Text of Dean's speech about national security, Iraq, etc.

[ARogueTrader]

You have an political view of capitalism and socialism, I have a humanistic view of capitalism and socialism.

When someone places the acquisition of excessive personal capital at the expense and well being of their society, they are pure capitalists in my book.

Whether or not they do it legally, illegally, etc. is not the issue from my perspective.

It has to do with the intention toward personal acquisition and holding excess capital over the well being of humanity and the society.

I would argue that if Jesus were here today, he would favor the state distributing more wealth and services to the poor, as the pure capitalists wouldn't have an interest in doing so on their own or through charitable means. As you might recall, Jesus wasn't big on people's accumulation of excess wealth.

I would also argue that Robin Hood favored the well being of society over the acquisition of excessive riches by a few. He could well have joined forces with Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham and lived in capitalistic splendor, but rather chose redistribution of wealth and his own meager living in order to return back money to the more unfortunate levels of society.

Quote from Cutten:

"Famous powerful capitalists:

Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan
The Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John"

All 4 people you mention built their empires through the use of force, specifically theft and violent intimidation. None of them derived the bulk of their wealth or power through voluntary trade, or the employment of capital to make investments and thus derive an economic return. In fact, they all *suppressed* the activities of capitalists, by levying taxation, regulating commerce to the priveleged few by a system of licenses, banning competition, and other anti-free market policies.

Secondly, even if they were capitalists (there are evil capitalists, such as Crassus, from ancient times), it is their non-capitalistic behaviour that would be wrong - the capitalist aspects of their behaviour (trading goods, investing, hiring people etc) would be not objectionable in the slightest. If one could go back in time and stop them perpetrating all their evil deeds, the extent to which they indulged in capitalism would be *increased*, not decreased.

So basically, by mentioning their names, you support increased capitalism, rather than argue against it.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from Cutten:

"Famous powerful capitalists:

Julius Caesar
Genghis Khan
The Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John"

All 4 people you mention built their empires through the use of force, specifically theft and violent intimidation. None of them derived the bulk of their wealth or power through voluntary trade, or the employment of capital to make investments and thus derive an economic return. In fact, they all *suppressed* the activities of capitalists, by levying taxation, regulating commerce to the priveleged few by a system of licenses, banning competition, and other anti-free market policies.

Secondly, even if they were capitalists (there are evil capitalists, such as Crassus, from ancient times), it is their non-capitalistic behaviour that would be wrong - the capitalist aspects of their behaviour (trading goods, investing, hiring people etc) would be not objectionable in the slightest. If one could go back in time and stop them perpetrating all their evil deeds, the extent to which they indulged in capitalism would be *increased*, not decreased.

So basically, by mentioning their names, you support increased capitalism, rather than argue against it.

well said, cutten. i have called rogue to task several times concerning his misstated signature line, and only suceeded in being named with the capitalist group. LOL ! for the record-- i , marketsurfer, am a capitalist. i may be relatively obscure ( currently) but i am certainly not confused. LOL !

best,

surfer d.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from ARogueTrader:




I would argue that if Jesus were here today, he would favor the state distributing more wealth and services to the poor, as the pure capitalists wouldn't have an interest in doing so on their own or through charitable means. As you might recall, Jesus wasn't big on people's accumulation of excess wealth.

.

why would jesus advocate anything different now than he did back in the day ?

jesus would advocate the CHURCH distributing more wealth and services to the poor, not the STATE. distribution to the poor is a CHURCH function, not a STATE function. place yourself on the obscure, relatively confused socialist / liberal list.

 

[marketsurfer]

i think it was( the almost late) ronny raygun who coined the phrase:

compassionate CAPITALISM


do you have an issue with the above concept rougue ? will you argue that it does not exist ??

 

[ARogueTrader]

Apart from the Romans in those days who were invaders to Judea, the Church and the Rabbis were the state for Jews. The laws for the Jews were not based in external state laws, but in their religious laws.

The Church and the State were one in most cases throughout the majority of history, or the Church had enormous influence over the state and vice versa.

In fact, it is no surprise that most American Jews favor social programs funded by the state and their tax dollars over pure capitalism which allows for oppression of the workers and society as long as it benefits the profits of the capitalists.

Our society was founded on complete separation of Church and State, and as such it is up to the state to have an awareness of the needs of society and ensure the well being of all members of society when the Church does not extend itself appropriately.

In addition, with the breakdown of the nuclear family and extended family in this country and with increased mobility, rather than have a strong family who lives together and who can care for the other members, the responsibility has shifted to the state.

You apparently have no understanding of history, or are deeply confused.

Quote from marketsurfer:

why would jesus advocate anything different now than he did back in the day ?

jesus would advocate the CHURCH distributing more wealth and services to the poor, not the STATE. distribution to the poor is a CHURCH function, not a STATE function. place yourself on the obscure, relatively confused socialist / liberal list.

 

[ShoeshineBoy]

Interesting w. post article that shows some of Dean's security prouncements and chances of winning against Bush. (If you're a democrat and the Post is warning against the chances of your campaign success, you're truly hurting...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33330-2003Dec26.html

 

[TGregg]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

I would also argue that Robin Hood favored the well being of society over the acquisition of excessive riches by a few. He could well have joined forces with Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham and lived in capitalistic splendor.

You are obviously wrong. Just wanted to quote ya for benefit of the ignore list.

 

[ARogueTrader]

You are obviously incapable of making an argument to provide reasons for your conclusions.

Quote from TGregg:

You are obviously wrong. Just wanted to quote ya for benefit of the ignore list.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

I have no reasonable choice left having reached the obvious conclusion that you suffer from a mentally defective mindset and are incapable of intellectual honesty and civil debate.

Done.

Predictable as always. The reason you are done is because you have nothing to say. Don't try to make this into something it's not. I take you to task and you have nothing to say. All you do is say I make stuff up but then you offer no evidence to back that up. Sure I can go around the board and just tell everyone that they are lieing and exaggerating and making stuff up but what good does that do If I don't back that up with cold hard facts.

I have called you out so many times it's amazing that you continue to post on this site still. Why don't you start posting some of your own ideas instead of living off the Associated Press and Reuters news wires.

You are afraid to tell us who you support in the 2004 election. You speak in such general terms to avoid being attacked but its your vaguery that invokes these attacks.

And to top it all off you accuse me and others of closemindedness yet it is you that continues to assault the character of Sean Hannity and make up coin phrases for anyone that disagrees with your point of view. It is you that is the close minded one. It is you that has the black and white mentality. It is you that doesn't back up what he says. You think about that.

 

[Maverick74]

Quote from Cutten:

How big a landslide do you think Bush will get (assuming Dean gets the nomination), in terms of electoral college votes?

Also, which of the Dem candidates do you think stands a better chance against Bush?

Finally, are you betting on Bush to win? Current odds place his reelection chances around 72%, and I'm thinking of taking a wager.

As far as the electoral college goes. Bush actually picked up a few votes in the last adjustment because texas and florida actually gained some votes while new york lost some. So assuming Bush wins Texas and Florida it is a big advantage to him. The electoral college really strongly favors the republicans because it gives the middle of the country a lot more representation. Bush will probably win at least 35 out of the 50 states and that is being conservative. He could get 42 or 43.

I think the democrat that could give Bush a huge scare is Gephardt. If Gephardt got the nomination Bush would win by a much tighter margin. The reason for this is Gephardt has a lot of loyalty in the midwest. Dean does not. Of course Gephardt cannot get the dems behind him. It looks like Dean will win the primary by a large margin but Dean just doesn't match up well with Bush. Thats just how it is.