the only anti-globalist

AssHatZombie said:
Are you aware of the declining housing market and the increasing unemployment?

Does unemployment affect someone's standard of living?

No matter how cheap things get, you still cant buy them when your income is zero.

why are you acting so retarded? You act like you're not aware of the current economy.
Click to expand...


He apparently is also unaware that the median income in the US has flat-lined since 2001, since the globalists like to use the mean instead. BTW, the definition of "douche bag" is someone who can speak of a "jobless recovery" with a straight face, because he has absolutely no clue that in an economy that was 75% consumer retail based at its peak, a "jobless recovery" is not only an oxymoron, it's also a chimera, an imaginary recovery that is both unstable and unsustainable, and will ultimately come back to bite us in the ass.

As you pointed out, no jobs equals no consumer spending, regardless of how inexpensive things are, and that Windows 95 crack to which you were responding was butt-ignorant. You obviously have had that "Aha! moment" when you realize the left vs right paradigm is not only no longer applicable, but is now just a smoke screen to take attention away from the real problem, which is top 1% vs bottom 99% (news flash for those not paying attention: communism is dead and was never viable in the first place). Its ultimate downfall was inherent in Marx's simplistic solution for the very real evils of corporate capitalism. His diagnosis of the sickness in capitalism was spot on, his prescription not so much, like slaughtering pigs in response to the swine flu, radical action that doesn't do shit to alleviate the original problem. Even Adam Smith hated corporations. The "invisible hand" of the market was predicated on a market made up of sole proprietorships, and in the latter chapters of "The Wealth of Nations" Smith inveighed against corporations. Jefferson and Madison both held that corporations were the enemies of freedom and liberty. Educated people don't support a global corporate economy, only people who think they are educated, but don't realize their alleged education is based on lies,
 
Last edited:
At least you admit the necon/libertaritard desire to destroy the middle class.

The government has a constitutional power, and moral responsibility, to moderate trade relations.

We need protectionism, not globalist stupidity and treachery.
 
zoombwaz said:
communism is dead and was never viable in the first place).

Educated people don't support a global corporate economy, only people who think they are educated, but don't realize their alleged education is based on lies,
Click to expand...

Income Tax, the federal reserve, the Department of Education, Healthcare, Social Security, to name a few are detailed by Marx.

I wish you could point out what I'm missing so I can at least admit that it's me who is stupid and not you. But at this time you're really out doing me on the stupid scale.
 
AssHatZombie said:
At least you admit the necon/libertaritard desire to destroy the middle class.

The government has a constitutional power, and moral responsibility, to moderate trade relations.

We need protectionism, not globalist stupidity and treachery.
Click to expand...

Neocon? How could you define Libertarians as the same thing as,,,, lets say Bush? You should really hang with some Libertarians more. You've really got an incorrect view about us.

Also, union leaders are killing union jobs. Good people in unions are getting screwed by their union leaders.
 
Liberty said:
Neocon? How could you define Libertarians as the same thing as,,,, lets say Bush? You should really hang with some Libertarians more. You've really got an incorrect view about us.

Also, union leaders are killing union jobs. Good people in unions are getting screwed by their union leaders.
Click to expand...

You're all globalists to me. The enemy.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's you who has the delusion your interests are allied with the fortune 500.

your company would benefit from protectionism, but you're too brainwashed to see it. The internationalist fascists are destroying small businesses along with indivduals, but your reagan era simplistic slogans keep your from perceiving the truth.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot AssMat.

Your nationalist socialist ideas are crazy.
 
Liberty said:
Income Tax, the federal reserve, the Department of Education, Healthcare, Social Security, to name a few are detailed by Marx.

I wish you could point out what I'm missing so I can at least admit that it's me who is stupid and not you. But at this time you're really out doing me on the stupid scale.
Click to expand...


Where exactly are these things detailed by Marx? Please cite specific pages in either Das Kapital and/or The Communist Manifesto for all programs listed. Time to put up or shut up. In fact, none of the things you list are Marxist, or central to Marxism, even in the unlikely event you can find mention of something similar in his writings. In order for any political entity to be considered Marxist, 1) the means of production must be controlled by the people (fat chance...we can't even keep jobs in this country), and 2) the entity must adhere to the lamest, most unworkable, most brain-dead plan for compensation ever to come down the pike: "from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs." Poppycock. It won't work. It can't work. One of the central tenets of Marxism is an impossibility, because it doesn't take into account the nature of some jobs. I'm not talking about entrepreneurial pursuits, which are banned by Marxism, and yet are part of many people's personality, and in fact are part of human nature. No, I'm referring to jobs that are by nature both a) necessary to the functionality of any society and b) absolute shit. By that I mean jobs that are inherently disgusting, dirty, or dangerous to the point of being potentially fatal. If all these jobs offer by way of compensation is the same living wage enjoyed by your average [sarcasm] happy Marxist worker living in his or her perfect worker's paradise [/sarcasm], they will never be filled voluntarily. These jobs require either premium pay or coercion. Oddly enough, this is one area in which Marxism and Capitalism agree: there will be no premium pay. The reasons are different; a misguided notion of what is equitable on the part of the Marxists, and greed on the part of the Capitalists, but they both opt for coercion. The Marxists prefer physical coercion (you WILL do this job, comrade, unless you want another stint in the re-education camp), while the Capitalists prefer the economic model, as exemplified by the indentured servitude of the company town and especially the infamous company store, where credit is offered freely to the employees, but they can't quit unless they pay off their tabs at the store, and the staples they buy there cost more than they make, so the longer they work for the company, the more they owe to the store, and the greater the buyout to quit. Tennessee Ernie Ford's "14 Tons" was a protest song or sorts about this system. Although coercion is coercion, the economic type favored by Capitalists is apparently acceptable, but physical coercion, not so much. BTW, maintaining a constant level of unemployment is another way Capitalists keep wages artificially low. When the economy heats up, and unemployment rate drops below 5%, the chairman of the federal reserve raises the prime rate to cool it off, lowering the demand for labor, so they can maintain their supply of excess labor, keeping wages down. So tell me, since i am apparently so stupid and you so brilliant, how does the Federal Reserve Bank, the handmaiden of Wall Street, qualify as a Marxist invention?

I eagerly await your citations showing where Marx detailed all of these federal programs.

But I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
zoombwaz said:
Where exactly are these things detailed by Marx? Please cite specific pages in either Das Kapital and/or The Communist Manifesto for all programs listed. Time to put up or shut up. In fact, none of the things you list are Marxist, or central to Marxism, even in the unlikely event you can find mention of something similar in his writings. In order for any political entity to be considered Marxist, 1) the means of production must be controlled by the people (fat chance...we can't even keep jobs in this country), and 2) the entity must adhere to the lamest, most unworkable, most brain-dead plan for compensation ever to come down the pike: "from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs." Poppycock. It won't work. It can't work. One of the central tenets of Marxism is an impossibility, because it doesn't take into account the nature of some jobs. I'm not talking about entrepreneurial pursuits, which are banned by Marxism, and yet are part of many people's personality, and in fact are part of human nature. No, I'm referring to jobs that are by nature both a) necessary to the functionality of any society and b) absolute shit. By that I mean jobs that are inherently disgusting, dirty, or dangerous to the point of being potentially fatal. If all these jobs offer by way of compensation is the same living wage enjoyed by your average [sarcasm] happy Marxist worker living in his or her perfect worker's paradise [/sarcasm], they will never be filled voluntarily. These jobs require either premium pay or coercion. Oddly enough, this is one area in which Marxism and Capitalism agree: there will be no premium pay. The reasons are different; a misguided notion of what is equitable on the part of the Marxists, and greed on the part of the Capitalists, but they both opt for coercion. The Marxists prefer physical coercion (you WILL do this job, comrade, unless you want another stint in the re-education camp), while the Capitalists prefer the economic model, as exemplified by the indentured servitude of the company town and especially the infamous company store, where credit is offered freely to the employees, but they can't quit unless they pay off their tabs at the store, and the staples they buy there cost more than they make, so the longer they work for the company, the more they owe to the store, and the greater the buyout to quit. Tennessee Ernie Ford's "14 Tons" was a protest song or sorts about this system. Although coercion is coercion, the economic type favored by Capitalists is apparently acceptable, but physical coercion, not so much. BTW, maintaining a constant level of unemployment is another way Capitalists keep wages artificially low. When the economy heats up, and unemployment rate drops below 5%, the chairman of the federal reserve raises the prime rate to cool it off, lowering the demand for labor, so they can maintain their supply of excess labor, keeping wages down. So tell me, since i am apparently so stupid and you so brilliant, how does the Federal Reserve Bank, the handmaiden of Wall Street, qualify as a Marxist invention?

I eagerly await your citations showing where Marx detailed all of these federal programs.

But I'm not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

1.) If there's an income tax, you have no true right to your property.

2.) I don't know anything about the website below, only that it points out a pathway to answer your question. Which I'm not going to take the time to educate you on, as I have little time.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/karl_marx.htm

3.) You can live with it. I won't.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's just protectionism. It's a traditional tool in the trade policy tool box; pretending otherwise is revisionist globalist zealotry.
Click to expand...

Your disagreements with me have nothing to do with protectionism. You have an agenda, and don't interact very well.

If you ask me.
 
Liberty said:
Your disagreements with me have nothing to do with protectionism. You have an agenda, and don't interact very well.

If you ask me.
Click to expand...

My disagreements with you have everything to do with protectionism.

My agenda is to keep jobs in america through the usual tools, namely protectionism, which are well inside the range of historical normalcy in trade policy.

You are a brainwashed internationalist fascist, who believes in a revisionist version of history, and calls things socialism when they are clearly just normal run of the mill protectionism.

And I interact just peachy. I rock and am fun to have around. Damo said so.
 
Liberty said:
1.) If there's an income tax, you have no true right to your property.

2.) I don't know anything about the website below, only that it points out a pathway to answer your question. Which I'm not going to take the time to educate you on, as I have little time.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/karl_marx.htm

3.) You can live with it. I won't.
Click to expand...



Your three non-answers are utter and total horseshit. Taxes are the admission we pay to live in a society. There are expenses in a society, many of which are crucial to private commerce, like roads and bridges. How the fuck do you propose we pay for the building and maintenance of roads used by all citizens if not by taxes? Privately built toll roads? What about the nationwide power grid? Do you think that wss built by the private sector? Hell, no. The privately owned power companies declined to run power anywhere but cities and towns because it wasn't cost effective. My father was born on a farm that had no electricity and never would if the private sector had its way. I live in a cabin in the woods, and I have electric power through no effort on the part of the private sector, but because of FDR's Rural Electrification Program, another one of his hated socialist post-depression programs that did nothing positive except create jobs, put people to work and expand our national power infrastructure o every corner of the country, something the privately-owned utility monopolies were unwilling to do. How did we pay for that? Through taxes. Every fucking functioning country in the world taxes its citizens for common expenses, except the new robber barons in the OPEC countries. It doesn't matter what kinds of governments or economies nations have, they all tax (except OPEC), and unless you want to live in one of those autocracies, you're going to pay taxes, and most are higher than ours. Individuals can't build roads, for the most part. Governments do, and they do it with tax revenues. Get a grip.

2. One single page web site? Written by a high school teacher? No citations from Marx's works? And you think that's going to "educate" me? I am educated. I've read Marx. Have you? Or is that lame website the sum total of your exposure to Marx?

3. You won't what? Live in a civilized nation? Afghanistan and Somalia don't have taxes. They are also failed states. Good luck with that fantasy..

Grow a clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top