PDA

View Full Version : DuPont Family Member Rapes Three Year Old Daughter, Does Not Serve Time



Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 05:31 PM
A Delaware man convicted of raping his three-year-old daughter only faced probation after a state Superior Court judge ruled he "will not fare well" in prison.

In her decision, Judge Jan Jurden suggested Robert H. Richards IV would benefit more from treatment. Richards, who was charged with fourth-degree rape in 2009, is an unemployed heir living off his trust fund. The light sentence has only became public as the result of a subsequent lawsuit filed by his ex-wife, which charges that he penetrated his daughter with his fingers while masturbating, and subsequently assaulted his son as well.

Richards is the great grandson of du Pont family patriarch Irenee du Pont, a chemical baron.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/30/robert-richards-rape_n_5060386.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Absinthe Anecdote
03-31-2014, 05:54 PM
The DuPont family has more than a couple of crazies in their ranks. I remember about 10 years ago one of them had bought an old M-113 armored personnel carrier and caused a bunch of trouble on the family compound. I forget how the cops got him out of it, but the standoff lasted several days.

I wonder if this is the same guy.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 06:00 PM
A few months ago, I said that democracy was a failure. Because of the government shutdown; and the fact that were it not for democracy, there would be no shutdown because someone would have the power to keep the government running.

But, then again... democracy would have only been a failure if you take what democracy says it is at face value.

Probably the most important feature of democracy is the concept of "equality." There's no royalty or nobility; or anyone who, by law (on paper), enjoys more rights or privileges than you do.

But... are we naive enough to believe that what's on paper is a reflection of reality?

There's that famous quote by John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarassed millionaires."

And why do we see ourselves as temporarily embarassed millionaires? Because our "democracy" has convinced us all that that's what we are.

Combine that with the fact that the US doesn't have a history of royalty and nobility, like European countries do. Because European countries have that history, the common people knew their place... and thus, knew to rise up against the powers that be.

American commoners don't know their place. They can't rise up against the powers that be, because they think they're equal. And incidents like what happened in this article still will not convince most otherwise.

I really do believe that history behind American and European commoners shaped their attitudes toward socialism, and is actually echoed behind how whites and minorities vote in the US.

Minorities actually have a history of having less legal rights in this country, which enables them to have a more realistic perspective on what their place is in this society. Whites don't have that perspective. That's why you have so many whites who vote Republican, even they make $8/hr sweating their balls off in a warehouse.

A man who knows his place is more dangerous than a man who does not. Convince him that we're all equal, and he won't know any better.

sandsjames
03-31-2014, 06:14 PM
Anyway...back on topic...

This guy should be hung by his nuts and beaten with a very thin stick until he bleeds to death.

Stalwart
03-31-2014, 06:21 PM
Anyway...back on topic...

This guy should be hung by his nuts and beaten with a very thin stick until he bleeds to death.

Yes, twice.

I am a new dad, our daughter was raised in an orphanage in China and we are pretty sure she was abused while there (opinion of ours and her doctor) based on how she acts and some other issues. I don't understand how someone could senselessly harm a child like that.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 06:23 PM
Anyway...back on topic...

This guy should be hung by his nuts and beaten with a very thin stick until he bleeds to death.

If we lived in a society where equality exists, his inmates would be doing that to him as we speak.

But we don't.

How many enlisted military members get totally disappointment whenever a field grade officer commits a crime, and the punishment is that they simply won't make the next paygrade... or they get forced to retire (sometimes EARLY) with FULL benefits? Worst case scenario being that they might lose one paygrade? When if that SAME crime were to be committed by an enlisted, he'd do hard larbor in prison, get busted to E1, and dishonorably discharged?

Oh, enlisted get pissed... but they're more disappointed than pissed. Disappointed, because they think the justice system is supposed to be equal. If only... if only, you knew your place.

sandsjames
03-31-2014, 06:44 PM
If we lived in a society where equality exists, his inmates would be doing that to him as we speak.

But we don't.

How many enlisted military members get totally disappointment whenever a field grade officer commits a crime, and the punishment is that they simply won't make the next paygrade... or they get forced to retire (sometimes EARLY) with FULL benefits? Worst case scenario being that they might lose one paygrade? When if that SAME crime were to be committed by an enlisted, he'd do hard larbor in prison, get busted to E1, and dishonorably discharged?

Oh, enlisted get pissed... but they're more disappointed than pissed. Disappointed, because they think the justice system is supposed to be equal. If only... if only, you knew your place.Please don't derail your own thread into a race/class thread. You can start one about it somewhere a different one about it somewhere else...maybe the politic thread?

What pisses me off most about this sort of thing is that you have caring, loving parents who get thrown in jail for simply disciplining their children. Then you have a worm like this. He wouldn't "fare will" in prison? Is it supposed to be any different? Does any other child rapist fare well in prison? They get what they deserve. They deserve to suffer. If it's determined he needs treatment then so be it. But it should be in conjunction with being someone's bitch.

ThaBufe
03-31-2014, 06:49 PM
A few months ago, I said that democracy was a failure. Because of the government shutdown; and the fact that were it not for democracy, there would be no shutdown because someone would have the power to keep the government running.

But, then again... democracy would have only been a failure if you take what democracy says it is at face value.

Probably the most important feature of democracy is the concept of "equality." There's no royalty or nobility; or anyone who, by law (on paper), enjoys more rights or privileges than you do.

But... are we naive enough to believe that what's on paper is a reflection of reality?

There's that famous quote by John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarassed millionaires."

And why do we see ourselves as temporarily embarassed millionaires? Because our "democracy" has convinced us all that that's what we are.

Combine that with the fact that the US doesn't have a history of royalty and nobility, like European countries do. Because European countries have that history, the common people knew their place... and thus, knew to rise up against the powers that be.

American commoners don't know their place. They can't rise up against the powers that be, because they think they're equal. And incidents like what happened in this article still will not convince most otherwise.

I really do believe that history behind American and European commoners shaped their attitudes toward socialism, and is actually echoed behind how whites and minorities vote in the US.

Minorities actually have a history of having less legal rights in this country, which enables them to have a more realistic perspective on what their place is in this society. Whites don't have that perspective. That's why you have so many whites who vote Republican, even they make $8/hr sweating their balls off in a warehouse.

A man who knows his place is more dangerous than a man who does not. Convince him that we're all equal, and he won't know any better.

Your derogotory and slightly racist rant might mean more if "One Percenters" were the only ones to receive rediculous sentenses for such crimes because "they wouldn't do well in prison". This isn't the first time this kind of crap has happened.

Article: Judge rules sex offender is too short for prison
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12969163/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/judge-rules-sex-offender-too-short-prison/

Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 07:14 PM
Please don't derail your own thread into a race/class thread. You can start one about it somewhere a different one about it somewhere else...maybe the politic thread?

We can eliminate race from it, as I included it to demonstrate something.

Class? Unfortunately, it CANNOT be eliminated. He's a member of the DuPont family. Anyone would else would have gotten a harsh sentence.


Your derogotory and slightly racist rant

Quit playing the race card.


might mean more if "One Percenters" were the only ones to receive rediculous sentenses for such crimes because "they wouldn't do well in prison". This isn't the first time this kind of crap has happened.

Article: Judge rules sex offender is too short for prison
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12969163/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/judge-rules-sex-offender-too-short-prison/

The example you gave was a random abnormal occurance.

If you think for one second that, as the norm, people with money do not get off light compared to those who do not, then you're naive. This is pretty much the same thing as the drunk rich kid who killed four people while driving his daddy's truck.

As far as this guy not faring well in prison, I call bullshit. I'm from Delaware. While Wilmington does have more crime per capita than Philadelphia (just like Camden, NJ), taking the whole state of Delaware into account... Delaware prisons are a fucking joke. There are only three in the whole state, one for each county.

Personally, if I was the governor of Delaware; I would pay New Jersey to take our child rapists.

Even if he was in a "hard" prison... like San Quentin or Riker's Island, he could EASILY stand up a large group of inmates to protect him by setting up recurring funds to their commissary accounts.

sandsjames
03-31-2014, 07:24 PM
We can eliminate race from it, as I included it to demonstrate something.

Class? Unfortunately, it CANNOT be eliminated. He's a member of the DuPont family. Anyone would else would have gotten a light sentence.

We do hear of several instances with this sort of thing happening...the light/no sentence thing...for rich/famous people.

I am curious how often it happens with the lower classes. The "1%" is just that, so it's easy for the media to cover and we are almost all going to hear about it. But then you have the other 99%, which can't possibly be covered as easily...I'd be willing to guess there are several who get off pretty easy from the lower class. It's just not public enough for us to hear because it's not going make the "News" channels any money. I have a hard time believing that there aren't several poverty level to upper middle class people who have recieved a similar sentence. It's just not going to make the news if it's about John Smith from Bristol Tennessee.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 07:34 PM
We do hear of several instances with this sort of thing happening...the light/no sentence thing...for rich/famous people.

I am curious how often it happens with the lower classes. The "1%" is just that, so it's easy for the media to cover and we are almost all going to hear about it. But then you have the other 99%, which can't possibly be covered as easily...I'd be willing to guess there are several who get off pretty easy from the lower class. It's just not public enough for us to hear because it's not going make the "News" channels any money. I have a hard time believing that there aren't several poverty level to upper middle class people who have recieved a similar sentence. It's just not going to make the news if it's about John Smith from Bristol Tennessee.

The problem is that the light/no sentence is the NORM for the rich. Maybe not necessarily so for the "famous" - for example, an actor or a singer might get off lighter than you and I would; but isn't going to get off anywhere NEAR as light as a Walton or, in this case, a DuPont.

ThaBufe
03-31-2014, 08:09 PM
Quit playing the race card.



That's rich, the guy who's called just about everybody on these boards a racist at one time or another basically says that white people are too ignorant to know when they're being oppressed, gets called out on it and it's "playing the race card". And notice I only said slightly racist. At least it was "ignorant whites" instead of "dumb ass crackers". So thanks for that, I appreciate the restraint.



The example you gave was a random abnormal occurance.

If you think for one second that, as the norm, people with money do not get off light compared to those who do not, then you're naive. This is pretty much the same thing as the drunk rich kid who killed four people while driving his daddy's truck.


You're kind of missing the point. In both cases the people (jury) did their jobs and convicted these people and in both cases it was the government (which you're advocating more of and whites are ignorant because some of them want less) that dropped the ball and as you say, do so for the rich far more than the poor. Are you really naive enough to think that there aren't "elites" in socialist societies and that a larger and more powerful government wouldn’t continue to screw over us peasants for their benefit?



As far as this guy not faring well in prison, I call bullshit. I'm from Delaware. While Wilmington does have more crime per capita than Philadelphia (just like Camden, NJ), taking the whole state of Delaware into account... Delaware prisons are a fucking joke. There are only three in the whole state, one for each county.

Personally, if I was the governor of Delaware; I would pay New Jersey to take our child rapists.

Even if he was in a "hard" prison... like San Quentin or Riker's Island, he could EASILY stand up a large group of inmates to protect him by setting up recurring funds to their commissary accounts.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if you misunderstood my post to state that I agree with these pathetically light sentenses, I do not. I think they should have both done hard time, and lots of it. We both agree that not fairing well in prison is complete bullshit.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 08:15 PM
That's rich, the guy who's called just about everybody on these boards a racist at one time or another basically says that white people are too ignorant to know when they're being oppressed, gets called out on it and it's "playing the race card". And notice I only said slightly racist. At least it was "ignorant whites" instead of "dumb ass crackers". So thanks for that, I appreciate the restraint.

I never said "ignorant whites." If I did, please quote me. I'm just saying that minorities have a LEGAL history that provides them a frame of reference as to their societal standing. Whites do not.

Do you dispute this?



You're kind of missing the point. In both cases the people (jury) did their jobs and convicted these people and in both cases it was the government (which you're advocating more of and whites are ignorant because some of them want less) that dropped the ball and as you say, do so for the rich far more than the poor. Are you really naive enough to think that there aren't "elites" in socialist societies and that a larger and more powerful government wouldn’t continue to screw over us peasants for their benefit?

Who would these elites be? Under a good socialist system, no non-governmental entity would have this kind of power.



I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if you misunderstood my post to state that I agree with these pathetically light sentenses, I do not. I think they should have both done hard time, and lots of it. We both agree that not fairing well in prison is complete bullshit.

It wasn't directed at you. But you did appear to be sticking up for the 1%.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2014, 08:29 PM
I also want to add this: The Enlightment did not occur until the 1600's. This happened over 5,000 years after the majority of the world had been ruled by kings, queens, and tribal chiefs.

Whereas, here? After only a few centuries of democracy - the form that we're familiar with anyway - existing, there are protests and everything going on all over the world against it.

It took thousands of years for people to take a stand against monarchy. But only a few hundred in the case of democracy.

I think that the reason why is because people are more likely to accept something as a rule, as long as the system that makes the rules is honest about it. If there was a law on the books that had a schedule in print that determines the sentence one gets for a particular crime based on net worth, there would probably be less outrage. Or it might take longer for the outrage to develop.

Mjölnir
03-31-2014, 08:37 PM
This thread is more Politics and Government.

/thread moved

Stalwart
03-31-2014, 08:52 PM
I also want to add this: The Enlightment did not occur until the 1600's. This happened over 5,000 years after the majority of the world had been ruled by kings, queens, and tribal chiefs.

Whereas, here? After only a few centuries of democracy - the form that we're familiar with anyway - existing, there are protests and everything going on all over the world against it.

It took thousands of years for people to take a stand against monarchy. But only a few hundred in the case of democracy.

My opinion, it seems a much larger portion of the revolutionaries against monarchies understood government compared to today where there are many people who consider themselves 'informed' who have very little actual information on the target of their angst (on both the far right and the far left) or how to make things happen.

I would ask, do you think that stories like the DuPont one (which I think is a terrible example of how the system 'should' work) would get as much mileage as a similar example with a minority or 'lower class' defendant who is given a break because the judge sees him/her as a victim of his circumstance -- which also happens? Do more minorities commit crimes in Detroit because there are more minorities in Detroit, or because minorities are prone to commit crimes -- why do more whites commit crimes in Idaho?

Back in 1996 when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder, it would seem (based on the DuPont example) that the 1% would have embraced the decision (he did get the best defense that money could buy) and the 99% would bemoan the economic inequality of the situation (regardless of Simpson's ethnicity), but the opposite was true. Was this because Simpson was not truly accepted by the 1% to which he economically belonged or due to a desire for the system / process to work regardless of affluence and without the desire for emotionally based justice?

There is injustice on both sides of this argument and to pull only the most egregious example of how the system failed as the 'norm' while supporting the larger agenda makes the argument seem more sensationalized than reasoned.

imnohero
03-31-2014, 11:27 PM
This isn't a horrific enough crime. Or an horrific enough injustice to have a rational conversation about it. Instead you bunch of douchebags gotta throw in all this "your a racist" person attack, bullshit.

You want to know why crimes and injustice like this happen...it's because you dumbasses would rather argue about which one of you is the biggest fuckwad, instead of doing something about it.

How about this: Get off the interent and figure out how to fix it, or SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Mods: I will take my ban now, thank you.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-01-2014, 02:02 AM
A few months ago, I said that democracy was a failure. Because of the government shutdown; and the fact that were it not for democracy, there would be no shutdown because someone would have the power to keep the government running.

But, then again... democracy would have only been a failure if you take what democracy says it is at face value.

Probably the most important feature of democracy is the concept of "equality." There's no royalty or nobility; or anyone who, by law (on paper), enjoys more rights or privileges than you do.

But... are we naive enough to believe that what's on paper is a reflection of reality?

There's that famous quote by John Steinbeck: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarassed millionaires."

And why do we see ourselves as temporarily embarassed millionaires? Because our "democracy" has convinced us all that that's what we are.

Combine that with the fact that the US doesn't have a history of royalty and nobility, like European countries do. Because European countries have that history, the common people knew their place... and thus, knew to rise up against the powers that be.

American commoners don't know their place. They can't rise up against the powers that be, because they think they're equal. And incidents like what happened in this article still will not convince most otherwise.

I really do believe that history behind American and European commoners shaped their attitudes toward socialism, and is actually echoed behind how whites and minorities vote in the US.

Minorities actually have a history of having less legal rights in this country, which enables them to have a more realistic perspective on what their place is in this society. Whites don't have that perspective. That's why you have so many whites who vote Republican, even they make $8/hr sweating their balls off in a warehouse.

A man who knows his place is more dangerous than a man who does not. Convince him that we're all equal, and he won't know any better.

I do believe that Marxism preaches equality and a classless society also. Would I really be better off under a socialist model?

The writings of Marx and Engels might as well be mythologies because they have never produced a utopia and never will.

From what I have observed, the concept of true socialist utopia appears to go against human behavior and I think the capitalist model is closer to human behavior or natural law. We are naturally competitive creatures and we are inherently flawed, adopting socialist economic policies isn't going to change that. I'd much rather take my chances on the battlefield of a free market economy.

Giving the state the means of production only creates a different set of tyrants and lessens the commoner's chances to compete even more completely than a monopolist like Rockefeller or JP Morgan ever would.

I see no reason for me to start worshiping Che Guevara just because one of the DuPont heirs got a light sentence for molesting a child.

Of course our justice system is flawed, but what makes you think justice under a socialist model would be any better?

Rainmaker
04-01-2014, 02:13 AM
Once again Rusty. The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a republic. There is a difference. Over.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-01-2014, 02:25 AM
Once again Rusty. The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a republic. In a republic the the individual is sovereign. In a democracy the group is sovereign. Over.

Individuals do not have sovereignty in the United States. If I were sovereign, I would not be subject to the many taxes, fees and licenses that I have to pay under penalty of law.

garhkal
04-01-2014, 05:43 AM
Anyway...back on topic...

This guy should be hung by his nuts and beaten with a very thin stick until he bleeds to death.

ALong with the judge!


If we lived in a society where equality exists, his inmates would be doing that to him as we speak.

But we don't.

How many enlisted military members get totally disappointment whenever a field grade officer commits a crime, and the punishment is that they simply won't make the next paygrade... or they get forced to retire (sometimes EARLY) with FULL benefits? Worst case scenario being that they might lose one paygrade? When if that SAME crime were to be committed by an enlisted, he'd do hard larbor in prison, get busted to E1, and dishonorably discharged?

Oh, enlisted get pissed... but they're more disappointed than pissed. Disappointed, because they think the justice system is supposed to be equal. If only... if only, you knew your place.

Exactly. We already live in a nobility like society where the high ups/rich get away or do less than their 'serfs' (lesser class or lower income) do for the same thing.

Rusty Jones
04-01-2014, 12:35 PM
My opinion, it seems a much larger portion of the revolutionaries against monarchies understood government compared to today where there are many people who consider themselves 'informed' who have very little actual information on the target of their angst (on both the far right and the far left) or how to make things happen.

If that's true, it's only because monarchies are more "transparent" than democracies.


I would ask, do you think that stories like the DuPont one (which I think is a terrible example of how the system 'should' work) would get as much mileage as a similar example with a minority or 'lower class' defendant who is given a break because the judge sees him/her as a victim of his circumstance -- which also happens? Do more minorities commit crimes in Detroit because there are more minorities in Detroit, or because minorities are prone to commit crimes -- why do more whites commit crimes in Idaho?

Detroit, like many other urban cities up north, became what it was because of the Great Migration and the concurrent White Flight. When whites fled, the jobs, quality education, and all opportunities followed them out... leaving the blacks who migrated up there with nothing. And being a "have not" with idle hands becomes a dangerous thing.


Back in 1996 when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder, it would seem (based on the DuPont example) that the 1% would have embraced the decision (he did get the best defense that money could buy) and the 99% would bemoan the economic inequality of the situation (regardless of Simpson's ethnicity), but the opposite was true. Was this because Simpson was not truly accepted by the 1% to which he economically belonged or due to a desire for the system / process to work regardless of affluence and without the desire for emotionally based justice?

There is injustice on both sides of this argument and to pull only the most egregious example of how the system failed as the 'norm' while supporting the larger agenda makes the argument seem more sensationalized than reasoned.

I mentioned to sandsjames that, with some exceptions, celebrities are a different animal from other one-percenters. Exceptions would be celebrities like Drew Barrymore and Candace Bergen, since they come from a line actors that pre-date the World Wars. Outside of that, celebrities generally don't have the same "power" that the DuPont family or the Waltons have. The US economy isn't dependent on a professional athlete whose spot on the roster could easily be filled once vacant, the way it is on companies Walmart.

And you also bring up a good point about being accepted by the 1%. OJ Simpson is nouveau riche, not old money. Professional athletes, singers, and other celebrities who've attained their 1% status because they were lucky enough to have a discovered talent... are different from old money, or those who worked their way up. Old money was raised to know how to behave around other one-percenters, those who worked their way up learned and adjusted on their way up, whereas singers and athletes... after they're rich, they're still going to behave the exact same way they did back in the neighborhood they grew up in. You think old money is eager to accept them into their ranks with open arms?


I do believe that Marxism preaches equality and a classless society also. Would I really be better off under a socialist model?

The writings of Marx and Engels might as well be mythologies because they have never produced a utopia and never will.

From what I have observed, the concept of true socialist utopia appears to go against human behavior and I think the capitalist model is closer to human behavior or natural law. We are naturally competitive creatures and we are inherently flawed, adopting socialist economic policies isn't going to change that. I'd much rather take my chances on the battlefield of a free market economy.

Giving the state the means of production only creates a different set of tyrants and lessens the commoner's chances to compete even more completely than a monopolist like Rockefeller or JP Morgan ever would.

I see no reason for me to start worshiping Che Guevara just because one of the DuPont heirs got a light sentence for molesting a child.

Of course our justice system is flawed, but what makes you think justice under a socialist model would be any better?

The intent really isn't to advocate for socialism.

Hell, I'd take pre-Enlightenment style monarchy over our current system. Afterall, what's the difference between that and what we have now? In practice, they're exactly the same thing. The difference is what's on paper. And there's another difference, that's even more important: at least pre-Enlightenment style monarchy was HONEST. There was no equality, and they never lied to you and told you otherwise.


Once again Rusty. The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a republic. There is a difference. Over.

On paper, we're a democracy. Maybe not in practice, but we are on paper. And that's what I'm taking issue with.


Exactly. We already live in a nobility like society where the high ups/rich get away or do less than their 'serfs' (lesser class or lower income) do for the same thing.

I say give people titles of nobility based on their net worth, and it will mitigate the disappointment.

Rainmaker
04-01-2014, 04:13 PM
On paper, we're a democracy. Maybe not in practice, but we are on paper. And that's what I'm taking issue with.




There's a difference between a democracy and a republic. It is important for Muhfuggas to understand the difference. actually Rusty On paper (the constitution) we're a republic. But, in practice, we're a democracy. Now, in a democracy, the minority has no rights. 51% call the shots (yep Das Rayciss).
Socialism is when the government owns the means of production (bad). What you have in the United States is no longer capitalism. It's crony capitalism. This is actually inverse socialism (worse). The means of production own the government.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death. Please Educate yourselves Bitchez. NomSayin?

DocBones
04-01-2014, 05:02 PM
The US of A is a federal republic.

retiredAFcivvy
04-01-2014, 06:13 PM
The US of A is a federal republic.

I believe the Pledge of Allegiance kind of goes along with that, too.

garhkal
04-01-2014, 06:26 PM
I say give people titles of nobility based on their net worth, and it will mitigate the disappointment.

To heck with that.

Rusty Jones
04-01-2014, 06:29 PM
There's a difference between a democracy and a republic. It is important for Muhfuggas to understand the difference. actually Rusty On paper (the constitution) we're a republic. But, in practice, we're a democracy. Now, in a democracy, the minority has no rights. 51% call the shots (yep Das Rayciss).
Socialism is when the government owns the means of production (bad). What you have in the United States is no longer capitalism. It's crony capitalism. This is actually inverse socialism (worse). The means of production own the government.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death. Please Educate yourselves Bitchez. NomSayin?

"Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, republicanism is a FORM of democracy.

Rainmaker
04-01-2014, 07:23 PM
"Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact, republicanism is a FORM of democracy.

A Constitutional Republic that limits the majority, we are citizens (not subjects) with Unalienable rights that come from God (not from the state or the government). Rainmaker realize the Counter Kulture Professors confuse our yoofs today. They're too busy worrying about Transgendered Chicano Midget studies to teach Civics and Western Civilization. Over.

Rainmaker
04-01-2014, 08:21 PM
I never said "ignorant whites." If I did, please quote me. I'm just saying that minorities have a LEGAL history that provides them a frame of reference as to their societal standing. Whites do not.

Do you dispute this?




Who would these elites be? Under a good socialist system, no non-governmental entity would have this kind of power.


It wasn't directed at you. But you did appear to be sticking up for the 1%.


Put down the Bong Bro. exactly What benevolent, Utopian Force in the "good" socialist system is going to make sure that the government entity does not play favorites? and It's not the 1% you should be worrying about. It's the .0001% and the Free Shit Army sitting on their ass, that are ass-Raping the country. Most of the 1% is the guy busting his ass, working 16 hour days while, risking personal bankruptcy, to meet a payroll and produce a product or provide a service. 340K puts you in 1%. they pay 37% of all the individual taxes. This victimization attitude being blared at our brainwashed yoofs 24-7 gets them no where. NomSayin?

AJBIGJ
04-02-2014, 11:44 AM
If you really want to "solve" this problem, you would have to truly eliminate all forms of currency, monies, and barter in the entirety. This would not even be "solved" by simply abolishing these things, you would literally have to impose strict criminal penalties for people utilizing any form of person-to-person exchange for goods and services. Anyone, anywhere who retains any object outside of their own naked bodies as personal property would be considered by the society as being "selfish". This is the part of Marxian "Socialist" utopia nobody wants to talk about for some reason. It's also why you will never find what one would refer to as a "good" socialist system for extended periods of time. The simple act of "possessing" anything other than flesh, bones, and blood will always lead to an unequal level of distribution as people retain the ability to manipulate the system present to their very own benefit, and by their very natures will continue to do so.

Rusty Jones
04-02-2014, 12:58 PM
A Constitutional Republic that limits the majority, we are citizens (not subjects) with Unalienable rights that come from God (not from the state or the government). Rainmaker realize the Counter Kulture Professors confuse our yoofs today. They're too busy worrying about Transgendered Chicano Midget studies to teach Civics and Western Civilization. Over.

Maybe someone needs to pass you the bong; you seem a little to tightly wound up. Again, republicanism is a FORM of democracy. A government need not be SOLELY run by "the people" in order to be considered a democracy. Often times, people who claim that this country is not a democracy often confuse the term with "demarchy," which is a government where EVERYTHING is voted on.

Claiming that "the US not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" would be no different than saying, "it's not cheese, it's cheddar!"


Put down the Bong Bro. exactly What benevolent, Utopian Force in the "good" socialist system is going to make sure that the government entity does not play favorites? and It's not the 1% you should be worrying about. It's the .0001% and the Free Shit Army sitting on their ass, that are ass-Raping the country. Most of the 1% is the guy busting his ass, working 16 hour days while, risking personal bankruptcy, to meet a payroll and produce a product or provide a service.

Got a link to support that, bro?


340K puts you in 1%. they pay 37% of all the individual taxes. This victimization attitude being blared at our brainwashed yoofs 24-7 gets them no where. NomSayin?

The 1% also controls almost half the wealth. Do you know how much of the Roman Empire's wealth that the top 1% controlled? Fifteen percent.


If you really want to "solve" this problem, you would have to truly eliminate all forms of currency, monies, and barter in the entirety. This would not even be "solved" by simply abolishing these things, you would literally have to impose strict criminal penalties for people utilizing any form of person-to-person exchange for goods and services. Anyone, anywhere who retains any object outside of their own naked bodies as personal property would be considered by the society as being "selfish". This is the part of Marxian "Socialist" utopia nobody wants to talk about for some reason. It's also why you will never find what one would refer to as a "good" socialist system for extended periods of time. The simple act of "possessing" anything other than flesh, bones, and blood will always lead to an unequal level of distribution as people retain the ability to manipulate the system present to their very own benefit, and by their very natures will continue to do so.

I think that the good socialist models would be those that exist in Scandinavia, Germany, and Australia. You don't hear of political prisoners being sent to the gulags in THOSE countries, do you? Yet, Americans seem to think that's exactly what's going to happen if we had socialism HERE.

I also think that working class Americans are somehow led to believe that they would be on the losing end of socialism. Like, someone who makes $35,000 a year thinks that he's going to lose a chunk of his salary in a socialist economy with a per capita GDP equal to that of the US's. The 1% convinced this fool that their problems are his problems, thus deflecting and redirecting the outrage.

AJBIGJ
04-02-2014, 02:12 PM
I think that the good socialist models would be those that exist in Scandinavia, Germany, and Australia. You don't hear of political prisoners being sent to the gulags in THOSE countries, do you? Yet, Americans seem to think that's exactly what's going to happen if we had socialism HERE.

I also think that working class Americans are somehow led to believe that they would be on the losing end of socialism. Like, someone who makes $35,000 a year thinks that he's going to lose a chunk of his salary in a socialist economy with a per capita GDP equal to that of the US's. The 1% convinced this fool that their problems are his problems, thus deflecting and redirecting the outrage.

There's a question of sustainability when it comes down to it with socialistic models, there's a definitive difference between a socialistic economic structuring and a Communo-Fascist whole government model. We're quite a ways down the socialist economic structuring ourselves if one is to be intellectually honest, as it's all on a sliding scale. I've never entertained the notion that you can ever live in an anarchist nor a socialist/communist utopia because neither have proven themselves to be practicable for a very long period of time. One has to consider the trends with both the government itself and the economic sustainability over the long term, and one has to consider both as a "snapshot in time" as well as what has happened throughout years and decades. To go into detail about any of those three would require a considerable amount of discussion because it's not as simple as "they have some very socialist policies and they seem to be doing fairly well". For instance, what you don't have in the first two instances is a massive budget devoted towards defense purposes. While Germany does have some serious production towards defense-related purposes, it's kind of a boom for them because they often sell a lot of it to foreign allied nations.

Since we're on the subject of equitability though, that is another thing that should be taken into account when analyzing these nations. If we were to, as an example look at Sweden, they definitely have their fair share of what we like to refer to as 1%ers, and their fair share of those who are particularly lacking in that category.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-upper-class-and-wealth-inequality.html

Rainmaker
04-02-2014, 04:24 PM
Maybe someone needs to pass you the bong; you seem a little to tightly wound up. Again, republicanism is a FORM of democracy. A government need not be SOLELY run by "the people" in order to be considered a democracy. Often times, people who claim that this country is not a democracy often confuse the term with "demarchy," which is a government where EVERYTHING is voted on.

Claiming that "the US not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" would be no different than saying, "it's not cheese, it's cheddar!"



Got a link to support that, bro?



The 1% also controls almost half the wealth. Do you know how much of the Roman Empire's wealth that the top 1% controlled? Fifteen percent.



I think that the good socialist models would be those that exist in Scandinavia, Germany, and Australia. You don't hear of political prisoners being sent to the gulags in THOSE countries, do you? Yet, Americans seem to think that's exactly what's going to happen if we had socialism HERE.

I also think that working class Americans are somehow led to believe that they would be on the losing end of socialism. Like, someone who makes $35,000 a year thinks that he's going to lose a chunk of his salary in a socialist economy with a per capita GDP equal to that of the US's. The 1% convinced this fool that their problems are his problems, thus deflecting and redirecting the outrage.

Yes Republic and Democracy are similar. But, different. Not like cheese and cheddar. more like Collie and Pit bull. Both dogs. but, which would you want sleeping in your house? Rainmaker's policy is he don't post links. But, he used bank rayt dot com. for his info. Rainmaker like to try something objective not huff post or PMSNBC or faux news. Germany, Scandinavia and Australia (which liberal diversity cult holds up as the model of tolerance) all still have European Ethnic populations of over 90%. But, Like a nice suburban hood slowly being destroyed by section 8 move ins that have no pride in ownership. once, this number hits a tipping point, big social upheaval will ensue. They are also not burdened financially with having to provide huge sums for their own defense or keeping international trade markets open. From a practical standpoint. Rainmaker just don't see how multicultural Utopia is workable. altrustic? check. But, It's a pipe dream. Again. Rainmaker agree with you that too much wealth is in the hands of too few. Blaming the 1% sounds catchy. But, really it's the 1% of the 1% that are running the game. I think it should be illegal to pay CEO's in company stock. It creates an incentive to drive stock shares up at all costs. And as far as the Roman Empire, I don't think the slaves had it all that good.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-02-2014, 04:48 PM
The intent really isn't to advocate for socialism.

Hell, I'd take pre-Enlightenment style monarchy over our current system. Afterall, what's the difference between that and what we have now? In practice, they're exactly the same thing. The difference is what's on paper. And there's another difference, that's even more important: at least pre-Enlightenment style monarchy was HONEST. There was no equality, and they never lied to you and told you otherwise.


.

I've got to question your transparency, because I think you are advocating socialism with your Steinbeck quotes and the great big axe you are grinding with the One Percenters. You sound too much like a revolutionary fomenting discontent, you can admit you are an advocate of socialism, it is okay.

Regardless, the pre-enlightenment monarchs were far from being honest, they used religion to dupe the masses. Christianity was the big con-game they used to keep the peasants in line. I think the primary reason Christianity replaced all the pagan religions of Europe was because it turned tribal chiefs into kings and helped control the masses. They weren't any more honest than our political systems of today.

I think that the Marxist model of socialism is even more subject to manipulation and corruption than a capitalist model.

I know you are going to have a field day with the following statement, but here goes.

President Reagan's use of the phrase "Trickle Down Economics" is a good illustration of the primary advantage of a capitalist system. More wealth and opportunity is created by keeping the government involvement in commerce and free-trade to a minimum.

There is nothing wrong with consumerism and materialism because they spur innovation and prosperity to a degree that a Marxist model can never match.

I readily accept the fact that humans are a competitive species and we are locked in a continual struggle for dominance and survival just like every other species on the planet.

Perhaps, our inherent flaw is also what makes us miraculous, the fact that we are sentient, self-away beings and are capable of using deception on a mass scale.

Create whatever form of government you like, and there will always be an opposition party or some dude like you fomenting discontent.

What ever the case, I acknowledge the fact that nature is both cruel and brutal; fairness is a human concept that we created in order to facilitate living in large groups, it does not trump the law of nature.

We are brutal, yet sometimes compassionate creatures, a paradox of nature. Anything that inhibits our development and continued expansion is a threat to our survival and I think the Marxist/Socialist model does just that, therefore I am against it.

As a species, we face many threats to our prosperity and continued existence, but the most profound and limiting are the teachings of old men with white hair and beards, like Marx and God.

Rusty Jones
04-02-2014, 05:53 PM
I've got to question your transparency, because I think you are advocating socialism with your Steinbeck quotes and the great big axe you are grinding with the One Percenters. You sound too much like a revolutionary fomenting discontent, you can admit you are an advocate of socialism, it is okay.

I think I've admitted this many times before. But, like I said, the intent is not to advocate for it here. I brought up the Steinbeck quote in order to demonstrate why people who would benefit from socialism would be against it - i.e., being stripped of any true awareness of their place in society.


Regardless, the pre-enlightenment monarchs were far from being honest, they used religion to dupe the masses. Christianity was the big con-game they used to keep the peasants in line. I think the primary reason Christianity replaced all the pagan religions of Europe was because it turned tribal chiefs into kings and helped control the masses. They weren't any more honest than our political systems of today.

I get where you're going with this, and as a fellow atheist... I know that what you're saying is nothing more than a popular conspiracy shared by many atheists. Christianity did not turn tribal chiefs into kings, because the majority various royal lineages throughout Europe pre-date their conversion to Christianity. This is especially true outside of Latin Europe. In Scandinavia specifically, the kings converted because they caved in after Christian nations refused to trade with them unless they converted.

But pre-Enlightment monarchies WERE honest. If you were commoner, you knew and accepted the fact that someone who was of noble or royal blood was considered to be your better; and were therefore entitled to greater rights and privileges than you, according to law.

A medieval English king who didn't like you could have you killed - in public - simply by shouting "Off with his head!"

The President of the United States? If he wants you dead, he has to go to the Oval Office and make a phone call.


I think that the Marxist model of socialism is even more subject to manipulation and corruption than a capitalist model.

A society ruled by the proletariat? Which, by the way, has never existed?


I know you are going to have a field day with the following statement, but here goes.

President Reagan's use of the phrase "Trickle Down Economics" is a good illustration of the primary advantage of a capitalist system. More wealth and opportunity is created by keeping the government involvement in commerce and free-trade to a minimum.

Yeah, I won't touch that because I really don't want this conversation branching off into Reaganomics.


There is nothing wrong with consumerism and materialism because they spur innovation and prosperity to a degree that a Marxist model can never match.

I readily accept the fact that humans are a competitive species and we are locked in a continual struggle for dominance and survival just like every other species on the planet.

Perhaps, our inherent flaw is also what makes us miraculous, the fact that we are sentient, self-away beings and are capable of using deception on a mass scale.

What ever the case, I acknowledge the fact that nature is both cruel and brutal; fairness is a human concept that we created in order to facilitate living in large groups, it does not trump the law of nature.

Create whatever form of government you like, and there will always be an opposition party or some dude like you fomenting discontent.

We are brutal, yet sometimes compassionate creatures, a paradox of nature. Anything that inhibits our development and continued expansion is a threat to our survival and I think the Marxist/Socialist model does just that, therefore I am against it.

Socialism does allow for competition. Look at the military. You compete for promotion, which means you get more money... right? The US military is a socialist society itself. All of the basic needs of you and your family members are either provided to you in kind, or you are given allowances for them. I also find it hyprocritical that most military members are against socialism, while not only do they live in a socialist society themselves... but many stay in the military because they're too chicken shit to actually take their chances in the free market capitalism that they claim to love so much. They want their free Tricare, base housing, and a guaranteed paycheck that's guaranteed to show up and the 1st and 15th as long as they don't get an NJP.

Rainmaker
04-02-2014, 08:06 PM
I think I've admitted this many times before. But, like I said, the intent is not to advocate for it here. I brought up the Steinbeck quote in order to demonstrate why people who would benefit from socialism would be against it - i.e., being stripped of any true awareness of their place in society.



I get where you're going with this, and as a fellow atheist... I know that what you're saying is nothing more than a popular conspiracy shared by many atheists. Christianity did not turn tribal chiefs into kings, because the majority various royal lineages throughout Europe pre-date their conversion to Christianity. This is especially true outside of Latin Europe. In Scandinavia specifically, the kings converted because they caved in after Christian nations refused to trade with them unless they converted.

But pre-Enlightment monarchies WERE honest. If you were commoner, you knew and accepted the fact that someone who was of noble or royal blood was considered to be your better; and were therefore entitled to greater rights and privileges than you, according to law.

A medieval English king who didn't like you could have you killed - in public - simply by shouting "Off with his head!"

The President of the United States? If he wants you dead, he has to go to the Oval Office and make a phone call.



A society ruled by the proletariat? Which, by the way, has never existed?



Yeah, I won't touch that because I really don't want this conversation branching off into Reaganomics.



Socialism does allow for competition. Look at the military. You compete for promotion, which means you get more money... right? The US military is a socialist society itself. All of the basic needs of you and your family members are either provided to you in kind, or you are given allowances for them. I also find it hyprocritical that most military members are against socialism, while not only do they live in a socialist society themselves... but many stay in the military because they're too chicken shit to actually take their chances in the free market capitalism that they claim to love so much. They want their free Tricare, base housing, and a guaranteed paycheck that's guaranteed to show up and the 1st and 15th as long as they don't get an NJP.

Brilliant observation Rusty. The military is in a sense a socialist society. you are not free to do whatever the hell you want, you can't come and go as you please and if you don't follow your leader's orders your ass might wind up in jail! The only difference is that In the military, you are providing something of value (a service to your fellow citizens) in exchange for your paycheck/ basic needs being met. Rainmaker wonders what service the 47 Million man Free Shit Army is providing in exchange for their needs being met? We Hypocrites can't have something for nothing. NomSayin?

Rusty Jones
04-02-2014, 08:30 PM
Brilliant observation Rusty. The military is in a sense a socialist society. you are not free to do whatever the hell you want, you can't come and go as you please and if you don't follow your leader's orders your ass might wind up in jail! The only difference is that In the military, you are providing something of value (a service to your fellow citizens) in exchange for your paycheck/ basic needs being met. Rainmaker wonders what service the 47 Million man Free Shit Army is providing in exchange for their needs being met? We Hypocrites can't have something for nothing. NomSayin?

I intentionally left out the UCMJ, since an equivalent to it might be what people fear about socialism, but isn't a defining characteristic of it.

The United States is ranked #7 in the Freedom Index, which means that there are six countries that are more free than the US. I assigned equal weight (i.e., 1.0) to all categories, in order to get the most objective list possible. Some of those countries that rank higher than the US are socialist.

Take a look for yourself. You can assign different weights to different categories in order to play with the list, but again, I assigned equal weight to all categories for the sake of discussion here.

http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml?Property=4&DrugRights=4&Taxes=4&Corruption=4&Speech=4&Inflation=4&LtdGovt=4&Business=4&GunRights=4&Reverse=false

And, let's be honest. Not everyone in the military is providing something of value. Again, you get a paycheck the 1st and 15th of every month, as long as you don't get an NJP. All you've gotta do is show up where you're supposed to be, on time, and in the right uniform. And how many people cleverly skate of out work, or go hide some place where they can't be found... and still get paid? It doesn't get more socialist in the US than in the military.

USN - Retired
04-02-2014, 11:53 PM
I think that the good socialist models would be those that exist in Scandinavia, Germany, and Australia.

Here's a counterpoint...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/does-scandinavian-socialism-work/

And here's another counterpoint...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/sweden-not-a-socialist-standard-bearer-a

I have many more if you're interested...


Socialism does allow for competition. Look at the military. You compete for promotion, which means you get more money... right?.

That is true only if you consider "ass kissing" to be a competition. For the record, I do consider "ass kissing" to be a competition, and I was very good at it if I say so myself.


I also find it hyprocritical that most military members are against socialism, while not only do they live in a socialist society themselves... but many stay in the military because they're too chicken shit to actually take their chances in the free market capitalism that they claim to love so much.

So are you saying that a socialist lifestyle is appealing primarily to "chicken shit" people? Are you saying that "chicken shit" people don't like free market capitalism? Just askin'.


All you've gotta do is show up where you're supposed to be, on time, and in the right uniform. And how many people cleverly skate of out work, or go hide some place where they can't be found... and still get paid? It doesn't get more socialist in the US than in the military.

That's what you want for our country? Just askin'.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-03-2014, 12:17 PM
A society ruled by the proletariat? Which, by the way, has never existed?

This is why I half jokingly made the comparison of Marx to God.

The writings of Marx might as well be a myth, because they have never produced a society that Marx envisioned.



*
Yeah, I won't touch that because I really don't want this conversation branching off into Reaganomics.



Socialism does allow for competition. Look at the military.

Your comparison to the military is interesting, but it falls short is in the area of economic competition.

For me, a discussion of the merits of a Marxist/Socialist system will always drift into the realm of economics because that is where it falls apart.

I'll admit that capitalist system can be successfully attacked for being unfair and dishonest, but I also contend that a Marxist/Socialist system is unfair and dishonest to a degree that is even more profound.

Some people like to call Marx a social scientist, but I think he was really just a philosopher. I jokingly called his writings a myth, but I think a more accurate description would be a woefully unrealistic philosophy.

I tend to take a very high-altitude view of issues like these, in that I consider them first from the perspective of human behavior.

The more I ponder human behavior, the more I am convinced than one should not expect honesty and fairness in their dealings with other humans.

Honesty and fairness are merely tools of persuasion. We humans use these tools ands many others to convince other humans to do our bidding.

Criticizing Capitalism and Socialism on how honest or fair they are is a folly.

I would much rather examine them in terms of economic output and the creation of wealth for the masses.

Since you are an advocate of socialism, I can see why you are reluctant to do that. :)

Rusty Jones
04-03-2014, 01:26 PM
Here's a counterpoint...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/steven-plaut/does-scandinavian-socialism-work/

And here's another counterpoint...

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/08/sweden-not-a-socialist-standard-bearer-a

I have many more if you're interested...

These articles are very editorialist in nature. Do you have something that's a bit more... academic?


That is true only if you consider "ass kissing" to be a competition. For the record, I do consider "ass kissing" to be a competition, and I was very good at it if I say so myself.

Good. Now kiss MINE!


So are you saying that a socialist lifestyle is appealing primarily to "chicken shit" people? Are you saying that "chicken shit" people don't like free market capitalism? Just askin'.

No, what I'm saying is that some of the people who sing the praises of free market capitalism the loudest, are benefitting from a socialist system and are afraid to do otherwise.


That's what you want for our country? Just askin'.

That's each employer's call to make.


This is why I half jokingly made the comparison of Marx to God.

The writings of Marx might as well be a myth, because they have never produced a society that Marx envisioned.

Right, the existence of communist countries in the first place was a vision of Vladmir Lenin, and what they eventually became was because of Stalin. Had Leon Trotsky succeeded Lenin, the world would have be a different place right now.


Your comparison to the military is interesting, but it falls short is in the area of economic competition.

The meat and potatoes of the comparison is a day in the life of someone living under each system.


For me, a discussion of the merits of a Marxist/Socialist system will always drift into the realm of economics because that is where it falls apart.

I'll admit that capitalist system can be successfully attacked for being unfair and dishonest, but I also contend that a Marxist/Socialist system is unfair and dishonest to a degree that is even more profound.

I've never claimed that Socialism was "honest." When discussing honesty, I was comparing pre-Enlightment monarchy to modern democracy. Same bullshit, but at least pre-Enlightenment monarchy told you what the deal was to your face.


Some people like to call Marx a social scientist, but I think he was really just a philosopher. I jokingly called his writings a myth, but I think a more accurate description would be a woefully unrealistic philosophy.

Have you read Das Kapital? It might change your views on whether or not he was taking a scientific approach.


I tend to take a very high-altitude view of issues like these, in that I consider them first from the perspective of human behavior.

But you said earler that you consider economics first. Remember? I said something similar to what you're saying here; i.e., that I'm comparing a day in the lives of people who live under each system.


The more I ponder human behavior, the more I am convinced than one should not expect honesty and fairness in their dealings with other humans.

Honesty and fairness are merely tools of persuasion. We humans use these tools ands many others to convince other humans to do our bidding.

That all depends. You only lie to people that you fear. Pre-Enlightment monarchy feared no one. Well, at least not until the Enlightment. That's why it was scrapped in favor of the various forms of democracy today; such as constitutional monarchies and republics.


Criticizing Capitalism and Socialism on how honest or fair they are is a folly.

Great but, again, I was comparing the level of honesty between pre-Enlightment monarchy and modern democracy.


I would much rather examine them in terms of economic output and the creation of wealth for the masses.

Not human behavior?


Since you are an advocate of socialism, I can see why you are reluctant to do that. :)

Are you finished beating your chest yet?

AJBIGJ
04-03-2014, 01:39 PM
I do find it interesting that the voices who speak the loudest against what are effectively the "elites" in society are also those who advocate the loudest for economic policies that are designed specifically to keep them in that status and the remainder of us out.

Rusty Jones
04-03-2014, 01:42 PM
I do find it interesting that the voices who speak the loudest against what are effectively the "elites" in society are also those who advocate the loudest for economic policies that are designed specifically to keep them in that status and the remainder of us out.

You mean advocating for the US's current economic policies that Rainmaker has been speaking out against so far? I don't see anyone here advocating for it.

AJBIGJ
04-03-2014, 01:59 PM
You mean advocating for the US's current economic policies that Rainmaker has been speaking out against so far? I don't see anyone here advocating for it.

For example:

Raising the Federal minimum wage: Destroys economic mobility and creates a floor in the labor market. Also encourages outsourcing labor to foreign nations. Not to mention it reduces the growth rate of smaller businesses that struggle to match the increasing human resource cost with their annual budgets.

Defending the Federal Reserve and Keynesian inflation: Quantitative easing and inflation typically benefits the top first and generally does not trickle down very much. Makes the bankers especially quite robust while those who are at the bottom able to do less with the dollars they have.

The list goes on from taxation to Public Sector unionization and pretty much the whole gamut, unfortunately I haven't the time available presently to go into the specific details.

Absinthe Anecdote
04-03-2014, 02:00 PM
Have you read Das Kapital? It might change your views on whether or not he was taking a scientific approach.

I have read a few excerpts of it for a course I took a couple of years ago.

We should start a new thread and discuss it.

USN - Retired
04-03-2014, 03:11 PM
These articles are very editorialist in nature. Do you have something that's a bit more... academic?

All of your posts editorialist in nature, and most of your posts are littered with inaccurate information. The Scandinavian countries are not socialists models. Capitalism is alive and well in the Scandinavian countries. Have you ever heard of IKEA? Have you ever heard of SAAB? It appears that you don't even know what socialism really is. You obviously are looking for a free ride through life, and you mistakenly believe that socialism will provide you with that free ride. That's why you like socialism.

You are making socialism look really silly. Keep up that good work.


Good. Now kiss MINE!

Why should I? What's in it for me? If your ass is worthless, and I believe that it is, then why should I kiss it?


No, what I'm saying is that some of the people who sing the praises of free market capitalism the loudest, are benefitting from a socialist system and are afraid to do otherwise.

Yes, and that proves that socialism is appealing to losers and lazy people.

Rusty Jones
04-03-2014, 03:43 PM
All of your posts editorialist in nature, and most of your posts are littered with inaccurate information.

All posts here editorial in nature. But why use editorals as references?

And, by the way, you're the LAST person who should be talking about "inaccurate information" in posts. You have actually stated that it was a "fact" that all people on welfare are lazy. I don't mean merely stating it as a fact, you actually stated that it was a "fact."

All of your posts are nothing but anger at poor people.


The Scandinavian countries are not socialists models. Capitalism is alive and well in the Scandinavian countries. Have you ever heard of IKEA? Have you ever heard of SAAB? It appears that you don't even know what socialism really is. You obviously are looking for a free ride through life, and you mistakenly believe that socialism will provide you with that free ride. That's why you like socialism.

You are making socialism look really silly. Keep up that good work.

The word "socialism" is probably the most overly debated word in semantics games, and I really don't care to engage in it here. But I can tell you this much: if the US started adopting Scandinavian economic policies, people like you would shit their pants. AND cry "socialism."


Why should I? What's in it for me?

Your own personal pleasure.


If your ass is worthless, and I believe that it is, then why should I kiss it?

Again, for your own personal pleasure. Now kiss my ass.


Yes, and that proves that socialism is appealing to losers and lazy people.

With a name like "USN-Retired," it looks like you are one of those "losers and lazy people." Me? I got out and took my chances in this "free market economy." Something that you didn't have the balls to do, until you qualified for benefits and a monthly check for the rest of your life.

USN - Retired
04-03-2014, 03:55 PM
All posts here editorial in nature. But why use editorals as references?

And, by the way, you're the LAST person who should be talking about "inaccurate information" in posts. You have actually stated that it was a "fact" that all people on welfare are lazy. I don't mean merely stating it as a fact, you actually stated that it was a "fact."

All of your posts are nothing but anger at poor people.

The word "socialism" is probably the most overly debated word in semantics games, and I really don't care to engage in it here. But I can tell you this much: if the US started adopting Scandinavian economic policies, people like you would shit their pants. AND cry "socialism."

Your own personal pleasure.

Again, for your own personal pleasure. Now kiss my ass.

With a name like "USN-Retired," it looks like you are one of those "losers and lazy people." Me? I got out and took my chances in this "free market economy." Something that you didn't have the balls to do, until you qualified for benefits and a monthly check for the rest of your life.

RJ has lost yet another debate and, as usual, he is throwing one of his famous temper tantrums.

Rusty Jones
04-03-2014, 04:21 PM
RJ has lost yet another debate and, as usual, he is throwing one of his famous temper tantrums.

Are you serious? Who here is crying foul? You.

I don't care about "winning" anything, because that's not what I'm trying to do. Clearly, that's where you and I are different. You're over here declaring winners and losers. When you do that... you've already lost. You lost whatever battle is going on in your OWN mind. Leave me out of it.

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2014, 05:25 PM
.....With a name like "USN-Retired," it looks like you are one of those "losers and lazy people." Me? I got out and took my chances in this "free market economy." Something that you didn't have the balls to do, until you qualified for benefits and a monthly check for the rest of your life.

So your belief is that everyone who served 20+ years and draws retired pay are losers and lazy people?

Rusty Jones
04-03-2014, 05:41 PM
So your belief is that everyone who served 20+ years and draws retired pay are losers and lazy people?

Go back to the beginning of my exchange of USN-Retired. What you're quoting is in the context that formed after he twisted my argument. I stand by what I said "pre-twist."

Rainmaker
04-03-2014, 05:42 PM
I intentionally left out the UCMJ, since an equivalent to it might be what people fear about socialism, but isn't a defining characteristic of it.

The United States is ranked #7 in the Freedom Index, which means that there are six countries that are more free than the US. I assigned equal weight (i.e., 1.0) to all categories, in order to get the most objective list possible. Some of those countries that rank higher than the US are socialist.

Take a look for yourself. You can assign different weights to different categories in order to play with the list, but again, I assigned equal weight to all categories for the sake of discussion here.

http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml?Property=4&DrugRights=4&Taxes=4&Corruption=4&Speech=4&Inflation=4&LtdGovt=4&Business=4&GunRights=4&Reverse=false

And, let's be honest. Not everyone in the military is providing something of value. Again, you get a paycheck the 1st and 15th of every month, as long as you don't get an NJP. All you've gotta do is show up where you're supposed to be, on time, and in the right uniform. And how many people cleverly skate of out work, or go hide some place where they can't be found... and still get paid? It doesn't get more socialist in the US than in the military.

So, If Rainmaker understands that chart correctly, If the US scored higher in Ltd Govt and Drugs we'd be at the top.
Does this mean we have too much Government and Drug rights or not enough?

Rainmaker's point is that the US is already socialist. Crony Capitalism is not Capitalism. It is Inverse Socialism. making the US more socialist and constantly blaming Whitey will not make things better. It will make it worse. The game of both parties right now is to throw enough crumbs at the Free Shit Army to keep them from revolting while propping up the 1 % of the 1%. Everything that's been done by the globalist Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama/(Bush or Clinton?). Has been done to prop up wall street. It boils down to this. WE DON'T MAKE ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY ANYMORE. Neither Party will do anything to fix this. Because THEY GET FILTHY RICH OFF OF THE STATUS QUO. This is why Rainmaker vote for Mick E. Mouse until a credible alternative party arises. Rainmaker's biggest gripe with Open borders is that it suppresses the value of labor. When you have a service economy and no manufacturing base people's labor is not worth shit. It is the height on lunacy to encourage people to come here when we already have 50 Million people on EBT cards. CPAC is pro amnesty. That should tell you everything you need to know about the state of the country politics. There is no conservative alternative. There is only Liberal Democrats and Democrat light (GOP) left.

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2014, 06:16 PM
Go back to the beginning of my exchange of USN-Retired. What you're quoting is in the context that formed after he twisted my argument. I stand by what I said "pre-twist."

I understand that you were attempting to insult USN-R but unfortunately once again your hyperbole overwhelmed your message. People shouldn't need an interpretation of your words. Much like you say about the bible when quoting verses. The words should stand by themselves.

ACME_MAN
10-07-2015, 01:18 AM
As I'm sure others have pointed out on this thread, there's law/justice for the very wealthy, and then there's law/justice for the rest of us. Hopefully that will change at some point in the not to distant future.

garhkal
10-07-2015, 05:15 AM
As I'm sure others have pointed out on this thread, there's law/justice for the very wealthy, and then there's law/justice for the rest of us. Hopefully that will change at some point in the not to distant future.

IMO there are 4 sets of laws.
1 for politicians
1 for super wealthy
1 for minorities
1 for the rest of us.

TJMAC77SP
10-07-2015, 02:16 PM
Ok...............did I miss the announcement about "Breath Life Into Dead Threads Day"?

UncaRastus
10-07-2015, 04:07 PM
----------------------------SATIRE (a very sad satire on life, at that ...)------------------------

I remember, from the olde days, as to how Superman was for, 'Truth! Justice! The American Way!'

Now that Superman has left the US to be for the world, his time is limited for us. Our system of justice has been handed over to the Department of Homeland Security, also known as the Ministry of Love, shortened to the more popular, Miniluv, as spoken by all of us that use Newspeak.

All hail Big Brother!

The HLS has 'FEMA Camps' to use, to put all of those that don't bow to the governance of Big Brother.

Of course, I have my TV tuned to the BIG BROTHER, which has nothing to do with that other TV show, 'Big Brother', as I know that all of you also are tuned into BB.

All hail Big Brother!

Non rich people that question the rights of our governance are soon to be given free rides to some nice camps. Going to these camps is mandatory.

Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler's love child is actually in charge of the planning for the future use of these FEMA Camps. Known as Heiny Hitler, or as a nod to Big Brother, The Big Heiny, the huge shower installations that every Camper must use once during their stay at these camps, are Heiny's favorite part of the Camping Experience.

Big Heiny does not want to use the shower facility which is to be used by the Campers, because, as he says, "It's ALL about der Campers! Ja!"

I have heard that huge baking ovens have been placed near the showers, because Mr. Herr H. Hitler believes that the Campers will be ravenous, after taking their 'invigorating showers'.

Nearby to the baking ovens are the Gift Shops, at each FEMA Camp, where lamp shades, soap (embossed with the FEMA Camp's motto, ARBEITNEHMER MACHEN FEINSEIFE ((WORKERS MAKE FINE SOAP))), novelty shrunken heads and other items of interest, will be purchased by Big Brotherites, that will be visiting these FEMA Camps, from time to time, in the near future.

All hail Big Brother!

The very popular FEMA Camps are also to be known as Re Education Centers, just like what the Cambodians had to look forward to, in the 1970s. Cambodian 'Learn or Burn' strategies, which ended with Cambodia having a smaller population, proved that The Auschwitz Diet did work wonders in their Fun Time Camps, once again.

I meant that the population was much more thin, than when they first arrived at those Camps. Yes. A much smaller bunch of Cambodians. It was good for them.

All hail Big Brother!!!

This all came to me in a dream, last night, so all of it must be wahrhaft. Oops. I meant 'the truth'.

Which makes my entry as a response to 'Re: DuPont Family Member Rapes Three Year Old Daughter, Does Not Serve Time' very timely, informative, and doubleplusgood reading for those that are in the know.

Which includes the Dupont family, and cronies. Also Rainmaker, because as I have heard from a source which I will not identify, that Rainmaker has a few million dollars. Thereby, RM has to be included in the group that don't see 'no stinkin' badges'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. I am finished with posting that piece of drivel. I am not in favor of Hitler and his way of having done things, in the past. As a matter of fact, I do have some relatives that died in WW2 concentration camps.

The 'Duponters' have been living under the 'Divine Rights of the Rich and also the Kings'. How dare we judge them?

See you all at summer camp! Don't forget your loofahs!

This is from my list of things that make me go hmmm ...

And yes. I DO have a sardonic sense of humor, at times.