Regarding Communism and Democracy, there is much to be explained.
Communism, by definition, abhors private property, particularly real property. It presumes that key economic decisions can successfully be made by central planners, a notion that any economist can easily refute. In no society has prosperity ever arisen where it was not possible to profit from hard work, innovation, and the calculated taking of risks. Communism supposes that hard work and prosperity can be demanded of the people and the economic system, with no incentive to work hard or penalty for being a slacker.
Democracy (which doesn't exist anywhere) supposes that the voting public will vote wisely, based on the overall needs of the society, rather than in their own parochial interests.
Western Europe is the best testing ground for the sustainability of benevolent socialism ("Democracy" + Communism-Lite). And it's proving unsustainable, generally. The only countries in which it appears to have a chance are those countries which have historically had an outstanding work ethic - namely Germany and England - and even there, the governments are on a clear path to perdition, though Germany could survive for a long time on inertia.
As odious as the Stalinist model of USSR/Cuba/North Korea is, it demonstrates the early acceptance of the fact by Party leaders that no society will willingly accept the sacrifices and privations mandated by the lousy economy that results when everyone works for the Government.
Show me the country where they have REAL elections and REAL socialism. It has never happened and it can never happen. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and Communism is an exercise in intellectual masturbation, with no value in the real world. Works in theory; never works in practice.
Liberty's view of communism and the "progressive" movement in this country (led by Barry O) are spot on. While there may not be a secret society with magic undergarments and secret handshakes, there is a massive movement in this country to take control of the means of production through endless regulation and confiscatory taxation, to pay for a "Workers' Paradise," in which everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave through a cornucopia of (unconstitutional) government programs, paid for by The Rich and Evil Corporations.
Every word that comes out of the mouths of Harry Reid and Nancy P confirms that fact.
Do you remember this?
Re: Do you remember this?
That would be a BIG no.Gob wrote:I think she wants a "load of fuck" off Scooter. I'm pretty sure she's not his type though.
And that she is a woman is the LEAST of the reasons why.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Do you remember this?
Right, let's turn to the Welshmen's grasp of Mex-Spanish, shall we? No...
Gob wants me to hate'em, but I don't, too bad.
(Yes, 'chingo' means 'too much'; and it takes the place of a strong explicative like 'fuck''. Closer to the derogatory adjective 'fucking,' is 'pinche', as in 'pinche juero' which is more like saying 'spoiled [white guy]', since Latinos don't think sex is a bad thing.)
Gob wants me to hate'em, but I don't, too bad.
(Yes, 'chingo' means 'too much'; and it takes the place of a strong explicative like 'fuck''. Closer to the derogatory adjective 'fucking,' is 'pinche', as in 'pinche juero' which is more like saying 'spoiled [white guy]', since Latinos don't think sex is a bad thing.)
Re: Do you remember this?
With all due respect 49, that is not my view either. I don’t say progressive because I don’t play word games, but liberals have done many good things; among them are social security and labor laws, especially laws involving child labor and work place safety. The problem with liberals is they don’t know when to stop pushing. For example a person should not be able collect SSI because they would rather drink beer than work.dgs49 wrote: Liberty's view of communism and the "progressive" movement in this country (led by Barry O) are spot on. While there may not be a secret society with magic undergarments and secret handshakes, there is a massive movement in this country to take control of the means of production through endless regulation and confiscatory taxation, to pay for a "Workers' Paradise," in which everyone is taken care of from cradle to grave through a cornucopia of (unconstitutional) government programs, paid for by The Rich and Evil Corporations.
I hope I don’t have the conservatives mad at me now, most likely not. They tend to be more tolerant than liberals.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.
Re: Do you remember this?
So the Welshman's grasp of Mex-Spanish seems pretty good then...loCAtek wrote:Right, let's turn to the Welshmen's grasp of Mex-Spanish, shall we? No...
Gob wants me to hate'em, but I don't, too bad.
(Yes, 'chingo' means 'too much'; and it takes the place of a strong explicative like 'fuck''. Closer to the derogatory adjective 'fucking,' is 'pinche', as in 'pinche juero' which is more like saying 'spoiled [white guy]', since Latinos don't think sex is a bad thing.)
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Do you remember this?
Can't make up your mind? Yup, control freaky ...why are they so obsessed with sex on you?Sean wrote:You win the title of 'Official Translator' Jim.
Well done!
Re: Do you remember this?
Paging Dr Freud!loCAtek wrote:Can't make up your mind? Yup, control freaky ...why are they so obsessed with sex on you?Sean wrote:You win the title of 'Official Translator' Jim.
Well done!
How on earth could you get anything sexual from that post? Are you now implying that I'm coming on to Jim?
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
Re: Do you remember this?
Yo, Liberty.
The problem with the contemporary Liberal approach to Federal governance (started by FDR) is that it uses "back door" solutions to problems, and thus undermines the basic governing scheme that is established by the Constitution. This is demonstrated time after time, and has now reached avalanche-like dimensions.
For example, when FDR wanted to establish a retirement program, and federal jobs programs (WPA, CCC),he SHOULD HAVE made the case to the American people that the Constitution required revision to permit the Feds to take measures beyond Article I, Section 8, to deal with the real problems we were confronting. Had he done that, there could have been a public debate about how to rationally expand the Federal Government's powers, while still respecting the rights of the states and the private sector.
But rather than do that, he packed the court with like-minded justices who simply worked around the constraints of the constitution, and now we have no rational guidelines or restrictions on what Congress believes it can do. For example, a Congressperson is right now introducing a new law that will regulate how amusement parks decide who can ride on which rides. WTF?!
When the Court decided that it didn't like States meddling in reproductive decisions, it decided that it would create a new "Right of Privacy." But since it isn't written down or defined anywhere, it can mean literally anything any subsequent court decides it means. It can be used to strike down sodomy laws, abortion prohibitions, and who knows what else. If the Court had refused to act on these "problems," it would have forced the Congress and the states to formulate a generally agreeable Constitutional Amendment that would have legitimacy. But we don't have that now.
The death penalty is another example of a Court that has tried to eliminate a practice that it finds unacceptable, in spite of the Constitution's clear sanctioning of the practice. This is not a question for the Courts, it's something for the Congress and the state legislatures to decide by Constitutional Amendment - if they choose to do so.
So, yes, there are Federal government programs that are logical and beneficial, and which, at the same time, are expressly prohibited by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court's hands are more or less tied because there are 70 years of precedents saying that Congress can do pretty much what it wants. Like pass laws regulating amusement park rides.
The problem with the contemporary Liberal approach to Federal governance (started by FDR) is that it uses "back door" solutions to problems, and thus undermines the basic governing scheme that is established by the Constitution. This is demonstrated time after time, and has now reached avalanche-like dimensions.
For example, when FDR wanted to establish a retirement program, and federal jobs programs (WPA, CCC),he SHOULD HAVE made the case to the American people that the Constitution required revision to permit the Feds to take measures beyond Article I, Section 8, to deal with the real problems we were confronting. Had he done that, there could have been a public debate about how to rationally expand the Federal Government's powers, while still respecting the rights of the states and the private sector.
But rather than do that, he packed the court with like-minded justices who simply worked around the constraints of the constitution, and now we have no rational guidelines or restrictions on what Congress believes it can do. For example, a Congressperson is right now introducing a new law that will regulate how amusement parks decide who can ride on which rides. WTF?!
When the Court decided that it didn't like States meddling in reproductive decisions, it decided that it would create a new "Right of Privacy." But since it isn't written down or defined anywhere, it can mean literally anything any subsequent court decides it means. It can be used to strike down sodomy laws, abortion prohibitions, and who knows what else. If the Court had refused to act on these "problems," it would have forced the Congress and the states to formulate a generally agreeable Constitutional Amendment that would have legitimacy. But we don't have that now.
The death penalty is another example of a Court that has tried to eliminate a practice that it finds unacceptable, in spite of the Constitution's clear sanctioning of the practice. This is not a question for the Courts, it's something for the Congress and the state legislatures to decide by Constitutional Amendment - if they choose to do so.
So, yes, there are Federal government programs that are logical and beneficial, and which, at the same time, are expressly prohibited by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court's hands are more or less tied because there are 70 years of precedents saying that Congress can do pretty much what it wants. Like pass laws regulating amusement park rides.
Re: Do you remember this?
Dave, I'm curious...
Do you also consider every single military action undertaken by the United States since WW II to be unconstitutional, since none of them involved getting a formal declaration of war?
It seems to me that your view of what the Constitution does and does not allow the federal government to do is pretty much the same as Ron Paul's...(to put it briefly, that would be, "damn little")
How realistic do you think it is that this view will ever garner the popular consensus needed to become the guiding principle of policy?
Do you also consider every single military action undertaken by the United States since WW II to be unconstitutional, since none of them involved getting a formal declaration of war?
It seems to me that your view of what the Constitution does and does not allow the federal government to do is pretty much the same as Ron Paul's...(to put it briefly, that would be, "damn little")
How realistic do you think it is that this view will ever garner the popular consensus needed to become the guiding principle of policy?
