Sunday, August 2, 2015

What's the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist?

...from "blurring" the lines between business and government... to CROSSING/ ERASING it.

---

Update - 1/6/16: All three videos have disappeared before the 2016 election. Talk about "Erasing" history. Big Brother and MiniTru would be SO proud!

9 comments:

Always On Watch said...

He's giving her the benefit of the doubt? Why?

Always On Watch said...

Hold.

The.

Phone.

He says that the Democrats have a record of being for civil rights for 200 years. Huh?

Always On Watch said...

And 200 years for Social Security?

What the hell is he talking about? Social Security doesn't go back 200 years!

beamish said...

The question turns upon ownership of the means of production, and how to define the means of production. Socialists believe that government should own the means of production, and that the means of production are tools, machinery, factories, foundries, and industrial equipment. Democrats believe precisely the same thing, but that the means of production to be owned are people themselves.

Lyin' Brian said...

Mathews does play pretty fast and loose with the facts, but I think he's spot-on in the difference between socialists and economically neoliberal Democrats (the Democratic Establishment). Bernie is "outside" of the Democratic Establishment in that regard, and Mathews knows it!

@ beamish. Yep, they always were into human bondage/slavery.

Lyin' Brian said...

@AoW - He gives her the "benefit of the doubt" because he's not about to call the head of the DNC a "stupid b*tch" on a national news show.

Lyin' Brian said...

She framed the painting as the difference between R's and D's. Mathews framed the painting a little "tighter" to focus on D's only. That she was unwilling to discuss that "tighter frame" speaks volumes to the DNC's lack of cohesion.

Always On Watch said...

Lyin' Brian,
That she was unwilling to discuss that "tighter frame" speaks volumes to the DNC's lack of cohesion.

Indeed.

The Dems are trying to show how divided the GOP is, but the Dems have their own divisions.

Grab the popcorn and soda. This is going to be one helluva an election season.

-FJ said...

Napoleon used two primary strategies for the approach to battle. His "Manoeuvre De Derrière" (move onto the rear) was intended to place the French Army across the enemy's lines of communications. This forced the opponent to either march to battle with Napoleon or attempt to find an escape route around the army. By placing his army into the rear, his opponent's supplies and communications would be cut. This had a negative effect on enemy morale. Once joined, the battle would be one in which his opponent could not afford defeat. This also allowed Napoleon to select multiple march routes into a battle site. Initially, the lack of force concentration helped with foraging for food and sought to confuse the enemy as to his real location and intentions. This strategy, along with the use of forced marches created a morale bonus that played heavily in his favor.

The "indirect" approach into battle also allowed Napoleon to disrupt the linear formations used by the allied armies. As the battle progressed, the enemy committed their reserves to stabilize the situation, Napoleon would suddenly release the flanking formation to attack the enemy. His opponents, being suddenly confronted with a new threat and with little reserves, had no choice but to weaken the area closest to the flanking formation and draw up a battleline at a right angle in an attempt to stop this new threat. Once this had occurred, Napoleon would mass his reserves at the hinge of that right angle and launch a heavy attack to break the lines. The rupture in the enemy lines allowed Napoleon's cavalry to flank both lines and roll them up leaving his opponent no choice but to surrender or flee.


There are also "natural" angles towards which Napoleon would attack. At the "angle" between Austrians and their allies (ie Italians, Russians or Prussians)... where the uniforms were of different colours. The point is to recognize "the angles", and this one between market-sensitive neoliberals and big-government progressives is both VAST and DISTINCT.