• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When is a terrorist, not a terrorist?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Undesired Walrus said:
Why do you have to sink to this level? I thought you were better than that.
Click to expand...
Because that's the way lefty thinks. He has no problem accusing anyone who disagrees with him as being Nazis, no evidence required. he accuses the Republican party of sending thugs to Obama/Biden rallies to intimidate the Sems, no evidence required or given. He claims one of his local radio stations has a Nazi host who calls on Nazis to disrupt and intimidate Dems, no evidence given.

We know Ayers admits to a string of bombings, yet lefty can't bring himself to call him a terrorist since he hasn't actually been convicted. lefty requires no such standard of evidence for those he opposes, for which he has no problem making all sorts of unproven allegations. We know lefty's a Marxist, we know Ayers is also a Marxist, if he's not just engaging in a knee-jerk defense of his ideological brother what other reason is there for the double standard?
 
To a rightwinger marxist, leninist, socialist, communist,.... are generic terms applied to anyone they disagree with.

To a leftwinger..............

I usually write it off to ignorance.

Like when people can´t tell current european socialists from the definition in the communist manifest.
 
I am not a Marxist. The idea that labor, rather than capital, is the source of all wealth is not even unique to Marx. Lincoln entertained the same idea. It's called "realism." It is scientificly supportable.

Friedmanism and the wholle Chicago School mythos is scientificly disproveavble.

Not that the GOP gives a rat's about science or evidence.
 
leftysergeant said:
I am not a Marxist. The idea that labor, rather than capital, is the source of all wealth is not even unique to Marx. Lincoln entertained the same idea. It's called "realism." It is scientificly supportable.
Click to expand...
Labor is not the source of wealth. If it was, early 20th century China would have been the wealthiest nation on earth. It wasn't even close.

And remember when you said:
leftysergeant said:
A redistribution of wealth is in order.
Click to expand...
No, nothing Marxist about that. Just ask Hugo Chavez!
 
Ya, but John McCain redistributes wealth. The Republicans do it, so do the Democrats. Even radical libertarians want some sort of tax base to enforce criminal laws and fund a military. Even a flat tax is a percentage, so the rich would pay more than the poor. Seems to me like every politician in America is behind redistributing wealth, some just use that language cause it seems to work well electorally to posture as if your opponent is the only one who wants to "redistribute wealth". Meanwhile, unless you're advocating some kind of wild west capitalism, you're all about redistributing wealth too. Even Forbes.
 
Last edited:
Back to Obama's exact words, he said "spread the wealth around."

Like in give a break to the working poor and the skilled workers who have a chance to move up. Give a break to small businesses starting up and tell the big box chains that their free ride is over.

Let the small operators keep more of what they make until they make so much that they can bear the burden of a little more in taxes.

Letting people like the Walton larvae keep more of what they earned, compared to the people who used to have jobs with small businesses sure worked out great for our manufacturing base, didn't it?
 
Is Chavez a Marxist??

The recent bankster bail-out was a redistribution of wealth.
 
WildCat said:
Labor is not the source of wealth. If it was, early 20th century China would have been the wealthiest nation on earth. It wasn't even close.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid there's a fallacy here. Labor is the source of wealth, but that doesn't mean the laborers are the beneficiaries.

We pay Indonesian laborers pennies to put together sneakers. As a result of their labor, we have high quality basketball shoes. Our wealth has gone up as a result of their labor. The fact that their wealth hasn't increased much is a totally separate issue.
 
Meadmaker said:
I'm afraid there's a fallacy here. Labor is the source of wealth, but that doesn't mean the laborers are the beneficiaries.

We pay Indonesian laborers pennies to put together sneakers. As a result of their labor, we have high quality basketball shoes. Our wealth has gone up as a result of their labor. The fact that their wealth hasn't increased much is a totally separate issue.
Click to expand...
No. The guy who thought up the sneaker design, the company that figured out how to manufacture it at the highest quality and lowest cost, the marketers who motivated people to buy the sneakers, etc. have much more to do with the creation of wealth than the people whose only task was to show up and sew the sole to the fabric like they were told.

eta: you may as well credit the peanut vendors for the Phillies winning the World Series.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I'm afraid there's a fallacy here. Labor is the source of wealth, but that doesn't mean the laborers are the beneficiaries.

We pay Indonesian laborers pennies to put together sneakers. As a result of their labor, we have high quality basketball shoes. Our wealth has gone up as a result of their labor. The fact that their wealth hasn't increased much is a totally separate issue.
Click to expand...

And most of what is paid for those shoes goes to people who did NONE of the work.

What we chiefly need is a tariff that makes negates the entire effect of the unfair wages paid abroad. A tariff we can reduce or remove when the workers there are paid on par with the workers here. Thomas Jefferson was an early proponent of that sort of tariff, and it is only because we removed those tariffs that we are in this mess now. We don't need FREE trade, we need FAIR trade.
 
WildCat said:
No. The guy who thought up the sneaker design, the company that figured out how to manufacture it at the highest quality and lowest cost, the marketers who motivated people to buy the sneakers, etc. have much more to do with the creation of wealth than the people whose only task was to show up and sew the sole to the fabric like they were told.

eta: you may as well credit the peanut vendors for the Phillies winning the World Series.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of the snobbery involved when the upper classes deign to look upon the mere laborer. Indeed, back in the day, the laborer was considered property, part of the means of production, and thus fit only for the same care and consideration you would give a pair of oxen pulling a plow.

The actual better example here is the baseball players, not the peanut vendors. Were they involved in creating the logo, the marketing, the design of the stadium, the production of graphics for the televising? No. They're just there putting ball to bat. Mere peons in the process.

The laborer is part of the means of production. Unions are the laborers' way of owning themselves in a way powerful enough to force a reckoning by the upper class. Capitalism in action. Just the way the people of Alaska banded together in government to possess the land and force the oil companies to pay for the resources. All good capitalism. Those who control access to the necessary resources are just as much capitalists as those who need the resources to produce their own product. It's called Socialism as a smear. "Socialism" is really just capitalism that doesn't benefit the few at the expense of the many.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom