Defeat the radical left Press in America!

[Dante the Marxist]

Andy? It has been days, if not weeks. Are you running?

 

[Andy]

Sorry about the delay.... two things have been pushing me away from this forum. First, very few people are interested in real debate, and rather enjoy childish sniping. There are a few people on this forum which have made coming here and discussing things rather boring. Namely Kat and Sih, Pop, and Sham. All four are on my ignore list, and make up the vast majority of posts. Sadly, this makes this forum my distant second choice for forums to visit. I spend most of my time on another forum where they don't exist.

Second, I've been pulling 12 hour shifts at work, and thus dont' have time to chat as much as normal. And what time I do have... again ends up elsewhere.

But it is *not* because you do not have some good conversation. It's just that you are the minority here. Most are childish and stupid.

Prove it doesnt work.

I would suggest that history is the proof. I would consider that nearly every type of governmental system has been tried, and multiple times, in multiple ways. That system simply doesn't work. I realize that your narrow view of it, suggests that it hasn't been tired, but on this we will just have to agree to disagree. I think it has, and it failed.

EXACTLY! He followed his prepostorous orders to the point of desease, and most people do not follow these orders because the orders suck!

What are you talking about? He got hired by a company. He followed the orders of his company, namely to sell investment policies. He worked his butt off, and earned a ton of money. Typically when you earn the company money, the company rewards you by giving you more money. He invested that money, and eventually created his own company. You say the orders suck, but he went from poverty to millionaire. If that's what suck orders are, then I'd like some sucky orders too.

The paris commune was not an oligarchy. It was run by a council of the entire working class. Just because the rich are left out of something does not make it an oligarchy. Lenin did not use the communes as an example, but stole ideas from other russian revolutionaries. Mao was just Stalin's puppet.

The rich were not left out of the commune. In fact many were in the commune. Further, the socialist portion of the commune planned to make one of them a leader of the council, just like any other oligarchy.

It's funny, we are talking about the exact same event, yet our accounts do not seem to match up at all. Maybe you need to widen your sources?

Well, those companies only controlled certian types of goods, while walmart has all of them. Walmart controls almost the entire economy, and is the first company to get big enough to have control over the world economy.

This is another tired claim. I don't think you even realize that Walmart isn't even a major international corporation. The biggest retail chain is 7-Eleven, or "Ito-Yokado" a Japanese retail chain. In fact, Walmart only has 1270 stores outside the US.

Further the left has said that exact thing about every big company that has ever existed. From Montgomery Ward, to Sears, to Standard Oil, to General Motors, to Microsoft. Yet what has been the result? Has Sears control of our economy stopped it from declining? GM? Standard Oil? Montgomery Ward? Microsoft? In all cases no. Not even close. How many times do you have to be to proven wrong before you figure out the theory doesn't fit?

Or let us even reverse the idea. If Walmart has complete control over the world economy, then why don't they charge a million dollars for a dust mop? Why don't they charge $80 for a small bag of rice? Why are their prices consistently competitive with the rest of the market if in fact they have this massive control?

Further, what real control could they have anyway? If we all choose to stop shopping at Walmart, they'd be bankrupt in a month. If we choose to continue shopping there, is that because of 'control' or a choice? I think it's a choice. Want to know how I know it's a choice to shop there? I haven't shopped there. If they have all this control, why haven't I been forced to shop there? Because they don't have that much control. All they have is competitive products at a competitive price, and people choose to go there and buy stuff, or not to.

If they are earning lots of money, it is only because they are giving the customer what it wants, for the price it wants. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Andy? It has been days, if not weeks. Are you running?

There's a lot-o'-that goin' around.



(See: TheFranklinParty)​

 

[pocketfullofshells]

There's a lot-o'-that goin' around.
​

I agree...looks around for little acorn,....​

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry about the delay.... two things have been pushing me away from this forum. First, very few people are interested in real debate, and rather enjoy childish sniping. There are a few people on this forum which have made coming here and discussing things rather boring. Namely Kat and Sih, Pop, and Sham. All four are on my ignore list, and make up the vast majority of posts. Sadly, this makes this forum my distant second choice for forums to visit. I spend most of my time on another forum where they don't exist.

Second, I've been pulling 12 hour shifts at work, and thus dont' have time to chat as much as normal. And what time I do have... again ends up elsewhere.

But it is *not* because you do not have some good conversation. It's just that you are the minority here. Most are childish and stupid.



I would suggest that history is the proof. I would consider that nearly every type of governmental system has been tried, and multiple times, in multiple ways. That system simply doesn't work. I realize that your narrow view of it, suggests that it hasn't been tired, but on this we will just have to agree to disagree. I think it has, and it failed..



What are you talking about? He got hired by a company. He followed the orders of his company, namely to sell investment policies. He worked his butt off, and earned a ton of money. Typically when you earn the company money, the company rewards you by giving you more money. He invested that money, and eventually created his own company. You say the orders suck, but he went from poverty to millionaire. If that's what suck orders are, then I'd like some sucky orders too..

He got hired. That is good. He got hired to get people to invest. Terrible. Why invest in anything? People only need to get the goods they need to live in dignity and happiness, not to become tycoons with many employees trying to do the same thing that thier boss did. Sure, they will work harder, but if the economy was based on needs instead of profits, they would not need to. That also covers the "working his butt of" portion.

The rich were not left out of the commune. In fact many were in the commune. Further, the socialist portion of the commune planned to make one of them a leader of the council, just like any other oligarchy.

It's funny, we are talking about the exact same event, yet our accounts do not seem to match up at all. Maybe you need to widen your sources?

Of course there were rich people. Back in those days, you normally had to be rich to get the kind of education that most of those famous communists had. But rich people who were just rich industrialists who basically did nothing but bark orders were left out.

By leader of the council, they probably just meant an organizer, not a dictator.



This is another tired claim. I don't think you even realize that Walmart isn't even a major international corporation. The biggest retail chain is 7-Eleven, or "Ito-Yokado" a Japanese retail chain. In fact, Walmart only has 1270 stores outside the US.

Further the left has said that exact thing about every big company that has ever existed. From Montgomery Ward, to Sears, to Standard Oil, to General Motors, to Microsoft. Yet what has been the result? Has Sears control of our economy stopped it from declining? GM? Standard Oil? Montgomery Ward? Microsoft? In all cases no. Not even close. How many times do you have to be to proven wrong before you figure out the theory doesn't fit?

Or let us even reverse the idea. If Walmart has complete control over the world economy, then why don't they charge a million dollars for a dust mop? Why don't they charge $80 for a small bag of rice? Why are their prices consistently competitive with the rest of the market if in fact they have this massive control?

Further, what real control could they have anyway? If we all choose to stop shopping at Walmart, they'd be bankrupt in a month. If we choose to continue shopping there, is that because of 'control' or a choice? I think it's a choice. Want to know how I know it's a choice to shop there? I haven't shopped there. If they have all this control, why haven't I been forced to shop there? Because they don't have that much control. All they have is competitive products at a competitive price, and people choose to go there and buy stuff, or not to.

If they are earning lots of money, it is only because they are giving the customer what it wants, for the price it wants. Nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dante the Marxist]

Sorry about the delay.... two things have been pushing me away from this forum. First, very few people are interested in real debate, and rather enjoy childish sniping. There are a few people on this forum which have made coming here and discussing things rather boring. Namely Kat and Sih, Pop, and Sham. All four are on my ignore list, and make up the vast majority of posts. Sadly, this makes this forum my distant second choice for forums to visit. I spend most of my time on another forum where they don't exist.

Second, I've been pulling 12 hour shifts at work, and thus dont' have time to chat as much as normal. And what time I do have... again ends up elsewhere.

But it is *not* because you do not have some good conversation. It's just that you are the minority here. Most are childish and stupid.



I would suggest that history is the proof. I would consider that nearly every type of governmental system has been tried, and multiple times, in multiple ways. That system simply doesn't work. I realize that your narrow view of it, suggests that it hasn't been tired, but on this we will just have to agree to disagree. I think it has, and it failed..



What are you talking about? He got hired by a company. He followed the orders of his company, namely to sell investment policies. He worked his butt off, and earned a ton of money. Typically when you earn the company money, the company rewards you by giving you more money. He invested that money, and eventually created his own company. You say the orders suck, but he went from poverty to millionaire. If that's what suck orders are, then I'd like some sucky orders too..

He got hired. That is good. He got hired to get people to invest. Terrible. Why invest in anything? People only need to get the goods they need to live in dignity and happiness, not to become tycoons with many employees trying to do the same thing that thier boss did. Sure, they will work harder, but if the economy was based on needs instead of profits, they would not need to. That also covers the "working his butt of" portion.

The rich were not left out of the commune. In fact many were in the commune. Further, the socialist portion of the commune planned to make one of them a leader of the council, just like any other oligarchy.

It's funny, we are talking about the exact same event, yet our accounts do not seem to match up at all. Maybe you need to widen your sources?

Of course there were rich people. Back in those days, you normally had to be rich to get the kind of education that most of those famous communists had. But rich people who were just rich industrialists who basically did nothing but bark orders were left out.

By leader of the council, they probably just meant an organizer, not a dictator.

This is another tired claim. I don't think you even realize that Walmart isn't even a major international corporation. The biggest retail chain is 7-Eleven, or "Ito-Yokado" a Japanese retail chain. In fact, Walmart only has 1270 stores outside the US.

Further the left has said that exact thing about every big company that has ever existed. From Montgomery Ward, to Sears, to Standard Oil, to General Motors, to Microsoft. Yet what has been the result? Has Sears control of our economy stopped it from declining? GM? Standard Oil? Montgomery Ward? Microsoft? In all cases no. Not even close. How many times do you have to be to proven wrong before you figure out the theory doesn't fit?

Or let us even reverse the idea. If Walmart has complete control over the world economy, then why don't they charge a million dollars for a dust mop? Why don't they charge $80 for a small bag of rice? Why are their prices consistently competitive with the rest of the market if in fact they have this massive control?

Further, what real control could they have anyway? If we all choose to stop shopping at Walmart, they'd be bankrupt in a month. If we choose to continue shopping there, is that because of 'control' or a choice? I think it's a choice. Want to know how I know it's a choice to shop there? I haven't shopped there. If they have all this control, why haven't I been forced to shop there? Because they don't have that much control. All they have is competitive products at a competitive price, and people choose to go there and buy stuff, or not to.

If they are earning lots of money, it is only because they are giving the customer what it wants, for the price it wants. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have been givin the impression that walmart is a super-corporation, as I live in a small town that is under it's iron boot. The eerie thing about that place is that it reminds me of the book and movie "1984". There are smiley faces on the wall next to signs that say "happy!". When I walk into that place, I get an uncontrollable urge to buy stuff, and a feeling of being small....

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I have been givin the impression that walmart is a super-corporation, as I live in a small town that is under it's iron boot. The eerie thing about that place is that it reminds me of the book and movie "1984". There are smiley faces on the wall next to signs that say "happy!". When I walk into that place, I get an uncontrollable urge to buy stuff, and a feeling of being small....

Try it some time with ear plugs or a head set on...you'll be surprised at the feeling of peace & calm that this provides...it helps to block out all of those subliminal messages that they are piping out there at us!!!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Acorn, still waiting........

 

[Andy]

He got hired. That is good. He got hired to get people to invest. Terrible. Why invest in anything? People only need to get the goods they need to live in dignity and happiness, not to become tycoons with many employees trying to do the same thing that thier boss did. Sure, they will work harder, but if the economy was based on needs instead of profits, they would not need to. That also covers the "working his butt of" portion.

The question that comes to mind is.... um... so what? People long to be free, free to pursue whatever they choose. If a guy wants to pursue being a multi-millionaire, that is what freedom is about. The reason people invested, was because they wanted to be wealthy. There is nothing wrong with that. Most people wish to be more wealthy than they are now.

What is really ironic about this conversation is, most liberals, and marxists, decry the difference in wealth. Yet here is a person who was in the gutter, and worked his way up to being a millionaire, and you are now decrying that.

If he was still in the gutter, you'd be complaining about the evil rich not helping him.

This leads me to conclude that you would rather have everyone poor.

Of course there were rich people. Back in those days, you normally had to be rich to get the kind of education that most of those famous communists had. But rich people who were just rich industrialists who basically did nothing but bark orders were left out.

No, actually they were not. Go read your history again. Many of the people in the counsel were leaders of the industries in that area.

By leader of the council, they probably just meant an organizer, not a dictator.

Not really relevant. A corporation has a CEO, CFO, CIO, CEO, and so on. Of course the CEO is the leader who makes ultimate decisions. Similarly, the council intended to have a leader of the group who would have been 'in charge' just like any other oligarchy.

Oligarchy does not always mean "dictator" in the technical sense. After all, Chairman Mao of China, was just a Chairman, right? He wasn't a dictator.... right? Castro was 'elected' too. So was Hitler and Hugo Chavez. They were all "elected". Of course all those people wouldn't be anywhere without their powerful supporters. Hence Oligarchy. I'm sure the socialists in the Paris Communes would have been "elected" too, like all socialists are.

I have been givin the impression that walmart is a super-corporation, as I live in a small town that is under it's iron boot. The eerie thing about that place is that it reminds me of the book and movie "1984". There are smiley faces on the wall next to signs that say "happy!". When I walk into that place, I get an uncontrollable urge to buy stuff, and a feeling of being small....

No offense, but you are a rather weak willed person then. I've been in Walmart, perhaps 6 times in the last 7 years that I have lived at my current residence. Never once did I feel "eerie" or "small" or have any even remotely uncontrollable urge to buy anything. In fact, like I said before, I generally do not go there ever. No one is forcing you to go into a Walmart to begin with.

In fact, out of those 6 times, 3 times was for a sweeper. The first two times, I left to check another store to see if the cost was lower, and it was not. One was for a network router and WiFi card, which the other two stores didn't have the brand I was looking for. The other two times, I left without buying anything.

Which goes back to my point that the reason Walmart sells stuff is because people want what they have at the price they sell it. The sweeper I couldn't find any cheaper, anywhere else. The Router and WiFi card, was the brand I wanted, that no one else sold.

Finally, every single store does whatever they can to get you to buy whatever they have. This is true of Giant Eagle, Kmart, Target, Meijers, IGA, and any other store you go to.

Next time you go to Walmart, take stock of all the people working there. Cashiers, managers, baggers, customer service people, department people, stockers, the people who return the carts, the people who circle the parking lot, cleaning crews, the people who replace the lights, the people who work the docks, the people who drive the trucks, the people who make the products that are sold there....

Consider the hundreds on hundreds of people who all are employed simply for your one store, and ask yourself.... would all of them be much happier being unemployed looking for work, rather than at Walmart?

 

[Dante the Marxist]

The question that comes to mind is.... um... so what? People long to be free, free to pursue whatever they choose. If a guy wants to pursue being a multi-millionaire, that is what freedom is about. The reason people invested, was because they wanted to be wealthy. There is nothing wrong with that. Most people wish to be more wealthy than they are now.

I would be fine with it if it did not infringe upon the rights of others. Millions of dollars give him the ability to control others.

What is really ironic about this conversation is, most liberals, and marxists, decry the difference in wealth. Yet here is a person who was in the gutter, and worked his way up to being a millionaire, and you are now decrying that.

This is explained above.

If he was still in the gutter, you'd be complaining about the evil rich not helping him.

Yeah, I want them out of the gutter, but not to have the means to control others.

This leads me to conclude that you would rather have everyone poor.

No, I want no poor, but also no rich. A nice happy medium.

No, actually they were not. Go read your history again. Many of the people in the counsel were leaders of the industries in that area.

They needed some advice on how to run thier factorys. Its just common sense.

Not really relevant. A corporation has a CEO, CFO, CIO, CEO, and so on. Of course the CEO is the leader who makes ultimate decisions. Similarly, the council intended to have a leader of the group who would have been 'in charge' just like any other oligarchy.

Oligarchy does not always mean "dictator" in the technical sense. After all, Chairman Mao of China, was just a Chairman, right? He wasn't a dictator.... right? Castro was 'elected' too. So was Hitler and Hugo Chavez. They were all "elected". Of course all those people wouldn't be anywhere without their powerful supporters. Hence Oligarchy. I'm sure the socialists in the Paris Communes would have been "elected" too, like all socialists are.

The council consists of the whole working class. The term oligarchy does not apply. The guy at the head would not be a leader in the modern sense, but would just carry out the council's decisions.

No offense, but you are a rather weak willed person then. I've been in Walmart, perhaps 6 times in the last 7 years that I have lived at my current residence. Never once did I feel "eerie" or "small" or have any even remotely uncontrollable urge to buy anything. In fact, like I said before, I generally do not go there ever. No one is forcing you to go into a Walmart to begin with.

In fact, out of those 6 times, 3 times was for a sweeper. The first two times, I left to check another store to see if the cost was lower, and it was not. One was for a network router and WiFi card, which the other two stores didn't have the brand I was looking for. The other two times, I left without buying anything.

Which goes back to my point that the reason Walmart sells stuff is because people want what they have at the price they sell it. The sweeper I couldn't find any cheaper, anywhere else. The Router and WiFi card, was the brand I wanted, that no one else sold.

Exactly. They control us by jacking down prices.

Finally, every single store does whatever they can to get you to buy whatever they have. This is true of Giant Eagle, Kmart, Target, Meijers, IGA, and any other store you go to.

Next time you go to Walmart, take stock of all the people working there. Cashiers, managers, baggers, customer service people, department people, stockers, the people who return the carts, the people who circle the parking lot, cleaning crews, the people who replace the lights, the people who work the docks, the people who drive the trucks, the people who make the products that are sold there....

Consider the hundreds on hundreds of people who all are employed simply for your one store, and ask yourself.... would all of them be much happier being unemployed looking for work, rather than at Walmart?

This has already been adressed. They shouldnt rely on a corporation for thier well being, but they have to.

 

[always]

The problem with your thesis is that the Bible shows even the followers who walked with Jesus were fallible.

So how is it that those putting the canon together centuries after Jesus were infallible in choosing the books?

There's an issue with Timothy in that Paul's vocabulary is 30% different than the other epistles. It's strange that Paul would talk about certain church officers when his communities had no such hierarchy. Although what isn't strange is the language matches Christian writers from the 2nd century who actually were involved with such church hierarchies. Get it? Both Timothys and Titus were not written by Paul.

And we know the Bible has clear errors in it. Look at Matthew's genealogy of Jesus for a clear cut example. It's wrong. You know how I know? Because a different genealogy is listed in 1st Chronicles. So which is right as they both have the full authority of God? Is the Bible teaching us about parallel universes?

BTW, in the Christian faith there's a lot of different beliefs, like for instance, most people don't have the asinine habit of writing "G-d", as though God can't figure out you just mentioned its name. And that's not even the name the Jews didn't mention. Let's not pretend Christians are suddenly monolithic in their beliefs. Never have been. Never will be.

Some how, I cannot picture any HUMAN BEING , lying on his /her death bed and begging for "FOREGIVNESS of their SINS " from an atheist." I do picture the author , atheismisreality , screaming for mercy , and calling out to JESUS for FOREGIVNESS! ,just another wise thought from "always " . Take heed atheist!

 

[AtheismIsReality]

Some how, I cannot picture any HUMAN BEING , lying on his /her death bed and begging for "FOREGIVNESS of their SINS " from an atheist." I do picture the author , atheismisreality , screaming for mercy , and calling out to JESUS for FOREGIVNESS! ,just another wise thought from "always " . Take heed atheist!

You don't understand my name.
And as much as you wring your hands about money, you understand very little about Jesus' teachings.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You don't understand my name.
And as much as you wring your hands about money, you understand very little about Jesus' teachings.

you did not need to add the "about Jesus' teachings part...it was fine to leave it

 

[always]

You don't understand my name.
And as much as you wring your hands about money, you understand very little about Jesus' teachings.

AND YOU DO!!!! lol,lol If you had an understanding of Jesus , an understanding larger than a mustard seed, you would not be an atheist.

Why do you think I wring my hands over money? Money is not a concern of mine!

 

[AtheismIsReality]

AND YOU DO!!!! lol,lol If you had an understanding of Jesus , an understanding larger than a mustard seed, you would not be an atheist.

Why do you think I wring my hands over money? Money is not a concern of mine!

Given your yammering over it and how you try to impress us as a commissioned sales person, your comment gets No Sale.