Two things are clear.

1. Capitalism is a monumental disaster--www.globalissues.org/article/
26/poverty-facts-and-stats (pro-capitalist site)

2. Many people, especially Americans who have been subjected to
decades of propaganda, are unable to come to terms with this.
.


On Aug 17, 2:02 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote:
> capitalism has failed
> ----
> hogwash
>
> Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of
> feudalism.[3] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in
> the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of
> industrialization throughout much of the world.[4]
>
> Criticism
> Main articles: Criticisms of capitalism and Anti-capitalism
> Notable critics of capitalism have included: socialists, anarchists,
> communists, some forms of conservatism, Luddites, Narodniks, some
> schools of nationalism and Shakers. Marxism advocated a revolutionary
> overthrow of capitalism that would lead to socialism before eventually
> transforming into communism after class antagonisms and the state
> ceased to exist. Marxism influenced social democratic and labour
> parties as well as some moderate democratic socialists, who seek
> change through existing democratic channels instead of revolution, and
> believe that capitalism should be heavily regulated rather than
> abolished, supplementing the market economy with a mixed economy. Many
> aspects of capitalism have come under attack from the anti-
> globalization movement, which is primarily opposed to corporate
> capitalism.
>
> On Aug 16, 10:51 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You can have fifty parties, in-fact there were 50 registered parties
> > registered in the last election, whom the corporate controlled media
> > on behalf of the corporate controlled government gave no coverage to
> > at all. The televised debates are always between party A and party B,
> > because they are the parties the corporations finance
>
> > The only third party that stands a chance of media exposure under the
> > current set up is the Fascist Party of the USA. The predicament in
> > which the world and the US finds itself in is due to the fact that
> > capitalism has failed, not a political party.
>
> > On Aug 17, 1:32 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > When you go to the ballot box you have the privilege of casting your
> > > vote for the party of your choice (party A or party B).
> > > ----
> > > hogwash
>
> > > help save the USA - vote 3rd party!
>
> > > On Aug 16, 10:29 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear SB, you do live in the idealized and sanitized world presented to
> > > > you by those that go out of their way to deceive you--the never ending
> > > > info commercial of the American dream, as sold by artful and conniving
> > > > snake oil salesmen. And yet you are half correct in what you say. Of
> > > > course the President does not run the country, we know that--he is but
> > > > a mere figurehead, a representative of those that do run the country
> > > > "we the corporations". The idea that the American people have any
> > > > influence in how the country is run is quite absurd.
>
> > > > American Democracy in action
>
> > > > When you go to the ballot box you have the privilege of casting your
> > > > vote for the party of your choice (party A or party B). Now, if you
> > > > decide you don’t like what the party you voted for is doing, all you
> > > > need to do is wait 4 years, whereby you can then cast a vote for the
> > > > other party. It becomes a little problematic when you realize this
> > > > party isn’t doing what they promised, because you then have to wait
> > > > another 4 years before the next election comes around. By this time
> > > > you have probably forgotten why you voted out your first choice in the
> > > > first place—that is, until they get back into power—and they proceed
> > > > to do exactly what they did the last time you voted them out—ditching
> > > > every promise they made to get you to vote for them again. But don’t
> > > > worry, there is always another election, by which time those in power
> > > > are counting on you getting dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia or
> > > > just plain dying.
>
> > > > And so it goes, around and around and around, like a mad dog chasing
> > > > its tail. And people marvel over the fact that the suicide rate is
> > > > climbing and our children are getting out of hand. At this point I am
> > > > grateful they haven’t clubbed us all to death—and at the same time
> > > > maybe a little disappointed—I mean what do we have to do to get them
> > > > angry enough to get off their butts?
>
> > > > On Aug 16, 12:59 pm, sILVER bELLE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Get it through your heads.  The President does NOT 'run the 
> > > > > country'...."we the People" do via the HOUSE.  House to SENATE....He 
> > > > > ONLY GETS HIS WAY IF HE BUYS VOTE.  THEN HE CAN BE IMPEACHED.
>
> > > > >  sILVER bELLE
>
> > > > > > Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 17:27:25 -0700
> > > > > > Subject: Re: What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare 
> > > > > > plan?
> > > > > > From: [email protected]
> > > > > > To: [email protected]
>
> > > > > > Hello Keith,
>
> > > > > > It’s not a matter of health-care being a right. Who decides it is a
> > > > > > right?
>
> > > > > > This doe not mean that what socialists say should not be heavily
> > > > > > scrutinize and criticized—it should—if it cannot stand up to 
> > > > > > scrutiny
> > > > > > it is just another baseless, worthless ideology (like free-market 
> > > > > > neo
> > > > > > conservatism).
>
> > > > > > The type of socialism I advocate (which is straight forward orthodox
> > > > > > Marxism—not to be confused with radicalism) is this. A government of
> > > > > > the people, by the people, for the people—sound familiar?
>
> > > > > > This means a government where the will of the people is enacted by 
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > representatives of the people themselves. The people decide what 
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > want done and their representatives carry it out. Under this type of
> > > > > > governance, the people would decide how much should be pooled 
> > > > > > (taxes)
> > > > > > and how it should be allocated. If the people decide that enough 
> > > > > > funds
> > > > > > should be allocated for universal health-care it becomes a right—if
> > > > > > they decide on other measures, then these measure become the norm 
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > society, because it reflects the wishes of society.
>
> > > > > > You can’t get blood from a stone—you can only allocate funds 
> > > > > > according
> > > > > > to what is available—it should be up to the members of society to
> > > > > > decide this—instead we have a situation in America (and every other
> > > > > > western country) where finance capital own the government and the 
> > > > > > media
> > > > > > —we have a dictatorship of finance capital.
>
> > > > > > Silly accusations about, socialism, fascism etc, etc are pointless 
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > designed to confuse and obfuscate —For any type of socio-economic
> > > > > > relations to be able to operate effectively, a democratic, all
> > > > > > inclusive system of governance, directly responsible and accountable
> > > > > > to the people, must exist.
>
> > > > > > If this is what you consider utopian, we may as well go back to 
> > > > > > living
> > > > > > in caves. That is what conservatism is founded upon. No progressive
> > > > > > thought or action and fidelity to out dated, antediluvian tradition.
> > > > > > In other words if nothing changes the current status quo remains the
> > > > > > same, and those in power hang on to their power. The inquisitions 
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > founded on the same type of warped morality, so the clergy could
> > > > > > continue to live like parasites of the backs of their flock.
>
> > > > > > The next change in human socio-economic relations, will included a
> > > > > > second enlightenment, sweeping aside the backward traditions and
> > > > > > mysticism (especially organized religion) that is still employed to
> > > > > > keep the masses in the thrall of narcissistic Neanderthals and
> > > > > > reprobates.
>
> > > > > > On Aug 16, 12:57 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello Secret,
>
> > > > > > > Well said. This is where those socialists get confused, in their 
> > > > > > > quest for
> > > > > > > Utopia.   Health Care is not a right.
>
> > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 10:44 AM, [email protected] <
>
> > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 7:13 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > What is behind the opposition to the Obama healthcare plan?
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > those of us who should not be forced to pay for the 
> > > > > > > > > healthcare of
> > > > > > > > > others
>
> > > > > > > > > your healthcare is your responsibility
> > > > > > > > > it is NOT an entitlement that WE should have to pay for
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 12, 3:29 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I agree.
>
> > > > > > > > Those that work have health care and in the few times in my 
> > > > > > > > life that
> > > > > > > > I didn't, I got it for free anyways, we are talking the 1970's 
> > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > now I'm sure it's easier to get for free now anyways.
>
> > > > > > > > The way I see it is working people get health care, thru 
> > > > > > > > insurance and
> > > > > > > > non-working people don't.  So if we wnat to give health care to 
> > > > > > > > non-
> > > > > > > > working people the working people will have to pay for it, in 
> > > > > > > > the form
> > > > > > > > of some type of tax.
>
> > > > > > > > Personally I vote against ANY and ALL tax's, you should too.
>
> > > > > > > > Having the government handle health care will only make costs 
> > > > > > > > go up
> > > > > > > > because they would then be adding a mountain of people and 
> > > > > > > > paper work
> > > > > > > > to an already high level of paper work involved.
>
> > > > > > > > The government could curb the current costs thru limiting what 
> > > > > > > > health
> > > > > > > > care providers and insurance companies charge for any type of
> > > > > > > > procedure, even mandating some to be free.   But they don't do 
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > because they want to CONTROL it.
>
> > > > > > > > I am very weary of this government control, that is what this 
> > > > > > > > country
> > > > > > > > was founded on, it is VERY much the American way to be wary of 
> > > > > > > > it's
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to