Jump to content


Photo

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Out Right Hypocrisy Of The Left


  • Please log in to reply
13558 replies to this topic

#13541 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,064 posts

Posted 16 January 2020 - 2312 PM

Also, there is this gem:
 

Marxists had more success through replacing the Marxian economic class hierarchy with other ontologies of power in which some new victim group could be substituted for the vanished proletariat and plugged into the same drama of immiseration leading to inevitable revolution.

Most importantly, each of these mutations offered the international managerial elite a privileged role as the vanguard of the new revolution – a way to justify its supremacy and its embrace of managerial state socialism. This is how we got the Great Inversion – Marxists in the middle and upper classes, anti-Marxists in the working class being dismissed as gammons and deplorables.

Leaving out some failed experiments, we can distinguish three major categories of substitution. One, “world systems theory”, is no longer of more than historical interest. In this story, the role of the proletariat is taken by oppressed Third-World nations being raped of resources by capitalist oppressors.

Though world systems theory still gets some worship in academia, it succumbed to the inconvenient fact that the areas of the Third World most penetrated by capitalist “exploitation” tended to be those where living standards rose the fastest. The few really serious hellholes left are places (like, e,g. the Congo) where capitalism has been thwarted or co-opted by local bandits. But in general, Frantz Fanon’s wretched of the Earth are now being bourgeoisified as fast as the old proletariat was during and after WWII.

The other two mutations of Marxian vanguard theory were much more successful. One replaced the Marxian class hierarchy with a racialized hierarchy of victim groups. The other simply replaced “the proletariat” with “the environment”.


  • 0

#13542 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,814 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0107 AM

I'm having a hard time trying to understand why reasonably educated folks in the west need to have realities of life in Marxist countries pointed out. These are what should be obvious aspects of how life worked for important and not so important people under the various flavors of Marxism since 1917 to today. Why do we have to point out that Party Leaders and 'named people' (nomenklatura) didn't live like the rest of the proletariat in the 'classless' system? Why do we have to repeatedly observe the gulags, thought police, torture, murders, lack of due process, human rights and other typically totalitarian realities for those regular people or worse, those labeled as enemies of the revolution?

 


You miss the point of Marxism. It is irrelevant the results. Marxism exists for social self promotion.  Look at it as a social game where you get a social goal by denigrating Western Civilization,  that gives you a promotion with your cultural peers. That is the point of whole thing,

 

You don't see a Marxist grieving about poverty in Cuba, the social supremacist genocide in Cambodja , etc.

The media the large majority of them Marxist of different stripes for example only started to talk about Chinese social problems when Chinese changed to a red flavor of capitalism (the western sin). If Chinese had only a bowl of rice a day today they would not have "cared" at all.

 

If we go to tenets of Marxism. they are the primitive : there are no checks and balances, no separation of power, neither limits on power - hence millions murders in their Social Supremacist experiments.

Marxists are the true Reactionaries -  the path to Modernity is more power to individual which made possible Art, Industrial Revolution for example. Marxists are all against this.

 

Since it is a social competition, they are always creating new sins for the Western world.


  • 0

#13543 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,814 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0125 AM

 

To understand the Great Inversion, we have to start by remembering what the Marxism of the pre-WWII Old Left was like — not ideologically, but sociologically. It was an ideology of, by, and for the working class.

 

I also disagree with this. Marxism was always a elite thing. Even before Marxism-Communism of beginning of the XX century, the revolutionaries and anarchists in Russia of late XIX century had a great deal of aristocrats of nobility , liberal professions, students(sons and daughters of capitalists, nobility) and teachers. It was always the aristocrat and bourgeois that was leading it.

 

What changed is that the Marxist of the past preferred to take direct action and control. Today they prefer "soft" professions as teachers, media, or for comfort any place they can be evangelizing priests. That is an advantage since they can sort of escape from consequences of their ideas, but that also puts them more distant from "people on street" and they have increased risks their ideas move towards rabbit holes without feedback.

Today the Marxist also seems to prefer to influence the CEO than the people.


  • 0

#13544 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,459 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0303 AM

Yes Ryan, you have people who die because they can't afford procedures or treatments - even relatively simple things like insulin (not surprising when drug companies mark it up by thousands of percent)


Citation needed for this.

Adverse outcomes from your prevalent profit-based healthcare model are easy to find on the internet, but not if you intentionally limit yourself to sources that reinforce your existing beliefs.

I suspect they outnumber patients that get left on trolleys here by 1000:1. If there was one such person, they would outnumber those left on trolleys in all the hospitals I have worked in by infinity to one.

 

Adverse outcomes from the cost model? Or adverse outcomes from malpractice. One doesn't necessarily beget the other. What breeds such problems is lack of accountability. What breeds that is greater levels of separation of the primary customer and the health care providers. You lot have police telling people to correct their language. How long before they arrest people who complain about the NHS?

Mind you your system is as large as some of our regional systems I'll bet. One big Nationalized system in the US would be a giant, lethargic monopoly. We can't even get the feds to run a competent system for Veterans. Why do you think it would work for the entire country? I've pointed this issue out before. You guys think we're some sort of yokel rural mix of Europeans with some blacks from Africa and more asians. There's a lot of complexity in the US system.

Major US Cities run by Democrats are imploding. Why do you think that class of leadership and staffing could possibly run a national health care system?

As to Sanders, I've looked up what he's actually said and none it justifies his being called "communist" or leads me to believe he wants gulags etc.
.
.
.
He claims to be a "democratic socialist"


He wants to nationalize many of our industries. He's proposed such repeatedly over his career. He's admired the USSR. He's admired Cuba and Venezuela. If that's not communist, what is in your book? Here's the thing.

He's also claimed to be _socialist_. This was in an NPR interview. He's softballing. Property or not he pushes a certain dogma. That only makes it all more hypocritical. Is al Gore not a giant anthropogenic climate change advocate becuase he has the carbon footprint of a small third wolrd city?


I'm still not seeing any global trend toward communism.


Put the goal post back. We were talking about the US DNC and the UK Labor party.


If communism is indeed a threat, why have you not joined some kind of officially sanctioned military or law enforcement organisation to fight it on your home patch, or perhaps invade Venezuela?


Nonsensical.

There is a lot of bullshit out there. For example, I looked up our life expectancy vs yours, and ours (UK) is significantly better, but it is more complex than that.
.
.
.
If you make it to 80 in the States, the odds are you will live longer than you would in the UK. The trick is making it to 80. One site explained that by higher levels of violence and particularly gun violence in your society make it more likely you will die young.


We have different demographics than you do. That's why it's complicated.



Yeah. Well, I'm not in a gang. Nor am I in the inner city ghetto. Nor do I live next to gangs. Nor do I rob my neighbors. I've covered this before with you and the Euro crowd on how and whys of our violent crime. To give a different example, Stuart is not at risk of getting the bends. You are. If we combined you two and included him in that demographic risk..it would be stupid.



That seems like B-S to me, because, although tragic, I don't think the numbers are high enough to affect overall longevity significantly. I suspect the true answer is more nuanced than that and involves lifestyle choice, culture and possibly even ethnicity.


DING DING!
 

One thing that bugs me about the FFZ is the constant harking on about (usually) domestic communism as if it or its proponents actually still (or indeed ever) posed a threat to the US to the exclusion of entities or things that actually do like political polarisation, climate change or, strangest of all, Russia.
.
.
. Bizarrely, since the Russians helped put your guy in office*, there has been almost no criticism of Russia here on the FFZ from the usual suspects.


What do you want us to do? Invade Europe so we can stop Germany getting more gas from Russia? Perhaps if you think it's such a big threat to the west, you should join some military organization with Stuart and invade Russia (like your nonsensical idea above).


That's despite their being highly critical of the US and openly stating how they would go ahead and blow you and your shit up in new and inventive ways if you really pissed them off. Russia may not be communist now, but it is perpetually sliding toward outright totalitarianism and acts as pretty much a rogue state where its neighbours are concerned.


Yeah. And they want to stir the pot and sew FUD in the US, the UK and Europe to increase their power. Do keep playing into their hands.


It seems, as Lastdingo pointed out, that any amount of bad conduct is OK, either by domestic agencies or foreign ones - even domestic terrorists -  as long as it serves right wing objectives in the US. I was sickened by some of the posts on here after the Charlottesville car attack (sorry, Antifa false-flag attack or completely untoward road traffic accident - take your pick).


Were you sickened by the behavior of the City government in MAKING the conflict happen? What about WACO? Does that even ping on your radar? Does what's going on in Virginia even ping on your PPI either? There's a great many things wrong. The culture war that the left wants to fight is being magnified by their racism and that's putting some folks of a mind that they also should group against them by race. You know who the biggest movers and shakers are in that conflict ? Democrats.
  • 0

#13545 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,459 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0307 AM

I'm having a hard time trying to understand why reasonably educated folks in the west need to have realities of life in Marxist countries pointed out. These are what should be obvious aspects of how life worked for important and not so important people under the various flavors of Marxism since 1917 to today. Why do we have to point out that Party Leaders and 'named people' (nomenklatura) didn't live like the rest of the proletariat in the 'classless' system? Why do we have to repeatedly observe the gulags, thought police, torture, murders, lack of due process, human rights and other typically totalitarian realities for those regular people or worse, those labeled as enemies of the revolution?


You miss the point of Marxism. It is irrelevant the results. Marxism exists for social self promotion.  Look at it as a social game where you get a social goal by denigrating Western Civilization,  that gives you a promotion with your cultural peers. That is the point of whole thing,
 
You don't see a Marxist grieving about poverty in Cuba, the social supremacist genocide in Cambodja , etc.
The media the large majority of them Marxist of different stripes for example only started to talk about Chinese social problems when Chinese changed to a red flavor of capitalism (the western sin). If Chinese had only a bowl of rice a day today they would not have "cared" at all.
 
If we go to tenets of Marxism. they are the primitive : there are no checks and balances, no separation of power, neither limits on power - hence millions murders in their Social Supremacist experiments.
Marxists are the true Reactionaries -  the path to Modernity is more power to individual which made possible Art, Industrial Revolution for example. Marxists are all against this.
 
Since it is a social competition, they are always creating new sins for the Western world.


That's summed up as a mix of useful idiots and power seekers. The latter will liquidate the former when they gain power if they get in the way.

And I'm quite aware of the Marxist not giving a crap about it's failings. That was why I dropped it as a remotely useful ideology in my late teeens. I looked for reasons why it worked better and found it worked worse, way worse.
  • 0

#13546 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,459 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0317 AM

It's clear you are having a hard time understanding, Ryan. We don't need it pointed out.


Then why are you confused as to how leading communist don't live in the tiny basic homes that the proletariat live in?

The thing is, if you were pitching yourself as a communist (which Sanders is not) you would not already own huge amounts of property - you would get it after gaining power, by theft. This is Communism 101.


That was last century. Now it doesn't matter. Because the best communist are Hollywood actors, and rich millionaire politicians. They're probably not TRUE communists, just power seekers. Cynics. That doesn't make them not communists any more than Stalin wasn't.
  • 0

#13547 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,344 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0457 AM

I'm having a hard time trying to understand why reasonably educated folks in the west need to have realities of life in Marxist countries pointed out. These are what should be obvious aspects of how life worked for important and not so important people under the various flavors of Marxism since 1917 to today. Why do we have to point out that Party Leaders and 'named people' (nomenklatura) didn't live like the rest of the proletariat in the 'classless' system? Why do we have to repeatedly observe the gulags, thought police, torture, murders, lack of due process, human rights and other typically totalitarian realities for those regular people or worse, those labeled as enemies of the revolution?

 

Because "they" got it wrong, while "we" will get it right!


  • 0

#13548 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,459 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0642 AM

Bernie sanders. Not a socialist or communist? 
 
As the chair of the Liberty Union party, proposed nationalizing the Energy Industry. And the Banking industry. Telephone, electric and drug companies. Also a 100% income tax on the highest earners. 
 
Ben Shapiro pointed this out the other day. 

https://hotair.com/a...ize-industries/

In 1973, during his time as chairman of the Liberty Union Party, Sanders took to a Vermont paper to oppose Richard Nixon’s energy policy and oil industry profits, calling for the entire energy industry to be nationalized. Consumers at the time had been facing steep price increases and heavy shortages as a result of the OPEC oil embargo.

“I would also urge you to give serious thought about the eventual nationalization of these gigantic companies,” Sanders wrote in a December 1973 open letter to Vermont Sen. Robert Stafford that ran in the Vermont Freeman. “It is extremely clear that these companies, owned by a handful of billionaires, have far too much power over the lives of Americans to be left in private hands. The oil industry, and the entire energy industry, should be owned by the public and used for the public good — not for additional profits for billionaires.”…

 

 

In a press release on his policy positions, Sanders campaigned on the public ownership of the state’s electric companies, without compensating the banks and stockholders.

“I will be campaigning in support of the Liberty Union utility proposal which calls for the public ownership of Vermont’s private electric companies without compensation to the banks and wealthy stockholders who own the vast majority of stock in these companies,” he said in a July 1976 press release. “I will also be calling for public ownership of the telephone company — which is probably the single greatest rip-off company in America.”

 

 

In an interview with the Burlington Free Press, Sanders argued the richest two or three percent should not control capital.

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries. In Vermont we have some $2 billion of deposits in our banks,” Sanders told the paper. “In Vermont, as well as nationally, it is not tolerable to me that the control of capital would remain in the hands of the richest two or three percent of the population to do with it as they like.”

As Hot Air notes, this is not much different than what Hugo Chavez proposed and did is it? How has that worked out THIS Century? Not even looking back last century. 
 

State ownership of the means of production. By force. So, if he's not a communist what is he with these sorts of proposals? 

 

Warren has basically stolen his home work, making noises about this sort of stuff in the debates. Other candidates have too to a greater or lesser degree. So, Chris, if this is a major set of talking points in the DNC, you know nationalizing industry, is that a shift towards big S Socialism by the DNC? It certainly seems to to me. 


  • 0

#13549 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,459 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0651 AM

https://nypost.com/2...hard-communist/

 

Rewind to 1964.

While attending the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth wing of the Socialist Party USA. He also organized for a communist front, the United Packinghouse Workers Union, which at the time was under investigation by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

After graduating with a political science degree, Sanders moved to Vermont, where he headed the American People’s History Society, an organ for Marxist propaganda. There, he produced a glowing documentary on the life of socialist revolutionary Eugene Debs, who was jailed for espionage during the Red Scare and hailed by the Bolsheviks as “America’s greatest Marxist.”

 

 

​

This subversive hero of Sanders, denounced even by liberal Democrats as a “traitor,” bashed “the barons of Wall Street” and hailed the “triumphant” Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

 

“Those Russian comrades of ours have made greater sacrifices, have suffered more, and have shed more heroic blood than any like number of men and women anywhere on Earth,” Debs proclaimed. “They have laid the foundation of the first real democracy that ever drew the breath of life in this world.”

In a 1918 speech in Canton, Ohio, Debs reaffirmed his solidarity with Lenin and Trotsky, despite clear evidence of their violent plunder and treachery.

Sanders still hangs a portrait of Debs on the wall in his Senate office.

In the early ’70s, Sanders helped found the Liberty Union Party, which called for the nationalization of all US banks and the public takeover of all private utility companies.

​After failed runs for Congress, Sanders in 1981 managed to get elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., where he restricted property rights for landlords, set price controls and raised property taxes to pay for communal land trusts. Local small businesses distributed fliers complaining their new mayor “does not believe in free enterprise.”

His radical activities didn’t stop at the water’s edge.

Sanders took several “goodwill” trips not only to the USSR, but also to Cuba and Nicaragua, where the Soviets were trying to expand their influence in our hemisphere.

In 1985, he traveled to Managua to celebrate the rise to power of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista government. He called it a “heroic revolution.” Undermining anti-communist US policy, Sanders denounced the Reagan administration’s backing of the Contra rebels in a letter to the Sandinistas.

His betrayal did not end there. Sanders lobbied the White House to stop the proxy war and even tried to broker a peace deal. He adopted Managua as a sister city and invited Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega to visit the US. He exalted Ortega as “an impressive guy,” while attacking President Reagan.

“The Sandinista government has more support among the Nicaraguan people — substantially more support — than Ronald Reagan has among the American people,” Sanders told Vermont government-access TV in 1985.

 

Shaprio's Roll on this:
https://www.youtube....36NIYb2M?t=1180


Edited by rmgill, 17 January 2020 - 0651 AM.

  • 0

#13550 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,030 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 0824 AM

the last few bits of this thread explain to me very well where Corbyn gets his support


  • 0

#13551 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,937 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1036 AM

speaking of the UK.

Stasi in effect at British Universities, complete with paid informants:

https://www.rt.com/o...cism-orwellian/
  • 0

#13552 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,283 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1042 AM

Well, that IS RT, whom you can never count on reporting the UK accurately (particularly using a reporter who admits they are in America).

 

This is the actual story which, whilst is not something I condone or feel comfortable with, is a long way from Stasi informants kicking down doors. A little to Karma Police for comfort though, yes Id go with that.

https://www.telegrap...ro-aggressions/


  • 0

#13553 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,459 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1050 AM

Stuart, do you REALLY think that people need to be trained at the university level to combat micro aggression when they voice that some sort of food is weird to them? Does that REALLY need University funding to deal with and combat like it's some scourge of racism?

 


  • 0

#13554 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,442 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1050 AM

Not sure why. That there is a disagreement about who is and is not communist doesn't mean that there is necessarily any endorsement of Corbyn.
  • 0

#13555 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,030 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1144 AM

DB,

 my point is that if a person is willing to split hairs so much as to try to defend Bernie Sanders' past activities in order to justify his actions on the political stage then I can certainly see how a person could split those same hairs in support of somebody like Jeremy Corbyn.

There's no getting around the hard fact that Comrade Sanders is an old school commie that would fit in just fine in any Politburo meeting,  To suggest otherwise is to fly in the face of established facts which are clearly in evidence.  It just isn't a question of opinion or perception at this point.  A willingness to be blind to fact is the sort of willingness to support the positions of someone like Corbyn who still claims to be anything other than an antis-emite.

It's not a big deal, we have millions if not tens of millions of Sanders supporters here many of whom are sadly mistaken about which side of the wire they will end up on.


  • 0

#13556 lucklucky

lucklucky

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,814 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1144 AM

Well, that IS RT, whom you can never count on reporting the UK accurately (particularly using a reporter who admits they are in America).

 

This is the actual story which, whilst is not something I condone or feel comfortable with, is a long way from Stasi informants kicking down doors. A little to Karma Police for comfort though, yes Id go with that.

https://www.telegrap...ro-aggressions/

It is a part of STASI culture in the great scheme of Communism like the children denouncing the parents.


  • 0

#13557 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,765 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1221 PM

Plus this:

Martin Luther King and the ‘polite’ racism of white liberals

 

“As the nation, Negro and white, trembled with outrage at police brutality in the South, police misconduct in the North was rationalized, tolerated, and usually denied,” he wrote. Leaders in Northern and Western states “welcomed me to their cities, and showered praise on the heroism of Southern Negroes. Yet when the issues were joined concerning local conditions, only the language was polite; the rejection was firm and unequivocal.”

King’s words resonate today. This King has much to say about our contemporary moment, about this presidential campaign season and the injustices that plague our blue cities as well as our red states. More than 50 years after King called out white liberals, many are still employing the polite racism that he decried.  Presidential Democratic candidates former vice president Joe Biden, former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg have presided over policies that perpetuate racial injustice in law enforcement. All have offered glib apologies but have taken no aggressive action to correct the harm. In response to requests by the new Poor People’s Campaign (the campaign King organized just before he was assassinated), several candidates have pledged to call for a presidential debate on poverty, but none have done so — evoking King’s criticism of the “silence of our friends” as a crucial linchpin to injustice.  In 2014, a report from the University of California at Los Angeles reported that school segregation remains rife throughout the country 60 years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled “separate but equal” education unconstitutional. The report declared New York state’s schools the most segregated, yet Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) has shown little willingness to make concrete changes, and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) has run from the word “segregation.” They’ve engaged in blame-shifting and little action, as a movement of New York City high school students who have taken it upon themselves to call the problem out.  

https://www.washingt...white-liberals/

 

 

Also:

 

 

Passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 didn’t eliminate racist real estate practices. A recent National Fair Housing Alliance investigation found that in 87 percent of test cases, agents steered customers to neighborhoods where existing homeowners were predominantly of the customers’ own race. And while Southern states are home to a larger portion of the nation’s minority residents, nearly half of all fair-housing complaints during the 2012-2013 fiscal year were filed in the Northeast and the Midwest.  Economic segregation is most severe in America’s Northern metropolitan areas, as well, with Milwaukee; Hartford, Conn.; Philadelphia; and Detroit leading large cities nationwide, according to an analysis of 2010 census data by the Atlantic. White suburbanites across the North — even in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s adopted home town, Chappaqua, N.Y. — have fought the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhoods, trying to keep out “undesirables” who might threaten their children and undermine their property values.   Education remains separate and unequal nearly everywhere in the United States, but Confederate-flag-waving Southerners aren’t responsible for the most racially divided schools. That title goes to New York, where 64 percent of black students attend schools with few, if any, white students, according to a recent report by the Civil Rights Project. In fact, the Northeast is the only region where the percentage of black students in extremely segregated schools — those where at least 90 percent of students are minorities — is higher than it was in the 1960s. Schools in the South, on the other hand, saw the segregation of black students drop 56 percent between 1968 and 2011.  

https://www.washingt...8059_story.html


  • 0

#13558 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,701 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1229 PM

If you tax your highest earners at damn near 100%, what will prevent them from taking their toys and leaving (like to Puerto Rico, or some offshore destination)?

Then who are the highest earners youll have to tax? And when do the yellow vests come out?

The whole model is like a Ponzi scheme, telling the poor what they want to hear to keep voting for you, hand waving a vague entity theyve never met nor will they ever interact with for all their problems, while taking advantage of the fact that the average democrat doesnt seem to take things to its logical conclusion and just votes on what sounds about right.

Plus what makes people think the Us Government wont make a giant mess of NHS like we did the VA, NASA, the military Industrial complex and just about everything else we touch?

If national healthcare and entitlements take the biggest chunk of a national budget, and emphasis is put on getting people on some sort of social program and keeping them there, then the trend is towards low social mobility, everyone being more equally poorer, and they dont have a choice but to vote to continue the programs they now depend on. How is that not an elite class (in this case politicians) ratcheting up their own power and affluence based on a lie?

We know whats at the end of that road, those defending it IMO are doing so simply because its all theyve ever known, and because theyre in the middle stages rather than terminal stages of socialism it doesnt seem so bad

The Democratic Party is damn near predatory IMO. Perhaps not deliberately or intentionally so, but in net effect, exploiting weaknesses and dangling carrots in front of the most vulnerable, making them believe they have your best interests at heart. Near the end, when theres no other external factor to blame, the stick comes out and they make sure theyre the only one who has them... the irony is that poor people think jack booted thugs were a tool of the right when theyre a staple of the lefts efforts to enforce equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.

Im not saying unbridled capitalism is the solution but capitalism in general has done a hell of a lot more to get people out of poverty than socialism, and the fact that some remains is to be statistically expected not a testament to its failures, because the alternative is a hell of a lot worse.

Edited by Burncycle360, 17 January 2020 - 1445 PM.

  • 0

#13559 Stargrunt6

Stargrunt6

    Empire Apologist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,937 posts

Posted 17 January 2020 - 1425 PM

Well, that IS RT, whom you can never count on reporting the UK accurately (particularly using a reporter who admits they are in America).
 
This is the actual story which, whilst is not something I condone or feel comfortable with, is a long way from Stasi informants kicking down doors. A little to Karma Police for comfort though, yes Id go with that.
https://www.telegrap...ro-aggressions/


Stasi as in informants. As far as kicking down doors over mean tweets, that's the police's job.
  • 0