The Question that Makes Cowards out of Leftists

[IBDaMann]

I'm in with that. No coward here.

Could I possibly get you to bravely read the question and answer it, as opposed to answering a question that was not asked?

Let me give the same two-part question but with even more direct wording. In order to strip out any possible weaseling by ANYBODY and to eliminate even the appearance of any "gotchas" ... I was very deliberate with the words.

[Part I] Do you believe it should be legal to kill a living human who has committed no crime and who has not expressed any desire to die?
[Part II] How does your answer change if said killing clearly makes some other living human's life more convenient?

Note: The words "person," "innocent," "value" and "conscious" do not appear in the question.

Additional clarification:

"Living" is defined by the medical and biological axiom "If there is a heartbeat then there is life" ... thus a brain-dead person with a heartbeat is considered "alive." The first thing any medical professional does is to check for a pulse. No fauna with a heartbeat is ever considered "dead"

"Human" is defined as being of the species Homo Sapiens and is determined by DNA. A human infant is not a puppy ... the DNA establishes this beyond any doubt.

The expression of a desire to die could be the mentioning of suicidal thoughts, a signed DNA, ... whatever.

A fetus is a blob of cells,

Yes, specifically a group of human cells. The only distinction being made is whether the fetus has a heartbeat.

 

[StoneByStone]

It is absurd to claim that they owned the ideology of National Socialism and that upon the demise of the NSDAP nobody forever after can implement that ideology, as if Interpol will somehow levy a fine.

The American Nazi Party's stated mission is to advance National Socialism into the Twenty-First Century. I wager that no one enforces the "You can't implement National Socialism" rule. But you say otherwise?

I would say that because to be a Nazi was to be a member or at least a collaborator of the NSDAP, there are no Nazis today.
However, I already granted that we do have Neo-Nazis who seek to enforce an ideology based on the NSDAP. And even though the American Nazi Party is very different from the NSDAP, I'll still grant that they are similar enough to be called Neo-Nazis.

The NAZIs were absolutely socialist, including most closely implementing the Marxist stage of central planning forthwith called in the Communist Manifesto with the Four Year Plan under Goering. Only the Soviet Union came close to rivaling the total centralized control of industry and commerce as NAZI Germany did when Hitler made Goering the premier economy czar.

You're ignoring the most important part of central planning according to Marxists, which is collective ownership. Hitler and Göring didn't try to create collective ownership in Germany. Stalin didn't try it in the Soviet Union. Mao didn't try it in China. I don't know what was in these people's hearts, maybe deep down they were Socialists. But what we can say for sure is they did not practice Socialism, which makes it at least most likely that they weren't Socialists. Saying the Nazis were Socialists would be the hardest sell, because a very small percent of German businesses were even nationalized.

Marxists use the term "Democracy" as a code word for "Marxism." Yes, they have hijacked the word and you see in the form of Marxist countries calling themselves "Democratic People's Republic" or "People's Democratic Republic" or the DNC calling for open borders to build a better "Democracy."

That's beside the point. The point is we should look at a government's actions, not what it calls itself. If the Nazis called themselves Socialists, but didn't practice Socialism, then they weren't Socialists. Much like how Kim Jong-un can call his country a Democracy, but he doesn't allow democratic elections, so it's not really a Democracy.

 

[StoneByStone]

Thank you. I am always happy to disagree with any mistaken mass of morons. I didn't create the English language. I simply learned it properly.

There are two ways to define a word. Either by the earliest definition or by the way most people use the word. Your definition of racism is wrong on both counts.
According to Google, racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." This is how it was always defined historically. This is how most people would define it today.

You have TDS. Surely you must be aware that everyone who reads your posts filters out all content like this line above as if you never wrote it. Surely you must realize that when you express your TDS, readers of your posts interpret them not as saying anything about Trump but as you speaking volumes about yourself.

If TDS is just not supporting every single thing Trump does, then sure, I guess I have TDS. I also didn't like Obama, so I suppose I also had ODS. Not really a fan of Biden either, so if he wins, his supporters will say I have BDS.

Also, at some point in the past you made a poor decision to afix a cheezy virtue-signalling image in your signature. Anyone perusing any thread in which you participate instantly recognizes you as someone who (desperately) depends on emotional appeals for acceptance as opposed to strong arguments. You probably don't realize that the projection of your super-hero fantasy reveals your true self-image of weakness and impotence. I think most people find that rather pathetic, even if they see themselves as weak and impotent as well.

I think you just don't realize how awesome Batman is.
You must be a Marvel guy. Hey, I like Marvel too. Iron Man, Spider-Man, Thor Odinson, Wolverine, they have a lot of great heroes.

So we finally arrive at the root of your error. Yes the judge has expressed pride in his family and heritage. Now, if you can set your TDS aside for a moment you can reprocess this item with the new information and arrive at the correct understanding.

Source?
And is there also a reason to believe that, even if he did have pride in his heritage, that would cause him to be unable to do his job?
I enjoy my Austrian/Swiss/Italian/Swedish heritage, but I would never let it keep me from doing my job.

Nope. Fortunately we discovered this second error of yours. Trump was not claiming the judge was loyal to Mexico. He was claiming that the judge was unfair to him, and pressed to get him recused for an impartial judge that would not be unfair.

But do you understand that it's racist/bigoted to say a person is unfair to you because of their heritage?
It would be ok if we were talking about a white judge ruling against a black guy and then it turned out the judge was a member of the Klan. But if the black guy's only defense was "he's white, he must be against me," that would be pretty racist.

You're not going to find any member of the Bar who will agree with you that Trump should have just quietly accepted an unfair judge and somehow avoided arguing from every angle to get the judge recused. You are simply in error.

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with a judge. What I'm saying is that by playing the race card, Trump is being racist.

Nope. Transitioning specifically to a commonwealth is not required for socialism. The naming of Goering as the chief central planner is what was required and transitioned Germany into an idealized socialist state.

And yet Göring never even attempted to have collective ownership, which is the main point of Socialism. Instead, Göring allowed the majority of German companies to remain privately owned. Central planning (which is NOT what the Nazis had) without collective ownership is not Socialism.

North Korea absolutely is Marxist. Where did you get the idea it wasn't. Check the central planning.

No collective ownership = No Socialism.

 

[IBDaMann]

And even though the American Nazi Party is very different from the NSDAP, I'll still grant that they are similar enough to be called Neo-Nazis.

... and to this I would refer to your previous previous point about focusing on actions and not on afixed labels. Of those who are called "Neo-NAZIs" many are merely conservatives who are being slurred by intolerant and dishonest leftists, usually after being called "racist!" and "mysogynist!" and "homophobe!" There is such a substantial amount of this that whenever I hear/read the term "Neo-NAZI" my immediate presumption is that it is being slung as an undeserved slur ... until I am presented with substantive evidence to the contrary.

You're ignoring the most important part of central planning according to Marxists, which is collective ownership.

You are getting your sequence out of order. Let's clear this up:

Step 1: Working men of all countries UNITE!
Step 2: Working men cast off the yoke of the ruling class and confiscate their wealth.
Step 3: Central planning ensues, i.e. socialism
Step 4: The Master Plan is complete and set in motion, Utopia is achieved, Dictator steps down and all things are shared by everyone, i.e. communism.

Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto ... not the Socialist Manifesto. Utopia is achieved under communism, not under socialism. He claimed the pursuit of a communist Utopia required the intermediary step of socialism to get the central planning underway, otherwise society could never transition away from ingrained capitalism.

Socialists say "Yep, let's get going with the socialism!" Communists respond "No way, buddy. You have no intention of ever stepping down and we prefer capitalism to concentrating wealth and power under you." Socialists realize that communists will forever be thorns in their sides until all communists are all hunted down and killed ... so that is usually the first order of business in any socialist regime. Communists, on the other hand, realize that Utopia can never be achieved while the socialist regime is in power, so communists resort to the dirtiest tactics imagineable to kill whoever needs to be killed to topple the regime.

So this "collective ownership" does not exist under socialism because the dictator owns everything and distributes wealth as needed (that's where the Bernie Sanders socialism "wealth redistribution" cry enters the picture) and assigns work roles as he sees fit. What you are talking about is the Utopian communism which comes afterwards in which everything belongs to everyone.

Yes, socialist regimes officially declare that everything is "for THE PEOPLE!" however I'm sure you don't imagine that any of Venezuela's starving masses can just walk into the Venezuelan Presidential palace and grab a sandwich, no?

Hitler and Göring didn't try to create collective ownership in Germany.

Correct. Socialists don't do that.

Stalin didn't try it in the Soviet Union.

Correct. Socialists don't do that.

Mao didn't try it in China.

Correct. Socialists don't do that.

I don't know what was in these people's hearts, maybe deep down they were Socialists.

They were socialists to the bone.

But what we can say for sure is they did not practice Socialism,

What we can say for sure is that they were definitely practicing socialism.
What we can say for sure is that they never had any intention of ever stepping down and turning ownership of everything over to the people.

Isn't it funny how no dictators ever seem to step down?

The NAZIs were the most socialist with the most formalized and concentrated central planning over all industries.

That's beside the point.

It's entirely the point. Marxists routinely hijack the word "Democracy/Democratic" to mean "Marxist" because they have a great track record with fooling large swaths of people when they do. Apparently you are one of those who is fooled. Are you seriously going to tell me that the Marxist People's Republic of North Korea somehow isn't Marxist?

 

[StoneByStone]

... and to this I would refer to your previous previous point about focusing on actions and not on afixed labels. Of those who are called "Neo-NAZIs" many are merely conservatives who are being slurred by intolerant and dishonest leftists, usually after being called "racist!" and "mysogynist!" and "homophobe!" There is such a substantial amount of this that whenever I hear/read the term "Neo-NAZI" my immediate presumption is that it is being slung as an undeserved slur ... until I am presented with substantive evidence to the contrary.

Terms like "Nazi" and "Neo-Nazi" are usually just used as insults. Where I would disagree is that it's just Lefties doing this. Righties also call people "Nazis" for wanting universal healthcare and environmentalist policies. Obama was said to be a Nazi all the time, which is extra funny, since he wouldn't even be considered Aryan by the real Nazis.
I think this is stupid no matter who is doing it. I don't like either of the big two political parties, but neither of them are full of Neo-Nazis.

You are getting your sequence out of order. Let's clear this up:

Step 1: Working men of all countries UNITE!
Step 2: Working men cast off the yoke of the ruling class and confiscate their wealth.
Step 3: Central planning ensues, i.e. socialism
Step 4: The Master Plan is complete and set in motion, Utopia is achieved, Dictator steps down and all things are shared by everyone, i.e. communism.

Close, but no. It's more like this.

Step 1: Workers unite.
Step 2: Government enforced collective ownership of the means of production.
Step 3: The state, no longer being needed, withers away.
Step 4: We have Communism.

Basically, Marx and Engels believed that when common ownership is achieved, society would be so equal, that the government would slowly die out on its own, thus achieving the stateless and classless society that the Anarchist Communists wanted.

If you're seriously interested in this theory, check out Marx's ideas on common ownership on the path to Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership

Socialists say "Yep, let's get going with the socialism!" Communists respond "No way, buddy. You have no intention of ever stepping down and we prefer capitalism to concentrating wealth and power under you." Socialists realize that communists will forever be thorns in their sides until all communists are all hunted down and killed ... so that is usually the first order of business in any socialist regime. Communists, on the other hand, realize that Utopia can never be achieved while the socialist regime is in power, so communists resort to the dirtiest tactics imagineable to kill whoever needs to be killed to topple the regime.

Not all Socialists want Communism. However, all Socialists do want common ownership. So while the Nazis never promised Communism, like the Bolsheviks did, they still weren't Socialist because they allowed most German businesses to be privately owned.

Yes, socialist regimes officially declare that everything is "for THE PEOPLE!" however I'm sure you don't imagine that any of Venezuela's starving masses can just walk into the Venezuelan Presidential palace and grab a sandwich, no?

So that's another big misconception about Socialism. Socialists actually do believe in personal property. In a Socialist country, I can't just walk into your house and use your toothbrush, because your toothbrush is your personal property. Socialists believe in eliminating private ownership of the means of production. So in a Socialist society, we all have our personal property, but if you own a company, all of your employees have a say in how the company is run. I'm not a fan of this, so I'm not a Socialist. Though I do admit co-ops are not a bad idea and do often work. I just don't think they should be enforced by the government like under Socialism.

The NAZIs were the most socialist with the most formalized and concentrated central planning over all industries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Privatization_and_business_ties

Nope, most companies in Nazi Germany were private. How is that Socialism?

It's entirely the point. Marxists routinely hijack the word "Democracy/Democratic" to mean "Marxist" because they have a great track record with fooling large swaths of people when they do. Apparently you are one of those who is fooled. Are you seriously going to tell me that the Marxist People's Republic of North Korea somehow isn't Marxist?

What I'm saying is that the Nazis and the Bolsheviks hijacked the word "Socialism" the same way the Kim Dynasty family hijacked the word "Democracy." The point is, you can't say someone is a thing just because they call themselves that thing.

 

[IBDaMann]

There are two ways to define a word. Either by the earliest definition or by the way most people use the word. Your definition of racism is wrong on both counts.

I'm happy to disagree with morons, so I'm happy to disagree with you. Go learn English. It's absurd that you believe that you are somehow fit to be my judge. You have an extremely poor batting average at getting things right, regardless of the topic. I am doing you a favor by correcting your errors. You don't come across as being smart by insisting on being egregiously wrong.

According to Google, racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

Google should have checked with me first. Google knows how to build search engines and cloud environments but English is not their thing.

The next time we have a disagreement over the deployment of pods in Kubernetes, I'll gladly go with what Google says.

If TDS is just not supporting every single thing Trump does,

TDS is not supporting ANYTHING Trump does because your uncontrollable and totally consuming hatred for him has driven you mad. Your TDS elevates your pettiness into orbit. Trump's list of accomplishments is huge; in fact, it exceeds the Just Plain Politics text limit of 25,000 characters ... and you are absurdly compelled to deny each and every one ... even striving to thwart any and all future accomplishments that would benefit all of We the People and make America even greater ... just because the idea of having to think something positive about Trump is utterly unaccpetable.

It must suck to be you. But like I wrote previously, you broadcast all of this every single time Trump enters the discussion. It is thoroughly amusing to watch how your TDS kicks in and takes over completely. You cease to be in control of your post while your TDS is doing the writing. The truly amusing aspect of all this is that I'm sure you think no one notices, that it somehow isn't totally obvious.

You also probably think that I'm saying all this just to insult you but I am telling you all this just like I would tell someone that he has some spinach stuck between his teeth. Your TDS is putting on a show for everyone else's entertainment.

I think you just don't realize how awesome Batman is.

I am a Batman fan. I just happen to be able to think of so many things that you could do that would be so much more effective than believing that the child's fantasy to which you cling is an effective manner of virtue-signalling.

You must be a Marvel guy.

Marvel is much better than DC.

Trivia Question: What is the canonical basis for the belief that Wolverine regenerates?

even if he did have pride in his heritage, that would cause him to be unable to do his job?

The judge is not a juror. Trump only needed to show that the judge had breached the appearance of total impartiality in order to have grounds for an appeal.

I enjoy my Austrian/Swiss/Italian/Swedish heritage, but I would never let it keep me from doing my job.

If you were a judge, however, and you were to publicly announce your beaming pride in your Swedish heritage, wore Blue and Yellow often to advertise this and announced upon entering the courtroom one day your elation that Sweden has advanced to the quarter finals in the European Cup ... you might be asked to recuse yourself from a case involving a Danish national who argues that you cannot possibly be fair. You would be advised to just recuse yourself and to move the case to another judge because if you become stubborn and insist on presiding then you give the Dane more ammunition to say "See! See! He is determined to rule against me. It's obvious!"

But do you understand that it's racist/bigoted to say a person is unfair to you because of their heritage?

Apparently you don't understand that context matters. Obviously you aren't swift enough on the uptake to realize that Trump was asking for a judge to be recused and that makes all the difference in the world.

Anytime you try to deny the context, especially when it has been thoroughly explained to you, you will be summarily dismissed.

It would be ok if we were talking about a white judge ruling against a black guy and then it turned out the judge was a member of the Klan.

We're talking about BEFORE any ruling. We're talking about getting a known unfair judge to recuse himself before being unfair AGAIN. You had all this information presented to you in the video. I suggest you watch it again.

 

[IBDaMann]

Terms like "Nazi" and "Neo-Nazi" are usually just used as insults. [Where I would disagree is that it's just Lefties doing this. Righties also call people "Nazis" for wanting universal healthcare and environmentalist policies.

I agree with you. I use slurs all the time ... but only those that are accurate. Since Trump's election I have had cause to refer to many whining cry-baby posters as "snowflakes" and JPP has a lot of them, making this board a target-rich environment.

Obama was said to be a Nazi all the time,

I cannot address inaccurate slurs. Obama was more of a do-nothing President. His only accomplishment was to illegally implement executive orders in circumvention of Congress. Otherwise there was nothing else that he did.

Close, but no. It's more like this.

Step 1: Workers unite.
Step 2: Government enforced collective ownership of the means of production.
Step 3: The state, no longer being needed, withers away.
Step 4: We have Communism.

There is a lot wrong with this, including your insistence that socialist dictators somehow have a "commonwealth" requirement. We should table this becaus you obviously find your delusion to be of higher priority.

I will leave you with this: The Communist Manifesto makes no mention of "common ownership," i.e. you are simply mistaken. The Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, makes two allusions to "common ownership" ... specifically to their relation to communism, not to socialism, i.e. you are simply mistaken.

The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West? The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London

 

[StoneByStone]

I'm happy to disagree with morons, so I'm happy to disagree with you. Go learn English. It's absurd that you believe that you are somehow fit to be my judge. You have an extremely poor batting average at getting things right, regardless of the topic. I am doing you a favor by correcting your errors. You don't come across as being smart by insisting on being egregiously wrong.

Why is the Right always so angry and rude? We're just talking, my guy. No need to get mad.
Sounds like you have StoneByStone Derangement Syndrome.

Trivia Question: What is the canonical basis for the belief that Wolverine regenerates?

He has the mutant gene. Do I win?

The judge is not a juror. Trump only needed to show that the judge had breached the appearance of total impartiality in order to have grounds for an appeal.

That's fine, I'm not saying Trump can't disagree with the guy. I'm saying that it's racist to say the reason the judge is wrong or can't do his job is because he's Mexican.

If you were a judge, however, and you were to publicly announce your beaming pride in your Swedish heritage, wore Blue and Yellow often to advertise this and announced upon entering the courtroom one day your elation that Sweden has advanced to the quarter finals in the European Cup ... you might be asked to recuse yourself from a case involving a Danish national who argues that you cannot possibly be fair. You would be advised to just recuse yourself and to move the case to another judge because if you become stubborn and insist on presiding then you give the Dane more ammunition to say "See! See! He is determined to rule against me. It's obvious!"

By this logic, no judge can ever be impartial. What if instead of Danish, the guy was Serbian? Would I still be unfit to judge because Serbia, like Denmark, is a different country from Sweden? Is the assumption just that Swedes can't be unbiased with people who aren't Swedish? If so, then I would say that's racist.

And you never gave me evidence that this judge was in any way loyal to Mexico. It seems most likely that Trump only brought up the judge's heritage in order to discredit him.

We're talking about BEFORE any ruling. We're talking about getting a known unfair judge to recuse himself before being unfair AGAIN. You had all this information presented to you in the video. I suggest you watch it again.

Trump is saying that the judge is proud of his heritage, again no evidence of that, and then says he's building a wall. And supposedly that's the reason the judge can't be trusted. So Trump is saying this guy is so loyal to Mexico that he is unable to put his alleged bias aside. Again, no evidence, just an assumption based on stereotypes.
Notice how Trump doesn't explain anything the judge said or did that shows he isn't fit to serve as a judge. All he has is this assumption that a Mexican-American is too loyal to Mexico to do his job.

I know you're not going to budge on this issue, since you just want to support Trump, so let me ask you two questions.

First, what is your ethnicity? I told you mine and we're talking about ethnicity here, so I don't think that question is out of line.

Secondly, do you think people of different ethnicities are unable to be fair with each other? Is it only certain groups who have had issues? For example, would a Ukrainian-American never be able to treat a Russian-American fairly because of the Holodomor?

 

[IBDaMann]

We're just talking, my guy. No need to get mad.

Who is angry? I was trying to be so amazingly clear that even you would understand. Try rereading again.

He has the mutant gene. Do I win?

Not quite. Wolverine has no reason to be able to regenerate. However in one edition, Wolverine was injured (a small cut was implied with motion lines and a drop of blood) but there was no injury in subsequent panels. It seemed pretty obvious that Stan wasn't intending for his readers to think anything substantial happened, i.e. "ignore that"). But now the "bug" was out that Wolverine could heal and so Stan later wrote in a clear scratch that the healed over a few panels. Wolverine's regeneration was born ... and evolved into regeneration on steroids.

Otherwise, Wolverine simply had his bones replaced.

That's fine, I'm not saying Trump can't disagree with the guy.

It's not a disagreement. It's a strategy to win and to get his wall built. Step 1: Get this judge removed.

I'm saying that it's racist to say the reason the judge is wrong or can't do his job is because he's Mexican.

Trump didn't say the judge was wrong on anything, Trump did not disagree with anything, Trump did not say the judge could not do his job. You are the one saying that Trump is saying all this.

By this logic, no judge can ever be impartial.

Nope. It's a question of appearance and Trump is giving himself a great reason for appeal if he should lose. That's called "smart."

And you never gave me evidence that this judge was in any way loyal to Mexico.

Please read my posts. Last time: It's not a question of loyalty to Mexico. It's a question of perceived unfairness to Trump. The judge cannot appear to be unfair to any litigant in his court.

First, what is your ethnicity?

Great question! I wish I knew. How can I determine what my ethnicity is? I'd like to tell my children how they can figure out what their ethnicities are. I had previously thought that being born in the US made me a native American but then someone else implied that I was silly to think that. I'm glad that you are goiong to help me out.

Secondly, do you think people of different ethnicities are unable to be fair with each other?

At this point I'm not even sure that there are different ethnicities. It could be that people are trying to play a joke on me.

For example, would a Ukrainian-American never be able to treat a Russian-American fairly because of the Holodomor?

Is there really a "Ukranian-American" ethnicity? How is that defined? How can I find out if I have it?

 

[Yakuda]

What is this nuttiness about? You Nazis kill millions, just for money, as you know. What you mean by 'leftists', God knows. 'Normal people', I suppose.

If you think leftists are normal people you shouldn't be out of the hospital.

 

[StoneByStone]

I agree with you. I use slurs all the time ... but only those that are accurate. Since Trump's election I have had cause to refer to many whining cry-baby posters as "snowflakes" and JPP has a lot of them, making this board a target-rich environment.

Are you sure they're snowflakes? I mean, you thought I had TDS simply for disagreeing with Trump.
It looks like terms like "snowflake" and "SJW" are starting to just mean anyone who isn't far-right.

I will leave you with this: The Communist Manifesto makes no mention of "common ownership," i.e. you are simply mistaken. The Preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, makes two allusions to "common ownership" ... specifically to their relation to communism, not to socialism, i.e. you are simply mistaken.

In another highly influential one of Marx's books, Das Kapital, he outlines how the transition from private ownership to collective ownership would work. During the Socialist phase, there would be a so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." In short, a Socialist party would run the country through Direct Democracy, including control of the means of production. This is the Marxist idea of collective ownership that would eventually lead to the withering away of the state, leaving us with common ownership, no classes, and no government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

There was no direct democracy in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. There is no direct democracy in China or North Korea.

And even if I was wrong, even if there was no Direct Democracy or collective ownership in Socialism, the fact still remains that nearly all of the businesses in Nazi Germany were privately owned. The only argument you have here is that Hermann Göring COULD have nationalized all of the businesses if he wanted, but he never actually did this.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

In another highly influential one of Marx's books, Das Kapital, he outlines how the transition from private ownership to collective ownership would work. During the Socialist phase, there would be a so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." In short, a Socialist party would run the country through Direct Democracy, including control of the means of production. This is the Marxist idea of collective ownership that would eventually lead to the withering away of the state, leaving us with common ownership, no classes, and no government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

There was no direct democracy in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. There is no direct democracy in China or North Korea.

And even if I was wrong, even if there was no Direct Democracy or collective ownership in Socialism, the fact still remains that nearly all of the businesses in Nazi Germany were privately owned. The only argument you have here is that Hermann Göring COULD have nationalized all of the businesses if he wanted, but he never actually did this.

The problem with this is What if the mob (public) doesn't vote for collective ownership or control of the means of production?

 

[StoneByStone]

Not quite. Wolverine has no reason to be able to regenerate. However in one edition, Wolverine was injured (a small cut was implied with motion lines and a drop of blood) but there was no injury in subsequent panels. It seemed pretty obvious that Stan wasn't intending for his readers to think anything substantial happened, i.e. "ignore that"). But now the "bug" was out that Wolverine could heal and so Stan later wrote in a clear scratch that the healed over a few panels. Wolverine's regeneration was born ... and evolved into regeneration on steroids.

Are you suuuure about this? It's a pretty cool story, but I haven't been able to find this anywhere.
Yes, I was curious enough to google it.

It's not a disagreement. It's a strategy to win and to get his wall built. Step 1: Get this judge removed.

Sure. What I'm saying is he used racism to discredit the judge. As I mentioned before, Trump isn't really racist. He just uses racism when it suits him.
In this case, he used the stereotype that Mexican-Americans are too loyal to Mexico to do their jobs.

Please read my posts. Last time: It's not a question of loyalty to Mexico. It's a question of perceived unfairness to Trump. The judge cannot appear to be unfair to any litigant in his court.

And what are we basing this on? Why are we to assume he's incapable of being fair? Because his ancestors are Mexican, right?
I honestly don't think you really believe this wasn't a racist strategy.

Great question! I wish I knew. How can I determine what my ethnicity is? I'd like to tell my children how they can figure out what their ethnicities are. I had previously thought that being born in the US made me a native American but then someone else implied that I was silly to think that. I'm glad that you are goiong to help me out.

At this point I'm not even sure that there are different ethnicities. It could be that people are trying to play a joke on me.

Is there really a "Ukranian-American" ethnicity? How is that defined? How can I find out if I have it?

So here's why you're trying to turn this into a joke now. You've realized how insanely bad your defense of Trump's racism is. You've realized you can't seriously make the argument that someone can't be fair based on ethnicity. So now all you can really do is try to avoid the subject and make it like you were joking the entire time.
It's funny, Conservatives are supposed to be the tough ones, but they never have the balls to admit when they're wrong.

 

[StoneByStone]

The problem with this is What if the mob (public)

Fascists make it so easy to tell that they're Fascist, even though they're too pussy to admit it.

doesn't vote for collective ownership or control of the means of production?

According to Marx and Engels, Socialism is implemented through revolution, not a vote.

 

[IBDaMann]

Are you sure they're snowflakes?

Yes. Absolutely. It becomes confirmed when they melt at the first sign of a litte heat.

I mean, you thought I had TDS simply for disagreeing with Trump.

Nope. Disagreeing with Trump is not how you broadcast your TDS. Unfortunately, your TDS blinds you to the huge TDS billboard you have over your head so that you are the only one who can't see it. Another effect of TDS is the delusion that there is no such thing as TDS. Do you remember when you tried to tell me that TDS isn't real? Too funny.

It looks like terms like "snowflake" and "SJW" are starting to just mean anyone who isn't far-right.

Snowflakes, SJWs and TDS'ers all share a debilitating form of intellectual cowardice rendering them totally unable to be honest when discussing certain topics. You, for example, cannot be honest at all when talking about Trump. Shall we demonstrate your TDS?

Yes, I think we shall.

Trump has a huge list of accomplishments, each one of which has helped make America great. Pick the one you find most impressive and give Trump the praise he deserves for that accomplishment like you were introducing him for an award.

[TDS kicking in. Anything positive related to Trump is simply unacceptable. Blatant dishonesty taking over. Weasel-words already forming. Go!]

In another highly influential one of Marx's books, Das Kapital, he outlines how the transition from private ownership to collective ownership would work. During the Socialist phase, there would be a so-called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat." In short, a Socialist party would run the country through Direct Democracy, including control of the means of production.

You are confused, as is evidenced by the way you are confusing concepts.

Marx used the word "collective" when discussing the problems of Capitalism, i.e. it was a negative thing.

Marx used the term "ownership in common" only in referenceing conditions specific to historical instances in India and Russia.

So I need you to tell me in what volume you read this and to give me some verbiage so I can look it up. However, what is likely is that you are just mistaken.

Also, the word "Demokratie" ("democracy") does not appear in Das Kapital and there is no democracy in socialism (you belabored that point with North Korea).

Note: don't bother me with references to Wikipedia. I dismiss Wikipeida on sight; it is a non-authoritative source that is awash in errors.

There was no direct democracy in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

Right. As you pointed out with North Korea, socialism has no democracy. To go even further, socialism is the result of a total breakdown in democracy. Wherever there is chaos, socialism results, and there is no democracy.

And even if I was wrong,

Yes, since you were severely mistaken on that point ...

... even if there was no Direct Democracy or collective ownership in Socialism,

... which there is not ... go on ... (you should quit right here)

... the fact still remains that nearly all of the businesses in Nazi Germany were privately owned.

... until they were all taken over totally and completely by Goering.

I think we have thoroughly covered this point.


Look, this is not a competition. The moment you open your eyes to what I have been telling you, it will be the moment that you become the winner. It's all straightforward.

vThe only argument you have here is that Hermann Göring COULD have nationalized all of the businesses if he wanted, but he never actually did this.

He didn't need to "nationalize" them. Having complete control over them and merely calling them "privately owned" was sufficient. You know as well as I do that you aren't the owner if you have no control. You were the one who made a big deal about actions over labels. Goering effectively nationalized all industries but kept the label of "privately owned."

Did you read up on Vierjahresplan? Once you do there will be little doubt in your mind.

.

 

[IBDaMann]

Fascists make it so easy to tell that they're Fascist, even though they're too pussy to admit it.

Fascists are leftists. Rightists are Libertarians.

According to Marx and Engels, Socialism is implemented through revolution, not a vote.

Except in Venezuela! Too funny.

Venezuelans brought it upon themselves.

 

[StoneByStone]

Fascists are leftists. Rightists are Libertarians.

Do you really believe that or are you trolling?

 

[IBDaMann]

Do you really believe that or are you trolling?

Do you really not know this or are you just pretending to be amazingly stupid?

Name one fascist regime that wasn't socialist. Just one. Why can't you do it? Why can't you name just one?

Oh that's right, fascism is one particular implementation of socialism that happens to be diametrically opposed to communism, but it is a form of socialism.

I'll presume you have no clue what Libertarians represent or understand that they are the right-hand side of the political line.

 

[StoneByStone]

Do you really not know this or are you just pretending to be amazingly stupid?]

Calm down, my dude. Why do you Righties always get mad and resort to Ad Homs?

Name one fascist regime that wasn't socialist. Just one. Why can't you do it? Why can't you name just one?

Any country with a Dictatorship, suppression of civil liberties, and extreme glorification of the military is Fascist. This means that Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and all their puppet states were Fascist countries.
Now I know you disagree, because those countries called themselves "Socialist." So here are some Fascist countries that didn't call themselves Socialists: Francoist Spain, Austria under the Fatherland Front, Fascist Italy, the Empire of Japan, and the modern incarnations of Russia, Belarus, Cambodia, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. And those are just off the top of my head. It's also not including countries throughout history, that didn't call themselves "Fascist" but still had the attributes, such as the Holy Roman Empire.

I'll presume you have no clue what Libertarians represent or understand that they are the right-hand side of the political line.

Funny you should bring up Libertarianism. That was originally considered left-wing because of their liberal stance on social issues. Today the movement has been hijacked by Conservatives, which is why it's now considered right-wing. It's also why Libertarianism has gone nowhere in America. So-called Libertarians have no power in America because it's become a bullshit movement used to try to lure Liberals to the Right. And they use the same kind of economics that Conservatives use to make the rich even richer, which leads to authoritarian policies.

Please give this video a watch. I don't agree with everything here, but it does a fantastic job telling the history of the Right.

 

[IBDaMann]

Any country with a Dictatorship, suppression of civil liberties, and extreme glorification of the military is Fascist.

For some odd reason you decided to incorrectly muddy the waters with the subjective perception of military glorification. Delete that. It has nothing to do with anything.

Fascism is characterized by a liberty-suppressing dictator, yes. If you have that then you have fascism.

This means that Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and all their puppet states were Fascist countries.

Yes, and they were all socialist, fascist, Marxist, leftist. What part confuses you?

So your job was to name a fascist regime that is NOT socialist, however none exist because all fascist countries are socialist and all socialist countries become fascist (they don't necessarily start out that way but they become fascist very quickly).

Funny you should bring up Libertarianism. That was originally considered left-wing because of their liberal stance on social issues.

Libertarians absolutely present a challenge to analysts because it is a spectrum that ranges from "Founding Fathers Intent" to "Indistinguishable from Marxist Anarchists" (Idealistic Karl Marx-brand Communists).

Question: What is the difference between an "Extreme Libertarian" and a "Marxist Anarchist"? Each will tell you that they are diametrically opposed to each other and that the other is cause of all the problems in the world, so the differences must be many and glaring, yes?

Today the movement has been hijacked by Conservatives,

You can give it up. The answer is no.

Conservatives pilfer platform planks from Libertarians all the time. Many Libertarian politicians infiltrate the Republican party and run as Republicans, e.g. Rand Paul, because nobody outside a Republican or a Democrat has any sort of chance.

It's also why Libertarianism has gone nowhere in America.

Nope. Libertarians hamstrung themselves just like all other parties that adopted a charter. Only Republicans and Democrats are completely unencumbered by any charter and have full flexibility to adjust, waffle, back-pedal, pull-180's, reverse course and to adopt whatever politically expedient stance is required to WIN! Libertarians cannot do this, and just like every other party with a charter, every election they are rejected by everybody over some immutable charter position that they cannot change,

OK, so quickly ... problems with the video:
1) Neither of the writers mentioned at the beginning of the video drafted a revolutionary Constitution to serve as the foundation for the greatest country in human history. They had opinions about nobility that the Founding Fathers specifically outlawed because the Founding Fathers were geniuses.
2) It's a waste of time to dwell on "when" a product is bestown value. All economics runs off the supply-demand curve.
3) Price does not equal Value. Price realization occurs when Price falls somewhere below the consumer-assigned Value while still remaining above the producer's costs. Incidentally, if Price were to always be the Value then there could never be a bargain.
4) Video is clearly trying to assign credit for Value, i.e. laborer or consumer. Stupid waste of time.
5) To believe the author of the video one must accept that the people mentioned somehow owned, and contiune to own, conservatism.
6) At the 5:56 mark, I am finished watching this video. It's crap. It's insulting actually, and it is by no means accurate. "Humans are innately unequal and society flourishes when power is doled out to the deserving." That is the doctrine of the DNC. I know of no conservative who has ever held that view.

The correct answer is that modern conservatism is championed by Rush Limbaugh. On what point specifically do you and he disagree?