http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4

Guys,


What a joke. When he comes to Europe to see you guys, you can keep him. Do not let him come back we can not afford him.

I " changed " my avatar so you know where I stand on the issue.


Atlas

well no matter who you guys elect you'll have someone controlled by the corporations so it's not really his fault. He just doesn't want his family murdered.

ACDC,

What world do you live in ACDC?

:o


You have its 100% backwards my friend. The corporations are controlled by the goverment. Have you ever ran or owned a corporation?

Who makes all of the rules and regulations for the corporations? Who taxes who?


The USSR did not have the corporation problem did they ACDC? They did not have any corporations did they? You know evil corporations like Ibanez were never in the USSR.

What do you think of these 14 points ACDC? Let me know what you think my friend. Tell me what points you like and what points you do not like.


Atlas

Here i was thinking i was surrounded by OBAMA GROUPIES.There is hope after all. B) My taxes just went up 4800.00.My 401k is down 87000 just since *(^$#^%$%*(()+)_*(^*&$%$*& was elected.Just remember this my brothers "IF YOU HAVE ANY MONEY YOU HAVE TO MUCH" :angry:

I don't think Barrack O'Bama is going to be much different from any other leader.

Steve,

Maybe you need to rethink this. He has spent more money in 30 days that every president in the history of the USA put together. If you spent one million dollars every day from the birth of Jesus Christ until today you would have still spent less money that Obama spent in 30 days. Just think one million a day for two thousand years would still be less. That is saying something. let me also add he ain't spent nothing yet. He is just getting started.



Atlas

Atlas, Stalin was an insane dictator who did what he wanted, he didn't need corporations to persuade him.

ok the corps control the resources the gov't and country needs. The gov't taxes the corps. In this situation the corps can shorten the supply and jack up their prices until the gov't lowers taxes and regulations on them. Here the corps are in control not the gov't. If the gov't has total control, yes if you have retards in control of the gov't bad stuff will still happen, but if done right can have huge benefits.

same as above, but what you have to remember is that the gov't shouldn't be in control of the information in communications but should be able to control pricing and availability.

what is wrong with this....

the unemployment relief is amazing, getting people to work for the gov't on this that need to be done like roads, bridges etc. but the control of hours and wages to a labor union gives control to them over the gov't.

if there is money available to loan then I don't see the issue.

If you lost your job and needed to pay for your family wouldn't you want it free?

that goes with #5

this is so corps can't control the people and charging them to death.

I don't know the work laws so i can't comment.

if you are against this, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?

if you've been following what has been happening with the jails you would understand this. corporations are opening private prisions and brutally beating inmates and coming close to the level of brutality of Guantanamo bay.

because the corps have control over the gov't there are such low taxes for them it's stupid. They should pay the same % as everyone else.

I don't understand what's going on with this one.



I think atlas you need to understand what kind of a bind your government is in. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ watch the two movies here.

LOL the republicans would have spent even more and lowered taxes making a bigger dept. You can't just not spend money, inflation has also changed things. All these corps have lost value and the way to fix it was to spend the money to bring them back to a reasonable state. No matter what money would've been spent, just how it's spent would differ.

ACDC,

So you are a socialist like Hitler, Marx, and Stalin. I thought you were. I was just checking. I just wanted to know for sure.

Our nation is also a socialist nation. The gov has power over everything.


Atlas

Why use Hitler Marx and Stalin as examples. Is this to make him look bad? Why not use Albert Einstein, H.G Wells and Ghandi, all socialists?

ID,

I did not make or try to make anyone bad. I'm just pointing out facts. I posted the socialists party platform. ACDC likes it. I however do not agree with one point.


Hitler, Marx, and Stalin are far more famous socialists than the people you listed.They also had power to enforce their ideas. The others did not. When you say Albert Einstein, the word socialists dose not come to mind. Math, space and time come to mind. When you bring up H.G Wells you think of a writer, not a socialists movement. All socialists are marxist, they believe in the same basic ideas. They both always use force to make the people live by their ideas.

That being said all socialists want the same thing. To FORCE you to obey their will. IE: pay taxes for the health care of others as one example. Look at the nations in history that became socialists. See what happened to them all. The end never was good was it? It always ended very badly.

Marx said,

That is where we are going my friends. The road there is not a good path. Sadly or path is set. Our freedom is being taken away each and every day. It's has never been the corporations that took our freedoms or killed far more than one hundred million people. It was the commies and the socialists. Government is always the #1 enemy of freedom. It always has been and always will be. ACDC and other socialists always want to give goverment more and more power. You can not make people be free, but you must either make or brainwash them into being slaves. The socialists have won and freedom has lost.

If any one want to be a socialists, I say go for it. Do as you will. Just do not FORCE me to take part. Socialists can not function without force, they never have and they never will.


Atlas

Yes, that is. I totally agree with you. This is my opinion and I respect any other's opinion.

VERY big corps, not just big ones, banks, etc. are controlling ANY government: they have THE MONEY, which really moves and rules the world.

I can't vote for any politician. Those who have money have the power. I think they create confussion amongst us using the politics to hide the fact that money/greed/corruption rules.

I was involved into politics for some years and that was my conclussion. Even most young people were there for money and to reach jobs.

I don't know what Obama will do -I'm spanish- but it can't be worse than Bush. Man, this one spent millions on a war for petrol... making money for weapon's corps (amongst others). G.Bush's father, Condolezza Rice, Rumsfield and many others, they and their relatives work in big petrol corps. In other countries, that will be forbidden, that will be a scandal!! I don't say other countries are better.

I like "mafia" films (specially Martin's Scorcese's "Casino") because it depicts perfectly how our society is ruled.

I think each poltical system of government eventually ends up being as corrupt as any other be it Socialism, Capitalism, whatever. That's my final take on the matter and I am hereby opting out of any political debates on this forum from now on. ;)

I totally agree, I don't believe governments could ever properly work. This due to human greed and lust for power. It is pretty much an instinct and we can't avoid it. Humans have evolved in such a way that we can't have a utopian society unless it is a dictatorship controlled by a philosopher.

you don't like having free health care etc? you're screwed up my friend

Marx just wrote a damn book, and I'm pretty sure he had no form of power. Those guys might not be known for socialism but they still were.

this tells me you have zero understanding of what marxism and socialism are if you are saying they are the samething. I'm certain that it is not only marxists and socialist that try to force their opinions.

hate to be nit picky, but this isn't a marx quote you just c&p'ed from wikipedia

but it hasn't been just obama it's been every president no matter what party they were from.

Do you know anything besides propaganda? democracies have killed just as many if not more people than any other form of gov't.

I do not, what I was saying was that based on the socialist stand points you are blatantly ignorant.

are you saying that there is any correlation between the two? there is not, you lost just as many freedoms when your precious republican party was in power, maybe even more.

where do you get this stupidity socialism is a philosophy and the reason it hasn't come around in america is because of the brain washing done. They say that communism is socialism, which it defiantly is not, and they convinced the country that communism was evil, which it isn't. It was the men in power of the communist countries that were.

You don't understand your own country, go to http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ and watch the movies. Your presidents have been controlled by the rich families from before your grandparents were born. They dictate who gets to be in power and what they do while in power. They control all of us financially. We are all rats in their maze they call the free world.

ACDC,

FREE? Did you say FREE? I can not believe you said FREE HEALTHCARE. ACDC life lesson #1 There is no such thing as free. Do the Doctors work for free? I could go on I'm sure you get the point.

Just as you are a known socialists.

Maybe you missed the BASIC IDEAS part and the FORCE part.

Basic ideas of socialists and marxist hate capitalism and force some one to pay for something for someone else. IE: FREE health care for example. I still can not believe you said free. if you do not turn over your cash to the state to " help " others you'll go to jail. This is what both socialists and marxist must do to make you pay.

Please name for me the companies that have killed millions. Like how many people have Coke, Pepsi, Gibson Guitars, and Merry Maids killed? I tell you that hundreds of millions have been killed by the commies and socialists. You are saying this is propaganda? No it is history. Did Hitler not start WW@ and kill over 6 million Jews and millions of others? Maybe my Grand Pa was a liar and did not lose his arm in France in WW2 after all, maybe that was just propaganda. Stalin even killed more or is that just propaganda. How about the 50 millions or so that Mao Zedong killed. Maybe this is not true either. maybe is was really Coke, Pizza Hut or McDonald's that killed all of those people.

No is it there also?

I got it from some web site that was talking about Rage Against the Machine being commies.

ACDC who lied to you and told you I was a Republican? You tell them to stop telling lies on me. I'm a Libertarian ACDC.


Yes I am saying there is a correlation between force and marxism and socialism. This is very true. I am FORCED to pay Social Security & Medicare Tax. I can not opt out. If I were free I could opt out. Socialism demands that I must pay or go to jail. If that is not force what is it ACDC? If I told you give me you money or I'd put you in jail would that not be force. See if you guys want socialism I say fine with me, just let me opt out. You guys can not do it. You must FORCE me to pay ACDC, well pay or else.



Atlas

Suppose one day you are jamming in public with your main axe.A mighty fine axe.Your pride and joy.Up walks a person and says that you dont need that fine axe because it makes others feel bad because they dont have one as nice.So under threat of jail or worse they take that fine axe and sale it.Then they buy 9 junkers and give you one and hand the others out to the very undeserving takers.Doesnt matter if you worked 2yrs and saved every penny just for that one axe.Doesnt matter.The venue doesnt matter.Your life doesnt matter.The problem is for 50yrs no one has had to EARN thier FREEDOM therefore no understanding of the SACRAFICE. :angry:

Oh boy, here we go...

First off
propaganda:
\ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\ Noun
- the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
- ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause ; also : a public action having such an effect (From the MW online dictionary).

1) There is a huge difference between socialism (a la Marx) and fascism (Hitler). Please, don't bring in Hitler or Stalin as a scare tactic, it's propaganda.

2) Communism is socialism, but socialism is not necesasrily communism. Communism described the final state of complete socialism where there was a completely classless society, as described by Marx. Tying socialism permanently to communism and ignoring the difference is propaganda.

3) Marx did not hate capitalism. Rather, he saw it as a necessary step in the evolution of government structure that eventually led to what he believed the final step was, communism. Claiming that he hated capitalism is just propaganda.

4) With universal health care, the doctors are paid by the government who collects the money from taxes. In other words, you still pay for health insurance. Twisting around economics for the benefit of your argument is propaganda.

5) The goal of socialism is not to force others to follow their will. This is completely wrong. Rather, socialism advocates the public ownership of the means of production, through the government. Communism continues this into an equal and classless society. The claim is a lie, and is propaganda.

6) I like this quote: "I tell you that hundreds of millions have been killed by the commies and socialists." I can tell you that hundreds of millions more were killed by capitalists. And I wouldn't be lying. Wars happen, people get killed. You deliberately skipped this part of the argument. I think you can see enough of a pattern to know what that is.

How about this. Say that I want to run a propaganda campaign against Christians. I could say that "all those goddamned Christians have been killin' and enforcin' their ways since the middle ages, just look at those crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Christianization of the world". I could back this up with facts, and my argument would appear strong. However, I am completely ignoring that people have been killed by (for the simplification of the argument for this thread) atheists; just look at Stalin. This careful omission makes my argument hard to break, and makes it appear to those less informed, whom I am trying to manipulate, that I am entirely correct. Guess what this is called?

How about applying this here. I could say that capitalism is selfish because it advocates keeping wealth at the expense of others who need it more. This violates the golden rule, because although you may love being able to not provide for those less fortunate, as soon as the tables are turned, you'll be grasping at everything you can get. Therefore, communism is the ultimate right path because it is a classless society where all people are equal and all people own the means of production. This is about as sound as the anti-commie arguments in this thread. By the way, in all honesty, when you give someone else something that you own with their consent, you are helping them.

I think the main point is that political ideologies are not evil, forceful, whatever you can say about the ideology that you DON'T support. Rather, the people, a combination of those for and against the ideas, do this. If you think you can do better than the current government, run for office.

Oh, and I'm not a socialist, please don't call me one.

Lektro,

Man did you get that right.

Well lets see what Marx said about the issue.

Well if he did not hate capitalism why was it his life's work to destroy capitalism? Dose some one want to destroy something they do not hate? I think not. Maybe you need to read a little more Marx.

What if I or someone else dose not want health insurance? Should they not have the right not to buy health insurance? This is a very simple yes or no question.

They are both very close indeed. Just like Baptist are not
Catholics, yet both are about The same and share many of the same ideas.

You are correct the goverment wants to control the means of production because they say they are the public. To do this they must control the producers and the resources of production. IE: The farmers and the land both must be controlled by the goverment. The socialists want control and always take it by force. History is a good example of this.

Well were the U.S.S.R., Cuba, China, East Germany and other nations that had communism really a " classless society? " Oh no not at all. Now I never went to a Communist nation, I did however go to what used to be East Germany in 1995 and you could tell my friend that it never was a " classless society. "

If a man wants to give some other man something of his own will and whatever he gives is his. I have no problem with that. However when he gives what is mine, then I have a problem.

I think I'll leave you with this good little quote.

This is where we are going. It will be a sad when only the state can do as it wishes and we can only do as we are told. This is the road we are on, and i doubt there will be a turn around. Some one will have the power over you, it will either be you or the sate. That is for you to decide.



Atlas

I base my conclusion that Marx did not hate capitalism based on, in fact, Marx's writings, and these people agree with me. I would like to see evidence that that particular Marx quote was said by him, as I cannot find any.

Absolutely. In a socialist society, however, you would be still forced to pay, which I assume is your main gripe. I disagree with this.

Not quite. Communism is, according to Marx, classless society with complete socialism. Baptism is not, however, a denomination of the Catholic church, as it was formed out of, as far as I know, the Protestant movement and other Christian faiths that came from the Reformation. A closer, but imperfect, example would be Baptists to the Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists (Communists) are all Baptists, but not all Baptists (Socialists) are Southern Baptists. This explains the relativity, however, I'm not sure if it explains any form of the Communism being 'total socialism', as I am not that familiar with how Southern Baptism relates to Baptism. If you know more about this, I would be interested to hear.

Revolutionaries who don't understand that Marx believed communism would be coming as a natural evolution from capitalism, and instead try to force society into a communist state, are those who you say 'always take it by force'. That train of thought can apply to any fascist leader, and fascism is not the same thing as socialism. Also, Karl Marx believed that the final end state of communism was not an ever-controlling government, but no government at all.

Socialists come into power in the United States because they are voted into power by the people (for now, any form of corruption in the media, voting polls, anything like that is being ignored). The people vote for them because they find their ideas attractive. Socialism is not an incorrect and evil ideology, it's a different one. Barack Obama won the election because his proposed "change" through more socialist ideas was attractive. I don't see the Socialist Party violently overthrowing our current government, either. You can find examples of violent communist revolutionaries, I can find examples of non-violent socialist reform getting into American society. It works both ways.

By the way, the "communism is the ultimate right path because it is a classless society where all people are equal and all people own the means of production." quote was a part of a theoretical biased example showing that capitalism vs communism can be twisted against capitalism as well. It isn't meant to necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs, nor is it meant to be a serious quotation. The communist societies that you mentioned were not classless, because their dictatorship never evolved into the stateless system, and they were fascist rulers. Once again, fascism is not socialism or communism. Just because these communist countries appear to be leading themselves to be fascist states, does not necessarily mean that they are intertwined.

Nope, no bias here.

I agree. But not because of socialism. That would come more from things like the PATRIOT act rather than spreading the wealth around, because spreading the wealth around really doesn't say anything at all about controlling people, it is only about taking money from the wealthy through taxes and giving it to those who make less. You may think it implies total government control of the people, but really, it doesn't.

Have a nice day
Lektro

I think lectric shave has been inhaling his crap.Thats all that seems to get out of that mouth or mind of his.GROW UP KID B)

[QUOTE] Atlas: Posted on Apr 1 2009, 11:06 AM
ACDC,


QUOTE
you don't like having free health care etc? you're screwed up my friend




FREE? Did you say FREE? I can not believe you said FREE HEALTHCARE. ACDC life lesson #1 There is no such thing as free. Do the Doctors work for free? I could go on I'm sure you get the point.



The Swedish goverment is said to be liberal but leans more to socialism. In Sweden you get 100% medical care when needed in exchange that you pay higher taxes in other economical elements.

Guess what? It works! Sweden is one of the richest countries throughout the globe with about the same natural resources as the United States. The poverty in Sweden very low compared to alot of other highly industrial countries.

And just a note: I'm more of a liberal than a socialist, nevertheless I think this system works fairly good.

Of course its not FREE, i meant more like you don't have to worry about costs if something happens to you. Full out socialism is stupid because than the government has too much control.

Yeah, the thing I ment with my previous post, was that you could get 100% needed medical care without having to pay up front, because you've already payed for it in your taxes.

And I totally agree with you about full socialism; I mean, the main morality in the ideology (that every individual within such a region should be treated equally fair concerning finance, that is) is good, but look how it went with Josef Stalins' reign - it doesn't work!

well that wasn't communism at all, it was a dictatorship under the vale of communism. They used the equality thing to just take what ever they wanted and such. People weren't equal there, people were more important than others such as government officials and races were discriminated against. Like hitler, stalin killed off minorities like the jews, georgians and many other groups. The point of communism is to make everyone equal and to eliminate government. Stalin just used the nice name of communism to spread his horrid dictatorship. What he had was nothing of communism.

Taking him as a poster boy for the display of communism used in a society was wrong, I know, sorry. But still, I don't think socialism in it's fullest would actually work - there would be alot of set backs, full health care not one of them, if you have other recources compensating, such as higher or new taxes specialising on individual health. Thusly, not making it free, but always available.

And a completely isolated industrial utopia would suffer a tremendous lack of finaces which could otherwise support its' society. This is very obvious, because how could a society be industrial if it doesn't have any in going - or outgoing - industries? But of course, socialists themselves know about this, so I don't know why I'm babbling about basic stuff, haha.

I agree with you 100%.