One Social Order Troll says that socialism = small government

[SolidIntegra]

Obama is a fascist not a socialist. A socialist would try to halt/freeze foreclosures. Obama was outraged when McCain talked about doing just that.

[Sane]

Obama is a fascist not a socialist. A socialist would try to halt/freeze foreclosures. Obama was outraged when McCain talked about doing just that.

Please look up the word Fascism...

It is National Socialism

Both Fascism and Communism are 2 sides of the NWO socialist paradigm.

More power to the center, less local power.

Same shit, different assholes

[SolidIntegra]

Please look up the word Fascism...

It is National Socialism

Both Fascism and Communism are 2 sides of the NWO socialist paradigm.

More power to the center, less local power.

Same shit, different assholes

fascism advocates that big corporations will manage social services, like jobs, schools, prison.

In communism the government manages everything. Usually Fascists and communists hate eachother. Also communists advocate distribution of wealth where fascists absolutely don't. Free market leads to oligopoly fascism (in this case the Bankers who backed obama). Anarchism (which is what real communism advocates) eventually leads to first pack of power hungry thugs calling the shots.

[sociostudent]

fascism advocates that big corporations will manage social services, like jobs, schools, prison.

In communism the government manages everything. Usually Fascists and communists hate eachother. Also communists advocate distribution of wealth where fascists absolutely don't. Free market leads to oligopoly fascism (in this case the Bankers who backed obama). Anarchism (which is what real communism advocates) eventually leads to first pack of power hungry thugs calling the shots.

No, a free market (if actually free) will lead to a free republic. Oligopoly fascism results when you have "crony capitalism"("an allegedly capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between businessmen and government officials", according to Wikipedia)

[Sane]

fascism advocates that big corporations will manage social services, like jobs, schools, prison.

In communism the government manages everything. Usually Fascists and communists hate eachother. Also communists advocate distribution of wealth where fascists absolutely don't. Free market leads to oligopoly fascism (in this case the Bankers who backed obama). Anarchism (which is what real communism advocates) eventually leads to first pack of power hungry thugs calling the shots.

There are so many things wrong with your paragraph I do not know where to begin.

Hopefully this will help, your proposition:

"Usually Fascists and communists hate eachother"

Is only correct for the lower tiers of fascists and communists.  At the top they work together to enslave all of the people.

Just realize that both of these constructs were invented to give more power to central forces and less power to local forces.

This is centralized slavery vs. free will and individual liberty.

In addition the notion that free markets eventually lead to oligopolies is very absurd.  Free markets have been taken away from us by the same elite power families that existed for centuries (coleman can trace them back at least 400 years via the East India Trading Company).  Centralized banking does not exist in a free market, it was not in the constitution and only came into existence (after Jackson destroyed the last one) because of anti-constitutional amendments, stealth, and deception.

The bankers (the large ones, not the independent ones) are not free market capitalists, they are socialists.  They believe that they can work with the state to enforce anti-free market barriers to entry via regulation and tarriffs.

[Quebec_Separatist]

Socialism is good because it's the least present form of government. Removing it should be the very last step in removing governments.

It's social solidarity where common funds go to help society (and the poor) as a whole, without actually owning businesses since that would be the step into communism. For example, public schools are communism where the government owns and controls the schools funded with your own money and are generally hell holes.

People against social solidarity are vile individuals who are, in fact, our enemies. They think "it's me, myself and i" and do we really want people like that in our countries?

Interestingly, politicians that attack socialism then try to create the worst form of government: the police state. So generally, people against socialism are for much stronger and powerful governments.

Think about it this way: if the money was used on socialism, they wouldn't have much money to fund their mass prisons, fema camps, army, and generally their police state. Socialism is what is actually slowing down Stephen Harper (prime minister of Canada) in his subversion of Canada into a US-like police state because, as he promised to double army funds, he couldn't practically do it because there was no money available.

In fact, he will have to attack socialism first to retrieve money $$$ to be able to inject it into the police state (powerful internal and external armies to control my country and the world).

[Freeski]

Socialism is good because it's the least present form of government. Removing it should be the very last step in removing governments.

It's social solidarity where common funds go to help society (and the poor) as a whole, without actually owning businesses since that would be the step into communism. For example, public schools are communism where the government owns and controls the schools funded with your own money and are generally hell holes.

People against social solidarity are vile individuals who are, in fact, our enemies. They think "it's me, myself and i" and do we really want people like that in our countries?

Interestingly, politicians that attack socialism then try to create the worst form of government: the police state. So generally, people against socialism are for much stronger and powerful governments.

Think about it this way: if the money was used on socialism, they wouldn't have much money to fund their mass prisons, fema camps, army, and generally their police state. Socialism is what is actually slowing down Stephen Harper (prime minister of Canada) in his subversion of Canada into a US-like police state because, as he promised to double army funds, he couldn't practically do it because there was no money available.

In fact, he will have to attack socialism first to retrieve money $$$ to be able to inject it into the police state (powerful internal and external armies to control my country and the world).

The police state is based on socialism. How else can you enforce the socialist policies (theft)?

Socialism, or forced "charity", is a scam. It's imoral in a free society and based on the idea that we need to level the playing field, regardless of one's capabilities, desires or effort. We must eliminate the nanny state.

[Sane]

So generally, people against socialism are for much stronger and powerful governments.

2+2=5

Slavery=freedom

War=peace

[Quebec_Separatist]

The police state is based on socialism. How else can you enforce the socialist policies (theft)?

Socialism is the most minimal form of government. Thus anyone against big government has to be a socialist.

and based on the idea that we need to level the playing field, regardless of one's capabilities, desires or effort.

What is wrong in the idea of helping the poor?

While i'm sensitive to your argument about freedom and no government, your radical view is anarchist rather than humanitarian.

[Geolibertarian]

What is wrong in the idea of helping the poor?

The problem is not the goal of helping the poor, but rather the backwards, counterproductive means by which most on the so-called "Left" routinely attempt to accomplish that professed goal.

I address this more fully at:

     http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=77268.msg429726#msg429726

[Sane]

Socialism is the most minimal form of government. Thus anyone against big government has to be a socialist.

Quebec Separatist:

The above sentences are complete lies.  Socialism is big government.  Socialism only exists with a government to protect it.  The more socialized a society, the bigger the government infringes on individual rights.  It is neo-feudalism where the "state" is god and the people are servants/slaves.  Please research this prior to making such obviously false statements in the future.

thanks

[241727]

Socialism is the most minimal form of government. Thus anyone against big government has to be a socialist.

What is wrong in the idea of helping the poor?

While i'm sensitive to your argument about freedom and no government, your radical view is anarchist rather than humanitarian.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking after the poor. If they were'nt robbing us blind, taxing us to death, we would not have the problems we have.

Social-isim
Conservativ-isim
Liberal-isim
Commun-isim

They are all false doctrines that teach people to apply one solution to all problems. Really if the local people actualy made the decisions on the basis of solving problems rather than blind adherence to dogma, then they could find real solutions, or accept that they made a mistake and correct it with the next vote. What works in one community, for solving one problem will not neccessarliy work for another different community, with slightly different circumstances. These dogmatic one size fits all solutions are part of false dialectic.

We have never ever had a free people who actualy controled how there community was run.

[Quebec_Separatist]

The problem is not the goal of helping the poor, but rather the backwards, counterproductive means by which most on the so-called "Left" routinely attempt to accomplish that professed goal.

Are you saying that socialism is not the problem (here), but governments? In which case i'd agree.

The above sentences are complete lies.  Socialism is big government.  Socialism only exists with a government to protect it.  The more socialized a society, the bigger the government infringes on individual rights.

There's a point where socialism becomes communism and is then big government. Other than that, socialism is small government compared to the army, mass prisons, and what we generally refer to as the police state.

They are all false doctrines that teach people to apply one solution to all problems.

I'm not saying socialism is the solution to all problems, just that it represents the minimal form of government before, and as a last step before, no government.

[Geolibertarian]

Are you saying that socialism is not the problem (here), but governments?

If you had bothered to read the post I linked to, you'd already know what I was saying (as well as what I wasn't saying).

To spare you the trouble of having to go back to page two of this thread, I'll post the link again:

     http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=77268.msg429726#msg429726

[Quebec_Separatist]

Nothing personal but i don't read texts that are too long, IMO a well-thought idea takes little words.

[241727]

Are you saying that socialism is not the problem (here), but governments? In which case i'd agree.

There's a point where socialism becomes communism and is then big government. Other than that, socialism is small government compared to the army, mass prisons, and what we generally refer to as the police state.

I'm not saying socialism is the solution to all problems, just that it represents the minimal form of government before, and as a last step before, no government.

Your either barking mad, or a total Troll.
By defintion Socialism EXPANDS CENTRALIZED Govt
and must INCREASE TAXATION

I'm in favour of Local Government as the absolute authority, with central govt idealy being the least powerfull.
Only Localy elected officals can represent the peoples wishes.

[Freeski]

Are you saying that socialism is not the problem (here), but governments? In which case i'd agree.

There's a point where socialism becomes communism and is then big government. Other than that, socialism is small government compared to the army, mass prisons, and what we generally refer to as the police state.

I'm not saying socialism is the solution to all problems, just that it represents the minimal form of government before, and as a last step before, no government.

No, non, no... socialism IS BIG government. It's when the state decides how you should run your life and takes money from some to balance things out with others less fortunate. It's also about forcing you, at the point of a gun, to wear your seatbelt when you drive, to install snowtires on your car, to prevent independent business from deciding for themselves whether to allow smoking in their restaurant, or how big the letters on your sign must be - and oodles of other "for your own good" initiatves.

Read Geolibertarian's thread: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=77268.msg429726#msg429726

PS - Assuming you are a Quebec Separatist, why? Isn't the whole idea of "independence" supposed to be about shedding power from above and more self-determination?

[Freeski]

Nothing personal but i don't read texts that are too long, IMO a well-thought idea takes little words.

It might be time to rethink that position. Soundbytes and headlines are nothing but propaganda. You have to read in order to understand something. Make a pot of coffee, it'll be fun!

[Xavier]

Socialism is the most minimal form of government. Thus anyone against big government has to be a socialist.

Totally disagree with your statement, socialism develops and maintains many levels of a bulging bureaucracy. All you have to do is look at your own socialist society in Canada, where levels upon levels of government feed off one another. Here in the U.S. we have seen socialism policies grow in such magnitude we are looking more like a sub-state of the late USSR then the great USA we once knew.

What is wrong in the idea of helping the poor?

While i'm sensitive to your argument about freedom and no government, your radical view is anarchist rather than humanitarian.

Helping the poor? That is all we have done for decades, we have poured in money after money in failed socialist policies. The poor is still here and growing substantially every year. So please save the humanitarian speech, this just makes you sound more like a follower of FDR then a true free liberal thinker.    

Side note: What makes you think if Quebec ever separates from mother Canada your politicians will be any better then what you have now? You are delusional if you think Quebec will become a great free republic, your politicians are farther left then the ones in Ottawa.    

[Geolibertarian]

Nothing personal but i don't read texts that are too long,

Nothing personal in return, but I don't take seriously anyone whose attention span is so short that he regards something that takes only a few minutes to read as "too long."

IMO a well-thought idea takes little words.

In other words, if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker, it's too long-winded.  

[Quebec_Separatist]

It's also about forcing you, at the point of a gun, to wear your seatbelt when you drive, to install snowtires on your car, to prevent independent business from deciding for themselves whether to allow smoking in their restaurant, or how big the letters on your sign must be - and oodles of other "for your own good" initiatves.

That's not socialism in my eyes. That's the police state. Socialism really needs to be defined as purely economic and with the intent of helping the poor (or helping society as a whole: for example, we all need health care and we all need schools). However, i'm not talking about communist schools like we have now where they are state-controlled.

PS - Assuming you are a Quebec Separatist, why? Isn't the whole idea of "independence" supposed to be about shedding power from above and more self-determination?

Well yes That's why i'm a separatist... And since we separate and become a new entity, it also necessarily creates a revolution where the new country has to be defined. So the constitutional republic has to be created, and hopefully in a way as to avoid the downfalls that happened in the US where your government defecates on it every day.

It might be time to rethink that position. Soundbytes and headlines are nothing but propaganda. You have to read in order to understand something. Make a pot of coffee, it'll be fun!

My brain can't process it. I have a blockage, maybe language or something else.

Side note: What makes you think if Quebec ever separates from mother Canada your politicians will be any better then what you have now? You are delusional if you think Quebec will become a great free republic, your politicians are farther left then the ones in Ottawa.

Nothing prevents me from advocating my own brand of independance. However, even if we separated with the current clique in power, it could still be a plus in order to avoid the police state à la US that Harper is trying to create in Canada where someone steals a chocolate bar and gets life in prison (ie California). It would be about fleeing from the commonwealth police states that are almost, and even perhaps racial, in nature.

Nothing personal in return, but I don't take seriously anyone whose attention span is so short that he regards something that takes only a few minutes to read as "too long."

I'm the opposite   I don't take anyone seriously who reads book after book of texts-without-points and just create a massive brain fog of flying words.

Totally disagree with your statement, socialism develops and maintains many levels of a bulging bureaucracy. All you have to do is look at your own socialist society in Canada, where levels upon levels of government feed off one another. Here in the U.S. we have seen socialism policies grow in such magnitude we are looking more like a sub-state of the late USSR then the great USA we once knew.

Our socialism represent minimal government much more than the US (but that is changing with Harper and his NWO agenda). Do you realize that Harper created a minimum sentence of something like 3 months for possession of child pornography because most of the time, people didn't go to prison for it? I hear in the US, it's 5, even 10 years.

Our socialism is the perfect example of my point and how Canada is a much, much freer country than the US.

[eagle74]

I'm in Canada..and i don't think we're more free...having said that, "vive la Quebec libre".....

In my eyes Right to bear Arms and economic freedom are much greater in the US...

What makes u say Canada is more free?

[Xavier]

Our socialism represent minimal government much more than the US (but that is changing with Harper and his NWO agenda). Do you realize that Harper created a minimum sentence of something like 3 months for possession of child pornography because most of the time, people didn't go to prison for it? I hear in the US, it's 5, even 10 years.

Our socialism is the perfect example of my point and how Canada is a much, much freer country than the US.

You are way of base if you feel Canada is a much freer country, we are all in the same sinking ship. Also being blind to your PM's policies before Harper is being totally intellectually dishonest. Jean Chretien policies were just as frightening as any of Harper's. I could go on and on about your other PM's and their failed policies, but since you do read posts longer then 2 sentences I will not bother. Please do yourself a favor and wake up to the fact you have been a socialist nightmare just like the rest of us.   

[RickT]

You are way of base if you feel Canada is a much freer country, we are all in the same sinking ship. Also being blind to your PM's policies before Harper is being totally intellectually dishonest. Jean Chretien policies were just as frightening as any of Harper's. I could go on and on about your other PM's and their failed policies, but since you do read posts longer then 2 sentences I will not bother. Please do yourself a favor and wake up to the fact you have been a socialist nightmare just like the rest of us.   

Amen!

[TahoeBlue]

two cents:
Socialism?
Corporatism

"Rise of the fourth reich" Jim Marrs
http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061692703/The_Rise_of_the_Fourth_Reich/index.aspx

Throw out everything you think you know about history. Close the approved textbooks, turn off the corporate mass media, and whatever you do, don't believe anything you hear from the government—The Rise of the Fourth Reich reveals the truth about American power. In this explosive new book, the legendary Jim Marrs, author of the underground bestseller Rule by Secrecy, reveals the frighteningly real possibility that today the United States is becoming the Fourth Reich, the continuation of an ideology thought to have been vanquished more than a half century ago.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlm-dmsyYPA

Jim Marrs on the Alex Jones Show:Rise of the Fourth Reich p1


One cent:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2005/03/christian-evangelicals-and-cia.html
Christian evangelicals and the CIA
 
Http://www.rense.com/general20/unholy.htm

Rense has an article about CIA links to Christian evangelical leaders in the USA.

Nearly all the top Christian evangelicals in the USA apparently have connections with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The CIA allegedly has links to Moon. http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen01142003.html


One of the National Religious Broadcasters is Pat Robertson whose activities reportedly include: "support for the slaughter of thousands of Indians by a Guatemalan dictator; public praise for the reputed leader of Salvadoran death squads; collaboration with murky U.S. mercenary groups; and the provision of chaplains and funds to the contra army seeking to topple the government of Nicaragua...". Http://www.skepticfiles.org/weird/patr.htm

Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network organised Operation Blessing. This operation reportedly helped supply goods to the Contras. The head of Operation Blessing was Captain Robert Warren, who was also formerly associated with a CIA group called "Operation Phoenix." Allegedly this was an assassination group that operated in Vietnam. Also associated with this group was Oliver North.


http://www.bdmilitary.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=175356

The CIA in India

Around the time that Bush Jr moved into the Oval office, a worldwide conversion movement, funded and effected by American evangelical groups, was peaking in India. The movement, which began as AD2000 & Beyond and later morphed into Joshua Project I and Joshua Project II, was designed to be a sledgehammer-a breathtaking, decade-long steamroller of a campaign that would set the stage for a systematic, sophisticated and self-sustaining "harvest" of the "unreached people groups" in India in the 21st century. It was just as the operation was taking off that the script changed. Much to the delight of American evangelicals, one of their own, George Bush Jr, became the occupant of the White House.

[Freeski]

That's not socialism in my eyes. That's the police state.

A socialist state and a police state are the same thing. Go back up and re-read the thread (in small doses, of course).

[Freeski]

I'm in Canada..and i don't think we're more free...having said that, "vive la Quebec libre".....

In my eyes Right to bear Arms and economic freedom are much greater in the US...

What makes u say Canada is more free?

We're equally unfree because we're both currently owned by the same monsters.

[sociostudent]

This thread only proves one thing:

The government gets what it pays for in regards to education.

If you never TEACH these people what communism really IS, and how socialism and fascism are just two branches of the same poisonous tree, you can't really expect them to know any better.

[Freeski]

This thread only proves one thing:

The government gets what it pays for in regards to education.

If you never TEACH these people what communism really IS, and how socialism and fascism are just two branches of the same poisonous tree, you can't really expect them to know any better.

So true.

The way I see it, the OP is either underinformed or a troll, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt until the mods get a sniff of it. You can learn a lot about all kinds of people.

[GoingEtheric]

Obama is a fascist not a socialist. A socialist would try to halt/freeze foreclosures. Obama was outraged when McCain talked about doing just that.

hair-splitting, man.