On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Casey Dougall
wrote:
>
> Capitalism is based on making money form the sum of the group. - This works
> in many areas of our society we pay for goods and services all day, every
> day. If you "want" something, you work and pay for it. Seems like a simple
> enough co
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> In his world of stereotypes and hyperbole, anyone who is slightly to
> the left of Darth Vader is defined as a liberal. I I have to sit on
> my hands to refrain from asking him to spell it and define it.
> He is right that I didn't like Bush.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> define just
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Judah McAuley
> wrote:
> >
> > Far from it Scott. Socialism is about intervention into the market
> > economy by the people (working through their instrument, the
> > government) in order to try and p
In his world of stereotypes and hyperbole, anyone who is slightly to
the left of Darth Vader is defined as a liberal. I I have to sit on
my hands to refrain from asking him to spell it and define it.
He is right that I didn't like Bush. What he misses is the long list
of liberals I don't like,
What is that buzzing? Sounds like a fly. Very annoying.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> he thinks you are a liberal because you didn't like Bush. That is what he
> called everyone who didn't.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> There is nothing you could
he thinks you are a liberal because you didn't like Bush. That is what he
called everyone who didn't.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> There is nothing you could say that would make me cry. I protest when
> you call me a liberal because I'm not. Libertarian perhaps, Radical
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> There is nothing you could say that would make me cry. I protest when
> you call me a liberal because I'm not. Libertarian perhaps, Radical
> or even Anarchist, but I have never had a liberal mindset.
You're in denial. You are moonbat level l
There is nothing you could say that would make me cry. I protest when
you call me a liberal because I'm not. Libertarian perhaps, Radical
or even Anarchist, but I have never had a liberal mindset. I just
hate all government and the endless lies and spin of the politicians
and pundits, and want
Are you talking welfare or unemployment? Two distinctly different
kinds of assistance.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> note, and only if you have some semi-good reason, like a very small child.
> You can't just randomly not work.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Maureen wrote
When I worked as a medic in Jersey City, I dealt with 2nd and 3rd
generation welfare families who prided themselves on the fact that
they get welfare and no one in the family has worked for 30+ years.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> There is nothing in any current economic or
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> A purely government-driven centrally planned economy is a recipe for
> disaster. So is unrestrained capitalism which has no guiding force
> other than individual excess.
I am not sure I could ever agree with you more.
--
Scott Stroz
---
Spot on, and I loved Moynihan never realizing he was a neocon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698_2.html?sid=ST2010020403858
Starting in the 1960s, the original neoconservative critics such as
Daniel Patrick Moynihan expressed distress about the break
There's the Judah I know
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sam wrote:
>> Is neo-con politically correct? Don't you cry when I refer to you as a
>> liberal? So why do you throw neo-con (Jew) out there? I don't mind, I
>> admit I am a neo-con
is it politically correct to worry about polical correctness?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sam wrote:
> > Is neo-con politically correct? Don't you cry when I refer to you as a
> > liberal? So why do you throw neo-con (Jew) out there?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sam wrote:
> Is neo-con politically correct? Don't you cry when I refer to you as a
> liberal? So why do you throw neo-con (Jew) out there? I don't mind, I
> admit I am a neo-con, just questioning your motives.
I would never call you a Jew. I like Jews and respect
Thanks to Clinton for signing welfare reform, before that you were
paid by the child and less if you were married. See what kind of
problems that could cause?
I heard in passing that Obama is trying to revert back to the
pre-Clinton welfare system. Anyone else know about that?
Is neo-con politic
note, and only if you have some semi-good reason, like a very small child.
You can't just randomly not work.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> There is nothing in any current economic or governmental theory that
> encourages people who are capable of working to not work. Even
There is nothing in any current economic or governmental theory that
encourages people who are capable of working to not work. Even the
existing welfare system in the US has restrictions on how long you can
be paid without working. The only place a system such as the one you
describe exists is i
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> You think we see the balance differently but you don't ever bother to
> engage, just demagogue.
Sorry, I figured you'd be into your usual name calling by now. Was
expecting you actually wanting to engage. My bad.
> I don't believe in enc
and he has read neither.
My favorite but in Wealth of Nations was where Smith points out that
capitalism is better than feudalism or slavery, since both slaves and serfs
need to be fed.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> You are mistaking Communism/Fascism and Socialism,
You think we see the balance differently but you don't ever bother to
engage, just demagogue. I don't believe in encouraging people to quit
their jobs in search of a hand out and I believe in rewarding hard
work. There is a reason I've started more than one company, why I've
hired and fired employ
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Sam wrote:
> I admit it's been thirty years since I read it but I remember it differently.
> The workers would take over everything and share evenly.
> Redistribution. If you couldn't work or chose not to you would still
> be treated and compensated as an equal.
I
You're right. Sorry.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:52 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> Of course I do, see this paragraph in my response:
>> Let's face it, Socialism, Liberalism, and Conservatism are all ideals that
>> cannot survive on their own merit, Not a one of them can. They are all
>> flawed, albeit in
True but we see the balance differently. Yes help the needy but don't
encourage people to quit their jobs and put there handout. Many great
workers can easily become lazy slobs if encouraged.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> A purely government-driven centrally planned ec
Of course I do, see this paragraph in my response:
> Let's face it, Socialism, Liberalism, and Conservatism are all ideals that
> cannot survive on their own merit, Not a one of them can. They are all
> flawed, albeit in varying and different ways
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Sam wrote:
>
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> You are mistaking Communism/Fascism and Socialism, Sam. And you aren't
> even characterizing Marx correctly anyway. Marx was critiquing feudal
> economies where a ruling aristocracy controlled the flow of all capita
> and means of productio
If you want to play you can't just throw out communist talking points.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> You are right Sam.
>
> The system that you operate under which produced the biggest financial
> disaster in a century is the better system.
>
> The system which continuously p
Remove all classes and property rights and we'll all be equal. Do you
the gaping flaw with that allowing someone, anyone to step in and
start distributing? Justly of course.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> No, you are once again very wrong.
>
> Marx' ideal has no government,
That is exactly the problem and why the balance of government
intervention, free markets, social welfare programs, taxation
structure, etc are in a continuing flux. Different governments in
different places at different times have struck different balances and
none of them are anywhere near perfec
You are mistaking Communism/Fascism and Socialism, Sam. And you aren't
even characterizing Marx correctly anyway. Marx was critiquing feudal
economies where a ruling aristocracy controlled the flow of all capita
and means of production, so that the people doing the producing
(mostly agricultural b
You are right Sam.
The system that you operate under which produced the biggest financial
disaster in a century is the better system.
The system which continuously produces higher Human Living Indexes and
Quality of Life ratings is obviously flawed and inferior.
On 5 February 2010 17:26, Sam w
No, you are once again very wrong.
Marx' ideal has no government, and therefore no "leader."
Stalin and Lenin corrupted the ideal, which could never truly survive with
human beings in existence, into the total control of everything by the
government.
Let's face it, Socialism, Liberalism, and Co
define just
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Far from it Scott. Socialism is about intervention into the market
> economy by the people (working through their instrument, the
> government) in order to try and produce a more just and equitable
> economy.
>
~~~
Far from it Scott. Socialism is about intervention into the market
economy by the people (working through their instrument, the
government) in order to try and produce a more just and equitable
economy.
Judah
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:05 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Socialism is basically taking f
I was right!
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:20 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> Don't know, never heard of it, and I'm not a Socialist, so you're asking the
> wrong person.
>
> I base my views of the "ideals" of Socialism on Karl Marx' thoughts: "from
> each according to his ability, to each according to his n
Everybody's money and property goes into a pot and dear leader decides
who gets what.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> Well, then what is the 'ideal' socialism?
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, morgan l wrote:
>>
>> That is the demon that hard-line conservatives paint S
Don't know, never heard of it, and I'm not a Socialist, so you're asking the
wrong person.
I base my views of the "ideals" of Socialism on Karl Marx' thoughts: "from
each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". To me, that
says: "if you can work, work", not "taking from those w
Well, then what is the 'ideal' socialism?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> That is the demon that hard-line conservatives paint Socialism as, but is
> far from the truth of the ideal of Socialism.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
>> Socialism is ba
Isn't Das Kapital the book on ideal socialism?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:08 PM, morgan l wrote:
>
> That is the demon that hard-line conservatives paint Socialism as, but is
> far from the truth of the ideal of Socialism.
~|
Wan
That is the demon that hard-line conservatives paint Socialism as, but is
far from the truth of the ideal of Socialism.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
> Socialism is basically taking from those who choose to work and giving
> to those who choose not to.
>
~~~
Socialism is basically taking from those who choose to work and giving
to those who choose not to.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Because the talk radio hosts could no longer scare their dittohead
> followers with the word liberal, they made socialists the new Satans.
>
> Mo
Because the talk radio hosts could no longer scare their dittohead
followers with the word liberal, they made socialists the new Satans.
Most of those railing against Socialism have no idea what it is. They
are just sprouting whatever comes from Limbaugh, Hannity, etc..
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at
Socalism has a lot to recommend it. Most of the countries in the world
operate somewhere in the socialist-capitalist spectrum, including the
United States. Why would anyone have a problem with a positive image
of socialism?
Judah
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> I knew it all alo
I knew it all along, I'm just surprised with their honesty :)
- A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism,
compared to 17% of Republicans.
- Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is
positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.
htt
44 matches
Mail list logo