http://www.shtfplan.com/comedy/planned-economy-or-planned-destruction_07122010
I’d say that 1934 prediction of a looming U.S. dictatorship will prove about as accurate in 2010 as it was then.
The socialists have just about completed their plans to destroy our once-great country. They have been extremely successful and Barack Hussein Obama is attempting to complete the destruction on his watch. Stand by for the coming collapse.
One thing I can say is that if we are going to have a dictator it may as well be Obama. Do you guys have a dictator you would prefer other than Obama?
Mike,
I’m sorry, but you keep throwing around the word socialist. Obama is not a socialist by definition. He is very much like his predecessor, George Bush. A Corporatist. A.K.A. private ownership but government control. A socialist would be advocating government ownership of the total economy.
I don’t agree with that John. Socialism has never really been government ownership of the total economy - except maybe in a dictionary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that from a practical standpoint, there is little difference between socialism, marxism, communism, and even fascism. While all have different stated ideals, in practice they’re all essentially the same.
Take a look at the definitions of socialism from Wikipedia:
Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, East German and Chinese communist governments in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[11]Libertarian socialists (including social anarchists and libertarian Marxists) reject state control and ownership of the economy altogether, and advocate direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers’ councils and workplace democracy.
Contemporary social democrats propose selective nationalisation of key national industries in mixed economies, while maintaining private ownership of capital and private business enterprise.
…and the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
I would add to that that many socialist states are effectively dictatorships. Examples would be Nazi (national socialist) Germany which was really a dictatorship under Hitler and Venezuela, which is really a dictatorship under Hugo Chavez.
Very interesting cartoon!
Wasn’t it then the next administration, Roosevelt, who DID spend us out of the depression? Put all those WPA workers to work building our National Parks, bridges and highways with government money?
PM, your idea that all those political institutions are the same is way too simplistic. They are not the same! That’s saying Hitler’s Fascist Reich is just like the Socialist Scandinavian countries. You are just plumb wrong. You need to get some University History lectures on tape, and get some real background. History is not simplistic; it is complex.
Furnishedowner
No, it wasn’t Roosevelt’s spending that got us out of the depression. It was Roosevelt’s big socialist programs that prolonged the depression. On the other hand, it was Roosevelt’s big war (WWII) that did get us out of the depression.
As for the “socialist” label, we were discussing the definition of socialism as opposed to other “isms”. My point isn’t that the Scandinavian countries are like Nazi Germany, my point is that the terms socialist, communist, marxist, and even fascist are interchangeable and have been used interchangeably throughout history. For example, the term Nazi represented “national socialists” but most of us would describe Hitler’s NAZI germany as a fascist country - not socialist. Likewise, Hugo Chavez, while generally considered to be (and claiming to be) a socialist, is really a dictator. The point is that the socialist label covers many variations of a theme - all of which involve a big government that wants to control every facet of our lives.
You say that like it is a problem when it is actually a fact of life. Somebody always controls your life be it government church or a dictator. Who do you think controls your life now?
A few more founders rolling in their graves after your statement concerning government controlling lives.
“You say that like it is a problem when it is actually a fact of life.”
It wasn’t a fact of life for them. Nor should it be for us.
They just didn’t want the British government to control their lives. They wanted the American government to control American lives.
Your lives have to be controlled by some government or religion or some such entity and then you die. Then you go to heaven and God controls your death (after-life) or you go to the other place and then…I guess you are free if you go to the other place.
And WHY didn’t they want the British Gov to control their lives? Perhaps it had to do with $, taxation and an All Powerful Gov.
Seems eerily familiar now doesn’t it…
To anyone in this topic whom has not yet read “The Creature From Jekyll Island” you need to. It is all about the $. Always has been.
“Money is the root of all evil”
-Think About It
MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL???
MONEY…is the ROOT of TRUE FREEDOM!!!
Ask any CREDIT SLAVE out there how “FREE” they are…
Having, and UNDERSTANDING how to make money, and INVEST MONEY will FREE YOU faster and more completely than any BS, over used, QUOTE in the history of the written word!!
That is where I have been trying to get since I started saying all this “what freedom” stuff. It is not about freedom because nobody on this side of the ground is free. It is about control…the control of money. In our case it is tax dollars. We don’t mind spending tax dollars for things that we believe in and we don’t want to pay them for things we don’t believe in. I say all the time that my tax dollars go to pave the road in front of your hose. I never drive on the road in front of your house so I see it as waste and you see it as public works.
The British saw the colonies as tax resources to fund their wars and affairs of state. The founding fathers wanted to spend those tax dollars to fix the roads in Philadelphia. That is why they wanted representation for the taxation they were going to pay anyway either in Britain or the Americas.
The problem we have now is that we see Obama and we are afraid. It is not about his color it is about his charisma. We have never seen a person that is that liberal (and even me as liberal as I am cringe at some of the stuff he pushes) with that much charisma in control. This means that he could actually get some of the wildest things passed if we aren’t carful. That is why the Tea partiers have a point. They are just so heavy handed that it comes off as clumsy and buffoonish. This approach attracts the nut jobs wondering if this guy is real (birthers) and racist that just don’t like him. The problem is that if you allow them to hang around it is hard to determine if you are one of them or not so you lose credibility by association. That is why the tea party will never run anything.
Money is the root of all evil? Only people without any say that crap. If you haven’t read atlas shrugged I highly suggest it. It will clear up some misunderstanding you might have.
Here is a relevant excerpt:
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
more here: http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=1826
Milwaukee,
“Money is the root of all evil” is a very broad statement. 99% of people view money as the fruits of ones labor, business or investment. That is the understanding that 99% of us have. That is not what the Creature from Jekyll Island was about.
One of points of “The Creature from Jekyll Island” was that the “evil” was that the creating money out of nothing and then lending it for profit, like the central banks (FED) do. Their money was not earned or saved or the product of investment. No sweat, labor, sacrifice or risk taking went into its’ acquisition. Yet, they make billions in profit out of nothing? They did nothing to earn this money. There is no business on the planet that works this way!
JP
[quote author=jfpen link=topic=47287.msg231157#msg231157 date=1279121869]
[b]You are all CORRECT! In one way or another you have all touched on some form of truth that goes against my broad, old, and over used statement laid into a topic on America’s Independence from Britain, explained (in part) in “The Creature from Jekyll Island”.
Now, please don’t pat yourselves on the back too hard just yet.
[/b]
[b]How about an over used CAPS LOCK button?
Any one of us can find something to argue about within a post: Since you used the word “slave” lets dissect where that term got it’s meaning…
Correct me if I am wrong (you will) but a slave is someone who is forced into labor against their will for the financial gain of their “master”. The slave trade was prosperous for those who sold them for money. Look on the bright side though slave; you can always use money to buy back your freedom. Nothing evil there!
See how easy it is! No caps either!
When you look at how “we”(the small time people who make up 99% of the world) use money it is easy to say “More $ = More freedom” and I don’t disagree. It is the reason people work; so they don’t have to.
[/b]
[b]I’m hardly a prince and not quite a pauper. “Atlas Shrugged” huh? Maybe I will read that next.
Here I go again! You know what else has been called a tool? A gun. It has many purposes including; target practice and hunting. A gun is not a gun when a gang banger shoots a man he just robbed. Of course, according to your quote, that wasn’t money. It was…?[/b]
[b]How does my quote not encompass most of what you just said?
To be blunt, I am not fucking retarded. I understand that Money is a broad term and has many different applications. I also work for money (shock and awe!) and I don’t consider what I do for it to be evil. Therefore, of course my quote is no longer valid. If it were valid it would have been; “Money, in the fiat and fractional reserve lending usury sense, has been evil-y designed to allow those with it [power] to manipulate those without.”[/b]
This is one of the most misquoted quotes in the world. The correct quote is “The love of money is the root of all evil”. It is not money at all it is the love. That is a cautionary phrase because that love can be of anything. You should examine whatever you love to see how it makes you act because love is the root of any evil you do. The love of money yes, but the love of a woman, love of your country, love of your God, love of yourself. None of these things are bad in themselves but if you love them it will cause you to act in ways that are sometimes evil. The object in this sentence can be replaced with anything. It is love that causes problems.
Money isn’t evil nor is the love of money evil.
Human nature is the root of all evil.