Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ellapenella

What did Mao -Stalin & Hitler have in common?

102 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Habitat
4 minutes ago, aztek said:

it is not erring on the side of guilt it is real world fact.  there are plenty of info on government assistance abuse in usa, and billions are basically stolen, not even gonna bother posting them , it is too easy to find.

go ahead tell us how rich get tax breaks, bail outs...blah blah, 

I will leave you to your fantasies, the bottom line is that wealth has been transferred wholesale to the mega rich, in a way that simply did not happen a few decades ago, if you want to explain that by people being lazier or work-shy today, than then, I won't be agreeing with you. BS like tax cuts for the rich, and "trickle down" economics, are a con.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

and i couldn't care less about mega rich,  they do not stop me from living well, nor they are at fault for those who fail in life, that is a real world fact.

Z of FB was nothing 15 or so years ago, now he is one of the richest men, same with bill gates, and bezos, mega rich did not stop them, they became mega rich, so fantasies are all on YOUR side,

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, aztek said:

nor they are at fault for those who fail in life

flat,550x550,075,f.u1.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, aztek said:

well that is exactly opposite of what i would want,  i understand temp relief for those who qualify, abusers imo are no different than thieves.  how much do you consider minority? here we have generations who only know how to abuse the system, and not willing to work a day, your approach creates the abusers.

Are you saying:

  1. The first obligation of every citizen must be to productively work mentally or physically. The activity of individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the framework of the whole for the benefit for the general good. We demand therefore:
  2. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
qxcontinuum

They were all vegetarian?  

 I have noticed a pattern in many of the dictators or Tyrans. They have all hated Humanity but love nature and animals

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
9 hours ago, aztek said:

seriously? so you just give away money to those who do not feel like working? brilliant, lol 

how about  soldiers who do not feel like fighting, they want you to fight , so they can sit in barracks and play cards, this is no different. 

People that don't feel like fighting don't become soldiers.  They pretend to get bone spurs and become president where they sit in front of a TV and tweet or go play golf. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

People that don't feel like fighting don't become soldiers.  They pretend to get bone spurs and become president where they sit in front of a TV and tweet or go play golf. 

lol, wrong, if it was true there would be no deserters, yet reality proves you wrong. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-desertion-rate-soaring/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
7 hours ago, qxcontinuum said:

They were all vegetarian?  

 I have noticed a pattern in many of the dictators or Tyrans. They have all hated Humanity but love nature and animals

nope, they all were not. only hitler was, for health reasons.

Quote

Mao Zedong, a passionate carnivore, was a lifelong martyr to his bowel movements: "I eat a lot and I excrete a lot," he happily reported in a letter to a comrade in his early days. Much later, on a visit to the USSR to meet Stalin, he would find to his fury that he could not excrete at all - the squatting type of toilet he was used to was unavailable in Moscow.

https://www.vox.com/2014/12/5/7339639/what-dictators-ate

Quote

 

Joseph Stalin didn't stick to Lenin's maxims when it came to food. In Georgia, where he was born and where his tastes were formed, they have very rich culinary traditions. Famous Georgian wines, sweets made from dried fruit, pickled cheese, spicy and savoury soups, chicken, beef and lamb dishes – all these diverse delicacies made the Georgian dining table a holiday feast. Stalin didn't forget about these meals during the years he worked as an underground revolutionary in foreign lands.

 

Later, when he was exiled to Siberia, he sampled Russian cuisine too, especially fish-based dishes. The Siberian waterways produce highly sought-after varieties of fish in abundance, so even those in exile could afford soup made from the prized Russian nelma (freshwater whitefish).

Many years later, members of the Communist elite permitted to eat with Stalin recalled how they initially turned up their noses at stroganina (a kind of Siberian carpaccio) made from nelma, but then tried it. Needless to say, during the years of Stalin's rule, nelma was delivered fresh to the Kremlin on a special flight.

 

https://www.rbth.com/arts/2014/05/28/the_kremlin_diet_from_lenin_to_gorbachev_37005.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
13 minutes ago, aztek said:

lol, wrong, if it was true there would be no deserters, yet reality proves you wrong. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/army-desertion-rate-soaring/

Umm.... Doesn't this prove yourself wrong?  We were talking about people who were unwilling to go with a system and you mentioned soldiers like it doesn't happen to them.

Let's take this back to my original context.  If soldiers didn't feel like their families weren't taken care of and refused to fight- wouldn't that be a problem?  That would make them unwilling.  And if it got to a big enough level, would they not rebel and overthrow the government-  That would be changing the system.  So doesn't the government make damn sure that the soldiers and their families are taken care of to a level where this doesn't happen?  Being prior military, I would say the answer is, "Yes".

Now apply that logic to the populace as a whole.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
9 hours ago, Habitat said:

I will leave you to your fantasies, the bottom line is that wealth has been transferred wholesale to the mega rich, in a way that simply did not happen a few decades ago, if you want to explain that by people being lazier or work-shy today, than then, I won't be agreeing with you. BS like tax cuts for the rich, and "trickle down" economics, are a con.

I can only speak about the UK because this is where I live.

The transfer you imply has occurred hasn't. In my country the working class firstly got the minimum wage and since then there has been the heavy promotion of employers paying what we term the living wage (the wage needed to live comfortably). In fact during the last 20 years I have seen the working classes held back to the minimum/living wage but the socialists flooding the country with large numbers of immigrations. Having lots of candidates for low skilled jobs because of mass economic migration only pushes down wages.

The socialists promote the fallacy of the greedy corrupt rich to justify redistributing their wealth away. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
4 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Umm.... Doesn't this prove yourself wrong?  We were talking about people who were unwilling to go with a system and you mentioned soldiers like it doesn't happen to them.

Let's take this back to my original context.  If soldiers didn't feel like their families weren't taken care of and refused to fight- wouldn't that be a problem?  That would make them unwilling.  And if it got to a big enough level, would they not rebel and overthrow the government-  That would be changing the system.  So doesn't the government make damn sure that the soldiers and their families are taken care of to a level where this doesn't happen?  Being prior military, I would say the answer is, "Yes".

Now apply that logic to the populace as a whole.

no it  really does not, they became soldiers, then they deserted. you said they would not become soldiers if they were unwilling to fight, and i showed you how you are wrong.

yes lets take this back to original context, paying someone who is unwilling to work is wrong on every level,  unless it is your own kid, but than it is  your problem

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
6 hours ago, aztek said:

no it  really does not, they became soldiers, then they deserted. you said they would not become soldiers if they were unwilling to fight, and i showed you how you are wrong.

yes lets take this back to original context, paying someone who is unwilling to work is wrong on every level,  unless it is your own kid, but than it is  your problem

Just because you find it abhorrent, it doesn't make it untrue.  It is the relief valve that prevents the system from collapsing. 

As for the soldier's bit-  My example was a snide comment about a single individual that was unwilling- because obviously not all of them become president and sit in front of the TV and tweet or play golf.  I'm sorry you took that as an all-inclusive literal example.  Plenty become soldiers and refuse to fight or desert because they become disillusioned with the system or other reasons.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
9 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Just because you find it abhorrent, it doesn't make it untrue.  It is the relief valve that prevents the system from collapsing. 

 

sorry, Grom. i do not see it that way,  gvmnt support for truly in need (disabled, truly disabled, not self identified) is a relief valve, we already have temp benefits for those who worked, and earned, aka unemployment. paying everyone who is unwilling to work, and never had , at your cost, is not a valve,  it is a  boiler explosion.  no valve can relief that pressure, lets hope we wont have to see it for ourselves. 

i know solders desert for different reasons, i was just using that analogy, in hopes you will see my point, i seem to fail there thou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
9 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I can only speak about the UK because this is where I live.

The transfer you imply has occurred hasn't. In my country the working class firstly got the minimum wage and since then there has been the heavy promotion of employers paying what we term the living wage (the wage needed to live comfortably). In fact during the last 20 years I have seen the working classes held back to the minimum/living wage but the socialists flooding the country with large numbers of immigrations. Having lots of candidates for low skilled jobs because of mass economic migration only pushes down wages.

The socialists promote the fallacy of the greedy corrupt rich to justify redistributing their wealth away. 

I think the GFC exploded the myth of the "evil" of govt intervention in economic matters, which was the  staple on which "economic rationalism" depended, but when "socialist" bail-outs of financially distressed companies world-wide, was met with complete silence from the zealots, who, were they not hypocrites, would have just advocated the supremacy of the market, and no bail-outs . They did not it. The reality is, and was, their philosophy is "heads I win, tails you lose".

Edited by Habitat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I think the GFC exploded the myth of the "evil" of govt intervention in economic matters, which was the  staple on which "economic rationalism" depended, but when "socialist" bail-outs of financially distressed companies world-wide, was met with complete silence from the zealots, who, were they not hypocrites, would have just advocated the supremacy of the market, and no bail-outs . They did not it. The reality is, and was, their philosophy is "heads I win, tails you lose".

Sorry but I dont know what you just said.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
17 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

Sorry but I dont know what you just said.

Just to simplify it for you, the "economic rationalist" zealots should have been up in arms, at the idea of company bail-outs via the public purse, in the GFC, but they were tellingly mute, the hypocrites. If you don't understand that, you are perhaps a fool or a knave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
1 hour ago, aztek said:

sorry, Grom. i do not see it that way,  gvmnt support for truly in need (disabled, truly disabled, not self identified) is a relief valve, we already have temp benefits for those who worked, and earned, aka unemployment. paying everyone who is unwilling to work, and never had , at your cost, is not a valve,  it is a  boiler explosion.  no valve can relief that pressure, lets hope we wont have to see it for ourselves. 

i know solders desert for different reasons, i was just using that analogy, in hopes you will see my point, i seem to fail there thou.

You're the only one that added the qualifier "work" in what we are talking about.  (You seem to get the impression that the poor don't work. I had to layoff an apprentice today and he works two jobs.)   What I said was "make it in the system". (That apprentice really isn't "Making it")   I'm not just talking about the poor.  I'm also talking about those who receive handouts at the corporate/business level.  Farmers and any other subsidized industry are  prime examples- they work, but without handouts they would go broke and are not willing to do business without the subsidies.  We pay all these people to keep our current "system".  If we stopped then we lose our system and change to something else.

My point was (and still is) is that absent addressing these issues without some sort of payoff, change happens and people like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler rise in power.  That's why we have welfare.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
13 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Umm.... Doesn't this prove yourself wrong?  We were talking about people who were unwilling to go with a system and you mentioned soldiers like it doesn't happen to them.

Let's take this back to my original context.  If soldiers didn't feel like their families weren't taken care of and refused to fight- wouldn't that be a problem?  That would make them unwilling.  And if it got to a big enough level, would they not rebel and overthrow the government-  That would be changing the system.  So doesn't the government make damn sure that the soldiers and their families are taken care of to a level where this doesn't happen?  Being prior military, I would say the answer is, "Yes".

Now apply that logic to the populace as a whole.

It's pretty comparable...

Quote

The number of federal employees formally disciplined for misconduct is relatively small—less than 1 percent of the workforce, annually.

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-48

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
12 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

I can only speak about the UK because this is where I live.

The transfer you imply has occurred hasn't. In my country the working class firstly got the minimum wage and since then there has been the heavy promotion of employers paying what we term the living wage (the wage needed to live comfortably). In fact during the last 20 years I have seen the working classes held back to the minimum/living wage but the socialists flooding the country with large numbers of immigrations. Having lots of candidates for low skilled jobs because of mass economic migration only pushes down wages.

The socialists promote the fallacy of the greedy corrupt rich to justify redistributing their wealth away. 

It looks like wages have been outpacing CPI for half a decade; and, employment rates heading in the right direction.  All-in-all things look in reasonable shape.

https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/uk/

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
3 hours ago, aztek said:

sorry, Grom. i do not see it that way,  gvmnt support for truly in need (disabled, truly disabled, not self identified) is a relief valve, we already have temp benefits for those who worked, and earned, aka unemployment. paying everyone who is unwilling to work, and never had , at your cost, is not a valve,  it is a  boiler explosion.  no valve can relief that pressure, lets hope we wont have to see it for ourselves. 

i know solders desert for different reasons, i was just using that analogy, in hopes you will see my point, i seem to fail there thou.

Please answer these questions truthfully and honestly. I did for you, now reciprocate. 

EHyC139UcAABRuh.jpeg

Edited by Hankenhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

You're the only one that added the qualifier "work" in what we are talking about.  (You seem to get the impression that the poor don't work. I had to layoff an apprentice today and he works two jobs.)   What I said was "make it in the system". (That apprentice really isn't "Making it")   I'm not just talking about the poor.  I'm also talking about those who receive handouts at the corporate/business level.  Farmers and any other subsidized industry are  prime examples- they work, but without handouts they would go broke and are not willing to do business without the subsidies.  We pay all these people to keep our current "system".  If we stopped then we lose our system and change to something else.

My point was (and still is) is that absent addressing these issues without some sort of payoff, change happens and people like Stalin, Mao, and Hitler rise in power.  That's why we have welfare.

i never said that,  we are not talking about working poor, (at least that is not the conversation i had with you) we are talking about those who are unwilling to work, that you seem to be ok with just giving them money,  and i'm not, i thought i made that pretty clear. 

Quote

I think what most don't realize is that at it's base level social programs like welfare are for people who are currently unable or unwilling to make it in a system as a measure to prevent them from changing the system. 

that is the part that i strongly disagree with.  and they will implode the system if we let it happen and by doing it we encourage it.,  

remember what happened when SF was giving money to homeless a decades ago so they can start new life, well they did not, only more homeless came for free money,  and they are still there. same with freeloaders.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
1 minute ago, aztek said:

i never said that,  we are not talking about working poor, we are talking about those who are unwilling to work, that you seem to be ok with just giving them money,  and i'm not, i thought i made that pretty clear

What makes you the judge, jury, and executioner on who's a deadbeat and who's not. Your habit of painting people with a breathtakingly wide paint brush is irritating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
2 hours ago, Habitat said:

Just to simplify it for you, the "economic rationalist" zealots should have been up in arms, at the idea of company bail-outs via the public purse, in the GFC, but they were tellingly mute, the hypocrites. If you don't understand that, you are perhaps a fool or a knave.

You, Sir, have my respect. Great posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
On 11/21/2019 at 1:31 PM, aztek said:

and i couldn't care less about mega rich,  they do not stop me from living well, nor they are at fault for those who fail in life, that is a real world fact.

Z of FB was nothing 15 or so years ago, now he is one of the richest men, same with bill gates, and bezos, mega rich did not stop them, they became mega rich, so fantasies are all on YOUR side,

Most wealth is inherited, the meritocracy argument is void.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
7 hours ago, Habitat said:

Most wealth is inherited, the meritocracy argument is void.

are you saying it shouldn't it be? are you not gonna leave your millions in assets to your children? sure you will, does it hinder others from making money? absolutely not, so you void your own argument.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.