DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Πολιτική &#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 23583--------------------------------------------------
Χίλαρυ Η Στρ&#
945;σερικιά
By: Pinochet88 Date: June 30, 2016, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Σκληρή
στρασερική
προπαγάνδα
κάνει η
τσούλα του
Μπιλ
Κλίντον
υποστηρίζο_
7;τας
τυφλα το
Κράτος ως
θρησκεία.
Σχέδια για
παγκόσμια
στρατιωτικ^
2;
κυριαρχία,
επιβολή σε
άλλα Έθνη
και Λαούς,
υψηλή
φορολογία
και
κρατικός
έλεγχος της
παραγωγική`
2;
διαδικασία`
2;,
κλιματο-τρο	
56;οκρατία
με σκοπό την
αύξηση των
φόρων και
του
κρατικού
παρεμβατισ_
6;ού,
έλεγχος της
οικογενεια`
2;
και των
διαπροσωπι_
4;ών
σχέσεων από
το Κράτος...
όλοι οι
κρατικιστέ`
2;
τα ίδια
υποστηρίζο`
5;ν.
Ο μόνος
πραγματικό`
2;
λόγος για
τον οποίο
τσακώνοντα_
3;
είναι για το
ποιο
ατομοκεντρ_
3;κό
τομάρι από
όλα αυτά τα
παράσιτα θα
εξουσιάζει
τους άλλους
και θα
κάθεται και
θα τρώει εις
βάρος των
άλλων.
Ορίστε
λοιπόν η
διαφορά του
Καπιταλιστ^
2;
από τον
σοσιαλιστή.
Ο
Καπιταλιστ^
2;ς
κοιτάει το
ατομικό του
συμφέρον
εις όφελος
του άλλου,
ενώ ο
σοσιαλιστή`
2;
κοιτάει το
ατομικό του
συμφέρον
εις βάρος
του άλλου. Ο
Καπιταλιστ^
2;ς
συνεργάζετ^
5;ι
για την
παραγωγή
του πλούτου,
ενώ ο
σοσιαλιστή`
2;
συμμαχεί (με
άλλα
αθύρματα)
για την
κλοπή του.
Μια
κοινωνία με
Καπιταλισμa
2;
είναι υγιής,
ενώ μια
κοινωνία με
σοσιαλισμό
είναι
άρρωστη.
[hr]
Hillary Clinton's Easy Choices
By David Gordon
HTML http://bc.vc/m23klou
Few books have as misleading a title as Hard Choices. For
Hillary Clinton, as this tedious memoir of her years as
Secretary of State makes evident, there are no hard choices. The
Solutions to all political and economic problems are easy. We
must always rely on the directing hand of government, guided by
the superior wisdom of our moral and intellectual betters,
Hillary Clinton foremost among them.
In her main discussion of economic policy, she says something
that will surprise those familiar with her record. She
contrasts China with America: “China had become the leading
exponent of an economic model called ‘state capitalism,’ in
which state-owned or state-supported companies used public money
to dominate markets and advance strategic interests. … These
principles ran directly counter to the values and principles we
had worked to embed in the global economy. We believed an open,
free, transparent, and fair system with clear rules of the road
would benefit everyone.”
Have we been unjust to Mrs. Clinton? Is she in fact a supporter
of the free market? No, she is not, despite her criticism of
China’s resort to state-control. The giveaway is her phrase
“fair system with clear rules of the road.” Among the things she
means by this is that foreign countries must enact similar labor
legislation to that prevalent in America. On no accounts must
foreign countries try to undercut America by offering employers
the chance to hire cheaper labor: “Lowering barriers to access
for American companies was a big part of our efforts. So was
raising standards in foreign markets on key issues like labor
rights, [and] environmental protection. … Companies in the
United States already met these standards, but those of many
other countries didn’t. We needed to level the playing field and
improve a lot of lives around the world along the way. For too
long we’d seen companies closing factories and leaving the
United States because they could do business more cheaply in
foreign countries where they didn’t have to pay workers a living
wage or abide by U.S. rules on pollution. Using diplomacy and
trade negotiations to raise standards abroad could help change
that calculus.”
Current Prices on popular forms of Gold Bullion
Thus, far from supporting the free market, she wants the
government to pressure other nations to adopt restrictive
policies. In doing so, she illustrates a key point that Ludwig
von Mises often emphasized. Government intervention in the free
market fails to achieve its ostensible purpose and often leads
to further intervention to correct the untoward results of the
initial interference. Here costly environmental and labor
legislation, supposedly aimed at helping American workers, puts
many of them out of work by making firms unable to compete with
foreign companies. To remedy this, she wishes to burden foreign
firms as well: this restores a “level playing field.” It never
occurs to her that the policies she favors will destroy the jobs
of impoverished foreign workers. To grasp this would require of
her a few minutes of thought, and she doesn’t have the time.
Instead, she conjures up a fantasy world not governed by
economic law. “In many countries around the world, unions are
still suppressed. … This is bad for them and it’s bad for
American workers too because it creates unfair competition that
drives down wages for everyone. Contrary to what some
governments and employers might think, research shows that
respecting workers’ rights lead to positive economic outcomes,
including higher levels of foreign direct investment.” In sum,
increase labor costs and then employment and investment will
rise. Such is Clintonian economics.
Can we at least give her credit for favoring free trade? No, we
cannot. True enough, she opposes foreign restrictions of
American investments and sales abroad, but this for her is
subsumed under a broader strategy of governmental “guidance” of
American business. She does not say, “Let’s end tariffs and
other restrictions so firms can trade as they wish.” Instead,
she endeavors to guide American business in directions that she
favors. “I made export promotion a personal mission. During my
travels, I often made a pitch for an American business or
product, like GE in Algeria. … We got creative with initiatives
like Direct Line, which allowed our Ambassadors to host phone
calls or videos chats with American businesses eager to break
into foreign markets.” It is ironic that she criticizes China
for its “state capitalism,” when she fails completely to grasp
the difference between genuine free enterprise and
government-business “partnership.”
When we turn to “climate change,” the same pattern of thought
recurs. In exact opposition to her book’s title, there are no
hard choices; and, as always, salvation lies in the state. She
says, “The problems of global warming are evident, despite the
deniers. There was a mountain of overwhelming scientific data
about the damaging effects of carbon dioxide, methane, and other
greenhouse gasses … a serious, comprehensive response to climate
change remains stymied by the entrenched political opposition at
home … the old false choice between promoting the economy and
protecting the environment surfaces again.”
Prominent scientists like Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer would
dissent from her assessment of the scientific evidence about
global warming; but let us put the controversy to one side, and
consider the matter using the understanding that she favors of
the scientific data. Measures to reduce greenhouse gasses impose
severe costs on business. Must not these costs be weighed
against the supposed benefits of the measures she favors? She
makes no attempt to do so: rather for her, there is no need at
all for choice between economic growth and regulating the
environment.
At one point, though, reality is so insistent that she cannot
ignore it. If the environmental regulations for America that she
wants were imposed, the goal she seeks could not be achieved.
“Even if the United States somehow reduced our emissions all the
way to zero tomorrow, total global levels still would be nowhere
near what they need to be if China, India, and others failed to
contain their own emission.”
Once more, the failure of intervention begets proposals for more
intervention. Environmental regulation must be extended
worldwide: “The United States was pushing for what we considered
a realistically achievable outcome: a diplomatic agreement
agreed to by leaders … which would commit every major nation,
developed and developing alike, to take substantive steps to
curb carbon emissions and report transparently on their
progress.”
Clinton’s plans to control the world extend far beyond
environmental regulation. She has an ideological “human rights”
agenda that she demands other nations accept. To the objection
that importuning and threatening other nations arouses
resentment and thus threatens American security, she has an
answer that should by now be familiar: “Throughout the history
of American foreign policy, there has been a running debate
between so-called realists and idealists. The former, it is
argued, place national security ahead of human rights, while the
latter do the opposite, These are categories I find overly
simplistic. Over the long term, repression undermines stability
and creates new threats, while democracy and respect for human
rights create strong and stable societies.”
Once more there is no need for choice: interference with other
nations does not threaten our security but promotes it. Have we
not heard this before? “The world must be made safe for
democracy.” In pursuit of this ambitious goal, she pressures
other nations that enact measures she deems inappropriate. If
the “regime of Vladimir Putin in Russia has enacted a series of
anti-gay laws, prohibiting the adoption of Russian children by
gay couples,” why is it the business of the United States to
endeavor to change this? Clinton’s attempts to impose on other
nations her ideological views are, in Edmund Burke’s phrase, an
“armed doctrine.”
Clinton has a high opinion of the effect of her inflated
rhetoric about rights. “The ripples created by the speech [about
LGBT rights] were bouncing around the globe and back, and my
phone was soon crowded with messages. A huge number of people
had watched the speech online.” Her image of herself as one of
the world’s moral teachers, correcting the less enlightened,
brings to mind a familiar passage from the Bible: “The Pharisee
stood and prayed thus with himself: God, I thank thee that I am
not as other men are.” (Luke 18:11).
#Post#: 23584--------------------------------------------------
Re: Χίλαρυ Η Στ`
1;ασερικιά
By: mistermax Date: June 30, 2016, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEWS: What’s the difference between a socialist and a
Democrat. That’s the question.
CLINTON: I can tell you what I am. I am a progressive Democrat.
#Post#: 23591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Χίλαρυ Η Στ`
1;ασερικιά
By: Pinochet88 Date: July 3, 2016, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Όλοι οι
νουνεχείς
γνωρίζουν
ότι progressive
σημαίνει
σοσιαλιστή`
2;,
δηλαδή
κομμουνιστ^
2;ς
και ότι η
δημοκρατία
είναι ο
δρόμος για
τον
σοσιαλισμό,
δηλαδή τον
κομμουνισμa
2;.
Ο Νέστορ
Μάχνο, η/οι
αδελφή/οί
Στράσερ, οι
δημόσιοι
υπάνθρωποι
που διόρισε
το Πασόκ και
η ΝΔ και ο
Σύριζα/ΚΚΕ
στο Κράτος
και η
Χί(τ)λαρι -
ασχέτως αν ο
καθένας
λέει ότι
είναι κάτι
διαφορετικa
2;
- είναι το
ίδιο πράγμα.
Θέλουν ένα
μεγάλο
Κράτος το
οποίο θα
ελέγχει τις
ζωές των
υπολοίπων
ανθρώπων
και θα τους
ληστεύει
τον πλούτο
και αυτοί, οι
"ιδεολόγοι"
θα είναι
μέλη/εκπρόσ	
69;ποι/εργαζόμ
ενοι
του μεγάλου
Κράτους και
θα τα
κονομάνε
και θα
εξουσιάζου_
7;
όλους τους
υπολοίπους.
Όταν
κάποιος
"δουλεύει"
στο Κράτος
και δεν
κάνει
τίποτα και
παίρνει
διχίλιαρα
και
τριχίλιαρα
και έχει
όλον τον
χρόνο
ελεύθερο
και κερνάει
τα τεκνά/τις
πιτσιρίκες
και έχει
εξοχικό με
πισίνα και
καβλαντίζε_
3;
και σαπίζει
μέσα στην
άνεση και τη
χλιδή, τι
νόημα έχει
να μιλάμε
για
προοδευτισ_
6;ούς
και
στρασερισμ_
9;ύς;
Όπου και να
υπάρχει
αυτό, είναι
παρασιτισμa
2;ς,
είναι
απαράδεκτο,
είναι
αφύσικο,
είναι
υποδεέστερ_
9;
του
παραγωγικοa
3;
καπιταλιστ_
3;κού
τόρπου ζωής
και φυσικά
είναι το
όνειρο και ο
σκοπός κάθε
ενός από
τους
προαναφερθ^
1;ντες
και εκεί
οδηγεί, και
αυτό ευνοεί,
η
νομιμοποίη`
3;η
της
αναδιανομή`
2;.
Να γιατί
χρειαζόμασ`
4;ε
μια
Καπιταλιστ_
3;κή
Χουντάρα
που θα
μειώσει
τους φόρους
και τις
δαπάνες του
Κράτους στο
ελάχιστο.
#Post#: 23592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Χίλαρυ Η Στ`
1;ασερικιά
By: mistermax Date: July 3, 2016, 7:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Pinochet88 link=topic=2727.msg23591#msg23591
date=1467544075]
Ο Νέστορ
Μάχνο,
Θέλουν ένα
μεγάλο
Κράτος το
οποίο θα
ελέγχει τις
ζωές των
υπολοίπων
ανθρώπων
και θα τους
ληστεύει
τον πλούτο
και αυτοί, οι
"ιδεολόγοι"
θα είναι
μέλη/εκπρόσ	
69;ποι/εργαζόμ
ενοι
του μεγάλου
Κράτους και
θα τα
κονομάνε
και θα
εξουσιάζου_
7;
όλους τους
υπολοίπους.
[/quote]
Ελα σπιούνε
σοβιετολάγ_
7;ε,
καρφώνεσαι.
Ο μαχνο
πολέμησε το
σοβιετικο
κρατος για
να ιδρύθεί
μια μη
κρατική
κοινωνια
ελευθερων
ανθρώπων.
Ουτε για
κομμισάριο`
2;
προπαγάνδα`
2;
δεν κάνεις.
#Post#: 23595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Χίλαρυ Η Στ`
1;ασερικιά
By: Pinochet88 Date: July 4, 2016, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Στον
κομμουνισμa
2;
τις
αποφάσεις
δεν τις
παίρνει το
άτομο αλλά η
συλλογικότ_
1;τα
(Κράτος). Αν
λοιπόν η
συλλογικότ_
1;τα
έπαιρνε την
απόφαση ότι
το άτομο Α
πρέπει να
δουλεύει 3,5
ώρες, να
τρώει μόνο
λαχανικά, να
τον παίρνει
από τον κώλο,
να
κυκλοφορεί
αξύριστος
και να
φοράει μόνο
κόκκινα,
τότε πως
γίνεται να
είναι
ελεύθερο
αυτό το
άτομο; Κάθε
λεπτομέρει^
5;
της ζωής του
ρυθμίζεται
από άλλους.
Όλα τα άτομα
είναι
υπόδουλα
στην
συλλογικότ_
1;τα,
κανένα δεν
λαμβάνει
ατομικές
αποφάσεις
για τον
εαυτό του.
Εκείνοι δε
που
χειραγωγού_
7;
την
συλλογικότ_
1;τα
(Κράτος),
συνήθως
καθόλου
δημοκρατικ^
0;,
είναι οι πιο
φλύαροι
δημοκόποι
και οι πιο
βάρβαροι
τραμπούκοι.
Η ψήφος και η
συμμετοχή
στη λήψη των
αποφάσεων
του Κράτους
είναι μια
κοροϊδία
και καθόλου
δεν
επηρεάζει
τις
αποφάσεις
που
λαμβάνοντα_
3;,
οι οποίες
πάντα
υπαγορεύον`
4;αι
από τους
εξουσιαστέ`
2;.
Εν τέλει, και
καθώς ο
κόσμος
συνειδητοπ_
9;ιεί
ότι ψυχή τε
και σώματι
υπάγεται
στη
συλλογικότ_
1;τα
(Κράτος), η
συναίνεση
σε κάθε
τρόπο λήψης
συλλογικών
(κρατικών)
αποφάσεων
γίνεται
συναίνεση
στην ισχύ
του Κράτους
και
συναίνεση
στην
εκμετάλλευ`
3;η
των
παραγωγών
φόρων από
τους
καταναλωτέ`
2;
φόρων, στην
εκμετάλλευ`
3;η
όσων
επιβιώνουν
παραγωγικά
από όσους
επιβιώνουν
παρασιτικά.
*****************************************************