Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
clip314

Its Not About Race Dummy!

130 posts in this topic

[b]"Its not about race", Artaguito and Charlie have written here numerous times. "It's not about race" say all those others who have bought into the arguments, Du Jour, of the Tea Party. "Its not about race" screamed Michelle Bachman from the top her her lungs on the steps of the capitol building while getting ready to get paid, like sister Sarah, for stirring up the rabble during the Tea Party soirée.

Once again Frank Rich, the one who some here said was only a third rate movie critic, (envidia), ventures into the race cuture war. I think these are good points but certainly not for those who follow the philosophical rantings of Glenn Beck.



April 18, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Welcome to Confederate History Month

By FRANK RICH

It's kind of like that legendary stunt on the prime-time soap "Dallas," where we learned that nothing bad had really happened because the previous season's episodes were all a dream. We now know that the wave of anger that crashed on the Capitol as the health care bill passed last month — the death threats and epithets hurled at members of Congress — was also a mirage.

Take it from the louder voices on the right. Because no tape has surfaced of anyone yelling racial slurs at the civil rights icon and Georgia Congressman John Lewis, it’s now a blogosphere “fact” that Lewis is a liar and the “lamestream media” concocted the entire incident. The same camp maintains as well that the spit landing on the Missouri Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was inadvertent spillover saliva from an over-frothing screamer — spittle, not spit, as it were. True, there is video evidence of the homophobic venom directed at Barney Frank — but, hey, Frank is white, so no racism there!

“It’s Not About Race” declared a headline on a typical column defending over-the-top “Obamacare” opponents from critics like me, who had the nerve to suggest a possible racial motive in the rage aimed at the likes of Lewis and Cleaver — neither of whom were major players in the Democrats’ health care campaign. It’s also mistaken, it seems, for anyone to posit that race might be animating anti-Obama hotheads like those who packed assault weapons at presidential town hall meetings on health care last summer. And surely it is outrageous for anyone to argue that conservative leaders are enabling such extremism by remaining silent or egging it on with cries of “Reload!” to pander to the Tea Party-Glenn Beck base. As Beck has said, it’s Obama who is the real racist.

I would be more than happy to stand corrected. But the story of race and the right did not, alas, end with the health care bill. Hardly had we been told that all that ugliness was a fantasy than we learned back in the material world that the new Republican governor of Virginia, Robert McDonnell, had issued a state proclamation celebrating April as Confederate History Month.

In doing so, he was resuscitating a dormant practice that had been initiated in 1997 by George Allen, the Virginia governor whose political career would implode in 2006 when he was caught on camera calling an Indian-American constituent “macaca.” McDonnell had been widely hailed by his party as a refreshing new “big tent” conservative star when he took office in Richmond, the former capital of the Confederacy, in January. So perhaps his Dixiecrat proclamation, if not a dream, might have been a staff-driven gaffe rather than a deliberate act of racial provocation.

That hope evaporated once McDonnell was asked to explain why there was no mention of slavery in his declaration honoring “the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers and citizens.” After acknowledging that slavery was among “any number of aspects to that conflict between the states,” the governor went on to say that he had focused on the issues “I thought were most significant for Virginia.” Only when some of his own black supporters joined editorialists in observing that slavery was significant to some Virginians too — a fifth of the state’s population is black — did he beat a retreat and apologize.

But his original point had been successfully volleyed, and it was not an innocent mistake. McDonnell’s words have a well-worn provenance. In “Race and Reunion,” the definitive study of Civil War revisionism, the historian David W. Blight documents the long trajectory of the insidious campaign to erase slavery from the war’s history and reconfigure the lost Southern cause as a noble battle for states’ rights against an oppressive federal government. In its very first editorial upon resuming publication in postwar 1865, The Richmond Dispatch characterized the Civil War as a struggle for the South’s “sense of rights under the Constitution.” The editorial contained not “a single mention of slavery or black freedom,” Blight writes. That evasion would be a critical fixture of the myth-making to follow ever since.

McDonnell isn’t a native Virginian but he received his master’s and law degrees at Pat Robertson’s university in Virginia Beach during the 1980s, when Robertson was still a rare public defender of South Africa’s apartheid regime. As a major donor to McDonnell’s campaign and an invited guest to his Inaugural breakfast, Robertson is closer politically to his protégé than the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ever was to Barack Obama. McDonnell chose his language knowingly when initially trying to justify his vision of Confederate History Month. His sanitized spin on the Civil War could not have been better framed to appeal to an unreconstructed white cohort that, while much diminished in the 21st century, popped back out of the closet during the Obama ascendancy.

But once again you’d have to look hard to find any conservative leader who criticized McDonnell for playing with racial fire. Instead, another Southern governor — who, as it happened, had issued a Confederate Heritage Month proclamation of his own — took up his defense. The whole incident didn’t “amount to diddly,” said Haley Barbour, of Mississippi, when asked about it by Candy Crowley of CNN last weekend.

Barbour, a potential presidential aspirant, was speaking from New Orleans, where the Southern Republican Leadership Conference was in full cry. Howard Fineman of Newsweek reported that he couldn’t find any African-American, Hispanic or Asian-American attendees except for the usual G.O.P. tokens trotted out as speakers — J. C. Watts, Bobby Jindal and Michael Steele, only one of them (Jindal) holding public office.

New Orleans had last attracted G.O.P. attention in 2008, when John McCain visited there as part of a “forgotten places” campaign tour to deliver the message that his party cared about black Americans and that “never again” would the city’s tragedy be ignored. “Never” proved to have a shelf life of less than two years. None of the opening-night speakers at last weekend’s conference (Newt Gingrich, Liz Cheney, Mary Matalin et al.) so much as mentioned Hurricane Katrina, according to Ben Smith of Politico. When Barbour did refer to it later on, it was to praise the Bush administration’s recovery efforts and chastise the Democrats’ “man-made disaster” in Washington.

Most Americans who don’t like Obama or the health care bill are not racists. It may be a closer call among Tea Partiers, of whom only 1 percent are black, according to last week’s much dissected Times/CBS News poll. That same survey found that 52 percent of Tea Party followers feel “too much” has been made of the problems facing black people — nearly twice the national average. And that’s just those who admit to it. Whatever their number, those who are threatened and enraged by the new Obama order are volatile. Conservative politicians are taking a walk on the wild side by coddling and encouraging them, whatever the short-term political gain.

The temperature is higher now than it was a month ago. It’s not happenstance that officials from the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Virginia and Mississippi have argued, as one said this month, that the Confederate Army had been “fighting for the same things that people in the Tea Party are fighting for.” Obama opposition increasingly comes wrapped in the racial code that McDonnell revived in endorsing Confederate History Month. The state attorneys general who are invoking states’ rights in their lawsuits to nullify the federal health care law are transparently pushing the same old hot buttons.

“They tried it here in Arkansas in ’57, and it didn’t work,” said the Democratic governor of that state, Mike Beebe, likening the states’ health care suits to the failed effort of his predecessor Orval Faubus to block nine black students from attending the all-white Little Rock Central High School. That battle for states’ rights ended when President Eisenhower, a Republican who would be considered a traitor to his party in 2010, enforced federal law by sending in troops.

How our current spike in neo-Confederate rebellion will end is unknown. It’s unnerving that Tea Party leaders and conservatives in the Oklahoma Legislature now aim to create a new volunteer militia that, as The Associated Press described it, would use as yet mysterious means to “help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.” This is the same ideology that animated Timothy McVeigh, whose strike against the tyrannical federal government will reach its 15th anniversary on Monday in the same city where the Oklahoma Legislature meets.

What is known is that the nearly all-white G.O.P. is so traumatized by race it has now morphed into a bizarre paragon of both liberal and conservative racial political correctness. For irrefutable proof, look no further than the peculiar case of its chairman, Steele, whose reckless spending and incompetence would cost him his job at any other professional organization, let alone a political operation during an election year. Steele has job security only because he is the sole black man in a white party hierarchy. That hierarchy is as fearful of crossing him as it is of calling out the extreme Obama haters in its ranks.

At least we can take solace in the news that there’s no documentary evidence proving that Tea Party demonstrators hurled racist epithets at John Lewis. They were, it seems, only whistling “Dixie.” [/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bueno si vamos a prohibir la bandera conferderada por ser racista, entonces prohibamos el nombre "Democrat Party" por la misma razon:

Los democratas fueron los que buscaron bulla antes de la guerra civil
Los democratas eran los que representaban a los terratenientes con esclavos
Jefferson Davis, el 1er y unico presidente de la confederacion fue senador democrata por Mississippi.
El KKK fue fundado exclusivamente por democratas:
[color="#FF0000"][i]
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[/i][/color]

Historian Eric Foner


Oh si, y Frank Rich no tiene credibilidad alguna, el es un critico de peliculas que como es un tirapiedras izquierdista tiene un foro amistoso en el NY Times.

Clip, face it, race is all you got left. Edited by Artaguito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[b]Artaguito dijo, "Clip, face it, race is all you got left."

No sé como tu de todas personas aquí estás defendiendo la posición de extrema derecha. No es por que eres conservador, es que defiendes las sandeces de los "right wingers" americanos. Acuerdate dije, "no es por que eres conservador", lo que defiendes va mucho mas allá, y no te cae.

Creo que para un Puertorriqueño que escribe en este foro en, ESPAÑOL, esto una aberración. Pero en fin, "en todo jardín se cuecen habas". Charlie por lo menos se ha creado la fantasía que desciende de europeos, quizás creándose un mécanismo de defensa para ser mejor aceptado en Kansas. ¿Por que? Eso de autodenominarse europeo o "porro rican" en kansas son dos cosas muy diferentes. En el caso tuyo no sé que le dices a tus amiguitos de derecha en Texas. Pero quizás si son todos "hispano-unidenses", usando tu término, unos entre otros reafirman sus creencias.

El problema de muchas personas es que esperan leer opiniones que confirman sus ideas. Pero eso es normal. Casi todo el mundo funciona así. A veces pongo árticulos aquí que van en contra del la trayectoría derechista de este foro, pero tambien es para estimular discusión. Lo que me extraña es que una gran parte de los que opinan en esta sección USA, son estadistas pero no dominan el inglés. "Go figure."

Hasta tu artaguito, te pones con sandeces de que tenemos una palabra nueva para autodenominarnos en estados unidos cuando tu mismito sabes que hay una reacción en contra del español, ente los derechistas, y hasta gran parte de los liberales. Sin embargo cuando un puertorriqueño comienza a defender las filosofías racistas americanas en español, "We are all in deep shit!"

Ya es tiempo que sepan que eso de "CONFEDERACY" y "We want our country back", "Birther", etc. etc. son mayormente códigos verbales (code words), ojo Charlie. ¿A que a nadie le importaba esto antes de la presidencia del negro, eh? [/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Clip:

Es un placer saber que has dejado la goma de mascar... Veamos las estupideces con lasque nos obsequias hoy:

"CONFEDERACY": Nunca se ha ido gracias a esa otra sabandija que ha hecho su retorno en el Partido Democrata el "Carpetbagger"...

"We want our country back": I have no idea qho you are speaking about here, but we are yet short ofbecoming a full-blow, flaming socialist gigantocolosalgargantuanormosu socialist failure.

Birther": Where's the actual Birth Certificate? However, I can wait until 2012, since Arizona will not let anyone register as a Presidential Candidate unless they can show they are qualified to run for the office.

Si tu consideras que la propietaria del kiosko cafetalero es Mima, que ella me ha dicho que ella apoya a Obama, sin importar lo que le demuestren que ha hecho, no se como puedes decir que este foro es de derecha... Lo que puedes decir es que quienes generalmente salen airosos en los debates somos los conservadores. Edited by charlie319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
El socialismo va viento en popa---ya los vampiros de Wall Street hicieron el trabajo. Dejar a esos sin regular es la razon por la necesidad del socialismo. Y siempre lo sera. Lo que es el problema es la falta de agallas de los dos partidos politicos de mayoria en los EEUU. Los dos son unos vendidos a los grandes intereses y no tienen principios. Y los que pierden son la gente comun y del pueblo. Asi es la cosa. Los brutos que se pasan pensando que la gente de derecha son los que representan el pueblo mejor estan necios. La derecha se define por egoismos, ganancia y tambien por falta de conciencia social e son anti-intelectuales y materialistas y tambien internacionalistas sin importarle quien sale perdiendo en estas fechorias. Mientras que ellos siguen guisando y pueden hacer ganancias astronomicas de guerras, y petroleo y fusiles y estupideces sin futuro y sin razon....seguiran en la misma babosada.

El socialismo viene de seguro no porque la gente lo quiere...pero por la sencilla razon de que el capitalismo desenfrenado lo CREA y lo alimenta a diario porque no tienen humanidad ni principios ni inteligencia. Y el capitalismo fracasa a cada rato por falta de conciencia social y avaricias economicas con visiones pequenas del futuro. Por esa razon el pais se hunde y seguira yendo para abajo.

Si Charlie ya dijo que no es puertorriqueno. Cuando alguien admite eso? No hay mas que preguntar.

Artaguito cree en el sistema. El sistema no sirve porque el ser humano es un ser social. Y el capitalismo destruye la esencia de la humanidad...poniendo objetos y servicios y recursos naturales y 'derecho privado' sobre el bienestar social. Como tal es un sistema deshumanizador y malo. Y eventualmente los seres humanos van a tener que tomar una decision. O mas idioteces donde la ganancia y la materia y los derechos de un grupo minusculo de gente toma prioridad sobre los intereses sociales, morales, materiales y humanos de la vasta mayoria de la humanidad y el bienestar de la raza humana?

La decision es esa. El que va con un sistemita vampiresco y malo vs. la gente que quieren algo mas cuerdo y normal y balanceado. Punto y se acabo. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Dime un pais socialista que funciona o funciono en la historia?.................Mao, Stalin, Ho Chin, Castro y otros lo intentaron y fue un fracaso.


Winston Churchill no lo pudo decir mejor sobre socialismo en 1945:

[b] a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[/b]



[b]Capitalism by Donald Finley



The simple existence of this question in the United States of America is disturbing to me. In the latest Rasmussen poll, only 53% of American adults prefer capitalism over socialism, 20% prefer socialism, and 27% couldn't decide (www.rasmussenreport s.com). These numbers are clearly worse than the question. Such a discussion equates to the old joke question, "Which is worse, ignorance or apathy?" The answer: "I don't know, and I don't care."

I wonder how many of those who prefer socialism work for a company started by an entrepreneur. Would that be hypocritical? How do 47% of Americans live in this country and have any other position than a strong support for free market capitalism? I'm still trying to figure this one out. The explanations I can think of are too disappointing.

The Obama administration is widely criticized for taking the country more toward socialism. Socialism puts the government in charge of the basic business infrastructure. Obama fired the CEO of General Motors, once a publicly owned and grossly mismanaged company. Today, the US government owns a large portion of the devalued stock after giving the company billions of dollars. The same thing happened as part of the Obama stimulus plan for hundreds of other companies, including banks, another staple of American life. It seems that nearly every day, there is another story about some other aspect of American business asking for money from the government to stay afloat. Every company the government gives money to takes us further down that socialism road where government subsidizes business and destroys capitalism.

The Socialist motto is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". The flaw with this is the premise that the from' and to' equal each other. It assumes that the producers, or the from' part, make precisely what the consumers, or the to' part need. But this concept removes any incentive to create, innovate, improve or build. If I produce, what would make me want to produce more? Personal satisfaction? No matter how hard I work, I get the same, so what is the likelihood that my work will increase? Say the sweat of my labor fills the needs of 25 families who produce nothing. What are their incentives to begin producing? They do nothing and already all their needs are met. Will working hard meet their needs better? No, so why work? As either a producer or consumer, the socialist ideology breeds laziness, and ultimately fails.

What about those in the government? Are they producers or consumers? Michelle Malkin calls them redistributors' (www.cnsnews.com). They take all the goods from the producers and redistribute them to the consumers. How? They get to decide what the needs are. They also have needs themselves, so how do you think that works? Do they take what they need, or what they want? Do you think they get the first picks, or the leftovers? From the administrator perspective, socialism breeds corruption and greed.

So in essence, 47% of Americans are OK putting a huge burden on a segment of our population to produce everything the entire population needs, has confidence that this segment can sustain the production levels to keep everyone's needs met, and believes that the necessary gigantic government oversight will handle the redistribution of all the produced goods fairly and equitably, and without corruption. Good for them.

I happen to believe that history has proven socialism to be a failure, and those who still live under socialism have rude awakenings coming their way.

Capitalism is the opposite of socialism. The harder you work, the more you get. Invent, improve and create, and your reward is more of whatever you want to spend your money on. Produce more, make more money. The incentives are built in. But capitalism also means you have to keep up, stay modern and meet the demands of the market. You can't expect to keep making typewriters in the age of computers and make any money. You may be the best typewriter maker ever, but if there is no longer a demand, you have to adapt and change. Some people don't like change. Capitalism is also competitive. As the most successful manufacturer of zipper pulls in town, and having made the most money doing so, you may find a zipper pull factory pop up just across the street, making them faster and selling them cheaper. Some people don't like competition.

Capitalism has risks. Invest your money in a company that does not succeed, then you lose your money. Run a bank and make loans to people who don't repay them, then you lose your money. Make a car that costs you more to make than you can sell it for, and you lose your money. Work for any of these companies who make poor business and financial decisions, and you may lose your job. Some people don't like risk. They also don't like consequences.

Capital ism is a system of supply and demand. Did the oil companies deserve to make the record profits they made not long ago? Absolutely! The market demand existed for their product. And every American was free to buy as much as they wanted, and could afford. In the socialist European countries, gas is rationed. The government redistributors decide how much gas each family can buy. The same situation exists for cigarettes and alcohol. Why? There is only so much to go around. The producers can't keep up. The supply is less than the demand. How long do you think that is sustainable? It makes prices go up, which by design, reduces some demand because people just can't afford them anymore. This means the government also has to pay more to keep the populace supplied with those things that are necessities. When the government pays more, it raises taxes to get the money to pay for the products, then raises the costs for the products to try to reduce demand. When demand goes down, do you think the government gives you back your money, or reduces your taxes?

Look at Europe to get a view of what the US will look like if Obama gets his way. Nationalized health care, a socialist endeavor, will destroy the independent medical care infrastructure of our country. Doctors will no longer make more than most professions, no matter their years of extra schooling, the loans they must repay, or the equipment they have to buy to open a practice. The incentive of high pay will be gone. Good care will be the luck of the draw, not ability to go to the best doctors. I've been told that 95% of Canadian citizens live within 100 miles of the US border so they can have access to good health care in the US. Their medical redistributors, just as in Europe, decide who lives and dies, who gets medicine and who doesn't. Why do so many foreign leaders come to America when they need major surgery? They don't trust their own socialist systems. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of their own money researching cures to killer diseases because of the incentives of huge profits if they are successful. Risk, innovation, improvement, incentive, profit these are the buzz words of capitalism.

It comes down to freedom - freedom to make your own way and determine the course of your life, freedom to make the decisions you want to make, and not have others make for you. Do you trust yourself, or some government bureaucrat?

Here's an illustration for you. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee is widely blamed for the nation's banking crisis, just this week said, "I would let people gamble on the Internet. I would let adults smoke marijuana; I would let adults do a lot of things, if they choose." He added, "But allowing them total freedom to take on economic obligations that spill over into the broader society, or have a house in a neighborhood - which when they go bankrupt becomes a fire hazard for their neighbors - we're well beyond, the impact goes well beyond the individual. The individual is not the only one impacted here. When bad decisions get made in the economic sphere, it causes problems." (http://www.cnsnews.c om/public/content/ar ticle.aspx?RsrcID=47 107

This is your future socialist government redistributor, with his own moral vision for the country, and a strong opinion about whether the average American should be allowed to decide where to live. Do you want someone like this making even more decisions about your life?[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
La verdad es que hay miopía y falta de visión.

El capitalismo es un sistema barbárico en donde el listo aplasta al debil. Se admite que esto tiene su lugar histórico en el desarrollo de la humanidad hacia una sociedad mas avanzada.

La historia nos enseña que el capitalismo desenfrenado es un sistema inhumano y cruel. La historia también nos dice que implantar socialismo a la fuerza en donde nunca hubo una plataforma capilista llegó al fracaso.

Sin embargo, hay otra corriente en donde poco a poco surge el socialismo en naciones maduras. Es muy claro que el socialismo es el resultado y final inevitable del capitalismo.

La nación mas rica del planeta es Noruega. Es una nación socialista en donde la educación y el cuidado médico es gratis. Hay una cantidad enorme de recursos naturales y una grán porción de la riqueza le pertenece al pueblo. El ingreso por cabeza de Noruega duplica el de EEUU. Allá la gente se levanta por la mañana sin el estrés americano. Estudiar una carrera universitaria no quiere decir que hay que gastar 50,000 dolares por año-----------Si eres bueno estudias de gratis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Nice try, but some people here do study and read. Norway is a rich country because of its petroleum-related industries and other natural resources NOT because of Socialism. They have a mixed economy of capitalism and of socialism. They only have 4.8 million in population (a little more than P.R.).

Noruega es una nacion rica por su petreleo y recursos naturales, no tiene que ver nada con su mitad economia de socialismo. La razon que su gobierno puede tener esos programas gratis a sus cuidadanos es por el tamaño pequeño y poblacion pequeña y sus grandes recursos naturales que ellos dependen y los taxes mas altos en el mundo.


Dime que pais presente o pasado que fue 100% socialista que funciono y no me puedes decir ni uno. Dices que el capitalismo que es otra palabra para [b]FREE MARKET[/b] es barbarico pero la verdad es que las 10 naciones en este planeta con la mejores economias tienen un sistema capitalista de raiz en su economia. Hasta China se metio capitalista cuando se dieron cuenta que 100% comunista/socialismo es mierda y se murieron millones de su propia gente bajo ese sistema.



Estos son los top 10 mejores paises economicos en el mundo basados en GDP: Dime por lo menos 1 de esa lista que es 100% socialista y despues vienes aqui a decir que el capitalismo es barbarico. Tu vision de socialismo se ha intentado antes y fracaso, si tu llamastes enfermo cuando tu maestra cubrio historia pues eso es otra cosa.



1 United States 14,430,000
2 Japan 5,108,000
3 People's Republic of China 4,814,000
4 Germany 3,273,000
5 France 2,666,000
6 United Kingdom 2,198,000
7 Italy 2,090,000
8 Brazil 1,499,000
9 Spain 1,466,000
10 Canada 1,335,000



Capitalismo fue que saco a Japon y Alemania de la banca rota despues de la Segunda Guerra Mundial (that and U.S. aid) mientras los demas paises que se fueron 100% comunista/socialista se fueron pobres. Japon es el mejor ejemplo, son los mejores en la electronica y carros. Porque capitalismo trae incentivos y competencia.....dime porque tu crees que China lo cogio y se metieron al juego? Edited by lexuswestcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Conyo los socialistoides españoles llegaron al numero 9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Lexus:

Como dicen en inglés le estas predicando al coro de la iglesia.

Capitalismo es el mejor sistema para crear riqueza y es la raiz básica para llegar al socialismo.

Como bién dices Noruega es inmensamente rico y por eso naturalmente llegaron al socialismo. Sin capitalismo y riquezas jamás llegan al socialismo,

No predico la destrucción del capitalismo pues es necesario para crear la riqueza necesaria para llegar al un mundo enteramente socialista.

No hay necesidad de que menciones economías fracasadas socialistas-------sin capitalismo eso es de esperarase.

El socialismo llega cuando el capitalismo triunfe. En ese momento llega el socialismo.

Ahora entiendes porqué Bill Gates es el socialista mas grande del mundo. Es así porque tuvo un éxito rotundo con su capitalismo.


Es una ironía que los capitalistas empedernidos no entiendan que sus esfuerzos tan solo crean mas programas sociales y mejoras. Poco a poco mientras hay mas avances tecnológicos llega el concepto de crear una sociedad mucho mas justa.

[quote name='Pachin' date='22 April 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1271994682' post='2895209']
Conyo los socialistoides españoles llegaron al numero 9?
[/quote]


España es un país socialista. :hitheresmiley:

¿Y Francia? Edited by Julián

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Julián' date='22 April 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1271986178' post='2895202']


La nación mas rica del planeta es Noruega. Es una nación socialista en donde la educación y el cuidado médico es gratis. Hay una cantidad enorme de recursos naturales y una grán porción de la riqueza le pertenece al pueblo. El ingreso por cabeza de Noruega duplica el de EEUU. Allá la gente se levanta por la mañana sin el estrés americano. Estudiar una carrera universitaria no quiere decir que hay que gastar 50,000 dolares por año-----------Si eres bueno estudias de gratis.
[/quote]



Me encanta cuando gente que vive en EEUU y se educaron por dinero de fondos federales y se hicieron su profesion en EEUU hablan mal del sistema de los EEUU y no encuentran NINGUNA falta del sistema Euro-[b]PEO[/b]. Si el sistema Euro-PEO es mejor que el de EEUU porque no te mudas? Si Noruega es la jodienda del mundo y todo es gratis porque no hay millones de muertos de hambres en el mundo inmigrando a Noruega???



Cuando tu dices la nacion mas rica del planeta....de que, recursos naturales? GDP o que? ....en GDP Norway es #25. EEUU es #1. Noruega solamente tiene 4.8 millones de habitantes...EEUU tiene mas de 309 millones de habitantes. Como Noruega tiene muchos recursos naturales como petreleo y otros recursos naturales pues su gobierno puede tener el lujo de tener muchas cosas gratis para sus cuidadanos pero vamos a ver si en el futuro su economia no se va por el sur y puedan seguir con su socialismo (parte, porque su economia es mixta)

Mas, Noruega no tiene mas de 20 millones de ilegales chupando del sistema.....EEUU si.......son cosas cuando tu comparas no dices.


Hay cosas buenas del sistema de EEUU y tambien de los paises Europeos pero tu solamente dices las faltas del sistema de EEUU y no encuentras ninguna falta de los Europeos......da pena de un profesional que llego a tener su educacion por fondos federales de los EEUU y tienes unos de los mejores sueldos en el mundo en tu profesion viviendo en los EEUU hablando mal del sistema que te dio esa oportunidad y todo fue realizado porque la nacion Americana invadio a la isla de Puerto Rico en 1898 y fueron ellos que pusieron la UPR y sus becas Pell Grant hicieron posible que todo Boricua pueda estudiar y tener la oportunidad de ser un profesional y que P.R. tenga todas las universidades que tienen hoy en dia.

[quote name='Julián' date='22 April 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1271995601' post='2895211']




España es un país socialista. :hitheresmiley:

¿Y Francia?
[/quote]


100%??? damn, I didn't know that! amazing!!!



Tu dices: [color="#FF0000"]Como bién dices Noruega es inmensamente rico y por eso naturalmente llegaron al socialismo. Sin capitalismo y riquezas jamás llegan al socialismo,[/color]

No todos los paises en el mundo tiene el lujo de Noruega de petroleo y recursos naturales como ellos..........dime el plan de llegar de capitalismo al socialismo para el resto del mundo otra vez???? ...............te contradices, dices que capitalismo es barbarico pero por otra mano dices que es necesario para llegar a una economia mixta, digo yo, porque nunca van a llegar a ser 100% socialista.....decidete, es malo o es bueno y necesario????? Edited by lexuswestcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
La mayoría de esos países europeos de la lista son de corte social demócrata y velan para que sus economías se mantengan reguladas y asi evitar la explotación de sus ciudadanos por el capitalismo al estilo "laissez-faire" ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Pachin' date='22 April 2010 - 09:51 PM' timestamp='1271994682' post='2895209']
Conyo los socialistoides españoles llegaron al numero 9?
[/quote]


Esos numeros era cuando Jose Maria Aznar (conservador) estaba en poder de 1996-2004.......del gobierno socialista de Jose Luis Rodríguez Zapatero...well, hay que esperar que viene de eso en la economia.....pero 9 no es 1....jejeje. Edited by lexuswestcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Como quiera estan mejor que cuando Franco los tenia aislados del resto de Europa...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='FearlessBox' date='22 April 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1271969709' post='2895189']
El socialismo va viento en popa---ya los vampiros de Wall Street hicieron el trabajo. Dejar a esos sin regular es la razon por la necesidad del socialismo. Y siempre lo sera. Lo que es el problema es la falta de agallas de los dos partidos politicos de mayoria en los EEUU. Los dos son unos vendidos a los grandes intereses y no tienen principios. Y los que pierden son la gente comun y del pueblo. Asi es la cosa. Los brutos que se pasan pensando que la gente de derecha son los que representan el pueblo mejor estan necios. La derecha se define por egoismos, ganancia y tambien por falta de conciencia social e son anti-intelectuales y materialistas y tambien internacionalistas sin importarle quien sale perdiendo en estas fechorias. Mientras que ellos siguen guisando y pueden hacer ganancias astronomicas de guerras, y petroleo y fusiles y estupideces sin futuro y sin razon....seguiran en la misma babosada.

El socialismo viene de seguro no porque la gente lo quiere...pero por la sencilla razon de que el capitalismo desenfrenado lo CREA y lo alimenta a diario porque no tienen humanidad ni principios ni inteligencia. Y el capitalismo fracasa a cada rato por falta de conciencia social y avaricias economicas con visiones pequenas del futuro. Por esa razon el pais se hunde y seguira yendo para abajo.

Si Charlie ya dijo que no es puertorriqueno. Cuando alguien admite eso? No hay mas que preguntar.

Artaguito cree en el sistema. El sistema no sirve porque el ser humano es un ser social. Y el capitalismo destruye la esencia de la humanidad...poniendo objetos y servicios y recursos naturales y 'derecho privado' sobre el bienestar social. Como tal es un sistema deshumanizador y malo. Y eventualmente los seres humanos van a tener que tomar una decision. O mas idioteces donde la ganancia y la materia y los derechos de un grupo minusculo de gente toma prioridad sobre los intereses sociales, morales, materiales y humanos de la vasta mayoria de la humanidad y el bienestar de la raza humana?

La decision es esa. El que va con un sistemita vampiresco y malo vs. la gente que quieren algo mas cuerdo y normal y balanceado. Punto y se acabo. :cheers:
[/quote]


Veo que mi roedor favorito ha asomado sus bigotes... El que yo no considere mi lugar de origen como factor medular de lo que me define, no quiere decir que niegue haber nacido en PR, pero ciertamente, como PR no es un Pais en terminos de legitimidad diplomatica y soberana, todos los nacidos en PR son ciudadanos de los EEUU.

En cuanto al socialismo y su supuesto avance en la nacion de los libres y valientes, esto es algo que no viene porque le convenga al pais y mucho menos a su poblacion. Un sistema socializtoide, en el que cada tribu esta demasiado ocupada tratando de mamar mas de la ubre que el proximo es un pais debil en el que las corporaciones multinacionales pueden explotar esas divisiones para provecho propio. Por eso, la claque de actores acostumbrados promueven la importacion de expulsados de paises socialistoides como son los expulsores de mano de obra indocumentada.

El Americano nacido bajo la bandera Americana, no apoya ni a los Democratas socialistoides, ni a los Republicanos vendidos a los grandes intereses extranjeros. Es cuestion de tiempo en lo que despierta la sociedad... Los EEUU no ha sido historicamente un pais capitalista en extremo sino en el ultimo siglo. Se ha practicado el capitalismo, pero no el tipo de doctrina desenfrenada que exigen los inversionistas extranjeros como Geroge Soros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Y después tienen la cara de irse a mendigarles a los politicos de Washington para subsanar la cogida de pendejo que les dio Goldman Sachs...a que les "socialicen" las perdidas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ese es el establishment eurofilico de hoy dia... Privatizar las ganancias y socializar las perdidas.

Tengo entendido que los operadores de aerolineas estan pidiendo un "bailout" por las perdidas ocasionadas por la nube de ceniza de la erupcion en islandia... "Cry me a river" y que metan sus reclamaciones con sus aseguradoras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Y el colmo es que no practican las medidas drásticas neoliberales que les imponen mediante el IMF a los países en quiebra . Edited by Pachin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Julián' date='22 April 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1271995601' post='2895211']
Lexus:

Como dicen en inglés le estas predicando al coro de la iglesia.

Capitalismo es el mejor sistema para crear riqueza y es la raiz básica para llegar al socialismo.

Como bién dices Noruega es inmensamente rico y por eso naturalmente llegaron al socialismo. Sin capitalismo y riquezas jamás llegan al socialismo,

No predico la destrucción del capitalismo pues es necesario para crear la riqueza necesaria para llegar al un mundo enteramente socialista.

No hay necesidad de que menciones economías fracasadas socialistas-------sin capitalismo eso es de esperarase.

El socialismo llega cuando el capitalismo triunfe. En ese momento llega el socialismo.

Ahora entiendes porqué Bill Gates es el socialista mas grande del mundo. Es así porque tuvo un éxito rotundo con su capitalismo.


Es una ironía que los capitalistas empedernidos no entiendan que sus esfuerzos tan solo crean mas programas sociales y mejoras. Poco a poco mientras hay mas avances tecnológicos llega el concepto de crear una sociedad mucho mas justa.




[/quote]



1) De donde tu sacas que Bill Gates es socialista???? Como el corre a Microsoft no tiene nada de Socialista. Te dije que el da mucho dinero porque puede y es un TAX WRITE OFF. En los 90's la administracion de Clinton y 20 estados lo tuvieron que demandar en la corte civil porque Microsoft practicaban monopolio y violaron el Sherman Antitrust Act.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Billgates.JPG[/img]


El testimonio de Bill Gates en la demanda fue describido por la prensa que lo cubrio: [b]Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was called "evasive and nonresponsive" by sources present at a session in which Gates was questioned on his deposition. He argued over the definitions of words such as "compete", "concerned", "ask", and "we". BusinessWeek reported, "Early rounds of his deposition show him offering obfuscatory answers and saying 'I don't recall' so many times that even the presiding judge had to chuckle. Worse, many of the technology chief's denials and pleas of ignorance have been directly refuted by prosecutors with snippets of E-mail Gates both sent and received.[/b]

Si Bill Gates es socialista, yo soy Shiva, la Diosa de la destruccion.



2) EEUU es un sistema mixto ya que es capitalista y su gobierno tiene programas socialistas. Pero de un pais ser 100% socialista NUNCA va a pasar. Ni en Noruega.



3) A ustedes independentistas socialistas no los entiendo. Se quejan que se quieren separar de los EEUU porque Puerto Rico depende mucho de las ayudas federales de los EEUU y crea dependencia y gente vaga pero por otro lado favorecen una republica con un socialismo y dependencia al gobierno gigante......which is it?


4) Te contradices otra vez, dices : [color="#FF0000"]No predico la destrucción del capitalismo pues es necesario para crear la riqueza necesaria para llegar al un mundo enteramente socialista.[/color] :hysterical: ....WTF!! si quieres un mundo enteramente socialista pues a donde vas a poner el sistema capitalista y free markets en tu mundo?



El Capitalismo regulado con ciertos aspectos socialistas en el gobierno "MIXED ECONOMY" es la mejor. El capitalismo 100% ni el socialismo 100% va a funcionar y tu lo sabes. La pregunta es que ratio funciona mejor en cada pais, si es 70-30, 60-40 0 50-50 ratio. Edited by lexuswestcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No se de porcientos, pero siempre he dicho que el capitalismo trabaja mejor con un poquito de escarcha socialista por encima para evitar los abusos crasos que naturalmente se darian.

En mi opinion al capitalismo de EEUU le vienen tirando sacos de cemento socialista encima desde hace 80 an~os, empezando con el 'New Deal'. Ya es tiempo que eso pare y retroceda sustancialmente, los programas enactados a nombre de ese avance ya estan al borde del colapso.

No creo que sea realista eliminar Medicare y SS, pero se debe reducir a por lo menos sus niveles originales de beneficios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0