ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

mickthinks
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by mickthinks » Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:03 am

Don't tell me you're fluent in Neanderthal? Your mother-tongue, or did you have to go to cave-school?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3139
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:16 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
blah, blah, blah
You're such an idiot. Do you really not see it?
Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF. No one is stopping you. You either LOVE this country OR you LEAVE it.
So, according to you, the country is perfect and everyone should like it -- and if they don't, they should leave. That would ALSO mean if there's anything YOU don't like about the country, YOU should leave? Right? Are you retarded? There is NO ONE WAY for it to be... and NO ONE WAY owns it! Americans are a MIX of ideas and perspectives!
Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") why don't you just get on a plane
Why don't you go fuck yourself? You are superimposing so much crap along with your labels of people -- it's as if you have a very, very small brain.

I think Trump is an idiot and acts like an idiot, which is supported by an unlimited amount of public evidence.
I don't consider myself a socialist or communist.
I think balance is good in all things.
I don't have a yoga teacher.
I think America has some major problems due to imbalance.
I welcome new ideas and forward momentum that recognizes/includes broader awareness.

You don't appear to offer anything other than an insane amount of noise. Why don't you go stand inside a big metal drum and listen to your mad spew until you're tired of being rabid with it? Then maybe you'll have room for some clarity and balance.

Age
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Age » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:38 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
Lacewing wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:14 am
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:43 pm
So don't you think its about time you abandoned, -and then got down on your knees and humbly apologised for -, the deadly stupidity your evil political doctrine ? I do.
As usual, you're projecting your crazy crap onto others. So convinced of the insanity in your head. Why don't you apologize for being such an ignorant hate-spewing asshole?
Lacewing

I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF.
Why does the one called "trump" not do what it self preaches?

To 'trump" america was obviously "not great", so why did "trump" not 'got back' before wanting to change it?
Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
No one is stopping you. You either LOVE this country OR you LEAVE it. It was great see Trump make a point of emphasising that option to the contemptible, US-bashing, Al Quada apologist, Muslim Senator Ilhan Omar.
If "trump" did not LOVE america, which obviously did not, because it was 'not great', then why did "trump" STAY?
Dachshund wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:13 am
Socialists aren't welcome in America Lacewing, because it is a FREE nation. If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") why don't you just get on a plane (with a one way ticket) to sunny Venezuela or some other socialist shit-hole like Cuba. i'm sure the super- awesome , mystical, healing power of your love would be greatly appreciated in Caracas (don't forget to pack lots of your New Age crystals, and Runes, as well, sister the the cosmic energy they radiate will cure the city's economic woes in a flash !).

In short, If you love socialism, and you think it's kwell, your are not fit to live in the US, sweetheart; so why don't you "do the right thing" and piss off; the sooner the better!


Regards

Dachshund

(Der Uberweiner)
Why did "trump" not 'go back'?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:41 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:23 pm
...

A socialist an individual who believes that the state should own the means of production, and that all private ownership of property should be abolished. Socialists also advocate equity (equality of OUTCOME as an end that must be pursued from equality of opportunity)
So basically a mish-mash of right-wing nonsense to troll the forum then.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Arising_uk » Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:44 pm

Dachshund wrote:...
Socialists aren't welcome in America Lacewing, because it is a FREE nation. If you're a socialist and you don't like Donald Trump and how he's leading the US, and you don't like America's free market economic system, because ("You know, man, capitalism is like all about greed and hate, it's totally bad karma, man, my yoga teacher told so.") ...
Except of course the Trumpette is not being a free-market capitalist is he, he's effectively being a trade unionist, oh the irony. :lol:

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"he's effectively being a trade unionist"

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:33 pm

Nah, he's bein' the sugar in the gas tank he was hired to be.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: "he's effectively being a trade unionist"

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:30 am

henry quirk wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:33 pm
Nah, he's bein' the sugar in the gas tank he was hired to be.
No idea what that is meant to mean but if you mean he is about to fuck up the engine of the Amerian economy I'll give you that. The thing is I really wanted him to be a machiavellian genius who only pretended to be a half-wit treating the American presidency as his own personal celebrity show just to achieve his nefarious aims but it's becoming clear that he really is a half-wit playing out his Apprentice role and good luck to him as it is just what the half-wits of America want and deserve.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4754
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 19, 2019 4:31 am

"No idea what that is meant to mean"

Sure you do.

#

"if you mean he is about to fuck up the engine of the Amerian economy I'll give you that."

As you know, he ain't doin' that.

#

"the half-wits of America"

Been takin' lessons from veg, I see.

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am

Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:38 pm


Dear Age


I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF.
Why does the one called "trump" not do what it self preaches?

To 'trump" america was obviously "not great", so why did "trump" not 'got back' before wanting to change it?


If "trump" did not LOVE america, which obviously did not, because it was 'not great', then why did "trump" STAY?


Why did "trump" not 'go back'?
[/quote]



Dear Age


Trump was born in America (in "Queens" in New York City). Before he entered politics he was a very successful businessman, he made a lot of money and with that money he took risks on new business projects that ended up providing a lot of new jobs and opportunities for young people to get themselves off unemployment benefits.




If you're enthusiastic, ambitious and prepared to work hard; if you've got good common sense, and a healthy dose of self-respect, the world is your oyster in a Western-style free-marked capitalist economy. That was the case with Trump, and he would have said in the years before he entered politics, "This is a GREAT country, our free-market capitalist economy is GREAT." Capitalism suited Trump because he is a vibrant, ambitious and extraordinary intelligent man. If you are familiar with Nietzsche's famous thesis of "The Will to Power", but are confused by the multitude of competing scholarly interpretations of this phrase that have always existed in the critical literature ,don't despair. All you do to understand the concept completely is carefully observe Trump in action on stage at his next Make America Great Again" rally - what you'll beseeing is one man being animated by a towering, Nietzschian "Will to Power" Because he speaks in plain, no-nonsense (and sometime coarse) language lots of people mistake him for being an "idiot" (as Lacewing puts it); ironically, the exact opposite is the case. I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Trump play the Democrats "like fiddles" (or should I say "smash them like guitars") because he is a natural master of advanced "game theory"; his political opponents don't have a hope in hell of beating him. For this and many other reasons, such as the fact he is fighter, who always stands tall and never backs down ( I mean , look at the EXTRAORDINARY lengths the Democrats and the leftist media recently went to in order to try and bring him down ever since the first day he entered the White House. Consider, for instance, the billions of dollars they spent in time and effort to try and provide Mueller's Russian collusion with evidence against Trump) But Trump was never rattled. He just stood firm, smiled and (figuratively speaking) "shot the Democrats the bird") Donald Trump, in short, is, by far, the most potent and effective President the United Stated has ever had in its entire history.



You're right that America wasn't in "great" shape when Trump decided to run for the Presidency in 2016. But he was a patriot, he had faith in his country and knew he could lift it back up again out of the hole it had fallen into after EIGHT failed years of Barack Obama's Democrat administration.



Let's look at some of Obama's "achievements" over 8 years as US President...




(1) DACA via Executive Order. Obama bypasses Congress to give amnesty to some 900,000 illegal aliens/immigrants, costing the US taxpayer billions of dollar/per year.

(2) OBAMACARE - a failed project rejected by the majority of the American population.

(3) 95 million could not find jobs.

(4) Labour force participation reached its lowest point since 1972.

(5) 13 million more people were added to MEDICAID.

(6) 11 million more people were forced onto Food Stamps.

(7) The percentage of 18-34 year-olds living with their parents hit a 70-year high.

(8)The Social Security Rolls increased by 5 million under Obama.

(9) Failed economic growth. Obama is the first President to to achieve a single year of 3% GDP growth.

(
10) Stock Market flat for 16 years. After the "Internet Bubble" crash of 2000 it took the NASDAQ stock index 15 years to come back to where it was in 2000.

(11) The IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL brokered by Obama cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars and was an exercise in stupidity. Trusting fanatical Islamic zealots in Tehran to honour any commitment to cease pursuing a capability to build nuclear weapons was the height of Pollyanna naivety.




This list goes on and on. I have chosen the important items above mainly because they each have a quantitative dimension. Therefore, you can check the figures for yourself in an official government statistical reference, to confirm that since 2016, Trump has dramatically improved all of these sectors in the US economy, and the improvement in ongoing. After only only 2 years in office, that's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.



Today, as we speak, the US economy is BOOMING, thanks to Trump. You cannot have a great country, if your country's economy is fucked,; in fact you cannot have a country AT ALL if it gets too bad; just ask Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the USSR, ask or Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro the two recent Marxist socialist Presidents of Venezuela, what happens when your economy goes "BANG" and you have to start printing money to keep running your country).



When Trump suggested that people who live in the US should either love America or leave it he had in mind individuals like Rep Ilhan Omar the Democrat Congresswoman, who despite being a refugee from war-torn Somalia, continuously insults and criticizes America - the country that took her in and saved her life when she was a 6 year-old child. A Muslim, Omar has the outrageous cheek to: dismiss 9/11 as a trivial incident during a speech at a CARE rally ( an Islamist organisaion that has been been placed by US authorities on a terrorist watch list); repeatedly makes vile anti-semitic remarks and denounces Israel, America's only ally, and the sole democratic state in the Middle East; tells a large audience that America is , in reality, not the free, successful, just nation, honourable that the world generally believes it to be; thinks Islamic extremist groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban are amusing; says that Trump has murdered millions of Americans by starvation, because he legislated tax-cuts for the US Corporate Sector instead of giving the money to the poor who could not afford food. At one point she appeared on the news sending up a prayer to ALLAH asking him to bring down Trump's wicked administration, and so on. There are others like Ilhan Omar in Congress, for example : Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaid, all Democrat "women of colour" and hard-line Marxist-socialists, who do nothing but complain and criticise about America and Trump. For example, almost immediately after being elected to office in 2018, Rashida Tlaib , referring to Trump, announced "WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER!" (this gives you a good idea of the mentality I am talking about).



The truth is that American's like these four Democrat Congresswomen (and there are plenty off them) will NEVER stop criticising and insulting America, no matter how great Trump ultimately manages to make it. The reason - (dare I say it lest I be denounced as a racist/Nazi etc.) - is that they are "women of colour" and have therefore got a huge chip on their shoulders. They hate white American with a passion, esp Donald Trump, and they hate white Western culture ( Classical Liberalism, free-market capitalism, the "Rule of Law", the Second Amendment, etc) they will not be satisfied until the US is reduced to a black/Arabic/Hispanic socialist shit-hole, and all white Americans have been severely punished for slavery and Jim Crow and all the other crimes their ancestors committed against "people of colour". Moreover, they are merely the visible, public faces of a vast dark underbelly in America who have the same kind of negative, cynical and critical attitude toward their own country.



People like this should be deported back to their native countries (or countries of racial origin) in the Middle East, Sub -Saharan Africa, Mexico or wherever, in particular, where they hold public office and are employees of the American people.




Kindest Regards

Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Age
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Age » Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:53 am

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
Age wrote:
Thu Jul 18, 2019 1:38 pm
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am


Dear Age


I just watched Trump give a brilliant briefing outside the White House. His message to the lunatic socialists who have taken control of the Democrat Party and their sympathisers in the media who continually keep criticizing , insulting and pouring their vile ressentiment on America, was beautifully simple :If you don't like it here then LEAVE, GO. FUCK OFF.
Why does the one called "trump" not do what it self preaches?

To 'trump" america was obviously "not great", so why did "trump" not 'got back' before wanting to change it?


If "trump" did not LOVE america, which obviously did not, because it was 'not great', then why did "trump" STAY?


Why did "trump" not 'go back'?


Dear Age


Trump was born in America (in "Queens" in New York City).
If I have heard correctly, so to were some of the human beings born in America, which trump is telling to "go back".

Where is the exact distinction lay between when one should "go back" and when one is "allowed to stay"?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
Before he entered politics he was a very successful businessman, he made a lot of money and with that money he took risks on new business projects that ended up providing a lot of new jobs and opportunities for young people to get themselves off unemployment benefits.
I think it was in this post where it was being talked about how some people can be so easily, what is called, "brainwashed". To me, this seems to be just another fine example of this 'being brainwashed'.
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
If you're enthusiastic, ambitious and prepared to work hard; if you've got good common sense, and a healthy dose of self-respect, the world is your oyster in a Western-style free-marked capitalist economy.
If you say so.
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
That was the case with Trump, and he would have said in the years before he entered politics, "This is a GREAT country, our free-market capitalist economy is GREAT." Capitalism suited Trump because he is a vibrant, ambitious and extraordinary intelligent man.
If that is what you believe, then that is fine.

So, are you now suggesting that before trump entered politics trump was saying "This is a great country" but after he entered politics trump was saying "This not a great country and let's make america great again"?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
If you are familiar with Nietzsche's famous thesis of "The Will to Power", but are confused by the multitude of competing scholarly interpretations of this phrase that have always existed in the critical literature ,don't despair.
I am not, so this is moot.

I could also say, if you are familiar with separatism, but are confused by all of its forms and are also confused by all of the attempts at "justifications" for these separatist views, then do not despair. But do not worry because I would never make such a ridiculous assumption nor never propose such a ridiculous type of statement.
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
All you do to understand the concept completely is carefully observe Trump in action on stage at his next Make America Great Again" rally - what you'll beseeing is one man being animated by a towering, Nietzschian "Will to Power"
Why would trump still be speaking about still "making America great again". When is america going to be,that most ridiculous of statements, "great again"?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
Because he speaks in plain, no-nonsense (and sometime coarse) language lots of people mistake him for being an "idiot" (as Lacewing puts it); ironically, the exact opposite is the case.
What does "course language" mean?

Is it something like, 'not offensive to you' but 'could be considered offensive to some one else"?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Trump play the Democrats "like fiddles" (or should I say "smash them like guitars") because he is a natural master of advanced "game theory"; his political opponents don't have a hope in hell of beating him.
Therefore, trump will be the leader for as long as the law permits. If trump changes the law so that there can be the same leader continuously, then, according to your logic, then is no political opponent able to beat trump while trump is alive. How lucky would those human beings living under trump be?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
For this and many other reasons, such as the fact he is fighter, who always stands tall and never backs down ( I mean , look at the EXTRAORDINARY lengths the Democrats and the leftist media recently went to in order to try and bring him down ever since the first day he entered the White House. Consider, for instance, the billions of dollars they spent in time and effort to try and provide Mueller's Russian collusion with evidence against Trump) But Trump was never rattled. He just stood firm, smiled and (figuratively speaking) "shot the Democrats the bird") Donald Trump, in short, is, by far, the most potent and effective President the United Stated has ever had in its entire history.
And some people are just completely blinded by their own beliefs and distorted thinking. There are some people who actually believe their own lies. But, to you, trump could never be anything like that, am I correct?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
You're right that America wasn't in "great" shape when Trump decided to run for the Presidency in 2016.
When did I ever propose such a thing? Especially one as stupid as this?

Just because I ask particular clarifying questions, this does not mean I hold any particular point of view.

Also, I thought you claimed trump was saying "This is a great country" before trump entered politics? So what came first, trump decided to run for politics, or, america was not great?

Again, why did trump not go back to where trump came from? Why did and does trump continue complain and criticise?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
But he was a patriot, he had faith in his country and knew he could lift it back up again out of the hole it had fallen into after EIGHT failed years of Barack Obama's Democrat administration.
Maybe some of those political opponents also of trump are also patriots, having faith in the "country", in which they reside, and know that they also can lift "it" back up "out of the hole" that "it" has fallen into since the failed years of trump's administration.
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
Let's look at some of Obama's "achievements" over 8 years as US President...




(1) DACA via Executive Order. Obama bypasses Congress to give amnesty to some 900,000 illegal aliens/immigrants, costing the US taxpayer billions of dollar/per year.

(2) OBAMACARE - a failed project rejected by the majority of the American population.

(3) 95 million could not find jobs.

(4) Labour force participation reached its lowest point since 1972.

(5) 13 million more people were added to MEDICAID.

(6) 11 million more people were forced onto Food Stamps.

(7) The percentage of 18-34 year-olds living with their parents hit a 70-year high.

(8)The Social Security Rolls increased by 5 million under Obama.

(9) Failed economic growth. Obama is the first President to to achieve a single year of 3% GDP growth.

(
10) Stock Market flat for 16 years. After the "Internet Bubble" crash of 2000 it took the NASDAQ stock index 15 years to come back to where it was in 2000.

(11) The IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL brokered by Obama cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars and was an exercise in stupidity. Trusting fanatical Islamic zealots in Tehran to honour any commitment to cease pursuing a capability to build nuclear weapons was the height of Pollyanna naivety.




This list goes on and on, I have chosen the important items above because they each have a quantitative dimension, so you can check the figures for yourself in an official government statistical reference, to confirm that since 2016, Trump has dramatically improved these sectors in the US economy, and the improvement in ongoing.
'Achievement' and 'important' are two very subjective and relativistic words. So, what you are trying to suggest here is, at best, just your own perspective of things.
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
Today, as we speak, the US economy is BOOMING, thanks to Trump. You cannot have a great country, if your country's economy is fucked,; in fact you cannot have a country AT ALL if it gets too bad; just as Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the USSR, or Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro the Marxist socialist President of Venezuela, what happens when your economy goes "BANG").
If that is what you believe, then so be it.
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
The difference between Trump and those he suggested should either love America or leave it is that he had in mind individuals like Rep Ilhan Omar the Democrat Congresswoman, who despite being a refugee from war-torn Somalia, continuously insults and criticizes
Does trump never insult nor criticise?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
America - the country that took her in an saved her life.
Did america take trump in, and, save trump's life?

If yes, then what is the difference?
If no, then who or what took trump in, and saved, trump's life?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
A Muslim, Omar has the outrageous cheek to: dismiss 9/11 as a trivial incident during a speech at a CARE rally ( an organisaion that has been been placed by US authorities on a terrorist watch list); repeatedly makes vile anti-semitic remarks and criticises Israel, America's only ally, and the sole democratic state in the Middle East; tell a large audience that America is , in reality, not the free, successful, just nation that the world generally believes it to be; thinks Islamic extremist groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban are amusing; says that Trump has murdered millions of American by starvation, because he invested tax-cuts for the US Corporate Sector instead of giving the money to the poor who could not afford food.
What has a person's religion got to do with what country they live on, or in?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
At one point she sent up a prayer to ALLAH asking him to bring down Trump's administration, and so on.
Has trump never wished for help in defeating a political 'opponent'?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
There are others like Ilhan Omar in Congress, for example : Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaid, all democrat "women of colour" who do nothing but complain and criticise about America and Trump.
Does trump never complain nor criticise about "america not being great" "and complain about and criticise "democrates" (and "woman of color")?

By the way, what has the color of one's skin got to do with absolutely any thing here?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
For example, almost immediately after being elected to office in 2018, Rashida Tlaib , referring to Trump, announced "WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER!" (this gives you a good idea of the mentality I am talking about).
Would/has trump ever speak/spoke like that?

Do you really believe that trump does not have that mentality?

Would trump never think about "getting back" at an 'opponent'?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
The truth is that American's like these four Democrat Congresswomen (and there are plenty off them) will NEVER stop criticising and insulting America, no matter how great Trump ultimately manages to make it.
Would trump ever stop criticising and insulting america, no matter how great trump's opponent's ultimately manages to make it?

By the way are you aware that the 'great' word is also a very relative and subjective word as well?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
The reason - dare I say it lest I am denounced as a racist/Nazi etc.) - is that they are "women of colour" and have therefore got a huge chip on their shoulders.
So, to you, is it only "women of color" who have a "huge" "chip on their shoulders" or do "men of color" have a "chip on their shoulders" also? And, if men do as well, then is theirs as big as the womens is?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
They hate white American with a passion, esp Donald Trump, and they hate white Western culture ( Classical Liberalism, free-market capitalism. the "Rule of Law", the Second Amendment, etc) they will not be satisfied until the US is reduced to a black/Arabic/Hispanic socialist shit-hole,
Is a "shit-hole" (whatever that is exactly) really what these four human beings really want?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
and all white Americans have been severely punished for slavery and Jim Crow and all the other crimes their ancestors committed against "people of colour".
Again, what is with "color", with you, and how is "color" related to this at all?
Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
People like this should be deported back to their native countries in the Middle East, Sub -Saharan Africa, Mexico or wherever, in particular, where they hold public office and are employees of the American people.
But what happens if they are born in the usa, or are a citizen of usa?

Where is the "back to" exactly, where you believe they come from?



Dachshund wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:00 am
Kindest Regards

Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 19, 2019 12:48 pm

Dachshund wrote: Dear Age


Trump was born in America (in "Queens" in New York City). Before he entered politics he was a very successful businessman, he made a lot of money and with that money he took risks on new business projects that ended up providing a lot of new jobs and opportunities for young people to get themselves off unemployment benefits. ...
:lol: Yeah super 'successful'.
As a businessman trump was the biggest loser of all
If you're enthusiastic, ambitious and prepared to work hard; if you've got good common sense, and a healthy dose of self-respect, the world is your oyster in a Western-style free-marked capitalist economy. ...
Well it's true that upward sociality mobility is just barely alive in the US but it's also true that the starting bar has dropped very low and that those who manage to climb it reach levels much lower than was the previous case.
That was the case with Trump, and he would have said in the years before he entered politics, "This is a GREAT country, our free-market capitalist economy is GREAT." Capitalism suited Trump because he is a vibrant, ambitious and extraordinary intelligent man. ...
:lol: And don't forget to start your business career with a paltry half a billion dollars to get you on your way and then engage in tax evasion schemes as what is good for the golden goose isn't good for joe gander.
If you are familiar with Nietzsche's famous thesis of "The Will to Power", but are confused by the multitude of competing scholarly interpretations of this phrase that have always existed in the critical literature ,don't despair. All you do to understand the concept completely is carefully observe Trump in action on stage at his next Make America Great Again" rally - what you'll beseeing is one man being animated by a towering, Nietzschian "Will to Power" Because he speaks in plain, no-nonsense (and sometime coarse) language lots of people mistake him for being an "idiot" (as Lacewing puts it); ironically, the exact opposite is the case. I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Trump play the Democrats "like fiddles" (or should I say "smash them like guitars") because he is a natural master of advanced "game theory"; his political opponents don't have a hope in hell of beating him. For this and many other reasons, such as the fact he is fighter, who always stands tall and never backs down ( I mean , look at the EXTRAORDINARY lengths the Democrats and the leftist media recently went to in order to try and bring him down ever since the first day he entered the White House. Consider, for instance, the billions of dollars they spent in time and effort to try and provide Mueller's Russian collusion with evidence against Trump) But Trump was never rattled. He just stood firm, smiled and (figuratively speaking) "shot the Democrats the bird") Donald Trump, in short, is, by far, the most potent and effective President the United Stated has ever had in its entire history. ...
Er! I think you have to wait until history judges this one but given you think he's going to create a civil war in the US I doubt your verdict.
You're right that America wasn't in "great" shape when Trump decided to run for the Presidency in 2016. But he was a patriot, he had faith in his country and knew he could lift it back up again out of the hole it had fallen into after EIGHT failed years of Barack Obama's Democrat administration. ...
:lol: I'm amazed what Americans consider as failure.
Let's look at some of Obama's "achievements" over 8 years as US President...




(1) DACA via Executive Order. Obama bypasses Congress to give amnesty to some 900,000 illegal aliens/immigrants, costing the US taxpayer billions of dollar/per year. ...
Er! How so? As presumably they now have to pay taxes?

(2) OBAMACARE - a failed project rejected by the majority of the American population.

(3) 95 million could not find jobs.

(4) Labour force participation reached its lowest point since 1972.

(5) 13 million more people were added to MEDICAID.

(6) 11 million more people were forced onto Food Stamps.

(7) The percentage of 18-34 year-olds living with their parents hit a 70-year high.

(8)The Social Security Rolls increased by 5 million under Obama.

(9) Failed economic growth. Obama is the first President to to achieve a single year of 3% GDP growth.

(
10) Stock Market flat for 16 years. After the "Internet Bubble" crash of 2000 it took the NASDAQ stock index 15 years to come back to where it was in 2000.
Lets have a little grown-up opinion shall we.
(11) The IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL brokered by Obama cost the US taxpayer billions of dollars and was an exercise in stupidity. Trusting fanatical Islamic zealots in Tehran to honour any commitment to cease pursuing a capability to build nuclear weapons was the height of Pollyanna naivety.

Er! But that is exactly what they were doing and now they are ramping-up enhanced uranium production again thanks to the deal being broken. I'm really not sure how a nuclear armed power can tell others not to want them?
This list goes on and on. I have chosen the important items above mainly because they each have a quantitative dimension. Therefore, you can check the figures for yourself in an official government statistical reference, to confirm that since 2016, Trump has dramatically improved all of these sectors in the US economy, and the improvement in ongoing. After only only 2 years in office, that's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.
See above.
Today, as we speak, the US economy is BOOMING, thanks to Trump. You cannot have a great country, if your country's economy is fucked,; in fact you cannot have a country AT ALL if it gets too bad; just ask Mikhail Gorbachev, the former leader of the USSR, ask or Hugo Chavez/Nicolas Maduro the two recent Marxist socialist Presidents of Venezuela, what happens when your economy goes "BANG" and you have to start printing money to keep running your country).
Putin seems to be doing pretty well in a fucked economy or is your Prez wrong that Russia is a bigly great country?
When Trump suggested that people who live in the US should either love America or leave it he had in mind individuals like Rep Ilhan Omar the Democrat Congresswoman, who despite being a refugee from war-torn Somalia, continuously insults and criticizes America - the country that took her in and saved her life when she was a 6 year-old child. A Muslim, Omar has the outrageous cheek to: dismiss 9/11 as a trivial incident during a speech at a CARE rally ( an Islamist organisaion that has been been placed by US authorities on a terrorist watch list); repeatedly makes vile anti-semitic remarks and denounces Israel, America's only ally, and the sole democratic state in the Middle East; tells a large audience that America is , in reality, not the free, successful, just nation, honourable that the world generally believes it to be; thinks Islamic extremist groups like Al Quaeda and the Taliban are amusing; says that Trump has murdered millions of Americans by starvation, because he legislated tax-cuts for the US Corporate Sector instead of giving the money to the poor who could not afford food. At one point she appeared on the news sending up a prayer to ALLAH asking him to bring down Trump's wicked administration, and so on. There are others like Ilhan Omar in Congress, for example : Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaid, all Democrat "women of colour" and hard-line Marxist-socialists, who do nothing but complain and criticise about America and Trump. For example, almost immediately after being elected to office in 2018, Rashida Tlaib , referring to Trump, announced "WE'RE GOING TO IMPEACH THE MOTHERFUCKER!" (this gives you a good idea of the mentality I am talking about). ...
Sounds very Trumplike if you ask me, did he not state that a presidential nominee should be imprisoned?
The truth is that American's like these four Democrat Congresswomen (and there are plenty off them) will NEVER stop criticising and insulting America, no matter how great Trump ultimately manages to make it. The reason - (dare I say it lest I be denounced as a racist/Nazi etc.) - is that they are "women of colour" and have therefore got a huge chip on their shoulders. They hate white American with a passion, esp Donald Trump, and they hate white Western culture ( Classical Liberalism, free-market capitalism, the "Rule of Law", the Second Amendment, etc) they will not be satisfied until the US is reduced to a black/Arabic/Hispanic socialist shit-hole, and all white Americans have been severely punished for slavery and Jim Crow and all the other crimes their ancestors committed against "people of colour". Moreover, they are merely the visible, public faces of a vast dark underbelly in America who have the same kind of negative, cynical and critical attitude toward their own country. ...
So free-speech dead in America? How McCarthy-like.
People like this should be deported back to their native countries (or countries of racial origin) in the Middle East, Sub -Saharan Africa, Mexico or wherever, in particular, where they hold public office and are employees of the American people. ...
Er! So you think all the whites who disagree with the Trumpette should be deported back to their European roots too?
Kindest Regards

Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)
Laters little sausage-dog.

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:06 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:14 am



To me, the logic of the Conservative is to 'conserve' their default fortunes by convincing the masses that somehow they 'earned' it intrinsically by God's/Nature's favor. The pretty actress who may have 'succeeded' in fame and wealth may sincerely be due to her accidental genetic inheritance. But if you ARE this actress knowing that your success is dependent only upon your accidental fortune, is it wise to promote this in reflection honestly to your fan base? If you feel guilty about your luck, one way to help justify your success in your mind is to attempt to seek some reason you succeeded based solely upon your 'will'. That the fact one who is inherently fortunate has a greater odds of experiencing success at even the most trivial demands of their will, the may falsely interpret that they EARNED their fortune BY some imposition of 'will power' and some default favor of some 'god' who reads their heart as somehow naturally more pure.

Thus, one conservative tactic is to promote ridiculous beliefs in weird things to greater extremes because they have no actual logically 'fair' justification for why they are successful while others are not. Then they impose that one's actual successes or failures are purely OWNED by the individuals 'will', versus their 'effort'.

I understand the self-preserving psychology that goes into this and know that most of us would tend to favor the political side also based upon whether we inherited better genes or better environments. But if the concept of 'government' IS just a collective system of management, if it is sincerely 'democratic' (of the people's will by the majorities), then the system is necessarily ANTI-natural: it is artificially a means to DEFEAT Nature's default of unfairness due to inherent accidents. We are intellectual and can now reflect upon nature and use that intelligence to supersede nature's disrespect of EACH of its parts. Thus government is bound to be more RATIONALLY democratic (versus 'republic') while Nature still favors those who DO inherit better odds of success will also demand a counter 'government' that is actually intent on self-destruction. Why would/should you want to be defeated for your accidental fortune when this is itself contradicting your own 'will' EQUAL to everyone else by nature?



Thus we have a frustrating contradiction by nature that could care less about our will but CAN be improved if we can somehow assure that we are in the power to hold the reigns of any artificial concept, like 'government' itself.



The reality of 'government' does not go away even if we could remove it because it only TRANSFERS WHO the actual 'government' are. The conservatives will favor a government FOR the people by the representatives of PRIVATE fortune holders, the wealthier. The majority, who represent the 'demos' are always relatively impoverished and the fear of the mob, by the opposing conservatives, fear those demanding a government BY THE PEOPLE in which it means a government that would effectively attempt to reverse the nature of inherited fortunes by intentionally and forcefully taking it away from them artificially. This is what is interpreted by the conservatives as being unfair. Nature without government favors themselves because they hold the actual reigns of power THROUGH their inherited power and thus ARE the 'governing' factor of the people. Selling the dream, by the conservatives, as though all CAN achieve this by their own will and sacrifice, is where they argue against freedom of outcome. They don't need a system that ASSURES equal outcome successes because it necessarily comes by removing what they already have by default.



Dear Scott,




The points you raise all ultimately relate to the issue of the inequalities that exist within social hierarchies in the Western nations, (like: Canada; the United States; the UK; etc.), so I will respond to your arguments by outlining the Conservative principle of HIERARCHY.




Before I do that, I will briefly state one other important core Conservative principle, which is this...traditional Conservatives (like myself) believe that all social questions are, at heart, questions of PRIVATE MORALITY. Our view is that a society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a clear sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honour, will be a good society.




THE PRINCIPLE OF HIERARCHY




Although Marxist-socialist and Liberal-progressive political doctrines deny it, the hierarchical structure of society is hard-wired into human nature. Mainstream science (evolutionary biology, for example) confirms it is a fact that the dominance/competence hierarchy has been around for about half a billion years. It is not merely a phenomenon that appeared with the emergence of human societies. It is a PERMANENT feature of the natural and human worlds.



The hierarchical ordering of human society is not static and rigid and individuals can move up or down the hierarchy of social levels. Despite this movement, the overall hierarchy itself always remains. Moreover, any attempt to reorder the naturally hierarchical nature of human society on the basis of abstract, theoretical concepts in political ideologies like Marxism (as exposited in works like "Das Kapital", or as set down in, "The Communist Manifesto, of 1848) are doomed to fail,and typically in a disastrous manner. The extraordinary violent and bloody history of the 20th century makes this perfectly clear.



When I say that Conservatives view the nature of society as being hierarchical that means they believe the members of society are stratified or layered relative to each other according to social class and occupation and such like. Without this hierarchical structuring society would collapse. This is partly because there can be no social advancement where there is no social hierarchy. A real society of human beings is a place where one can lose or gain; where talent, skill, conscientiousness and hard work are rewarded and arrogance and ignorance deplored. A real society is one that is shaped by competition, conflict, ambition, power, friendship, love and other forces, ALL of which have DISTINCTION rather than equality/equity as their natural outcomes. In a theoretical egalitarian society of equals, there would be neither failure nor success and despair would be conquered by the utter loss of hope.



All societies are ordered based on a hierarchy of some description and the individual members of a society gain their sense of identity from their position within their level or "social strata", therefore it is vitally important that we must all recognise our status or "station" in life and strive to discharge, as best we can, the duties and obligations that accompany our "station." People from all walks of life have a role to play in the maintenance of society from the Queen of England down to the most humble of manual labourers.



Conservatives throughout the ages have also believed that the existence of social hierarchy facilitates "organic society". The traditional Conservative notion of organic society is the perspective that society evolves via a contract between the the living, the dead and those yet unborn. We are all connected by our common humanity within an organic whole, and within this whole we each have a part to play whether we are a member of the social elite at the apex of the social hierarchy or a very humble individual at the base. That is, the Conservative notion of organic society entails the view that different social classes necessarily have an obligation to each other. On a personal note, I think there was great merit in type of Conservatism proposed by the 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli affirmed the traditional Conservative principles of social hierarchy, organic society, and free-market capitalism. As a result of the Industrial Revolution in England, however, the lowest strata of the social hierarchy - the working class - were severely impoverished. Disraeli saw this as serious injustice and felt the Establishment was obliged to offer the workers who needed it, support. He emphasised that the top/elite levels of society had an obligation to those below them in the hierarchy, a notion that was based on the feudal concept of "Noblesse Oblige" whereby the Aristocracy had a duty to be generous and honourable to the less fortunate or less competent members of society.



I mostly agree with Disraeli's paternalistic approach, though I would emphasise that if the government is to tax the wealthy in order to provide funds for supporting the members of the lowest social strata in the social hierarchy, support should only be given to those who (1) are unfortunate in having being born with a serious disability (physical, like blindness or paralysis for example; or psychological, like pronounced mental retardation or severe depression) that precludes them for taking up any gainful employment; (2) find themselves unemployed and impoverished due to factors beyond their control (e.g. economic, like the GFC that hit in 2008, for example, the advent of new technology that has now made their occupation/s redundant, etc.) I believe that such persons should receive the support they require to be able to satisfy basic human needs such as: food; clean water; physiological homeostasis; sleep; clothes; secure accommodation, comprehensive healthcare, etc.



One of Edmund Burke's most famous passages is as follows...



"To be attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections. It is the first link by which we proceed toward a love of our country and mankind."



The "little platoon" Burke was referring was actually the French aristocracy at the time of the Jacobin communist revolution, but most leading Conservative thinkers have interpreted the meaning of "little platoons" differently, though in a way which I am sure Burke would find congenial. The term "little platoons" refers to those person in society we are closest to such as our family, those who are our close friends, our workmates, members of neighbourhood/community associations or voluntary associations, members of our local church and so on.



"Platoon", as you probably know, is a military term. It refers to a group (a "tactical unit") of 16 - 44 soldiers. (This was the average size of an American platoon in the war in Vietnam). Try to calculate, as accurately as you can, how many people there are in YOUR OWN "little platoon." Remember your "little platoon" consists only of individuals like family members and friends and work colleagues etc; that you are close to and choose to engage with a regular basis.



There's not that many, are there, in your "little platoon": 10; 15; 25 ?



Burke says: "...we should all love the little platoon in society to which we belong." I'm going to assume that Burke is taking it for granted that this love we should have for our "little platoon" would be love that is reciprocated by the other members of the platoon, to demonstrate for you how although society is structured into hierarchies of class (and thence: status, dominance, power, authority, wealth and so on) this does not mean it is inevitable that social inequality necessarily results in members of the lower/lowest strata of the hierarchy being the victims of oppression, hostility and degradation. To explain why I'm going to use an argument that was put forward well over 100 years ago by a British philosopher named Herbert Bradley.



I think it was in 1876 that Herbert Bradley wrote his essay entitled "My Station and its Duties". He said that a human being only becomes what he truly is by realizing his freedom in society, and each act of self-realization involves creating and adopting a social station. Whether you are rich or poor, smooth or rough, leisured or work hard for a living, you become what you are through through the circles of influence and affection that distinguish you. Being unhappy comes from being discontented with your position or "station" in life and lacking the means to change it. For ALL of us there comes a point when we settle in a social position which we do not have the power or the will to change. It is from this sense of of our social station that our duties emerge.



Bradley argues that there is no single set of obligations, no such thing as "duty for duty's sake" that applies to all human beings. Rather, each of us has to shoulder the duties of his social station and happiness comes from fulfilling them. It doesn't matter how humble your position in society is, it comes to you clearly marked with the distinction between what is (morally) right and what is wrong - i.e; a right way to occupy your station in life and a wrong way.



Your duties might take the form of a professional ethic, or of a specific role like that of a teacher or a doctor, or of an office like Prime Minister. They might even take on the formidable hereditary form of those imposed on Her Majesty the Queen or Prince Charles as the Prince of Wales.




So, if Bradley is correct, and personally, I think he is. it is through the idea of duty that we can come to feel happy with our lot in life - with our designated social station. Feeling truly contented comes through the sense of being right with others (in one's little social "platoon" and deserving their respect,esteem and affection, which, in turn, depends upon you fulfilling the duties of your station. For example, the humble office cleaner who conscientiously does her job and works hard to ensure that the office is spotlessly clean is rewarded with the friendship of the persons who work in the office. It does not matter that her social position is a humble one, because by occupying her station rightly, she earns a place in society just as honourable as any other.



The upshot then is that a society can be hierarchically ordered without being oppressive or hateful. This is because EVERY station in life has its duties and performing those duties is both an end in itself and a passport to social affection (love) bestowed the the members of your own "little platoon."Moreover, as I mentioned above, social hierarchies are dynamic, and through education, ambition and hard work it is possible than you can change your station, to arrive at the place that matches your achievements and which, by performing its duties, you will possess as your own.




Kindest Regards


Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11857
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Arising_uk » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:16 pm

Wow! All that waffle when you could have just said"Read Plato's Republic". So can I take it that you'd agree with him that to have such a structured society and for it to be considered fair you need to provide a free universal education system open to both men and women?

Dachshund
Posts: 273
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: ARE THERE ANY SOCIALISTS HERE ?

Post by Dachshund » Mon Jul 22, 2019 6:15 am

Arising_uk wrote:
Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:16 pm
Wow! All that waffle when you could have just said"Read Plato's Republic". So can I take it that you'd agree with him that to have such a structured society and for it to be considered fair you need to provide a free universal education system open to both men and women?
No, I would not agree with Plato. Generally speaking when goods and services are provided free to all by the State, the middle classes are slugged with high taxes.

With respect to providing education for kids in the West (the UK, US, Australia, etc.), I have to tell you that I thought the old tripartite system that was put in place in England and Wales in the mid-1940s had considerable merit. During the year they turned 12, students could elect to sit what was called the 11-Plus examination. This exam was designed to identify academically-oriented students, and if you performed well on the 11-Plus you were allowed to attend a Grammar school. Grammar schools taught the traditional academic curriculum and upon graduation from one, successful students would then go on to study at a university. Here are some examples of maths and English questions off an actual old 11-Plus exam (Lincolnshire, 1946 !)...

1. 6a + 7 = 55 - 2a

Find the value of a

2. a = 3/5 x b

Circle the equation that is not correct:

* 5a = 3b * a/b = 3/5 * 3a = 5b * a = 3/5 x b * b - 5/3 x a


3 What does 6 to the power 5 equal


* 5x5x5x5x5x5 * 6x6x6x6x6 * 6x5 * 65 * 56


4. Circle the letter with the spelling mistake:

(A) He caught sight of the house

(B) but, beyond when he drew nearer it disappeared

(c) sudenly behind the

(d) niehbour's hedge


I mentioned this old system was tripartite, so in addition to Grammar schools, there were Technical Schools and Secondary Modern schools. In actual fact there were few Technical Schools ever built and used, so I'll skip them and look at the Secondary Modern schools (SMS), in more detail. The SMSs were for students who did not pass (or choose to sit) the 11-Plus and qualify for entry to a Grammar School. The curriculum in the SMS schools was not academically oriented like the Grammar Schools; the emphasis being on teaching a wide range of simple, practical skills: bolstering competence in arithmetic and English; woodwork; metalwork; domestic skills (home economic; cooking); music (including learning to play a musical instrument) and such like.


I would support the reintroduction off an educational system similar to this old British system. My system would be tripartite with Grammar Schools for the more cognitively able kids, Technology Schools and (What I would call) Comprehensive schools.


In my tripartite system, strictly speaking there would no necessity have to have a passing grade in an external 11- Plus type written examination as the sole criterion for candidates to a Grammar School. As a former teacher I can assure you that if a child is academically orientation s/he easy to identify just from the experience of having taught him/her in class over a year, and through his/her performance on school -based assessment. So selection for Grammar school would be mostly determined like this, although there would probably need to be some kind of universal external examination in addition to ensure that the required standards were being maintained.


The kids who passed my 11-Plus would go the a Grammar School and receive a rigorous academic education. I envisage that these kids will end up at university studying one of the professions: medicine, law, veterinary science or going on to complete post-graduate degrees (Masters PhD) and ultimately becoming scholars/research scientists in the acadamy or private medical/biotechnology/ computer science etc companies or they may ultimately work in government, as high-ranking civil servants (diplomats, policy-advisers). Whatever they end up, these will be kids who work with their MINDS, who are CLEVER (though not necessarily with their more practical things).


My Technological Schools would provide intensive hands-on education in the basic foundational, skills needed to build, maintain and repair the high-tech machines/devices of the 21st century, things like computer systems, telecommunication systems, the electronic workings of cyber-devices, high- tech medical instruments/diagnostic devices, military technology. For the traditional trades: electrician, carpenter, plumber, baker, painter etc; students who wished to enter one of these would go through much the same 4-year apprenticeship system that currently operates as this still system.
proves to be perfectly satisfactory.


As for my Comprehensive Schools, they are called "comprehensive" because they would be designed provide students with a broad range comprehensive life skills. The kids will be looking to obtain jobs in the retail and commercial sectors, as technicians (science laboratory assistant Dental assistants, pharmacy assistants) Among the things they would learn are: arithmetic, English (reading, writing, comprehension, composition) using the internet, home economics (house to run a clean, efficient household, cooking skills), basic legal education for citizens,how to prudently managing home/personal finances (budgeting, taking out loans), job-seeking skills, woodwork/metalwork, horticulture.


Oh dear, I've well and truly stayed off the point, which was your query about free education.So let me quickly address this.


As a Conservative, so I am "allergic" to the principle of the state providing universal FREE this and that : FREE education, FREE healthcare, etc. My old headmaster would frequently say during his weekly address to the assembly: "Boys, there is no such thing as free lunch." How true. Education is a commodity - you will totally disagree with me when I say this, because in your view education is a fundamental human Right I realise that. Supposing Jeremy Corbyn were to become Prime Minister and make university education free for every youngster in England, just because a youngster now no longer has to pay for his/her university tuition doesn't mean that it is provided FREE. There's always someone who has to pay. In Australia a socialist Labour government was elected in 1972 and they made tertiary education "free" What happened is they paid for it by taxing the living daylights out of anyone they could. PAYE workers, especially those working for the state in middle class occupations like teachers, nurses, doctors. Anyone who was wealthy, just hired fancy accountants and lawyers to exploit loopholes in the tax legislation, so they weren't hit. (Nothing's changed in that respect, has it!).


As I mentioned in my post about hierarchy, there are individuals in our society who are at the very bottom of the hierarchy of social strata, If they are there because they CANNOT work in a basic, ordinary job; if they had the misfortune to be born blind or deaf or seriously mentally retarded or with some severe congenital medical condition that means they were born without arms or legs or if they have a profoundly impairing mental disorder like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, unipolar Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), autism or a diagnosed personality disorder, then I thing the state should provide such persons with enough funding to make sure that their basics needs (as per Maslow's "Needs Hierarchy") and those of their family are met.When I say met, I mean they should not be given 10th rate resources. For example basic, secure shelter is a fundamental human need, and the state should provide these person who are unable to work due to rotten luck in life: clean, spacious robust, secure comfortable accommodation; like wise with their other basic needs: fresh, good, quality, healthy food. Persons in this category should NOT have to pay for their children's education at any level: kindergarten; elementary school; secondary school; University (including post-graduate).


Sometimes there a reasons a person cannot work that are not related to any personal diagnosed, physical or mental condition that they have "Shit Happens" in this life, and there is not much you can do about it. When I was working for "BOOTS" in England (I am a pharmacist but I don't work as one anymore) on of the store managers in my district (in the East End of London, Dist 44, I was a locum for the company) had to leave the company because his wife died suddenly one night of an asthma attack in his home. He tried to keep working but really he couldn't. The last time I saw him he was fucked "emotionally", losing his wife like that broke his heart and there was no way he was ever going to recover. I think when things like this happen to people and they cannot work, the state is duty bound ti do the right thing and lend a hand.



Getting back to paying for your child's education. I do not think education should be free, because unless you want to romanticise the issue, the West: the UK, the US, Australia, are very much capitalist economies and I view education as a commodity (in a perfect world that wouldn't be the case, I'm just trying to keep it real and address the situation as it stands here and now in 2019). Parents, I think, should pay a yearly fee for the education that their children receive at pre-school, elementary school, secondary school and university. IT IS ESSENTIAL that ALL children in the UK, Australia, USA, receive a good quality basic education. Those parents who cannot pay their childrens' education fees and have a legitimate reason why they cannot should be exempted until such time (if ever) they can return to work or otherwise secure the financial means to pay their own way. Where a fee for children's education is levied, there will also be cases of parents who are "working poor", and could well find that they cannot realistically afford the cost of the annual education fee. These persons should also the financial assistance they require from the state to meet the costs of the education fee.



BUT, THAT IS IT Everyone else with kids at pre-school, elementary school and secondary school should be required to pay for their children's education. When it comes to the question of financing tertiary education, I think the student loan system in England is very good. My son went to the Royal Veterinary College and completed a 3-year degree course there. He was billed £9,000/ year of the course. Now he has a good job with Welcome in Herts, and every fortnight the government takes a little chuck of dosh out of his pay cheque to work off the student debt he accrued. It's not a HUGE amount of money they take out, so all in all I think England's is sensible and very fair. One problem I would mention is how in the US the left (Marxist- Postmodernist academic) have seized control of the non-STEM University curriculum. The US has a student loan scheme like Englands. What has happened is that a plethora of bogus course like: Social Justice Studies; Women's Studies; Black Studies; Postcolonial Studies, Cultural Studies,various course in neo-Marxist Critical Theory (Frankfurt School stuff) So, the kids think this left-wing stuff is Kwell, and they sign up for degrees in it. What happens is that they get their degree and discover they are unemployable because they have no marketable knowledge and/or skills. I mean, let's face it what kind of job are going to be able to get with a degree on Social Justice? The answer is none, because you just wasted your time fiddling about with purely worthless, left-wing theoretical bullshit.




I am also very wary about the notion of the state wishing to make education free for all, in the way that Corbyn was saying last year that he would abolish all tuition fees for students attending universities in England (the UK ?). When that happens, is that the state tends to presume it has a right - since its paying everyone's salary - to start poking its official nose into areas like the curriculum, pedagogy and research, areas is is not qualified to interfere in.



Finally you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that because I say I am a Conservative, I am therefore a "let -the -market -rip" laissez-fair neo-liberal/capitalist. Capitalism is a very crude and blunt economic instrument, it is fuelled by pure greed. Here is how it works: I buy shit then I sell that shit more than it cost me. That's called making profit. Now I just keep doing that as fast as I can using any trick I can think of to sell the shit I bought for more than it cost. I keep going and going until I make a million dollars, then 50 million dollars then 5 billion dollar and then 70 billion dollars and I keep all of my money locked away in a safe like Scrooge , because I'm such a greedy, selfish, heartless ****.




It doesn't take much in the way of brains or imagination or virtue to play the game of capitalism. What drives it is a lust for money and a ruthless kind of greed and ego-centrism that is frankly psychopathic and often paranoid to boot.



I am a traditional Conservative, NOT a neo-liberal capitalist. I believe in minimizing the size of the state, I believe in the kind of classical liberalism that John Locke endorsed, I believe in the economic principle of the free market -(the kind of free market economics the American Founders worked into their Constitution in the late 18th century) - a "free market" economy, BTW, is not the same thing at all as a capitalist economy. I believe that society is hierarchically ordered and the ruling political class is, of course, located at the apex of the structure. As a Conservative I believe that those who are members of the ruling class should : be raised in polite society; be well educated in science or the liberal arts; be well read; be married and have his own children have had some experience in the military learning to obey and to command (like Prince Harry); also have some experience as an administrator of law and justice; possess the character traits of diligence, order, constancy and regularity; habiturated to vigilance, foresight and circumspection and should be taught to shun danger in pursuit of duty and honour; some experience working with skilled traders in the market in order to learn the way the economy operates. By the time a person from a suitable background has acquired all of the different kinds of experience I mention and cultivated the necessary character traits, s/he will be a middle - aged man, perhaps around 50 years old. That is what I would suggest as an appropriate age for entering public life. I do not believe young adults are fit to become members of the political ruling class in the West, they simply lack the necessary experience of life. (A good example of this is the 29 year-old Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio = Cortez, who has, to date, inflicted tremendous damage on her own political party and made US politics the laughing stock of the world. Another example is the 35 year-old Democrat Congresswoman, Muslim, Ilhan Omar, who has so little understand of politics that she has, during speeches acted as an apologist for Islamic extremist organisations, as well as publicly insulting the memories of those Americans who died on 9/11, while she was speaking in New York City; she has also broadcast a string of vile anti-semitic racist slurs in the brief 2 years she has been in Congress.) Note on my shopping list of attributes for those who ought be chosen to become a member of the ruling class in the West, there is no stipulation that such a person must possess astronomical.
wealth/assets. I expect that they would be quite wealth persons , but not ridiculously so.



Later Tosspot



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner)

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests