a monopoly could keep the incremental revenues that would accrue to them if the corporate taxes were
eleminated. but the monopoly sets the price anyway, so it is really a moot point. 99% of what you spend with corporations
are competitive companies with elastic demand curves. clothing, cars, gas, food, entertainment, etc.


I should have said satellite company. There is still a measure of competition even though not as pure.

[BUD]

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. James Madison.
http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/government/quotes

[BUD]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/25/dem_senator_health_legislation_will_address_the_ma l-distribution_of_income_in_america.html

Sen. Max Baucus (D): "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

"Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God." -Walter E Williams

http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/government/quotes

[Butthead]

i love walter williams.


"Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that's exactly what thieves do -- redistribute income. Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God." -Walter E Williams

http://www.quotationcollection.com/tag/government/quotes

[Jector]

Alright. Humor me. How uneven should you let the distribution of wealth get before the govt should take action?

Or do you think that the govt shouldn't do anything on principle?

Seriously? Short of correcting illegal actions, how can you possibly believe that it's a good idea to take wealth from those who earn it and give it to those who don't?

If you pay people to be poor you will never run out of poor people.

[impalanar]

If you pay people to be poor you will never run out of poor people.

That is signature material right there.

[BUD]

That is signature material right there.

+1 No Doubt!

[Jector]

Bump for an explanation as to how giving productive people's wealth to non-productive people will do anything more than squelch productivity. Apparently this is something a high-schooler can understand so I'm certain it can be covered here.

[impalanar]

Bump for an explanation as to how giving productive people's wealth to non-productive people will do anything more than squelch productivity. Apparently this is something a high-schooler can understand so I'm certain it can be covered here.

Nobody is disagreeing with you. In fact, I agree with you so much I was considering quoting you in my signature to preserve the moment for future generations.

Unless you were talking to somebody else and then, carry on.

[Jector]

There was as certain someone who thought the government "redistributing wealth" was a good idea. That it was obviously a good idea. I was hoping for something substantial for why it's a good idea instead of "you're a doodyhead". I guess we'll see.

[Jector]

Still no explanation from TarzanMan. Defend your position, sir, or be seen for what you are.

[Karl Hungus]

What is your definition of a millionaire?

Sorry, just saw this. Yes, I guess $1 million in net worth is my definition. But that's a whole lot different sort of wealth today than it was in 1955, for example. It doesn't adjust for inflation, so it's a lot easier to reach today.

[wallypiper]

Inflation since 1955 is 800%. $1 mil today was only $124 K in 1955. Of course most people on here don't remember 1955, including me since I was born in 57. Since '75, though, 400% so a mil today was $250 K in 1975.

[impalanar]

Sorry, just saw this. Yes, I guess $1 million in net worth is my definition. But that's a whole lot different sort of wealth today than it was in 1955, for example. It doesn't adjust for inflation, so it's a lot easier to reach today.

No doubt, it is like the difference between being rich and being wealthy.

[02ep3]

There was as certain someone who thought the government "redistributing wealth" was a good idea. That it was obviously a good idea. I was hoping for something substantial for why it's a good idea instead of "you're a doodyhead". I guess we'll see.

I'll take up the mantle. Preface: this is a rumination i've been having lately. Take it for what it's worth...

It seems that communist ideas take root best during times when there is the grossest disparity in wealth between the have's and have nots and when the government is seen as a tool of the have's to continue to supress the have-nots. If i think back to the 19th century when Marx and Engles pitched their manifesto, the US had exactly that: a gross disparity of wealth and the government very much acted on behalf of the have's (industrialist, robber barons, whatnot). At that time, there was a great amount of discontent, strikes, and revolt of the working class. It was in this population where Communist ideas are sewn and can be expected to germinate.

So here we are today. We can see that the middle class over the last decade had not made much progress in the ways of increased wealth. On the other hand, the upper ecelons have done quite well. Some years ago bankruptcy laws were significantly tightened which is at least one example of Goverment acting most on behalf of business interests. Are we on a track to create an environment in which communist ideas could once again take hold?

I certainly hope not. I'm not for "redistributing wealth." What I am for is creating a society in which the average joe and the big guy can both flourish. Sometimes this means putting a greater burden on the bigger guy because, for quite some time, the big guy has had much more influence and has structured things in such a way so that he can disproportionately benefit. We do this to PREVENT communist ideas. We do this because it is American to give all equal treament under the law so that we all might each have the ability to pursue happiness with fervour.

It's just a thought. So bring on the flames if you have them...

[Butthead]

could you just admit that you are a socialist, so the rest of us could quit wasting the time and effort to argue with you?


I'll take up the mantle. Preface: this is a rumination i've been having lately. Take it for what it's worth...

It seems that communist ideas take root best during times when there is the grossest disparity in wealth between the have's and have nots and when the government is seen as a tool of the have's to continue to supress the have-nots. If i think back to the 19th century when Marx and Engles pitched their manifesto, the US had exactly that: a gross disparity of wealth and the government very much acted on behalf of the have's (industrialist, robber barons, whatnot). At that time, there was a great amount of discontent, strikes, and revolt of the working class. It was in this population where Communist ideas are sewn and can be expected to germinate.

So here we are today. We can see that the middle class over the last decade had not made much progress in the ways of increased wealth. On the other hand, the upper ecelons have done quite well. Some years ago bankruptcy laws were significantly tightened which is at least one example of Goverment acting most on behalf of business interests. Are we on a track to create an environment in which communist ideas could once again take hold?

I certainly hope not. I'm not for "redistributing wealth." What I am for is creating a society in which the average joe and the big guy can both flourish. Sometimes this means putting a greater burden on the bigger guy because, for quite some time, the big guy has had much more influence and has structured things in such a way so that he can disproportionately benefit. We do this to PREVENT communist ideas. We do this because it is American to give all equal treament under the law so that we all might each have the ability to pursue happiness with fervour.

It's just a thought. So bring on the flames if you have them...

[Hammerhead]

I certainly hope not. I'm not for "redistributing wealth." What I am for is creating a society in which the average joe and the big guy can both flourish. Sometimes this means putting a greater burden on the bigger guy because, for quite some time, the big guy has had much more influence and has structured things in such a way so that he can disproportionately benefit. We do this to PREVENT communist ideas. We do this because it is American to give all equal treament under the law so that we all might each have the ability to pursue happiness with fervour.



Dude...this whole paragraph is a communist idea.

[Phatmax]

could you just admit that you are a socialist, so the rest of us could quit wasting the time and effort to argue with you?

Dyed in the wool...

[Phatmax]

Dude...this whole paragraph is a communist idea.

Right out of the Manifesto.

Funny thing, that whole Constitution thing gives the average Joe has the SAME vote as the big guy. Big guys buying the votes of politicians, is, always has been and always will be WRONG. If your rep DOES get his vote bought, either by other polticians (healthcare votes) or through illegal gifts from groups or people, they should be kicked out or voted out. THAT is equal treatment under the law.

Get INVOLVED with the system, quit trying to tear it down without trying to fix it through elections first.

Of course for CERTAIN people, they somehow trust the most corrupt group of people ever to be in power more then themselves.

[02ep3]

Right out of the Manifesto.

Funny thing, that whole Constitution thing gives the average Joe has the SAME vote as the big guy. Big guys buying the votes of politicians, is, always has been and always will be WRONG. If your rep DOES get his vote bought, either by other polticians (healthcare votes) or through illegal gifts from groups or people, they should be kicked out or voted out. THAT is equal treatment under the law.

Get INVOLVED with the system, quit trying to tear it down without trying to fix it through elections first.

Of course for CERTAIN people, they somehow trust the most corrupt group of people ever to be in power more then themselves.

Pfftt.... now who is being an idealist? I understand that each person gets one vote. But do you REALLY believe that those with influence have not used government to enrich themselves? I thought you guys hated government because it was capable of such things?

I'm not a communist. And though you all just reply with quips, you have not yet responded to the substance of what I have to say. To reduce the likelyhood of communist ideas taking root, we must reduce class conflict (that's where communisum comes from). To do that, in an american way, we must strive to --in action, not just words on the constitution-- protect the interest equally of those with influence and those without. Commonly, those with influence are the affluent and big business. I can see why simply invoking those terms you'd like to ring the red alarm. But maybe, just for once, wipe the foam pouring out of your mouth, uncock the gun, and have a little discussion.

[02ep3]

could you just admit that you are a socialist, so the rest of us could quit wasting the time and effort to argue with you?

You've all used that term "socialist" so much it's hard to comprehend what that even means anymore. I'll just take it for what it is, slander against anyone who disagrees with you. Instead of using "socialist" you might as well use a term more beffiting to you, "ka-ka poopy head." At least then you won't sound so smug.

[Phatmax]

Pfftt.... now who is being an idealist? I understand that each person gets one vote. But do you REALLY believe that those with influence have not used government to enrich themselves? I thought you guys hated government because it was capable of such things?

I'm not a communist. And though you all just reply with quips, you have not yet responded to the substance of what I have to say. To reduce the likelyhood of communist ideas taking root, we must reduce class conflict (that's where communisum comes from). To do that, in an american way, we must strive to --in action, not just words on the constitution-- protect the interest equally of those with influence and those without. Commonly, those with influence are the affluent and big business. I can see why simply invoking those terms you'd like to ring the red alarm. But maybe, just for once, wipe the foam pouring out of your mouth, uncock the gun, and have a little discussion.

1: BWAHAHAhAHAH.. "reduce class conflict".... Ok, tell politicians to stop PLAYING the "Class conflict" card.

2: Big business and business in general actually EMPLOY people of all different classes, it is up to the PEOPLE to rise to the level to which a company will value them as an employee. *ETA or start you own business without massive government red tape to become rich yourself.

3: That is still a bunch of commie claptrap. Your comments REEK of class envy and jealousy masked as altruistic "care" for the poor.

[Phatmax]

Pfftt.... now who is being an idealist? I understand that each person gets one vote. [B][I][U][COLOR="red"] But do you REALLY believe that those with influence have not used government to enrich themselves? I thought you guys hated government because it was capable of such things?


Did you even read this part?

If your rep DOES get his vote bought, either by other polticians (healthcare votes) or through illegal gifts from groups or people, they should be kicked out or voted out. THAT is equal treatment under the law.

[Butthead]

what a joke. you started your sermon with i don't believe in the "redistribution of wealth" and then you went on to say why you support just that. there is always going to be class envy unless you make everyone exactly equal (communism). so you can say all day you are not a socialist, but your words prove otherwise.


You've all used that term "socialist" so much it's hard to comprehend what that even means anymore. I'll just take it for what it is, slander against anyone who disagrees with you. Instead of using "socialist" you might as well use a term more beffiting to you, "ka-ka poopy head." At least then you won't sound so smug.

[02ep3]

1: BWAHAHAhAHAH.. "reduce class conflict".... Ok, tell politicians to stop PLAYING the "Class conflict" card.
That's my point exactly. Class conflict can be used by those whose ideaology you disagree with to further that ideaology. A prerequisite of our way of life (the american dream) is that it be free of class conflict. So why do you disagree with this? We can disagree on the means to acheive a reduction in class conflict.



2: Big business and business in general actually EMPLOY people of all different classes, it is up to the PEOPLE to rise to the level to which a company will value them as an employee. *ETA or start you own business without massive government red tape to become rich yourself.

There are businesses in communist states too, you realize this? Businesses in communist states actually employ people too. but that doesn't itself reduce communisim or communist feelings. There were privately held businesses in communist states before they were nationalized. So what's your point? It's neither here nor there. Your statement "...people to rise..." We can talk about this a bit. Take a person who is otherwise, perfectly able. If he is unable to rise through mechanism of goverment or society, that is what creates class conflict (helloooo Marx and Engles). I think our country here does a pretty damn good job of making sure this doesn't happen. But that is not to say we're perfect.




3: That is still a bunch of commie claptrap. Your comments REEK of class envy and jealousy masked as altruistic "care" for the poor.



This is without substance of any kind and deserves no response.

[Phatmax]

A prerequisite of our way of life (the american dream) is that it be free of class conflict. So why do you disagree with this?




Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Our way of life is that you can try to become rich, successful and happy all you want. If you fail, too bad and it is not up to the successful ones to support your ass.

There is NOTHING in ay founding document that has anything to do with freedom from "class conflict", unless you think that the Communist Manifesto is a founding American document.

[02ep3]

what a joke. you started your sermon with i don't believe in the "redistribution of wealth" and then you went on to say why you support just that. there is always going to be class envy unless you make everyone exactly equal (communism). so you can say all day you are not a socialist, but your words prove otherwise.

I never said eliminate. I said reduce. Which is important. I don't subscribe to the ideal that we can create a utopian society where we are all perfectly equal. All i said is that we should work so that those with influence cannot exploit those without, creating a exceissive amount of class conflict, thereby increasing the likelihood of truly-communist ideas to take hold.

And I never proposed any mechansim for "reducing class conflict."

You know, talking about these things in an adult way doesn't make you a communist. It's not like saying "Voldermort." He won't hear you.

[Phatmax]

You know, talking about these things in an adult way doesn't make you a communist. It's not like saying "Voldermort." He won't hear you.


Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

[02ep3]

Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

Our way of life is that you can try to become rich, successful and happy all you want. If you fail, too bad and it is not up to the successful ones to support your ass.

There is NOTHING in ay founding document that has anything to do with freedom from "class conflict", unless you think that the Communist Manifesto is a founding American document.

There's more to our way of life than pieces of paper you know. those pieces of paper don't exist in a vaccumm. And if you look out your window or open a history book, you'll see that there has been episodes of and exists today, class conflict. That will always be there. The point is to make sure it doesn't boil over.

The concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is ITSELF a statement that we should be a society which --in concept-- is free of class conflict... we all have an equal shot. That is what I'm for! My point is that we can't let things pervert this concept when it is brought to action in the real world.

I'm sorry I use scary terms. But if you just take a step back, you'll see that what i'm saying is not so scary.

[Phatmax]

I'm sorry I use scary terms. But if you just take a step back, you'll see that what i'm saying is not so scary.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Your tactics of "discussion and debate" are getting quite trite and tired.

[02ep3]

Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Give me a break!! What, laughing at my comments. Saying the REEK of envy and jealousy is not ridicule? We can go on and on and on. And Butthead calling me a soclialist, a barry nut-hugger, or any number of other things is ridicule. Puuuuh-leeaase. If you're going to play rough in here, you need to be ready to take it instead of whinning.

[Phatmax]

Give me a break!! What, laughing at my comments. Saying the REEK of envy and jealousy is not ridicule? We can go on and on and on. And Butthead calling me a soclialist, a barry nut-hugger, or any number of other things is ridicule. Puuuuh-leeaase. If you're going to play rough in here, you need to be ready to take it instead of whinning.


Sigh. That is not ridicule, that is pointing out a subtext of your comments being permeated with your envy.

Mocking Butthead's "adult-hood" and inferring that I am "afraid of what you are saying" is ridicule.

[Hammerhead]

That will always be there. The point is to make sure it doesn't boil over.



It's not a function of government to make sure class envy "doesn't boil over".

[02ep3]

Sigh. That is not ridicule, that is pointing out a subtext of your comments being permeated with your envy.

Mocking Butthead's "adult-hood" and inferring that I am "afraid of what you are saying" is ridicule.

Ok. Then allow me to not ridicule you and simply "point out" that you are being myopic with your inability to read into the subtext of yours, butthead, or many other's comments.

[Dan43]

Get INVOLVED with the system, quit trying to tear it down without trying to fix it through elections first.
The system has been too corrupted to fix it through elections. The government needs to be controlled by people who will govern according to the Constitution rather than governing as if the Constitution is an obstacle to be gotten around.

[jkhonea]

The system has been too corrupted to fix it through elections. The government needs to be controlled by people who will govern according to the Constitution rather than governing as if the Constitution is an obstacle to gotten around.

:yeathat:

[02ep3]

It's not a function of government to make sure class envy "doesn't boil over".

Here's the logic of my thought, i think it will show you that it should be the duty of our gov't to make sure there isn't excessive class conflict (not sure what class envy really means)

Communism takes root in times of excessive class conflict
Communisim is against our own idealogy
our government should create an environment which supports our idealogy
Therefore our goverment should prevent excessive class conflict.

In other words. I'd say our gov't should prevent the spread of communism. Therefore, it should prevent one of the causes of communisim.

[Hammerhead]

Here's the logic of my thought, i think it will show you that it should be the duty of our gov't to make sure there isn't excessive class conflict (not sure what class envy really means)



Exactly how do you propose the govt. do this?

[Phatmax]

The system has been too corrupted to fix it through elections. The government needs to be controlled by people who will govern according to the Constitution rather than governing as if the Constitution is an obstacle to be gotten around.


November 2010 is either going to be a watershed event or the death knell for this country. The best we can do is work as hard as possible to make it a positive result for freedom and liberty, while at the same time girding our loins for the negative result.

Past 11/2010, we may be reset to 1775.

[Jector]

Exactly how do you propose the govt. do this?

Apparently by making things even and fair, thus reducing friction. You make things fair by giving those who have less, more and those who have more, less. Everybody wins, right?

[BUD]

The political party in charge has made increasing class conflict its primary tool, and they are the closest to socialism. The opportunity should be equal, not the outcome. Don't reward slackers by punishing achievers.