Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Peublo, Colorado - White Supremacists

#1

Pueblo, Colorado.  Probably a nice place to move to if you're far right and tired of all of those liberals in Boulder, CO.   Everybody needs their safe space.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/synagogue-a...019-11-04/
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#2

The article doesn’t talk about any groups there just this lone wolf? Why are you assuming that whole city is a safe space for then?

I still don’t get why national national socialist aka Nazi are linked to the right. There’s literally nothing conservative about their belief system or political system. Thanks get it the Nazi where competing with the communist in Europe but that doesn’t make one conservative and one liberal. It’s two different factions of authoritarianism call it what it is.
[Image: 5_RdfH.gif]
Reply

#3

Standard procedure where the FBI grooms a mentally challenged loudmouth and provides him with weapons he would otherwise be unable to procure. Pretty easy to "foil" a plot you designed yourself.
Reply

#4

(11-17-2019, 08:02 AM)EricC85 Wrote: The article doesn’t talk about any groups there just this lone wolf? Why are you assuming that whole city is a safe space for then?

I still don’t get why national  national socialist aka Nazi are linked to the right. There’s literally nothing conservative about their belief system or political system. Thanks get it the Nazi where competing with the communist in Europe but that doesn’t make one conservative and one liberal. It’s two different factions of authoritarianism call it what it is.

Because we conceded educational supremacy to Marxism a long time ago.  it literally makes no sense.  

Ur right about then using the competition between nazis and international communists but that's like saying if the two kidnappers get into a fight about who gets to rape the girl that one of them is now a saint.
Reply

#5

(11-05-2019, 02:04 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: Pueblo, Colorado.  Probably a nice place to move to if you're far right and tired of all of those liberals in Boulder, CO.   Everybody needs their safe space.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/synagogue-a...019-11-04/

What exactly is your point?


There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#6

(11-17-2019, 10:11 AM)jagibelieve Wrote:
(11-05-2019, 02:04 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: Pueblo, Colorado.  Probably a nice place to move to if you're far right and tired of all of those liberals in Boulder, CO.   Everybody needs their safe space.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/synagogue-a...019-11-04/

What exactly is your point?

There is no point. He's desperately attempting to promote the white nationalist Trump supporter trope so encouraged by the MSM.  It's sad, really.
Reply

#7

(11-17-2019, 10:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 08:02 AM)EricC85 Wrote: The article doesn’t talk about any groups there just this lone wolf? Why are you assuming that whole city is a safe space for then?

I still don’t get why national  national socialist aka Nazi are linked to the right. There’s literally nothing conservative about their belief system or political system. Thanks get it the Nazi where competing with the communist in Europe but that doesn’t make one conservative and one liberal. It’s two different factions of authoritarianism call it what it is.

Because we conceded educational supremacy to Marxism a long time ago.  it literally makes no sense.  

Ur right about then using the competition between nazis and international communists but that's like saying if the two kidnappers get into a fight about who gets to rape the girl that one of them is now a saint.

I get the line of reasoning and I actually agree with it so long as the American left doesn't automatically get lumped in with communists. 
And so long as it only gets lumped in with socialists if it is trying to have the government own productive enterprises. the closest thing we've had to a socialist president in my lifetime was George W. Bush who bought up AIG, and then Obama bought GM with funds that were appropriated under Bush. But Obama said that these were both temporary moves, and he directed the government to sell both of these assets back to the private market. He was no socialist.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#8

(11-17-2019, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 10:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Because we conceded educational supremacy to Marxism a long time ago.  it literally makes no sense.  

Ur right about then using the competition between nazis and international communists but that's like saying if the two kidnappers get into a fight about who gets to rape the girl that one of them is now a saint.

I get the line of reasoning and I actually agree with it so long as the American left doesn't automatically get lumped in with communists. 
And so long as it only gets lumped in with socialists if it is trying to have the government own productive enterprises. the closest thing we've had to a socialist president in my lifetime was George W. Bush who bought up AIG, and then Obama bought GM with funds that were appropriated under Bush. But Obama said that these were both temporary moves, and he directed the government to sell both of these assets back to the private market. He was no socialist.
Democrats are openly embracing socialism right now, to me it's just mind blowing. I could see and understand some arguments of liberalism, but socialism i just don't understand why anyone with any understanding of economic history could ever advocate such a system.
[Image: 5_RdfH.gif]
Reply

#9

(11-17-2019, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 10:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Because we conceded educational supremacy to Marxism a long time ago.  it literally makes no sense.  

Ur right about then using the competition between nazis and international communists but that's like saying if the two kidnappers get into a fight about who gets to rape the girl that one of them is now a saint.

I get the line of reasoning and I actually agree with it so long as the American left doesn't automatically get lumped in with communists. 
And so long as it only gets lumped in with socialists if it is trying to have the government own productive enterprises. the closest thing we've had to a socialist president in my lifetime was George W. Bush who bought up AIG, and then Obama bought GM with funds that were appropriated under Bush. But Obama said that these were both temporary moves, and he directed the government to sell both of these assets back to the private market. He was no socialist.

Using the classical definition of socialism as government owned businesses he wasn't. He was more of a Marxist, redistributing wealth to the "needy." "Marxist" is a better description of the current Democrat party presidential field too, rather than "socialist."



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#10
(This post was last modified: 11-18-2019, 12:17 AM by mikesez.)

(11-17-2019, 08:53 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: I get the line of reasoning and I actually agree with it so long as the American left doesn't automatically get lumped in with communists. 
And so long as it only gets lumped in with socialists if it is trying to have the government own productive enterprises. the closest thing we've had to a socialist president in my lifetime was George W. Bush who bought up AIG, and then Obama bought GM with funds that were appropriated under Bush. But Obama said that these were both temporary moves, and he directed the government to sell both of these assets back to the private market. He was no socialist.

Using the classical definition of socialism as government owned businesses he wasn't. He was more of a Marxist, redistributing wealth to the "needy." "Marxist" is a better description of the current Democrat party presidential field too, rather than "socialist."

Yeah, Obama did try to expand Medicaid in every state.  His efforts to make college more of a free government went nowhere though.
Free help for the poor is at least as old as the Roman grain dole. 
It's probably best not to bring Marx into welfare programs.  The idea that the workers must seize the factories is Marx. 

Marx believed that the worker not owning his tools/machinery was so fundamentally wrong that it was the cause of the cyclical unemployment, bank failures, and urban overcrowding that were so much worse in his time than in ours.  He did not believe that "relief" or "welfare" were anything but a bandaid solution.  He did not believe that legal regulations or government insurance could smooth out the banking and monetary problems he saw.  Only collective ownership by the workers could, so if we could just not waste our time with those other steps and let the workers rise up now rather than later, that'd be best, he would say.
But it turns out he was wrong. Central banking, deposit insurance, unemployment insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, all of these things are now universal in many countries. And they all really do smooth over the problems that Marx saw.

I think these things are more aptly called "welfare state" but I'm open to any suggestions.  Just not Marx.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#11

(11-17-2019, 11:39 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 10:08 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Because we conceded educational supremacy to Marxism a long time ago.  it literally makes no sense.  

Ur right about then using the competition between nazis and international communists but that's like saying if the two kidnappers get into a fight about who gets to rape the girl that one of them is now a saint.

I get the line of reasoning and I actually agree with it so long as the American left doesn't automatically get lumped in with communists. 
And so long as it only gets lumped in with socialists if it is trying to have the government own productive enterprises. the closest thing we've had to a socialist president in my lifetime was George W. Bush who bought up AIG, and then Obama bought GM with funds that were appropriated under Bush. But Obama said that these were both temporary moves, and he directed the government to sell both of these assets back to the private market. He was no socialist.

Just admit it.  You say things just to wincd me up dont you?
Reply

#12

(11-18-2019, 12:16 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(11-17-2019, 08:53 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Using the classical definition of socialism as government owned businesses he wasn't. He was more of a Marxist, redistributing wealth to the "needy." "Marxist" is a better description of the current Democrat party presidential field too, rather than "socialist."

Yeah, Obama did try to expand Medicaid in every state.  His efforts to make college more of a free government went nowhere though.
Free help for the poor is at least as old as the Roman grain dole. 
It's probably best not to bring Marx into welfare programs.  The idea that the workers must seize the factories is Marx. 

Marx believed that the worker not owning his tools/machinery was so fundamentally wrong that it was the cause of the cyclical unemployment, bank failures, and urban overcrowding that were so much worse in his time than in ours.  He did not believe that "relief" or "welfare" were anything but a bandaid solution.  He did not believe that legal regulations or government insurance could smooth out the banking and monetary problems he saw.  Only collective ownership by the workers could, so if we could just not waste our time with those other steps and let the workers rise up now rather than later, that'd be best, he would say.
But it turns out he was wrong. Central banking, deposit insurance, unemployment insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, all of these things are now universal in many countries. And they all really do smooth over the problems that Marx saw.

I think these things are more aptly called "welfare state" but I'm open to any suggestions.  Just not Marx.

....  I tried.  I can't help it.  

The fed reserve was established to mitigate "panics" recessions and bank failures.  Under federal reserve policy the frequency of recessions went up, not down including two of the largest downturns in the history of the country.  

Deposit insurance limits a fairly tale.  

The collapse of the government sponsored lending institutions caused the economy to blue screen.  

The increase in standard of living for the average person is driven by economic growth, not growth of government programs or central economic planning.  The way that progressives disguise pseudo Marxism as opposition to communism is laughable.
Reply

#13

(11-18-2019, 03:22 AM)jj82284 Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 12:16 AM)mikesez Wrote: Yeah, Obama did try to expand Medicaid in every state.  His efforts to make college more of a free government went nowhere though.
Free help for the poor is at least as old as the Roman grain dole. 
It's probably best not to bring Marx into welfare programs.  The idea that the workers must seize the factories is Marx. 

Marx believed that the worker not owning his tools/machinery was so fundamentally wrong that it was the cause of the cyclical unemployment, bank failures, and urban overcrowding that were so much worse in his time than in ours.  He did not believe that "relief" or "welfare" were anything but a bandaid solution.  He did not believe that legal regulations or government insurance could smooth out the banking and monetary problems he saw.  Only collective ownership by the workers could, so if we could just not waste our time with those other steps and let the workers rise up now rather than later, that'd be best, he would say.
But it turns out he was wrong. Central banking, deposit insurance, unemployment insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, all of these things are now universal in many countries. And they all really do smooth over the problems that Marx saw.

I think these things are more aptly called "welfare state" but I'm open to any suggestions.  Just not Marx.

....  I tried.  I can't help it.  

The fed reserve was established to mitigate "panics" recessions and bank failures.  Under federal reserve policy the frequency of recessions went up, not down including two of the largest downturns in the history of the country.  

Deposit insurance limits a fairly tale.  

The collapse of the government sponsored lending institutions caused the economy to blue screen.  

The increase in standard of living for the average person is driven by economic growth, not growth of government programs or central economic planning.  The way that progressives disguise pseudo Marxism as opposition to communism is laughable.

Your last paragraph is spot on.
Government can't plan or program economic growth, and economic growth is the only thing that makes increases to the standard of living possible.  
Recessions are inevitable, but some recessions are shorter and smoother than others.  Government programs can smooth over recessions
The 2008 recession caused much less suffering than the 1929 recession.  The main reason was government unemployment insurance.  Wasn't there in 1929, was there in 2008.  Made a big difference for a lot of families.
As for banking, a lot of people would point to the panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and say that such things happen much less frequently now.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#14

(11-18-2019, 08:06 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 03:22 AM)jj82284 Wrote: ....  I tried.  I can't help it.  

The fed reserve was established to mitigate "panics" recessions and bank failures.  Under federal reserve policy the frequency of recessions went up, not down including two of the largest downturns in the history of the country.  

Deposit insurance limits a fairly tale.  

The collapse of the government sponsored lending institutions caused the economy to blue screen.  

The increase in standard of living for the average person is driven by economic growth, not growth of government programs or central economic planning.  The way that progressives disguise pseudo Marxism as opposition to communism is laughable.

Your last paragraph is spot on.
Government can't plan or program economic growth, and economic growth is the only thing that makes increases to the standard of living possible.  
Recessions are inevitable, but some recessions are shorter and smoother than others.  Government programs can smooth over recessions
The 2008 recession caused much less suffering than the 1929 recession.  The main reason was government unemployment insurance.  Wasn't there in 1929, was there in 2008.  Made a big difference for a lot of families.
As for banking, a lot of people would point to the panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and say that such things happen much less frequently now.

In total recessions actually occur at a greater frequency under Federal Reserve policy than before.  

1929 is the perfect test case to disprove your major thesis.  After the stock Market crash, unemployment spiked at double digits, and then, predictably it started to normalize.  It bottomed out around 6.3% BEFORE the endless string of government interventions, tax increases, regulations etc. that would see it shoot back over double digits and stay that way for a DECADE!  

2008 is an even worse case.  The Government sponsored entities were actually participating in the mortgage market and selling derivatives that caused the greatest systemic collapse of the monetary system that we have ever devised.  IT's only because our economy has grown to the point that we  Congress can print 800 billion dollars and not have the dollar completely collapse that we didn't see a complete and utter failure of the economic system as a whole.  That kind of systemic risk is ONLY POSSIBLE when all the decisions for a part of the economy are happening in a central location where one or two miscalculations causes a domino affect.  

Getting back to the original tangent to the op, white supremacists, Nazis, national socialists etc. in the main are not lazier faire free market capitalists.  Richard Spencer has admitted freely that he's a socialist.  There contention is that with the understanding that the state sponsored goodies are finite that they want to keep them for themselves and those like them.  They also want to do the best to ensure that those disenfranchised to fund their utopian state are those least like them.  The demonization of Jews specifically as practitioners of capitalism, ownership of the means of production, money lending, and monopolists of passive income comes straight from Marx himself.
Reply

#15

White Supremacy to Federal Banking Regulations in...7 posts. I think that's a Mikesez record for thread derailment.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#16

(11-18-2019, 08:06 AM)mikesez Wrote: The 2008 recession caused much less suffering than the 1929 recession.  The main reason was government unemployment insurance.  Wasn't there in 1929, was there in 2008.  Made a big difference for a lot of families.
As for banking, a lot of people would point to the panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and say that such things happen much less frequently now.

A lot of workers went on disability after the 99 weeks of unemployment ran out.  Disability claims (and awards) spiked in 2008-2010.

Also, the panics you listed involved people pulling THEIR GOLD out of banks.  People were very attuned to the solvency of any bank they used, because if the bank went under, the deposits were gone.  A significant number of people kept their wealth out of banks for this reason.
Reply

#17

(11-18-2019, 10:18 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: White Supremacy to Federal Banking Regulations in...7 posts. I think that's a Mikesez record for thread derailment.

Aww you know you like it  Big Grin
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#18

So drop a link, spew some nonsense, and disappear from the thread...

Nice.
Reply

#19

(11-18-2019, 10:16 AM)jj82284 Wrote:
(11-18-2019, 08:06 AM)mikesez Wrote: Your last paragraph is spot on.
Government can't plan or program economic growth, and economic growth is the only thing that makes increases to the standard of living possible.  
Recessions are inevitable, but some recessions are shorter and smoother than others.  Government programs can smooth over recessions
The 2008 recession caused much less suffering than the 1929 recession.  The main reason was government unemployment insurance.  Wasn't there in 1929, was there in 2008.  Made a big difference for a lot of families.
As for banking, a lot of people would point to the panics of 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907, and say that such things happen much less frequently now.

In total recessions actually occur at a greater frequency under Federal Reserve policy than before.  

1929 is the perfect test case to disprove your major thesis.  After the stock Market crash, unemployment spiked at double digits, and then, predictably it started to normalize.  It bottomed out around 6.3% BEFORE the endless string of government interventions, tax increases, regulations etc. that would see it shoot back over double digits and stay that way for a DECADE!  

2008 is an even worse case.  The Government sponsored entities were actually participating in the mortgage market and selling derivatives that caused the greatest systemic collapse of the monetary system that we have ever devised.  IT's only because our economy has grown to the point that we  Congress can print 800 billion dollars and not have the dollar completely collapse that we didn't see a complete and utter failure of the economic system as a whole.  That kind of systemic risk is ONLY POSSIBLE when all the decisions for a part of the economy are happening in a central location where one or two miscalculations causes a domino affect.  

Getting back to the original tangent to the op, white supremacists, Nazis, national socialists etc. in the main are not lazier faire free market capitalists.  Richard Spencer has admitted freely that he's a socialist.  There contention is that with the understanding that the state sponsored goodies are finite that they want to keep them for themselves and those like them.  They also want to do the best to ensure that those disenfranchised to fund their utopian state are those least like them.  The demonization of Jews specifically as practitioners of capitalism, ownership of the means of production, money lending, and monopolists of passive income comes straight from Marx himself.

There are a few things that people get wrong about the 1929 crash.  One is that there was minimal government intervention before Roosevelt's New Deal.  Another is that the New Deal began paying out instantly in 1933 when he became President.
Hoover intervened in the US economy in a big way.  He started huge infrastructure projects.  Remember the Hoover Dam?  Just one example.  The level of Federal spending under Hoover was actually similar to what it was under Roosevelt.  They were both much higher than pre-crash levels, though.
I'm not sure I see this alleged 6.3% unemployment rate come about until we got into WWII. https://www.thebalance.com/unemployment-...ar-3305506
I'm really not sure what kind of point you're trying to make about 2008.  There are many reasons why "Congress can print 800 billion dollars and not have the dollar completely collapse" - economic growth is actually not the main one.
I agree that there was too much concentration of decision making for part of the economy.  I agree that Freddie and Fannie got too big - but so did AIG, and so did Wachovia, so did a lot of banks that are no longer with us.  Concentrated and centralized power presents unacceptable risk regardless of if the power is held by a government employee or a private employee - both make mistakes.  From about 1890 to about 1974, it was understood that the American dream, our capitalist vision, is stifled when either companies or government programs get too big.  Companies that are too big to fail or too big to compete with are simply too big - they need to be broken up.  Hoover understood this, and Roosevelt did too.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!