Posted on 05/08/2007 4:00:44 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
The DUmmies are getting almost honest by creating a new group exposing their TRUE desire: a "Socialist Progressive Group." I say ALMOST honest since if they were completely honest they would just drop the pretense and call it a Communist Group. That's what they really mean. In fact, communists like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez (when you strip away the "Bolivaran" BS) call themselves socialists as in the ubiqutous Socialismo o Muerte! posters seen all over Cuba. Also USSR did not stand for the Union of Soviet Communist Republics. It stood for Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. In any event, it is good that the DUmmies are showing their true colors as collectivists and haters of free enterprise as you can see in this THREAD proudly announcing the formation of the Socialist group. It sure makes it easier for the DUmmie FUnnies to find fresh DUmmie material to feature in its editions. So let us now watch the "Socialist Progressives" declare their manifesto in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, enjoying the this new grouping of self-declared collectivists, is in the [brackets]:
New DU Group: Socialist Progressives Group
[New DU Group: Communist Collectivists Group.]
The mission of the DU Socialist Progressives Group is to link Socialist ideas and suggestions for political change to a Progressive framework, with the end result being positive and forward looking discussion and solidarity.
[The mission of the DU Socialist Progressives Group is the collectivation of private property with the end result being the destruction of free enterprise.]
I thought all of DU is supposed to be a socialist progressive group!
[It really is but now they are admitting it in public.]
I have regarded Socialism as the moderate economic system in between two radical ones....capitalism and communism.
[Communists always call themselves Socialists.]
I have experienced it first hand. Lived it. Loved it and discarded it. Travel to China and see how the UTOPIAN IDEAL ALWAYS GETS CORRUPTED and then realize that China is now involved in the GREAT EXPERIMENT, mixing Capitalism and Socialism, WHY? Because SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK. Unfortunately, innocent people are still dying and people are still being treated as a commodity.
[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
If you truly knew something about classical socialist theory, you would know that it is BASED on Democratic principles, and without them (like in China and the Soviet Union) it always fails.
[Apparently Socialism also failed in France (and Britain and Scandinavia and...)]
Until people figure out that the nation-state concept is a failure, and until we being to rebuilt local communities... no, not communities.... tribes where in people in small groups work together, share responsibilities and have a direct voice in the affairs of their tribe, we will continue to have miserable experiences, savage injustice, awful violence and we will get to keep sitting around pontificating about how and why all of the large governmental systems theory we try never seems to work that well.
[It takes a village...I mean a tribe.]
Thank you, Skinner, for creating this group!!
[Thank you, Skinner, for creating a great new source for DUFU comedy material!!]
Let me know if you want on the DUmmie FUnnies PING List.
PING!
3?
Top 5.....
Sounds like the dipstick anarchist that gave me my new tagline.
Here is another thought I have on newspaper economics and freelancing. Lets say a newspaper has had big staff cutbacks (and most of them had them) and now force the staffers who wrote 3 articles per week to write 5 articles per week. If the staffer is paid $500 per week that means the cost of each article is about $100 (actually more considering costs of health, insurance, etc.). If they pay $25 per freelance article that means a savings of $75 per article. So wouldn’t this mean that for economic reasons, newspapers will be forced to use more freelance material?
For you Monty Python fans out there:
BRIAN: Are you the Judean People's Front?
REG: F*** off!
BRIAN: What?
REG: Judean People's Front. We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Cawk.
FRANCIS: Wankers.
BRIAN: Can I... join your group?
...
REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans.
BRIAN: I do!
REG: Oh, yeah? How much?
BRIAN: A lot!
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the f***ing Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
Someone's been watching waaaaaaay too much Survivor.
Okay, DUmmie... tell me exactly how "socialism" is significantly different than "communism". For extra credit, compare and contrast "progressivism" as well.
Isn't it Rush Limbaugh who says that the "true believers" in socialism/communism ignore its obvious flaws under the guise of "the right people just haven't done it yet"?
What the hell does this mean? Isn't a "Progressive framework" already critically dependent on "Socialist ideas"?
And that's just the ones who go on "dates" with benburch.
What a revealing discussion. Two things stand out:
1) Idealism is fine in certain scenarios, but when people start talking about tribalism etc. they are denying (intentionally or otherwise) centuries of human sociology, psychology and history. For a group that’s so enamored of evolution, why do they think devolution can be turned on with the flick of a switch?
2) The “mission statement” contains one of the lefties’ favorite code words - FRAMEWORK. This framework will, as ever, be the creation of a self-appointed cadre of central planners. These elites, when confronted with individuals exercising personal freedom, will respond in classic fashion by attempting to implement this framework through force and coercion.
No doubt the DUers consider themselves educated and well-read. How can they read so much about history and fail to take a lesson from it?
“No doubt the DUers consider themselves educated and well-read. How can they read so much about history and fail to take a lesson from it?”
any 5th grader can read freud, melville etc., but they have to have cognizant reasoning ability to understand it..this is the problem with the DUmmies..they read it, but their minds aren’t sufficiently developed to comprehend it..they’re a prime example of an idiot (performing the same experiment over and over and expecting a different result).
I was an editor at a 150K+ weekly, and had a "staff" of around 30 freelancers, tried and tested over time. They were not necessarily cheaper than staff writers (the top 3 or 4 contributors were making $30K to $50K in annual billings), but they could write in the style and genre I needed, which was a bit specialized and thus a critical issue.
My experience is that any pool of ex-staffers now gone freelance is a non-factor. Editors want and need good and appropriate material regardless of the source. More importantly, they want it *on or before deadline*, requiring minimal editing, written to assigned word length, and in a style and voice that's compatible with the publication.
Establishing a freelance relationship with an editor has little to do with economics. It is first based on your ability to fill an editorial hole with sparkling, appropriate material that meets all the foregoing criteria (esp. that it's on-time and of proper editable length).
Once you've met those benchmarks (and you must continue to meet them consistently over time), the second and ongoing task is to maintain a happy, chummy, respectful, and professional relationship with that editor. Honest "buttering up" might be the correct way to think about it.
Like anything else, it's the first assignment that's the most difficult. "Getting in the front door". But once you get going you'll gain the confidence and credibility to approach other editors for more work.
I guess the bottom line is that economic conditions aren't really that relevant to the daily needs of an editor, and they shouldn't be to you either.
Sure, if they can find *skilled* writers who'll work for $25 per article.
It's like outsourcing: you pay less, you get less (or introduce new kinds of problems), and it ultimately costs almost as much to freelance as to have experienced, fairly compensated staffers.
You should **never** offer your skills and services in the framework of "cut rate staff material". First, it's not accurate, and secondly you'll eventually go bust.
The again, you could move to Bangalore, start an editorial freelance company, and make a mint selling articles to American pubs. (The WSJ or some other big financial publisher is outsourcing some of its financial reporting to India).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.