 |
It's the plutocrats who have hoarded the wealth they redistributed from the working man that's holding this country back. You know those elites that have changed their names to job creators and taken supply side economics to new lows while ignoring demand.
That's a flawed system of capitalism that creates NO jobs, No value to the society, and blames everybody but themselves for screwing things up. The slaves are the ones that serve and protect these parasites on society.
Read upon the life of the slaves and get back to me on that. Geeze... you make me laugh. Here's a hint about the differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JJm2UF4suY...ping+scars.jpg
Was Eisenhower a dedicated conscious member of the Communist conspiracy?
Tom?
Just because the whips are money and they don't leave scars doesn't mean capitalism isn't slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well said Tal but the whips are more than money, capitalism is slavery just as communism is, there is an illusion of free will, but anyone who has run on the wheel knows the truthQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
There is not difference between any of the political people;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;christ Obama told the Russian wait until after the elections---------wait for what --selling out the USA/ u need to pay more attentions or get an open mind
He Worked hard for that money. It was NOT given to him. Yeah it would be nice to get all that money--Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Yes, comparison is close to the right word. Socialism and liberalism are similar to fascism in a number of way. In exactly the same way there are many differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
One of the reasons Goldberg probably wrote the book was that he was sick of the incorrect assertion that conservatism is fascism.Conservatism AKA fascism might be familiar.
There are some elements of conservatism that can be seen as fascist, but there are as many elements of conservatism that are completely different. Any attempt by the left or the right to paint the other is being the same is nonsense.
If you were to read the literature you would probably also discover that fascism is more than likely a phenomenon that existed in a particular historical epoch.
Tut
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes such references are important. In exactly the same way other types of references are equally important. Provided of course these references are from a credible source.
Tut
And who is the arbiter of 'credible sources ' ? By the way before Goldberg ,my position had been stated by Ayn Rand (yeah I know ,another discredited source)
Rand 'The Objectivist'Quote:
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
That fraud collapsed in the 1940's, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.
Before we move on how about we address the above.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You still don't know me very well do you? Where have I said that Goldberg is not a credible source? Where have I said that Rand is not a credible source?
Tut
Ann Rand you couldn't get a bigger liberal, communist even, and your attitudes are shaped by this
Do you feel oppressed Tom as your heroine felt oppressedQuote:
"Rand's particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed"
Me ? No... but I can see where the libs have " recast " the successful as evil and thus make them oppressed when the libs call the political shots.
By the way.. the only thing close to Rand and liberal or communist is her atheism.
Not directly by you did indict Goldberg by implicationQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Yes such references are important. In exactly the same way other types of references are equally important. Provided of course these references are from a credible source.
FirstlyQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
In order to accuse someone of being not credible one would have to actually say, imply, implicate them in some way as not being credible.
Perhaps some evidence of me saying or implicating Goldberg as not a credible source would be in order.
Secondly
What you actually forgot to say was that my quote was in response to Steve's post, not yours.
Steve said
"Since the thread concerns American politics I think the reference to US progressives would be a given".
My direct response to Steve's post was
"Yes, such references are important. In exactly the same way as other types of references are equally important. Provided of course these references are from a credible source".
Perhaps you should drop this no-win situation and we can move on.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:21 AM. |