Draconian vacation policies for US slave workers
in [Europe]
|
From: Tchiowa on 1 Aug 2006 20:14 The Reid wrote: > Following up to Tchiowa > > >>They were no more socialist than the USSR was communist. > > >Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist......... > > "Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology in which the state > would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system." > "Communism - A social and political ideology advocating that > authority and property be vested in the community, each member > working for the common benefit according to capacity and > receiving according to needs." > > but those naughty russkies didnt stick to the principles of > communism. Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government. If not then the people will throw it out because the people want to be allowed to succeed. So the more Socialistic you get the more you end up trending toward a dictatorial government. But it was the Socialist economy that crumbled and cause the failure of the government, not the other way around. Socialism cannot succeed long term. > >The Nazis nationalized many businesses. Socialist by definition. > > and supported the right in Spain rather than the socialists, > "national socialism" is to socialism what the german democratic > republic was to democracy. Wrong. Socialism is an economic philosophy that can reside on either side of the political spectrum. > "The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World > War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist > government" And a socialist economy. > Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists. I don't know enough about their detailed beliefs. I also notice that you decide to argue about whether or not the Nazis were Socialist and ignore the other half dozen specific examples of the destructiveness of Socialist governments. I wonder why that is. (No I don't. We both know why.) BTW, it's my parents 50th wedding anniversary coming up so I'm going to sin and fly myself and my wife half way around the world to celebrate with them. So you'd better stay home and do the "sackcloth and ashes" thing to keep the world in balance.
From: dgs on 1 Aug 2006 23:39 Mxsmanic wrote: > Mostly in computers. This doesn't make sense. Aren't you capable of composing complete sentences? -- dgs
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 03:20 The Reid writes: > professionals do it for money, amateurs do it for fun, thats one > irrelevant definition, no doubt the one you would prefer. But in > context its probably someone holding a qualification in a skill > overseen by a professional body. What is a "professional body"? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 03:22 Dave Frightens Me writes: > What makes you think there's a threshhold? If there were not, then "the money you can demand" would not be a distinguishing criterion. > Professionals can demand more than non-professionals. So there must be a dividing line between what non-professionals can demand and what professionals can demand. What is that dividing line? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on 2 Aug 2006 03:23
Martin writes: > I note his website asks for money. Does this make him a beggar or a > professional? So does the Web site of Doctors without Borders. What does that make them? -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |