Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:08 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 542 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
The argument was over before it started. Tweedle-douche lost that one a long time ago. Now he's just lashing out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 11:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 4:29 pm
Posts: 1678
Location: south midlands, UK
Philostopher wrote:
You could solve every problem in the world, and Disco Boy/Spacebrother would argue it to their deaths. :roll:

This forum has been a GREAT place since those two pricks went on my ignore list.
TT

_________________
and I know, I think
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
unclemeat69 wrote:


There are SO many inaccuracies in that article, that I don't even know where to begin... :roll:

tweedle-dumb wrote:
The argument was over before it started. Tweedle-douche lost that one a long time ago. Now he's just lashing out.


ROTF! :mrgreen:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33 am
Posts: 3566
excellent synopsis of the theories for survival of the capitalist system:::

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -cronyism/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Going backwards in Australia right now. Apparently the only thing wrong with Capitalism at the moment is a Nanny State that has produced a class of people that don't want to work and all we have to do is get them off their arses and all will be well, hence they're busy trying to USAify our health and welfare system. What kind of sad sack actually believes that sick fantasy?

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3544
polydigm wrote:
Going backwards in Australia right now. Apparently the only thing wrong with Capitalism at the moment is a Nanny State that has produced a class of people that don't want to work and all we have to do is get them off their arses and all will be well, hence they're busy trying to USAify our health and welfare system. What kind of sad sack actually believes that sick fantasy?





I agree we have the same problem . This explains most of our troublehttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftatler%2F2014%2F10%2F07%2Fbook-review-crapitalism-liberals-who-make-millions-swiping-your-tax-dollars%2F&ei=lDA1VI67HsekyASZlIHgCw&v6u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-v6exp1-ds.metric.gstatic.com%2Fgen_204%3Fip%3D208.107.141.57%26ts%3D1412771988816917%26auth%3Dy7pxngq63elw4yrr5xj6epgzqgi3qvug%26rndm%3D0.680975532335139&v6s=2&v6t=33533&usg=AFQjCNGhrpgnA1XKkj2_TxiRmZnUIgq1tg&bvm=bv.76943099,d.aWw&cad=rja

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 5813
Location: A holographic construct outside of linear time
Disco Boy wrote:
Most of you lefties here (especially polydigm, since he doesn't even know the definition of the word "capital") don't even understand what Capitalism is, not to mention that many countries you think are Capitalist economies (the US hasn't been one since 1929) technically aren't but are actually Mixed Economies (a mixture of Socialism/Capitalism policies) - which is part of the problem and is one of the primary reasons why the Housing Bubble Crisis happened. Too many people throw Capitalism in the same pile as Mixed Economies, Corporatism, Imperialism and/or the Military Industrial Complex, which currently have a stranglehold on Capitalism. But they are NOT the same thing. And it's important people realize this.

As long as its allowed to fully function and despite there admittedly being some problems embedded within it, Capitalism works fine and always has. History PROVES this. The Industrial Revolution, the Roaring Twenties, Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s and more recently with Chile, are the best examples. The massive amount of technological developments, innovations, productivity and jobs created in the marketplace would NOT have occurred without Capitalism. Time and time again, Socialism/Communism has FAILED and FAILED HARD. But whenever countries introduce Capitalism principles to their economic systems, they see immediate economic booms. China & Russia are the best recent examples of this.

So please stop acting like you actually know what you're talking about. You're severely embarrassing yourselves.

I can assure you, if Frank were still alive and read this thread, he'd be laughing his ass off...


So are you suggesting that we should return to the laissez faire capitalism that many academics will tell you led to both world wars? There is no doubt that unfettered capitalism led to the great depression and before this, it was the cause of abject poverty, miserable working conditions and low life expectancy for the vast majority of the industrialised world's population.

With regards to communism, communism as defined by Marx has NEVER been put into practice anywhere in the world. What you are calling communism is actually Leninism - Marx said it was impossible for communism to emerge unless a country had went through an industrial revolution, Russia never went through this, but Lenin bastardised his ideas and changed this to a peasant revolution. Most of what we consider as communism today had nothing to do with communism at all and even a cursory reading of genuine communist theorists makes this obvious.

The reason the western world decided on a mixed economy as you term it was to combat the hugely asymmetrical disparities in wealth in the industrialised world as they recognised that such wealth inequality leads to war and they had the proof too. This revisionist, neocon 'thinking' that we need pure capitalism is essentially a veiled attempt to return the poor to victorian standards while the rich lord it up in their isolated communities.

The idea that capitalism in its pure form is somehow the answer to the problems we face is nothing short of absolute bullshit and like you advise others' above, perhaps you should furnish yourself with a greater understanding of capital, how it works and the historical scars it left on the world before preaching to others.

The industrial revolution was great for the captains of industry, but it condemned children to lives of misery - short lives of misery. Yes, the industrial revolution changed the world, but to argue that it was for the greater good is absolute bollocks when 80% of the world's population still live in abject poverty today. Capitalism essentially makes a small proportion well off while the rest of the world pays the price for it.

Capitalism manufactures scarcity to perpetuate itself, without this mechanism, the whole system would die on it's arse. Likewise, capitalism also needs state help to continue otherwise it would again, die on its arse. The reason it will die on its arse without intervention is because money/wealth has a habit of accumulating in fewer and fewer hands as the more money you have, the more power you get and ultimately with more power comes more access to wealth. This creates an asymmetry that cannot be sustained in a finite world and it then forces those with the wealth and power to drive down wages and standards of living so they can maintain their own profits. However, there is always a breaking point to such systems as continual growth is impossible (regardless of what neoliberals and neocons tell you) and as such, again, it will die on its arse.

The fact you use China and Russia as shining examples of how the injection of capitalism is good for a country is beyond parody :mrgreen:

You quite patently don't actually understand capitalism or the implications of it yourself beyond some rudimentary tea party veneer of free market bullshit. So perhaps you should take your own advice and go read some books on it.

Zappa was a small c conservative, conservatives traditionally were against the free market and capitalism as they feared it would upset the status quo and shift the balance of power to those with the new money. Capitalism emerged from the liberals, not conservatives as they wanted access to power that the feudal system did not allow.

_________________
Solipsism
Solar Culture
Solipsism Tumblr
Shitface
Shitface Music Page


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Most of you lefties here (especially polydigm, since he doesn't even know the definition of the word "capital") don't even understand what Capitalism is, not to mention that many countries you think are Capitalist economies (the US hasn't been one since 1929) technically aren't but are actually Mixed Economies (a mixture of Socialism/Capitalism policies) - which is part of the problem and is one of the primary reasons why the Housing Bubble Crisis happened. Too many people throw Capitalism in the same pile as Mixed Economies, Corporatism, Imperialism and/or the Military Industrial Complex, which currently have a stranglehold on Capitalism. But they are NOT the same thing. And it's important people realize this.

As long as its allowed to fully function and despite there admittedly being some problems embedded within it, Capitalism works fine and always has. History PROVES this. The Industrial Revolution, the Roaring Twenties, Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s and more recently with Chile, are the best examples. The massive amount of technological developments, innovations, productivity and jobs created in the marketplace would NOT have occurred without Capitalism. Time and time again, Socialism/Communism has FAILED and FAILED HARD. But whenever countries introduce Capitalism principles to their economic systems, they see immediate economic booms. China & Russia are the best recent examples of this.

So please stop acting like you actually know what you're talking about. You're severely embarrassing yourselves.

I can assure you, if Frank were still alive and read this thread, he'd be laughing his ass off...


So are you suggesting that we should return to the laissez faire capitalism that many academics will tell you led to both world wars? There is no doubt that unfettered capitalism led to the great depression and before this, it was the cause of abject poverty, miserable working conditions and low life expectancy for the vast majority of the industrialised world's population.

With regards to communism, communism as defined by Marx has NEVER been put into practice anywhere in the world. What you are calling communism is actually Leninism - Marx said it was impossible for communism to emerge unless a country had went through an industrial revolution, Russia never went through this, but Lenin bastardised his ideas and changed this to a peasant revolution. Most of what we consider as communism today had nothing to do with communism at all and even a cursory reading of genuine communist theorists makes this obvious.

The reason the western world decided on a mixed economy as you term it was to combat the hugely asymmetrical disparities in wealth in the industrialised world as they recognised that such wealth inequality leads to war and they had the proof too. This revisionist, neocon 'thinking' that we need pure capitalism is essentially a veiled attempt to return the poor to victorian standards while the rich lord it up in their isolated communities.

The idea that capitalism in its pure form is somehow the answer to the problems we face is nothing short of absolute bullshit and like you advise others' above, perhaps you should furnish yourself with a greater understanding of capital, how it works and the historical scars it left on the world before preaching to others.

The industrial revolution was great for the captains of industry, but it condemned children to lives of misery - short lives of misery. Yes, the industrial revolution changed the world, but to argue that it was for the greater good is absolute bollocks when 80% of the world's population still live in abject poverty today. Capitalism essentially makes a small proportion well off while the rest of the world pays the price for it.

Capitalism manufactures scarcity to perpetuate itself, without this mechanism, the whole system would die on it's arse. Likewise, capitalism also needs state help to continue otherwise it would again, die on its arse. The reason it will die on its arse without intervention is because money/wealth has a habit of accumulating in fewer and fewer hands as the more money you have, the more power you get and ultimately with more power comes more access to wealth. This creates an asymmetry that cannot be sustained in a finite world and it then forces those with the wealth and power to drive down wages and standards of living so they can maintain their own profits. However, there is always a breaking point to such systems as continual growth is impossible (regardless of what neoliberals and neocons tell you) and as such, again, it will die on its arse.

The fact you use China and Russia as shining examples of how the injection of capitalism is good for a country is beyond parody :mrgreen:

You quite patently don't actually understand capitalism or the implications of it yourself beyond some rudimentary tea party veneer of free market bullshit. So perhaps you should take your own advice and go read some books on it.

Zappa was a small c conservative, conservatives traditionally were against the free market and capitalism as they feared it would upset the status quo and shift the balance of power to those with the new money. Capitalism emerged from the liberals, not conservatives as they wanted access to power that the feudal system did not allow.


Wow. I don't agree with ANYTHING you stated above. Not even one sentence.

No, I don't feel there should be a total laissez-faire market economy established. But I do feel that a mostly free market economy would work well.

You might want to try actually reading this thread...thoroughly. I don't want to spend an entire hour discrediting each and every one one of your statements above (and I could quite easily) because I've explicitly examined why what I've stated is correct. And so far, to this day no one here has challenged me successfully on these points overall. Though, Caputh (God bless him, if there is one) tried and he did wind up making a few good points...

Btw, most of Zappa's beliefs were Libertarian-based. Read The Real Frank Zappa Book and view the youtube link in my signature below for more info...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 10:50 am
Posts: 5813
Location: A holographic construct outside of linear time
Disco Boy wrote:
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Most of you lefties here (especially polydigm, since he doesn't even know the definition of the word "capital") don't even understand what Capitalism is, not to mention that many countries you think are Capitalist economies (the US hasn't been one since 1929) technically aren't but are actually Mixed Economies (a mixture of Socialism/Capitalism policies) - which is part of the problem and is one of the primary reasons why the Housing Bubble Crisis happened. Too many people throw Capitalism in the same pile as Mixed Economies, Corporatism, Imperialism and/or the Military Industrial Complex, which currently have a stranglehold on Capitalism. But they are NOT the same thing. And it's important people realize this.

As long as its allowed to fully function and despite there admittedly being some problems embedded within it, Capitalism works fine and always has. History PROVES this. The Industrial Revolution, the Roaring Twenties, Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid '20s and more recently with Chile, are the best examples. The massive amount of technological developments, innovations, productivity and jobs created in the marketplace would NOT have occurred without Capitalism. Time and time again, Socialism/Communism has FAILED and FAILED HARD. But whenever countries introduce Capitalism principles to their economic systems, they see immediate economic booms. China & Russia are the best recent examples of this.

So please stop acting like you actually know what you're talking about. You're severely embarrassing yourselves.

I can assure you, if Frank were still alive and read this thread, he'd be laughing his ass off...


So are you suggesting that we should return to the laissez faire capitalism that many academics will tell you led to both world wars? There is no doubt that unfettered capitalism led to the great depression and before this, it was the cause of abject poverty, miserable working conditions and low life expectancy for the vast majority of the industrialised world's population.

With regards to communism, communism as defined by Marx has NEVER been put into practice anywhere in the world. What you are calling communism is actually Leninism - Marx said it was impossible for communism to emerge unless a country had went through an industrial revolution, Russia never went through this, but Lenin bastardised his ideas and changed this to a peasant revolution. Most of what we consider as communism today had nothing to do with communism at all and even a cursory reading of genuine communist theorists makes this obvious.

The reason the western world decided on a mixed economy as you term it was to combat the hugely asymmetrical disparities in wealth in the industrialised world as they recognised that such wealth inequality leads to war and they had the proof too. This revisionist, neocon 'thinking' that we need pure capitalism is essentially a veiled attempt to return the poor to victorian standards while the rich lord it up in their isolated communities.

The idea that capitalism in its pure form is somehow the answer to the problems we face is nothing short of absolute bullshit and like you advise others' above, perhaps you should furnish yourself with a greater understanding of capital, how it works and the historical scars it left on the world before preaching to others.

The industrial revolution was great for the captains of industry, but it condemned children to lives of misery - short lives of misery. Yes, the industrial revolution changed the world, but to argue that it was for the greater good is absolute bollocks when 80% of the world's population still live in abject poverty today. Capitalism essentially makes a small proportion well off while the rest of the world pays the price for it.

Capitalism manufactures scarcity to perpetuate itself, without this mechanism, the whole system would die on it's arse. Likewise, capitalism also needs state help to continue otherwise it would again, die on its arse. The reason it will die on its arse without intervention is because money/wealth has a habit of accumulating in fewer and fewer hands as the more money you have, the more power you get and ultimately with more power comes more access to wealth. This creates an asymmetry that cannot be sustained in a finite world and it then forces those with the wealth and power to drive down wages and standards of living so they can maintain their own profits. However, there is always a breaking point to such systems as continual growth is impossible (regardless of what neoliberals and neocons tell you) and as such, again, it will die on its arse.

The fact you use China and Russia as shining examples of how the injection of capitalism is good for a country is beyond parody :mrgreen:

You quite patently don't actually understand capitalism or the implications of it yourself beyond some rudimentary tea party veneer of free market bullshit. So perhaps you should take your own advice and go read some books on it.

Zappa was a small c conservative, conservatives traditionally were against the free market and capitalism as they feared it would upset the status quo and shift the balance of power to those with the new money. Capitalism emerged from the liberals, not conservatives as they wanted access to power that the feudal system did not allow.


Wow. I don't agree with ANYTHING you stated above. Not even one sentence.

No, I don't feel there should be total laissez-faire market economy. But I do feel that a mostly free market economy would work well.

You might want to try actually reading this thread...thoroughly. I don't want to spend an entire hour discrediting each and everyone one of your statements above (and I could quite easily) because I've explicitly examined why what I've stated is correct. And so far, to this day no one here has challenged me successfully on these points overall. Though, Caputh (God bless him, if there is one) tried and he did wind up making a few good points...

Btw, most of Zappa's beliefs were Libertarian-based. Read The Real Frank Zappa Book and view the youtube link in my signature below for more info...


I have read the threads and your posts on it and that's why I felt compelled to return to the forum and post on this because honestly, you are wrong.

Thanks for the advice, I have read Zappa's book (many times) and nothing in it tells me he is libertarian, certainly not by today's standards. Are you suggesting that Zappa, like Ron Paul for example would ban abortions and positive discrimination in the workplace?

I doubt you can discredit my statements, unless of course you mean by your own anecdotal evidence, which is no evidence at all. If you would like me to provide published academic literature to back up what I'm saying I will. Sorry, but youtube videos don't really count as 'evidence'!

_________________
Solipsism
Solar Culture
Solipsism Tumblr
Shitface
Shitface Music Page


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 09, 2014 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
I have read the threads and your posts on it and that's why I felt compelled to return to the forum and post on this because honestly, you are wrong.

Thanks for the advice, I have read Zappa's book (many times) and nothing in it tells me he is libertarian, certainly not by today's standards. Are you suggesting that Zappa, like Ron Paul for example would ban abortions and positive discrimination in the workplace?

I doubt you can discredit my statements, unless of course you mean by your own anecdotal evidence, which is no evidence at all. If you would like me to provide published academic literature to back up what I'm saying I will. Sorry, but youtube videos don't really count as 'evidence'!


I'm not wrong at all. In fact, if you've read this thread entirely and the other related ones, I've already discredited your above statements in one form or another.

I don't think you're very familiar (if at all) with the Libertarian platform, for a number of reasons, especially since you think Ron Paul wants to ban abortion. He doesn't. According to his personal religious beliefs, he's against it. But as a Libertarian, he wants it voted on at the state level. FZ wanted to abolish the income tax, reduce the size of Government, legalize ALL drugs, etc., etc., etc. These are Libertarian principles. Again, most of FZ's beliefs were Libertarian-based, as evidenced by The Real Frank Zappa Book and the youtube clip in my sig below. This is NOT debatable.

You mean you'll post left-wing bias literature by people who not only know little to nothing about basic laws of supply & demand, how markets work or anything but Keynesian economics? Sure, go right ahead...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Hi CS! Good to see you back!

I nodded my head when I read the following...
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
With regards to communism, communism as defined by Marx has NEVER been put into practice anywhere in the world. What you are calling communism is actually Leninism - Marx said it was impossible for communism to emerge unless a country had went through an industrial revolution, Russia never went through this, but Lenin bastardised his ideas and changed this to a peasant revolution. Most of what we consider as communism today had nothing to do with communism at all and even a cursory reading of genuine communist theorists makes this obvious.


... as it had always been my impression from reading Marx that he opposed the idea of a communist revolution in states that had not undergone an industrial revolution/the capitalist system and that therefore he was particularly against a revolution in Russia. However, in searching for an appropriate quote by Marx, I found reference made to the following letter, written in 1881 by Marx to Vera Zasulich.
As Daniel Little puts it:
"Marx argues that a socialism in Russia was possible through an alternative pathway. A version of socialism in Russia based on the "archaic" commune can take advantage of the developments in technology and social organization created by advanced capitalism. It is not necessary for Russian society to go throughout the several-centuries long process of agricultural and technological modernization that England underwent; rather, Russia can simply adopt the modern technologies now available..."

He then quotes from the letter itself...
"Theoretically speaking, then, the Russian “rural commune” can preserve itself by developing its basis, the common ownership of land, and by eliminating the principle of private property which it also implies; it can become a direct point of departure for the economic system towards which modern society tends; it can turn over a new leaf without beginning by committing suicide; it can gain possession of the fruits with which capitalist production has enriched mankind, without passing through the capitalist regime, a regime which, considered solely from the point of view of its possible duration hardly counts in the life of society. But we must descend from pure theory to the Russian reality."

... and goes on to say:
There is a major irony in rereading Marx's analysis of the emancipatory possibilities inherent in the social form of the "peasant commune" in Russia. Most striking is the experience of the collectivization of Soviet agriculture in the 1920s and Stalin's war on the kulaks. Rather than representing a bright new future for the peasants, collectivization represented a cruel war by starvation against rural society."
http://understandingsociety.blogspot.de ... ussia.html

Altogether, I found this rather contradictory to the idea that Marx consistently opposed a revolution in countries that had not undergone an industrial revolution and/or capitalism. On the other hand, I am sure I have read somewhere that he previously did declare that he opposed a revolution in Russia, but can no longer remember where I read it. :oops:

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3544
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Going backwards in Australia right now. Apparently the only thing wrong with Capitalism at the moment is a Nanny State that has produced a class of people that don't want to work and all we have to do is get them off their arses and all will be well, hence they're busy trying to USAify our health and welfare system. What kind of sad sack actually believes that sick fantasy?





I agree we have the same problem . This explains most of our troublehttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftatler%2F2014%2F10%2F07%2Fbook-review-crapitalism-liberals-who-make-millions-swiping-your-tax-dollars%2F&ei=lDA1VI67HsekyASZlIHgCw&v6u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-v6exp1-ds.metric.gstatic.com%2Fgen_204%3Fip%3D208.107.141.57%26ts%3D1412771988816917%26auth%3Dy7pxngq63elw4yrr5xj6epgzqgi3qvug%26rndm%3D0.680975532335139&v6s=2&v6t=33533&usg=AFQjCNGhrpgnA1XKkj2_TxiRmZnUIgq1tg&bvm=bv.76943099,d.aWw&cad=rja




bump

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
BRAVO SIERRA wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Going backwards in Australia right now. Apparently the only thing wrong with Capitalism at the moment is a Nanny State that has produced a class of people that don't want to work and all we have to do is get them off their arses and all will be well, hence they're busy trying to USAify our health and welfare system. What kind of sad sack actually believes that sick fantasy?





I agree we have the same problem . This explains most of our troublehttp://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftatler%2F2014%2F10%2F07%2Fbook-review-crapitalism-liberals-who-make-millions-swiping-your-tax-dollars%2F&ei=lDA1VI67HsekyASZlIHgCw&v6u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-v6exp1-ds.metric.gstatic.com%2Fgen_204%3Fip%3D208.107.141.57%26ts%3D1412771988816917%26auth%3Dy7pxngq63elw4yrr5xj6epgzqgi3qvug%26rndm%3D0.680975532335139&v6s=2&v6t=33533&usg=AFQjCNGhrpgnA1XKkj2_TxiRmZnUIgq1tg&bvm=bv.76943099,d.aWw&cad=rja




bump


I kinda figured that very few people would like to talk about Marxism :wink:

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:11 am
Posts: 3544
Interesting article about crony capitalism. Fine line between that and marx

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4870
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
:lol: You're right, of course.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3212
Location: Between the Badges
And where is the Austrian School of Economics in all of this? hahaha

Welcome back TCS... good to see ya. Too bad DB weaseled out of your challenge. It would probably be better for him to just admit that his FZ = Libertarian misappropriation should go the way of his 5... 4... 3... 2... countdown, but of course, that won't happen. He'd rather continue to pretend until we have forgotten how funny it is and he switches it out for something else that he thinks is ridiculously important.

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
tweedle-douche wrote:
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
I have read the threads and your posts on it and that's why I felt compelled to return to the forum and post on this because honestly, you are wrong.

Thanks for the advice, I have read Zappa's book (many times) and nothing in it tells me he is libertarian, certainly not by today's standards. Are you suggesting that Zappa, like Ron Paul for example would ban abortions and positive discrimination in the workplace?

I doubt you can discredit my statements, unless of course you mean by your own anecdotal evidence, which is no evidence at all. If you would like me to provide published academic literature to back up what I'm saying I will. Sorry, but youtube videos don't really count as 'evidence'!


I'm not wrong at all. In fact, if you've read this thread entirely and the other related ones, I've already discredited your above statements in one form or another.

I don't think you're very familiar (if at all) with the Libertarian platform, for a number of reasons, especially since you think Ron Paul wants to ban abortion. He doesn't]...


In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade...”

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


Quote:
Ron Paul introduces three pro-life bills

H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.

H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.

H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.
-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person
H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

H.R.392: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html

Ron Paul's own statements on the matter, as well as his thoroughly documented voting record completely contradicts this bullshit claim.

As per usual, tweedle-douche gets it completely and utterly wrong, yet again...and again...and again...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
And where is the Austrian School of Economics in all of this? hahaha

Welcome back TCS... good to see ya. Too bad DB weaseled out of your challenge. It would probably be better for him to just admit that his FZ = Libertarian misappropriation should go the way of his 5... 4... 3... 2... countdown, but of course, that won't happen. He'd rather continue to pretend until we have forgotten how funny it is and he switches it out for something else that he thinks is ridiculously important.


This coming from someone I've tried to get to provide a compelling argument to the contrary regarding several arguments you've started, yet you refused and provided NOTHING.

The reason why I haven't gone into explicit detail about what TheCentralScrutinizer has summarized, is because I already have elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, I've been at this for 2 1/2 years. Maybe try reading the forum sometime. It helps. And anyway, wtf am I supposed to do, search through HUNDREDS of pages of the content in question, then cut and paste it here?! Do you know how fucking long that would take?! You've got quite the nerve to state the above, you know that?

Just about every one of TCS's points above has already been discredited.

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
TheCentralScrutinizer wrote:
I have read the threads and your posts on it and that's why I felt compelled to return to the forum and post on this because honestly, you are wrong.

Thanks for the advice, I have read Zappa's book (many times) and nothing in it tells me he is libertarian, certainly not by today's standards. Are you suggesting that Zappa, like Ron Paul for example would ban abortions and positive discrimination in the workplace?

I doubt you can discredit my statements, unless of course you mean by your own anecdotal evidence, which is no evidence at all. If you would like me to provide published academic literature to back up what I'm saying I will. Sorry, but youtube videos don't really count as 'evidence'!


I'm not wrong at all. In fact, if you've read this thread entirely and the other related ones, I've already discredited your above statements in one form or another.

I don't think you're very familiar (if at all) with the Libertarian platform, for a number of reasons, especially since you think Ron Paul wants to ban abortion. He doesn't]...


In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade...”

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/


Quote:
Ron Paul introduces three pro-life bills

H.R.1095: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.777: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.R.1548: To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.

H.AMDT.1003 (A024): Amendment no. 17 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit the use of funding for abortion, family planning, or population control efforts.

H.AMDT.380 (A022): An amendment no. 9 printed in the Congressional Record to prohibit funding for population control or population planning programs; family planning activities; or abortion procedures.

H.AMDT.312 (A011): An amendment, printed as amendment No. 32 in the Congressional Record of July 16, 1997, to prohibit the use of funds appropriated in the bill for Family Planning, birth control or abortion.

H.R.4984: A bill to prohibit the use of funds for the Peace Corps to be used for travel expenses of individuals in order for abortions to be performed on those individuals.
-- He wants to erase the distinction in U.S. law between a zygote and a person
H.R.2597: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

H.R.776: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

H.R.392: A bill proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States guaranteeing the right to life.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ro ... gress.html

Ron Paul's own statements on the matter, as well as his thoroughly documented voting record completely contradicts this bullshit claim.

As per usual, tweedle-douche gets it completely and utterly wrong, yet again...and again...and again...


The above has also already been discredited COUNTLESS times in the Ron Paul/political threads eons ago. As well as how you utilize bogus links, like the ones above, that NEVER prove your points and severely misquote me, etc.

:roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3212
Location: Between the Badges
Disco Boy wrote:
The reason why I haven't gone into explicit detail about what TheCentralScrutinizer has summarized, is because I already have elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, I've been at this for 2 1/2 years. Maybe try reading the forum sometime. It helps. And anyway, wtf am I supposed to do, search through HUNDREDS of pages of the content in question, then cut and paste it here?! Do you know how fucking long that would take?! You've got quite the nerve to state the above, you know that?

Just about every one of TCS's points above has already been discredited.

What a dumb post. More weaseling, hahaha... nerve, hahaha, wtf

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5917
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
Okay BS, I read the review of that book. The scope for cronyism in OZ is not so broad as it is in the US. We used to have very bad gerrymanders - the one in Queensland was often used in the literature as the supreme example of the concept. It enabled the most backward political elements in the country to remain in power and the corruption, particularly involving real estate and the reclassification of land titles, was rampant. It eventually got cleaned up somewhat about thirty years ago.

If you get rid of the cronies, the people with the real power will still be there, inequity will still be rampant and the majority of surplus value will still be getting appropriated by a small group of people. Also, the US situation is somewhat different to the OZ situation, because the US has never had much of a welfare system compared to several other western countries.

Above, I was talking about the current popular idea of blaming the current economic situation on the cost of welfare and it's a shameful denial of responsibility. Handing over the reins of society totally to the captains of industry will not fix our current economic woes.

When power is concentrated in the hands of a few - who underneath are basically a few ordinary human beings - shit will continue to happen. There is no god, there is no fundamental right to rule and shit bags who believe there is, and are willing to commit genocide in its name, have dominated the progress of human civilisation so far. I'm an optimist in general but its coloured with a great deal of pessimism and I'm not holding my breath.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
tweedle-douche wrote:

The above has also already been discredited COUNTLESS times in the Ron Paul/political threads eons ago. As well as how you utilize bogus links, like the ones above, that NEVER prove your points and severely misquote me, etc.

:roll:


You have discredited exactly nothing and your delusional claims has been thoroughly disproven. What else is new? :roll: Ron Paul introduced a bunch of anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills. The sources are public record from a non-partisan government web page known as The Library of Congress dumbass...

Here are a few of them...utilize this...Happy reading... :lol:

Library of Congress links to a few of the anti-abortion anti-contraception bills sponsored, cosponsored and introduced by Ron Paul...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01095:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00777:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1548:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ01003:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ0380:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1546:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1546:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.3691:
...and so on and so forth...

How about all those Ayn Rand #1 all time best ever selling books of all time that never appeared on a single best sellers list and those 10 million Ron Paul voters who were guaranteed to show up in the primaries, when in actuality it was barely even a fraction of that who actually did? :lol:

Tweedle-douche's denial has reached critical mass. :shock:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
The Forum Killed Arkay wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
The reason why I haven't gone into explicit detail about what TheCentralScrutinizer has summarized, is because I already have elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed, I've been at this for 2 1/2 years. Maybe try reading the forum sometime. It helps. And anyway, wtf am I supposed to do, search through HUNDREDS of pages of the content in question, then cut and paste it here?! Do you know how fucking long that would take?! You've got quite the nerve to state the above, you know that?

Just about every one of TCS's points above has already been discredited.

What a dumb post. More weaseling, hahaha... nerve, hahaha, wtf


You have to be fucking kidding me?!

ONE. MORE .TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

For 2 1/2 years now, I've already gone over my points. Considering this, I shouldn't have to reiterate myself each and every time someone challenges me on it.

And remember, YOU are the one who runs for the hills whenever I ask you to back your shit up. And of course, you NEVER do back your shit up.

:roll:

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
The above has also already been discredited COUNTLESS times in the Ron Paul/political threads eons ago. As well as how you utilize bogus links, like the ones above, that NEVER prove your points and severely misquote me, etc.

:roll:


You have discredited exactly nothing and your delusional claims has been thoroughly disproven. What else is new? :roll: Ron Paul introduced a bunch of anti-abortion and anti-contraception bills. The sources are public record from a non-partisan government web page known as The Library of Congress dumbass...

Here are a few of them...utilize this...Happy reading... :lol:

Library of Congress links to a few of the anti-abortion anti-contraception bills sponsored, cosponsored and introduced by Ron Paul...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01095:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00777:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1548:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ01003:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HZ0380:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1546:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1546:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.3691:
...and so on and so forth...

How about all those Ayn Rand #1 all time best ever selling books of all time that never appeared on a single best sellers list and those 10 million Ron Paul voters who were guaranteed to show up in the primaries, when in actuality it was barely even a fraction of that who actually did? :lol:

Tweedle-douche's denial has reached critical mass. :shock:


NONE of those links prove your claims. And the rest of your garbage has been discredited time and time again.... :roll:

You are one stupid motherfucker...

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3212
Location: Between the Badges
Your points? You still think you have made points? More nonsense. As though we didn't expect it? You have been studying for 2.5 years. Hooray. You have been on the forum much longer than that. Were you NOT studying in the years before that? Has the last 2.5 years been special study? TCS has an opinion, so rather than counter it, you dismiss it. That isn't PROOF or FACTs or anything useful. Its bullshit runaway weaseling. I laugh at the last part especially since you consider yourself to be so in touch with that word and then you dismiss my laughter as though your weaseling was the right choice! I don't care about your hypocrisy because we have both been on this forum so long that you are obvious and hilarious. Go kiss the memory of Ayn Rand. Btw, did you see John Oliver on Sunday? Great rips on Aynnie and those who still consider her to be worthwhile, hahaha...
Image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:22 pm
Posts: 1679
Location: Huntingdon, TN
Disco Boy wrote:
You are one stupid motherfucker...


To quote Arkay:

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Pot, kettle motherfucker...

Keep studying. You might get it one day? :|


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 542 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group