The Absolute Truth About The Tea Party!

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Libertarians, the fans of Ayn Rand, the worst hack writter and philosopher wannabe ever.

Don't you remember Ron Paul was Libertarian before he was Republican? Oh wait that was Saturnfx who said Paulites were against Bush tax cuts.

edit on 23-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

So?
When did I talk about Ron Paul at all?
EDIT: Yep, I think you got us confused.

reply to post by bruji76


ah de evolution to personal snipes

alrighty im out.

Originally posted by bruji76
reply to post by neo96

 

Really?
At least I read economist authors from all the tendencies, unlike you who only know how to repeat McCarthy's propaganda. I even wouldn't be surprised if you read only the "drawing book" version of Ayn Rand. X-D

Then you must know that politicians today are practicing more Keynesian economics than principles of the free market and laissez-faire, and that we actually have more of a mixed economy of which there are some elements of Socialism.

His theory of deficit spending was used for economic recovery of the United States during the Depression. Keynes said that the depression was more that but one phase in the business cycle that would improve with time. He claimed that the depression was an equilibrium at a very low level and would persist unless enough spending occurred to get the system going. His solution was to have funds come from either the private sector through traditional forms of investment or from the public sector in the form of aggressive government spending programs and sizable tax cuts(Winkler20)
www.thenagain.info...

reply to post by neo96


Pesonal snipes? If you won't answer any of my questions and only show ignorant prejudices, I am drive to conclude you are not very educated on the subject, even if I don't have anything personal against you or anybody. I told you to tell me what authors did you read, and all I got were defensive responses. So I conclude you didn't read much or you would be able to name at least ONE or TWO economists you ever read.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

not retarded but we have seen how conversations degrade .

Was joking

These threads are useless overall though
everything that can be said about the subject has been said in the first 2 pages. the hard right will remain hard right, the hard left will remain hard left, no evidence short of a deity demanding they read/watch it will make anyone switch

the middle will look at both sides, and either become apathetic towards any and all arguments, or will simply remain perpetually confused until 3 seconds before voting time as usual.

so, its a lesson in futility overall.

I am going back to the aliens forum...aliens make more sense than our political discussions.

reply to post by bruji76


1 attacking someones imtelligence is a personal snipe
2. you already have the answers so what was the point



bye

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by bruji76
reply to post by neo96

 

Really?
At least I read economist authors from all the tendencies, unlike you who only know how to repeat McCarthy's propaganda. I even wouldn't be surprised if you read only the "drawing book" version of Ayn Rand. X-D

Then you must know that politicians today are practicing more Keynesian economics than principles of the free market and laissez-faire, and that we actually have more of a mixed economy of which there are some elements of Socialism.

edit on 23-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

But Keynes was not a socialist, just a different flavor of capitalist. Laissez-faire or not, capitalism drives over any attempt to control it, you can make laws, but capitalist always will find the way to break them. Or you could let capitalist free, and still the bigger capitalists will cheat on the small capitalists to avoid real competition. It's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts if you will.

reply to post by neo96


Actually no, you didn't mention a single author, and still you just criticized the stuff I commented on. Sorry if it felt personal, but I felt you just answer my posts with prejudiced scorn, so I felt insulted too.

Bye, bye.

reply to post by bruji76


Obama veers decidedly and drastically to the Left and you know it. A mixed economy means that we do not have a straight Free market economy nor a completely Socialist or Communist economy. The definition says that some private funds are used and some public funds to stimulate the economy.
Fabian Socialism is a Socialist society brought about by incrementalism. The end goal is communism in which the State owns all the means of production, and look what Obama has done and is doing with huge segments of our economy.

Now, supposed we just reword things a bit. If we say that Obama is a crony capitaist, using capitalist money to do want he wants, that is to rearrange our society the way he wants? What would that mean? We know he thinks we should "spread the wealth". That came out very clear during his campaign, which is one thing which spurred activity from the T Party. We know that Spreading the wealth is a socialist principle, that is forced redistribution of the wealth by means of taxation and govt programs. That's obviously socialism. So which part of Obama's methods don't you like? The Crony Capitalist methods of giving payout to his buddies(oh wait, he's using taxpayer money to do that, so it's more Socialism) or the obvious Socialist ideals of redistributive income, higher taxes, and bigger govt, as well as govt control of formerly private sectors? Which part ya hate more?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by bruji76

 

Obama veers decidedly and drastically to the Left and you know it. A mixed economy means that we do not have a straight Free market economy nor a completely Socialist or Communist economy. The definition says that some private funds are used and some public funds to stimulate the economy.
Fabian Socialism is a Socialist society brought about by incrementalism. The end goal is communism in which the State owns all the means of production, and look what Obama has done and is doing with huge segments of our economy.

Left, right, who cares? Why should I defend Obama if I don't like him either?
My point is that the problem is not about the players but about the game. Capitalism is a system that will always tend to be ruled by corporations and will always have cyclic crisis, until its final crash. It's beyond voluntarisms, it's simply how it works. So the only solution is stop playing the game, ie: changing the productive system. Until then, even if you ignore the inherent tendency to corruption of politics in capitalism, left will be fighting against mills, and right will be just helping corporations to grow even bigger.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by bruji76

 

Obama veers decidedly and drastically to the Left and you know it. A mixed economy means that we do not have a straight Free market economy nor a completely Socialist or Communist economy. The definition says that some private funds are used and some public funds to stimulate the economy.
Fabian Socialism is a Socialist society brought about by incrementalism. The end goal is communism in which the State owns all the means of production, and look what Obama has done and is doing with huge segments of our economy.

Now, supposed we just reword things a bit. If we say that Obama is a crony capitaist, using capitalist money to do want he wants, that is to rearrange our society the way he wants? What would that mean? We know he thinks we should "spread the wealth". That came out very clear during his campaign, which is one thing which spurred activity from the T Party. We know that Spreading the wealth is a socialist principle, that is forced redistribution of the wealth by means of taxation and govt programs. That's obviously socialism. So which part of Obama's methods don't you like? The Crony Capitalist methods of giving payout to his buddies(oh wait, he's using taxpayer money to do that, so it's more Socialism) or the obvious Socialist ideals of redistributive income, higher taxes, and bigger govt, as well as govt control of formerly private sectors? Which part ya hate more?

edit on 24-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

No, actually the part of welfare, if you leave the demagogue part outside, is about having poor people quiet so they don't revolt against riches. But it doesn't work very well either.

Originally posted by bruji76

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by bruji76

 

Obama veers decidedly and drastically to the Left and you know it. A mixed economy means that we do not have a straight Free market economy nor a completely Socialist or Communist economy. The definition says that some private funds are used and some public funds to stimulate the economy.
Fabian Socialism is a Socialist society brought about by incrementalism. The end goal is communism in which the State owns all the means of production, and look what Obama has done and is doing with huge segments of our economy.

Left, right, who cares? Why should I defend Obama if I don't like him either?
My point is that the problem is not about the players but about the game. Capitalism is a system that will always tend to be ruled by corporations and will always have cyclic crisis, until its final crash. It's beyond voluntarisms, it's simply how it works. So the only solution is stop playing the game, ie: changing the productive system. Until then, even if you ignore the inherent tendency to corruption of politics in capitalism, left will be fighting against mills, and right will be just helping corporations to grow even bigger.

edit on 24-4-2011 by bruji76 because: (no reason given)

Well, now you are saying left/right whats the difference but it only seems to be Capitalism you are criticising. The perversions of both Capitalism and Communism are being employed here. That is the whole point. Leftists clearly hate Capitalism in all of its forms, not just the cronyism Obama is using. When are you going to criticism Communism or Socialism? The NWO is the synthesis of left and right. It is neither right nor left but the perversions of both.

i knew the tea party was a scam the whole time, they did supposedly stand for a couple good things...one was freedom...lol, but yeah i'm not a fan of the tea party..iv'e done my research

reply to post by bruji76

No, actually the part of welfare, if you leave the demagogue part outside, is about having poor people quiet so they don't revolt against riches. But it doesn't work very well either.

And yet Obama is working the class warfare as well as race warfare. Is that so the poor people won't rise up against the rich? Nay, he is stoking the fires of class warfare precisely so they will back his camaign against the Capitalist system. Soros is an Intl Socialist and yet he is one of thee wealthiest men. How do you explain that, and how do you explain Soros backing Obama not just in his campaign but it everything he does? How do you explain Soros' hatred of Bush? How do you explain Soros' infusion of his money into MoveOn.org, Huffpo, Tides, OFA? You do know that class warfare is a Marxist tool right? Plus, Obama is employing race warfare as well to achieve his goals of bigger govt.

Originally posted by cornucopia
i knew the tea party was a scam the whole time, they did supposedly stand for a couple good things...one was freedom...lol, but yeah i'm not a fan of the tea party..iv'e done my research

Oh yeah? Exactly what did you come across in your research? Could you be more specific instead of relying on generality of opinion? Exactly what was the scam part?

Originally posted by bruji76

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bruji76

 

well good luck waiting on your free handout of land and good luck getting your free handout for all those material resources and good luck getting someone to help with all the labor.

nothing is free in this country if someone doesnt get anything out of it good luck

But that's exactly the point. Why should only some privileged ones to have power over all resources?
Why should resources to be owned only by a few?

oh bruji you're actually this idiot aren't you?

What gives this guy the right to dictate the menu/ hours of operaton and other policies of the restaurant that merely hired him to steam noodles?He has nothing ofhimself invested . the owners put sweat equity
(probably their labor ) into growing their seed capital to purchase equipment and space to begin their enterprise
Poli- sci101 boy didn't do crap except complain about his hours. and how he was forced into his situation..
death to socialists.

reply to post by bruji76

But Keynes was not a socialist, just a different flavor of capitalist. Laissez-faire or not, capitalism drives over any attempt to control it, you can make laws, but capitalist always will find the way to break them. Or you could let capitalist free, and still the bigger capitalists will cheat on the small capitalists to avoid real competition. It's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts if you will.

Yes, that's called Monopoly Capitalism. But a strict definition of a monopoly could just mean a local grocery dominates one corner of an area. An Oligopoly is where there is a huge consolidation of many different products. Con-Agra is a good example of that. www.nofa.org...&%20Ag.pdf
These big giants can price the little guys out of the market. Does this mean that Capitalism is inherently bad? I believe it means that it is out of balance. But these giant corporations do have a place in mass distribution, particularly in non-farming large cities where the smaller farms cannot get their product distributed as fast and as easily. Also these giants engage in price-fixing. But what does the govt do? It uses subsidies and it's own brand of price controls, establishing artificial price celings and floors not based necessarily on market controls. What that does is reduce the control mechanism and competitiveness of the free market.

Maybe it's just me...but are like stupid greedy blind and un-educated people mostly capitalism oriented and that smart educated free-minded individuals are tending mostly on a more socialism side?

I listen to those people on the videos and they don't want to pay taxes, they prefer that their hard owned money goes directly in companies instead of their own country.

I guess maybe it's because I'm Canadian, maybe because I think being richer then other people is not a worthy lifetime but I like the idea that social services are payed with taxes.
Would you rather lend money to your government if ever you get sick, or an insurance company that will NOT finance anything other then their own greed?

Money is power. The government is the people, if the government is rich, the people are rich. Who needs power when you don't NEED to only think of yourself because everyone helps everyone. This is how people can look towards evolving instead of stepping on other peoples head to survive.

reply to post by User8911


The accumulation of surplus is a very dissatisfying end, once achieved. Thereafter, the abstraction of surplus into wealth, and the commensurate measure of control afforded by wealth becomes the motivating factor behind the hoarding of excess.

This is a sensation known to a very few, and is translated into the common parlance in the blossoming popular phenom of hoarders, their grand canyons of carefully organized crap comprising a sort of hedge against the Inevitable.

The man who collects mountains of newspapers and vistas of ceramic figurines is a tiny Trump; both are operating not from the need to have stuff per se, but from the fear of mortality.

And thus do tax cuts in favor of the very wealthy get legislated against sense or base self-interest. We have a bunch of tiny Trumps who are under the mistaken impression that such a tax cut is geared toward fattening their slice. Not so, sadly.

reply to post by bruji76


Yes, momentarily I confused you with someone else.