URI:
   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&#95
       7;τας
       τυφλα το
       Κράτος ως
       θρησκεία.
       Σχέδια για
       παγκόσμια
       στρατιωτικ&#94
       2;
       κυριαρχία,
       επιβολή σε
       άλλα Έθνη
       και Λαούς,
       υψηλή
       φορολογία
       και
       κρατικός
       έλεγχος της
       παραγωγική&#96
       2;
       διαδικασία&#96
       2;,
       κλιματο-τρο&#9
       56;οκρατία
       με σκοπό την
       αύξηση των
       φόρων και
       του
       κρατικού
       παρεμβατισ&#95
       6;ού,
       έλεγχος της
       οικογενεια&#96
       2;
       και των
       διαπροσωπι&#95
       4;ών
       σχέσεων από
       το Κράτος...
       όλοι οι
       κρατικιστέ&#96
       2;
       τα ίδια
       υποστηρίζο&#96
       5;ν.
       Ο μόνος
       πραγματικό&#96
       2;
       λόγος για
       τον οποίο
       τσακώνοντα&#95
       3;
       είναι για το
       ποιο
       ατομοκεντρ&#95
       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&#94
       2;
       από τον
       σοσιαλιστή.
       Ο
       Καπιταλιστ&#94
       2;ς
       κοιτάει το
       ατομικό του
       συμφέρον
       εις όφελος
       του άλλου,
       ενώ ο
       σοσιαλιστή&#96
       2;
       κοιτάει το
       ατομικό του
       συμφέρον
       εις βάρος
       του άλλου. Ο
       Καπιταλιστ&#94
       2;ς
       συνεργάζετ&#94
       5;ι
       για την
       παραγωγή
       του πλούτου,
       ενώ ο
       σοσιαλιστή&#96
       2;
       συμμαχεί (με
       άλλα
       αθύρματα)
       για την
       κλοπή του.
       Μια
       κοινωνία με
       Καπιταλισμ&#97
       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&#96
       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&#96
       1;ασερικιά
       By: Pinochet88 Date: July 3, 2016, 6:07 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Όλοι οι
       νουνεχείς
       γνωρίζουν
       ότι progressive
       σημαίνει
       σοσιαλιστή&#96
       2;,
       δηλαδή
       κομμουνιστ&#94
       2;ς
       και ότι η
       δημοκρατία
       είναι ο
       δρόμος για
       τον
       σοσιαλισμό,
       δηλαδή τον
       κομμουνισμ&#97
       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
       διαφορετικ&#97
       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&#9
       69;ποι/εργαζόμ
       ενοι
       του μεγάλου
       Κράτους και
       θα τα
       κονομάνε
       και θα
       εξουσιάζου&#95
       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&#95
       3;
       και σαπίζει
       μέσα στην
       άνεση και τη
       χλιδή, τι
       νόημα έχει
       να μιλάμε
       για
       προοδευτισ&#95
       6;ούς
       και
       στρασερισμ&#95
       9;ύς;
       Όπου και να
       υπάρχει
       αυτό, είναι
       παρασιτισμ&#97
       2;ς,
       είναι
       απαράδεκτο,
       είναι
       αφύσικο,
       είναι
       υποδεέστερ&#95
       9;
       του
       παραγωγικο&#97
       3;
       καπιταλιστ&#95
       3;κού
       τόρπου ζωής
       και φυσικά
       είναι το
       όνειρο και ο
       σκοπός κάθε
       ενός από
       τους
       προαναφερθ&#94
       1;ντες
       και εκεί
       οδηγεί, και
       αυτό ευνοεί,
       η
       νομιμοποίη&#96
       3;η
       της
       αναδιανομή&#96
       2;.
       Να γιατί
       χρειαζόμασ&#96
       4;ε
       μια
       Καπιταλιστ&#95
       3;κή
       Χουντάρα
       που θα
       μειώσει
       τους φόρους
       και τις
       δαπάνες του
       Κράτους στο
       ελάχιστο.
       #Post#: 23592--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Χίλαρυ Η Στ&#96
       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&#9
       69;ποι/εργαζόμ
       ενοι
       του μεγάλου
       Κράτους και
       θα τα
       κονομάνε
       και θα
       εξουσιάζου&#95
       7;
       όλους τους
       υπολοίπους.
       [/quote]
       Ελα σπιούνε
       σοβιετολάγ&#95
       7;ε,
       καρφώνεσαι.
       Ο μαχνο
       πολέμησε το
       σοβιετικο
       κρατος για
       να ιδρύθεί
       μια μη
       κρατική
       κοινωνια
       ελευθερων
       ανθρώπων.
       Ουτε για
       κομμισάριο&#96
       2;
       προπαγάνδα&#96
       2;
       δεν κάνεις.
       #Post#: 23595--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Χίλαρυ Η Στ&#96
       1;ασερικιά
       By: Pinochet88 Date: July 4, 2016, 11:09 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Στον
       κομμουνισμ&#97
       2;
       τις
       αποφάσεις
       δεν τις
       παίρνει το
       άτομο αλλά η
       συλλογικότ&#95
       1;τα
       (Κράτος). Αν
       λοιπόν η
       συλλογικότ&#95
       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&#94
       5;
       της ζωής του
       ρυθμίζεται
       από άλλους.
       Όλα τα άτομα
       είναι
       υπόδουλα
       στην
       συλλογικότ&#95
       1;τα,
       κανένα δεν
       λαμβάνει
       ατομικές
       αποφάσεις
       για τον
       εαυτό του.
       Εκείνοι δε
       που
       χειραγωγού&#95
       7;
       την
       συλλογικότ&#95
       1;τα
       (Κράτος),
       συνήθως
       καθόλου
       δημοκρατικ&#94
       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&#95
       3;,
       οι οποίες
       πάντα
       υπαγορεύον&#96
       4;αι
       από τους
       εξουσιαστέ&#96
       2;.
       Εν τέλει, και
       καθώς ο
       κόσμος
       συνειδητοπ&#95
       9;ιεί
       ότι ψυχή τε
       και σώματι
       υπάγεται
       στη
       συλλογικότ&#95
       1;τα
       (Κράτος), η
       συναίνεση
       σε κάθε
       τρόπο λήψης
       συλλογικών
       (κρατικών)
       αποφάσεων
       γίνεται
       συναίνεση
       στην ισχύ
       του Κράτους
       και
       συναίνεση
       στην
       εκμετάλλευ&#96
       3;η
       των
       παραγωγών
       φόρων από
       τους
       καταναλωτέ&#96
       2;
       φόρων, στην
       εκμετάλλευ&#96
       3;η
       όσων
       επιβιώνουν
       παραγωγικά
       από όσους
       επιβιώνουν
       παρασιτικά.
       *****************************************************