In remembrance of what once was...
Winner gets one of my future spurs.
Printable View
In remembrance of what once was...
Winner gets one of my future spurs.
I dont get this capitalism death thing. Capitalism is still alive and existing.
:married:We have been mixed socialist/capitalist for quite some time. Infrastructure? Military? Police? Fire? Retirement Accounts (a means of investment and not production, but still theoretically applicable)?
We are, however, still a very (and unfortunately) unfettered capitalist state on many levels. But, hey, if a 3% increase in taxes on the very top tier strikes you as the government confiscating corporations, but the Republican-backed bailout that nationalizes banks does not.....well, there is no hope for you.
If anything, we are moving towards a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY. In fact, what many right-wingers call Socialism here is what all other countries that practice it call Social Democracy. Democracy and capitalism are still very much alive in those countries, but woe of woes: their poor aren't nearly as homeless, they live longer as a whole, their infant mortality rates are lower, their unskilled laborers are able to make a living wage, their students score better on tests and attend college at higher rates, etc.... What a horrible world they live in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
Pardon?
Funny thing is, we already have a "Capitalism Day." It's called Thanksgiving!
It is explained in the journals of William Bradford titled History Of Plymouth Plantation. He explains how they had nothing but hardship under the commune (communism) that they set up. They were doomed. He, as governor, then decided to tell everyone rather than having to share the fruits of their labor, what they grew and made was theirs to keep. Productivity exploded, they traded, and prospered. They had a huge harvest festival and invited their Indian neighbors. Capitalism was born.
God damn you're an idiot.
I guess I should have said - Bush and McCain-backed. In the Senate it was bipartisan, and in the House more Dems voted for it. That being said, it was not vetoed, and it was pushed by the inherently conservative Federal Reserve and the Bush administration.
Sorry, I was glib there.
Well, if such a day is to be named, I will suggest to my representative and senators August 9.
Have anything to back that up with? Are you saying that William Bradford's journals do not tell the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The Real Story Behind Thanksgiving:
I selected the above link rather than an older source link because it has a list of other links. Here's one from November 197:Quote:
Did you know that the first [Plymouth Colony Pilgrim's] Thanksgiving was a celebration of the triumph of private property and individual initiative?
William Bradford was the governor of the original Pilgrim colony, founded at Plymouth in 1621. The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" precept.
The results were disastrous. Communism didn't work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent.
Bradford realized that the communal system encouraged and rewarded waste and laziness and inefficiency, and destroyed individual initiative. Desperate, he abolished it. He distributed private plots of land among the surviving Pilgrims, encouraging them to plant early and farm as individuals, not collectively.
The results: a bountiful early harvest that saved the colonies. After the harvest, the Pilgrims celebrated with a day of Thanksgiving -- on August 9th.
Unfortunately, William Bradford's diaries -- in which he recorded the failure of the collectivist system and the triumph of private enterprise -- were lost for many years. When Thanksgiving was later made a national holiday, the present November date was chosen. And the lesson the Pilgrims so painfully learned was, alas, not made a part of the holiday.
Happily, Bradford's diaries were later rediscovered. They're available today in paperback. They tell the real story of Thanksgiving -- how private property and individual initiative saved the Pilgrims.
This Thanksgiving season, one of the many things I'm thankful for is our free market system (imperfectly realized as it is). And I'm also grateful that there are increasing numbers of Americans who are learning the importance of free markets, and who are working to replace government coercion with marketplace cooperation here in America and around the world.
Liberator Online (archive)
Capitalism is alive in America!!!! YES IT IS!!! Enough with the doubters.
So the failure and strife wasn't due to the abnormally harsh and long winters that killed half of the original colonists? Their success wasn't due to the adoption of Indian agricultural techniques and utilization of better-performing native plants (maize, squash, etc...)?
Also, there are two definitions of the first Thanksgiving - the 1621 event in which they peacefully ate with the Indians (at the end of the FIRST growing season they encountered after landing in the Winter of 1620). Or 1623. The one that took place in July? The one that was a day of prayer and fasting in response to the arrival of additional colonists and goods from England?
I can't find anything in your post that reflects a linear course of events or the real causes of prosperity in the colonies.
I linked Bradford's journal. It is clear. Unless you look it up yourself, are you going to belive my words?Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
I used to know the relavant pages. Maybe I'll do a search and find it.
Don't believe everything you read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sear...induser&u=8523Quote:
Originally Posted by Mild Cobra
If you can't believe Bradford's journal, what can you believe? The rest is rumor! As far as I know, it's the only document that survived the time and place!Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasGranger
capitalism and socialism are both alive, and neither will die soon.
Like most industrial economies, the US economy is a mixed cap/soc economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
http://www.archive.org/stream/neweng...0mort_djvu.txt
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...result#PPR7,M1
Well geez. If I went on things "as far as Wild Cobra" knows, I'd have problems getting out the door each morning to work without choking to death. It'd be a mysterious death too, what with the upside down hand print on my back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"capitalism" can neither be born or die...it's an observation of human behavior. The only thing that "dying" is a particular brand of pseudo-religious belief constructed around it.
Do any of those links dispute Bradford's accounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThomasGranger
Starting on page 134:
Did they spell like that in Old English, or was he terrible at spelling?Quote:
All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in ye generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some familie. This had very good success ; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie ; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.
The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times ; — that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a coirfone wealth, would make them happy and florishing ; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploy- met that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that, were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke- for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could ; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd '' it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon ye poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as another ; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none objecte this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fitcr for them.
What relavance does this have? I never said it was the only surviving document of the period. My words were clear. How about stop being a dickhead for once. I do nothing to incte you. I give relavant data and links in a discussion. All you want to do is be a fuckng bully and pick a fight. Try one with me in person, where I can reach out and smack you. Here, if you have nothing useful to say. Shut the fuck up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Havoc
Threats of violence.
Good job keeping the level of discourse high :tu
Problem is that sissies like him and you would never disrespect me like that in person. In person, I escalate issues until someone puches me, then I punch them out. You hide safely in cyberspace. Would you be such an asshole to people in person?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
You are doing exactly the same thing, tough guy.
All talk.
So how aout we stick with the topic, and end this stupidity?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Is there a "Godwin Law" yet for threatening someone on the internet? Shouldn't that immediately disqualify you from winning the debate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Quote:
Urban Dictionary: Internet Tough Guy
...
3. internet tough guy
simular to the flamer and angry young man. the internet tough guy is a commonly a individual on the internet who tends to post agressive and threatening posts a marked tendancy towards right wing opnions on pretty much everything. anyone who disagrees with his or on occasion her will usually face a incorherant terade of homosexual referances and direct threats of physical voilence. (despite the sheer implausability of them tracking someone down) irrational hatred of anyone differant or vaguegly left/humane/intelligent or willing to critisise them. Also staunch supposters of anything voilent or aggressive and anyone who isnt is a 'PUSSY LIBERAL FAG'.
in truth internet tough guys are rather sad individuals with little or no dignity or charm
....
I love the "you wouldn't disrespect me like this in real life or I'd beat you up" mindset. It's especially amusing that they think that reflects better on their character. Unfortunately, we all know that it's always the kid who claims he can beat everyone up who runs away sobbing at the first person to stand up to him. Playground 101.
:lmao
Maybe I'm just still in the post election giddy phase but god damn if most of the shit on this forum doesn't just flat out make me laugh right now.
:lmao @ WC's "internet tough guy" routine. Shit like this never gets old :lol
"Internet tough guy" isn't enough. We need a "Law" for this thing. I henceforth vote for the definition to be called, "Cobra's Law - Any person who tries to win an argument through a threat of physical violence over the internet automatically concedes that argument."
I was primarily pointing out that those who attack me here for no reason wouldn't just do that to people in person, not unless they have a death wish. Bullies tend to only attack those smaller than themself as they are the ones who lack the self esteem. If you notice, I don't start the vile words in use. I try not to escalate them, but sometimes I do. You see, I used to be the kid that was always picked on. One day, I struck back. I have since learned how to defend myself, because I was tired of being beaten on. I was also one of the nerds in high school always picked on. That's why the 'bullies' piss me off so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
So you're saying that your past hardships affect your behavior now and have negative consequences on your actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Damn, the board Republicans never pass up a chance to play the victim -- even when they are threatening other people over the internets.
I'm starting to get a little worried about them. If they're this barking mad now, they're never going to make it to January.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Yers, they do. Life experiences affect everyone. It's hard for me not to respond to the likes of Chump. It's those like him that remind me of those brutal times always being smacked around. I'm not saying it's right. I just acknowledge it's there. There's that part of me that wants revenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
Now is that enough? Can we stick with the thread topic?
No, this is much more interesting. In person, you escalate in order to incite violence to justify your own violence. That's pretty funny. How do you go about it?
EDIT: Just sticking to the topic ;)!
Death to free-market Capitalism.
Come sweet embrace of Moderate Socialism, regulated capitalism, and genuine Democracy. Come living wages. Come universal health care (single payer, perhaps!?). Come social equality. Come free college educations for citizens. PLEASE COME!
I feel like I am trolling but I believe in all of it, so I'm good :).
since you never answered the question, did someone try to prevent your mother from voting because you were on welfare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
remember? you said people on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote.
did you get bullied for being on welfare when your mom tried to vote?
did you get smacked around for being on welfare when your mom tried to vote?