Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 2:05 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2364
calvin2hikers wrote:
Here's to thousands of more pages of not getting through to each other and just going around and around and around! It's a way of life!


Fuck off, socialist scum! Go help somebody who is in need, or something.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5922
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
calvin2hikers wrote:
I think you're all full of shit. Nobody is right about anything and it should all just be laid to rest and deleted once and for all.
A voice in the wilderness. But, do you mean that there can be no valid opinions about Capitalism or are you talking about something else? Okay, up until now, to some degree I have just been taking the piss, but the following is my honest opinion about all this.

It seems to me that the thread began with a reasonable question. Does that graphic portray a reasonable view of Obama or is it just fear mongering propaganda? A simple enough question and my honest answer is that it's the latter. But the problem is on this forum that certain enmities have become entrenched and as such a reasonable discussion about anything political here is virtually impossible.

The thing about DB's claims about unfettering capitalism, is that they are impossible to prove. Capitalism has been around for a long time now and if you check the historical record, private capitalists in the early days were notoriously mean and that's putting it mildly. 12 hour working days, 6 days a week; payment for work barely enough to live on and support a family; ridiculously inadequate and dangerous working conditions; ten year olds being used in factories whose health ended up being shot and lasting barely beyond their youth; etc etc. The changes in Capitalism that have civilised it over the last hundred and fifty years or so were forced upon it by unionisation and the development of responsible government. The rising industrialist class in the 19th century used parliament themselves to improve their position against the traditional holders of power in property. So they brought some of the fettering on themselves. It's ludicrous to believe that humans in general have changed their nature that much that unfettering Capitalism would lead to the fixing of all our current economic woes.

The maintenance of a small privileged class of people controlling the allocation of the surplus value of social production can only ever lead to conflict. We should surely have learnt our lesson about human beings from Feudalism. If you have a benevolent King then things might turn out fine, but history has shown that Kings were largely not benevolent and things generally only turned out well for them. And hey presto, along comes Capitalism, and has human nature really advanced that much that we can trust the captains of industry to build a world that benefits everyone? Spare me.

You can call this a wrong opinion if you like but it is one based on an educated study of history and I personally could not trust people like DB as far as I could throw them.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:14 am
Posts: 18957
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, CANADA
You're wasting your time, polydigm.
"Discussion" ended long, long ago. All that can be said, has been said.
These are merely Political Evangelists out-grandstanding each other. Good for the occasional laugh, but that's all.

_________________
You're probably wondering why I'm here
(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 5:28 pm
Posts: 2208
MentalTossFlycoon wrote:
Image
Truth, propaganda or just plain stupid?

Wang Dang Sweet Poontang?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 15008
polydigm wrote:
calvin2hikers wrote:
I think you're all full of shit. Nobody is right about anything and it should all just be laid to rest and deleted once and for all.
A voice in the wilderness. But, do you mean that there can be no valid opinions about Capitalism or are you talking about something else? Okay, up until now, to some degree I have just been taking the piss, but the following is my honest opinion about all this.

It seems to me that the thread began with a reasonable question. Does that graphic portray a reasonable view of Obama or is it just fear mongering propaganda? A simple enough question and my honest answer is that it's the latter. But the problem is on this forum that certain enmities have become entrenched and as such a reasonable discussion about anything political here is virtually impossible.

The thing about DB's claims about unfettering capitalism, is that they are impossible to prove. Capitalism has been around for a long time now and if you check the historical record, private capitalists in the early days were notoriously mean and that's putting it mildly. 12 hour working days, 6 days a week; payment for work barely enough to live on and support a family; ridiculously inadequate and dangerous working conditions; ten year olds being used in factories whose health ended up being shot and lasting barely beyond their youth; etc etc. The changes in Capitalism that have civilised it over the last hundred and fifty years or so were forced upon it by unionisation and the development of responsible government. The rising industrialist class in the 19th century used parliament themselves to improve their position against the traditional holders of power in property. So they brought some of the fettering on themselves. It's ludicrous to believe that humans in general have changed their nature that much that unfettering Capitalism would lead to the fixing of all our current economic woes.

The maintenance of a small privileged class of people controlling the allocation of the surplus value of social production can only ever lead to conflict. We should surely have learnt our lesson about human beings from Feudalism. If you have a benevolent King then things might turn out fine, but history has shown that Kings were largely not benevolent and things generally only turned out well for them. And hey presto, along comes Capitalism, and has human nature really advanced that much that we can trust the captains of industry to build a world that benefits everyone? Spare me.

You can call this a wrong opinion if you like but it is one based on an educated study of history and I personally could not trust people like DB as far as I could throw them.


Shut up, you're dumb because my candidate would cure all diseases and make us all filthy rich. So get a fucking clue, idiot.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:41 pm
Posts: 15008
KUIII wrote:
MentalTossFlycoon wrote:
Image
Truth, propaganda or just plain stupid?

Wang Dang Sweet Poontang?


Ted used to be a special correspondent for Rush. Don't know if he is anymore, but it wouldn't be surprising.

_________________
One of the sanest, surest, and most generous joys of life comes from being happy over the good fortune of others.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2013 11:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:11 am
Posts: 1023
Location: North German Wasteland
calvin2hikers wrote:
… Ted used to be a special correspondent for Rush. Don't know if he is anymore, but it wouldn't be surprising.

Since this thread is largely off-topic anyway: Speaking of Rush, yesterday I saw them on TV. Some more or less recent live concert. I grew up with bands like Yes, ELP, Gentle Giant etc. I never cared for second and later generation prog bands. And I obviously was right about Rush. Believe it or not, yesterday was the first time I heard Rush, and all I knew was that they are rated very high. OMG, what a horrible band! The vocals, the bass playing, the drumming, the songs … . Just awful. Unbelieveable awful, unlistenable shit. Up until yesterday I thought I had to check them out because I could be missing something. Now I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

There was another band presented in that show: Styx. I thought it was a parody of very bad and ugly stadium rock. But it was real. No comment.

Th.

_________________
Active forum member since 2005 - R E T I R E D from public forum activity in 2013


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:28 pm
Posts: 2594
Location: in the tiny dirt somewhere
Thinman wrote:
Since this thread is largely off-topic anyway: Speaking of Rush, yesterday I saw them on TV. Some more or less recent live concert.

I think he was talking about the other Rush: you know, the Big Fat Idiot one...

Thinman wrote:
There was another band presented in that show: Styx. I thought it was a parody of very bad and ugly stadium rock. But it was real.

No, you were right. Styx has been a bad and ugly parody for at least thirty-five years...

_________________
_________________Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 2:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5922
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
just plain doug wrote:
You're wasting your time, polydigm. "Discussion" ended long, long ago. All that can be said, has been said. These are merely Political Evangelists out-grandstanding each other. Good for the occasional laugh, but that's all.
I get that and I have largely stayed out of it. My above post if you read it does contain near the start a kind of apology for participating in piss taking in the first place. But, I couldn't resist, I just thought it would be amusing to throw in an actual (if brief and hardly adequate from a literary point of view and really only an abstract if you will) reasoned opinion and see what happens to it, if you get my drift.
calvin2hikers wrote:
Shut up, you're dumb because my candidate would cure all diseases and make us all filthy rich. So get a fucking clue, idiot.
If I was stupid enough to not get where you're coming from with that, I would have to stop sending you Xmas cards every year ... wait a minute ... I don't do that now anyway ... seriously though, nice summary of the actual undertow here.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3613
Location: Vancouver, BC
polydigm wrote:
Okay, up until now, to some degree I have just been taking the piss, but the following is my honest opinion about all this.

It seems to me that the thread began with a reasonable question. Does that graphic portray a reasonable view of Obama or is it just fear mongering propaganda? A simple enough question and my honest answer is that it's the latter. But the problem is on this forum that certain enmities have become entrenched and as such a reasonable discussion about anything political here is virtually impossible.

The thing about DB's claims about unfettering capitalism, is that they are impossible to prove. Capitalism has been around for a long time now and if you check the historical record, private capitalists in the early days were notoriously mean and that's putting it mildly. 12 hour working days, 6 days a week; payment for work barely enough to live on and support a family; ridiculously inadequate and dangerous working conditions; ten year olds being used in factories whose health ended up being shot and lasting barely beyond their youth; etc etc. The changes in Capitalism that have civilised it over the last hundred and fifty years or so were forced upon it by unionisation and the development of responsible government. The rising industrialist class in the 19th century used parliament themselves to improve their position against the traditional holders of power in property. So they brought some of the fettering on themselves. It's ludicrous to believe that humans in general have changed their nature that much that unfettering Capitalism would lead to the fixing of all our current economic woes.

The maintenance of a small privileged class of people controlling the allocation of the surplus value of social production can only ever lead to conflict. We should surely have learnt our lesson about human beings from Feudalism. If you have a benevolent King then things might turn out fine, but history has shown that Kings were largely not benevolent and things generally only turned out well for them. And hey presto, along comes Capitalism, and has human nature really advanced that much that we can trust the captains of industry to build a world that benefits everyone? Spare me.

You can call this a wrong opinion if you like but it is one based on an educated study of history and I personally could not trust people like DB as far as I could throw them.


An educated study of history? My ass. You're not being objective. But then again, I'm not surprised.

If you read my posts in the Ron Paul thread as well as a few other threads on this issue, you'd already know that I've more than explicitly detailed that history PROVES Mixed Economies and/or economies with free market principles DO work and work well. The Roaring Twenties, Mussolini's Italy of the early-mid 20's and more recently with Chile, are the finest examples. But that's not to say economic systems as such don't come without their problems or that there aren't evils embedded in the heart Capitalism itself because there are. Nor did I say that this system or any, would lead to the fixing of all our current economic woes. But comparing Feudalism & Medieval era economies to present or recent century economic systems is laughable at best. And so is stating over the last 150 years or so that responsible Government (there is virtually NO such thing) and unionisation are the sole beneficiaries of Capitalism. Wow. Did you really just state that? Just wow. I point that out because the opposite is more than obviously true.

Capitalism has almost single-handedly and systematically saved, developed and improved society since day one by not only providing the platform for jobs, technological creations and developments within industry, but the incentive for such productivity, diligence, and pride in achievement. And without it, Socialism/Communism would be allowed to run amok, systematically and severely diminishing, if not destroying societies as we know it. Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Chavez, Hitler, Castro, Jong-un, Jong-il, etc., and their dictatorships, which were/are, in most cases, initially disguised as benevolent Socialism/Communism, are perfect examples of how that lie is planted in the fields of the minds of Capitalism-bashing ignorants that slowly but surely insidiously develops into a freedom-crushing onslaught. We should all know by now history PROVES that it's not even remotely a logical economic systematic alternative, unless you're willing to relinquish your rights, privileges and freedoms to create capital for yourself & your family, not to mention be subjugated to Government dictatorship over your entire life, stripping you of any individualistic expression present otherwise. NO economic system benefits everyone - and to expect a system, whether it's Capitalism or not, to do such a thing, is beyond ignorant.

Regardless of Capitalism's flaws, Socialism/Communism has NEVER worked. Nor will it EVER work. It is pie-in-the-sky-pseudo-benevolent-unrealistic-garbage. Period.

For those of you shitting all over Capitalism (which is the result of your historical, economic and fiscal ignorance), especially while simultaneously biting the hand that feeds you, give your fucking heads a shake, will ya? :roll:

_________________
:53 - :57...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2364
Capitalism is better than oxygen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4895
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Mussolini (or his economic policies) is/are not the "finest examples" of anything, DB. Read Denis Mack Smith's biography of Benito. Don't worry - he (Mack Smith) is not a socialist.
Mussolini was an incompetent on the grandest scale. The only thing that is amazing about him is that he lasted as long as he did.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:18 pm
Posts: 3237
Location: Between the Badges
downer mydnyte wrote:
Capitalism is better than oxygen.

Its fucking Gorgeous! Real futuristic, ah . . . I dig the fins!

_________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5780
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
polydigm wrote:
calvin2hikers wrote:
I think you're all full of shit. Nobody is right about anything and it should all just be laid to rest and deleted once and for all.
A voice in the wilderness. But, do you mean that there can be no valid opinions about Capitalism or are you talking about something else? Okay, up until now, to some degree I have just been taking the piss, but the following is my honest opinion about all this.

It seems to me that the thread began with a reasonable question. Does that graphic portray a reasonable view of Obama or is it just fear mongering propaganda? A simple enough question and my honest answer is that it's the latter. But the problem is on this forum that certain enmities have become entrenched and as such a reasonable discussion about anything political here is virtually impossible.

The thing about DB's claims about unfettering capitalism, is that they are impossible to prove. Capitalism has been around for a long time now and if you check the historical record, private capitalists in the early days were notoriously mean and that's putting it mildly. 12 hour working days, 6 days a week; payment for work barely enough to live on and support a family; ridiculously inadequate and dangerous working conditions; ten year olds being used in factories whose health ended up being shot and lasting barely beyond their youth; etc etc. The changes in Capitalism that have civilised it over the last hundred and fifty years or so were forced upon it by unionisation and the development of responsible government. The rising industrialist class in the 19th century used parliament themselves to improve their position against the traditional holders of power in property. So they brought some of the fettering on themselves. It's ludicrous to believe that humans in general have changed their nature that much that unfettering Capitalism would lead to the fixing of all our current economic woes.

The maintenance of a small privileged class of people controlling the allocation of the surplus value of social production can only ever lead to conflict. We should surely have learnt our lesson about human beings from Feudalism. If you have a benevolent King then things might turn out fine, but history has shown that Kings were largely not benevolent and things generally only turned out well for them. And hey presto, along comes Capitalism, and has human nature really advanced that much that we can trust the captains of industry to build a world that benefits everyone? Spare me.

You can call this a wrong opinion if you like but it is one based on an educated study of history and I personally could not trust people like DB as far as I could throw them.



This is a well written and concise summary Polydigm.

Honey Boo Boo is an intellectual twerp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1863
SPACEBROTHER:

This thread and the Ron Paul thread dropped considerably over the weekend. Nobody gives a flying fuckshit about this dead horse. Why pick at it, ObamaZombie?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 20829
Location: Somewhere in time
Thinman wrote:
calvin2hikers wrote:
… Ted used to be a special correspondent for Rush. Don't know if he is anymore, but it wouldn't be surprising.

Since this thread is largely off-topic anyway: Speaking of Rush, yesterday I saw them on TV. Some more or less recent live concert. I grew up with bands like Yes, ELP, Gentle Giant etc. I never cared for second and later generation prog bands. And I obviously was right about Rush. Believe it or not, yesterday was the first time I heard Rush, and all I knew was that they are rated very high. OMG, what a horrible band! The vocals, the bass playing, the drumming, the songs … . Just awful. Unbelieveable awful, unlistenable shit. Up until yesterday I thought I had to check them out because I could be missing something. Now I'm glad I didn't waste my time.

There was another band presented in that show: Styx. I thought it was a parody of very bad and ugly stadium rock. But it was real. No comment.

Th.



Ok maybe you Germans on the East Coast of the US know a thing or two... :wink:

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3613
Location: Vancouver, BC
Caputh wrote:
Mussolini (or his economic policies) is/are not the "finest examples" of anything, DB. Read Denis Mack Smith's biography of Benito. Don't worry - he (Mack Smith) is not a socialist.
Mussolini was an incompetent on the grandest scale. The only thing that is amazing about him is that he lasted as long as he did.


What a pointless post.

I'm talking about a particular period in Italian history when Mussolini, through the urging of his finance minister, Alberto De Stefani, adopted free market principles and it WORKED really well. And that IS a fine example, whether you like it or not. I'm NOT talking about Mussolini's entire reign as a whole. You already know this...:roll:

tweedle-dumb wrote:
This is a well written and concise summary Polydigm.

Honey Boo Boo is an intellectual twerp.


Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2364
Whatever I've read about history is always the actual, physical truth. All I gotta do is read it and I know for sure it went down that way. Like the Bible. And history books about Italian fascism.

Actually, I sat through Bernardo Bertolucci's painfully long film 1900 and I now know exactly what Italian fascism was all about.

I didn't experience it first hand but I read all the books and watched the films and documentaries.
Fact.

So don't tell me about history because I'll just refer you to a bunch of words I've read about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3613
Location: Vancouver, BC
downer mydnyte wrote:
Whatever I've read about history is always the actual, physical truth. All I gotta do is read it and I know for sure it went down that way. Like the Bible. And history books about Italian fascism.

Actually, I sat through Bernardo Bertolucci's painfully long film 1900 and I now know exactly what Italian fascism was all about.

I didn't experience it first hand but I read all the books and watched the films and documentaries.
Fact.

So don't tell me about history because I'll just refer you to a bunch of words I've read about it.


And this is because, according to you, all stated or written text & information, can be debunked by anyone who generalizes his ass off and doesn't disprove anything to the contrary. I think you deserve a Gold medal for your performance. Here it is:

Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 2364
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument made is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument is not sensible; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9599
disco boy wrote:
caputh wrote:
...Mussolini was an incompetent on the grandest scale. The only thing that is amazing about him is that he lasted as long as he did.
What a pointless post...



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20:41

Image

_________________
Image


Last edited by slime.oofytv.set on Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm
Posts: 1863
That is so beautiful, man.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5922
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
downer mydnyte wrote:
So don't tell me about history because I'll just refer you to a bunch of words I've read about it.
Given that the oldest person alive is about 120. At best we only have the written word and archaeological artefacts for the entire history of the human race up until 1893. At some point you have to trust beyond what people are telling you they've seen, which is already second hand, if you don't want to be condemned to repeating history over and over again.

For example, from long before living memory, the usual words written about the condition of the working classes in early capitalism, the minimum of 12 hour days and a six day week and the appalling working conditions are virtually unanimously accepted as the facts of the time.

An example, from living memory, there's a virtually unanimously accepted common picture of what the Holocaust entailed, with very few detractors, who have mostly been discredited.

The old cliché that it's a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive that generally takes care of anyone trying to misrepresent the facts of history. The problem is that a lot of damage gets done in the process.

Edit: I993 was obviously a typo.

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


Last edited by polydigm on Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:03 pm
Posts: 5922
Location: Pouting for you? Punky Meadows, pouting for you?!!
The point mentioned repetitively about biting the hand that feeds you. Ultimately, directly or otherwise, the energy from the sun powers any kind of production that humans are able to sustain. That is a well established scientific fact. There are those that dominate production and control the distribution of the surplus value it engenders and those whose labour powers the process of production. It's a conflict of interest. Are the powers that be feeding the muscle and brain that produces wealth, or are they in turn feeding the powers that be?

Just who is biting who's hand?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 10:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5780
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Disco Boy wrote:
Caputh wrote:
Mussolini (or his economic policies) is/are not the "finest examples" of anything, DB. Read Denis Mack Smith's biography of Benito. Don't worry - he (Mack Smith) is not a socialist.
Mussolini was an incompetent on the grandest scale. The only thing that is amazing about him is that he lasted as long as he did.


What a pointless post.

I'm talking about a particular period in Italian history when Mussolini, through the urging of his finance minister, Alberto De Stefani, adopted free market principles and it WORKED really well. And that IS a fine example, whether you like it or not. I'm NOT talking about Mussolini's entire reign as a whole. You already know this...:roll:

SPACEBROTHER wrote:
This is a well written and concise summary Polydigm.

Honey Boo Boo is an intellectual twerp.


Image


Funny, and not so surprising, how a Ron Paul supporter commends a 20th century fascist dictator for his accomplishments. :roll:


A rope leash wrote:
SPACEBROTHER:

This thread and the Ron Paul thread dropped considerably over the weekend. Nobody gives a flying fuckshit about this dead horse. Why pick at it, ObamaZombie?



Aren't you overdue for your latest Fingthish forum suicide chump note.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 162 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest


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