Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
Reply To Thread

Soda for Food StampsFollow

#552 Feb 13 2013 at 1:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Voting the same against a competing interest is not the same as "working with".


Trust me when I say I know far, far more about Nazi Germany than you do.

I have been studying this history for 40 years. No exaggeration. You have not.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#553 Feb 13 2013 at 1:06 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Fascism is for the consolidation of wealth. Socialism is for the distribution of wealth.


I'm sorry, but that's just ... wrong. Socialism is for government control of wealth with the assumption that it will do a better job with it than the free market. Fascism is a method of socialism that uses regulation and control of industry to accomplish this. Communism is a method of socialism which eliminates the private ownership entirely and just gives all industry to the state. All of them sell their actions to the public on the argument that they'll do a better job distributing the wealth than a free market will.

Why the hell do you think the NAZIs made such a big deal about bankers and the rich (scapegoating the Jews along the way)? They appealed to the working class and unemployed by claiming they could make their lives better by seizing the property of those rich people and using it to make their lives better (the working class and unemployed that is). They promised jobs. They promised better pay. They promised to force those companies to do the right thing. Sound familiar?

Quote:
Ya and you can be a fascist communism. China is, North Korea most certainly is. You can be a socialist communism, Russia is.


You're equating "fascist" with "authoritarian" though. That's not what it means. You cannot have a fascist communism (not in absolute terms at least). Fascism uses government control over privately owned industries, while communism simply seizes those industries and controls them directly. There is no direct overlap in methodology, but the goals are the same (government control of industry). Obviously, any system can have elements of both (and most do in fact). Which is yet another reason why slinging around labels and insisting "we're socialists, not fascist" is silly.


Quote:
Governing Policy is your nations forming of established government. Economic Policy is a position that government takes be it authoritarian, or democratic.


Don't feel like getting into a pointless semantic argument over this.

Quote:
As for Hitler, he had no money, his party was made up of the poor workers of Germany. His money came from corporate backing, by the end of WW2 Billions passed through Germany through the NAZI's, into Switzerland, and then most went to the USA.


You're kidding, right? You're repeating a pretty nutty conspiracy theory that has about zero grounds in reality.

Quote:
Hitler did not have the funds to be a candidate, he toed the line because he needed to be admired, his one desire. He sold out to the corporate sponsors who raped Europe for all of its wealth, and drove nearly every nation into some form of debt. Consolidation of wealth.


Um... Not even sure how to respond to this. Tinfoil hat time maybe?

Quote:
Hitler most certainly wanted free markets, considering he established Germany as the most economic free zone in the World at the time and was rewarded with the Olympics, Everyone else was still playing Isolationist, then again Hitler got to see a good 10 years of Germany being broke ass before the rest of the world joined in in 1929. But again your complete lack of understanding of the details shines through.


Um... Those are completely different things. Great projection you've got going on though!

Quote:
The difference between the Nazis and other social movements was the investing power of rich white guys. Thats it.


Huh? There have always been a large number of "rich white guys" investing in social movements (and political parties, and governments, etc, etc, etc...). That hasn't changed. Hitler was no different, so let's stop pretending that this was some special unique aspect of his rise to power. And let's not forget the point I made earlier about the gap between what those seeking power want to do and what those giving them power want them to do. The danger of socialism in all forms is that once you give someone that power, you're basically just hoping he uses it to do what you want him to do, and not something else entirely.

Quote:
Not entirely true. If the government was a few people who controlled everything, say like North Korea, then yes that would be Fascism. However over here in Canada as the Government (the people) buy more stuff for themselves collectively (say like healthcare) and need to consolidate more funds (revenue) that would be called Socialism.


No. Now you're confusing fascism with a non-democratic system. It's not about how many people make up your government or how they come to power. It's about the degree to which the government controls industry. And I don't think North Korea is fascist. I think it's communist. Aren't most industries state owned there, and the state allocates work assignments and needs for the people? I could be wrong, I'm hardly an expert on their political system.

I just don't know how many times I can explain this to you. Socialism is about government control of industry. Period. Fascism and communism are two different methods to employ socialism. Something cannot be "fascist instead of socialist". If it's fascist, it's also socialist. If it's communist, it's also socialist. Remember, I'm not talking about the labels that people apply, but the actual concepts themselves. What defines socialism?

Quote:
You seem to confusing Capitalism and Communism again.


Uh... No. What a random statement. We weren't even talking about those.

Quote:
Quote:
Yes it is. In the form of Obamacare most recently. There are elements of fascism in a number of industries though. Do you get that when the government tells an industry "you must do things this way or you can't do business", that's not a free market?


No that is Socialism. Your Government (the people) have decided to buy themselves some stuff collectively (healthcare) and now need to consolidate more funds (revenue).


Um.. As I've been trying to explain to you: It's both. It is socialism because it's the government controlling an industry (health in this case), and it's fascism specifically because the means of that control is to regulate existing private markets rather that seize direct control of the industry itself. If the government creates a ministry of health and employs all doctors itself and doles out medicine to the people directly, then it's communist. If it creates mandates which insurance companies must follow and more mandates that businesses must buy that insurance, and yet more mandates that everyone must participate in the industry, that is fascism.

Quote:
This is the consolidation of wealth to the many, not to the few. Socialism.


Huh? You can't "consolidate wealth" to the many. It's consolidated by the few, always. What's done with it is a separate issue. All forms of socialism gain power by promising the many that they'll distribute that wealth in ways which benefit them (although the specific methods vary of course). There's what they do, and why they do it. And all have the same answer in that case. Fascism does not use the government to consolidate wealth into the hands of the few in order to make those few rich. Or more correctly, this isn't what fascism promises to the people who support it. That's why it's identical to socialism. You only call it fascism after the fact if they don't actually follow through on their promises and instead use that power and wealth to enrich and empower themselves and screw over all the little people.

The problem is that this is indistinguishable ahead of time. That's why I keep saying that fascism *is* socialism. They are the same (certainly in modern terms especially). The citizens of Germany in the 1930s were just as certain that Hitler was going to usher in an era of prosperity, good jobs, good pay, good benefits, etc for all the people as anyone voting Labor in the UK does today. They did not imagine things would turn out the way they did. You're under the mistaken impression that they were somehow more foolish than you are.

Quote:
As for your second question. That is called Regulation. You know like laws for companies....I mean America is a free country ya? Do you have rules?


As I said earlier, it's a matter of degrees. There's also a difference between "it's against the law to dump industrial waste in the river", and "the law requires that X% of your cars meet a certain mph requirement". There's a difference between a law which require certain amounts of worker safety and laws which pay people to make product A instead of product B, and then pay people to buy product A as well. Regulation becomes control at a certain point. When it ceases to be about how products are made, but actually which products are made and which are bought, that's more about control. And when those controls exist with the assumption that government can make better choices about what people really need than the free market can, then that's socialism.


[quote][quote]People who praise socialism do so because the government intervenes to provide economic outcomes that the free market would not produce.[/quote]

So you can't buy health insurance in America? Wow sh*tty third world stuff if you ask me.[/quote]

Um... The operating assumption for implementing socialized medicine is that not everyone would be able to obtain health care if the government didn't act. Was that actually something you didn't understand?


[quote]What kind of government. In my country (a democracy) if it breaches its trust of power, it doesn't get elected again. I guess ya in North Korea you would be right, but then again the government isn't very socialist, I mean those people starve by the thousands a day.[/quote]

You're assuming that socialism always produces good outcomes. You do this to such an extent that when it fails to produce good outcomes (or even produces really horrible ones), you just change the name and say "that's not socialism!". Um... yes, it is. Communism is a form of socialism. WTF? That's not to say that people can't starve to death in countries with completely free markets, but the sheer denial you're showing is funny as hell. You're playing word games to make it appear as though the ideology you espouse cannot possibly fail. That's really really bizarre.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#554gbaji, Posted: Feb 13 2013 at 1:18 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh. I noticed one other fun bit rdm. In addition to your assumption that it's only socialism if it works, you also use one of my favorites: Calling the government, "the people". Isn't is interesting that the government is the people when it's doing the right things, but it's under control of some evil force when it's not. That's another delusion btw. A particularly scary one IMO, but one that I run into all the time.
#555 Feb 13 2013 at 1:27 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Voting the same against a competing interest is not the same as "working with".


It is "working with" them to defeat that competing interest. Seriously? You started with "No! They never worked together to prevent a free market from being adopted!" to "well, they voted together to defeat the free market advocates, but that's not the same as working with them". Whatever you want to call it, it's exactly what I was talking about. Both groups were opposed to free markets. So to try to say that one was opposed while the other was for free markets is patently false.

Quote:
Trust me when I say I know far, far more about Nazi Germany than you do.

I have been studying this history for 40 years. No exaggeration. You have not.


Then you haven't absorbed what you learned very well. My knowledge of Germany is from a couple classes, a few books on the subject, and various conversations (and related research) about it. Yet I apparently have a better grasp of the relative positions and actions of the communists and fascists in Germany at the time than you do. I mean, you didn't even seem to be aware of what I said when I first said it. Now you're acknowledging that my statement was correct, but it didn't mean they were really working together. Look. I never said they were buddies or anything, just that the communists voted for the NAZIs in order to ensure that a socialist party gained power. They did this because they believed that if socialist policies were adopted in Germany that it would be a step in the direction they wanted to go, and perhaps later they could win over more power in the future and enact a more complete communist system.

Are you saying that's wrong? Because I'm pretty sure that's correct.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#556 Feb 13 2013 at 2:34 AM Rating: Excellent
SO... if you, gbaji voted against Obama, and the US Nazi party voted against Obama, are you "working with the Nazis"? Are you "on their side"? Are you "co-operating with them"?



You are wrong on all counts vis-a-vis Nazi history.



Give it up.


gbaji wrote:
Are you saying that's wrong? Because I'm pretty sure that's correct.
Like you were pretty sure that "reload" meant hit "F5". My god you are easily lead...by the nose.Smiley: laugh

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 1:38am by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#557 Feb 13 2013 at 2:39 AM Rating: Good
**
569 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
RavennofTitan wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
480 is the max for SSI even if you did work

No, it isn't.

Yeah it is if you collect before you turn 65.


Nah.


Edited, Feb 12th 2013 4:57pm by BrownDuck


Like I stated in the post after it I mention adjusting for cost of living and it was 5 years ago. My mistake in the first post. The point still stands SSDI is what goes off years work/amount paid in as I get about $600 more then what the current SSI on SSDI. I was turn down for SSDI on my first attempt and given SSI after I appealed that ruling I got full SSDI and they took what I had received in SSI out of my settlement.
____________________________
.
#558 Feb 13 2013 at 6:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,227 posts
Can we change gbaji's title to Cliff Clavin yet?
#559 Feb 13 2013 at 6:16 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Like I stated in the post after it I mention adjusting for cost of living and it was 5 years ago. My mistake in the first post. The point still stands SSDI is what goes off years work/amount paid in as I get about $600 more then what the current SSI on SSDI. I was turn down for SSDI on my first attempt and given SSI after I appealed that ruling I got full SSDI and they took what I had received in SSI out of my settlement.

No one gives a fuck. You can stop posting about it now. Was your disability related to not understanding when you have nothing left to offer in a conversation?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#560 Feb 13 2013 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Can we change gbaji's title to Cliff Clavin yet?
Cliff provided useless facts. When does gbaji provide facts?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#561 Feb 13 2013 at 6:30 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Cliff provided useless facts. When does gbaji provide facts?

You need to watch Cheers again as an adult. The "facts" were intentionally crazy examples of sh*t know it all guys at bars make up.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#562 Feb 13 2013 at 6:45 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
So like mischaracterizing fascism *soley* to associate it with capitalism?

I guess? I haven't read the post you're referring to, but this whole "Nazi Socialism" argument makes you look like a fool. It's not novel. It's just stupid. It's up there with "bananas prove intelligent design". Find a new way of communicating. I understand what you're trying to get at, and you're wrong, but also the argument you're attempting to use to get there is so fucking preposterous that it detracts from your point and becomes the conversation. This isn't the first time with the "Nazis were communist/socialist" thing, either. It's historically false, and completely irrelevant as a bonus.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#563 Feb 13 2013 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I noticed one other fun bit rdm. In addition to your assumption that it's only socialism if it works, you also use one of my favorites: Calling the government, "the people". Isn't is interesting that the government is the people when it's doing the right things, but it's under control of some evil force when it's not. That's another delusion btw. A particularly scary one IMO, but one that I run into all the time.

The government has the power you give it whether it's going to do what you want, or it's going to do what you don't want. So don't give it that much power, OK?

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 11:18pm by gbaji


Who said anything about being evil. I said my countries government is run by the people, not every country in the world experiences that, and not every country in the world that doesn't has power hungry government who eats up all the money. It also isn't concrete along the lines of Capitalism or Communism. That is why I asked you which type of government. Here in Socialist Canada we elect our government based on their positions of spending our collective money, and plans to maintain the programs we have bought in the past.

I can understand your worry though as an American, considering your government doesn't really control its money supply. It is macro managed by a group of savvy banks who sit on the Fed.

Paranoia is fun though isn't it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#564 Feb 13 2013 at 8:33 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
I can understand your worry though as an American, considering your government doesn't really control its money supply.

Did you know the Bank of Canada is privately owned by the Queen of Canada! OMG!!!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#565 Feb 13 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Cliff provided useless facts. When does gbaji provide facts?

You need to watch Cheers again as an adult. The "facts" were intentionally crazy examples of sh*t know it all guys at bars make up.

I'll take your word for it. I'm really not up to watching Cheers again.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#566 Feb 13 2013 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
you also use one of my favorites: Calling the government, "the people". Isn't is interesting that the government is the people when it's doing the right things, but it's under control of some evil force when it's not. That's another delusion btw. A particularly scary one IMO, but one that I run into all the time.

...said the man who consistently refers to The Government as some shadowy boogey-man possessing its own individual sentience.

Anyway, I'm struck again by what an absolutely terrible messenger Gbaji is of whatever it is he's selling. Did anyone actually slog through over 1,600 words there and feel that Gbaji made any sort of point? Anyone?


Edited, Feb 13th 2013 8:59am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#567 Feb 13 2013 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I haven't read the post you're referring to, but this whole "Nazi Socialism" argument makes you look like a fool.
I think it's his irrelevant votes are bullets that pushed him over.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#568 Feb 13 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,612 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Here in Socialist Canada we elect our government based on their positions of spending our collective money, and plans to maintain the programs we have bought in the past.
Senate says you're crazy.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#569 Feb 13 2013 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
******
41,245 posts
Apparently we vote based on which brown people we want dead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#570 Feb 13 2013 at 10:00 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,715 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Cliff provided useless facts. When does gbaji provide facts?

You need to watch Cheers again as an adult. The "facts" were intentionally crazy examples of sh*t know it all guys at bars make up.

I'll take your word for it. I'm really not up to watching Cheers again.


Oh come on, that was the only period in Kirstie Alley's life where she was mildly attractive.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#571 Feb 13 2013 at 3:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
SO... if you, gbaji voted against Obama, and the US Nazi party voted against Obama, are you "working with the Nazis"? Are you "on their side"? Are you "co-operating with them"?


If by "voting against Obama" you mean that I voted for the NAZI party because I would rather they be in power than Obama, then yes, I would be "working with the Nazis". Do you understand that the communists supported and voted for Hitler? They did this because while they viewed the Nazis as rivals to their own socialist agenda, both groups were socialist. So they set aside their differences out of a sense of solidarity. Didn't end out well for the communists, but that was what they did and why they did it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#572 Feb 13 2013 at 4:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I noticed one other fun bit rdm. In addition to your assumption that it's only socialism if it works, you also use one of my favorites: Calling the government, "the people". Isn't is interesting that the government is the people when it's doing the right things, but it's under control of some evil force when it's not. That's another delusion btw. A particularly scary one IMO, but one that I run into all the time.

The government has the power you give it whether it's going to do what you want, or it's going to do what you don't want. So don't give it that much power, OK?


Who said anything about being evil.


It's the distinction you're making between socialism and fascism. When a socialist does what you view as good things, you call it socialism. When a socialist government does what you view as evil things, you call it fascism. It's an after the fact labeling though. Which is the problem. They are indistinguishable until something goes horribly wrong.

Quote:
I said my countries government is run by the people, not every country in the world experiences that, and not every country in the world that doesn't has power hungry government who eats up all the money.


It's cute that you think your government is "run by the people". It's "run by people", but those aren't "the people", they are people who hold positions of power in the government. And that's true of all governments. The methods by which they gain that power vary, but the power itself is the same. You are foolish if you think that because you gave someone power by voting for them, that they are any less powerful over you because of it. More correctly, they are only less powerful over you *if* you are vigilant in making sure they don't abuse that power. But you aren't vigilant. You trust them too much, and you look the other way and make excuses when they do things you don't like. You should be distrustful of your government.

Quote:
It also isn't concrete along the lines of Capitalism or Communism. That is why I asked you which type of government. Here in Socialist Canada we elect our government based on their positions of spending our collective money, and plans to maintain the programs we have bought in the past.


No. You vote based on that. Other people may vote for other things. You make the mistake of assuming everyone is a happy collective with the same values and goals. And as long as the government is more or less doing what you want, you're fine with things. The problem will occur when the government starts doing things you don't like, but you look around and no one's saying anything against it, so you don't say anything because you don't want to be in the minority. That's the problem with many socialist societies. They become so indoctrinated in the importance of everyone working together that instead of starting with principles and fighting for them, they adjust their personal positions to match that of the group. You spend so much time attacking anyone who stands out from the crowd that you become trapped inside it yourself. And when the crowd moves in a direction you don't like, you'll have no choice but to follow. And you'll even join in attacking anyone who criticizes what's going on. And then one day you'll wonder how you ended out under an authoritarian regime, but instead of realizing that it was your own damn fault, you'll blame "fascists" who must have lied and manipulated unfairly to gain power, perhaps with the help of rich backers in shadowy rooms.

And all the while you've missed that it's your own willingness to give up your individual freedom in order to be ruled that is the cause. You want to feel safe in the arms of a government that takes care of you. You make a great deal out of differentiating fascism from socialism, but you will not see that difference when it's happening around you until it's too late.

Quote:
I can understand your worry though as an American, considering your government doesn't really control its money supply. It is macro managed by a group of savvy banks who sit on the Fed.


And yet, absent ridiculous socialist spending policies enacted in the last 4 years, we would be doing just fine right now. The worst economic time periods in US history have occurred when we were most pursuing socialist economic policies. The great depression, the 70s, and the last 4-5 years. The periods in between we've leaned more towards free market and smaller government and our economy has soared. What's that old saying? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

Quote:
Paranoia is fun though isn't it.


Not paranoia, but a healthy dose of distrust for those who hold power over you. Certainly, blindly assuming that everything will be peachy because "we're socialist" is foolish as hell.

Edited, Feb 13th 2013 2:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#573 Feb 13 2013 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,622 posts
It's funny to see gbaji chastising somebody for toeing the party line. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#574 Feb 13 2013 at 10:17 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Belkira wrote:
It's funny to see gbaji chastising somebody for toeing the party line. Smiley: lol


I think its funnier that Gbaji hates democracy.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#575 Feb 14 2013 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It's funny to see gbaji chastising somebody for toeing the party line. Smiley: lol


I think its funnier that Gbaji hates democracy.


You make the mistake of equating democracy with liberalism. While democracy is a key component to liberalism, not all democracy results in liberalism. Which is precisely where socialism goes wrong. It's a method of using the democratic process to provide people with benefits at the expense of liberty. Democracy by itself just means that we use a system of voting to make decisions. It's not innately good or bad. What a society chooses to do with it matters a lot more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#576 Feb 14 2013 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Do you understand that the communists supported and voted for Hitler? They did this because while they viewed the Nazis as rivals to their own socialist agenda, both groups were socialist. So they set aside their differences out of a sense of solidarity. Didn't end out well for the communists, but that was what they did and why they did it.
Yeah...cite, please.


ALSO:

gbaji wrote:
You started with "No! They never worked together to prevent a free market from being adopted!" to "well, they voted together to defeat the free market advocates, but that's not the same as working with them"


Stop claiming I wrote something I clearly did not write, you @#%^.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 5:44pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#577 Feb 14 2013 at 7:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you understand that the communists supported and voted for Hitler? They did this because while they viewed the Nazis as rivals to their own socialist agenda, both groups were socialist. So they set aside their differences out of a sense of solidarity. Didn't end out well for the communists, but that was what they did and why they did it.
Yeah...cite, please.


I'm sure you'll dismiss it out of hand, but there's this one

Quote:
It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.


It's the easiest source to find that states this directly, most of them kinda dance around the issue and you kinda have to read behind the lines to see that the same supporters tended to bounce around between the same couple parties (communist and national socialist) during the late 20s and early 30s.

For a broader examination relevant to the topic at hand, we could also look at this site

It's an interesting read. I think the author uses socialism almost as a synonym for communism (where I think communism is a subset of socialism), but that's more of a labeling issue really.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
You started with "No! They never worked together to prevent a free market from being adopted!" to "well, they voted together to defeat the free market advocates, but that's not the same as working with them"


Stop claiming I wrote something I clearly did not write, you @#%^.


I may have editorialized a bit, but that's the gist I got from what you wrote. You started with a firm "they never worked together" to acknowledging that they voted in support of Hitler (admittedly more out of opposition of a common enemy) but that this somehow didn't equate to working together. I don't see how that makes sense though, except for an exceptionally narrow definition of "working together". The Communist Party in Germany on several occasions in the early 30s choose sides with the Nazis specifically to ensure that a non-socialist/conservative government could not be formed. They did this out of a belief that repeated collapses of governments and failed elections would ultimately lead to some form of upheaval and revolution. Their big failure was that it was Hitler who took advantage of those things when they happened and they got the short end of the stick.

Hitlers opposition to communists was less about their ideology and more about their threat to his own party's power (which itself is tricky if you don't understand that there were two broad branches of communists as well). Both were absolutely on the same "side" in terms of ideology. National Socialists shifted to the Communist party and vice versa as the fortunes of their leaders changed. Both were similarly aligned though.

Edited, Feb 14th 2013 5:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#578 Feb 14 2013 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you understand that the communists supported and voted for Hitler? They did this because while they viewed the Nazis as rivals to their own socialist agenda, both groups were socialist. So they set aside their differences out of a sense of solidarity. Didn't end out well for the communists, but that was what they did and why they did it.
Yeah...cite, please.


I'm sure you'll dismiss it out of hand, but there's this one.
Yeah, I will. A cite from historical record or something of equal value - y'now, like a history book? Thanks for confirming that you adhere to soulless Randian philosophy though.

gbaji wrote:
For a broader examination relevant to the topic at hand, we could also look at this site
It's an interesting read. I think the author uses socialism almost as a synonym for communism (where I think communism is a subset of socialism), but that's more of a labeling issue really.
Right-wing think tanks are not "impartial". Did you think I would not notice the Liberty Fund logo?Smiley: laugh


Bijou wrote:
Stop claiming I wrote something I clearly did not write, you @#%^.


gbaji wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You started with "No! They never worked together to prevent a free market from being adopted!" to "well, they voted together to defeat the free market advocates, but that's not the same as working with them"


I may have editorialized a bit,
No, you used quotation marks, which in English usage denotes a...wait for it...quotation of what someone wrote or said. I did not in any way shape or form make any comment on any free market at all.


And, for the record, a fasces was a symbol of authority, not group hugs.

You really are bought and sold aren't you?


____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#579 Feb 14 2013 at 9:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Yeah, I will. A cite from historical record or something of equal value - y'now, like a history book? Thanks for confirming that you adhere to soulless Randian philosophy though.


Well, gee. I don't happen to have a history book handy at the moment (and history books are just as likely to have bias, so I'm not sure why you'd think it's more legitimate, but whatever). Here's a take on things though. It glosses over a number of things, and this is one of those sources that dances around a bit with it (so you have to read between the lines), but there's sufficient information there to reasonably conclude that the Communist and National Socialist parties were on the same side more or less (right up until Hitler double crossed them of course). The fact that Hitlers followers started shifting from his party to the Communist party when they lost some seats is somewhat telling as well. It shows that they felt they had more in common with communism than the other more conservative parties.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
For a broader examination relevant to the topic at hand, we could also look at this site
It's an interesting read. I think the author uses socialism almost as a synonym for communism (where I think communism is a subset of socialism), but that's more of a labeling issue really.
Right-wing think tanks are not "impartial". Did you think I would not notice the Liberty Fund logo?Smiley: laugh


That's circular. What kind of think tanks do you think would discuss this in the first place? Any one that did would be labeled by you a "right wing think tank". So what's the point? You're basically arguing that any source you disagree with can't be used as a source. But then you demand that I provide a cite from a source. You'll only accept sources that agree with you, right?

Quote:
And, for the record, a fasces was a symbol of authority, not group hugs.


Yes, but it symbolized everyone working together to common cause. Strength through unity. That's certainly how the symbol has been used in modern times, and if we're talking about 20th century fascism, that is the most appropriate interpretation to use.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#580 Feb 14 2013 at 9:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,854 posts
Oh. And I'm sure you'll dismiss this one as well. But I think it's also a good read.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#581 Feb 14 2013 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Gbaji and Ayn Rand sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G...
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#582 Feb 15 2013 at 1:33 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And I'm sure you'll dismiss this one as well. But I think it's also a good read.
Yeah, Ayn Rand again.Smiley: dubious

Tell you what. You read the two books I listed earlier and get back to me.

gbaji wrote:
You'll only accept sources that agree with you, right?
No, I accept sources that use original source material. You know that when Shirer wrote Rise and Fall of the Third Reich he had access to all the Nazi archives, right? That is citable material.

Edited, Feb 15th 2013 12:38am by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#583 Feb 15 2013 at 6:27 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,814 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. And I'm sure you'll dismiss this one as well. But I think it's also a good read.
It reads a bit like one of your post. Lot's of 'imagining' going on, though less verbose.

Since there is no author identified, it could just as well be your work.

____________________________
LOOK here.
#584 Feb 15 2013 at 7:31 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Strength through unity.

Would you say it meant "one nation, under god, indivisible"?

Edited, Feb 15th 2013 8:31am by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#585 Feb 15 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
28,585 posts
Oh. And I'm sure you'll dismiss this one as well. But I think it's also a good read.

Well you know what they say about Objectivism and Dr Seuss...one body of work is made up entirely of overly simplistic stories written for children and the other body of work mostly rhymes.

Try the veal.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#586 Feb 15 2013 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Raj Pate wrote:
There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#587 Feb 15 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you understand that the communists supported and voted for Hitler? They did this because while they viewed the Nazis as rivals to their own socialist agenda, both groups were socialist. So they set aside their differences out of a sense of solidarity. Didn't end out well for the communists, but that was what they did and why they did it.
Yeah...cite, please.


I'm sure you'll dismiss it out of hand, but there's this one


I'd like to pull the trigger and vote this as best gbaji-ism of the week.
#588 Feb 15 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,009 posts
Guenny wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Do you understand that the communists supported and voted for Hitler? They did this because while they viewed the Nazis as rivals to their own socialist agenda, both groups were socialist. So they set aside their differences out of a sense of solidarity. Didn't end out well for the communists, but that was what they did and why they did it.
Yeah...cite, please.


I'm sure you'll dismiss it out of hand, but there's this one


I'd like to pull the trigger and vote this as best gbaji-ism of the week.


But you'll have to RELOAD a couple times to make it the best gbaji-ism ever.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#589 Feb 15 2013 at 5:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,039 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'm sure you'll dismiss it out of hand, but there's this one


Smiley: oyvey

Now why would we dismiss a "citation" from the Ayn Rand lexicon? I mean, other than the fact it has no credibility for the question at hand?

Edited, Feb 15th 2013 3:56pm by Olorinus
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 78 All times are in CDT
Aethien, klausneck, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (75)