patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

thunderlips11 says

Of course, any schmuck can be nominated for the Peace Prize by just about anyone.

Yep, and even win it after a handful of months in office..... Go figure...

*



*

Kinda of tarnishes the prize by setting such a low bar to be a winner...

The Peace and Literature Nobel Prize is motivated by politics.

What should I reconsider? There more than nascent police state?

You apparently are taking me for a Limbaugh fan? Not the case, never heard of the Rutherford institute?

BTW smart guy what are the 5 freedoms of the 1st ammendment?

Call it Crazy says

anonymous says

Strategist says

The Peace and Literature Nobel Prize is motivated by politics.

You weren't supposed to make that part known...you're ruining the attacks.

Let's give one to EVERY Community Organizer!! When does Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson get theirs?

They get the Oscars for "Best Bullshit"

indigenous says

Bigsby says

the Time magazine article wasn't promoting fascism, was it?

What is the definition of Fascism?

Perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance of that question.

Bigsby says

Perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance of that question.

First answer the question.

anonymous says

If you never hear of the Rutherford Institute, obviously you didn't read far enough down your post then did you? "Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead [send him mail] is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute." Not very hard to miss.

Yea I missed a foot note, so what.

Conflating him with Limbaugh is a stretch, don't you think?

thunderlips11 says

What is the definition of Fascism?

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Perhaps you'd like to explain the relevance of that question.

First answer the question.

Why? What relevance has that question got to do with what I posted? You're just playing stupid buggers as usual.

Bigsby says

Why? What relevance has that question got to do with what I posted? You're just playing stupid buggers as usual.

Answer the question.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Why? What relevance has that question got to do with what I posted? You're just playing stupid buggers as usual.

Answer the question.

No. Whatever definition you choose to post up is irrelevant to the failed point you were trying to make. You were wrong. Now you are just playing a stupid game in an attempt to squirm out of your idiocy.

Bigsby says

No. Whatever definition you choose to post up is irrelevant to the failed point you were trying to make. You were wrong. Now you are just playing a stupid game in an attempt to squirm out of your idiocy.

BULLSHIT the post is NOT about the Time mag award.

indigenous says

BULLSHIT the post is NOT about the Time mag award.

Good grief. Are you really that much of a prick? It's a thread. People make various points and people respond to those. YOU brought up Time magazine. You made a comment in the thread that was factually incorrect and that was what I commented on. If you want to go back to the original comment, then don't attach a question to a comment that is unconnected to your attempt to redirect the thread away from your obvious idiocy.

Why did you even post this? Police states are not 1% as bad as ZIRP and fiddling with the discount window.

Debasing a currency is worse than extinguishing millions of species. Everyone knows that!

Bigsby says

You made a comment in the thread that was factually incorrect and that was what I commented on.

It is correct regarding fascism, but you won't answer that question...

HydroCabron says

Police states are not 1% as bad as ZIRP and fiddling with the discount window.

They are neck and neck

indigenous says

It is correct regarding fascism, but you won't answer that question...

Your stupid little comment about the Nobel prize and the Time magazine choice of Hitler has fuck all to do with anything except your habit of copying and pasting any shit you hear (that lines up with your biases) without checking the veracity of the point(s) made.

Bigsby says

Your stupid little comment about the Nobel prize and the Time magazine choice of Hitler has fuck all to do with anything except your habit of copying and pasting any shit you hear (that lines up with your biases) without checking the veracity of the point(s) made.

Bullshit I probably catch more specious information than most.

What is the definition of fascism?

indigenous says

Bullshit I probably catch more specious information than most.

What is the definition of fascism?

You have to laugh. You post up crap constantly. You lapped up the two comments you posted here, both of which were utterly moronic. And the dictionary definition of fascism is irrelevant to any of that before you once again peddle that misdirection.

Bigsby says

And the dictionary definition of fascism is irrelevant to any of that before you once again peddle that misdirection.

Then prove it.

indigenous says

igsby says

And the dictionary definition of fascism is irrelevant to any of that before you once again peddle that misdirection.

Then prove it.

Prove what? The dictionary definition of fascism is utterly irrelevant to your wrong-headed assertions about the Time magazine award and the Nobel prize nomination.

Bigsby says

Prove what?

Fuck off

indigenous says

No numb nuts the whole country suffers from fascism.

Yet more overblown posturing rhetoric.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Prove what?

Fuck off

Why not address the point after that?

Bigsby says

Yet more overblown posturing rhetoric.

Bigsby says

Why not address the point after that?

Why not answer the fucking question?

indigenous says

Nope, "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party —

As usual you have no clue about history. So many good books have been written on the subject. Haven't you read any of them?

The abbreviation was NDSAP. The jewish press nicknamed it the Nazi party and the label stuck. Members never used that term. Supposedly the term “Nazi” was a political epithet invented by Konrad Heiden during the 1920s as a means of denigrating the NSDAP and National Socialism. Heiden was a journalist and member of the Social Democratic Party. The term is a variant of the nickname that was used in reference to members of the SDP at the time “Sozi” (short for Sozialisten). “Nazi” was a political pun, based upon the Austro-Bavarian slang word for “simpleton” or “country bumpkin”, and derived from the fairly common name Ignatz.

Anton Drexler formed the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers' Party, abbreviated DAP) in 1919, which like the other völkisch movements believed that the sole cause of defeat in WWI was the collapse of the home front and the alleged failure of many Germans to support the war effort. All of these social nationalist groups were very anti-liberal and anti-communist.

A young corporal in the german army, Adolf Hitler, was sent by German army intelligence to investigate the DAP in 1919. While attending a party meeting, Hitler got involved in a heated political argument and made an impression on the other party members with his oratory skills. He was invited to join, and, after some deliberation, chose to accept. After hitler joined the group changed its official name, becoming the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), although Hitler wanted the party to be renamed the "Social Revolutionary Party"

The night of the long knives June 30 1934, the NDSAP murdered most of the left leaning members of the party as well as many of the the far right members. Many of those killed were leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary Brownshirts which hitler considered a threat.

So no the term national socialist in context of the times had nothing at all to do with socialism.

indigenous says

Why not answer the fucking question?

Any fucking dictionary answers your stupid question. How about you just admit that bringing up those comments about the Nobel prize nomination and Time magazine was utterly moronic? After all, that was the point I was addressing.

We have been since Reagan declared war on Drug users.

bob2356 says

So no the term national socialist in context of the times had nothing at all to do with socialism.

Indy is right here. The NSDAP was the quintessential melt of socialism and patriotism. There is a debate in Germany about how socialist/leftist and how fascist it was, but nobody would deny that socialism was a huge part of the NSDAP and Hitler.

Speaking of the law, how do I get this drill sergeant's job???

lostand confused says

Speaking of the law, how do I get this drill sergeant's job???

"So many beauties, so little time" How long can you keep it up? Maybe Rin can help.

anonymous says

. Perhaps they fancy a theocracy instead of a police state but only with the "correct" religion of course.

Since he is the one who asked the question, what are the 5 freedoms included in the 1st ammendment I doubt it. anonymous says

Somehow I have to question the real motive behind the piece

Of course everyone "acts, but I posted articles that are pointing to the same thing. Hell they started an entire country for fewer attacks on liberty, and came up with a constitution to spell them out.

anonymous says

every time I see the word "foundation", "institute" or similar eloquent descriptor attached to words like Heritage, Freedom, etc. the alarm bells go off - real loud.

I know what you mean I get the same feeling when I hear: equality, affirmative action, acorn, affordable healthcare, income inequality, we are from the government we are here to help you, and endless other nanny statements designed to take away your liberty.

anonymous says

Tossing in the question about "what are the 5 freedoms of the 1st amendment ?" was a diversion to get me to refocus on something else (didn't fall for it). Those 5 freedoms were never mentioned in the piece and therefore the question remains a distraction.

He did mention them in the podcast, to demonstrate how ignorant we are to the constitution. In fact he said he asked the question to a room full of lawyers and not one of them answered. No it was not a misdirection it was part of the point, on how atrophied our constant vigilance has become.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/6/8/568232f22d5c7a90/woods_04_24_2015_2.mp3?c_id=8852243&expiration=1430007510&hwt=3ee70a7e30842ac78c52911fb64afdc3

Strategist says

Speaking of the law, how do I get this drill sergeant's job???

I will take the other side on this one...

bob2356 says

As usual you have no clue about history. So many good books have been written on the subject.

As usual you get out a ladder and climb over the elephant in the room and pickup some scrap in order to make me wrong.

The fact is that the main determining factor between fascism and socialism is who controls the means of production.

Here is part of an article by George Reisman pointing out what Mises said about this:

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the ends of the State. If the individual is a means to the ends of the State, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the State, his property is also owned by the State.

But what specifically established de facto socialism in Nazi Germany was the introduction of price and wage controls in 1936. These were imposed in response to the inflation of the money supply carried out by the regime from the time of its coming to power in early 1933. The Nazi regime inflated the money supply as the means of financing the vast increase in government spending required by its programs of public works, subsidies, and rearmament. The price and wage controls were imposed in response to the rise in prices that began to result from the inflation.

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

indigenous says

What is the definition of Fascism?

Whatever it was, von Mises thought it was better than Social Democracy, Unions, Pensions, Social Security, etc.

thunderlips11 says

Whatever it was, von Mises thought it was better than Social Democracy, Unions, Pensions, Social Security, etc.

No he didn't, and you accuse me of taking things out of context.

Here is the text it was taken from, in which Mises pointed out the positive and the negative about fascism:

So much for the domestic policy of Fascism. That its foreign policy, based as it is on the avowed principle of force in international relations, cannot fail to give rise to an endless series of wars that must destroy all of modern civilization requires no further discussion. To maintain and further raise our present level of economic development, peace among nations must be assured. But they cannot live together in peace if the basic tenet of the ideology by which they are governed is the belief that one's own nation can secure its place in the community of nations by force alone.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

BTW the definition that applies is simply a strong nationalism that predisposes the country to a police state, spying and getting the civilians to turn each other in and price control.

indigenous says

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success.

Read that line very carefully. Mises is much more afraid of (some) democratic control over the means of production.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success.

Read that line very carefully. Mises is much more afraid of (some) democratic control over the means of production.

Of course that would be socialism. Look at how it has worked out in this country, public utilities, cash for clunkers, GM, student loans, everyone should own a house, health insurance for everyone (with a 6k deductible), the defense industry, etc etc.

You bet be afraid be very afraid.

indigenous says

Look at how it has worked out in this country, public utilities, cash for clunkers, GM, student loans, everyone should own a house, health insurance for everyone (with a 6k deductible), the defense industry, etc etc.

Social Security, Clean Water, the Space Program, the Industrialization of Britain and the USA, widespread home ownership, ludicrous amounts of paved highway, near-universal literacy, etc. etc.

The end game of Maximizing Utility means everybody is poor except one person or group - unless you have redistribution of wealth, of course.

thunderlips11 says

Social Security

Which will be toast within 15yr, not to mention that a person would have ended up with much more money if he would have invested the money privately.

thunderlips11 says

Clean Water

Like in Calif with 80% of it being subsidized, not to mention that we have a drought.

thunderlips11 says

the Space Program

So What

thunderlips11 says

the Industrialization of Britain and the USA

Which has nothing to do with government.

thunderlips11 says

ludicrous amounts of paved highway

Which would have been much much much cheaper if privatized as there would have been no Davis Bacon or public unions involved.

thunderlips11 says

widespread home ownership

Which has nothing to do with government and was only made worse by government.

thunderlips11 says

near-universal literacy

And would have been higher if not for the public indoctrination system. Not to mention Calif for instance has the some of the highest paid teachers in the country with almost the worst test scores in the country.

thunderlips11 says

The end game of Maximizing Utility means everybody is poor except one person or group - unless you have redistribution of wealth, of course.

And even the poorest are better off than the richest of many countries. Not to mention that the worse case of inequality is when the Fed has meddled the most as in NOW and in the 20s.

No your arguments are complete bullshit.

mell says

bob2356 says

So no the term national socialist in context of the times had nothing at all to do with socialism.

Indy is right here. The NSDAP was the quintessential melt of socialism and patriotism. There is a debate in Germany about how socialist/leftist and how fascist it was, but nobody would deny that socialism was a huge part of the NSDAP and Hitler.

indigenous says

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Mises calls every government system on the planet short of anarchy socialist.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.

And how did mises "show" that? What private owners for christ sakes. These were corporations. Does mises have the vaguest clue what a corporation is or what stockholders are? Many of these corporations were US. http://www.globalresearch.ca/profits-ber-alles-american-corporations-and-hitler/4607 They made huge profits under the Nazi's. The first thing the nazi's did was to kill or put in jail all the union leaders along with all the socialists and communist then disband all unions. Who do you think the concentration camps were full of before they started arresting the jews?

So in mises and indigenous's strange world if a government orders from a corporation then it's a socialist system because the government controls what is ordered even if the corporation is selling to private customers also. You guys are too weird for words.

The nazi's (up until the shooting started then they ordered industry around to SOME degree, just like america did) placed orders with business. Business filled the orders. Many of the biggest corporations in germany were subsidiaries of US corporations. Show where the nazi's dictated dividends (what the fuck is other income in a corporaton?) for Ford, GM, IBM, or Texaco. The german subsidiaries of US corporations (as well as german corporations) made huge profits all through the war. After pearl harbour president Roosevelt himself discreetly issued an edict allowing American corporations to do business with enemy countries — or with neutral countries that were friendly with enemies — by means of a special authorization even though it was clearly trading with the enemy and illegal. Hmmm. Many corporations, including US corporations, were able to use slave labor provided by the nazis. Some of these profits were secretly repatriated to the US after the war. The US government paid these corporations compensation for bombing damage to their factories.

This is socialism? How?