Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: obsidian on February 06, 2016, 08:55:31 PM
-
These people need treatment. We need to get them in hospitals ASAP. They are unwell.
(http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease_files/LiberalismIsADisease_Resized.jpg)
http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease.html (http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease.html)
What Do You Mean Liberalism Is A Disease?
My name is Jon McNaughton
I like to paint pictures that express how I feel about what is happening in America.
We have a disease. It’s infecting every aspect of our society and it’s time we did something about it.
Some of these people I really like and some I don’t, but for the sake of our health, our children and our sanity, we need to take drastic action quickly.
What if we could bring them all together, put them on a desert island and quarantine them for say a hundred years?
They believe they have all the answers to everything. But every liberal idea I’ve ever seen has led to total failure. If they were right, their new island home would be a utopia before long.
Let’s look at the most liberal communities in the country. New York City, Detroit, Chicago…how are they doing?
Yes, I say let’s quarantine them and let nature take its course.
You might have this disease if you believe:
We should remove guns from law-abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves, and leave them in the hands of criminals who will acquire the firearms anyway… How many gun free zones do you know that have low murder rates?
The same liberals who are trying to save us turn around and demand abortion rights for woman at the expense of over 53 million human lives.
Raise the national debt to meet the continued demand for welfare and entitlement spending at the expense of our country’s economic future.
Fight a war against terrorism without identifying who the enemy is because of political correctness and then allow illegal aliens to cross the border by the millions.
Provide kid glove treatment to Islamic radicals and unfriendly regimes and then show religious intolerance to Jews and Christians.
Allow a minority of Gay Rights Activists to dictate the definition of marriage and force Christians to comply.
Use environmentalism to thwart the energy interests of Americans at a time of great financial stress and national security.
McNaughton Answers to Liberal Questions
Why are you making fun of these people?
Most of my paintings are serious in nature, (although liberals find them amusing) this one is more of a satire. This means to me, that although it is humorous on the surface, the underlying message is very serious. Liberals use humor relentlessly as a tool to suppress conservative ideas. As always, if my paintings can cause someone to think about or debate the serious issues, it was successful.
Are you selling prints of this?
No, there are copyright restrictions. There are some things more important than money. My hope is to help people wake up to effects of liberalism in America.
Do you think all liberals are bad?
Well, yes, but I’m talking about their ideologies, which are destructive. I have many liberal friends. I know many good people that for some unfortunate reason are infected by the disease.
How did you decide whom to include in the painting?
I chose well-known liberals in different fields that influence Americans every day. There are many more who I could have included that I think are spreading the disease. Perhaps, some liberals will be pleased if they were included in the painting; like a “badge of honor.”
Why is Satan in the painting? Are you saying these people are Satanic??
I don’t know that. Perhaps most of them are just deceived. Satan is what I call the “Number One Liberal.” Liberalism is about control. Satan wants to promise you everything in exchange for your freedom. He uses lies; deceit and compulsion to have you do his bidding. In the end, you are left with nothing.
How has any liberal idea ever ended well? It is instant satisfaction at the expense of your soul. Yes, liberalism is a disease.
-
???
-
I'm beginning to fully believe it is.
-
I'm beginning to fully believe it is.
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
-
Posting all those shit politics and immigrant propaganda threads is a disease.
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
You sound like you're hurt at being left out. I'm sure someone can add you.
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=223889.0;attach=262238)
-
These people need treatment. We need to get them in hospitals ASAP. They are unwell.
(http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease_files/LiberalismIsADisease_Resized.jpg)
http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease.html (http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease.html)
What Do You Mean Liberalism Is A Disease?
My name is Jon McNaughton
I like to paint pictures that express how I feel about what is happening in America.
We have a disease. It’s infecting every aspect of our society and it’s time we did something about it.
Some of these people I really like and some I don’t, but for the sake of our health, our children and our sanity, we need to take drastic action quickly.
What if we could bring them all together, put them on a desert island and quarantine them for say a hundred years?
They believe they have all the answers to everything. But every liberal idea I’ve ever seen has led to total failure. If they were right, their new island home would be a utopia before long.
Let’s look at the most liberal communities in the country. New York City, Detroit, Chicago…how are they doing?
Yes, I say let’s quarantine them and let nature take its course.
You might have this disease if you believe:
We should remove guns from law-abiding citizens who have a right to protect themselves, and leave them in the hands of criminals who will acquire the firearms anyway… How many gun free zones do you know that have low murder rates?
The same liberals who are trying to save us turn around and demand abortion rights for woman at the expense of over 53 million human lives.
Raise the national debt to meet the continued demand for welfare and entitlement spending at the expense of our country’s economic future.
Fight a war against terrorism without identifying who the enemy is because of political correctness and then allow illegal aliens to cross the border by the millions.
Provide kid glove treatment to Islamic radicals and unfriendly regimes and then show religious intolerance to Jews and Christians.
Allow a minority of Gay Rights Activists to dictate the definition of marriage and force Christians to comply.
Use environmentalism to thwart the energy interests of Americans at a time of great financial stress and national security.
McNaughton Answers to Liberal Questions
Why are you making fun of these people?
Most of my paintings are serious in nature, (although liberals find them amusing) this one is more of a satire. This means to me, that although it is humorous on the surface, the underlying message is very serious. Liberals use humor relentlessly as a tool to suppress conservative ideas. As always, if my paintings can cause someone to think about or debate the serious issues, it was successful.
Are you selling prints of this?
No, there are copyright restrictions. There are some things more important than money. My hope is to help people wake up to effects of liberalism in America.
Do you think all liberals are bad?
Well, yes, but I’m talking about their ideologies, which are destructive. I have many liberal friends. I know many good people that for some unfortunate reason are infected by the disease.
How did you decide whom to include in the painting?
I chose well-known liberals in different fields that influence Americans every day. There are many more who I could have included that I think are spreading the disease. Perhaps, some liberals will be pleased if they were included in the painting; like a “badge of honor.”
Why is Satan in the painting? Are you saying these people are Satanic??
I don’t know that. Perhaps most of them are just deceived. Satan is what I call the “Number One Liberal.” Liberalism is about control. Satan wants to promise you everything in exchange for your freedom. He uses lies; deceit and compulsion to have you do his bidding. In the end, you are left with nothing.
How has any liberal idea ever ended well? It is instant satisfaction at the expense of your soul. Yes, liberalism is a disease.
Suck a dick coach's gimmick.
-
Suck a dick coach's gimmick.
(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/creepypasta/images/9/98/French_test.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140425000543)
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
Hello TruAnus
Is Rachel Madcow a "Classical Liberal"? Al Gore? Bono? Michael Moore? Penn?
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong.
Dear Moron. You're making a comparison of
"liberalism" of the early 1800's to now? JFK was a Dem and by today's standards would have been ousted for being considered a conservative. Was "liberal" in the political sense even a word back then? How do you even function?
-
Dear Moron. You're making a comparison of
"liberalism" of the early 1800's to now? JFK was a Dem and by today's standards would have been ousted for being considered a conservative. Was "liberal" in the political sense even a word back then? How do you even function?
LMAO! That was awesome Coach! And very good points.
-
Your a liberal if you believe in abortion rights for women?
-
I JUST got home and told myself how much better the G&O section would be if more threads on politics were posted.
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
Where are these 'Classical Liberals' today..? ???
The leaders of the Western world certainly aren't.
-
Dear Moron. You're making a comparison of
"liberalism" of the early 1800's to now? JFK was a Dem and by today's standards would have been ousted for being considered a conservative. Was "liberal" in the political sense even a word back then? How do you even function?
Totally true.
It's like Reagan was a conservative, but you would call him a liberal now. Odd coming from a Republican like yourself.
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
Smoke screen. He's talking about today's progressive, which is frequently mislabeled as "liberal". Yes, yes, the liberals of antiquity were social libertarians. That is not today's progressive, nor is it today's democrat party nor is it you, proggie.
-
Your a liberal if you believe in abortion rights for women?
The abortion issue in the US never ceases to amaze me.
-
haha Chris Christie laid to waste the "Savior" of the Republican Party last night.
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
"Classic liberals".....and then he lists George Orwell who was a socialist and ridiculed liberal ideology for the latter part of his life.
True Anus is really proving himself to be Getbig's dumbest poster
-
haha Chris Christie laid to waste the "Savior" of the Republican Party last night.
He damn sure did.
-
"Classic liberals".....and then he lists George Orwell who was a conservative and ridiculed liberal ideology for the latter part of his life.
True Anus is really proving himself to be Getbig's dumbest poster
Are you fucking stupid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism.
-
"Classic liberals".....and then he lists George Orwell who was a conservative and ridiculed liberal ideology for the latter part of his life.
True Anus is really proving himself to be Getbig's dumbest poster
How stupid are you, really?
http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2010/03/01/196347/george-orwell-was-a-socialist/
George Orwell Was a Socialist
"And the only regime which, in the long run, will dare to permit freedom of speech is a Socialist regime"-George Orwell
-
Are you fucking stupid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism.
Oh......you're a Wikipedia scholar.
George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair (June 25, 1903 - January 21, 1950), was a leading and open-minded English writer, essayist and journalist who became critical of his ideological allies on the left. He hated imperialism[1] and grew increasingly conservative, adopting and raising a child and becoming a member of the Church of England.[2] The tension between the conservative Orwell grew to become, and the democratic socialist he still allowed others to view him as, may account for some of his interesting word inventions like "doublethink". Because of his liberal past, Orwell's increasingly conservative writings were accepted and praised by the clueless liberal intelligentsia.
You fucking retard. Orwell abandoned liberalism and railed against it. You are a clueless cut and paste idiot.
-
"Classic liberals".....and then he lists George Orwell who was a conservative and ridiculed liberal ideology for the latter part of his life.
True Anus is really proving himself to be Getbig's dumbest poster
You have gone your whole life not knowing why George Orwell wrote what he wrote and that he was one of the most well known Socialists in history.
How did you get it so backwards. Tell me? I really want to know.
-
Oh......you're a Wikipedia scholar.
George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair (June 25, 1903 - January 21, 1950), was a leading and open-minded English writer, essayist and journalist who became critical of his ideological allies on the left. He hated imperialism[1] and grew increasingly conservative, adopting and raising a child and becoming a member of the Church of England.[2] The tension between the conservative Orwell grew to become, and the democratic socialist he still allowed others to view him as, may account for some of his interesting word inventions like "doublethink". Because of his liberal past, Orwell's increasingly conservative writings were accepted and praised by the clueless liberal intelligentsia.
You fucking retard. Orwell abandoned liberalism and railed against it. You are a clueless cut and paste idiot.
Are you fucking kidding me? You are posting from "Conservapedia"? The same site that lists evolution as false.
GEORGE ORWELL NEVER GREW CONSERVATIVE HIS ENTIRE LIFE. You won't find one shred of evidence on it. Moron. He was always a Socialist.
-
You have gone your whole life not knowing why George Orwell wrote what he wrote and that he was one of the most well known Socialists in history.
How did you get it so backwards. Tell me? I really want to know.
George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair (June 25, 1903 - January 21, 1950), was a leading and open-minded English writer, essayist and journalist who became critical of his ideological allies on the left. He hated imperialism[1] and grew increasingly conservative........Beca use of his liberal past, Orwell's increasingly conservative writings were accepted and praised by the clueless liberal intelligentsia.
Focus on the last part you fucking idiot. You are exactly the clueless liberals Orwell despised.
I'm 100% certain you don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
You really are as vapid as booty.
-
If you or anyone can prove or find one article or work where George Orwell rejected Socialism or where he stopped being a Socialist.
I will DELETE my account and never come back here on getbig again.
-
Are you fucking kidding me? You are posting from "Conservapedia"? The same site that lists evolution as false.
GEORGE ORWELL NEVER GREW CONSERVATIVE HIS ENTIRE LIFE. You won't find one shred of evidence on it. Moron. He was always a Socialist.
You're quoting from Wikipedia like it is a factual source.
Idiot.
Next you will try to pass off Orwell as progressive-liberal.
You really are fucking clueless. I mean your Rachel Maddow type stupid.
-
He damn sure did.
funny to hear a hardcore Republican audience booing the party's golden boy for his repetitive canned spiel attacking Obama.
-
George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Arthur Blair (June 25, 1903 - January 21, 1950), was a leading and open-minded English writer, essayist and journalist who became critical of his ideological allies on the left. He hated imperialism[1] and grew increasingly conservative........Beca use of his liberal past, Orwell's increasingly conservative writings were accepted and praised by the clueless liberal intelligentsia.
Focus on the last part you fucking idiot. You are exactly the clueless liberals Orwell despised.
I'm 100% certain you don't know the difference between socialism and communism.
You really are as vapid as booty.
That "last part" is a blatant lie from "Conservapedia" which is a fake site with no sources.
Again, I will delete my account if Orwell ever rejected or left Socialism. He was a Socialist leader until his death. 1984 was written precisely in favor of Socialism you moron.
Read a book once in a while.
How stupid are you, really?
-
http://www.biographyonline.net/socialism-george-orwell/
The socialism of George Orwell
A look at the Socialist beliefs of George Orwell. Also, a look at his writings on Soviet Communism.
George-Orwell George Orwell was a fascinating figure and brilliant writer. He was an idealist, who is best known for his work in warning of the dangers of totalitarianism (whatever its political form) This can be seen in the two classics 1984, and Animal Farm. Orwell was also a committed Socialist who sought to promote a more egalitarian and fairer society.
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."-George Orwell, “Why I write” p. 394
-
That "last part" is a blatant lie from "Conservapedia" which is a fake site with no sources.
Again, I will delete my account if Orwell ever rejected or left Socialism. He was a Socialist leader until his death. 1984 was written precisely in favor of Socialism you moron.
Read a book once in a while.
How stupid are you, really?
Animal Farm as a critique of Communism and Socialism. After reading Animal Farm my overall impression of Socialism was that it is a failure and can be used to control people. So I would say he rejected Socialism in this work. If he did not reject Socialism the book would have had a different outcome.
The oppressed became the oppressor.
You're a fucking moron Tru Anus.
-
Animal Farm as a critique of Communism and Socialism. After reading Animal Farm my overall impression of Socialism was that it is a failure and can be used to control people. So I would say he rejected Socialism in this work. If he did not reject Socialism the book would have had a different outcome.
The oppressed became the oppressor.
You're a fucking moron Tru Anus.
You are DEAD WRONG. George Orwell was a LIFELONG SOCIALIST and wrote his books to fully support Socialism, you moron. Its amazing how you distort it all. You are doing the VERY thing he warned against.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20719892?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
(http://s15.postimg.org/ow6p49xgb/image.gif)
-
-
That "last part" is a blatant lie from "Conservapedia" which is a fake site with no sources.
Again, I will delete my account if Orwell ever rejected or left Socialism. He was a Socialist leader until his death. 1984 was written precisely in favor of Socialism you moron.
Read a book once in a while.
How stupid are you, really?
Never for a moment was Orwell a liberal in either the classical or contemporary sense of the word. Until 1934, he called himself a “Tory anarchist,” a self-designation he later replaced with “democratic socialist.” Orwell’s professed socialism is something from which his conservative admirers typically shy away, like Mencken’s social Darwinism.
You're equating socialism to classical or modern liberalism and they are not the same. You really are a fucking idiot. So now you head down the red herring path or Orwell not being a socialist. He was, but that does not make him a classic liberal you fucking retard.
Delete your fucking account on the basis of your stupidity. You're beyond Wiggs type stupid.
-
Animal Farm as a critique of Communism and Socialism. After reading Animal Farm my overall impression of Socialism was that it is a failure and can be used to control people. So I would say he rejected Socialism in this work. If he did not reject Socialism the book would have had a different outcome.
The oppressed became the oppressor.
You're a fucking moron Tru Anus.
Exactly.....and socialism is not liberalism. Only a fucking idiot would mistake the two.
True Anus is another liberal pseudo-intellectual who read 1984 and animal farm back in high school and hasn't understood the message since then.
Fucking Nancy Pelosi level of stupid
-
Never for a moment was Orwell a liberal in either the classical or contemporary sense of the word. Until 1934, he called himself a “Tory anarchist,” a self-designation he later replaced with “democratic socialist.” Orwell’s professed socialism is something from which his conservative admirers typically shy away, like Mencken’s social Darwinism.
You're equating socialism to classical or modern liberalism and they are not the same. You really are a fucking idiot. So now you head down the red herring path or Orwell not being a socialist. He was, but that does not make him a classic liberal you fucking retard.
Delete your fucking account on the basis of your stupidity. You're beyond Wiggs type stupid.
Again, why did you post bullshit about Orwell not being a Socialist and turning away from it when he NEVER did. Now you are trying to change your stance a bit again and are admitting that he was and always had been a Socialist but are doing so in a way that makes your pretzel brain at ease?
It must have been a shock to you to learn the truth about Orwell today when you went your entire life until now, believing a lie.
Now take some time to read Orwell's words that he wrote himself, moron.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
George Orwell
Why I Write
Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
-
You are DEAD WRONG. George Orwell was a LIFELONG SOCIALIST and wrote his books to fully support Socialism, you moron. Its amazing how you distort it all. You are doing the VERY thing he warned against.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20719892?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
(http://s15.postimg.org/ow6p49xgb/image.gif)
"In many respects, Orwell was deeply conservative. He loved England (as distinct from Britain) and English traditions, English food and beer, the English language, and England’s love of liberty. He was patriotic and did not like left-wing pacifism. He was deeply suspicious of an all-powerful state—even a socialist one—that destroyed liberty in the name of liberty. He would have rigorously opposed today’s state-health fascism.
And unlike nearly everyone else on the left, he was refreshingly honest about fascism’s mass appeal."
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/which_way_george_orwell_nicholas_farrell/print#ixzz3zVuA66LZ
-
You are DEAD WRONG. George Orwell was a LIFELONG SOCIALIST and wrote his books to fully support Socialism, you moron. Its amazing how you distort it all. You are doing the VERY thing he warned against.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20719892?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
(http://s15.postimg.org/ow6p49xgb/image.gif)
Socialism - says that only by granting the state total economic and political power can economic progress and equality among citizens be attained.
Classical liberalism - says that the state should only take over an institution to ensure that citizens can freely benefit from that particular institution’s services. Classical liberalism does not require the thorough enforcing of law and order to reach economic progress and equality.
Modern liberalism - says that the state should interfere not only in economic or political affairs, but also in social affairs, such as day-to-day activities of its citizens. In effect, modern liberalism ceases to be associated with classical liberalism, and instead becomes similar to socialism.
True Anus, you're a fucking idiot. You don't even realize the difference between the ideologies.....
-
Exactly.....and socialism is not liberalism. Only a fucking idiot would mistake the two.
True Anus is another liberal pseudo-intellectual who read 1984 and animal farm back in high school and hasn't understood the message since then.
Fucking Nancy Pelosi level of stupid
Here dumbass. Hope this helps. (it won't because you are not bright at all and went your entire life thus far, until today, believing lies about George Orwell :) )
You will now probably burn all of Orwell's books after finding out his life work was dedicated to SOCIALISM!
http://understandinganimalfarm.weebly.com/socialism.html
Socialism
http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialismSocialism is quite similar to communism, but less controlling and more effective. Socialism was all about equality, it was based on that the society should work together in cooperation to provide resources and such to support the community as a whole, everyone has to contribute to earn something. There is a sort of private ownership in this ideology, unlike communism, but limited to basic necessities like a home, food, water, but everything is shared amongst the community (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013).
How does socialism link to animal farm?
1. Everyone in the community is equal.
2. The community works together cooperatively to produce the things necessary for it to run, the products are shared equally amongst the community members, everyone has to contribute.
a) All animals are equal (the last commandment).
b) The animals all worked in the farm, the products they produced were all shared amongst the animals and they received an equal ration of food.
Socialism is seen more at the front of the story in Animal Farm, it appeared when the revolution took place but it was slowly cast aside and the farm was eventually run with fascism. The most important commandment, all animals are equal, that was set down by the animals is an obvious sign of socialism in the farm. After that we can tell from the way the farm is run, it is also based on socialism, the animals were happy and were proud, they still worked hard but they got what they worked for. It was not until Napoleon started to abuse his power that the animals became overworked and unhappy.
GEORGE ORWELL'S EFFECT
Orwell chose this to represent his support for socialism because we can feel in the book that the animals were happy at first when the farm was still a socialist place. But when the farm started to become more and more fascist, we can see the animals lives slowly degrading and their spirit slowly fading away. He used the events in the book to show that socialism is a good ideology and that everyone can benefit from it, even though we cannot have everything to ourselves, working together and getting the same distribution of resources is a perk and can make everyones lives happy and better.
-
"In many respects, Orwell was deeply conservative. He loved England (as distinct from Britain) and English traditions, English food and beer, the English language, and England’s love of liberty. He was patriotic and did not like left-wing pacifism. He was deeply suspicious of an all-powerful state—even a socialist one—that destroyed liberty in the name of liberty. He would have rigorously opposed today’s state-health fascism.
And unlike nearly everyone else on the left, he was refreshingly honest about fascism’s mass appeal."
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/which_way_george_orwell_nicholas_farrell/print#ixzz3zVuA66LZ
hahha from your article-
The BBC has just rejected a proposal to erect a statue in honor of George Orwell outside its new London headquarters.
The reason? As the nation’s public broadcaster, the BBC is supposed to be unbiased and objective, so to erect such a statue would be regarded as “far too left-wing.”
Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/which_way_george_orwell_nicholas_farrell/print#ixzz3zVvBPqYk
-
Again, why did you post bullshit about Orwell not being a Socialist and turning away from it when he NEVER did. Now you are trying to change your stance a bit again and are admitting that he was and always had been a Socialist but are doing so in a way that makes your pretzel brain at ease?
It must have been a shock to you to learn the truth about Orwell today when you went your entire life until now, believing a lie.
Now take some time to read Orwell's words that he wrote himself, moron.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
George Orwell
Why I Write
Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.
Let me slow this down for you GED....
You said Orwell was a classic liberal. He was not. No one is saying Orwell wasn't a socialist at a time during his life, but he was NOT a classic liberal.
You don't even know the two things don't mean the same thing.
You are a complete fucking moron. Orwell was not a classic liberal, but you sure are a classic retard.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/22/bbc-george-orwell-statue-left-wing
BBC George Orwell statue turned down as 'too left-wing'
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/6/16/1276711367462/George-Orwell-006.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=2dbf3be28faeee35706d0728cf284652)
Joan Bakewell reports director general Mark Thompson turned down proposal 'flat'
George Orwell
Too left-wing? George Orwell. Photograph: Courtesy of Vernon Richards Estate
Alison Flood
Wednesday 22 August 2012 11.08 EDT
Last modified on Monday 25 January 2016 17.12 EST
George Orwell tendered his resignation from the BBC "because for some time past I have been conscious that I was wasting my time and the public money on doing work that produces no results", so perhaps it's not surprising that the proposal to place a statue of the author on the broadcaster's premises has been rejected.
According to the Labour peer Joan Bakewell, the BBC's director general Mark Thompson turned down the scheme to erect the statue at the BBC's new Broadcasting House "flat", because "apparently George Orwell would be perceived as too left-wing a figure for the BBC to honour". The statue was proposed by the George Orwell Memorial Trust, run by former Labour politician Ben Whitaker, and backed by names including Rowan Atkinson, Melvyn Bragg, John Humphrys, James Naughtie and Orwell's son Richard Blair. More than £60,000 has been raised to have Martin Jennings, the sculptor of the bronze of John Betjeman at St Pancras and of Philip Larkin in Hull, create it.
Sign up to our Bookmarks newsletter
Read more
"The point was not particularly to refer to Orwell's own history as a journalist for the BBC which he was for a couple of years during the second world war – he resigned as he found it rather tedious and bureaucratic. But he was such a paragon of political journalism, an example of how it should be done," said Jennings. "I realised London was lacking a statue of this great man, and wanted to find a location with resonance ... It was all going smoothly and then there was a sudden hiatus, at which point it was decided that the statue should be close to but not literally on the BBC premises."
The trust is currently waiting for Westminster city council to give planning permission to erect the statue in Portland Place, nearby but not on the BBC's premises. A BBC spokesperson said: "We cannot put the statue immediately outside New Broadcasting House as the BBC piazza already has artwork by Mark Pimlott built into the pavement which would be obscured. We are however working with Westminster city council and those involved with the statue to find an appropriate location nearby."
"It would have been nice to have on the premises, but having it close by would be a very good second. Orwell was always rather detached from any institutions, anyway," said Jennings, who described the author and journalist as "a gift as a subject – those 1940s trousers reaching halfway up his chest, the tie tucked into his waistband, and probably a cigarette butt somewhere".
Orwell worked for the BBC between 1941 and 1943 as a talks producer for the Eastern service, writing what the BBC describes as "essentially propaganda for broadcast to India". He is said to have based the infamous Room 101 from his novel 1984 on a BBC conference room.
-
LOL, fucking idiot. You have no clue! You've obviously never even read Animal Farm. Just because you work on one....milking bulls and shovelling shit onto your radioactive crop of turnips, does not give you the right to lie about having the ability to read.
Hi TamponFreedom,
Isn't it about time for you to replenish your supply of Freedom Tampons about now? Run along, the men are talking right now. We'll call you when we want our sandwiches and beer. And please remember, we want you barefoot back in the kitchen washing the dishes afterwards.
Thank you!
-
Let me slow this down for you GED....
You said Orwell was a classic liberal. He was not. No one is saying Orwell wasn't a socialist at a time during his life, but he was NOT a classic liberal.
You don't even know the two things don't mean the same thing.
You are a complete fucking moron. Orwell was not a classic liberal, but you sure are a classic retard.
::)
You are just butthurt that you only found out today that Orwell was a lifelong Socialist, dedicated to promoting Socialism, and considered the cause of Socialism his lifes work and that everything he ever wrote of substance was to support Socialism.
That must sting to someone who would rather believe lies. HA HA HA HA
I think we all see who the real moron is.
-
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/aug/22/bbc-george-orwell-statue-left-wing
BBC George Orwell statue turned down as 'too left-wing'
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/6/16/1276711367462/George-Orwell-006.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=2dbf3be28faeee35706d0728cf284652)
Joan Bakewell reports director general Mark Thompson turned down proposal 'flat'
George Orwell
Too left-wing? George Orwell. Photograph: Courtesy of Vernon Richards Estate
Alison Flood
Wednesday 22 August 2012 11.08 EDT
Last modified on Monday 25 January 2016 17.12 EST
George Orwell tendered his resignation from the BBC "because for some time past I have been conscious that I was wasting my time and the public money on doing work that produces no results", so perhaps it's not surprising that the proposal to place a statue of the author on the broadcaster's premises has been rejected.
According to the Labour peer Joan Bakewell, the BBC's director general Mark Thompson turned down the scheme to erect the statue at the BBC's new Broadcasting House "flat", because "apparently George Orwell would be perceived as too left-wing a figure for the BBC to honour". The statue was proposed by the George Orwell Memorial Trust, run by former Labour politician Ben Whitaker, and backed by names including Rowan Atkinson, Melvyn Bragg, John Humphrys, James Naughtie and Orwell's son Richard Blair. More than £60,000 has been raised to have Martin Jennings, the sculptor of the bronze of John Betjeman at St Pancras and of Philip Larkin in Hull, create it.
Sign up to our Bookmarks newsletter
Read more
"The point was not particularly to refer to Orwell's own history as a journalist for the BBC which he was for a couple of years during the second world war – he resigned as he found it rather tedious and bureaucratic. But he was such a paragon of political journalism, an example of how it should be done," said Jennings. "I realised London was lacking a statue of this great man, and wanted to find a location with resonance ... It was all going smoothly and then there was a sudden hiatus, at which point it was decided that the statue should be close to but not literally on the BBC premises."
The trust is currently waiting for Westminster city council to give planning permission to erect the statue in Portland Place, nearby but not on the BBC's premises. A BBC spokesperson said: "We cannot put the statue immediately outside New Broadcasting House as the BBC piazza already has artwork by Mark Pimlott built into the pavement which would be obscured. We are however working with Westminster city council and those involved with the statue to find an appropriate location nearby."
"It would have been nice to have on the premises, but having it close by would be a very good second. Orwell was always rather detached from any institutions, anyway," said Jennings, who described the author and journalist as "a gift as a subject – those 1940s trousers reaching halfway up his chest, the tie tucked into his waistband, and probably a cigarette butt somewhere".
Orwell worked for the BBC between 1941 and 1943 as a talks producer for the Eastern service, writing what the BBC describes as "essentially propaganda for broadcast to India". He is said to have based the infamous Room 101 from his novel 1984 on a BBC conference room.
LMAO!! And just because the BBC labels him "too left wing" makes it so hmm??? Those are not Orwell's words. LOL you idiot!!!
Seems that 'anti-totalitarian' counts as 'too left wing' these days...
-
Here dumbass. Hope this helps. (it won't because you are not bright at all and went your entire life thus far, until today, believing lies about George Orwell :) )
You will now probably burn all of Orwell's books after finding out his life work was dedicated to SOCIALISM!
http://understandinganimalfarm.weebly.com/socialism.html
Socialism
http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialismSocialism is quite similar to communism, but less controlling and more effective. Socialism was all about equality, it was based on that the society should work together in cooperation to provide resources and such to support the community as a whole, everyone has to contribute to earn something. There is a sort of private ownership in this ideology, unlike communism, but limited to basic necessities like a home, food, water, but everything is shared amongst the community (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2013).
How does socialism link to animal farm?
1. Everyone in the community is equal.
2. The community works together cooperatively to produce the things necessary for it to run, the products are shared equally amongst the community members, everyone has to contribute.
a) All animals are equal (the last commandment).
b) The animals all worked in the farm, the products they produced were all shared amongst the animals and they received an equal ration of food.
Socialism is seen more at the front of the story in Animal Farm, it appeared when the revolution took place but it was slowly cast aside and the farm was eventually run with fascism. The most important commandment, all animals are equal, that was set down by the animals is an obvious sign of socialism in the farm. After that we can tell from the way the farm is run, it is also based on socialism, the animals were happy and were proud, they still worked hard but they got what they worked for. It was not until Napoleon started to abuse his power that the animals became overworked and unhappy.
GEORGE ORWELL'S EFFECT
Orwell chose this to represent his support for socialism because we can feel in the book that the animals were happy at first when the farm was still a socialist place. But when the farm started to become more and more fascist, we can see the animals lives slowly degrading and their spirit slowly fading away. He used the events in the book to show that socialism is a good ideology and that everyone can benefit from it, even though we cannot have everything to ourselves, working together and getting the same distribution of resources is a perk and can make everyones lives happy and better.
Jesus Christ.....you really are brain dead.
Don't you teach for a living? For fucks sake, you really have no intelligence at all and you use snippets of Wikipedia to try to appear educated. You cannot comprehend the difference in the ideologies, or purposely choose to obfuscate the discussion because you come off as an uneducated idiot.
I see now why people say liberalism is a sicknes, if people as stupid as you are its supporters.
George Orwell was never a classic liberal.
You on the other hand are 100% a classic idiot.
-
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-human-beings-were-behaving-as-human-beings-and-not-as-cogs-in-the-capitalist-machine-george-orwell-257249.jpg)
-
::)
You are just butthurt that you only found out today that Orwell was a lifelong Socialist, dedicated to promoting Socialism, and considered the cause of Socialism his lifes work and that everything he ever wrote of substance was to support Socialism.
That must sting to someone who would rather believe lies. HA HA HA HA
I think we all see who the real moron is.
You said Orwell was a classic liberal
Now you say he was a lifelong socialist
So which is it - because they are not the same thing.
Moron.
And who gives a fuck what the BBC thinks and their political stance? Do you really think a bunch of BBC editors are the final mediators of all things political?
Jesus fuck, you don't have enough brain to get a headache.
-
Wait until these morons figure out that the Pledge of Allegiance, the "conservatives" favorite creed, was written by Francis Bellamy, a dyed in the wool Socialist.
hahahhahah morons.
-
You said Orwell was a classic liberal
Now you say he was a lifelong socialist
So which is it - because they are not the same thing.
Moron.
And who gives a fuck what the BBC thinks and their political stance? Do you really think a bunch of BBC editors are the final mediators of all things political?
Jesus fuck, you don't have enough brain to get a headache.
One question,
How do you feel now that your view of Orwell has been turned upside down and now finally you see the truth?
-
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-human-beings-were-behaving-as-human-beings-and-not-as-cogs-in-the-capitalist-machine-george-orwell-257249.jpg)
Typical.....
A bunch of cut and paste bullshit that is off the original topic of "classic liberal".
Did you finish high school? Or were you home schooled?
Because you're a special type of stupid.
-
There's liberal s in Europe now suggesting we don't support our national teams in sport s but support everyone and show love for all teams whoever wins and that way all are winners! L ol what a load of bollocks
-
Typical.....
A bunch of cut and paste bullshit that is off the original topic of "classic liberal".
Did you finish high school? Or were you home schooled?
Because you're a special type of stupid.
I have two degrees actually, but thats not important right now.
What is important is how do you now feel knowing that you went your entire life until today, thinking Orwell was something he was not. In fact, you thought he was the complete opposite of everything he championed.
I would really like to know how and why were you able to delude yourself this long.
Could there be any truth to the Mandela effect? :o ;)
-
One question,
How do you feel now that your view of Orwell has been turned upside down and now finally you see the truth?
See Adam, that weak red herring troll doesn't work here. Up until today you thought socialism and liberalism were the same thing. I understand Orwell and his political stance. You thought Orwell to be a great liberal hero....and he wasn't even a "classic liberal" as you claim.
If you weren't so stupid, you could have learned something today.
But now you try to change the subject and project your stupidity.
Orwell wasn't complex enough to be totally turned upside down.....unless you're dumb enough to think socialism is the same as liberalism
-
See Adam, that weak red herring troll doesn't work here. Up until today you thought socialism and liberalism were the same thing. I understand Orwell and his political stance. You thought Orwell to be a great liberal hero....and he wasn't even a "classic liberal" as you claim.
If you weren't so stupid, you could have learned something today.
But now you try to change the subject and project your stupidity.
Orwell wasn't complex enough to be totally turned upside down.....unless you're dumb enough to think socialism is the same as liberalism
I shattered your world today, and I think I like it. At least you know the truth now.
I would encourage you to read more Orwell, but at this point, you probably are disgusted.
If not, might I recommend Bernie Sanders. He is America's Orwell. ;)
-
I have two degrees actually, but thats not important right now.
What is important is how do you now feel knowing that you went your entire life until today, thinking Orwell was something he was not. In fact, you thought he was the complete opposite of everything he championed.
I would really like to know how and why were you able to delude yourself this long.
Could there be any truth to the Mandela effect? :o ;)
Weak. Like a Shizzo tactic, claim something tangential to the discussion and hope it sticks as truth.
It was you that had no idea of Orwell's political ideology until today.
Or you are so stupid you think socialism and liberalism are the same.
So which level of stupid are you?
Another thread with True Anus exposed as a compete retard.....this is getting very repetitive.
-
"The men are talking" LOL. You're an emasculated husband that has only recently been toilet-trained after decades of pissing in yoghurt pots. Your fucking house smells like an animal farm! Go ask your wife to explain to you the difference between the totalitarian regime of Stalinist Russia and Orwells Socialist ideals.
Don't forget - heavy mayo on the sammiches! ;)
-
I shattered your world today, and I think I like it. At least you know the truth now.
I would encourage you to read more Orwell, but at this point, you probably are disgusted.
If not, might I recommend Bernie Sanders. He is America's Orwell. ;)
You've shattered nothing.
You were exposed (again) as an idiot.
But, on the other hand, I do enjoy bashing your empty skull with a mallet of your stupidity.
Who will be your next "classic liberal".....Ronald Reagan?
-
Weak. Like a Shizzo tactic, claim something tangential to the discussion and hope it sticks as truth.
It was you that had no idea of Orwell's political ideology until today.
Or you are so stupid you think socialism and liberalism are the same.
So which level of stupid are you?
Another thread with True Anus exposed as a compete retard.....this is getting very repetitive.
???
I remember in 2009 I was having to teach the truth about Orwell to another Moron on this board who shares your beliefs to the T
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=285463.msg4040170#msg4040170
And here
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=275686.msg3894026#msg3894026
And here
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=282396.msg3994472#msg3994472
-
Wait until these morons figure out that the Pledge of Allegiance, the "conservatives" favorite creed, was written by Francis Bellamy, a dyed in the wool Socialist.
hahahhahah morons.
Diversionary attempt #1
-
I have two degrees actually, but thats not important right now.
What is important is how do you now feel knowing that you went your entire life until today, thinking Orwell was something he was not. In fact, you thought he was the complete opposite of everything he championed.
I would really like to know how and why were you able to delude yourself this long.
Could there be any truth to the Mandela effect? :o ;)
Weak diversionary attempt #2
-
???
I remember in 2009 I was having to teach the truth about Orwell to another Moron on this board who shares your beliefs to the T
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=285463.msg4040170#msg4040170
And here
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=275686.msg3894026#msg3894026
And here
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=282396.msg3994472#msg3994472
Lame diversionary attempt #3
-
Weak diversionary attempt #2
Did it ever occur to you that your two posts just now were diversionary attempts to cover up the fact that you literally got "schooled" today.
Now you can go tell all of your moron friends and family that George Orwell was a Socialist who fought his entire life for Socialism and that you had it wrong for decades because you were too stupid to interpret his books and his intent. Or you could always go with the Mandela Effect. HA HA HA HA
-
Oh brother,
Owning Walter Slobcock is about the easiest thing I know how to do.
All I have to do is use truth, fact, evidence and data. Books and knowledge are his Kryptonite. Too easy.
-
???
I remember in 2009 I was having to teach the truth about Orwell to another Moron on this board who shares your beliefs to the T
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=285463.msg4040170#msg4040170
And here
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=275686.msg3894026#msg3894026
And here
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=282396.msg3994472#msg3994472
You are TOTALLY wrong.
Orwell's words in this and other writings at the time leave no doubt that in 1940 he regarded "English Socialism" as highly desirable and was actively trying to bring about its victory.
He thought British Socialism was boring...
-
He thought British Socialism was boring...
Please see Orwells work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_and_the_Unicorn:_Socialism_and_the_Engli sh_Genius
The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius" is an essay by George Orwell expressing his opinions on the situation in wartime Britain. The title alludes to the heraldic supporters appearing in the full royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom.
The essay was first published on 19 February 1941 as the first volume of a series edited by T. R. Fyvel and Orwell, in the Searchlight Books published by Secker & Warburg.[1]
It expressed his opinion that the outdated British class system was hampering the war effort, and that in order to defeat Hitler, Britain needed a Socialist revolution. Therefore, Orwell argued, being a Socialist and being a Patriot were no longer antithetical, but complementary.
As a result, "The Lion and the Unicorn" became an emblem of the revolution which would create a new kind of Socialism, a democratic "English Socialism" in contrast to the oppressing Soviet model - and also a new form of Britishness, a Socialist one liberated from Empire and the decadent old ruling classes. Orwell specified that the revolutionary regime may keep on the royal family as a national symbol, though sweeping away the rest of the British aristocracy.
The first part of the essay, "England Your England", is often considered an essay in itself. With the introductory sentence "As I write, highly civilized human beings are flying overhead, trying to kill me.",[1] the content sheds some light on the process which eventually led Orwell to the writing of his famous dystopia, Nineteen Eighty-Four.
-
http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-lion-and-the-unicorn-socialism-and-the-english-genius/
The Lion and the Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius
-
He thought British Socialism was boring...
English Socialism is totally different than British Socialism.
Please see the essay by George Orwell I linked.
Hope this helps.
-
This argument is wasteful because you seem to be arguing around the ideas about the men who advocated them (or didn't). Can't we all agree on a couple of basic principles.
1. Systems need to account for self interest, which can be both good and bad.
2. Big daddy controlling everything doesn't seem to work very well.
3. Shizzo sucked a dick.
-
Oh brother,
Owning Walter Slobcock is about the easiest thing I know how to do.
All I have to do is use truth, fact, evidence and data. Books and knowledge are his Kryptonite. Too easy.
You haven't done any of that fool.
You stated Orwell was a classic liberal because he believed in socialism at one point in his life.
You didn't even know that socialism and liberalism were two different ideologies.
You're an idiot. Your Wikipedia cut and paste education exposes you for the retard that you are.
Even Coach has better thought out arguments than you
-
Now come on... Coach doesn't have thoughts. We all know this.
-
You haven't done any of that fool.
You stated Orwell was a classic liberal because he believed in socialism at one point in his life.
You didn't even know that socialism and liberalism were two different ideologies.
You're an idiot. Your Wikipedia cut and paste education exposes you for the retard that you are.
Even Coach has better thought out arguments than you
::)
-
Now come on... Coach doesn't have thoughts. We all know this.
Of course not because we all know socialism works ::)
-
Are you fucking stupid?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell
Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism.
OH LOOK WE'VE GOT A WIKIPEDIA HERO. ::)
-
::)
Cut and paste
Cut and paste
Cut and paste
Cut and paste
Cut and paste
Cut and paste
Cut and paste
-
Of course not because we all know socialism works ::)
I'm not defending socialism.
I've just come to the realization that you like things kept simple. Nothing wrong with that. It's just how you like to be.
-
Don't buy into the moron definition of Liberalism.
Classical Liberals, like Thomas Jefferson and George Orwell and their thinking still are strong. Idiots like the original poster will want you to believe otherwise.
Thomas Jefferson quotes:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson doesn't sound liberal to me.
-
Thomas Jefferson quotes:
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson doesn't sound liberal to me.
A "classic liberal".....not just a garden variety liberal
The True Idiot showing Getbig he is a pale version of Wiggs
-
A "classic liberal".....not just a garden variety liberal
The True Idiot showing Getbig he is a pale version of Wiggs
List of liberal theorists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists#Thomas_Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson (United States, 1743–1826) was the third President of the United States and author of the Declaration of Independence. He also wrote Notes on the State of Virginia and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. He was a champion of inalienable individual rights and the separation of church and state. His ideas were repeated in many other liberal revolutions around the world, including the (early) French Revolution.
-
http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/liberalism_essay/the_rise1.html
The Rise - Part 1
Home » LockeSmith Institute » The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism » The Rise - Part 1
Introduction | The Rise - Part 1 | The Rise - Part 2 | The Decline | The Reemergence | Conclusion/Sources Cited
The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) consulted with Paine while drafting the American Declaration of Independence (1776). In this statement, Jefferson unites the myth of the ancient constitution and the Lockean natural rights tradition to prove that England had breached its contract with the colonists. The people therefore had the right to revolt and compact together to form a new government; in referring his case to a global audience, he emphasizes the universality of his philosophy. Beyond the Declaration, Jefferson's perspective appeared in his letters, political papers, and policies as Secretary of State and President. He and his lifelong friend and colleague James Madison spearheaded the Democratic-Republican party to oppose the Federalists' desire to centralize and increase governmental power, leading both of them to the nation's highest office.
In particular, efferson focused on creating an independent citizenry capable of maintaining the democratic republic, and he found his key in the yeoman farmer. He believed the self-sufficient landowner possessed the ability to cultivate himself and therefore treasure his freedom. Jefferson's emphasis on liberty as self-realization anticipated the German classical liberals to be mentioned later.
James Madison also served as Secretary of State and President but his contributions appeared well before he assumed these positions. The originator of the Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention and final father of the United States Constitution, Madison clearly revealed a Lockean natural law foundation coupled with a Montesquieu-style separation of powers. The federalism he created (and explained in The Federalist Papers, which he co-authored with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in 1787 and 1788) pitted the self-interests of factions against each other to keep any group from acquiring the power to offend others' rights. One right which he tried to define and explore throughout his life was the right of property. His 1792 "On Property" notes the radical extent to which he defined an individual's claim to his own:
He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights (267).
Although his influence lived on in the very fabric of the United States governmental structure, Madison stepped out of the spotlight at the close of his second term as President in 1816 and the Democratic-Republican movement may be said to have ended.
-
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Classical-Liberalism-John-Goodman.pdf
What Is Classical Liberalism?
John C. Goodman
1
Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United
States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of
Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independe
nce, the Constitution, the Federalist
Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of
government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical
liberals, as were the suffragettes, who
fought for equal rights for women.
-
http://debate-central.ncpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Classical-Liberalism-John-Goodman.pdf
What Is Classical Liberalism?
John C. Goodman
good to see John Goodman is staying busy these days
-
http://alexpeak.com/twr/clsor/
Thomas Jefferson
Classical-Liberal Statesman of the Old Republic
H. Arthur Scott Trask
This essay may be cited as H. Arthur Scott Trask, “Thomas Jefferson: Classical-Liberal Statesman of the Old Republic,” chapter three in Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom, ed. John V. Denson (Auburn, A. L.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2001), pp. 45–103.
This essay has subsequently been released by the Ludwig von Mises Instutute as three separate articles. Some paragraphs have been divided up, and some punctuation has been altered; but the content has, it appears, been left as it was in the original.
-
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism
Origins of Classical Liberalism
(https://dlc.dcccd.edu/images/usgov/lesson02/Thomas_Jefferson.jpg)
Individualism
Portrait of Thomas Jefferson Classical liberalism holds that there are certain natural rights of which no government, elected or otherwise, may deprive its citizens. This is an important distinction. Governments do not give rights to their citizens. Rights belong to citizens because they are inherent in the natural order or granted by God Almighty (take your pick). John Locke, a political theorist of the 18th century identified three such basic rights, "life, liberty, and property." Thomas Jefferson memorably plagiarized Locke's idea in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that all men share certain inalienable rights, among them "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
-
https://www.nolanchart.com/article7326-classical-liberalism-and-the-radical-roots-of-the-american-revolution-html
Classical Liberalism and the Radical Roots of the American Revolution
January 29, 2010 by Classical Liberal Leave a Comment
What were our founding fathers? Were they Conservatives? Liberals? Monarchists? Anarchists? Many people have not even heard this term before, but most were what we call “Classical Liberals.”
Now we arrive at Thomas Jefferson, the greatest political philosopher among our founding fathers. He articulated the philosophy of Classical Liberalism as follows:
Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, 1776
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Classical Liberalism is a radical ideology that can topple even the most powerful nation. BUT, it can also rebuild a nation. That is the main difference between Classical Liberalism and Anarchism.
So now let me consolidate and summarize the basic principles of Classical Liberalism.
Law:
Law predates the institution of civil government. There are no such things as law-makers, only law protectors. This natural law comes from God Himself and is perfect, and human laws are made only to the degradation of this law.
Rights:
The natural rights of human beings to life, liberty, and the fruit of their labor (property) are given them by God. These rights are not granted by governments and can not lawfully be taken away by the same.
Force:
There are two kinds of force:
Aggressive (or coersive) force, which violates another person's rights and is therefore an unlawful use of force.
Defensive (or reactionary) force, which is in response to aggressive force. This is a lawful use of force.
Power:
All power emanates from the individual, thus, power flows upward. Governments therefore receive their power from the individuals that make up their populace, and should be held in check by the same. If a government breaks the social contract, it is the right of the people to remove it and institute proper government in its place.
Goals:
The end of classical liberalism is true liberty. Thus, a classical liberal's job is never done. The classical liberal is always looking forward to that goal. This is in contrast to those that can be called “conservative” which defend the status quo and fight for what was, rather than looking forward to what should be. The true goals of classical liberalism have not yet been accomplished at any point in our country's history. Thomas Jefferson knew and understood this and fought for these goals until he died.
The Social Contract:
As Samuel Adams described in “The Rights of the Colonists,” an individual's relationship to proper government is a contractual business relationship. The people of a land pool their individual power and resources to create an organization, which is a government. This organization has contractual obligations to the people that created it. In this tradition, our founders wrote our Constitution, which begins with the words, “We the people of the United States…” It is the literal “contract with America” and lays out the contractual obligations of our nation's federal government. We give the government certain resources, and then they must fulfill certain obligations to us, the people. Those obligations can be found summarized within the preamble to the Constitution, and are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
-
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/general/news/2012/04/26/11379/think-again-how-classical-liberalism-morphed-into-new-deal-liberalism/
How did classical liberalism morph into New Deal liberalism?
Classical liberalism is synonymous with a faith in reason, which had arisen out of the Enlightenment as a reaction to claims of divine rule by the clergy and royalty of the late Middle Ages. It found expression in the thoughts of many writers across Europe and the British Isles, including John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, as well as in the political arguments of America’s founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and James Madison.[1] Liberal freedoms were primarily freedoms of the mind: freedom of thought, of expression, of religion, and of self-invention without regard to the customs of caste, creed, or crown. Above all, liberalism implied both an ability and a responsibility of people to think for themselves, to create their own destinies, and to follow their own consciences. Examining the evolution of liberal belief since its founding, the liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr observed in an article published on July 4, 1955, in The New Republic, that liberalism in the broadest sense was characterized by a commitment “to free the individual from the traditional restraints of a society, to endow the ‘governed’ with the power of the franchise, to establish the principle of the ‘consent of the governed’ as the basis of political society; to challenge all hereditary privileges and traditional restraints upon human initiative.”[2]
Over the course of the nineteenth century, however, the traditional or “classical” understanding of liberalism came to represent a kind of conservatism, as powerful institutions (including, primarily, corporations and trusts) found ways to constrict the freedom of individuals through the onerous working conditions of early industrial factories while at the same time paying tribute to the liberal virtues of self-reliance and freedom to choose one’s own path to prosperity. To address these developments the great liberal philosopher John Dewey called upon liberals to rethink some of their most fundamental assumptions. Dewey defended the same Enlightenment-based liberalism of old but redefined it so as to allow its believers to adapt to contemporary conditions. Liberalism, he wrote:
came into use to denote a new spirit that grew and spread with the rise of democracy. It implied a new interest in the common man and a new sense that the common man, the representative of the great masses of human beings, had possibilities that had been kept under, that had not been allowed to develop, because of institutional and political conditions. . . . It was marked by a generous attitude, by sympathy for the underdog, for those who were not given a chance. . . . [And] it aimed at enlarging the scope of free action on the part of those who for ages had had no part in public affairs and no lot in the benefits secured by this participation.[3]
Although Dewey, who was a much better philosopher than he was a political strategist, spent most of Roosevelt’s career denouncing the president as a sellout and supporting Socialist and other marginal candidates, Roosevelt’s political career did embody the new liberal spirit that Dewey had identified.
In his famous 1932 speech at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Roosevelt expressed his admiration for Woodrow Wilson as a politician who “saw the situation” of industrial power “more clearly.”[4] Even though, for political reasons, he needed to demonstrate his respect for his former boss and predecessor in office as America’s most recent Democratic president, FDR likely felt a greater affinity, as an example of the presidency, between his older cousin Teddy rather than Wilson. TR had been a rarity: a successful politician who was a genuine man of ideas (and a historian himself). He gravitated toward other such men, and in Herbert Croly, the founding editor of The New Republic, he found one able to articulate the kind of grand sweeping notion upon which he could not only base an entire political lifetime of proposed reform but even found a movement that almost succeeded in displacing the two established political parties.
The “promise” in Croly’s The Promise of American Life (1909) referred to his belief that the United States would avoid the grotesque social and economic inequality found in Europe and could chart an independent course premised on its democratic faith. This faith was grounded in the Jeffersonian worldview, which was now being challenged by the closing of the frontier and the “concentration of economic power” in corporate trusts.[5] Suddenly Alexander Hamilton’s vision of America as a future industrial powerhouse with a strong central government was looking a great deal more prophetic than the agrarian republic envisioned by his famous philosophical adversary. By the turn of the century, Croly reasoned, the only power capable of counteracting the transformation of the American economy would have to be national in scope, for the nation itself remained “the best machinery as yet developed for raising the level of human association.”[6] But because he viewed the Hamiltonian tradition in American history as corrupted by its attachment to wealthy interests, particularly banking, he sought to employ Hamiltonian mechanisms in order to achieve a Jeffersonian vision of political equality: “The whole tendency of his programme,” he explained, “is to give a democratic meaning and purpose to the Hamiltonian tradition and method.”[7] The result would be a new definition of the hallowed tradition of American individualism.
Teddy Roosevelt laid the building blocks of the modern activist presidency through his belief that the office represented the will of the nation.[8] He made this point explicitly upon the passage of some of the most sweeping legislation in American history—the monitoring and regulation of the meat industry and drug trade—in 1906: “It is an absurdity to expect to eliminate the abuses in great corporations by State action. The National Government alone can deal adequately with these great corporations.”[9] He did so in part by channeling Populist rhetoric to mobilize the American people, deriding the “malefactors of great wealth” in ways that foreshadowed FDR’s chiding “economic royalists.”[10] His convictions only became bolder after he retired from the presidency. TR’s conception of “new nationalism”—the slogan for his run in 1912 as the candidate for the Progressive Party—also reflected a radical rethinking of liberalism, from which his younger cousin would later draw. In 1918, a year before he died, TR outlined a program of public works, hydroelectric power development, agricultural aid, pensions, and social insurance.[11] From there, it was a short step to the New Deal.
Franklin Roosevelt drew on all these traditions when he gave his famous speech on the “Four Freedoms” in his 1941 State of the Union address. There he enumerated what he defined as the rights everyone “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy. These were “freedom of speech and expression,” “freedom of every person to worship God in his own way,” “freedom from want,” and “freedom from fear.”[12] Though it was hardly evident at the time, these foundational four freedoms proved the culmination of a far broader and significant intellectual project. As early as 1932 FDR had proclaimed, “Every man has a right to life, and this means that he has also a right to make a comfortable living.”[13] No longer would freedom be defined simply as protection from or against the abusive powers of government—the central idea of classical liberalism. (The philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously defined this as “negative” freedom.) While FDR accepted the importance of protection from an overreaching government, he sought to create one that could provide “positive” freedoms as well. This entailed providing citizens with the tools they needed to live lives of honor and dignity.
This radical reworking of the American creed could be seen in Roosevelt’s near-revolutionary State of the Union address—the last he delivered directly to Congress—on January 11, 1944, in which he called for a “Second Bill of Rights.”[14] The key concept in this speech was “security,” which FDR now expanded to include almost all areas of life. “Essential to peace,” the president insisted, was “a decent standard of living for all individual men and women and children in all nations. Freedom from fear is eternally linked with freedom from want.” He demanded a “realistic tax law—which will tax all unreasonable profits, both individual and corporate, and reduce the ultimate cost of the war to our sons and daughters.” We “cannot be content,” he went on, “no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.” Then he listed the new rights he now considered to be fundamental to the American way of life:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation.
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.
The right of every family to a decent home.
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.
The right to a good education.
FDR tied these rights to the struggle then underway to win the war. “America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”[15]
Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a CUNY distinguished professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College. He is also “The Liberal Media” columnist for The Nation. This column won the 2011 Mirror Award for Best Digital Commentary.
Endnotes:
1. For a learned and useful discussion of the ideas and influence of many of these thinkers, see Jonathan I. Israel, Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity and the Emancipation of Man, 1670-1752 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
2. Reinhold Niebuhr, “Liberalism: Illusions and Realities, The New Republic, July 4, 1955: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/liberalism-illusions-and-realities
3. Jo Ann Boydston, ed., John Dewey: The Later Works 1925-1953 (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1991), 364-65
4. “Commonwealth Club Speech,” in Great Issues, ed. Richard Hofstadter, 347.
5. Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life (1909; reprint, New York: Capricorn, 1964), 23.
6. Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life, 284.
7. Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life, 169.
8. On the relations between the growth in executive power and the Progressive Era, see Maureen Flanagan, America Reformed, 283.
9. Quoted in Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent, 162.
10. Quoted in Michael McGerr, A Fierce Discontent, 317.
11. John Milton Cooper, The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1983), 259.
12. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, excerpted from the Annual Message to the Congress, January 6, 1941: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrthefourfreedoms.htm
13. FDR in Great Issues in American History, ed. Richard Hofstadter, 350.
14. John Patrick Diggins, The Proud Decades: America in War and Peace, 1941-1960 (New York: Norton, 1988), 21-22.
15. Franklin D. Roosevelt, "State of the Union Message to Congress, January 11, 1944," available at http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/011144.html
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Liz Bartolomeo (poverty, health care)
202.481.8151 or lbartolomeo@americanprogress.org
Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or tcaiazza@americanprogress.org
Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education)
202.478.6331 or apreiss@americanprogress.org
Print: Tanya Arditi (immigration, Progress 2050, race issues, demographics, criminal justice, Legal Progress)
202.741.6258 or tarditi@americanprogress.org
Print: Chelsea Kiene (women's issues, TalkPoverty.org, faith)
202.478.5328 or ckiene@americanprogress.org
Print: Benton Strong (Center for American Progress Action Fund)
202.481.8142 or bstrong@americanprogress.org
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Jennifer Molina
202.796.9706 or jmolina@americanprogress.org
TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or rrosen@americanprogress.org
Radio: Sally Tucker
202.482.8103 or sstucker@americanprogress.org
-
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights:
-
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism
Origins of Classical Liberalism
In conclusion, classical liberalism is a political ideology grounded in the notion of individualism and limited government, with a large helping of property rights on the side. It demands formal political and legal equality, but does not require or even expect social and economic equality.
TA, this is the classical definition of liberalism, NOT the modern definition of liberalism.
https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism (https://dlc.dcccd.edu/usgov1-2/origins-of-classical-liberalism)
-
(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-i-hope-we-shall-crush-in-its-birth-the-aristocracy-of-our-monied-corporations-which-dare-already-to-thomas-jefferson-94036.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CFM45YsVEAIiRqX.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AqgOi19o_Ig/UkSYLYZTcPI/AAAAAAABYh0/dL8f4en7Kxg/s400/ban_thomas+jefferson_quote.png)
(http://www.azquotes.com/image-quotes/Quotation-Bernie-Sanders-Let-us-wage-a-moral-and-political-war-against-the-100-87-62.jpg)
(http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/tweets/BernieSanders-Corporations.png)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/8b/07/24/8b0724437b74b3f4d0c805eb2ba07036.jpg)
(http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/tweets/BernieSanders-banks2.png)
(http://www.betterworld.net/quotes/bernie/tweets/BernieSanders-socialsecurity-2.jpg)
-
The True Idiot floundering.....
Wikipedia only helps when you actually comprehend what you're cutting and pasting.
Shizzo-level pathetic.
Cut & Paste
Cut & Paste
Cut & Paste
-
The True Idiot floundering.....
Wikipedia only helps when you actually comprehend what you're cutting and pasting.
Shizzo-level pathetic.
Cut & Paste
Cut & Paste
Cut & Paste
I have done nothing but embarrass you all day today.
At least you learned something. (even though you will try to deny it)
If anything is pathetic, its the fact that you went about for decades with the wrong information in your brain, espousing it as if it were true. I shudder to think how many morons may have listened to your tainted words.
-
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it." - Theodore Roosevelt.
We are all equal under the law but you cannot legislate wealth by stealing from those that make to reward those that take, for in doing so you make a mockery of justice and enslave both sides to a government that should serve, not sever our union.
Again, equal under the law. Equal to succeed or fail. What should have been a temporary hand up has become nothing more than a permanent hand out.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
We the People are fast running out of both money and patience.
-
I have done nothing but embarrass you all day today.
At least you learned something. (even though you will try to deny it)
If anything is pathetic, its the fact that you went about for decades with the wrong information in your brain, espousing it as if it were true. I shudder to think how many morons may have listened to your tainted words.
What I learned today is:
You're Goodrum level of stupid
You fancy yourself a pseudo-intellectual, yet you barely comprehend 7th grade subject matter
You melt down and cry in a temper tantrum like the wee girl you are
-
What I learned today is:
You're Goodrum level of stupid
You fancy yourself a pseudo-intellectual, yet you barely comprehend 7th grade subject matter
You melt down and cry in a temper tantrum like the wee girl you are
You are the one crying, not I.
I find it hilarious that you keep embarrassing yourself. Its as if you enjoy the constant beat down and punishment.
You really put the "Cuck" in Cuckservative.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9d/59/c3/9d59c3632e8a59566d1119004c20f5eb.jpg)
-
more inflammatory provocations from the likes of the obsidian account.
we need to unite, come together in peace and harmony instead of sowing the seeds of division, kumbaya
learn from TA, direct your effort in a manner that will improve the social fabric of society and raise the level of mediocrity
Godspeed
-
You are the one crying, not I.
I find it hilarious that you keep embarrassing yourself. Its as if you enjoy the constant beat down and punishment.
You really put the "Cuck" in Cuckservative.
You haven't beat down anything retard.
If you had half a brain in your head you would realize how embarrassingly stupid you really are.
You thought george Orwell was a "classic liberal". All the rest of your bluster is really just trying to camouflage what a moron you really are. I'm sure you thought animal farm was a nice story about pigs!!!!!
Who will you proclaim as your next "classic liberal"......John McClain or Sarah Palin?
The True Idiot.....going down in flames and seeing the end of his pathetic Getbig existence
-
Where is the gif with Kermit typing frantically? Or in True Adonis' case copy and pasting frantically.
-
Where is the gif with Kermit typing frantically? Or in True Adonis' case copy and pasting frantically.
The Super Bowl is at half time. The True Idiot is whacking his meat to Coldplay, he will be back soon with more stupidity.
A lot more stupidity.
Crybaby meltdown in aisle 3.....
-
(http://www.vintuitive.com/wp-content/uploads/CutPaste.gif)
-
What's wrong with copy & paste? Does a fact become false just because it has been copied and pasted? Would TA be more credible if he were to quote FOX news from memory?
-
"We all bleed red."
"No one is better than anyone else."
"But they are not all like that."
"I have a black/gay/hispanic/Asian friend."
"I work with a black person."
"I know a black guy smarter than you."
"Who are you to judge?"
"Are you so perfect?"
"We are all human."
"It's a poverty thing."
"Race is a social construct."
-
(http://dynastyseries.com/wp-content/2016/02/@drisanasharma-kinglumas-01122.jpg)
-
(http://dynastyseries.com/wp-content/2016/02/@drisanasharma-kinglumas-01122.jpg)
Thanks, man.
-
What's wrong with copy & paste? Does a fact become false just because it has been copied and pasted? Would TA be more credible if he were to quote FOX news from memory?
Never understood that either. It always comes out when someone is backed into a corner and they have no argument, certainly not based in evidence or fact (they get mad when you present them).
They would rather bandy about lies and believe bullshit (kind of like what they did to Orwell here) because its just too difficult for them to understand data and evidence.
These people are what is wrong with the world in my opinion.
-
This is the essence of all philosophy Francis Bacon’s: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
If you understand this quote truly then socialism and any economic, social attempt at equality is a truly fruitless effort. Although I dont like Objectivism it is undeniable in its truths.
-
This is the essence of all philosophy Francis Bacon’s: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
If you understand this quote truly then socialism and any economic, social attempt at equality is a truly fruitless effort. Although I dont like Objectivism it is undeniable in its truths.
Et TU? ???
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/socialism/socialism.html
Some of the distant forerunners of Victorian socialism include William Langland, John Wycliffe, John Ball, Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Gerrard Winstanley, and James Harrington.
-
This is the essence of all philosophy Francis Bacon’s: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
If you understand this quote truly then socialism and any economic, social attempt at equality is a truly fruitless effort. Although I dont like Objectivism it is undeniable in its truths.
Francis Bacon, with his work, New Atlantis, was basically the father of modern Socialist thinking. Did you not know this? ???
http://www.sirbacon.org/wnewatlanis.htm
-
This is the essence of all philosophy Francis Bacon’s: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.”
If you understand this quote truly then socialism and any economic, social attempt at equality is a truly fruitless effort. Although I dont like Objectivism it is undeniable in its truths.
In fact, Francis Bacon Books, Three Modern Utopias and The New Atlantis are best sellers in the Socialism category on Amazon.com
Here see for yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A157473011%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AFrancis+Bacon
-
Never understood that either. It always comes out when someone is backed into a corner and they have no argument, certainly not based in evidence or fact (they get mad when you present them).
They would rather bandy about lies and believe bullshit (kind of like what they did to Orwell here) because its just too difficult for them to understand data and evidence.
These people are what is wrong with the world in my opinion.
Would you classify the people in this painting below as Liberals? I'm pretty sure they identify themselves as "Liberals".
(http://jonmcnaughton.com/content/ZoomDetailPages/LiberalismIsADisease_files/LiberalismIsADisease_Resized.jpg)
-
In fact, Francis Bacon Books, Three Modern Utopias and The New Atlantis are best sellers in the Socialism category on Amazon.com
Here see for yourself:
http://www.amazon.com/s?rh=n%3A157473011%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3AFrancis+Bacon
Regarding bestsellers...
Harry Potter outsells them by far.
Is Harry Potter of any relevance?
No.
Same with "music" charts...
Millions buy this crap.
Does it make the music horrible noise any better?
No.
-
Regarding bestsellers...
Harry Potter outsells them by far.
Is Harry Potter of any relevance?
No.
Same with "music" charts...
Millions buy this crap.
Does it make the music horrible noise any better?
No.
That wasn't the point at all genius.
The point was they are listed as best sellers in the SOCIALISM category on Amazon.com. That means people looking for books on SOCIALISM buy ones from Francis Bacon.
Obviously Tedtim had no idea that Francis Bacon is sometimes considered the father of "modern" Socialism.
Understand now?
-
That wasn't the point at all genius.
The point was they are listed as best sellers in the SOCIALISM category on Amazon.com. That means people looking for books on SOCIALISM buy ones from Francis Bacon.
Obviously Tedtim had no idea that Francis Bacon is sometimes considered the father of "modern" Socialism.
Understand now?
Since I am a genius^ probably not.
Too bad Einstein is already dead.
Would have been fun to rival him.
-
That wasn't the point at all genius.
The point was they are listed as best sellers in the SOCIALISM category on Amazon.com. That means people looking for books on SOCIALISM buy ones from Francis Bacon.
Obviously Tedtim had no idea that Francis Bacon is sometimes considered the father of "modern" Socialism.
Understand now?
The title of this thread is Liberalism is a disease moron. And it refers to the people of today who identify themselves as "Liberals". It does not speak to "Liberals" from a few centuries ago. People who identify themselves today as "Liberals" are in fact mentally ill. And to be honest, they are not really "Liberals". They're Communists. Liberals support the freedom and liberty of everyone. These mentally ill individuals do not support the liberty and freedom of White People.
Anti-white "Liberals" should be committed to hospitals. They are ill and a danger to societies and their people.
-
Since I am a genius^ probably not.
Too bad Einstein is already dead.
Would have been fun to rival him.
Funny that you mention Einstein. He was probably one of the most well known Socialists in History.
(http://img10.deviantart.net/851a/i/2013/260/c/1/socialist_albert_einstein_by_valendale-d6mpze3.jpg)
-
Funny that you mention Einstein. He was probably one of the most well known Socialists in History.
(http://img10.deviantart.net/851a/i/2013/260/c/1/socialist_albert_einstein_by_valendale-d6mpze3.jpg)
Thank you for something that is actually useful.
-
Et TU? ???
http://www.victorianweb.org/history/socialism/socialism.html
Some of the distant forerunners of Victorian socialism include William Langland, John Wycliffe, John Ball, Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Gerrard Winstanley, and James Harrington.
I am very familiar with Bacon, I picked my quote precisely. You ignored the quote and went with source, you would have failed reading comprehension.
Socialism is a populist ideology for the simple minded, with big hearts and small minds. Liberalism was always defined as individualism until it was hijacked by collectivism.
-
The title of this thread is Liberalism is a disease moron. And it refers to the people of today who identify themselves as "Liberals". It does not speak to "Liberals" from a few centuries ago. People who identify themselves today as "Liberals" are in fact mentally ill. And to be honest, they are not really "Liberals". They're Communists. Liberals support the freedom and liberty of everyone. These mentally ill individuals do not support the liberty and freedom of White People.
Anti-white "Liberals" should be committed to hospitals. They are ill and a danger to societies and their people.
Translation:
(http://e.lvme.me/fy1loh.jpg)
-
I am very familiar with Bacon, I picked my quote precisely. You ignored the quote and went with source, you would have failed reading comprehension.
Socialism is a populist ideology for the simple minded, with big hearts and small minds. Liberalism was always defined as individualism until it was hijacked by collectivism.
Yes, Albert Einstein had a small mind. ::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yp6QPso-ev8/UNyU_rL8JdI/AAAAAAAAAF8/eEyGaF_Enjg/s1600/alberteinstein+quote++stupidity+vs+genius.jpg)
-
That wasn't the point at all genius.
The point was they are listed as best sellers in the SOCIALISM category on Amazon.com. That means people looking for books on SOCIALISM buy ones from Francis Bacon.
Obviously Tedtim had no idea that Francis Bacon is sometimes considered the father of "modern" Socialism.
Understand now?
Mills is the grandfather of socialism, Marx....the father. Modern socialism is a bastertization of Hitlers National socialism....youre welcome.
-
Yes, Albert Einstein had a small mind. ::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yp6QPso-ev8/UNyU_rL8JdI/AAAAAAAAAF8/eEyGaF_Enjg/s1600/alberteinstein+quote++stupidity+vs+genius.jpg)
So you're so innept you use memes.....got it bwahahahaha.
-
So you're so innept you use memes.....got it bwahahahaha.
LOL!
-
Yes, Albert Einstein had a small mind. ::)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Yp6QPso-ev8/UNyU_rL8JdI/AAAAAAAAAF8/eEyGaF_Enjg/s1600/alberteinstein+quote++stupidity+vs+genius.jpg)
Most mathematicians havent read Jung......fact
-
Translation:
(http://e.lvme.me/fy1loh.jpg)
Yes, you're not ;)
-
Mills is the grandfather of socialism, Marx....the father. Modern socialism is a bastertization of Hitlers National socialism....youre welcome.
Totally wrong. Care to provide any source material for that statement?
Again, proclaiming something as a fact, does not make it so. Your above statement is one of the most outlandish things I have ever heard.
Yes, Bernie Sanders and Tony Benn, modern Socialists, have/had a lot in common with NAZIs.
You are a moron.
Not much further to the right than Nazis.
-
The Troll Adonis.
-
Mills is the grandfather of socialism, Marx....the father. Modern socialism is a bastertization of Hitlers National socialism....youre welcome.
No You are welcome. Here learn something:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
Similarly, Barbara Miller Lane, a Bryn Mawr College professor and co-editor of a compilation of Nazi ideology before 1933, said by email: "The Nazis were NOT ‘democratic socialists,’ whatever that means. The Nazis were never democrats and never real socialists either." While there was a longstanding and distinguished Social Democratic Party in Germany from the 1870 to the 1920s, Lane wrote, the Nazis fought against it, and after 1933 imprisoned its leaders.
Lane added: "The Nazis opposed all traditional socialism, wanting to substitute something they called ‘German socialism’ or ‘Aryan socialism.’ This meant citizenship and privileges only for ‘Aryans’ (meaning non-Jews), concentration camps for others."
-
When you read these and these and these.....then I'll take the time to explain things to you, or not
-
The Troll Adonis.
He's trying to derail the thread because he is afraid he'll end up in a straight jacket.
(http://www.partycrashertshirts.com/image/cache/data/shirts/274/liberalism-is-a-mental-disease-logo-366x366.jpg)
-
The Troll Adonis.
No, just tired of morons spreading lies and myths and not knowing a fucking thing about what they spew.
Its crazy how many decades they go believing in bullshit. They then teach others this bullshit and the ideas of bullshit are that much harder to kill. I call it the virus of ignorance. The best we can do is contain it and kill it.
However, there are many who are immune to Evidence, Fact, Data and Primary Sources etc...
Einstein realized this and knew that ignorance expands exponentially. :-\
-
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41fUa-%2BQXeL.jpg)
-
And these and these and.....and their 2 tiers deep
-
When you read these and these and these.....then I'll take the time to explain things to you, or not
Obviously you don't read enough or you would not have made the stupid statements in this thread as you did.
Seriously, did you think I would not notice?
-
(http://rlv.zcache.com/liberalism_is_a_disease_common_sense_is_the_cure_poster-rde2fa53815154ca18e45e614cee0bb60_ww8_8byvr_1024.jpg)
-
And these and these and.....and their 2 tiers deep
Nice try, but you don't have enough years in your life to read all of those.
I don't understand your point at all with these pictures? What is it you are trying to say? Are you claiming to have read all of those books? ???
-
Obviously you don't read enough or you would not have made the stupid statements in this thread as you did.
Seriously, did you think I would not notice?
Your retort is as base as your obvious lack of education....maybe the GetBig cabal might not notice a second class citizen but anyone with some classical education can see you for the fraud you are. Now meme me a cat misspelling something.
-
Nice try, but you don't have enough years in your life to read all of those.
I don't understand your point at all with these pictures? What is it you are trying to say? Are you claiming to have read all of those books? ???
Yes I did and more, I haven't shown research literature nor industry specific books....want those pics?
-
Yes I did and more, I haven't shown research literature nor industry specific books....want those pics?
No I don't want those pictures at all.
You are blatantly lying and its obvious. No idea why you are doing this. Maybe you can check some books out on Socialism and learn why you were wrong. Then you can read about Nazi history and learn that they had nothing to do with Socialism whatsoever.
Somehow you seem to think you know more than the actual person (Bacon,Orwell etc) or an actual scholar on Nazism but say the most outlandish statements that are the complete opposite.
Then you post pictures of books (that would be IMPOSSIBLE to read in one lifetime) and claim that you read them all. However, your statements do not match up at all with that ridiculous statement.
I can only conclude that you are a moron. Sorry. You did it to yourself.
-
Maybe Sagan can help you with this:
-
...
You are blatantly lying and its obvious. No idea why you are doing this. Maybe you can check some books out on Socialism and learn why you were wrong. Then you can read about Nazi history and learn that they had nothing to do with Socialism whatsoever.
...
LMAO!! You idiot!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism)
National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]) or Naziism (/ˈnɑːtsi.ɪzəm/), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state as well as other far-right groups.
-
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian (https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/igsQSHBTAy3Kse_JfdFm8v3q5XtUE2AVVSs8KP3vxLqKvgnavOD-MA4zC_gWEh1_Rc2mT0c0dnAufZvTv61HssUB5mi341gx62oKlsIZDP3YhlNlD94o4RbVrrmiFmxHKZhhBGSe)
-
No I don't want those pictures at all.
You are blatantly lying and its obvious. No idea why you are doing this. Maybe you can check some books out on Socialism and learn why you were wrong. Then you can read about Nazi history and learn that they had nothing to do with Socialism whatsoever.
Somehow you seem to think you know more than the actual person (Bacon,Orwell etc) or an actual scholar on Nazism but say the most outlandish statements that are the complete opposite.
Then you post pictures of books (that would be IMPOSSIBLE to read in one lifetime) and claim that you read them all. However, your statements do not match up at all with that ridiculous statement.
I can only conclude that you are a moron. Sorry. You did it to yourself.
I'm sorry it takes you months to read a See Spot Run book, believe or not believe.....I could care less. You are an apologist for a failed ideology nothing more.
Most can recognize your flavor of shill....the rest don't matter.
Thankfully you're probably poor and don't "matter".
-
LMAO!! You idiot!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism)
National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæ-/[1]) or Naziism (/ˈnɑːtsi.ɪzəm/), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and Nazi state as well as other far-right groups.
It's one of those annoying association that the socialists have tried to bury as fast as a dog with a smelly turd. Fortunately just like the turd socialism is, it smells so bad it just won't go away. :)
-
When his position and arguments are razed to the ground like most of Detroits socialized slums...the ad hominem attack will commence. ROTF
-
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/igsQSHBTAy3Kse_JfdFm8v3q5XtUE2AVVSs8KP3vxLqKvgnavOD-MA4zC_gWEh1_Rc2mT0c0dnAufZvTv61HssUB5mi341gx62oKlsIZDP3YhlNlD94o4RbVrrmiFmxHKZhhBGSe)
Glad you posted that.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/igsQSHBTAy3Kse_JfdFm8v3q5XtUE2AVVSs8KP3vxLqKvgnavOD-MA4zC_gWEh1_Rc2mT0c0dnAufZvTv61HssUB5mi341gx62oKlsIZDP3YhlNlD94o4RbVrrmiFmxHKZhhBGSe)
Pants on Fire!
Villalba
"Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. … Nazis were Democratic Socialists."
— Jason Villalba on Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 in a tweet
Jason Villalba said Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and "Nazis were Democratic Socialists"
By W. Gardner Selby on Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
Bernie Sanders proudly declares himself a democratic socialist. A Texas state representative suggested that Sanders must somehow then be aligned with the Nazis of Adolf Hitler.
State Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, posted a tweet during the CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, 2015, that opened: "The modern Democrat Party is filled with Democratic Socialists and soft socialists. Is this where we are in America?"
To that tweet, Villalba attached an image of what looked like an old document stating: "That awkward moment when … 1) Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. 2) Nazis were Democratic Socialists 3) America fought an entire World War to stop the advance of Democratic Socialists." The image closed: "Sincerely, Sane Americans."
A Democratic activist, Ed Espinoza of Progress Texas, brought it to our attention for a fact check.
We didn’t hear back from Villalba about the presented "Democratic Socialist" conclusions. But he told the Dallas Morning News and Jonathan Tilove, chief political writer for the Austin American-Statesman, that the image with its mentions of Sanders and the Nazis was a meme he found online.
He also insisted his tweet wasn’t likening Democrats to Nazis. "So is the history accurate in this?" Villalba told Tilove by phone. "Of course not. Look, was I trying to make a connection between Sanders and the Nazi party? Absolutely not. I categorically reject any suggestion that that is what I was intending to do."
By the next day, Villalba's tweet was no longer posted by him. Regardless, we checked its accuracy.
Sanders a democratic socialist
Sanders, the independent Vermont senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination, considers himself a democratic socialist. He’s also Jewish.
In the debate, moderator Anderson Cooper delved in:
COOPER: "You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?"
SANDERS: "Well, we're going to win because first, we're going to explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent - almost - own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.
"That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing healthcare to all people as a right, except the United States. You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not going to separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have - we are going to have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.
"Those are some of the principles that I believe in and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people…"
COOPER: …"You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?"
SANDERS: "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires."
Nazis
And were the Nazis also Democratic Socialists?
We consulted historians and books, finding the Nazi party’s full name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That name was adopted in 1920; before that, the party had been the German Workers’ Party.
But there was little socialist about the party’s platform or Hitler’s actions once he acceded to leading Germany in the early 1930s.
By phone and email, Rice University historian Peter Caldwell told us the key word in the party’s name was "national" and the party’s focus was on building nationalism — a focus ultimately reflected in Hitler’s twisted vision of cleansing the country of residents, especially Jews, not considered of pure German blood. While socialists on the left celebrate democracy, Caldwell said, the word has a different meaning on the right — in this instance, he said, excluding people who are not part of the nation, hence rejecting Jews and communists and, in pre-World War II Germany, democracy itself.
Caldwell said the "misleading" tweet suggesting an alignment between Sanders’ professed democratic socialism and Hitler’s party would "have Hitler turning in his grave, wherever the grave is. The Nazis loudly opposed democracy, the first and foremost thing." Also, he said, "they were opposed to emancipating the workers, giving them the rights to vote and to organize" in unions.
Similarly, Barbara Miller Lane, a Bryn Mawr College professor and co-editor of a compilation of Nazi ideology before 1933, said by email: "The Nazis were NOT ‘democratic socialists,’ whatever that means. The Nazis were never democrats and never real socialists either." While there was a longstanding and distinguished Social Democratic Party in Germany from the 1870 to the 1920s, Lane wrote, the Nazis fought against it, and after 1933 imprisoned its leaders.
Lane added: "The Nazis opposed all traditional socialism, wanting to substitute something they called ‘German socialism’ or ‘Aryan socialism.’ This meant citizenship and privileges only for ‘Aryans’ (meaning non-Jews), concentration camps for others."
According to the "The Cambridge Illustrated History of Germany," Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919, the year before the party’s decision to add National and Socialist to its name.
At the time, according to the book, supporters included "well-placed anti-Semites and extreme nationalists" who hoped to gain influence over members of the working class; Hitler, a spellbinding orator, became the party’s chairman in 1921. Another book, "A Brief History of Germany," says the Nazi’s "appealed to a broad swath of the German population, attracting fervent nationalists and radical conservatives, as well as those who hated the Versailles settlement, feared the communists, or despised the Jews."
Our ruling
Villalba said Sanders "admits he is a democratic socialist… Nazis were Democratic Socialists."
Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. The Nazis were not democratic socialists. Whether or not Villalba intended to link Sanders to the Nazis, his tweet neatly did the job.
We find this claim historically inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire!
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
-
It's one of those annoying association that the socialists have tried to bury as fast as a dog with a smelly turd. Fortunately just like the turd socialism is, it smells so bad it just won't go away. :)
Can you explain to me what is Democratic about North Korea since its official name is: North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
??? ??? ???
You are a moron.
-
I am truly convinced that there is a direct correlation between large pitch letter and lower IQ, similar to monster truck tires.
-
So by your logic, Democracies are horrible/bad forms of government because North Korea calls itself a Democratic Republic.
Got it. ::)
-
I am truly convinced that there is a direct correlation between large pitch letter and lower IQ, similar to monster truck tires.
I am convinced you are a liar and a moron based on your very own posts and nothing else.
Oh well, you did it to yourself.
-
Can you explain to me what is Democratic about North Korea since its official name is: North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
??? ??? ???
You are a moron.
Well imbecile, I'm glad the ad hominem attacks have begun....
East Germany was truly socialist under Soviet occupation and its official name was German Democratic Republic....dolt
-
:o ::)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea
North Korea , officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
-
Well imbecile, I'm glad the ad hominem attacks have begun....
East Germany was truly socialist under Soviet occupation and its official name was German Democratic Republic....dolt
Must be one of those facts Democracies and Republics want to bury like a turd- at least according to your child like "logic".
-
Glad you posted that.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/igsQSHBTAy3Kse_JfdFm8v3q5XtUE2AVVSs8KP3vxLqKvgnavOD-MA4zC_gWEh1_Rc2mT0c0dnAufZvTv61HssUB5mi341gx62oKlsIZDP3YhlNlD94o4RbVrrmiFmxHKZhhBGSe)
Pants on Fire!
Villalba
"Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. … Nazis were Democratic Socialists."
— Jason Villalba on Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 in a tweet
Jason Villalba said Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and "Nazis were Democratic Socialists"
By W. Gardner Selby on Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
Bernie Sanders proudly declares himself a democratic socialist. A Texas state representative suggested that Sanders must somehow then be aligned with the Nazis of Adolf Hitler.
State Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, posted a tweet during the CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, 2015, that opened: "The modern Democrat Party is filled with Democratic Socialists and soft socialists. Is this where we are in America?"
To that tweet, Villalba attached an image of what looked like an old document stating: "That awkward moment when … 1) Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. 2) Nazis were Democratic Socialists 3) America fought an entire World War to stop the advance of Democratic Socialists." The image closed: "Sincerely, Sane Americans."
A Democratic activist, Ed Espinoza of Progress Texas, brought it to our attention for a fact check.
We didn’t hear back from Villalba about the presented "Democratic Socialist" conclusions. But he told the Dallas Morning News and Jonathan Tilove, chief political writer for the Austin American-Statesman, that the image with its mentions of Sanders and the Nazis was a meme he found online.
He also insisted his tweet wasn’t likening Democrats to Nazis. "So is the history accurate in this?" Villalba told Tilove by phone. "Of course not. Look, was I trying to make a connection between Sanders and the Nazi party? Absolutely not. I categorically reject any suggestion that that is what I was intending to do."
By the next day, Villalba's tweet was no longer posted by him. Regardless, we checked its accuracy.
Sanders a democratic socialist
Sanders, the independent Vermont senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination, considers himself a democratic socialist. He’s also Jewish.
In the debate, moderator Anderson Cooper delved in:
COOPER: "You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?"
SANDERS: "Well, we're going to win because first, we're going to explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent - almost - own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.
"That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing healthcare to all people as a right, except the United States. You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not going to separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have - we are going to have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.
"Those are some of the principles that I believe in and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people…"
COOPER: …"You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?"
SANDERS: "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires."
Nazis
And were the Nazis also Democratic Socialists?
We consulted historians and books, finding the Nazi party’s full name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That name was adopted in 1920; before that, the party had been the German Workers’ Party.
But there was little socialist about the party’s platform or Hitler’s actions once he acceded to leading Germany in the early 1930s.
By phone and email, Rice University historian Peter Caldwell told us the key word in the party’s name was "national" and the party’s focus was on building nationalism — a focus ultimately reflected in Hitler’s twisted vision of cleansing the country of residents, especially Jews, not considered of pure German blood. While socialists on the left celebrate democracy, Caldwell said, the word has a different meaning on the right — in this instance, he said, excluding people who are not part of the nation, hence rejecting Jews and communists and, in pre-World War II Germany, democracy itself.
Caldwell said the "misleading" tweet suggesting an alignment between Sanders’ professed democratic socialism and Hitler’s party would "have Hitler turning in his grave, wherever the grave is. The Nazis loudly opposed democracy, the first and foremost thing." Also, he said, "they were opposed to emancipating the workers, giving them the rights to vote and to organize" in unions.
Similarly, Barbara Miller Lane, a Bryn Mawr College professor and co-editor of a compilation of Nazi ideology before 1933, said by email: "The Nazis were NOT ‘democratic socialists,’ whatever that means. The Nazis were never democrats and never real socialists either." While there was a longstanding and distinguished Social Democratic Party in Germany from the 1870 to the 1920s, Lane wrote, the Nazis fought against it, and after 1933 imprisoned its leaders.
Lane added: "The Nazis opposed all traditional socialism, wanting to substitute something they called ‘German socialism’ or ‘Caucasian socialism.’ This meant citizenship and privileges only for ‘Aryans’ (meaning non-Jews), concentration camps for others."
According to the "The Cambridge Illustrated History of Germany," Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919, the year before the party’s decision to add National and Socialist to its name.
At the time, according to the book, supporters included "well-placed anti-Semites and extreme nationalists" who hoped to gain influence over members of the working class; Hitler, a spellbinding orator, became the party’s chairman in 1921. Another book, "A Brief History of Germany," says the Nazi’s "appealed to a broad swath of the German population, attracting fervent nationalists and radical conservatives, as well as those who hated the Versailles settlement, feared the communists, or despised the Jews."
Our ruling
Villalba said Sanders "admits he is a democratic socialist… Nazis were Democratic Socialists."
Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. The Nazis were not democratic socialists. Whether or not Villalba intended to link Sanders to the Nazis, his tweet neatly did the job.
We find this claim historically inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire!
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
My post has this link:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
The image came from your link, but so what? It's just opinions. And everyone has them. So the guy deleted his tweet. Not the first time someone has been silenced via Political Correctness.
-
I am convinced you are a liar and a moron based on your very own posts and nothing else.
Oh well, you did it to yourself.
Maybe if your read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals you wouldn't be made to look like the bumbling fool that you appear....
Once I'm done with you, you'll be in a fetal position hugging a Humme book and reciting Locke. I could lend you both books....
-
My post has this link:
https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian
The image came from your link, but so what? It's just opinions. And everyone has them. So the guy deleted his tweet. Not the first time someone has been silenced via Political Correctness.
TomPaineCommonSense • a year ago
If Nazi Germany was socialist, how come all the corporate leaders, bankers, and military generals were able to make so much money and spirit it out of Germany through banks for themselves and their families? Why did their leading companies - steel, chemical, construction - make such fat profits from all the armaments, materiel? Why weren't profits distributed to the people if it were socialism? Why would a socialist state form such a close alliance with the fascist state of Italy? WWII Germany had elements of private enterprise, fascism, and socialism blended for the economic and political benefit of their elites, and because the people had little if any influence I would say socialism was the minor if not altogether missing element of their economic system
-
Glad you posted that.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/igsQSHBTAy3Kse_JfdFm8v3q5XtUE2AVVSs8KP3vxLqKvgnavOD-MA4zC_gWEh1_Rc2mT0c0dnAufZvTv61HssUB5mi341gx62oKlsIZDP3YhlNlD94o4RbVrrmiFmxHKZhhBGSe)
Pants on Fire!
Villalba
"Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. … Nazis were Democratic Socialists."
— Jason Villalba on Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 in a tweet
Jason Villalba said Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist and "Nazis were Democratic Socialists"
By W. Gardner Selby on Friday, October 16th, 2015 at 10:30 a.m.
Bernie Sanders proudly declares himself a democratic socialist. A Texas state representative suggested that Sanders must somehow then be aligned with the Nazis of Adolf Hitler.
State Rep. Jason Villalba, R-Dallas, posted a tweet during the CNN-hosted Democratic presidential debate Oct. 13, 2015, that opened: "The modern Democrat Party is filled with Democratic Socialists and soft socialists. Is this where we are in America?"
To that tweet, Villalba attached an image of what looked like an old document stating: "That awkward moment when … 1) Bernie Sanders admits he is a Democratic Socialist. 2) Nazis were Democratic Socialists 3) America fought an entire World War to stop the advance of Democratic Socialists." The image closed: "Sincerely, Sane Americans."
A Democratic activist, Ed Espinoza of Progress Texas, brought it to our attention for a fact check.
We didn’t hear back from Villalba about the presented "Democratic Socialist" conclusions. But he told the Dallas Morning News and Jonathan Tilove, chief political writer for the Austin American-Statesman, that the image with its mentions of Sanders and the Nazis was a meme he found online.
He also insisted his tweet wasn’t likening Democrats to Nazis. "So is the history accurate in this?" Villalba told Tilove by phone. "Of course not. Look, was I trying to make a connection between Sanders and the Nazi party? Absolutely not. I categorically reject any suggestion that that is what I was intending to do."
By the next day, Villalba's tweet was no longer posted by him. Regardless, we checked its accuracy.
Sanders a democratic socialist
Sanders, the independent Vermont senator running for the Democratic presidential nomination, considers himself a democratic socialist. He’s also Jewish.
In the debate, moderator Anderson Cooper delved in:
COOPER: "You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win a general election in the United States?"
SANDERS: "Well, we're going to win because first, we're going to explain what democratic socialism is. And what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent in this country own almost 90 percent - almost - own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That it is wrong, today, in a rigged economy, that 57 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent.
"That when you look around the world, you see every other major country providing healthcare to all people as a right, except the United States. You see every other major country saying to moms that, when you have a baby, we're not going to separate you from your newborn baby, because we are going to have - we are going to have medical and family paid leave, like every other country on Earth.
"Those are some of the principles that I believe in and I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people…"
COOPER: …"You don't consider yourself a capitalist, though?"
SANDERS: "Do I consider myself part of the casino capitalist process by which so few have so much and so many have so little by which Wall Street's greed and recklessness wrecked this economy? No, I don't. I believe in a society where all people do well. Not just a handful of billionaires."
Nazis
And were the Nazis also Democratic Socialists?
We consulted historians and books, finding the Nazi party’s full name was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That name was adopted in 1920; before that, the party had been the German Workers’ Party.
But there was little socialist about the party’s platform or Hitler’s actions once he acceded to leading Germany in the early 1930s.
By phone and email, Rice University historian Peter Caldwell told us the key word in the party’s name was "national" and the party’s focus was on building nationalism — a focus ultimately reflected in Hitler’s twisted vision of cleansing the country of residents, especially Jews, not considered of pure German blood. While socialists on the left celebrate democracy, Caldwell said, the word has a different meaning on the right — in this instance, he said, excluding people who are not part of the nation, hence rejecting Jews and communists and, in pre-World War II Germany, democracy itself.
Caldwell said the "misleading" tweet suggesting an alignment between Sanders’ professed democratic socialism and Hitler’s party would "have Hitler turning in his grave, wherever the grave is. The Nazis loudly opposed democracy, the first and foremost thing." Also, he said, "they were opposed to emancipating the workers, giving them the rights to vote and to organize" in unions.
Similarly, Barbara Miller Lane, a Bryn Mawr College professor and co-editor of a compilation of Nazi ideology before 1933, said by email: "The Nazis were NOT ‘democratic socialists,’ whatever that means. The Nazis were never democrats and never real socialists either." While there was a longstanding and distinguished Social Democratic Party in Germany from the 1870 to the 1920s, Lane wrote, the Nazis fought against it, and after 1933 imprisoned its leaders.
Lane added: "The Nazis opposed all traditional socialism, wanting to substitute something they called ‘German socialism’ or ‘Caucasian socialism.’ This meant citizenship and privileges only for ‘Aryans’ (meaning non-Jews), concentration camps for others."
According to the "The Cambridge Illustrated History of Germany," Hitler joined the German Workers’ Party in 1919, the year before the party’s decision to add National and Socialist to its name.
At the time, according to the book, supporters included "well-placed anti-Semites and extreme nationalists" who hoped to gain influence over members of the working class; Hitler, a spellbinding orator, became the party’s chairman in 1921. Another book, "A Brief History of Germany," says the Nazi’s "appealed to a broad swath of the German population, attracting fervent nationalists and radical conservatives, as well as those who hated the Versailles settlement, feared the communists, or despised the Jews."
Our ruling
Villalba said Sanders "admits he is a democratic socialist… Nazis were Democratic Socialists."
Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist. The Nazis were not democratic socialists. Whether or not Villalba intended to link Sanders to the Nazis, his tweet neatly did the job.
We find this claim historically inaccurate and ridiculous. Pants on Fire!
PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55942541.jpg)
-
Well if we're going to a meme war....I know where to look. Lol
-
Maybe if your read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals you wouldn't be made to look like the bumbling fool that you appear....
Once I'm done with you, you'll be in a fetal position hugging a Humme book and reciting Locke. I could lend you both books....
Crybaby, There is nothing to be learned from you. I like facts, you like fiction. You are useless to me.
-
(http://s14.postimg.org/464sxck9s/o_Mk_IWu9.jpg)
-
Crybaby, There is nothing to be learned from you. I like facts, you like fiction. You are useless to me.
I see your meltdown has begun, good I can do my 5/4 plan that the soviets loved so much.....instead of 5 posts I'll have you melting in 4.... I know you need my reference as you're not well read
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/8f/bf/b1/8fbfb1c62c07f63d36739b554bfcb6d5.jpg)
-
.
-
LOL, fucking moron. You are the stupidest man on earth; you don't even know what you believe in. The main distinctions between modern and classical liberalism revolve around the concepts of positive and negative freedoms, and economic solutions for ensuring liberty, Yet you're still rambling on about white guys!
Now Hitler is supposedly a democratic socialist too? LOL! He called himself a socialist because it was "fashionable": in the 20's and 30's, socialism was widely seen as the future and had a big effect upon political discourse. Hitler's goals were completely antithetical to any socialist ideals.
Lets not forget yesterday when you claimed that Orwell wrote Animal Farm to denounce his own socialist beliefs LOL.
Please just stop posting, delete your account and go take all the piss-filled cups out of your room before your wife gets home!
:o
-
I really don't have the time but I see the need.....
Socialism in Nazi Germany's economy.....1936 price and wage controls are initiated as a response to inflation of 1933, followed by collectivism and de facto control of all private enterprises (ownership remained in name only) with centralized government controls and planning for all production...essence of socialism.
-
In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes: "In the end I worked out an anarchist theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone."
doesn't sound like a socialist to me.
-
The only points that can be argued in reference to socialism is the brand of socialism, Marx socialism, Lenins socialism, Mao's socialism, Trotsky's...DRR, PRC, RNC, etc
-
In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes: "In the end I worked out an anarchist theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone."
doesn't sound like a socialist to me.
animal farm is based on the Russian revolution, 1984 is based on what Orwell foresaw as the result of the Stalin purges of 1930's
-
In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes: "In the end I worked out an anarchist theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone."
doesn't sound like a socialist to me.
Then you also have no clue why Orwell wrote everything that he did and fought hard for Socialism his entire life. You don't get to believe in an alternate reality because you want to.
Here is an essay Orwell wrote entitled, "Why I write"
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
In that essay he writes: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
Hope this helps.
-
I always crack up when people think the Nazis were democratic socialists. Hitler was a dictator. Granted he was voted in democratically, but the Nazi tactic of bashing in the heads of communists on the streets or gunning them down BEFORE Hitler got elected was hardly democratic.
I want anyone to show me ANYTHING democratic about National Socialist Germany from 1933 to 1945.
-
In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes: "In the end I worked out an anarchist theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone."
doesn't sound like a socialist to me.
Here this will help. The book you quoted is a strong Defense of Socialism by Orwell.
http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/site/opinion/essays/storgaard1.html
4.3. The Road to Wigan Pier
In his description of socialism Orwell begins by giving a picture of the world he is living in:
"We are living in a world in which nobody is free, in which hardly anybody is secure, in which it is almost impossible to be honest and to remain alive. For enormous blocks of the working class the conditions of life are such as I have described in the opening chapters of this book, and there is no chance of those conditions showing any fundamental improvement." [RWP p. 149]
Anyone who thinks about it will, according to Orwell, realise that socialism is the solution to the problems. This is so obvious that Orwell sometimes wonders why socialism has not been established yet. The question must therefore be why socialism is on the retreat instead of on the advance. Not only are people not socialists, in certain cases they are even directly hostile towards socialism. Orwell will try to play the devil’s advocate and argue like a person, who is positive towards socialism and who is sensible enough to realise that socialism can work, but who always withdraws whenever socialism is mentioned. (It is obvious that Orwell is also expressing his own views).
First of all, people are not so much against socialism as they are against the socialists. The typical socialist is not, as imagined by the old ladies, a wild-looking worker in dirty trousers and with a hoarse voice. On the contrary, socialists are middle-class people. Furthermore, it is a fact that while they talk about the classless society, middle-class socialists cling to their class status. This is among other things reflected in socialist literature, which is far removed from the working class in language and expression.
You should always remember, Orwell says, that a worker, if he is a real worker, is seldom or never a socialist in the full logically consistent sense of the word. The worker's idea of socialism is very different from that of the schooled socialist higher in the social hierarchy. To the worker socialism means little more than better wages, shorter working hours and no one to boss you around.
"Often, in my opinion, he is a truer Socialist than the orthodox Marxist, because he does remember, what the other so often forgets, that Socialism means justice and common decency." [RWP p. 154]
Regarding the revolution, for many socialists it is not a question of the masses liberating themselves and the socialists joining the movement. To them the revolution is some reforms that "we", the clever ones, impose on "them", the lower classes. Orwell knows that it is not fair to judge a political theory from its followers. The problem, however, is that most people do (including Orwell himself) and that is why socialism is on the retreat.
There are people who are against socialism for ideological reasons, Orwell continues. They are against socialism, not because "it can't be done" but precisely because it can be done. You have to realise that socialism is connected to mechanisation. Socialism arose from the industrialisation and socialism will lead to mechanisation simply because some of its demand are irreconcilable with a more primitive way of life. But no sensible person is happy with the machine. Of course anyone can see that the machine is here to stay, but it is unfortunate that socialism is associated with increased mechanisation, not just as a means but as an end in itself, almost like a religion. It is okay that we let machines do all the hard and dreary work, but Orwell believes that human beings like to work with something manually. You may call that work or not, but if machines were to do everything, what should people do? Orwell believes that
"[t]he sensitive person's hostility to the machine is in one sense unrealistic, because of the obvious fact that the machine has come to stay. But as an attitude of mind there is a great deal to be said for it. The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug - that is, grudgingly and suspiciously." [RWP p. 178]
And because the thought normally goes "Socialism - progress - machinery - Russia - tractor - hygiene - machinery - progress", it is usually the same person who is against the machine who is also hostile to socialism.
When you present these arguments to the socialists, Orwell says, you are told that no one really wants to abolish the machine and return to a primitive agrarian society, which would be the equivalent to hard work. Certainly not anyone who has tried hard work. Furthermore, you are met with the old argument that socialism will come anyway, whether people like it or not, because of the comfortable concept of "historical necessity". But historical necessity, or rather the belief in it, has not been able to do anything about Hitler, Orwell says.
Fascism in Germany and Italy was the threatening background of Orwell's analysis. He saw it spread, also in England. It was not necessarily Mosley [Note 7] and his "pimpled followers", Orwell was thinking of, but the fascist attitude of mind in people who should know better.
"If you present Socialism in a bad and misleading light - if you let people imagine that it does not mean much more than pouring European civilization down the sink at the command of Marxist prigs - you risk driving the intellectual into Fascism. You frighten him into a sort of angry defensive attitude in which he simply refuses to listen to the Socialist case." [RWP p. 186]
To fight fascism you have to understand it, which means that you have to admit that it has its positive sides. In practical terms it is nothing but tyranny. But with a bit of thought anyone can see that the average fascist is often a well-meaning person who e.g. is worried about the situation of the unemployed. More importantly, fascism gets its strength from the good and bad sides of conservatism. Anyone who is for tradition and discipline will find fascism attractive. And if you are tired of certain aspects of socialist propaganda, it is very easy to see fascism as the last defence of everything that is good in European civilisation.
"We have got to admit that if Fascism is everywhere advancing, this is largely the fault of the Socialists themselves. Partly it is due to the mistaken communist tactic of sabotaging democracy, i.e. sawing off the branch you are sitting on; but still more to the fact that Socialists have, so to speak, presented their case wrong side foremost. They have never made it sufficiently clear that the essential aims of Socialism are justice and liberty." [RWP p. 188]
-
Then you also have no clue why Orwell wrote everything that he did and fought hard for Socialism his entire life. You don't get to believe in an alternate reality because you want to.
Here is an essay Orwell wrote entitled, "Why I write"
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
In that essay he writes: "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it."
Hope this helps.
He was what I call a Romantic Socialist......one who hates Soviet socialism disagrees with Marx's socialism but wants equality and brotherly love....more honestly, he was a humanist.
His utopian socialism only exists where unicorns frolick.....reality is Cambodia, China, Russia, Korea, and the millions upon millions of dead
-
In The Road to Wigan Pier from 1936 Orwell writes: "In the end I worked out an anarchist theory that all government is evil, that the punishment always does more harm than the crime and that people can be trusted to behave decently if only you will let them alone."
doesn't sound like a socialist to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier
The Road to Wigan Pier is a book by the British writer George Orwell, first published in 1937. The first half of this work documents his sociological investigations of the bleak living conditions among the working class in Lancashire and Yorkshire in the industrial north of England before World War II. The second half is a long essay on his middle-class upbringing, and the development of his political conscience, questioning British attitudes towards socialism. Orwell states plainly that he himself is in favour of socialism; but feels it necessary to point out reasons why many people who would benefit from socialism, and should logically support it, are in practice likely to be strong opponents.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Wigan_Pier
The Road to Wigan Pier is a book by the British writer George Orwell, first published in 1937. The first half of this work documents his sociological investigations of the bleak living conditions among the working class in Lancashire and Yorkshire in the industrial north of England before World War II. The second half is a long essay on his middle-class upbringing, and the development of his political conscience, questioning British attitudes towards socialism. Orwell states plainly that he himself is in favour of socialism; but feels it necessary to point out reasons why many people who would benefit from socialism, and should logically support it, are in practice likely to be strong opponents.
LOL.
All your big red fonts and quotes won't convince anyone and/or prove anything.
Use your own words.
Personal experience and insight that's what has real weight.
And therefore Tedim is still far ahead of you.
All these useless quotes and big fonts make me think you are a troll.
And then quoting wikipedia is the icing on the cake.
-
I always crack up when people think the Nazis were democratic socialists. Hitler was a dictator. Granted he was voted in democratically, but the Nazi tactic of bashing in the heads of communists on the streets or gunning them down BEFORE Hitler got elected was hardly democratic.
I want anyone to show me ANYTHING democratic about National Socialist Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Party members were elected by other party members, a democratic process.....that's how all socialists claim democratic rule.
And that's why most call themselves "democratic", if Adonis read anything other than Wiki on his iPad he'd know this.
-
LOL.
All your big red fonts and quotes won't convince anyone and/or prove anything.
Use your own words.
Personal experience and insight that's what has real weight.
And therefore Tedim is still far ahead of you.
All these useless quotes and big fonts make me think you are a troll.
And then quoting wikipedia is the icing on the cake.
???
So George Orwell penning an essay, "Why I Write" and explaining that everything he writes is in support of Socialism and then me linking to the essay is somehow not as good as if I were just to proclaim (without any proof) George Orwell was a Socialist?
Please help me understand how this works. Belief without evidence? What good is it and how does it carry more weight. I REALLY want to know.
-
Socialism would work better if everyone had equal abilities, equal effort and equal contributions. That obviously isn't the real world. Socialism disproportionally benefits people who are less than average.
-
LOL.
All your big red fonts and quotes won't convince anyone and/or prove anything.
Use your own words.
Personal experience and insight that's what has real weight.
And therefore Tedim is still far ahead of you.
All these useless quotes and big fonts make me think you are a troll.
And then quoting wikipedia is the icing on the cake.
Here is the link to the Essay that GEORGE ORWELL wrote himself on why he wrote all his essays and books.
http://orwell.ru/library/essays/wiw/english/e_wiw
Spoiler Alert: Because of his support of Socialism
Don't believe me, click on the link and read it yourself. (or don't since you would rather have me spoon feed you)
I believe THAT may be the problem. You are so used to being spoon fed that whatever moron argument appeals to your shit brain is the one you will believe as truth. Facts and evidence be damned.
You sir, are a moron.
-
This one made me smile....
-
I really don't have the time but I see the need.....
Socialism in Nazi Germany's economy.....1936 price and wage controls are initiated as a response to inflation of 1933, followed by collectivism and de facto control of all private enterprises (ownership remained in name only) with centralized government controls and planning for all production...essence of socialism.
I see you glossed right over this Adumbass
-
I see you glossed right over this Adumbass
Glossed?
You provided no proof of any of that. I am not opposed at all visiting these issues, but you can't just proclaim something without evidence to back it.
Start there and we can discuss it. The bottom line is though that the NAZI party was not Socialist just as North Korea is not a Democratic Republic even though it says so in naming of the country.
-
???
So George Orwell penning an essay, "Why I Write" and explaining that everything he writes is in support of Socialism and then me linking to the essay is somehow not as good as if I were just to proclaim (without any proof) George Orwell was a Socialist?
Please help me understand how this works. Belief without evidence? What good is it and how does it carry more weight. I REALLY want to know.
First explain how a big red 45pt font works?
Do you think we are almost blind or something?
Then explain why wikipedia is a reliable source.
Then why you need to quote me twice even using the same post?
If something you post is true it will "ring". Those sceptics can always try to find a fault or try to prove it is wrong but ultimately they must fail.
If you think you need to quote or proof it, it will make your own argument weaker.
So no real need for sources unless you can prove someone wrong.
Also this is a discussion and not something like "Here I have the truth everyone must follow it. Just read those big red letters."
I am not criticizing the "content" rather the "presentation."
Big red fonts are annoying and get ignored mostly.
Also it is equivalent to loud shouting in a online conversation context.
Meaning disrespect.
Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
You should know this.
And while you are at it stop projecting.
Thank You.
-
Glossed?
You provided no proof of any of that. I am not opposed at all visiting these issues, but you can't just proclaim something without evidence to back it.
Start there and we can discuss it. The bottom line is though that the NAZI party was not Socialist just as North Korea is not a Democratic Republic even though it says so in naming of the country.
Ok everything I stated was factual none opinionated....was there wage and price control, yes
Was there seizure of private property for state use and collectivism, yes
Was planned production controlled by a centralized government, yes
Sounds like three pillars of socialism
-
First explain how a big red 45pt font works?
Do you think we are almost blind or something?
Then explain why wikipedia is a reliable source.
Then why you need to quote me twice even using the same post?
If something you post is true it will "ring". Those sceptics can always try to find a fault or try to prove it is wrong but ultimately they must fail.
If you think you need to quote or proof it, it will make your own argument weaker.
So no real need for sources unless you can prove someone wrong.
Also this is a discussion and not something like "Here I have the truth everyone must follow it. Just read those big red letters."
I am not criticizing the "content" rather the "presentation."
Big red fonts are annoying and get ignored mostly.
Also it is equivalent to loud shouting in a online conversation context.
Meaning disrespect.
Wikipedia is not trustworthy.
You should know this.
And while you are at it stop projecting.
Thank You.
1.Bold Font calls attention to relevant information and leaves an impression in your brain. Newspapers have been doing it for hundreds of years.
2.Wikipedia is as reliable as anything as there are sources contained at the bottom which can be clicked on to verify the source material. Subsequent studies also show Wikipedia has an accuracy rate of 99.5 to 99.9 percent. You can learn more about that here:
http://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/
3. I like sourced material and providing links so people can go see for themselves.
4. Wikipedia is reliable see above post please.
-
Ok everything I stated was factual none opinionated....was there wage and price control, yes
Was there seizure of private property for state use and collectivism, yes
Was planned production controlled by a centralized government, yes
Sounds like three pillars of socialism
Crickets
-
Socialism doesn't work because those in favor of it don't want to.
-
Crickets
Where is the source material I can read that supports your claims?
-
The True Anus just wikipediaed Wikipedia
So today George Orwell is a staunch socialist, yet yesterday he was a classic liberal?
That's a lot of windsocking.
-
Where is the source material I can read that supports your claims?
I'm done with you.....2+2=4 I'm sure you'd want the source. Everyone with your last post just saw how disingenuous you are!
Lol, bought you like a cheap suit.
-
I'm done with you.....2+2=4 I'm sure you'd want the source. Everyone with your last post just saw how disingenuous you are!
Lol, bought you like a cheap suit.
???
I am disingenuous because I backed up everything with sources and facts, you know things you can verify? ???
All I asked was for sources for your statements. If you can't provide any just say so and then we can declare it bullshit and move on.
You want an easy way out of this it seems. Its pathetic really.
-
1.Bold Font calls attention to relevant information and leaves an impression in your brain. Newspapers have been doing it for hundreds of years.
2.Wikipedia is as reliable as anything as there are sources contained at the bottom which can be clicked on to verify the source material. Subsequent studies also show Wikipedia has an accuracy rate of 99.5 to 99.9 percent. You can learn more about that here:
http://www.zmescience.com/science/study-wikipedia-25092014/
3. I like sourced material and providing links so people can go see for themselves.
4. Wikipedia is reliable see above post please.
Vince Goodrum is a business mogul.....Wikipedia said so!!!!!
-
???
I am disingenuous because I backed up everything with sources and facts, you know things you can verify? ???
All I asked was for sources for your statements. If you can't provide any just say so and then we can declare it bullshit and move on.
You want an easy way out of this it seems. Its pathetic really.
Only a complete moron would ask for source material for commonly known facts....when I decide to write my dissertation on Nazi socialist economic polices I'll source my notes, on GetBig you can look it up or lick the back of my ass....whichever you prefer.
If you place your ear to the screen, you can hear GetBig laugh at you.
-
Only a complete moron would ask for source material for commonly known facts....when I decide to write my dissertation on Nazi socialist economic polices I'll source my notes, on GetBig you can look it up or lick the back of my ass....whichever you prefer.
If you place your ear to the screen, you can hear GetBig laugh at you.
The problem is you want to deal in lies and half-truths with no backing of data.
I don't. Hard to have a conversation with someone who wants his own made up facts.
-
If you place your ear to the screen, you can hear GetBig laugh at you.
LOL!
-
Only a complete moron would ask for source material for commonly known facts....when I decide to write my dissertation on Nazi socialist economic polices I'll source my notes, on GetBig you can look it up or lick the back of my ass....whichever you prefer.
If you place your ear to the screen, you can hear GetBig laugh at you.
Sounds more like a cow shitting to me.
-
The problem is you want to deal in lies and half-truths with no backing of data.
I don't. Hard to have a conversation with someone who wants his own facts.
the problem is youre a pretty weak troll, and not very educated making you easy prey. Savaging you has no sport in it.
I expected more from a Jew, really.
-
the problem is your a pretty weak troll, and not very educated making you easy prey. Savaging you has no sport in it.
I expected more from a Jew, really.
Again, proclaiming a victory without having the ability to even back up your "argument" with any source-able data is just moronic.
The difference between you and I though is that I never expected much from you. I was hoping you would surprise me, alas I was wrong. :-\
Why would you want to argue a point without data?
-
Again, proclaiming a victory without having the ability to even back up your "argument" with any source-able data is just moronic.
The difference between you and I though is that I never expected much from you. I was hoping you would surprise me, alas I was wrong. :-\
Why would you want to argue a point without data?
You'll just have to do your own legwork....I'm lazy. Proving those three statements wrong should only take you a lifetime....get cracking.
-
You'll just have to do your own legwork....I'm lazy. Proving those three statements wrong should only take you a lifetime....get cracking.
If you don't even care enough to back your own argument, than I don't care enough to challenge your bullshit.
You want me to prove a negative. Its the same tactic religious morons use when they say "You can't disprove that god exists". Yeah and you can't disprove that talking vacuum cleaners on Mars exist either.
Same dumb premise used by the same dumb people.
-
If you don't even care enough to back your own argument, than I don't care enough to challenge your bullshit.
You want me to prove a negative. Its the same tactic religious morons use when they say "You can't disprove that god exists". Yeah and you can't disprove that talking vacuum cleaners on Mars exist either.
Same dumb premise used by the same dumb people.
You got owned and just like a little bitch just keep crying source source source, it's quite entertaining in it desperation...
I'm sure the picture of you bumbling around to get a rise out of me is akin to a retard humping a doorknob....mildly funny mostly sad.
-
You got owned and just like a little bitch just keep crying source source source, it's quite entertaining in it desperation...
I'm sure the picture of you bumbling around to get a rise out of me is akin to a retard humping a doorknob....mildly funny mostly sad.
???
I'm sorry. I just don't feel that way at all.
-
???
I'm sorry. I just don't feel that way at all.
When you're evolved enough to debate without sourcing each statement I'll be happy to enlighten you further.
-
you can call the nazi's socialists but it strikes me a an attempt to confuse the issue by focusing on price controls etc.
hell you can call nazis liberals too wtf may as well, if you don't want to support your arguments.
nobody serious claims nazis are socialists, it was a fascist regime opposed to both communism and capitalism.
-
you can call the nazi's socialists but it strikes me a an attempt to confuse the issue by focusing on price controls etc.
hell you can call nazis liberals too wtf may as well, if you don't want to support your arguments.
nobody serious claims nazis are socialists, it was a fascist regime opposed to both communism and capitalism.
If we're talking economic policy I am confident I can make a good case for socialism as an economic policy in nazi Germany's.....
If we're talking social polices I cannot, unless we agree on a totalitarian socialist model as a comparison....then I'd give it a twirl
I am a finance major so the economic aspects interest me much more than the social ones.
-
When you're evolved enough to debate without sourcing each statement I'll be happy to enlighten you further.
And here it should have been easy for you to do if you read the books that you claimed. (we all know you didn't)
Oh well.
-
If we're talking economic policy I am confident I can make a good case for socialism as an economic policy in nazi Germany's.....
If we're talking social polices I cannot, unless we agree on a totalitarian socialist model as a comparison....then I'd give it a twirl
I am a finance major so the economic aspects interest me much more than the social ones.
How did Nazi "Socialism" provide for the Jews in Germany and the other countries Hitler took over? ???
-
If we're talking economic policy I am confident I can make a good case for socialism as an economic policy in nazi Germany's.....
If we're talking social polices I cannot, unless we agree on a totalitarian socialist model as a comparison....then I'd give it a twirl
I am a finance major so the economic aspects interest me much more than the social ones.
like I said, it's a little confusing when you want to isolate "socialism" from it's "social policies". But go ahead give it a whirl and let us know the effects of these so-called socialist economic policies (under the nazis) , if they were effective and so on.
-
you can call the nazi's socialists but it strikes me a an attempt to confuse the issue by focusing on price controls etc.
hell you can call nazis liberals too wtf may as well, if you don't want to support your arguments.
nobody serious claims nazis are socialists, it was a fascist regime opposed to both communism and capitalism.
'National Socialist' Party.
-
'National Socialist' Party.
haha yes the nazis were left wing liberals, don't forget to tell the historians the news.
-
Socialism was tried by the Pilgrims when they landed at Plymouth Rock. It failed miserably.
As well it should. If any here want to live in a "socialist utopia" do not seek to satisfy your thirst for blood (read:money) by draining it from others. Slash your own wrists instead and feed off your own lazy ass instead of the working men and women of the world.
Vampires come in many forms. Always have. Always will. No one owes the dead (read: lazy) a living.
-
'National Socialist' Party.
And North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Right?
-
Socialism was tried by the Pilgrims when they landed at Plymouth Rock. It failed miserably.
As well it should. If any here want to live in a "socialist utopia" do not seek to satisfy your thirst for blood (read:money) by draining it from others. Slash your own wrists instead and feed off your own lazy ass instead of the working men and women of the world.
Vampires come in many forms. Always have. Always will. No one owes the dead (read: lazy) a living.
http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/mayflower-compact.html
Actually, that is not correct.
Self-Government Takes Root
Immediately after agreeing to the Mayflower Compact, the signers elected John Carver (one of the Pilgrim leaders) as governor of their colony. They called it Plymouth Plantation. When Governor Carver died in less than a year, William Bradford, age 31, replaced him. Each year thereafter the "Civil Body Politic," consisting of all adult males except indentured servants, assembled to elect the governor and a small number of assistants. Bradford was re-elected 30 times between 1621 and 1656.
In the early years Governor Bradford pretty much decided how the colony should be run. Few objected to his one-man rule. As the colony's population grew due to immigration, several new towns came into existence. The roving and increasingly scattered population found it difficult to attend the General Court, as the governing meetings at Plymouth came to be called. By 1639, deputies were sent to represent each town at the other General Court sessions. Not only self-rule, but representative government had taken root on American soil.
The English Magna Carta, written more than 400 years before the Mayflower Compact, established the principle of the rule of law. In England this still mostly meant the king's law. The Mayflower Compact continued the idea of law made by the people. This idea lies at the heart of democracy.
From its crude beginning in Plymouth, self-government evolved into the town meetings of New England and larger local governments in colonial America. By the time of the Constitutional Convention, the Mayflower Compact had been nearly forgotten, but the powerful idea of self-government had not. Born out of necessity on the Mayflower, the Compact made a significant contribution to the creation of a new democratic nation.
The complete text of the Mayflower Compact
-
Socialism was tried by the Pilgrims when they landed at Plymouth Rock. It failed miserably.
As well it should. If any here want to live in a "socialist utopia" do not seek to satisfy your thirst for blood (read:money) by draining it from others. Slash your own wrists instead and feed off your own lazy ass instead of the working men and women of the world.
Vampires come in many forms. Always have. Always will. No one owes the dead (read: lazy) a living.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Colony#Government_and_laws
Government and laws
Organization
The Book of the General Laws of the Inhabitants of the Jurisdiction of New-Plimouth. Boston: Samuel Green, 1685
Plymouth Colony did not have a royal charter authorizing it to form a government. Still, some means of governance was needed; the Mayflower Compact, signed by the 41 able-bodied Separatists aboard the Mayflower upon their arrival in Provincetown Harbor on November 21, 1620, was the colony's first governing document. Formal laws were not codified until 1636. The colony's laws were based on a hybrid of English common law and religious law as laid out in the Bible.[88] Deeply influenced by Calvinist theology, the colonial authorities were convinced that democracy was the form of government mandated by God.[114]
The colony offered nearly all adult males potential citizenship in the colony. Full citizens, or "freemen", were accorded full rights and privileges in areas such as voting and holding office. To be considered a freeman, adult males had to be sponsored by an existing freeman and accepted by the General Court. Later restrictions established a one-year waiting period between nominating and granting of freeman status and also placed religious restrictions on the colony's citizens, specifically preventing Quakers from becoming freemen.[88] Freeman status was also restricted by age; while the official minimum age was 21, in practice most men were elevated to freeman status between the ages of 25 and 40, averaging somewhere in their early thirties.[115]
Governors of Plymouth Colony[116]
Dates Governor
1620 John Carver
1621–1632 William Bradford
1633 Edward Winslow
1634 Thomas Prence
1635 William Bradford
1636 Edward Winslow
1637 William Bradford
1638 Thomas Prence
1639–1643 William Bradford
1644 Edward Winslow
1645–1656 William Bradford
1657–1672 Thomas Prence
1673–1679 Josiah Winslow
1680–1692 Thomas Hinckley
The colony's most powerful executive was its Governor, who was originally elected by the freemen, but was later appointed by the General Court in an annual election. The General Court also elected seven "Assistants" to form a cabinet to assist the governor. The Governor and Assistants then appointed "Constables" who served as the chief administrators for the towns and "Messengers" who were the main civil servants of the colony. They were responsible for publishing announcements, performing land surveys, carrying out executions, and a host of other duties.[88]
The General Court was both the chief legislative and judicial body of the colony. It was elected by the freemen from among their own number and met regularly in Plymouth, the capital town of the colony. As part of its judicial duties, it would periodically call a Grand Enquest, which was a grand jury of sorts, elected from the freemen, who would hear complaints and swear out indictments for credible accusations. The General Court, and later lesser town and county courts, would preside over trials of accused criminals and over civil matters, but the ultimate decisions were made by a jury of freemen.[88]
The General Court as both the legislative and judicial body and the Governor as the chief executive of the colony constituted a political system of division of power. It followed a recommendation in John Calvin's political theory to set up several institutions which complement and control each other in a system of checks and balances in order to avoid, or at least to minimize, the misuse of political power.[117] In 1625 the settlers had repaid their debts and thus gained complete possession of the colony.[118] As neither an English company nor the King or Parliament exerted any influence, the colony was de facto a republic, a representative, identitary democracy governed on the principles of the Mayflower Compact ("self-rule").
Laws
As a legislative body, the General Court could make proclamations of law as needed. In the early years of the colony, these laws were not formally compiled anywhere. In 1636 these laws were first organized and published in the 1636 Book of Laws. The book was reissued in 1658, 1672, and 1685.[88] Among these laws included the levying of "rates", or taxes, and the distribution of colony lands.[119] The General Court established townships as a means of providing local government over settlements, but reserved for itself the right to control specific distribution of land to individuals within those towns. When new land was granted to a freeman, it was directed that only the person to whom the land was granted was allowed to settle it.[120] It was forbidden for individual settlers to purchase land from Native Americans without formal permission from the General Court.[121] The government recognized the precarious peace that existed with the Wampanoag, and wished to avoid antagonizing them by buying up all of their land.[122]
The laws also set out crimes and their associated punishment. There were several crimes that carried the death penalty: treason, murder, witchcraft, arson, sodomy, rape, bestiality, adultery, and cursing or smiting one's parents.[123] The actual exercise of the death penalty was fairly rare; only one sex-related crime, a 1642 incidence of bestiality by Thomas Granger, resulted in execution.[124] One person, Edward Bumpus, was sentenced to death for "striking and abusing his parents" in 1679, but his sentence was commuted to a severe whipping by reason of insanity.[125] Perhaps the most notable use of the death penalty was in the execution of the Native Americans convicted of the murder of John Sassamon; this helped lead to King Philip's War.[126] Though nominally a capital crime, adultery was usually dealt with by public humiliation only. Convicted adulterers were often forced to wear the letters "A.D." sewn into their garments, much in the manner of Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne's novel The Scarlet Letter.[127][128][129]
Several laws dealt with indentured servitude, a legal status whereby a person would work off debts or be given training in exchange for a period of unrecompensed service. The law required that all indentured servants had to be registered by the Governor or one of the Assistants, and that no period of indenture could be less than six months. Further laws forbade a master from shortening the length of time of service required for his servant, and also confirmed that any indentured servants whose period of service began in England would still be required to complete their service while in Plymouth.[130]
-
And North Korea is a Democratic Republic. Right?
The National Socialists were economically left, ran a socialist state and were against bourgeoisie culture.
Their speeches also mention the bringing an end of class divide and fighting against the 'Plutocracies' of the West and their speculators and bankers.
They were anti-capitalist.
-
http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/mayflower-compact.html
Actually, that is not correct.
Actually, it is.
In the 4th grade in Virginia we were taught about the colonization of this country sans the re-writing that seems to flourish these days. Yes, in the 4th grade.
Socialism was attempted and it failed. Again, as it should.
I don't believe you to be a vampire, why then do you play the role of thrall? This experiment in socialism was well documented. It is historical fact. Given that it was an attempt at socialism it is also hysterical fact. ;D
You cannot re-write history. Well...You can it's just that it's just called "lying" when someone does it. For an example read most any of the drivel Wiggs posits here about "hebrews". ;D
-
Actually, it is.
In the 4th grade in Virginia we were taught about the colonization of this country sans the re-writing that seems to flourish these days. Yes, in the 4th grade.
Socialism was attempted and it failed. Again, as it should.
I don't believe you to be a vampire, why then do you play the role of thrall? This experiment in socialism was well documented. It is historical fact. Given that it was an attempt at socialism it is also hysterical fact. ;D
You cannot re-write history. Well...You can it's just that it's just called "lying" when someone does it. For an example read most any of the drivel Wiggs posits here about "hebrews". ;D
That just does not line up with what actually took place in Plymouth. No wonder why so many are fucked these days. The teachers missed opportunity after opportunity of teaching fact, but instead, chose fiction.
They always say things learned as children are the hardest beliefs to shake.
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/95/90/4a/95904aff3bf3926d140b65c797a80bdd.jpg)
-
How did Nazi "Socialism" provide for the Jews in Germany and the other countries Hitler took over? ???
I'll give it a shot...
Free government housing, free transportation, free food and clothing, government supplied employment....free relocation services, redistribution of wealth equally, free gas. Government provided burial services.
-
I’m not arguing in favour of any side of the political spectrum here, but In defence of my argument towards Obsidians moronic claim that Hitler was a democratic socialist i would firstly say that there is nothing democratic about the way he ousted and killed his own party members, the Strasser brothers, who were actually in favour of supporting trade unions, the right to strike, sympathetic towards the USSR and believed the Nazi party should be true towards socialism and workers rights. Nor was it democratic of him to round up and arrest and/or kill various socialists and communists.
Hitler strove for national unity through conscripting both workers and industrialists as part of a corporate agenda which specifically opposed and sought to prevent a class war. He dismantled trade unions and argued that so long as industrialists acted in the national interest, they can keep their property. He aimed to mould Germany into a strong nation based on racial identity and he used his confused, fascist ideology to enforce it. I understand what you’re saying when you say the only points that can be argued are the “brand of socialism”, as it may be true that Hitler used elements of socialist economics at times; being a finance major i would concede that you know a lot more with regards to this area than me, but i would still say it’s disingenuous to claim that Hitler and the Nazis were socialists. I believe even Hayek advocated a minimum social safety net in order to prevent the poorest turning to radical means of survival, yet I’m sure we would all agree it would be quite a stretch to call him a socialist.
I remember a discussion on WW2 between Christopher Hitchens and Victor Davis Hanson and dug up the quote where Hitchens says: “ If you read the conversations between Lindemann, Churchill and his advisors on aerial bombing, they say ‘we recommend that you bomb the working class areas of Hamburg, because the houses are closer together, the people are packed more tightly-you’ll get more deaths per bomb’ and remember, these are the areas of Germany that have never voted for Hitler; Hitler, i think i'm right in saying had never even visited Hamburg when he was chancellor because he knew he was hated there; it was a socialist, working-class city."
In 1937, the US state department had even described Hitler as a moderate, standing between the extremes of left and right, and a good guy that the business class liked and could work with. (Chomsky 2009)
To debate the brand of socialism that could be aligned with Hitler would be, I believe, to Ignore the entire point that Orwell was making about Stalin in Animal Farm.
good response, thank you! much to consider
-
you can call the nazi's socialists but it strikes me a an attempt to confuse the issue by focusing on price controls etc.
hell you can call nazis liberals too wtf may as well, if you don't want to support your arguments.
nobody serious claims nazis are socialists, it was a fascist regime opposed to both communism and capitalism.
The nazis WERE socialists, just a different side of a multi-sided coin, along with the Italian fascists and Russian communists.
7 quotes that prove Hitler was a socialist
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-quotes-prove-adolf-hitler-proud-socialist/
-
The nazis WERE socialists, just a different side of a multi-sided coin, along with the Italian fascists and Russian communists.
7 quotes that prove Hitler was a socialist
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-quotes-prove-adolf-hitler-proud-socialist/
Correct.
-
The nazis WERE socialists, just a different side of a multi-sided coin, along with the Italian fascists and Russian communists.
7 quotes that prove Hitler was a socialist
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/7-quotes-prove-adolf-hitler-proud-socialist/
::)
-
It would probably be useful to define socialism, and then to separate the different socialistic ideologies. After that it would be easier to argue the shortcomings of socialism and merits (if there are any).
-
It would probably be useful to define socialism, and then to separate the different socialistic ideologies. After that it would be easier to argue the shortcomings of socialism and merits (if there are any).
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-if-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-define-your-terms-voltaire-130-86-65.jpg)
-
"A Liberal is a power worshipper without the power" - George Orwell
-
"A Liberal is a power worshipper without the power" - George Orwell
Please...
Anyone who thinks trickle down economics works is the exact same way. Believing that corporations will trickle down money.
History has shown that to be extremely false, yet the people who are broke continue to believe the companies will take care of them.
-
Please...
Anyone who thinks trickle down economics works is the exact same way. Believing that corporations will trickle down money.
History has shown that to be extremely false, yet the people who are broke continue to believe the companies will take care of them.
Most white people vote Republican because they believe that the democrats will give all their hard earned money to people of color. When the reality is that like 1% of what comes out of your check goes to welfare related programs half or more of which goes to poor white people. They never care about the corporate welfare which believe me is much greater than social welfare.
-
Most white people vote Republican because they believe that the democrats will give all their hard earned money to people of color. When the reality is that like 1% of what comes out of your check goes to welfare related programs half or more of which goes to poor white people. They never care about the corporate welfare which believe me is much greater than social welfare.
Actually, I don't believe you:
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/477f51142b27d8c0f2a9e4439acbb08a_zps2c707ee8.jpg) (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/477f51142b27d8c0f2a9e4439acbb08a_zps2c707ee8.jpg.html)
-
::)
From Alan Bullock's, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives:
page 173:
Gregor Strasser declared in a [Nazi] party periodical: 'We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak...and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
page 169:
They [Nazi Party in Berlin] developed a more radical form of National Socialism, appealing to a younger generation and picking up the anti-capitalist points from the party programme: the abolition of unearned income, ground rent and land speculation; the attack on 'interest slavery', finance capital and big department stores; the call for nationalization of heavy industry, profit-sharing and land reform. These demands were presented as a national 'German', idealist form of socialism, an alternative to the international, materialistic, levelling class war preached by the Marxist.
Sound pretty bloody socialist to me!
-
At the end of the day, it comes down to whether you believe the Government is an efficient allocator of resources.
In my state, NY, it's kinda hard to have that belief:
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/D704003D-1088-4F99-A682-3E1E28A529F0_zps8gorx9hs.png) (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/D704003D-1088-4F99-A682-3E1E28A529F0_zps8gorx9hs.png.html)
-
Actually, I don't believe you:
(http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/477f51142b27d8c0f2a9e4439acbb08a_zps2c707ee8.jpg) (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/477f51142b27d8c0f2a9e4439acbb08a_zps2c707ee8.jpg.html)
I believe the question really comes down to tax breaks. When there are lots of tax breaks for corporations and what not, they have not shown themselves to try to invest it into people.
A company is interested in one thing only... turning a profit.
Now before someone comes in and calls me a communist or a socialist. I have no problem with companies turning a profit, but if people believe that the company will invest that money into people, that is just not the case.
Companies will always do whatever it takes to maximize profits. If that means providing adequate services with minimal people, that's what they will do.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CazvLCSWEAA1_8X.jpg:large)
-
I believe the question really comes down to tax breaks. When there are lots of tax breaks for corporations and what not, they have not shown themselves to try to invest it into people.
A company is interested in one thing only... turning a profit.
Now before someone comes in and calls me a communist or a socialist. I have no problem with companies turning a profit, but if people believe that the company will invest that money into people, that is just not the case.
Companies will always do whatever it takes to maximize profits. If that means providing adequate services with minimal people, that's what they will do.
You're not a Communist. You just don't understand the Free Market system. Socialists make it into a labor vs management battle, but it's really all about satisfying the consumer. Profits go to the Producers who do the best job. It's not an accident that Apple and Google are the biggest companies in the world. It's because they provide the best service to the most people, and that's why Capital flows in their direction. Why would you want to take more money from innovative companies like these and give it to scummy politicians and useless bureaucrats?
-
You're not a Communist. You just don't understand the Free Market system. Socialists make it into a labor vs management battle, but it's really all about satisfying the consumer. Profits go to the Producers who do the best job. It's not an accident that Apple and Google are the biggest companies in the world. It's because they provide the best service to the most people, and that's why Capital flows in their direction. Why would you want to take more money from innovative companies like these and give it to scummy politicians and useless bureaucrats?
There is no such thing as a true free market due to government interference.
-
its 2008 all over again..
HOPE AND CHANGE.. HOPE AND CHANGE..
same bullcrap ya'll are falling for
-
That just does not line up with what actually took place in Plymouth. No wonder why so many are fucked these days. The teachers missed opportunity after opportunity of teaching fact, but instead, chose fiction.
They always say things learned as children are the hardest beliefs to shake.
Be neither ridiculous nor revisionist. Unfortunately the statement quoted above is steeped in both.
-
Be neither ridiculous nor revisionist. Unfortunately the statement quoted above is steeped in both.
I'm not. I just posted what actually occurred in Plymouth. If you have evidence to the contrary I am open to seeing it. Post any of it at any time and I will read it.
-
I'm not. I just posted what actually occurred in Plymouth. If you have evidence to the contrary I am open to seeing it. Post any of it at any time and I will read it.
You have disregarded my words. So be it. The evidence was in our texts and again, you have stated they are false. You are open to all that agrees with you agenda. Your choice. Allow me to use a colloquialism.
FTN.
I shake the dust from my feet to mix with that of your mind. Have fun preaching to a mirror.
-
You have disregarded my words. So be it. The evidence was in our texts and again, you have stated they are false. You are open to all that agrees with you agenda. Your choice. Allow me to use a colloquialism.
FTN.
I shake the dust from my feet to mix with that of your mind. Have fun preaching to a mirror.
I posted the actual form of government based on historical text and primary sources. You posted something you recalled in 4th grade that was not even true.
Like I said, I am willing to look at your evidence, but if you have none, what can I do? ???
-
From Alan Bullock's, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives:
page 173:
Gregor Strasser declared in a [Nazi] party periodical: 'We National Socialists are enemies, deadly enemies, of the present capitalist system with its exploitation of the economically weak...and we are resolved under all circumstances to destroy this system.
page 169:
They [Nazi Party in Berlin] developed a more radical form of National Socialism, appealing to a younger generation and picking up the anti-capitalist points from the party programme: the abolition of unearned income, ground rent and land speculation; the attack on 'interest slavery', finance capital and big department stores; the call for nationalization of heavy industry, profit-sharing and land reform. These demands were presented as a national 'German', idealist form of socialism, an alternative to the international, materialistic, levelling class war preached by the Marxist.
Sound pretty bloody socialist to me!
And some of those things is what they said in their speeches too.
Both Germany and Italy called the Allies the 'Plutocracies' and Western Plutocracy, a group ruled by wealthy elites, international finance and banking cabals.
-
TomPaineCommonSense • a year ago
If Nazi Germany was socialist, how come all the corporate leaders, bankers, and military generals were able to make so much money and spirit it out of Germany through banks for themselves and their families? Why did their leading companies - steel, chemical, construction - make such fat profits from all the armaments, materiel? Why weren't profits distributed to the people if it were socialism? Why would a socialist state form such a close alliance with the fascist state of Italy? WWII Germany had elements of private enterprise, fascism, and socialism blended for the economic and political benefit of their elites, and because the people had little if any influence I would say socialism was the minor if not altogether missing element of their economic system
LMAO! You are fucking NAIVE!!
The reason SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK, is BECAUSE HUMANS ARE GREEDY AND CORRUPT BY NATURE! Don't you know that already??? Just because the system says everyone will get even profits and distribution does not mean that's what's going to happen MORON! That was the whole point of Animal Farm. ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. You see this in the "Black Lives Movement" today.
Wow, you're like a dumb fucking child. How do you survive??
-
"All forms of economics are forms of capitalism. All economics is capitalism. All human endeavor is man exerting his advantage over another."
-Anonymous
-
LOL, fucking moron. You are the stupidest man on earth; you don't even know what you believe in. The main distinctions between modern and classical liberalism revolve around the concepts of positive and negative freedoms, and economic solutions for ensuring liberty, Yet you're still rambling on about white guys!
Now Hitler is supposedly a democratic socialist too? LOL! He called himself a socialist because it was "fashionable": in the 20's and 30's, socialism was widely seen as the future and had a big effect upon political discourse. Hitler's goals were completely antithetical to any socialist ideals.
Lets not forget yesterday when you claimed that Orwell wrote Animal Farm to denounce his own socialist beliefs LOL.
Please just stop posting, delete your account and go take all the piss-filled cups out of your room before your wife gets home!
HAHAHAHA. WELL IF IT ISN'T GETBIG'S OWN CaptainTampon!!!
Hi TAMPON!!! HOW are you??? How are my sandwiches coming along BITCH??!
Socialism will always be a failure because humans are corrupt and greedy by nature and those in power end up being shielded by big governments and police. Is there really any difference between HITLER and today's European governments? Over the weekend a White French General was arrested for speaking at a Pegida rally. Meanwhile Muslims can burn the French Flags as they please and none get arrested. Go read the news. Everywhere the governments are cracking down on White Europeans protesting the Muslim invasion and looking the other way when the Muslims rape and murder.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. That was Orwell's critique of Socialism. It certainly does not look like an endorsement.
Now run along, get me my food and beer. And make sure you wash the dishes when you're done. Don't forget to clean my piss stained yoghurt buckets either!
-
Liberal Cities, Radical Mayhem: Democratic mayors and governors seem unable to stop the destruction of their own cities.
Wall Street Journal ^ | June 2, 2020 | WSJ Editorial Board
Posted on 6/3/2020, 11:27:08 AM by karpov
The “broken-windows” school of policing says that you can help maintain public order by taking care of even small examples of disorder—such as fixing broken windows. Liberals scorned that policy in the last decade as somehow racist. Well, in recent days we’ve learned that America’s left does have a broken-windows policy: Let rioters break enough windows and loot enough stores and maybe their righteous anger will be satisfied.
That’s certainly how it looked when the June sun rose Tuesday over the broken glass, looted storefronts, burnt-out cars, and vandalized buildings in New York, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Madison and other American cities. Public officials let rioters exploiting the memory of George Floyd run wild in the streets. Even after nearly a week of violence, these and other liberal Democratic cities let lawless radicals harass and plunder almost at will.
In downtown St. Louis, four police officers were shot after midnight. “I believe some coward randomly shot at the police line,” said police chief John Hayden. A 7-Eleven was looted and set afire, but firefighters were deliberately slowed by protesters in responding. “We had people lying down in the street” and trash cans were placed as obstacles to block fire trucks, said fire chief Dennis Jenkerson.
...
What all these cities have in common is that they are led by Democrats who seem to have bought into the belief that the police are a bigger problem than rampant disorder. They are either cowed by their party’s left, or they agree that America is systemically racist and rioting is a justified expression of anger against it. They offer pro forma disapproval of law breakers but refuse to act to stop them.
They should recognize that widespread lawlessness is not helping their cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
-
'I'm open to suggestions': Democrat star Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms admits she doesn't know how to stop alarming crime wave as seven-year-old girl is shot dead and city faces deadliest year in decades
UK Daily Mail ^ | December 29 2020 | ARIEL ZILBER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted on 12/29/2020, 3:05:57
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a rising star in the Democratic Party who was recently considered for a position in President-elect Joe Biden's cabinet, is coming under fire for her administration's handling of a surge in violent crime in her city.
Saying she was 'open to suggestions' on stopping the crime wave, the mayor was on the defensive over the holiday weekend after three people were fatally shot in the city, bringing Atlanta's homicide count to its highest in more than two decades.
A 7-year-old girl who was shot in the head by a stray bullet after Christmas shopping with her family in Atlanta has died, marking another fatality in a city suffering from a spike in gun violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Liberal equals total failure.
-
'I'm open to suggestions': Democrat star Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms admits she doesn't know how to stop alarming crime wave as seven-year-old girl is shot dead and city faces deadliest year in decades
UK Daily Mail ^ | December 29 2020 | ARIEL ZILBER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted on 12/29/2020, 3:05:57
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a rising star in the Democratic Party who was recently considered for a position in President-elect Joe Biden's cabinet, is coming under fire for her administration's handling of a surge in violent crime in her city.
Saying she was 'open to suggestions' on stopping the crime wave, the mayor was on the defensive over the holiday weekend after three people were fatally shot in the city, bringing Atlanta's homicide count to its highest in more than two decades.
A 7-year-old girl who was shot in the head by a stray bullet after Christmas shopping with her family in Atlanta has died, marking another fatality in a city suffering from a spike in gun violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Liberal equals total failure.
Easy.. arrest all the white trump loving suburban Karen's and watch crime drop 90% at least!!
Damn white people
#BLM!!!
PEDO for POTUS!!
-
this is a good take on the persona of a SJW/liberal/leftist
-
'I'm open to suggestions': Democrat star Atlanta mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms admits she doesn't know how to stop alarming crime wave as seven-year-old girl is shot dead and city faces deadliest year in decades
UK Daily Mail ^ | December 29 2020 | ARIEL ZILBER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM and ASSOCIATED PRESS
Posted on 12/29/2020, 3:05:57
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a rising star in the Democratic Party who was recently considered for a position in President-elect Joe Biden's cabinet, is coming under fire for her administration's handling of a surge in violent crime in her city.
Saying she was 'open to suggestions' on stopping the crime wave, the mayor was on the defensive over the holiday weekend after three people were fatally shot in the city, bringing Atlanta's homicide count to its highest in more than two decades.
A 7-year-old girl who was shot in the head by a stray bullet after Christmas shopping with her family in Atlanta has died, marking another fatality in a city suffering from a spike in gun violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Liberal equals total failure.
She should take a page from the Mayor of Houston and just tell them to "chill". ::)
Houston is turning into Chicago/Detroit rapidly.
Run by Liberals.
Lowered bonds for violent criminals. They have been murdering people a few days after out on bond.
Bonds set lower than a speeding ticket.
-
She should take a page from the Mayor of Houston and just tell them to "chill". ::)
Houston is turning into Chicago/Detroit rapidly.
Run by Liberals.
Lowered bonds for violent criminals. They have been murdering people a few days after out on bond.
Bonds set lower than a speeding ticket.
Or take a page from former Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who said, "Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."
-
-
Teachers-union boss who led school closures caught dropping daughter off at private school 'He's been saying it is unsafe for *your kid* to be back at school'
dailycallernewsfoundatio n.org/ ^ | 3/1/2021 | Mary Margaret Olohan
Posted on 3/1/2021, 12:36:05 PM by rktman
Viral video footage shows a California teachers union president who led school closures dropping his daughter off at a private school.
Footage posted by the group Guerilla Momz shows Berkeley Federation of Teachers President Matt Meyer dropping his two-year-old daughter off at a private preschool. Meyer’s daughter’s face is blurred out.
“Meet Matt Meyer. White man with dreads and president of the local teachers’ union,” the group tweeted Saturday. “He’s been saying it is unsafe for *your kid* to be back at school, all the while dropping his kid off at private school.”
The video was filmed by Berkeley area parents who did not give their names out of fear of retaliation, according to KQED.
“We’d heard for a while that he sent his kid to private preschool and we’ve been hearing him make crazy claims at the school board meetings — it was ‘too dangerous’ for schools to open because kids wouldn’t wear masks. Meanwhile, his kid is wearing a mask at school,” Guerilla Momz said in a written statement, according to KQED.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycallernewsfoundatio n.org ...
-
https://nypost.com/2021/05/01/strict-states-ruined-livelihoods-without-saving-lives
>:(
-
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/no-evil-foods-layoffs_n_60c653fbe4b0402a2c033cf3
HA!!!! FNG liberal losers out of business.