Conquer Club

78-81 Communists in Congress?

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:00 am

Members of U.S. House ā€˜Progressive Caucus’ pay birthday visit to Cuban dictator

Image
Members of the U.S. Congress on a 2009 trip to visit the Cuban dictatorship.
Rep. Barbara Lee (second from right), is currently on a visit to the island
with representatives Lynn Woolsey and Sam Farr, both of California.


*you might remember Bobby Rush (black panther), the guy that wore the hoodie on the floor of Congress to show solidarity with Trayvon Martin



Six members of the US Congress traveled to Castro’s Communist Cuba over the weekend to open talks aimed at establishing a cooperative relationship between the United States and Communist Cuba. The six member Congressional delegation to Cuba included the following House Representatives;

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

All six are leadership members within the 2009 Congressional Black Caucus. The caucus, founded by one time card carrying member of the Communist Party, U.S. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, has 42 members as of today, 30 of which are also members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.


The Black Panthers, the Social Justice crowd, and the Islamo-Facists and the Communists share many of the same goals. That is why they work together.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Baron Von PWN on Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:18 am

My god, someone thinks that ending a now pointless cold war policy against cuba is a worthwhile endeavor?!?!?!

This insidious plot to destroy america must be stopped!
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Apr 22, 2012 6:39 am

Phatscotty wrote:Members of U.S. House ā€˜Progressive Caucus’ pay birthday visit to Cuban dictator

Image
Members of the U.S. Congress on a 2009 trip to visit the Cuban dictatorship.
Rep. Barbara Lee (second from right), is currently on a visit to the island
with representatives Lynn Woolsey and Sam Farr, both of California.


*you might remember Bobby Rush (black panther), the guy that wore the hoodie on the floor of Congress to show solidarity with Trayvon Martin

and also


Six members of the US Congress traveled to Castro’s Communist Cuba over the weekend to open talks aimed at establishing a cooperative relationship between the United States and Communist Cuba. The six member Congressional delegation to Cuba included the following House Representatives;

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

All six are leadership members within the 2009 Congressional Black Caucus. The caucus, founded by one time card carrying member of the Communist Party, U.S. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. of Michigan, has 42 members as of today, 30 of which are also members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.


The Black Panthers, the Social Justice crowd, and the Islamo-Facists and the Communists share many of the same goals. That is why they work together.


Baron Von PWN wrote:My god, someone thinks that ending a now pointless cold war policy against cuba is a worthwhile endeavor?!?!?!

This insidious plot to destroy America must be stopped!


What should be noticed is that the leadership of the Progressive Caucus paid a surprise visit to Castro on his birthday, which doesn't actually help the people who argue that Progressives aren't allied balls deep with Communists. (my god!).

It does bolster Allen West's claim however.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby GreecePwns on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:13 am

Who else would've even thought of even going to Cuba? The rest of Congress is too 'MUUURICA to even realize how stupid our policy toward Cuba is.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.

Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
User avatar
Corporal GreecePwns
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lawn Guy Lint

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby spurgistan on Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:33 pm

"The Black Panthers, the Social Justice crowd, and the Islamo-Facists and the Communists share many of the same goals. That is why they work together."

That is some serious investigative journalism right there. I'm surprised the conspiracy hasn't already silenced this brave, racist soul.
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby comic boy on Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:00 pm

To understand the motivation for this thread you must first understand that Phatscotty is a reactionary , racist Troll.
Im a TOFU miSfit
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Lootifer on Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:05 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
He did get the part out about how the Communists changed their names to Progressive.

Many people ask "What does progressive mean? What are you progressing to?" The answer, whether Progressives know it or not, is....

Image

anyone who might consider themselves Progressive should take a look at how similar Progressivism is to Communism. Progressive doesn't mean what he think it means anymore...it's just a less negative name for Communists

I assume this is your answer to all PD's TPDS threads yeah? Calling him a troll didn't work so fight fire with fire?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:07 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:If we can just agree that Marxism is Marxism, half of this would not be necessary.


But language isn't that simple. It's interpreted subjectively and by many individuals, and their interaction leads to outcomes of a generally accepted term and/or of a term that is only accepted in certain groups, and blah blah blah. This post of mine tries to explain the meaning of Marxism as related to this thread.


1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Marx and his ideas and theories.
1-10, how warm would you say Obama is to Adam Smith and his ideas and theories.


It's difficult to say because you're asking me to surgically remove each person's many ideas which are embedded in a specific context of a specific time in history, and then apply them to today. Too much blood gets on the floor while the old ideas are ruined beyond recognition due to the elements.


I understand, but just take a stab, go with your gut, estimate.

Maybe you could proximate if you think Obama is more of a capitalist than a Communist or socialist, or more of a free market guy than a government control guy, more an indiviualist than a collective guy, or vice versa.


He's much more "central planning" than "spontaneous order."

He's much more "government control" than "free market."


More capitalist or more socialist? ... He's more of a Keynesian. Haha, even Keynes was advocating for the "socialization of investment" which many of his fanboys ignore or try to apologize away.

(Here's something else the Keynesian fanboys try to ignore:)
show



If Obama has been or is holding closed door meetings with the owners of some of the largest insurance companies, then he would be a supporter of crony capitalism.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Symmetry on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:11 pm

Ah, BBS, still going with the idea that free markets are the solution if only it weren't for those pesky politicians?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:15 pm

Symmetry wrote:Ah, BBS, still going with the idea that free markets are the solution if only it weren't for those pesky politicians?


The world would be great if men were angels, but if they aren't, then let's put some of them in government, amirite?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Symmetry on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:19 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Ah, BBS, still going with the idea that free markets are the solution if only it weren't for those pesky politicians?


The world would be great if men were angels, but if they aren't, then let's put some of them in government, amirite?


You'd be great friends with Marx of the Manifesto, but a poor bedfellow of Marx of the Kapital.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:25 pm

Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Ah, BBS, still going with the idea that free markets are the solution if only it weren't for those pesky politicians?


The world would be great if men were angels, but if they aren't, then let's put some of them in government, amirite?


You'd be great friends with Marx of the Manifesto, but a poor bedfellow of Marx of the Kapital.


I dunno... it really depends on the last time Marx had a shower.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Lootifer on Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:51 pm

Doesnt that quote, BBS, just mean that some idea can be applied to one situation/scenario easier than another?

Doesnt necessarily mean they are advocating any specific situation/scenario?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:41 pm

Lootifer wrote:Doesnt that quote, BBS, just mean that some idea can be applied to one situation/scenario easier than another?

Doesnt necessarily mean they are advocating any specific situation/scenario?


The quote by itself certainly doesn't advocate for fascism or totalitarian, and let's disregard the fact that Keynes happily endorsed giving his book to a fascist state, so that they have the means and rhetoric for justifying control over their people.

When that quote is taken within the larger context, like his General Theory--especially Chapter 24, then it's apparent that Keynes is advocating for the "socialization of investment." Much of his book promotes the state-management of interest rates, investment, and saving rates.

So, whether the state is fascist, socialist, or democratic, it doesn't matter, so long as the state controls investment through interest rates and saving. And let's not forget the "fiscal stimulus" where the state takes direct control of investment from the civilians and chooses to make investments wherever. That's the state controlling the means of production through control over interest rates. In that sense, it's new face of socialism, or more accurately "Keynesianism."
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Lootifer on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:12 am

I would hardly call the manipulation of the interest rate in the overnight market "the new face of socialism". I would personally call it the pragmatic alternative for economies that have little taste for anarchy.

In fact socialism is [imo] irrelevant in the modern economies (those which are free-ish) since most of the core principles refer to outdated or non-existant ideas/concepts/entities.

Oh but since we are throwing out phrases and paraphrases of well known people in order to manipulate the discussion:
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging; and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard, with abhorrence, the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment, than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.

Guess who?!?!




;)
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Night Strike on Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:36 am

gradybridges wrote:
Night Strike wrote:If a person believes in Communism, let them share their beliefs open and in the public. If the people don't like that viewpoint, they will be voted out of office. It's this backhanded re-labeling of their ideas that are causing us to move closer to Communism without most people realizing or recognizing it. Be open about your beliefs and let the public decide who they want to be representing them.

I just wish the Republicans would be honest about what they are doing. The Repubs relabled themselves as The Tea Party to gain control of the House in 2010 and have been using religion, abortions, and guns(for the last 30 years) to hide their real objective of killing unions, tax breaks to millionairs on up, and unregulating Wall Street. I just wish they would be honest about what they really believe in.

This thread mad my head hurt.


It's a shame that Republicans have tried to relabel themselves as Tea Party members yet have no desire to cut government spending. The Tea Party is trying to remove those Republicans from Congress just as much as the Democrats.

And how do Tea Party people want to kill all unions? The case can be made for public sector unions because they vote for the same people they are negotiating with, but that can't be compared to private businesses. All Tea Party people want is for people to have the freedom to decide whether or not they want to join a union. And why does the union get to draw their "dues" directly from a person's paycheck? Why can't the members willingly write checks to the union instead of having their money taken from them before even seeing it?

Tea Party people aren't looking to deregulate Wall Street; we just believe there are already plenty of regulations in place that are stifling growth. If new regulations are going to be passed, they need to be passed by Congress and thoroughly justified before implementation. The Obama administration has added 10,000 new regulations since they took office? Every single one of these are justified? And how many of these were actually voted on by Congress, the only entity that the Constitution allows to make laws?

If Tea Partiers are looking for new tax cuts for the wealthy, it's only because the wealthy are those who create jobs, write paychecks, etc. Most of us are just saying that we have enough taxes already and are fighting against this administration's innate desire to raise taxes. Furthermore, the poor don't pay any taxes already, so of course tax cuts would affect rich people more than poor people. Saying they only want tax cuts for millionaires is a completely false argument.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:17 am

This was just published today, thought I would share it.

How does America match up with the 10 point plan of the Communist Manifesto? A lot more than you might think!

1. Abolition of private property

The first plank of Communism is the abolishment of private property. America is certainly here in terms of eminent domain, where the state has the ability to expropriate private property ā€œfor the public good.ā€ Per the Fifth Amendment, the government must fairly compensate a citizen in return, but lines tend to blur when the government is given the authority to assess what is ā€œfair and justā€ in the first place. Regardless of whether the final sum is one agreeable to the private citizen, the property will still be confiscated with or without the owner’s consent.

Typically, land or property acquired through eminent domain is used to house public works that are10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life intended to benefit the community such as public utilities, freeways, libraries and schools. It is a slippery slope, however. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, the scope of eminent domain was expanded outside its traditional boundaries to include revitalizing ā€œdepressed areas.ā€ In other words, in the spirit of gentrification or regeneration, a citizen’s private property can be seized by the government to build a sports complex, or even a shopping mall if the state deems it a public good.

Another example of government encroachment on citizens’ private property is evident in the far-reach of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) that buy mortgages on the secondary market. If a citizen’s mortgage is held by one of these government-backed giants, Uncle Sam is entirely ā€œtoo close to home.ā€

Interconnected is property tax. Simply, if one is subject to property tax, then the land or property being taxed doesn’t actually belong to the ā€œowner.ā€ Fall behind on these payments and the government will seize a citizen’s home, business or land, regardless of whether his or her mortgage is paid in full.

10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeHomes are not the only area subject to government encroachment, however. In fact, Uncle Sam owns roughly 650 million acres of land across the 50 states — with its highest ownership stake (85%) in Nevada. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also has the authority to seize private property during ā€œemergencyā€ situations.

2. Heavy progressive income tax

This particular tenet needs no introduction, nor example. America now holds the world record for highest corporate tax rate, surpassing even Japan. This is a crucial plank of the Manifesto, as it ensures that nary a high income earner will remain standing and everyone may subsist in equal mediocrity or (worse).

Ironically, Communists bang on incessantly about ā€œequalityā€ when in fact a flat-tax is arguably the fairest system of all and one that would, by design, ensure ā€œfrom each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.ā€ If a 10% flat tax were implemented, then 10% of a $5,000 income would amount to far less than 10% of a $500,000 income. Thus, those who make more money, still pay more. Alas, that is certainly not the way Marx would have portrayed it. Nor is it the way the current administration seems to see it given the president’s renewed push to instate ā€The Buffett Rule,ā€ which seeks to raise the income tax rate on high income earners — including small business owners — even higher than it is now.

Regardless, whether one is subject to a flat or a progressive tax system, a foreboding and omnipotent force looms dangerously over the American ether: The IRS. Fail to pay your ā€œfair share,ā€ and you will soon learn of the government’s ultimate power — to freeze your bank accounts, seize your property, penalize and, in some instances even imprison you. There is perhaps no greater example of a Marxist economic policy in action than this.

3. Abolition to all rights of inheritance

One of the many stark contradictions found in the Manifesto is outlined in this particular pillar. What was most ironic about Marx’s desire to abolish inheritance was that, if he had his way, citizens would not own anything of value to bequeath upon death in the first place. Nonetheless, his odd and arguably redundant tenet has worked its way into the American landscape via the estate tax — and its very alias, the ā€œdeath tax.ā€ This alone should raise eyebrows, if not outright suspicion of government’s dubious motives.

First, many argue the estate tax is unconstitutional because it creates a direct tax that is not disbursed to the states for collection. But the more obvious discrepancy is that it allows the government to tax individuals twice, as the items that find their way into one’s estate — be they a car, house, land, jewelry or other valuable possessions — have already been subject to either sales or property tax once before. The Federal government’s carte blanche to double-dip is spurred further by Democrats’ renewed push to resurrect and expand what the Wall Street Journal dubs President Obama’s ā€œnight of living death tax.ā€

With the staggering rate applied to estates worth over $5 million, citizens may soon wonder why it is worth the bother to spend a lifetime building a personal or business empire to pass down to their children and grandchildren at all. By the second generation, there would be nothing left.

4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants & rebels

This Manifesto pillar is perhaps best laid out in the recent string of government crackdowns on ā€œhomegrown militias.ā€ Those who have paid careful attention to Janet Napolitano know that one of Homeland Security’s preoccupations of late has been the ā€œriseā€ of ā€œhomegrown militias.ā€ With this in mind, the department is likely honing in on anyone considered an ā€œopposition group,ā€ be they merely survivalists or those with a more militant bent.

Some may recall the Michigan militia, or ā€Hutaree,ā€ as they are known — a group of anti-government ā€œrebelsā€ who were allegedly engaged in preparations for a potential future clash with federal agencies. The defendants were accused of conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, a planned assassination of a police officer, and an ambush of that officer’s funeral with explosives in order to incite an uprising against the Federal government. While the anticipated attack never actually occurred, this did not stop the Feds, under the blessing of Attorney General Eric Holder, from raiding the Hutaree’s various outposts, confiscating its members’ arms and waging an all-out legal battle against the group.

At the end of March, 2012, presiding U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed the most serious of the charges against the Hutaree, leveling a staggering blow to the Fed. She said the members’ hatred of government did not amount to a conspiracy to overthrow it.

It remains unclear whether the Hutaree were indeed poised to be the aggressors of a violent assault or if they were simply anti-big-government, ā€œgood ol’ boyā€œ survivalists preparing to ā€defend themselvesā€ against a perceived government threat. But the Federal agencies’ indictment of the group perhaps reveals how government will deal with homegrown ā€œthreatsā€ — be they real or perceived — moving forward.

Another key element, and one that warrants mention due to its relevance in modern day America, is10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life the confiscation of citizens’ weapons. Those who have felt their Second Amendment rights slowly whittle away understand that disarming the public is a crucial step vital to ensuring the state’s grip over its citizenry. In fact, one of the first tasks performed by the then-fledgling Soviet state was the confiscation of citizens’ private arms — even hunting rifles. By stripping people of the ability to defend themselves, the authoritarian state could reign over the vulnerable Russian populace. Many Americans consider this a highly plausible reality given increasingly stringent gun laws and regulations spread across all 50-states.

It should also be noted that IRS liens, levies and seizures are all means by which the Federal government can confiscate a ā€œrebelā€ entity’s assets — one instance being the recent IRS ā€œshakedownā€ of Tea Party members. And, in terms of ā€œemigrants,ā€ taxing the off-shore income and assets of American citizens, or causing Americans to give up their U.S. citizenship and flee to foreign lands to avoid abusive U.S. taxes, is yet another means by which the Fed’s confiscatory, overreaching tentacles are changing the American landscape. Statistics point out a rising trend…

5. Centralization and monopolization of credit by means of a national bank

10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeCreated by Congress in 1913, the Federal Reserve is, for all intents and purposes, Americaā€˜s national bank charged with setting the monetary policy that controls the nation’s economic stability. The Federal Reserve holds the power to guide interest rates, thus controlling inflation. The effects of this agency’s actions are felt in measurable ways by everyday Americans, every day. From the interest rate accrued to mortgages and other lines of credit to determining the value of one’s home, it is both the seen and unforeseen reach of this institution that sets the tone for Americans’ financial security.

On the grander scale, the Federal Reserve has the more sinister power of devaluing U.S. currency, and thus the value of goods, services and property, via ā€œquantitative easing,ā€ or, as it is affectionately dubbed, printing money.

ā€œOne of the fundamental problems with the U.S. economy right now is the Federal Reserve thinks the answer to all our economic problems is printing money,ā€ said the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore. ā€œWe haven’t created new jobs from all of this printing of money, but what we have produced is inflation in prices.ā€

6. Centralized control of communication & transportation

a) Transportation

The ways in which the Federal government controls America’s communication and transportation systems are almost too vast to count, but a few shining examples stand out. In terms of transportation, the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Aviation Authority and the Department of Transportation are of course the most obvious government bureaucracies controlling the country’s means of transport. Less-obvious, perhaps, is Amtrak, a government owned corporation and essentially the only passenger rail carrier in the country. Indeed the railroad industry’s metamorphosis from a private enterprise to a nationalized entity perhaps tells the greatest tale of the insidious ways in which the Federal government appropriates what it wants, when it wants.

The once flourishing U.S. rail industry’s day in the sun was eclipsed when the Fed introduced a ā€œrate-10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Lifesettingā€ scheme by which rail carriers were forced to adopt. The result was a decrease in profits, decrease in rail system growth, decrease in investments and an increase in labor costs. Not surprisingly, this had the reverse effect than that intended by the Fed when it first set rail carrier rates. In 1971 Amtrak was formed by the U.S. government. The obvious lesson here is that if government can destroy an industry to such a degree that that industry’s only means of survival moving forward is through nationalization, there is no reason to think it couldn’t just as easily happen to a commercial air carrier, for example, or any other privately held mode of transportation.

As mentioned above, air traffic, ground traffic and maritime traffic via the nation’s port authorities are all overseen and subject to take-over by the government should FEMA deem a state of emergency.

b) Communication

Presently, when it comes to communication, conservatives argue that nothing screams of Marxism louder than the Federal Communications Commission and Obama’s appointment of its ā€œChief Diversity Officer,ā€ Frank Lloyd.

10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeOne of the administration’s many ā€œczars,ā€ Lloyd was a senior fellow at the progressive think tank, Center for American Progress, where he authored a June 2007 report titled, ā€The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.ā€ The content may point to Lloyd’s intentions when it comes to silencing voices of opposition, and many conservatives believe that Obama’s ā€œDiversity Czarā€ intends to revive the Fairness Doctrine.

For those unfamiliar, the Fairness Doctrine, adopted in 1949, obligated broadcasters to provide opposing points of view on issues of national importance regardless of actual market demand for the content. Media Research Center’s Setton Motley said, if reinstated, caps would be placed on local and national ownership of commercial radio stations; local accountability over licensing would be ensured; and those not in compliance would be subject to paying a fee to support public broadcasting. As it stands, the FCC already levies heavy regulations on broadcasters and monitors all communication aired across radio and television waves.

Looking forward, another impending threat can be found in the current struggle for control over the Internet. Currently, the World Wide Web is controlled by the U.S. government via the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and its subsidiary, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Both are under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

There has been a growing push, however, for America to relinquish its control in the name of a world ā€œwithout borders,ā€œ or ā€one world government.ā€ Countries like China and Russia, in particular, have vied for control, doggedly pursuing the United Nations for assistance in breaking the U.S. stronghold.

If the U.N.’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU), along with its nearly 200 member state allies were to take control of the levers, cyber security and data privacy would be subject to international control.

While even in the land of the free no information received or transmitted over the Internet escapes the prying eyes of Big Brother, it goes without saying America’s First Amendment rights still ensure a far more liberated information superhighway than the one that would exist under the reins of a dubious global body formed by the U.N. and led by China and Russia. Meanwhile, the entire global economy hangs in the balance.

7. Government ownership of factories

In terms of government owned factories, few could ever forget ā€œGovernment Motors.ā€ After nearly $53 billion in bailout funds over the course of two administrations, the U.S. government now owns a controlling stake in GM, raising the obvious question of how government can fairly regulate its own business. While GM asked the government to intervene, and while Amtrak was instead a victim of a federally-engineered scheme, both are examples of how government assumes control of private enterprise. Typically, it is the American taxpayer who fails to reap the dividends and becomes the victim of these machinations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor

The first thought which springs to mind when reading the Manifesto’s tenet on equal labor is the overriding presence of labor unions within the U.S. workforce. While labor unions in and of themselves are not nationalized organizing bodies, they have enjoyed a long and harmonious relationship with government, particularly through the progressive policies and lawmakers that prop up their various agendas. In fact, there may be no brighter an illustration of socialism manifested than the collective organizing body of America’s labor unions. Although subject to regulation and oversight by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unions still overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates, thus a cycle of quid pro quo is perpetuated.

Another example of government control in the workplace emerges via the Labor Department’s Affirmative Action policies. By mandating that employers meet a staff-quota comprised of women, minorities and people with disabilities, private business is being forced to relinquish its ability to hire on the basis of merit, thus failing to deliver excellence and best practices. While many women, minorities and those with disabilities do indeed possess the skill sets needed to succeed in a specific job, it should, critics argue, be left to private enterprise to determine which candidate is best suited for the task at hand.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a government owned corporation, has been hailed a prime10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American Life example of true socialism in America. It is the country’s largest public power company, with a generating capacity of 31,658 megawatts. Its 17,000 miles of transmission lines deliver power through 158 locally owned distributors to 8.5 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. While even Republicans, for the most part, consider TVA to be a success, its case is considered unique in that the government model has never been able to be successfully duplicated along any other State waterway.

Agricultural subsidies are another prime example of this Manifesto plank in motion. An extensive analysis conducted by the CATO Institute determined that, when it comes to corporate welfare no one has reaped a greater windfall, or hurt taxpayers more than the ā€œsupermarket to the world,ā€ Archer Daniels. An excerpt from the report reads:

ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers. Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period. At least 43 percent of ADM’s annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM’s corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

Aside from being incongruent with the free market, the nation’s agricultural subsidies cost tax payers tens of billions of dollars each year and typically only benefit larger farming outfits.

On the flip side, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is placing greater and greater restrictions on business in the form of cap and trade and in mandating the purchase of carbon credits.

10. Free education for all children in government controlled schools

What can be said of America’s beleaguered public education system could fill volumes, yet one needn’t look far to pluck one or two prime examples as proof that there are indeed no ā€œfree lunches.ā€

The Blaze recently uncovered a series of reports revealing what happens when a bureaucrat decides that the school district, along with its unionized faculty members, know better about a child’s needs than his or her parents do. Whether the control comes via mandating a child’s school lunch box contents, or altering the Pledge of Allegiance to omit the phrase ā€œone nation under God,ā€ or subjecting students to inadequate instruction from a teacher solely on the basis of that teacher’s tenure – a teacher who cannot be fired or replaced — the public school system is, arguably, setting up generations for failure.

Free medicine…the 11th tenet?

10 Tenets of The Communist Manifesto Manifested in American LifeWhile not addressed specifically in the 10 tenets of the Communist Manifesto, national health care is perhaps — at least in modern day America — ā€œthe key to the empire.ā€ It is why the fate of Obamacare is of utmost importance to the left. If passed, it sets precedent by establishing the ā€œnew normalā€ in government authority over private citizens. Legal experts and pundits alike have consistently argued the unconstitutionality of the health care bill, underscoring its significance as a ā€œgatewayā€ to other forms of government intrusion.

The bill’s unconstitutionality is irrelevant to those who, while claiming to champion the founding document, appear to be working to dismantle it.

Some balk at the use of the word ā€œCommunism,ā€ dismissing its invocation as hyperbole. Yet when dissecting actual policies, laws, regulations and bureaucratic government approaches which Americans are increasingly subjected to, and weighing them against the 10 progressive ā€œrules to live by,ā€ the facts scream loudly and clearly in the face of those who deny the ever-creeping onset of Socialism. Marx’s Communist ā€œutopiaā€ is only one evolutionary stage away from reality.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Apr 23, 2012 1:40 am

Lootifer wrote:I would hardly call the manipulation of the interest rate in the overnight market "the new face of socialism". I would personally call it the pragmatic alternative for economies that have little taste for anarchy.

In fact socialism is [imo] irrelevant in the modern economies (those which are free-ish) since most of the core principles refer to outdated or non-existant ideas/concepts/entities.


I agree with the later part, which was what I was telling Phatscotty when he asked me for that 1-10 scale.

If socialism means "the state control over the means of production," and since interest rates are related to decisions concerning production and are thereby a means of production, then controlling these interest rates is controlling one mean of production. In that sense, it's socialism. Why do you think Keynes called it "socialization of investment"? We didn't even get into what the Soviets did: control production. That's essentially "fiscal stimulus." Government has money, spends on investing in capital and equipment, and orders X to be done. Somehow, that's not socialism?

Why do you think that manipulating interest rates by a central planning authority is more pragmatic? Why is this more effective than the market process?


Lootifer wrote:Oh but since we are throwing out phrases and paraphrases of well known people in order to manipulate the discussion:
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging; and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard, with abhorrence, the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment, than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.

Guess who?!?!




;)


The government doesn't prevent this (even when it intervenes), people have agency, labor is not homogenous, etc. They're not mindless automatons that are bred like dogs into accepting a particular trade. One can paint them as such, but it's still not true.

Let's change "But in every improved and civilized society..." into "But in every hunter-gatherer and early agricultural societies." Neither holds true, although the laboring individual, or the "labouring poor" of the latter societies, seems "spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects, too, are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention, in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur."

You can gloss over details and say, "yes, these people do the same things every day all the time, and have no occasion to exert their understanding, or invent, or improvise" but it isn't true. If it was, then how did some improvise when labor was so seemingly similar, day in and day out? How could he explain the development and growth of technology?

show
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Lootifer on Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:59 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:I agree with the later part, which was what I was telling Phatscotty when he asked me for that 1-10 scale.

If socialism means "the state control over the means of production," and since interest rates are related to decisions concerning production and are thereby a means of production, then controlling these interest rates is controlling one mean of production. In that sense, it's socialism. Why do you think Keynes called it "socialization of investment"? We didn't even get into what the Soviets did: control production. That's essentially "fiscal stimulus." Government has money, spends on investing in capital and equipment, and orders X to be done. Somehow, that's not socialism?

Why do you think that manipulating interest rates by a central planning authority is more pragmatic? Why is this more effective than the market process?

Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.

Intelligent blah blah blah <3

Adam Smith said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they're all correct because he's Adam Smith.

Thats my my key point.

If you apply PS logic to that quote, and others (like his over-used-by-commie-basterds-like-me-quote about graduated taxes), then quite clearly Adam Smith was a Communist as well.

Idiotic politics is idiotic; PS should have his voting rights removed imo.
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Night Strike on Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:08 pm

Lootifer wrote:Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.


If you value and want freedom, then Communism is evil. It is the complete opposite of freedom.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby rdsrds2120 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:29 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.


If you value and want freedom, then Communism is evil. It is the complete opposite of freedom.


So, everyone should be completely free?

-rd
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Lootifer on Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:32 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.


If you value and want freedom, then Communism is evil. It is the complete opposite of freedom.

I was talking about socialism, or moderate leftism or whatever you like to call it. Still evil?
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby Phatscotty on Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:47 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.


If you value and want freedom, then Communism is evil. It is the complete opposite of freedom.


So, everyone should be completely free?

-rd


And...nobody should force their debts or their beliefs onto other people, especially the unborn.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:25 am

Lootifer wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I agree with the later part, which was what I was telling Phatscotty when he asked me for that 1-10 scale.

If socialism means "the state control over the means of production," and since interest rates are related to decisions concerning production and are thereby a means of production, then controlling these interest rates is controlling one mean of production. In that sense, it's socialism. Why do you think Keynes called it "socialization of investment"? We didn't even get into what the Soviets did: control production. That's essentially "fiscal stimulus." Government has money, spends on investing in capital and equipment, and orders X to be done. Somehow, that's not socialism?

Why do you think that manipulating interest rates by a central planning authority is more pragmatic? Why is this more effective than the market process?

Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.

Intelligent blah blah blah <3

Adam Smith said a lot of things, but it doesn't mean they're all correct because he's Adam Smith.

Thats my my key point.

If you apply PS logic to that quote, and others (like his over-used-by-commie-basterds-like-me-quote about graduated taxes), then quite clearly Adam Smith was a Communist as well.

Idiotic politics is idiotic; PS should have his voting rights removed imo.


You're a Commie if you think manipulating interest rates by a central planning authority is more pragmatic!!!111

Edit: Added some 1's for emphasis.
Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: 78-81 Communists in Congress?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Apr 24, 2012 12:26 am

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
Lootifer wrote:Fair enough, just semantics now. I was just taking beef with PS's' use of the word as though it was something evil (which I know you feel it is, and thats fine, rational opinion etc etc - but PS is acting with a clear, and arguably irrational, political agenda in this thread), which it isnt; its just another way to skin the proverbial cat.


If you value and want freedom, then Communism is evil. It is the complete opposite of freedom.


So, everyone should be completely free?

-rd


I pay $0.00 for you. Done. When can I pick you up and ship you to saxi's dungeon?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users