[VIDEO] MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell to Glenn Beck "We're all socialists now"

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Msnbc TV Lastword segment. Socialism isn't a dirty word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsx_GMj4k08)


http://radioactiveliberty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/we-are-all-socialists-now.jpg

http://conservative-compendium.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/newsweek-cover-we-are-all-socialists-revised-for-accuracy3.jpg

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/communist_brown.jpg?w=299&h=355

http://rexcurry.net/nazi-salute-taipei-times-roc-republic-of-china-government-officials-sworn.jpg

[TheHumblePhysicist]

What piece of shit. I hope he gets flushed down the toilet along with the miserable scrubs who watch him.

[Esor]

This is the first time I ever got first comment on a youtube video!

"I just vommited. Oh, and by the way Lawrence, I assure you that I am not a socialist. "

[purplechoe]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9525419

[BuddyRey]

"But everyone else at FOX News is of a sudden up-in-arms about President Obama's tepid contribution to our already-socialistic healthcare system."

Wait...did Lawrence O'Donnell just admit that America doesn't have a free market in healthcare, and hasn't in a long time? I thought the standard socialist talking point is that the crapcan quality of health services here was caused by unbridled capitalism?

[Philhelm]

What pisses me off the most is when people deny socialism, and claim that "you just don't know what socialism is!" Socialism, and even communism, are alive and well in America. At least some of my professors and classmates back in college were honest about it. However, the fact that there were so many of my classmates who claimed to be socialists or communists does not bode well.

[Philhelm]

Wait...did Lawrence O'Donnell just admit that America doesn't have a free market in healthcare, and hasn't in a long time? I thought the standard socialist talking point is that the crapcan quality of health services here was caused by unbridled capitalism?

Exactly. They always, always, always use blatant dishonesty. :mad:

[purplechoe]

if someone has an account over at the Hannity Forums, I would love to see this posted over there and see their heads explode!

[ClayTrainor]

Cool! I wonder if he prefers National Socialism?

[Zatch]

I think he made a good point. We already have socialism. Even public schools are socialist. I wonder how many of the people who are screaming that Obamacare is socialism would support abolishing the socialist public schools.

[Esor]

I think he made a good point. We already have socialism. Even public schools are socialist. I wonder how many of the people who are screaming that Obamacare is socialism would support abolishing the socialist public schools.

I would.

[RonPaulwillWin]

LOL, he said bad socialism is bad.

[RonPaulCult]

This video is educational. Most of what he says is true. I do take exception to when he calls Rand Paul a socialist however. I doubt Rand will ever vote for a socialist program. I also bet Rand would vote to dissolve any socialist programs including social security and medicare. I could be wrong.

We, the liberty types, are the ONLY true non-socialists out there. So it's good that he's calling out the Republicans who are.

[Zatch]

I would.

Me too. I'm just saying it was a good point he made. If a public healthcare system is socialist then so is medicare, public schools, etc.

[Esor]

Me too. I'm just saying it was a good point he made. If a public healthcare system is socialist then so is medicare, public schools, etc.

I agree with that... but it still doesn't make me a socialist.

[Lord Xar]

I think O'Donnell is trying to make the term, and even the dialogue of socialism acceptable and mainstream. I believe in free-speech but the fact that he can say this on a major tv. program and not get laughed and tossed out on his ass if very very disheartening & scary.

I think there is a concerted push to bring this socialism dialogue out in the open so as to make it legitimate and in the equation of american life. This is bad, imho.
The fact he 'can' do it and still remain legit is frightening.

[NYgs23]

Well, every word he said was true, except for the idea that the socialism we have is a good thing. In the best case scenario, this will make more conservatives wake up to the socialism we already have.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Cool! I wonder if he prefers National Socialism?

He admitted we have a mixed economy. I'd say 'yes'. Bet he jacks off to Triumph of the Will every now and then. I'll grant him that he's an honest scuzzball, but a fucking scuzzball nonetheless.

[Mattsa]

What pisses me off the most is when people deny socialism, and claim that "you just don't know what socialism is!" Socialism, and even communism, are alive and well in America. At least some of my professors and classmates back in college were honest about it. However, the fact that there were so many of my classmates who claimed to be socialists or communists does not bode well.

The 10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

[aGameOfThrones]

Post office=Successful Socialism? Hmm... LOL. All Socialist Programs are F*cking bankrupt, they are not successful, unless you're completely insane!

If the Post office didn't have a monopoly on regular mail...I would stop using them, I do in fact stop using them whenever I can for other more reliable companies.

[kkassam]

There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.

~Garet Garrett (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/garrett1.html)

[rprprs]

I think O'Donnell is trying to make the term, and even the dialogue of socialism acceptable and mainstream. I believe in free-speech but the fact that he can say this on a major tv. program and not get laughed and tossed out on his ass if very very disheartening & scary.

I think there is a concerted push to bring this socialism dialogue out in the open so as to make it legitimate and in the equation of american life. This is bad, imho.
The fact he 'can' do it and still remain legit is frightening.

Agree. And I have no doubt we'll be seeing more of this in the near future. :(

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I disagree Xar. It is high time Americans actually have a honest debate with themselves. Finally, we can debate on getting rid of all the socialist crap and expose faux-capitalists and free-marketeers for what they are -- Democratic Socialists. There is probably a good segment of the populatin so indoctrinated in believing this non-sense, that having a frank, open, honest debate of the issues and philosophy would be better for our side. It can't get too much worse. Over half the country is either socialized or fascistic. What have we got to lose?

[BenIsForRon]

Xar is wrong, we need more people that have the kind of frankness O'Donnel demonstrated here.

I mean, isn't the military socialist? We're being taxed to support a national military. Aren't the courts socialist? We could move to private courts, just ask any anarcho-capitalist.

Lawrence O'Donnel is right, the mixed economy is the best. However, he is wrong on where to draw the line.

[FrankRep]

Proud Socialists March at Left-Wing Protest in DC

YouTube - Proud Socialists March at Left-Wing Protest in DC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkw7n9Qagu8)

[Jeremy]

Xar is wrong, we need more people that have the kind of frankness O'Donnel demonstrated here.

I mean, isn't the military socialist? We're being taxed to support a national military. Aren't the courts socialist? We could move to private courts, just ask any anarcho-capitalist.

Lawrence O'Donnel is right, the mixed economy is the best. However, he is wrong on where to draw the line.

No, a mixed economy is not the best.

[BenIsForRon]

No, a mixed economy is not the best.

Yes, a mixed economy is the best.

[FrankRep]

Yes, a mixed economy is the best.
Actually no.

[Travlyr]

Xar is wrong, we need more people that have the kind of frankness O'Donnel demonstrated here.

I mean, isn't the military socialist? We're being taxed to support a national military. Aren't the courts socialist? We could move to private courts, just ask any anarcho-capitalist.

Lawrence O'Donnel is right, the mixed economy is the best. However, he is wrong on where to draw the line.

Lawrence O'Donnell's mixed economy is an oxymoron. You cannot simultaneously have socialism and capitalism.

Capitalism is only possible with honest sound money.
Socialism is only possible with fiat money.

[silverhandorder]

I also think that debate needs to be honest. If we debate in the open then socialists will lose.

[BenIsForRon]

Actually no.

Actually, yes.


I can go all day folks.

[silverhandorder]

Actually, yes.


I can go all day folks.

So can we trolololo.

[Travlyr]

BenIsForRon, Explain.

[silverhandorder]

His concept is that since we do not have anarchy that we must have a mixed economy. And obviously he thinks anarchism is bad. It all comes from him not knowing any economics.

[Jeremy]

Yes, a mixed economy is the best.
Prove it.

[BenIsForRon]

Well for one, we have a tax/tariff (tariff is a tax) funded military. The founders, Ron Paul, and I agree that the military should remain that way, as to not favor a specific segment of the American population.

Yes, that hasn't exactly worked out as intended, but at least we have every soldier swearing allegiance to the constitution before they serve. I guarantee you Blackwater mercenaries don't swear allegiance to the constitution.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think O'Donnell is trying to make the term, and even the dialogue of socialism acceptable and mainstream. I believe in free-speech but the fact that he can say this on a major tv. program and not get laughed and tossed out on his ass if very very disheartening & scary.

I think there is a concerted push to bring this socialism dialogue out in the open so as to make it legitimate and in the equation of american life. This is bad, imho.
The fact he 'can' do it and still remain legit is frightening.

This is a recent talking point on the left. O'Donnell is not the first place I've seen it. John Stewart and others have already been hinting around at this meme.

[Travlyr]

Capitalism:
Capital is required for capitalism. All wealth comes from the land.
It used to be that people owned the land and could use their capital to produce goods and trade with honest money. Free market capitalism was prosperous for the people.

Socialism:
The government owns the land and rents it to privileged people. Money is created, not produced. Socialism is control of the people by elite oligarchy. Socialism is prosperous for the counterfeiting privileged elite, and the people get the crumbs.

[BenIsForRon]

Travlyr, are you going to address my arguments? Isn't the military socialist, as requires taking capital from its citizens to exist?

[silverhandorder]

Yes military is socialist. Whats your point? We need as little of it as possible.

[Travlyr]

Travlyr, are you going to address my arguments? Isn't the military socialist, as requires taking capital from its citizens to exist?
Yes, we are all socialists now. And it sucks. But it is not because of taxation. The military is socialist now because they are a beneficiary of the central banking fiat money.

In order to move from socialism to capitalism, we must have honest sound currency and capital (land ownership) in the hands of the people.

[FrankRep]

Capitalism:
Capital is required for capitalism. All wealth comes from the land.
It used to be that people owned the land and could use their capital to produce goods and trade with honest money. Free market capitalism was prosperous for the people.

Socialism:
The government owns the land and rents it to privileged people. Money is created, not produced. Socialism is control of the people by elite oligarchy. Socialism is prosperous for the counterfeiting privileged elite, and the people get the crumbs.

The difference is: Who owns the Capital?
Socialists are technically Capitalists too because the Government owns the Capital.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Travlyr, are you going to address my arguments? Isn't the military socialist, as requires taking capital from its citizens to exist?

Yes our current military is socialist, and yes, I am against it just like all the Anti-Federalist Founders were. You do not need to steal from people to fund defense. A military does not need to be socialist. A free-market in defense is the best way to defend ones-self. A Standing Army is an offensive tool, not a defensive one. Militia's are defensive tools, and not offensive. Let the people come together for the common defense. Let us buy M260s, and 75MMs, and all hosts of other hardware.

Myth of National Defense - HH Hoppe

http://mises.org/daily/1356
http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf


More than 200 years after the Declaration of Independence, it seems appropriate to raise the question whether governments have in fact done what they were designed to do, or if experience or theory has provided us with grounds to consider other possibly more effective guards for our future security.

First: Every "monopoly" is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly here is understood in its classical sense as an exclusive privilege granted to a single producer of a commodity or service; i.e., as the absence of "free entry" into a particular line of production. In other words, only one agency, A, may produce a given good, X. Any such monopolist is "bad" for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his area of production, the price of his product X will be higher and the quality of X lower than otherwise.

Second: The production of security must be undertaken by and is the primary function of government. Here, security is understood in the wide sense adopted in the Declaration of Independence: as the protection of life, property (liberty), and the pursuit of happiness from domestic violence (crime) as well as external (foreign) aggression (war). In accordance with generally accepted terminology, government is defined as a territorial monopoly of law and order (the ultimate decision maker and enforcer).

That both propositions are clearly incompatible has rarely caused concern among economists and philosophers, and insofar as it has, the typical reaction has been one of taking exception to the first proposition rather than the second.

The contributors to this volume challenge this "orthodox" view and offer both empirical and theoretical support to the contrary thesis: that it is the second proposition, not the first, which is false and ought to be rejected.

[BenIsForRon]

Yes military is socialist. Whats your point? We need as little of it as possible.

My point is that socialism isn't universally bad, it's just universally inefficient. However, sometimes you'd rather deal with the inefficiency than let the unfettered free market make a choice that may not be in the best interests of the people. For example, rather have a national military than a highly efficient, highly corrupt group of private military corporations.

So yeah, I agree that we need as little socialism as possible, especially at the federal level.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My point is that socialism isn't universally bad, it's just universally inefficient. However, sometimes you'd rather deal with the inefficiency than let the unfettered free market make a choice that may not be in the best interests of the people. For example, rather have a national military than a highly efficient, highly corrupt group of private military corporations.

So yeah, I agree that we need as little socialism as possible, especially at the federal level.

You are aware XE is not free-market right?

[BenIsForRon]

Yes our current military is socialist, and yes, I am against it just like all the Anti-Federalist Founders were.

I would bet most of the Anti-Federalists still wanted tax funded militias in their states.

[BenIsForRon]

You are aware XE is not free-market right?

Yes, but I'm also aware there would be even more private militaries in government-less society.

[silverhandorder]

The chance that private security firms are going to be corrupt is just as high as for our military to be corrupt. Either way you view this it will not swing your argument one way or another.

[Travlyr]

The difference is: Who owns the Capital?
Socialists are technically Capitalists too because the Government owns the Capital.
Governments could be capitalists and would be if they were using commodity money because they own the land. But current governments are socialists because of the legal tender laws.

Sovereign land ownership (allodial title) in the hands of the people while using honest sound money is free market capitalism.

[BenIsForRon]

The chance that private security firms are going to be corrupt is just as high as for our military to be corrupt. Either way you view this it will not swing your argument one way or another.

The national military is required to adhere to the constitution. The expectation is there. In an anarchy, the expectation isn't explicit, and any private military could pop up saying: "Constitution? Our CEO is the constitution!"

[silverhandorder]

The national military is required to adhere to the constitution. The expectation is there. In an anarchy, the expectation isn't explicit, and any private military could pop up saying: "Constitution? Our CEO is the constitution!"

That does not keep you in the market very long. The explicit understanding here is that if we have a constitution that means by far a large majority supports it. Such market place is not kind to rogue security firms.

[FrankRep]

Governments could be capitalists and would be if they were using commodity money because they own the land. But current governments are socialists because of the legal tender laws.

Sovereign land ownership (allodial title) in the hands of the people while using honest sound money is free market capitalism.
If you own a wooden stick for catching fish, you're a Capitalist. Pretty simple stuff.

[BenIsForRon]

That does not keep you in the market very long. The explicit understanding here is that if we have a constitution that means by far a large majority supports it. Such market place is not kind to rogue security firms.

You may be right, but I'm not in favor of dissolving the military any time soon to find out. I believe the constitutional method is attempting to find the same ends with less chaos.

[silverhandorder]

If you own a wooden stick for catching fish, you're a Capitalist. Pretty simple stuff.

If there is a tax in the place where you live then you don't really own that stick. This is what people like Ben are pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in this statement.

[silverhandorder]

You may be right, but I'm not in favor of dissolving the military any time soon to find out. I believe the constitutional method is attempting to find the same ends with less chaos.

I agree for now I want to limit government. This is why you do not see me ranting on the advantages of anarchism around here :D.

[Travlyr]

If you own a wooden stick for catching fish, you're a Capitalist. Pretty simple stuff.
So are you saying that you can have capitalism in a socialist society?
I'm saying that even if you own the stick, the fish is only legally yours if you pay for the fishing license. Capitalism is simulated in a socialist society, but not real.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The national military is required to adhere to the constitution. The expectation is there. In an anarchy, the expectation isn't explicit, and any private military could pop up saying: "Constitution? Our CEO is the constitution!"

Yes, and there isn't a Constitution in the food industry. Any CEO can just come right out and say we are going to put mercury and rat poison in our food that we sell. How well will that go over? Not well at all. You seem to think that market businesses have the power -- you are wrong. Consumers dictate what producers do.

Besides, there are hoards of books listing the magnanimous wealth of information pointing towards the insanely corrupt, and insanely offensive-aggressive US Military. You are living in the proof! How on Earth could market entities get worse than this? You think a market entity would be able to have 700 bases in 130 countries? Abu Graib? HELLO. Yeah, that's not going to happen.

[FrankRep]

So are you saying that you can have capitalism in a socialist society?
I'm saying that even if you own the stick, the fish is only legally yours if you pay for the fishing license. Capitalism is simulated in a socialist society, but not real.

In a Socialist Society, the Government are the Capitalists. In fact, You're Capital to the Government.

[Travlyr]

In a Socialist Society, the Government are the Capitalists. In fact, You're Capital to the Government.
How? They don't own me.

[silverhandorder]

How? They don't own me.

They do if they can tax you whenever they need funds.

[BenIsForRon]

Austrian Econ Disciple, given what's happened over the history of the earth, warlords and agressive armies will tend to pop up in any power vacuum. So the anarchist society would have to have an incredible amount of cooperation amongst their private security agencies to prevent any one from going rogue and trying enact its will on the others, or teaming up with a few others to go rogue.

While that may be paid voluntarily, it would still look a hell of a lot like a government, and I'm not so stupid to dissolve what we have now to find out if Mises solution would work.

[Travlyr]

They do if they can tax you whenever they need funds.
But what if I am a liability to them? If I take more from them than they take from me, do they still own me? Am I capital?

[FrankRep]

In a Socialist Society, the Government are the Capitalists. In fact, You're Capital to the Government.


How? They don't own me.

People who resist will be put into Concentration camps.
Look at the famous Socialists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

[silverhandorder]

Austrian Econ Disciple, given what's happened over the history of the earth, warlords and agressive armies will tend to pop up in any power vacuum. So the anarchist society would have to have an incredible amount of cooperation amongst their private security agencies to prevent any one from going rogue and trying enact its will on the others, or teaming up with a few others to go rogue.

While that may be paid voluntarily, it would still look a hell of a lot like a government, and I'm not so stupid to dissolve what we have now to find out if Mises solution would work.

No one is saying that functional anarchist governance will be much different then a limited government. You will still have people go to jail for committing violent crimes, fraud and what not.

A lot of anarchists delude them selves that we will see a utopia if anarchism is brought in. They were very shocked when Stefan Molenuex chimed in on his vision of security in anarchist society. Some even claimed it was worse then we have now.

The overriding difference here is that it will be moral. AKA no one will be initiating violence by forcing people to pay for their preferred security force.

And anarchism does not have a power vacuum.


But what if I am a liability to them? If I take more from them than they take from me, do they still own me? Am I capital?

Interesting concept but I think it is irrelevant. Do you really want to be one of those people? So helpless that should they decide they want to cut you off you will be totally fucked?

[Travlyr]

People who resist will be put into Concentration camps.
Look at the famous Socialists like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.
Right, but today is different. The people during WWII did not know that they were being marched into death camps. We have the Internet (instant world wide communication) that makes it much, much tougher on Socialist's control. As a matter of fact, the NWO is retreating.

[Travlyr]

No one is saying that functional anarchist governance will be much different then a limited government. You will still have people go to jail for committing violent crimes, fraud and what not.

A lot of anarchists delude them selves that we will see a utopia if anarchism is brought in. They were very shocked when Stefan Molenuex chimed in on his vision of security in anarchist society. Some even claimed it was worse then we have now.

The overriding difference here is that it will be moral. AKA no one will be initiating violence by forcing people to pay for their preferred security force.

And anarchism does not have a power vacuum.



Interesting concept but I think it is irrelevant. Do you really want to be one of those people? So helpless that should they decide they want to cut you off you will be totally fucked?
I don't need their assistance, but I also minimize my taxes. I cannot escape all taxes, but it is not compassionate to escape all taxation.
This is why I am a limited constitutional republican and sound money advocate.

I'm not at all helpless.

[silverhandorder]

I don't need their assistance, but I also minimize my taxes. I cannot escape all taxes, but it is not compassionate to escape all taxation.
This is why I am a limited constitutional republican and sound money advocate.

I'm not at all helpless.

Then you are not a liability to these people if they choose to tax you.

[FrankRep]

Right, but today is different. The people during WWII did not know that they were being marched into death camps. We have the Internet (instant world wide communication) that makes it much, much tougher on Socialist's control. As a matter of fact, the NWO is retreating.
Do you have proof that the NWO is retreating?
I'm seeing a global consolidation of money, economies, and politics.

[AuH20]

Do you have proof that the NWO is retreating?
I'm seeing a global consolidation of money, economies, and politics.

In that Glenn Beck thread I provided yesterday (see below), the Soros rep told the Fox executive point blank that one world government was pre-ordained and close to fruition. He also told the exec to tell Beck to learn to live with it. :eek:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=268162

[Travlyr]

Do you have proof that the NWO is retreating?
I'm seeing a global consolidation of money, economies, and politics.
I have evidence, but not proof.
What you are seeing, imo, is the end of global consolidation of money, economies and politics. QE2 is theft from the people just like Ron Paul said. The power elite are taking what they can get and running rather than digging in their heals for the fight. They know what they have been doing, they know that if they stay and fight, they will lose their freedom and rot in prison. Most will take the money and run.

This video of Lawrence O'Donnell as a Socialist is part of my evidence. More obfuscation of the theft... take what they can get while the getting is good.

[AuH20]

I have evidence, but not proof.
What you are seeing, imo, is the end of global consolidation of money, economies and politics. QE2 is theft from the people just like Ron Paul said. The power elite are taking what they can get and running rather than digging in their heals for the fight. They know what they have been doing, they know that if they stay and fight, they will lose their freedom and rot in prison. Most will take the money and run.

This video of Lawrence O'Donnell as a Socialist is part of my evidence. More obfuscation of the theft... take what they can get while the getting is good.

But the masses are addicted to the services and false stability they provide. That's the alarming dependency model that's waiting to be unleashed. Too many people are so addicted to the fish, in that they never bothered to learn how to use a fishing rod.

[FrankRep]

What you are seeing, imo, is the end of global consolidation of money, economies and politics. QE2 is theft from the people just like Ron Paul said.

What we're seeing are the elites dumping the Federal Reserve and embracing the International Monetary Fund.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/Econ_9_10/2619-cs.jpg

The Emerging Global Federal Reserve (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/4602-the-emerging-global-fed)


As powerful as the Federal Reserve is, just imagine how much more powerful a global Fed would be in terms of its ability to control the global economy and an emerging world currency. By Alex Newman

Waking up to a World Currency (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/4591-waking-up-to-a-world-currency)


If global financial elites have their way, America will move quickly toward accepting a planetary fiat currency (a currency not backed by a precious commodity like gold) issued by a world central bank. by Alex Newman

[freshjiva]

I agree with O'Donnell. I think even the Founders agreed that a mixed economy might be the best path to prosperity. Otherwise we would have pure anarchism. The very existence of the State is, by default, socialistic.

Even we as libertarians are socialists to a certain extent. The only difference is where we draw the line. Ron Paul and libertarians use the Constitution as where we draw the line, whereas O'Donnell cites John Maynard Keynes, Marx, and other thinkers.

Ultimately, its all relative.

Reminds me of the Yin-Yang. Even libertarians have a smidget of socialism in them, and socialists have a smidget of capitalism in them.

[Travlyr]

But the masses are addicted to the services and false stability they provide. That's the alarming dependency model that's waiting to be unleashed. Too many people are so addicted to the fish, in that they never bothered to learn how to use a fishing rod.
Unfortunately, it is going to be painful for a lot of people. I expect a fairly quick recovery, but major transfers of wealth.
For recovery:

I advocate for the federal government to allow homesteading of the Western states where their land holdings are massive.
I advocate for the legalization of industrial hemp for opportunity and jobs.
I advocate for imprisonment of media talking heads if it is proven that they intentionally promoted criminal activity.
I advocate for confiscation of stolen property from anyone who intentionally conned the people out of their wealth.

[Travlyr]

What we're seeing is the elites dumping the Federal Reserve and embracing the International Monetary Fund.

This is their game. I see the IMF as a FAIL.

[LibertyEagle]

Right, but today is different. The people during WWII did not know that they were being marched into death camps. We have the Internet (instant world wide communication) that makes it much, much tougher on Socialist's control. As a matter of fact, the NWO is retreating.

The hell they are! They are just about ready to put the cherry on top of their sundae. Do you not realize how very close we are to completely being under world government? Why do you think the media talking heads are allowing the Federal Reserve to get so much mainstream attention? Have you heard all the discussion about a global currency being partially backed by gold?

We are witnessing the last step and it is happening before our very eyes.

[Travlyr]

Socialism has its day in 1913 with promotion by Colonel Edward Mandell House (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Edward_M._House). Socialism is not a compassionate social order and will die soon with the death of central banking and fiat money. The world is abundant and prosperity is for the people not just a band of elite. Free market capitalism is from natural law and will persevere.

The power elite are losing control. China, Brazil, Russia, Iceland and many other countries are not going along anymore.

[Travlyr]

The hell they are! They are just about ready to put the cherry on top of their sundae. Do you not realize how very close we are to completely being under world government? Why do you think the media talking heads are allowing the Federal Reserve to get so much mainstream attention? Have you heard all the discussion about a global currency being partially backed by gold?

We are witnessing the last step and it is happening before our very eyes.
It is my opinion that they do not get the cherry and their sundae melts.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree with O'Donnell. I think even the Founders agreed that a mixed economy might be the best path to prosperity. Otherwise we would have pure anarchism. The very existence of the State is, by default, socialistic.

Even we as libertarians are socialists to a certain extent. The only difference is where we draw the line. Ron Paul and libertarians use the Constitution as where we draw the line, whereas O'Donnell cites John Maynard Keynes, Marx, and other thinkers.

Ultimately, its all relative.

Reminds me of the Yin-Yang. Even libertarians have a smidget of socialism in them, and socialists have a smidget of capitalism in them.

I am a libertarian and I am not socialist.

[LibertyEagle]

It is my opinion that they do not get the cherry and their sundae melts.

It's going to take much more than your opinion to stop them.

[LibertyEagle]

I am a libertarian and I am not socialist.

You are an anarchist.

Anarchist does not equal libertarian.

[silverhandorder]

You are an anarchist.

Anarchist does not equal libertarian.

He can turn this around and say you are a socialist and not a libertarian. There are various degrees of libertarianism.

[Travlyr]

It's going to take much more than your opinion to stop them.
My opinion has nothing to do with it. My opinion is simply my observation. They are the ones who embraced flawed social order and monetary policy for their own gain. They go away because they fail.
It is up to the liberty movement to pick up the pieces and promote liberty, peace and prosperity.

[LibertyEagle]

He can turn this around and say you are a socialist and not a libertarian. There are various degrees of libertarianism.

I never claimed to be a libertarian. He does. And he isn't.

[silverhandorder]

I never claimed to be a libertarian. He does. And he isn't.

Under what conditions? Because he is a voluntarist?

[talkingpointes]

I never claimed to be a libertarian. He does. And he isn't.

So just a free bird ?

[Lord Xar]

Well, its my opinion that a large portion of those claiming "I am a libertarian" on these boards, are just veiling their anarchist/communist idealogies for better acceptance.

I don't agree with you Travlyr, NWO is full steam ahead and moving into its last phase. Even on a side note, I don't think O'Donnell's confession of "I am a socialist" is coincidental --> it's to make the abhorred normal, bring legitimacy to an idealogy that will lend itself to a NWO. Too many signs for me to even think that they are 'giving up on it'. No way.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Well, its my opinion that a large portion of those claiming "I am a libertarian" on these boards, are just veiling their anarchist/communist idealogies for better acceptance.

I don't agree with you Travlyr, NWO is full steam ahead and moving into its last phase. Even on a side note, I don't think O'Donnell's confession of "I am a socialist" is coincidental --> it's to make the abhorred normal, bring legitimacy to an idealogy that will lend itself to a NWO. Too many signs for me to even think that they are 'giving up on it'. No way.

Lmao. You think I am a communist, so says the adherent to private property theft (taxation). Non-proviso Lockean and propertarian is being called a communist. I think I should sell you some INGSOC, War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom apparel. You fit in well to the manipulation and dialectic :p

[Esor]

My analysis, after reading this thread and watching the videos: we are all fucked.

[FrankRep]

My analysis, after reading this thread and watching the videos: we are all fucked.

:)


The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585427128?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585427128)

http://ebooks-imgs.connect.com/product/400/000/000/000/000/085/863/400000000000000085863_s4.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585427128?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585427128)

[Theocrat]

Here's the problem with O'Donnell's logic: if he admits that we have a mixed economy, which means we've adopted capitalist and socialist policies to our "benefit," then it makes no sense for him to say "We're all socialists now." If we have a mixed economy, then that means "We're all capitalists now," too. But since capitalism and socialism are contrary to each other, then we can't say we're both of them, either, or else we contradict ourselves. So O'Donnell is only favoring the side that he likes (socialism), using it to make villains of the opposing side, unless he's willing to admit that he himself is a capitalist, too. But that would be absurd and a lie.

[Travlyr]

Definition of SOCIALISM

: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


Definition of CAPITALISM

: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market


Socialism is no friend of liberty.
Socialism would not exist without fiat money because people would not fund it and the state could not raise taxes high enough to perpetuate it without revolt.

Capitalism is a friend of liberty.
Capitalism is based on laissez-faire free market property ownership and ceases to operate under regulation.

Socialism and Capitalism operating simultaneously is an oxymoron.

[jclay2]

Man this guy is Orwellian. Scary how he talks into the camera with his re-education program. I can just imagine seeing the sheeple in front of their tv just lapping this guy in.

[Travlyr]

I don't agree with you Travlyr, NWO is full steam ahead and moving into its last phase. Even on a side note, I don't think O'Donnell's confession of "I am a socialist" is coincidental --> it's to make the abhorred normal, bring legitimacy to an idealogy that will lend itself to a NWO. Too many signs for me to even think that they are 'giving up on it'. No way.
I really did not expect to get many people to agree that the NWO is toast. Too many people get their news from MSM and are misled. Plus, I don't have any proof. But their task is too big, and they are heavily outnumbered! Starting a global currency is tougher than starting a war. The dollar is in deep trouble as the world's reserve currency, and SDR's are not being accepted around the world as hoped by the IMF. The Internet is doing a better job of informing people the truth than what the globalists had planned. Commodity prices going straight up is revealing their failure. Time will tell.

[FrankRep]

I really did not expect to get many people to agree that the NWO is toast.


Is George Soros Betting on U.S. Financial Collapse?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=268040

I think the problems we're seeing have been engineered. It's a Consolidation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.

[AParadigmShift]

Socialism and Capitalism operating simultaneously is an oxymoron.

What we have is a managed economy tethered to a central bank. Crony/political capitalism is the soup du jour, and has been for a very long time.

I suspect Americans, even the very dim, would reject pure socialistic rule, however, gov't busy-bodies through diktat directing the economy (and thereby our lives and property) is somehow respectable.

[economics102]

This is a reasonable-sounding argument that is actually really dumb. Reductio Ad Absurdum:

- We all favor some degree of free trade, therefore we are all capitalists

- We all favor some degree of freedom. Therefore, we are all anarchists

Yes, we are all anarchists now. Very insightful, Larry O'Douchebag.

[Travlyr]

Is George Soros Betting on U.S. Financial Collapse?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=268040

I think the problems we're seeing have been engineered. It's a Consolidation of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.
I don't disagree with you on this, but I think that the destruction of the U.S. dollar takes global government plans with it. Game over.

It is a mathematical certainty that the U.S. economy is unsustainable. I am betting on U.S. Financial collapse too, but I am not betting on the continuation of the IMF, World Bank, UN, SDR, Agenda 21 or any other global government.

[purplechoe]

I think there is a concerted push to bring this socialism dialogue out in the open so as to make it legitimate and in the equation of american life. This is bad, imho.
The fact he 'can' do it and still remain legit is frightening.

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Sen+Bernie+Sanders+VT+Addresses+Ben+Bernanke+fkDhA 1l6sDNl.jpg

[AlexMerced]

This is a reasonable-sounding argument that is actually really dumb. Reductio Ad Absurdum:

- We all favor some degree of free trade, therefore we are all capitalists

- We all favor some degree of freedom. Therefore, we are all anarchists

Yes, we are all anarchists now. Very insightful, Larry O'Douchebag.

Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a bad thing, it point the underlying truth in anything, Walter Block is very effectively at using these to do so. I think Lawrence O' Donnell made a valid point that people do advocate some level of socialism even most libertarians although as he conceded it also means most liberals advocate some level of capitalism even some of the most ardent socialists.

(also don't forget what was a reducto ad absurdum 100 years ago, is common sense today, many statists 100 years ago would of accused you of this fallacy if you said the state might of gotten as it big as it is today)

here's my take on what he had to say

YouTube - Government IS Socialism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZzE-olXFL4)

[jtstellar]

thus why most libertarians run as republicans.. can we stop asking that question "why not run as a democrat". spineless and dependency are the worst form of mental illness.. neo-con's issue is believing something that is incorrect, liberal's problem is on a whole different level. they just do it whichever way the wind blows.. can't trust people like that. who were anti war against going into iraq even at the height of 911 invoked patriotism? libertarians. where were anti-war liberals

then? nowhere to be found, of course, because that wasn't exactly in their mood swing at the time. the left's current anti war is more like a fluke driven at large part by an anti-republican sentiment.. it's like you hate a person so much that you

hate the food he eats. now when flip-floppy liberals see their living standard get bad.. they promote socialism. surprise.

[Esor]

:)


The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone Under 30) (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585427128?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585427128)
]

Are you calling me dumb? :confused:





Because I can assure you that I am as stupid as they come.

[dean.engelhardt]

A soicialist country involved in prolonged war in Afgahistan. That alway turns out well, right?

[Theocrat]

This is a reasonable-sounding argument that is actually really dumb. Reductio Ad Absurdum:

- We all favor some degree of free trade, therefore we are all capitalists

- We all favor some degree of freedom. Therefore, we are all anarchists

Yes, we are all anarchists now. Very insightful, Larry O'Douchebag.

There is a problem with Premise 2. One does not need to be an anarchist in order to favor freedom, so that makes your premise false.

[TruckinMike]

Man this guy is Orwellian. Scary how he talks into the camera with his re-education program. I can just imagine seeing the sheeple in front of their tv just lapping this guy in.http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:JoEwvehjaIeX2M:b What an opportunity for O'Donnell to spew more propaganda. He probably dreams about more right wing attacks just so he can respond to them. He had to have been chompin' at the bit to do that segment. He was way to excited -- like a kid in a candy store.

TMike

[KAYA]

I think he made a good point. We already have socialism. Even public schools are socialist. I wonder how many of the people who are screaming that Obamacare is socialism would support abolishing the socialist public schools.

There is a huge difference between a centrally planned national government apparatus run by out of touch, by the book, bureaucrats accountable only to certain Washington elites and a local school system run by locally elected and easily accessible school board members.

Just because someone is against a national government run health-care system doesn't mean they must also be completely against local government or any other government for that matter. I oppose Obamacare but I still support my local fire and police department. .

[nandnor]

nvm

[FrankRep]

There is a huge difference between a centrally planned national government apparatus run by out of touch, by the book, bureaucrats accountable only to certain Washington elites and a local school system run by locally elected and easily accessible school board members.

Just because someone is against a national government run health-care system doesn't mean they must also be completely against local government or any other government for that matter. I oppose Obamacare but I still support my local fire and police department. .


youre arguing for anarcho-communism

How did you get "anarcho-communism" out of the above statement?

[KAYA]

youre arguing for anarcho-communism

Quite a leap there, huh?

[nandnor]

nvm

[FrankRep]

That is the logical conclusion of taking government to as local grassroots level as possible, from the more concentrated federal power, to state power, to local communal worker control over all means of production.
You're way off base. That's not what KAYA said.

[anaconda]

For once O'Donnell didn't have someone to rudely interrupt. Now what I want to hear is Ron or Rand or Tom Woods deliver the same speech from the other side of the argument. Without O'Donnell interrupting.