To be as nice as possible Ron Paul is a twit
I'm not a fan of R.P. either, and this is just another thing he's wrong about. Sure in the short term P-BO may appear to be a "corporatist." But the fiasco with GM should show us how easy it is for the government to take over big-biz. How to make Corporate Flambé:1. Add liberal doses of regulation to force higher prices2. Mince employee loyalty with unions to minimize profits3. Stir public angst with media newspeak4. Chop contracts that not politically correct.5. Douse legislation and litigation to exploit mistakes6. Add other diabolical ingredients to taste7. Ignite and consume P-BO's end game is a Marxist United States.
Extractor - you ignorant fool. Democrats are not Marxist and a simple 5-minute reading of what Marxism is would show you that, but that must be 5 minutes of your life that you're unwilling to turn away from Fox News and think for yourself.How ironic that when Glen and Rush tell you to whine about Marxism you do. In fact, GM has paid back significant portions of the loans they received. In fact, the US government has profited from parts of these bailouts. In fact, without these bailouts we would be sitting under a Chinese flag now instead of the Stars and Stripes.Bottom line: if you can't stand all this stuff, pack your bags and join Rush in Costa Rica. Those of us that actually care are doing, not whining. And we're doing what we can to keep improving the country.
Anonymous, you ignorant slut. Okay, that's enough of the personal insults. Consider the remainder of this statement an effort to educate.You state that, "GM has paid back significant portions of the loans." That's great, but that does not cover for the fact that our constitutional government did not have the right to undergird GM (or any company--big or small) in the first place. And it also misstates something important--the money was originally supposed to be loaned, but our glorious leader changed it into shares.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889.htmlI am a student of history, and have learned how Marxists function. I've been following this for nearly 30 years. I'll confess that it has been nearly that many years since I read Marx and Engels. I downloaded their Manifesto from here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/.Here are a few interesting quotes ..."The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, butthe abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property" (p.14).The polarizing division of property owners from laborers, rich from poor, "bourgeois" from the "proletariat" is a distinguishing feature of Marxism. In modern parlance, it is the "haves verses the have-nots." Divide and conquer. Rather than have the lower class try to emulate the upper class and thereby gain prosperity for themselves, Marx and Obama work to inspire jealousy and hatred."In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. Incommunist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote theexistence of the laborer" (p.15).This means that those with the ability, determination, and drive to succeed must be subordinate to those whom they would employ. Marx and Engels thought that having the laborers in control would produce prosperity for all. In fact, it only made everyone equally poor."Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations" (p.16).Point of fact, this is exactly what communism does. Products disappear because the bourgeois are the one who risk their wealth to employ the proletariat. Take a look at page 20-21 of the Communist Manifesto for a clue about our nation's direction. Consider it a playbook.BTW, my graduate work is in communication and propaganda (as a form of rhetoric) is a favorite topic of mine. My master's thesis was on Nietzsche, which reminds me that I need to mine its depths for blog material. These men (Nietzsche, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Chávez, Kim) had/have similar modus operandi, and frankly, it's all vile.You can place your hope in progressivism, but in the end, you'll only make yourself a slave of an intolerable dictatorship. As Reagan said, "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."One more thing ... thanks for mentioning Glenn and Rush. They are, certainly, the most vocal opponents of Marxism today. I support their efforts wholeheartedly. Perhaps you need to turn off Keith Olbermann.Blessings,The Extractorhttp://smeltingpyrite.blogspot.com/* * * *Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the communist party (S. Moore, Trans.). Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Post a Comment
Blog and Social Technologies Implemented by Social Stratosphere