# What is it about Socialism that makes you want it here in the United States?



## Mikeoxenormous

Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


----------



## beagle9

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


You forgot the all of above button.. 

We've always had socialism light, but due to what has happened over the long years leading back to the 60's and the Vietnam war, it has created years of generation's who are totally rebellious young folks that are easily courted by the powers to be, that want to be, and have been over the years.

Breaking the cycle is a very tough thing as we are seeing in the Trump presidency that has taken the task head on.

Anyone who is focused on fixing the problems of this nation, will be met with some serious backlash. Just ask Trump these days.


----------



## Bleipriester

My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.


----------



## Weatherman2020

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bleipriester said:


> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.



But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

They want food lines to be long so they can spend more time looking at Tik Tok videos.
They want no one to be able to afford a car so they can look at instagram while walking to food lines.
They want tiny apartment flats for less cleaning so they have more time to tweet more.


----------



## longknife

Those who want socialism understand that it would put them in endless positions of power.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?



No one as smart as AOC has ever been in charge before.


----------



## Bleipriester

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?
Click to expand...

US-Paranoia...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US-Paranoia...
Click to expand...


Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?


----------



## Bleipriester

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US-Paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?
Click to expand...

I don´t think so.

Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US-Paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think so.
> 
> Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?
Click to expand...


----------



## Bleipriester

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> US-Paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think so.
> 
> Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
Click to expand...

Billionaires 2019


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're getting good results for Putin, eh comrade?
> 
> 
> 
> US-Paranoia...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think so.
> 
> Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Billionaires 2019
Click to expand...


Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.


----------



## Tijn Von Ingersleben

It's really the sweet neckerchiefs. That red just pops off any garment.


----------



## alang1216

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?


----------



## Bleipriester

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> US-Paranoia...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think so.
> 
> Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy stuff. No value.


----------



## night_son

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?




Some Marxist element has existed in the USA since at least the late 1800's. That being the case, they were always an extreme minority political voice until they infiltrated our universities somewhere around the mid-20's, give or take a decade. What became of the American Marxists after the Bolshevik Revolution? They took up careers as social sciences professors, feminist activists, abortion proponents and anti-Christian grass roots organization leaders and entertainment industry moguls. From those positions in our society the American Marxists set about beginning a cultural war to undermine and eventually replace the culture and moral foundation of our country with their inverted forms, their blackest upside down images. They pushed women to independence, to abandon their roles as traditional mothers, to use the Pill, to have as much out of wedlock sex as possible and of course, to use abortion as the ultimate demonstration of a woman's control over her body. They promoted and glorified homosexual behavior, pornography and just about any kind of depravity imaginable, in order to corrupt God in the mind's of younger generations. They attacked the institution of marriage, one of the pillars of our civilization by legalizing gay marriages and so on and so forth they reintroduced racism, convinced people to join the cult of transgenderism and otherwise have succeeded in tearing down many of America's most sacred traditions and historical truths and iconic achievements and imagery. 

But the Marxists decided around 2008 that changing our culture wasn't enough, wasn't happening fast enough; so they took aim at taking over our government itself. Fast forward to 2016. Trump has won and the entire American Democrat voter base is collectively going mad, thinking life as they know it has ended and they now live in some kind of democratic dictatorship. The Marxists seized upon hatred of and fear for Donald Trump and began to promise the Democrat voters they could get rid of Trump . . . if they were willing to go far enough. And that is what the Democrats have been doing, almost solely out of hate for our POTUS, taking aid and comfort from the devil (the Marxists) in order to get "orange guy" out of the Whitehouse, and that is precisely why and how Americans can and possibly will get* duped* into socialism . . . because it would get rid of Trump. Of course, the Marxists (postmodernists), they just want power.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alang1216 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
Click to expand...

Every country that started with their own constitution had to give up those rights once the Socialist(Far Right or Far Left) got in.  It was up to the government what rights they gave you through the collective, not your own personal ones.  So all of them.  What the government gives you the government can take away.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

beagle9 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the all of above button..
> 
> We've always had socialism light, but due to what has happened over the long years leading back to the 60's and the Vietnam war, it has created years of generation's who are totally rebellious young folks that are easily courted by the powers to be, that want to be, and have been over the years.
> 
> Breaking the cycle is a very tough thing as we are seeing in the Trump presidency that has taken the task head on.
> 
> Anyone who is focused on fixing the problems of this nation, will be met with some serious backlash. Just ask Trump these days.
Click to expand...

No I did not, if you would of read closely, it says "Multiple Votes are allowed", but typical of some people, they are just too stupid to notice.


----------



## bodecea

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


Because it's a lot like Israel's socialism?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Toddsterpatriot said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one as smart as AOC has ever been in charge before.
Click to expand...

If AOC is smart, then I shows how stupid those that voted for her are and those that support her ideas are just as stupid.


----------



## alang1216

night_son said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Marxist element has existed in the USA since at least the late 1800's. That being the case, they were always an extreme minority political voice until they infiltrated our universities somewhere around the mid-20's, give or take a decade. What became of the American Marxists after the Bolshevik Revolution? They took up careers as social sciences professors, feminist activists, abortion proponents and anti-Christian grass roots organization leaders and entertainment industry moguls. From those positions in our society the American Marxists set about beginning a cultural war to undermine and eventually replace the culture and moral foundation of our country with their inverted forms, their blackest upside down images. They pushed women to independence, to abandon their roles as traditional mothers, to use the Pill, to have as much out of wedlock sex as possible and of course, to use abortion as the ultimate demonstration of a woman's control over her body. They promoted and glorified homosexual behavior, pornography and just about any kind of depravity imaginable, in order to corrupt God in the mind's of younger generations. They attacked the institution of marriage, one of the pillars of our civilization by legalizing gay marriages and so on and so forth they reintroduced racism, convinced people to join the cult of transgenderism and otherwise have succeeded in tearing down many of America's most sacred traditions and historical truths and iconic achievements and imagery.
> 
> But the Marxists decided around 2008 that changing our culture wasn't enough, wasn't happening fast enough; so they took aim at taking over our government itself. Fast forward to 2016. Trump has won and the entire American Democrat voter base is collectively going mad, thinking life as they know it has ended and they now live in some kind of democratic dictatorship. The Marxists seized upon hatred of and fear for Donald Trump and began to promise the Democrat voters they could get rid of Trump . . . if they were willing to go far enough. And that is what the Democrats have been doing, almost solely out of hate for our POTUS, taking aid and comfort from the devil (the Marxists) in order to get "orange guy" out of the Whitehouse, and that is precisely why and how Americans can and possibly will get* duped* into socialism . . . because it would get rid of Trump. Of course, the Marxists (postmodernists), they just want power.
Click to expand...

"Marxists decided"?  Really, you need to put that tin hat back on.  Was there a meeting I missed?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

bodecea said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a lot like Israel's socialism?
Click to expand...

 I was at one time a minimum wage earner. I did my 40 hours a week didnt complain, because I had a job, but always wanted something better.  So instead of being a pansy ass, stupid liberal, but I repeat myself, I got skills that would enable me to barter for better wages.  Today I earn over 1/2 million a year and am retired.  Dumbasses like liberals just bitch and moan how fucked their lives are, and dont do shit to make themselves better.  Just smoke dope and live in fantasy land.


*



			Is Israel socialist or capitalist?
		
Click to expand...

*


> Israel started out as a country that can be described as *socialist*, yes. So much so that Soviet Union, at the beginning, had very good relations with Israel because of this. However this socialist touch now is a thing of the past. Now Israel is a capitalist country with an ever-growing income gap.
> *Is Israel a socialist nation? - Quora*
> www.quora.com/Is-Israel-a-socialist-nation


----------



## depotoo

alang1216 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
Click to expand...

States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.


----------



## alang1216

andaronjim said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Every country that started with their own constitution had to give up those rights once the Socialist(Far Right or Far Left) got in.  It was up to the government what rights they gave you through the collective, not your own personal ones.  So all of them.  What the government gives you the government can take away.
Click to expand...

That is complete nonsense.  Constitutional Rights are granted by our government, by definition.  If you meant Natural Rights that is quite different.

Can you provide an example of a country that started with their own constitution but then had to give up those rights once the Socialist (Far Right or Far Left) got in?


----------



## martybegan

Bleipriester said:


> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.



So working for some entrenched bureaucratic commissar is any better?


----------



## Bleipriester

martybegan said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So working for some entrenched bureaucratic commissar is any better?
Click to expand...

Somehow.


----------



## alang1216

depotoo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
Click to expand...

You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Putin isn't the richest guy on the planet?
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t think so.
> 
> Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
Click to expand...


What's the actual amount he has stolen?


----------



## depotoo

alang1216 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
Click to expand...

Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.


----------



## Bleipriester

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t think so.
> 
> Did Trump cash in on his inauguration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
Click to expand...

I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians. 







10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alang1216 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
Click to expand...

You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> 
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
Click to expand...

Sounds like you sure do like the Commie from Russia?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> 
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
Click to expand...


How much did he steal, as payment for making Russia's economy suck less


----------



## depotoo

Bleipriester said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 269874
> 
> 
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
Click to expand...

You are very naive, my dear-

Revealed: the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin
https://www.baltictimes.com/putin_s_daughters_have_secret_bank_accounts_in_latvia_-_magazine/


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Billionaires 2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did he steal, as payment for making Russia's economy suck less
Click to expand...

See, if it is a Communist/Socialist/Marxist, making billions of dollars off the backs of the "workers" then it is okay, but if it is people willingly working for a capitalist, then it isnt okay.


----------



## Bleipriester

andaronjim said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Putin doesn't admit to the money he's stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did he steal, as payment for making Russia's economy suck less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if it is a Communist/Socialist/Marxist, making billions of dollars off the backs of the "workers" then it is okay, but if it is people willingly working for a capitalist, then it isnt okay.
Click to expand...

Putin is a conservative. You clueless guys are living in a matrix.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Bleipriester said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did he steal, as payment for making Russia's economy suck less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if it is a Communist/Socialist/Marxist, making billions of dollars off the backs of the "workers" then it is okay, but if it is people willingly working for a capitalist, then it isnt okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putin is a conservative. You clueless guys are living in a matrix.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, a stupid liberal, but I repeat myself, is claiming a Communist is a conservative.  Just too fucking funny, now for my apology.

I am very sorry Bleipreister that you are such a stupid fool.


----------



## depotoo

Bleipriester said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy stuff. No value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the actual amount he has stolen?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don´t think he has stolen anything. Instead he gave Russia back to the Russians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 Major accomplishments of the age of Putin - Fort Russ
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How much did he steal, as payment for making Russia's economy suck less
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if it is a Communist/Socialist/Marxist, making billions of dollars off the backs of the "workers" then it is okay, but if it is people willingly working for a capitalist, then it isnt okay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Putin is a conservative. You clueless guys are living in a matrix.
Click to expand...

Putin is a commie fascist.


----------



## alang1216

depotoo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
Click to expand...

News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
Click to expand...


thats still a socialist,,,


----------



## depotoo

alang1216 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
Click to expand...

You must think people are stupid.  Really.  The EU is nothing more than power hungry globalists wet dreams in which the globalists control. Based on soclialism/marxism.


----------



## alang1216

andaronjim said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
Click to expand...

If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alang1216 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that just because some asshole KKK member approved of President Trump, he President Trump isnt for the KKK?  Am I right?


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> 
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats still a socialist,,,
Click to expand...

OK, so which of the Scandinavian countries have given up their freedom of the press?


----------



## depotoo

andaronjim said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> 
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are saying is that just because some asshole KKK member approved of President Trump, he President Trump isnt for the KKK?  Am I right?
Click to expand...

Think you meant “is”


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats still a socialist,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, so which of the Scandinavian countries have given up their freedom of the press?
Click to expand...



they arent socialist,,,


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

alang1216 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.
Click to expand...

So now we have to go to the Nordic countries , because they have not been paying into NATO thus being able to put more into their welfare programs.  Now that money has to go to NATO, those programs are in trouble as it always happens when you run out of other peoples money.  Are you really that much of an idiot? Dont answer I already know.



> The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning *government exerting control or ownership of businesses*, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word.
> Reference: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-sociali…


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

depotoo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are saying is that just because some asshole KKK member approved of President Trump, he President Trump isnt for the KKK?  Am I right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you meant “is”
Click to expand...

NO, I am using the idiots own logic in my sentence.  President Trump isnt  because not all Dems are socialist.  Maybe not all are, but damn many of them are.


----------



## alang1216

andaronjim said:


> So what you are saying is that just because some asshole KKK member approved of President Trump, he President Trump isnt for the KKK?  Am I right?


Trump is *not *a member of the KKK.  He may agree with their nationalism but not their racism or antisemitism.


----------



## depotoo

alang1216 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that just because some asshole KKK member approved of President Trump, he President Trump isnt for the KKK?  Am I right?
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is *not *a member of the KKK.  He may agree with their nationalism but not their racism or antisemitism.
Click to expand...

Wow, something you got right.  But let’s call it sovereignty, rather than nationalism.  Believing in ones on countries rights, apart from others.



sovereignty definition: 1. the power of a country to control its own government:


----------



## alang1216

andaronjim said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> 
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now we have to go to the Nordic countries , because they have not been paying into NATO thus being able to put more into their welfare programs.  Now that money has to go to NATO, those programs are in trouble as it always happens when you run out of other peoples money.  Are you really that much of an idiot? Dont answer I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning *government exerting control or ownership of businesses*, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word.
> Reference: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-sociali…
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your link claims the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct there are few if any Dems that are socialists.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now we have to go to the Nordic countries , because they have not been paying into NATO thus being able to put more into their welfare programs.  Now that money has to go to NATO, those programs are in trouble as it always happens when you run out of other peoples money.  Are you really that much of an idiot? Dont answer I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning *government exerting control or ownership of businesses*, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word.
> Reference: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-sociali…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link claims the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct there are few if any Dems that are socialists.  You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...


not according to their stated goals,,,


----------



## Wry Catcher

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?



Socialism is a noun, and comes in different colors, shapes and sizes.

Though, none of the bullet points in the OP's thread meet anything which fits into the actual definition of Socialism.  The author's thread uses the word socialism as a pejorative, and at this time in our nation's history it is nothing more than a new iteration of the RED SCARE; a strategy by Trump&Co. to convince the biddable that Socialism, a noun, is the cancer which will lead to a loss of freedom in the United States.

Let's be real, and put this political strategy to bed, under which too many easily led fools believes a communist hides.

The radical right has for decades sought to privatize for profit prisons, police agencies, public transportation, healthcare, the military, and education.

The greatest threat to our democracy are the Plutocrats, those who support deregulation of Capitalism, not as a benefit to the many, but to the few, the well born (such as trump), Wall Street, and those who buy the Congress all to fill their pocketbooks with your money.


----------



## alang1216

andaronjim said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Honey, you are confused if you haven’t seen Dems threaten these very things for years.  And do remember, laws are for the little people, not for the power leaders of the Dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News Flash!  Not all Dems are socialists!  In fact, the way Socialism is defined by the Right, NO Dems are Socialists, they are Democratic Socialists on the European model.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what you are saying is that just because some asshole KKK member approved of President Trump, he President Trump isnt for the KKK?  Am I right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think you meant “is”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO, I am using the idiots own logic in my sentence.  President Trump isnt  because not all Dems are socialist.  Maybe not all are, but damn many of them are.
Click to expand...

I don't know what logic you're using but it certainly isn't mine.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now we have to go to the Nordic countries , because they have not been paying into NATO thus being able to put more into their welfare programs.  Now that money has to go to NATO, those programs are in trouble as it always happens when you run out of other peoples money.  Are you really that much of an idiot? Dont answer I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning *government exerting control or ownership of businesses*, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word.
> Reference: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-sociali…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link claims the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct there are few if any Dems that are socialists.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not according to their stated goals,,,
Click to expand...

You're unclear.  Are the Nordic countries socialist?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now we have to go to the Nordic countries , because they have not been paying into NATO thus being able to put more into their welfare programs.  Now that money has to go to NATO, those programs are in trouble as it always happens when you run out of other peoples money.  Are you really that much of an idiot? Dont answer I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning *government exerting control or ownership of businesses*, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word.
> Reference: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-sociali…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link claims the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct there are few if any Dems that are socialists.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not according to their stated goals,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're unclear.  Are the Nordic countries socialist?
Click to expand...



as far as I know none are,,,


----------



## beagle9

depotoo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
Click to expand...

Globalism. That is the problem American soverignty faces today.


----------



## GLASNOST

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


What an absurd statement. Who told you that Socialism is the denial of Rights? You say "Constitutional Rights" as though the list of original Rights and amended corruptions is written in blood on stone. Some part of the Constitution are good and others bad. But I guess if you are bound by the American "two extreme" system of "with us or against us" and "love it or leave it" then you haven't understood one word I've just said.


----------



## beagle9

alang1216 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
Click to expand...

All ties together.  Glad you used the word nessesarily in your sentence.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Nordic countries socialist?
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
Click to expand...

You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?


----------



## alang1216

beagle9 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All ties together.  Glad you used the word nessesarily in your sentence.
Click to expand...

If the Nordic countries aren't Socialist, the answer to the poll is that no Dem thinks Socialism is attractive and wants it implemented here.


----------



## GLASNOST

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confused, every socialist nation that started eventually impacted the rights listed.  Every fucking one.  Got it?  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe the Nordic countries are socialist then your poll is mute since all the Dems use those countries as their model of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now we have to go to the Nordic countries , because they have not been paying into NATO thus being able to put more into their welfare programs.  Now that money has to go to NATO, those programs are in trouble as it always happens when you run out of other peoples money.  Are you really that much of an idiot? Dont answer I already know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The myth of Nordic socialism is partially created by a confusion between socialism, meaning *government exerting control or ownership of businesses*, and the welfare state in the form of government-provided social safety net programs. However, the left’s embrace of socialism is not merely a case of redefining a word.
> Reference: www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-sociali…
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your link claims the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct there are few if any Dems that are socialists.  You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not according to their stated goals,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're unclear.  Are the Nordic countries socialist?
Click to expand...

Socialist-Democracies.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Nordic countries socialist?
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
Click to expand...

dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,

and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,


----------



## depotoo

alang1216 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States rights, gun rights, freedom of the press, demolishing of the electoral college, rights of only citizens voting in federal elections. Just a few that are further at stake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confused.  Socialism is an economic system that will not necessarily impact any of your listed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All ties together.  Glad you used the word nessesarily in your sentence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the Nordic countries aren't Socialist, the answer to the poll is that no Dem thinks Socialism is attractive and wants it implemented here.
Click to expand...

The Nordic countries are a form of quasi socialism.  Social welfare is huge there.  It is unionized, no chance for self determination.  And taxes are phenomenal.  Highest in the world.  Many of their schools lag behind even the UK.  Their healthcare is failing.  They have the highest cancer rates in the world.  Their economy is lackluster.  They also have extremely high usage of anti-depressants.

Some utopia.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


Socialism has a 100% success rate. 

The leaders become billionaires without having to produce anything of value while the people who are stupid enough to believe that they will be better off after surrendering their weapons, freedoms and property end up selling their kids and eating their pets.

Works every single time!


----------



## GLASNOST

andaronjim said:


> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?


I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Nordic countries socialist?
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,
> 
> and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
Click to expand...

You seem to have your own problems telling truth from fiction.  The Dems model their Democratic Socialism after the Nordic countries.  You claim the Dems are Socialist.  You also claim the Nordic countries are not Socialist.  Which is it?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Nordic countries socialist?
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,
> 
> and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have your own problems telling truth from fiction.  The Dems model their Democratic Socialism after the Nordic countries.  You claim the Dems are Socialist.  You also claim the Nordic countries are not Socialist.  Which is it?
Click to expand...

DS is still socialist and nordics are not socialist,,,


----------



## GLASNOST

CrusaderFrank said:


> Socialism has a 100% success rate.
> 
> The leaders become billionaires without having to produce anything of value while the people who are stupid enough to believe that they will be better off after surrendering their weapons, freedoms and property end up selling their kids and eating their pets.
> 
> Works every single time!


I realize that you are exaggerating just to motivate your opinion of Socialism ... ha-ha, very good ... but you are completely wrong even in your most fundamental conviction. People don't need _*"weapons",*_ *"freedom"* you know nothing about because you have so little of it in comparison, *"property"* is steadfast, and well your last comment is just a good hoot.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
Click to expand...

'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
And have some of the highest cancer rates.





Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,


That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Nordic countries socialist?
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,
> 
> and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have your own problems telling truth from fiction.  The Dems model their Democratic Socialism after the Nordic countries.  You claim the Dems are Socialist.  You also claim the Nordic countries are not Socialist.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DS is still socialist and nordics are not socialist,,,
Click to expand...

So which Dem advocates for a socialist program that is not found in any of the Nordic countries?


----------



## depotoo

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,
> 
> and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have your own problems telling truth from fiction.  The Dems model their Democratic Socialism after the Nordic countries.  You claim the Dems are Socialist.  You also claim the Nordic countries are not Socialist.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DS is still socialist and nordics are not socialist,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So which Dem advocates for a socialist program that is not found in any of the Nordic countries?
Click to expand...

Your whole premise is ridiculous.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
Click to expand...

and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> as far as I know none are,,,
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,
> 
> and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have your own problems telling truth from fiction.  The Dems model their Democratic Socialism after the Nordic countries.  You claim the Dems are Socialist.  You also claim the Nordic countries are not Socialist.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DS is still socialist and nordics are not socialist,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So which Dem advocates for a socialist program that is not found in any of the Nordic countries?
Click to expand...

your question is twisted,,,ie a loaded question,,,

sounds like you would be happier living there,,,you should start a go fund me


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.


This is an exaggeration but it is true that our status as number one democracy is dropping at an alarming rate and that our medical services are becoming an embarrassment. Long queues is the biggest complaint. However, three weeks ago I keeled over and blacked out and it was discovered that my heart rhythm was in bad shape. So two weeks ago (one week after I blacked out) I was given a pacemaker.  I feel fine now but I just got it so  I don't know how it will be after some time. The point is that I am pleased with the Swedish cardiology department. As far as cancer goes .... I don't know, but yes rumours agree with you.


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
Click to expand...

That's not true. The U.S. has a degree of Democracy as well as social elements although they might not be considered "socialist".


----------



## Care4all

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Click to expand...

Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!

i.e.
A Car is an essential
A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...

The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich and living in some kind of luxury today....imo.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not true. The U.S. has a degree of Democracy as well as social elements although they might not be considered "socialist".
Click to expand...

only in that we elect our representatives,,,

100% of the time democracies end in death,,and its creeping into our country and its killing us


----------



## progressive hunter

Care4all said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich imo.
Click to expand...

a car is not essential,,,


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an exaggeration but it is true that our status as number one democracy is dropping at an alarming rate and that our medical services are becoming an embarrassment. Long queues is the biggest complaint. However, three weeks ago I keeled over and blacked out and it was discovered that my heart rhythm was in bad shape. So two weeks ago (one week after I blacked out) I was given a pacemaker.  I feel fine now but I just got it so  I don't know how it will be after some time. The point is that I am pleased with the Swedish cardiology department. As far as cancer goes .... I don't know, but yes rumours agree with you.
Click to expand...

Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.  Glad you are ok.


----------



## alang1216

depotoo said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim the Nordic countries are NOT socialist.  If that is correct, and most Dems claim they are Democratic Socialists and want to mimic the Nordic model here, by your logic there are NO Democratic Socialists.  Can you show otherwise?
> 
> 
> 
> dems claim a lot of things that are not true,,,
> 
> and democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have your own problems telling truth from fiction.  The Dems model their Democratic Socialism after the Nordic countries.  You claim the Dems are Socialist.  You also claim the Nordic countries are not Socialist.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DS is still socialist and nordics are not socialist,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So which Dem advocates for a socialist program that is not found in any of the Nordic countries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your whole premise is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can't explain how.  Cognitive dissonance much?


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which Dem advocates for a socialist program that is not found in any of the Nordic countries?
> 
> 
> 
> your question is twisted,,,ie a loaded question,,,
Click to expand...

As in a question you've never thought about because it is easier to parrot what you've been told?



progressive hunter said:


> sounds like you would be happier living there,,,you should start a go fund me


RACIST!


----------



## Care4all

progressive hunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a car is not essential,,,
Click to expand...

Of course it is, unless you live in a city with Mass Transit and if you plan on working and making it to a grocer for food to eat!

Owning a car does not mean you own a NEW CAR....


----------



## progressive hunter

Care4all said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a car is not essential,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is, unless you live in a city with Mass Transit and if you plan on working and making it to a grocer for food to eat!
> 
> Owning a car does not mean you own a NEW CAR....
Click to expand...



man lived for thousand of yrs without them,,,


----------



## depotoo

Care4all said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich and living in some kind of luxury today....imo.
Click to expand...





 

Astonishing Numbers: America's Poor Still Live Better Than Most Of The Rest Of Humanity


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> only in that we elect our representatives,,,


Except in Florida?



progressive hunter said:


> 100% of the time democracies end in death,,and its creeping into our country and its killing us


I don't think that I understand what you are referring to. What I can say is what is killing you (the U.S.) is the 'nose dive' American Democracy has been taking, not 'an upswing'. So, according to my estimation, it is the lack of democracy that is your problem. This should be very clear.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in that we elect our representatives,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Except in Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of the time democracies end in death,,and its creeping into our country and its killing us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that I understand what you are referring to. What I can say is what is killing you (the U.S.) is the 'nose dive' American Democracy has been taking, not 'an upswing'. So, according to my estimation, it is the lack of democracy that is your problem. This should be very clear.
Click to expand...

our problem is the democrat and republican parties,,,


----------



## depotoo

Care4all said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least some people are brave enough to put up some Socialist Policies.  Did you know in Scotland, where there is free healthcare and college, the citizens have to pay 75% of their income in taxes?  Tell me, is that free?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a car is not essential,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is, unless you live in a city with Mass Transit and if you plan on working and making it to a grocer for food to eat!
> 
> Owning a car does not mean you own a NEW CAR....
Click to expand...

Just because one doesn’t own a new car doesn’t mean he is poor either.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in that we elect our representatives,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Except in Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of the time democracies end in death,,and its creeping into our country and its killing us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that I understand what you are referring to. What I can say is what is killing you (the U.S.) is the 'nose dive' American Democracy has been taking, not 'an upswing'. So, according to my estimation, it is the lack of democracy that is your problem. This should be very clear.
Click to expand...

We are a Republic, not a democracy.  True, the Dems wish to make us a democracy.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.


It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.


depotoo said:


> Glad you are ok.


Thank you very much.


----------



## Care4all

progressive hunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if 75% income tax is accurate but if it is, it isn't solely to cover healthcare and college. I am from Sweden where taxes are considered high but Americans do not understand that with benefits and high standard wages we live better than the vast majority of Americans. *BUT *you are absolutely correct in saying that things are not really "free".
> 
> 
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a car is not essential,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is, unless you live in a city with Mass Transit and if you plan on working and making it to a grocer for food to eat!
> 
> Owning a car does not mean you own a NEW CAR....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> man lived for thousand of yrs without them,,,
Click to expand...

 
as if today is like a thousand years ago....


----------



## progressive hunter

Care4all said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'
> And have some of the highest cancer rates.
> View attachment 269922
> 
> Stats on America’s poor, from a few years ago-
> 
> Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
> Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
> Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
> The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the _average_ citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
> Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
> Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
> Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
> Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of those things are considered basic essentials today, and are cheap, because they come from China or Japan on cars!!!
> 
> i.e.
> A Car is an essential
> A color television can be had for $79 bucks on Black Friday vs over $600 in the 70's when each dollar was worth so much more...
> A bedroom air conditioner can be had for $99 vs several hundred dollars in the 70's
> A VCR was $650 bucks in the 80's and can be $99 today...
> 
> The list is such a deceptive means to make it look like the poor of today are rich imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a car is not essential,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it is, unless you live in a city with Mass Transit and if you plan on working and making it to a grocer for food to eat!
> 
> Owning a car does not mean you own a NEW CAR....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> man lived for thousand of yrs without them,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as if today is like a thousand years ago....
Click to expand...




true,,,it was a lot better back then,,,


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in that we elect our representatives,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Except in Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of the time democracies end in death,,and its creeping into our country and its killing us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that I understand what you are referring to. What I can say is what is killing you (the U.S.) is the 'nose dive' American Democracy has been taking, not 'an upswing'. So, according to my estimation, it is the lack of democracy that is your problem. This should be very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> our problem is the democrat and republican parties,,,
Click to expand...

 Well, the problem isn't so much those two ... rather than those are the only two you have so they can screw the shit out of you and get away with it.  So yeah, I guess you're sort of right.


----------



## boedicca

The poll choices are inadequate.  Those who want Socialism in the U.S. want POWER over others.  Period. End of Story.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you are ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

Here it would be less.  If needed immediately, you would receive it immediately, a case of just that-

I'm ten weeks post pacemaker implant, and doing well. I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation several years ago. First indication of a problem was that I passed out while walking on my treadmill. I recovered within a few minutes and told my wife (we thought it was a fluke). It happened again just 90 minutes later while getting a bite to eat. My wife got me to the emergency room. I was scheduled for pacemaker implant less than 6 hours later. I went home the following day. Restriction is not to lift left arm (elbow) above shoulder level for 30 days. I returned to most normal activities after 30 days. I had reduced heavy yard work; added that back after a while as well. Happy to still be here.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> We are a Republic, not a democracy..


That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.


----------



## boedicca

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> only in that we elect our representatives,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Except in Florida?
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% of the time democracies end in death,,and its creeping into our country and its killing us
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think that I understand what you are referring to. What I can say is what is killing you (the U.S.) is the 'nose dive' American Democracy has been taking, not 'an upswing'. So, according to my estimation, it is the lack of democracy that is your problem. This should be very clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy.  True, the Dems wish to make us a democracy.
Click to expand...




The Dems only wish us to be a Democracy as a stepping stone to their Socialist-Feudalism (with the Dem Party being the Rulers, of course).


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
Click to expand...

Might want to take heed-


----------



## GLASNOST

boedicca said:


> The poll choices are inadequate.  Those who want Socialism in the U.S. want POWER over others.  Period. End of Story.


I don't believe you said that. That is ridiculous. EACH AND EVERY person who seeks leadership wants "POWER over others". Where do you get the idea it only applies to those wanting Socialism in the U.S? Exchanging one person (or party) of power for another one is the game of politics since time immortal.


----------



## boedicca

GLASNOST said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll choices are inadequate.  Those who want Socialism in the U.S. want POWER over others.  Period. End of Story.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you said that. That is ridiculous. EACH AND EVERY person who seeks leadership wants "POWER over others". Where do you get the idea it only applies to those wanting Socialism in the U.S? Exchanging one person (or party) of power for another one is the game of politics since time immortal.
Click to expand...


What a bunch of morally relativistic poppycock.

Politicians who respect the Constitutional limits on their power and who are committed to protecting the liberty of individual Americans are not the same as Power-Mongering Socialists who wish to enslave us.

Get a grip.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
Click to expand...

John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.


----------



## BlueGin

longknife said:


> Those who want socialism understand that it would put them in endless positions of power.


Well that explains the ruling class. Not the dumbasses at the bottom of the food chain.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
Click to expand...



those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,


----------



## justinacolmena

BlueGin said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who want socialism understand that it would put them in endless positions of power.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that explains the ruling class. Not the dumbasses at the bottom of the food chain.
Click to expand...


The old Finns talked about a great and high ruling class and they were so proper and correct with their grammar only until they could get off the property before getting arrested.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
Click to expand...

Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...


----------



## ph3iron

beagle9 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the all of above button..
> 
> We've always had socialism light, but due to what has happened over the long years leading back to the 60's and the Vietnam war, it has created years of generation's who are totally rebellious young folks that are easily courted by the powers to be, that want to be, and have been over the years.
> 
> Breaking the cycle is a very tough thing as we are seeing in the Trump presidency that has taken the task head on.
> 
> Anyone who is focused on fixing the problems of this nation, will be met with some serious backlash. Just ask Trump these days.
Click to expand...


Keep the gov out of my Medicare as the trumpie said
Giving up your VA, SS Medicare?
Still worshiping our ww11 draft dodger?
And the 5 deferment con I guess?


----------



## ph3iron

longknife said:


> Those who want socialism understand that it would put them in endless positions of power.


Ah a zero college trumpie.
As they say, "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military, great indoctrination and socialist benefits"


----------



## justinacolmena

ph3iron said:


> Still worshiping our ww11 draft dodger?



Fuck if I know what in hell you're talking about, but people live in brick houses and they've got a certain worshipful following with a square and compass and shit and too many degrees in some foreign rite.


----------



## ph3iron

Weatherman2020 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
Click to expand...

Gawd, the constitution.
A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries


----------



## depotoo

ph3iron said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who want socialism understand that it would put them in endless positions of power.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah a zero college trumpie.
> As they say, "if you are not smart enough to get a real job, join the military, great indoctrination and socialist benefits"
Click to expand...

Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth and destroying your own faux outrage...
Lol


----------



## ph3iron

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


False equivalency.
Sort of like the school system v's ???
There's nothing to compare it with


----------



## depotoo

ph3iron said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
Click to expand...

Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?

I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you are ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it would be less.  If needed immediately, you would receive it immediately, a case of just that-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here too. Had I gone to the hospital emergy or arrived in an ambulance I am sure they would have inserted the pacemaker ASAP.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ten weeks post pacemaker implant, and doing well. I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation several years ago. First indication of a problem was that I passed out while walking on my treadmill. I recovered within a few minutes and told my wife (we thought it was a fluke). It happened again just 90 minutes later while getting a bite to eat. My wife got me to the emergency room. I was scheduled for pacemaker implant less than 6 hours later. I went home the following day. Restriction is not to lift left arm (elbow) above shoulder level for 30 days. I returned to most normal activities after 30 days. I had reduced heavy yard work; added that back after a while as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy to still be here.
Click to expand...

That is amazing. I was thinking I'm the only person in the world with a pacemaker. So you're 8 weeks ahead of me. I was released about 3 hours after the implant but I was told to lift my left arm as much as I could to flex my muscles out of the soreness. A blood vessel was giving me trouble during the operation and no amount of pain-killing injections seemed to help so it was very sore. Careful showering, no baths for ten days then remove the bandage (gauze) and then let the band-aids fall off on their own. I still have those. The stitches are internal so I won't need to return to the hospital until the scheduled control after two months. I feel good but I do get light-headed now and then and I don't know if that has anything to do with the heart or the operation.


depotoo said:


> Happy to still be here.


I am also happy you are still here.


----------



## GLASNOST

boedicca said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poll choices are inadequate.  Those who want Socialism in the U.S. want POWER over others.  Period. End of Story.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you said that. That is ridiculous. EACH AND EVERY person who seeks leadership wants "POWER over others". Where do you get the idea it only applies to those wanting Socialism in the U.S? Exchanging one person (or party) of power for another one is the game of politics since time immortal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bunch of morally relativistic poppycock.
> 
> Politicians who respect the Constitutional limits on their power and who are committed to protecting the liberty of individual Americans are not the same as Power-Mongering Socialists who wish to enslave us.
> 
> Get a grip.
Click to expand...

I am guessing that you have neither a political education nor much practical, world experience.


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,
Click to expand...

those who follow primitive and outdated notions are doomed to fall through the cracks of life in "real-time". In any case, John Adams isn't history, He was only there when he was spinning political philosophy to boost his own personal goals.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
Click to expand...

History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you are ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it would be less.  If needed immediately, you would receive it immediately, a case of just that-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here too. Had I gone to the hospital emergy or arrived in an ambulance I am sure they would have inserted the pacemaker ASAP.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ten weeks post pacemaker implant, and doing well. I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation several years ago. First indication of a problem was that I passed out while walking on my treadmill. I recovered within a few minutes and told my wife (we thought it was a fluke). It happened again just 90 minutes later while getting a bite to eat. My wife got me to the emergency room. I was scheduled for pacemaker implant less than 6 hours later. I went home the following day. Restriction is not to lift left arm (elbow) above shoulder level for 30 days. I returned to most normal activities after 30 days. I had reduced heavy yard work; added that back after a while as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is amazing. I was thinking I'm the only person in the world with a pacemaker. So you're 8 weeks ahead of me. I was released about 3 hours after the implant but I was told to lift my left arm as much as I could to flex my muscles out of the soreness. A blood vessel was giving me trouble during the operation and no amount of pain-killing injections seemed to help so it was very sore. Careful showering, no baths for ten days then remove the bandage (gauze) and then let the band-aids fall off on their own. I still have those. The stitches are internal so I won't need to return to the hospital until the scheduled control after two months. I feel good but I do get light-headed now and then and I don't know if that has anything to do with the heart or the operation.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am also happy you are still here.
Click to expand...

Not me. But I know people that have had them.


----------



## ph3iron

depotoo said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s


----------



## ph3iron

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those who follow primitive and outdated notions are doomed to fall through the cracks of life in "real-time". In any case, John Adams isn't history, He was only there when he was spinning political philosophy to boost his own personal goals.
Click to expand...

Ugly hag?
Nice foul mouth
I missed your church again


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
Click to expand...

No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you are ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it would be less.  If needed immediately, you would receive it immediately, a case of just that-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here too. Had I gone to the hospital emergy or arrived in an ambulance I am sure they would have inserted the pacemaker ASAP.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ten weeks post pacemaker implant, and doing well. I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation several years ago. First indication of a problem was that I passed out while walking on my treadmill. I recovered within a few minutes and told my wife (we thought it was a fluke). It happened again just 90 minutes later while getting a bite to eat. My wife got me to the emergency room. I was scheduled for pacemaker implant less than 6 hours later. I went home the following day. Restriction is not to lift left arm (elbow) above shoulder level for 30 days. I returned to most normal activities after 30 days. I had reduced heavy yard work; added that back after a while as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is amazing. I was thinking I'm the only person in the world with a pacemaker. So you're 8 weeks ahead of me. I was released about 3 hours after the implant but I was told to lift my left arm as much as I could to flex my muscles out of the soreness. A blood vessel was giving me trouble during the operation and no amount of pain-killing injections seemed to help so it was very sore. Careful showering, no baths for ten days then remove the bandage (gauze) and then let the band-aids fall off on their own. I still have those. The stitches are internal so I won't need to return to the hospital until the scheduled control after two months. I feel good but I do get light-headed now and then and I don't know if that has anything to do with the heart or the operation.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am also happy you are still here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not me. But I know people that have had them.
Click to expand...

 I don't understand. Did I misquote you?


----------



## GLASNOST

ph3iron said:


> Ugly hag?
> Nice foul mouth


That's not "foul".


ph3iron said:


> I missed your church again


You are still welcome again next Sunday. Bring ten dollars.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
Click to expand...

*FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
*SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.


----------



## depotoo

ph3iron said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
Click to expand...

You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> 
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
Click to expand...

Communists as the enemy.  Taking over other countries of their choosing to enforce communist rule against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, if you blacked out, more than likely you would have received it in a matter of days, if you agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you are ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it would be less.  If needed immediately, you would receive it immediately, a case of just that-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here too. Had I gone to the hospital emergy or arrived in an ambulance I am sure they would have inserted the pacemaker ASAP.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ten weeks post pacemaker implant, and doing well. I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation several years ago. First indication of a problem was that I passed out while walking on my treadmill. I recovered within a few minutes and told my wife (we thought it was a fluke). It happened again just 90 minutes later while getting a bite to eat. My wife got me to the emergency room. I was scheduled for pacemaker implant less than 6 hours later. I went home the following day. Restriction is not to lift left arm (elbow) above shoulder level for 30 days. I returned to most normal activities after 30 days. I had reduced heavy yard work; added that back after a while as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is amazing. I was thinking I'm the only person in the world with a pacemaker. So you're 8 weeks ahead of me. I was released about 3 hours after the implant but I was told to lift my left arm as much as I could to flex my muscles out of the soreness. A blood vessel was giving me trouble during the operation and no amount of pain-killing injections seemed to help so it was very sore. Careful showering, no baths for ten days then remove the bandage (gauze) and then let the band-aids fall off on their own. I still have those. The stitches are internal so I won't need to return to the hospital until the scheduled control after two months. I feel good but I do get light-headed now and then and I don't know if that has anything to do with the heart or the operation.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am also happy you are still here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not me. But I know people that have had them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand. Did I misquote you?
Click to expand...

I quoted someone else’s experience here, which is the norm. Showing you how quickly one can get emergency care here, if needed.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are a Republic, not a democracy..
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those who follow primitive and outdated notions are doomed to fall through the cracks of life in "real-time". In any case, John Adams isn't history, He was only there when he was spinning political philosophy to boost his own personal goals.
Click to expand...



and those that ignore history are doomed to re[peat it,,,


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
Click to expand...

*Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.

It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> It took one week. That is days. Seven of them.
> Thank you very much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here it would be less.  If needed immediately, you would receive it immediately, a case of just that-
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here too. Had I gone to the hospital emergy or arrived in an ambulance I am sure they would have inserted the pacemaker ASAP.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ten weeks post pacemaker implant, and doing well. I was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation several years ago. First indication of a problem was that I passed out while walking on my treadmill. I recovered within a few minutes and told my wife (we thought it was a fluke). It happened again just 90 minutes later while getting a bite to eat. My wife got me to the emergency room. I was scheduled for pacemaker implant less than 6 hours later. I went home the following day. Restriction is not to lift left arm (elbow) above shoulder level for 30 days. I returned to most normal activities after 30 days. I had reduced heavy yard work; added that back after a while as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is amazing. I was thinking I'm the only person in the world with a pacemaker. So you're 8 weeks ahead of me. I was released about 3 hours after the implant but I was told to lift my left arm as much as I could to flex my muscles out of the soreness. A blood vessel was giving me trouble during the operation and no amount of pain-killing injections seemed to help so it was very sore. Careful showering, no baths for ten days then remove the bandage (gauze) and then let the band-aids fall off on their own. I still have those. The stitches are internal so I won't need to return to the hospital until the scheduled control after two months. I feel good but I do get light-headed now and then and I don't know if that has anything to do with the heart or the operation.
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happy to still be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am also happy you are still here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not me. But I know people that have had them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand. Did I misquote you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted someone else’s experience here, which is the norm. Showing you how quickly one can get emergency care here, if needed.
Click to expand...

I was sure you were talking about yourself.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> 
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
Click to expand...



thats not all together true,,,

vietnam was a drug war plain and simple and should have never happened,,,,neither capitalism or communism was the goal,,,


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> 
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
Click to expand...

Well, we know you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean anything. Some level of Democracy is found in every country on earth. What your country calls itself is irrelevant. Here in Sweden we are officially a monarchy and yet until recently we were the top number one Democracy in the world .... and we are still right up there. Titles mean nothing and being a Republic does not mean there is no democratic principles in use.
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those who follow primitive and outdated notions are doomed to fall through the cracks of life in "real-time". In any case, John Adams isn't history, He was only there when he was spinning political philosophy to boost his own personal goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and those that ignore history are doomed to re[peat it,,,
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. It's just one of the nonsense quotes like "hot water freezes faster" or "taking away guns is the first step to communism" or "lightning never strikes twice in the same place". It's all nonsense.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> 
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those who follow primitive and outdated notions are doomed to fall through the cracks of life in "real-time". In any case, John Adams isn't history, He was only there when he was spinning political philosophy to boost his own personal goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and those that ignore history are doomed to re[peat it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes absolutely no sense. It's just one of the nonsense quotes like "hot water freezes faster" or "taking away guns is the first step to communism" or "lightning never strikes twice in the same place". It's all nonsense.
Click to expand...



thanks for your opinion,,,consider it noted and rejected because its a dumbass opinion,,,


----------



## Corky

Most of the posters don't even know the basic definition of Socialism.

But that doesn't stop them from babbling on about it year after year.

Read more -- type less.


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats not all together true,,,
> 
> vietnam was a drug war plain and simple and should have never happened,,,,neither capitalism or communism was the goal,,,
Click to expand...

Well, you can debate that with me if you like but I don't think you will win because it was all a money-laundering scheme to keep the circle of TAX FOR WAR - ARMS MANUFACTURING - POLITICAL FAVOURS .... better known as the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. But the important thing is that the U.S. _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"enforce Capitalist rule" * in order to hold the scheme together. This applies even if you believe it was fundamentally a clandestine drug war.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats not all together true,,,
> 
> vietnam was a drug war plain and simple and should have never happened,,,,neither capitalism or communism was the goal,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you can debate that with me if you like but I don't think you will win because it was all a money-laundering scheme to keep the circle of TAX FOR WAR - ARMS MANUFACTURING - POLITICAL FAVOURS .... better known as the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. But the important thing is that the U.S. _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"enforce Capitalist rule" * in order to hold the scheme together. This applies even if you believe it was fundamentally a clandestine drug war.
Click to expand...

well it is history and irrelevant according to you, so why would you debate it???


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
Click to expand...

I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> 
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
Click to expand...

I thought you said history doesnt matter???


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> 
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats not all together true,,,
> 
> vietnam was a drug war plain and simple and should have never happened,,,,neither capitalism or communism was the goal,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you can debate that with me if you like but I don't think you will win because it was all a money-laundering scheme to keep the circle of TAX FOR WAR - ARMS MANUFACTURING - POLITICAL FAVOURS .... better known as the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. But the important thing is that the U.S. _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"enforce Capitalist rule" * in order to hold the scheme together. This applies even if you believe it was fundamentally a clandestine drug war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well it is history and irrelevant according to you, so why would you debate it???
Click to expand...

Why would *"I" *debate it? I'm just trying to be nice and neighbourly. It's up to you. If you don't want to know, you don't have to know.


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> 
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
Click to expand...

With regards to what?


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Communists as the enemy*.  *Taking over* other countries of their choosing *to enforce communist rule *against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> 
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to what?
Click to expand...

when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,

WTF???


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Communism did not make the U.S. its' enemy*. Communism did not *"take over" *or *"invade" *Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh did not *"enforce communist rule"*.
> 
> It was the U.S. that _*"invaded"*_ Vietnam and tried to *"take over"* and *"enforce Capitalist rule"*. You really need to read something about Vietnam and what the U.S. did there. I am amazed that you have no knowledge about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
Click to expand...

Let me make this perfectly clear.

* Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.

* Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.

Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
Click to expand...

That is simply naive, at its best.


----------



## beagle9

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Might want to take heed-
> 
> View attachment 269933
> 
> 
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
Click to expand...

The Vietnamese ?? Would that be the South or the North to you ???

You see, in the world there is this little thing called freedom, and every now and again people think maybe that they would want to try a little bit of it. Then here we are freedom lovers whom want to support other freedom lovers in the world. But man does it hurt when we decide to do that thing.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *we know* you have been fed a load of bull. I suspect by communists themselves, or are you among their privileged few?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
Click to expand...

so only history you think is important should be remembered,??

sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,


----------



## depotoo

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so only history you think is important should be remembered,??
> 
> sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,
Click to expand...

His handle is a hint...


----------



## GLASNOST

beagle9 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Vietnamese ?? Would that be the South or the North to you ???
> 
> You see, in the world there is this little thing called freedom, and every now and again people think maybe that they would want to try a little bit of it. Then here we are freedom lovers whom want to support other freedom lovers in the world. But man does it hurt when we decide to do that thing.
Click to expand...

Freedom is often nurtured and protected by Democratic principles. Vietnam was gearing up for its Democratic, national elections and the U.S. was told by the U.N. not to remain in the country beyond that point. Instead, the U.S. scuttled the elections, remained in Vietnam and then started a war instead. 

The *"FREEDOM"* you talk about was thrown out the window by the Americans. More than one of you need to be lessoned on the events of that period if you are ever going to understand what took place in Vietnam.


----------



## Likkmee

Ask any former military. He'll beat you with a flag


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know who you think *"we" *are but you seriously need to read something more than MSM to learn about Vietnam. What I told you is true and if you do not understand that then you are very far behind.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so only history you think is important should be remembered,??
> 
> sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen the word *"absurd"*? Do you know what it means? An example would be to claim someone said something they never said or making false conclusions on what you mistakenly think he meant. That is exactly what you are doing in your above reply. Of course, if you are intentionally making false statements about what I said that is called something else. "Lying" maybe?


----------



## beagle9

GLASNOST said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> 
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Vietnamese ?? Would that be the South or the North to you ???
> 
> You see, in the world there is this little thing called freedom, and every now and again people think maybe that they would want to try a little bit of it. Then here we are freedom lovers whom want to support other freedom lovers in the world. But man does it hurt when we decide to do that thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom is often nurtured and protected by Democratic principles. Vietnam was gearing up for its Democratic, national elections and the U.S. was told by the U.N. not to remain in the country beyond that point. Instead, the U.S. scuttled the elections, remained in Vietnam and then started a war instead.
> 
> The *"FREEDOM"* you talk about was thrown out the window by the Americans. More than one of you need to be lessoned on the events of that period if you are ever going to understand what took place in Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Your version or the American version ??? Which are you subscribing too ?? Me being American, I subscribe to the American version instead of the anti-American version of the truth.


----------



## GLASNOST

Likkmee said:


> Ask any former military. He'll beat you with a flag


I am former military.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any former military. He'll beat you with a flag
> 
> 
> 
> I am former military.
Click to expand...

Russian or Chinese?


----------



## GLASNOST

Corky said:


> *Most of the posters *don't even know the basic definition of Socialism.
> 
> But that doesn't stop them from babbling on about it year after year.
> 
> Read more -- type less.


*"Most of the posters"*.

Yes, that's true. From both ends. Both pro and con.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any former military. He'll beat you with a flag
> 
> 
> 
> I am former military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian or Chinese?
Click to expand...

United States Army. (RA) 1965 - 1968. Central Highlands, Vietnam 1966-67. What about you - Cub scouts?


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you said history doesnt matter???
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so only history you think is important should be remembered,??
> 
> sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever seen the word *"absurd"*? Do you know what it means? An example would be to claim someone said something they never said or making false conclusions on what you mistakenly think he meant. That is exactly what you are doing in your above reply. Of course, if you are intentionally making false statements about what I said that is called something else. "Lying" maybe?
Click to expand...

I asked a question and is why there were ??? after my statement,,,,

you ever heard the term dumber than a box of rocks???


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to what?
> 
> 
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so only history you think is important should be remembered,??
> 
> sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever seen the word *"absurd"*? Do you know what it means? An example would be to claim someone said something they never said or making false conclusions on what you mistakenly think he meant. That is exactly what you are doing in your above reply. Of course, if you are intentionally making false statements about what I said that is called something else. "Lying" maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... you ever heard the term dumber than a box of rocks???
Click to expand...

I am looking at one right now.


----------



## beagle9

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so only history you think is important should be remembered,??
> 
> sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever seen the word *"absurd"*? Do you know what it means? An example would be to claim someone said something they never said or making false conclusions on what you mistakenly think he meant. That is exactly what you are doing in your above reply. Of course, if you are intentionally making false statements about what I said that is called something else. "Lying" maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... you ever heard the term dumber than a box of rocks???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am looking at one right now.
Click to expand...

Why Glasnost ??? You switch sides back then ??


----------



## Preacher

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when I said those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it,,,and you said that didnt make sense,,,
> now you want us to remember history so we dont repeat it,,,
> 
> WTF???
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this perfectly clear.
> 
> * Did John Adams say that? Yes. It is part of history? Yes. Is it interesting to know what he said? Maybe yes, maybe no. It's up to you. *Does what he said have any bearing or does it lend any credibility to today's situation? No**.* So history is only interesting/important to those who think it is and whether or not it is still relevant today is another matter entirely.
> 
> * Vietnam. We were discussing facts of the history of the Vietnam War. If you ask or make a statement about Vietnam I assume you are interested. I happen to have a great deal of knowledge on the Vietnam War but if you don't want to know that's your business.
> 
> Oh, and I never said I _*"want us to remember history so we dont repeat it".*_ That is a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so only history you think is important should be remembered,??
> 
> sorry all of history both good and bad is important whether you think so or not,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever seen the word *"absurd"*? Do you know what it means? An example would be to claim someone said something they never said or making false conclusions on what you mistakenly think he meant. That is exactly what you are doing in your above reply. Of course, if you are intentionally making false statements about what I said that is called something else. "Lying" maybe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... you ever heard the term dumber than a box of rocks???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am looking at one right now.
Click to expand...

this is the internet so I have no idea what or who you are looking at,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Odium said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
Click to expand...



so youre a freeloader,,, hope you get to go,,,


----------



## Preacher

progressive hunter said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so youre a freeloader,,, hope you get to go,,,
Click to expand...

Oh shut up pudding cup. Heard about enough from you cuntservative morons. Go suck off another CEO he might even give you a reach around after you are done.


----------



## beagle9

Odium said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
Click to expand...

Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??


----------



## Preacher

beagle9 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
Click to expand...

Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.


----------



## Mr Natural

I like the idea of actually getting something useful in return for my tax dollars.


----------



## progressive hunter

Odium said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so youre a freeloader,,, hope you get to go,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh shut up pudding cup. Heard about enough from you cuntservative morons. Go suck off another CEO he might even give you a reach around after you are done.
Click to expand...

I'm my own CEO,,,

and you want your tax money to pay your existence huh???  

 why not just pay it yourself and the politicians wont take a cut for themselves???

or is it you dont want to pay your own way and want other peoples tax money to pay your way through life??????


----------



## progressive hunter

Odium said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
Click to expand...

yes they can,,,


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Odium said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
Click to expand...

But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?  Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford, most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.  I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.  Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.


----------



## Toro

Free sex with hippie chicks


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Odium said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
Click to expand...

I remember back in the day when hospitals only need a 100 bucks or so.  But with all that FREE stuff to illegals who cant be turned away from the emergency room, then someone who speaks English has to pick up the tab.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any former military. He'll beat you with a flag
> 
> 
> 
> I am former military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian or Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> United States Army. (RA) 1965 - 1968. Central Highlands, Vietnam 1966-67. What about you - Cub scouts?
Click to expand...

I lived during it, had ex that served in it.  You must be one of Kerry’s ilk.


----------



## beagle9

Odium said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
Click to expand...

Average American worker here, and doing quite well in life if I might say so myself. Once the medical bills begin, no one will be able to actually afford it, not even the upper class workforces. Funny how with all the open channels that help people find the solutions to these upheavals, and the government programs that kick in once all other avenues have been exhausted, somehow we see these things getting lost in these political discussions where the issues are being manipulated more for votes than actually solving them.


----------



## beagle9

andaronjim said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember back in the day when hospitals only need a 100 bucks or so.  But with all that FREE stuff to illegals who cant be turned away from the emergency room, then someone who speaks English has to pick up the tab.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Demon-crats want to make doctors and nurses slaves before it's over with. They are already farming much of the care out to foriegn born physicians and other's coming here to work for less.


----------



## sealybobo

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


My life. I’d rather money not get in the way of my cure. Or anyone else’s.

I thought life was precious? Apparently not as precious as the all mighty dollar


----------



## sealybobo

beagle9 said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Average American worker here, and doing quite well in life if I might say so myself. Once the medical bills begin, no one will be able to actually afford it, not even the upper class workforces. Funny how with all the open channels that help people find the solutions to these upheavals, and the government programs that kick in once all other avenues have been exhausted, somehow see's these things getting lost in these political discussions where the issues are being manipulated more for votes than actually solving them.
Click to expand...

Right. Even people with $5 million dollars sav3d don’t want to pay $10,000 a month to take care of a love one with Alzheimer’s for example


----------



## beagle9

sealybobo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Average American worker here, and doing quite well in life if I might say so myself. Once the medical bills begin, no one will be able to actually afford it, not even the upper class workforces. Funny how with all the open channels that help people find the solutions to these upheavals, and the government programs that kick in once all other avenues have been exhausted, somehow see's these things getting lost in these political discussions where the issues are being manipulated more for votes than actually solving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Even people with $5 million dollars sav3d don’t want to pay $10,000 a month to take care of a love one with Alzheimer’s for example
Click to expand...

Don't have to, as there are many ways to deal with these things already in America.

Done seen it many times over. There is always a way provided, but it has to be uncovered. Might not get to live carefree anymore, but ones health is more important than money. No one should be bankrupted by medical conditions, and that one needs to be worked on most of all.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

Who wants to leave because of socialism? I wanna kick them out of my capitalist paradise.


----------



## beagle9

sealybobo said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact my tax dollars would go to things I can use like healthcare,college,paid maternity leave etc. This is why I have started pushing my kids to consider college in Europe so eventually they stay there and bring me and my wife over there. The elderly and disabled and workers in general are treated like shit in America. America is great for 2 kinds of people. The rich who get richer and the 3rd world trash who live off the welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't save or manage those things for yourself eh ??? The merit based system is what has made this nation strong and independent over the years. In fact Europe is struggling greatly in many areas, and actually depends on American strength to assist it in many different ways. Remember world war two ??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes because SO many people can afford 4-10k for a simple visit to the emergency room. No people can't save up for that dolt. Not when our wages are suppressed by the CEO's on the right who want invaders for the lower wages and leftists who want invaders simply because they hate white people and want absolute power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Average American worker here, and doing quite well in life if I might say so myself. Once the medical bills begin, no one will be able to actually afford it, not even the upper class workforces. Funny how with all the open channels that help people find the solutions to these upheavals, and the government programs that kick in once all other avenues have been exhausted, somehow see's these things getting lost in these political discussions where the issues are being manipulated more for votes than actually solving them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right. Even people with $5 million dollars sav3d don’t want to pay $10,000 a month to take care of a love one with Alzheimer’s for example
Click to expand...

$10,000 a month to just throw your family member into a home to forget about them, and this taken out of $5 million dollars saved. ??? Interesting.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Far right idiots put on the scare that if the government controls or regulates one little thing.............OMG COMMIE!$%$#$

The truth: Capitalism is here to stay as the best system, the argument is how regulated it should be/how much of a role government should play. Totally unregulated capitalism will fail, there is no perfect system.


----------



## GLASNOST

andaronjim said:


> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?


How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?


andaronjim said:


> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,


That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.


andaronjim said:


> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.


You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?


andaronjim said:


> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.


Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?


andaronjim said:


> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.


Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?

*The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask any former military. He'll beat you with a flag
> 
> 
> 
> I am former military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian or Chinese?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> United States Army. (RA) 1965 - 1968. Central Highlands, Vietnam 1966-67. What about you - Cub scouts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I lived during it, had ex that served in it.  You must be one of Kerry’s ilk.
Click to expand...

You are confused and out of your depths on the subject. You certainly do not know very much about it.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

The government is stingy?  



More than half the budget is spent on welfare


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
Click to expand...

I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
Click to expand...



if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
Click to expand...

I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
Click to expand...

You aren’t nearly as clever as you think you are.  And the US is not based on your kind of values.  Never has been.  Never will be.


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
Click to expand...

the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> You aren’t nearly as clever as you think you are.


But I am vastly more clever than *you think* I am.



depotoo said:


> And the US is not based on your kind of values.  Never has been.  Never will be.


That is why the U.S. is up the creek without a paddle. You are using a failing formula and rather than shitcan it and try another one you've decided to double down on the useless one you have using all along - the one that left you without a paddle on the creek.


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
> 
> 
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
Click to expand...

Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S. 

But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?


----------



## depotoo

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> 
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S.
> 
> But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?
Click to expand...

Lol, the truth comes out...  and yes, I read your post properly...


----------



## progressive hunter

GLASNOST said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government is stingy?  View attachment 270027
> 
> More than half the budget is spent on welfare
> 
> View attachment 270028
> 
> 
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S.
> 
> But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?
Click to expand...

how would I know why you want our protection,,,it might be because youre a bunch of pansies,,,


----------



## depotoo

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S.
> 
> But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how would I know why you want our protection,,,it might be because youre a bunch of pansies,,,
Click to expand...

He is a troll


----------



## GLASNOST

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S.
> 
> But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how would I know why you want our protection,,,it might be because youre a bunch of pansies,,,
Click to expand...

Who told you we want your protection? Did the Taliban tell you that? The Somalis? Al Qaida? ISIS? al-Shabaab? Hizbollah? No, of course not. It was the CIA ... the ones who gave you the proof of WMA's in Irak.


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I criticize the lack of care provided by the American government and your rebuff is to submit a *"pie graph"*? What does any percentage of "little" do for a population of 330 million people? You might be using unsophisticated mathematics in order to fool someone but I reckon it is you who's been fooled.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S.
> 
> But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol, the truth comes out...  and yes, I read your post properly...
Click to expand...

And *the truth* is ...... ?


----------



## GLASNOST

depotoo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you were an american you would know its not the job of the government to care for the people,, in other words its against our laws
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you should look again, and if you are still right then God help you because you will always fail. But that could explain why the U.S. never amounted to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US under the constitution has amounted to the freest most prosperous country the world has ever seen,,and countries like yours depend on us for protection,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Two outrageously ridiculous statements in one sentence must be a record. The American people are not prosperous and the only protection my country needs is *FROM* the U.S.
> 
> But just for a good laugh .... tell me what it is you think the U.S. is protecting my country from? WMD's from Irak? Communists from Vietnam? Russian pipelines? Osama bin Laden? Fidel Castro? Saddam Hussein? Bashar al-Assad?  Hugo Chavez? Nicolas Maduro? The Boy Scouts from North Korea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how would I know why you want our protection,,,it might be because youre a bunch of pansies,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is a troll
Click to expand...

No, you are the troll.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

GLASNOST said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
Click to expand...




> andaronjim said: ↑
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.


 So youre telling me that the Rich get rich because they spend their way to richness?  You must be a fucking idiot, like Joe "The Groper" Biden.  



> In our current society, the rich stay rich because: *they save their hard earned money* and invest it in things like CDA’s, Money Market and Trust accounts. Most wealthy people have a higher education.
> *Why Rich Stay Rich, and the Poor Stay Poor - Modest Money*
> www.modestmoney.com/why-the-rich-stay-rich-and-the-poor-stay-poor/5438


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

GLASNOST said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what if you paid all those tax dollars in, and didnt use them, wouldn't that be a waste of money?
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you pay in insurance? Are those companies willing to 'pay out' when you need it or do they try to find a way to weasel out by saying that your particular case isn't covered? Do you get that money back if you don't use its services? Do you think those with low income ought to pay those fees or not be insured at all and have no medical access? So ... what is your question again?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also the rich get richer because they dont spend every fucking dime on shit they dont need, or afford,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is untrue and I think you know it. The absolute opposite is the fact of the matter.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> most poverty stricken people dont even want to get a job, just suck off welfare and pan handle on the street corners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You think then that people should work for a minimum wage that is too little to provide for a family?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> I used to be a minimum wage puke, but got skills that enabled me to barter for higher paying wages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good for you. Wouldn't it be great if everyone had that opportunity and the basic education/intelligence to do the same?
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots have no intelligence so take what they can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is it your opinion that the less educated/intelligent should be punished?
> 
> *The bottom line* is that the U.S. does not invest in the well-being of all of its citizens. The government is stingy, the wealthy do not want to lend a hand, there are not enough jobs to go around, the minimum wage is a joke, and some jobs legally pay less than the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

Yes, the less intelligent "Folks" vote for the very people who keep them poor and miserable, elections have consequences, and if you vote Democrat you deserve the misery they FORCE upon you.  Suck it up buttercup, you have an IQ lower than 70, which is just a little higher than most dumbass liberals, but I repeat myself.


----------



## GLASNOST

andaronjim said:


> Yes, the less intelligent "Folks" vote for the very people who keep them poor and miserable,


The two-party system is a joke. You know it even if you do not want to admit it. *"Voting for the lesser of two evils"*, they say. It's true too. Look at this last election. All you had to chose from was a male thief and a female thief. Luckily, the Americans voted for the lesser of the two evils. Just think of the shit the U.S. would be in now if they voted Hitlery Clinton. 

Now, you can make funny statements like_ "the less intelligent 'Folks' vote for the very people who keep them poor and miserable" _but that's what all voters do because they have no choice. The poor and middle class have no say in the matter. Their vote accounts for only misery or more misery. They know it when they go to the ballot boxes. Most of them (particularly this last election) only voted just to keep that hag out of the White House. 


andaronjim said:


> ...elections have consequences, and if you vote Democrat you deserve the misery they FORCE upon you.


What is your point? You have none.


andaronjim said:


> Suck it up buttercup, you have an IQ lower than 70, which is just a little higher than most dumbass liberals, but I repeat myself.


I'll match my IQ against yours any day of the week but I warn you that you may feel suicidal afterward.


----------



## GLASNOST

andaronjim said:


> So youre telling me that the Rich get rich because they spend their way to richness? You must be a fucking idiot, like Joe "The Groper" Biden.


What are you talking about? One thing has nothing to do with the other thing. 

The rich spend more money on items they don't need and don't use. Enormously more than the poor spend. This the exact opposite of what you said. So ... what (in your feeble mind) has their spending to do with them getting richer? Have you no concept of economy, business, stocks, or investing?

You mentioned my IQ and yet you make the most childish statement I've seen all this week.


----------



## ph3iron

depotoo said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
Click to expand...


Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
USA
Sweden?
I guess you are loving send her back?


----------



## Weatherman2020

ph3iron said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
Click to expand...

Name a nation on earth with no history of slavery. 

I’ll wait here.


----------



## ph3iron

depotoo said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Adams was the second president of the U.S. a  long, long time ago and he was _*politicin'*_ as Davy Crokett used to say. What he thought and what he said is completely irrelevant. It's like reading what Adolf Hitler had to say about the multi-party system and using it as a guide to political philosphy today.
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communists as the enemy.  Taking over other countries of their choosing to enforce communist rule against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
Click to expand...

Sort of like us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Keep the gov out of my VA SS Medicare, that's what I say.
Darn commie programs.
War, USA been  in 250 in 300 years. Iran 1 or 2 in 4000 years
As the Romans said, "when you run out of enemies you have to find another one"
Got to keep military spending 1/2 of discretional
No wonder we have pathetic health care, roads, airports.
But my military stocks are booming, thank you don the con


----------



## ph3iron

Weatherman2020 said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a nation on earth with no history of slavery.
> 
> I’ll wait here.
Click to expand...

I assume we are talking last 300 years?
Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden ? I'm guessing they didn't lynch in the 1920s?
Or was our last lynching after that?
But our slavery  genes have been dying to get to the surface after the dreaded Kenyan 
Watch the all white don the con Nazi rallies?
Read the obozo jokes on this forum?


----------



## GLASNOST

ph3iron said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only to those that don’t learn from history or have an agenda...
> 
> 
> 
> History told us the world was flat. I guess Cristobal Columbo sailed off the edge. It's his own fault for not learning from history. The U.S. was the "cat's meow" and unbeatable in two world wars but Ho Chi Minh didn't take history very seriously when he beat up "the good guys" and threw them out of his country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that was the result of America tiring of the war, as well as the new sick philosophy to play a kinder version of war than our enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *FIRST* of all, if you were tired of war why did you start that one? The Vietnamese were not interested in war, you forced them into it by invading their country.
> *SECONDLY*, what enemy are you talking about? You had no enemy there until you started shooting at them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Communists as the enemy.  Taking over other countries of their choosing to enforce communist rule against others that lived relatively free and wished to remain so, by force, when they had no means to fight it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sort of like us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
> Keep the gov out of my VA SS Medicare, that's what I say.
> Darn commie programs.
> War, USA been  in 250 in 300 years. Iran 1 or 2 in 4000 years
> As the Romans said, "when you run out of enemies you have to find another one"
> Got to keep military spending 1/2 of discretional
> No wonder we have pathetic health care, roads, airports.
> But my military stocks are booming, thank you don the con
Click to expand...

Dwight Eisenhower warned the U.S. .... (and the world) ... but no one at the time understood what the Military-Industrial Complex meant back then. Now it is much, much, much too late to do anything about it without a full-blown revolution.


----------



## GLASNOST

ph3iron said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a nation on earth with no history of slavery.
> 
> I’ll wait here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume we are talking last 300 years?
> Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden ? I'm guessing they* didn't lynch in the 1920s?
> Or was our last lynching after that?*
> .....
Click to expand...

You're talking about the U.S? Still lynching in the U.S. into the early 1960's. I recall it was at least 1962 or '63. But then the U.S. (with help of the V.A. Veterans Administration) was still injecting black Americans with syphilis and letting them die during the Tuskegee Experiment right up until 1972.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

GLASNOST said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the less intelligent "Folks" vote for the very people who keep them poor and miserable,
> 
> 
> 
> The two-party system is a joke. You know it even if you do not want to admit it. *"Voting for the lesser of two evils"*, they say. It's true too. Look at this last election. All you had to chose from was a male thief and a female thief. Luckily, the Americans voted for the lesser of the two evils. Just think of the shit the U.S. would be in now if they voted Hitlery Clinton.
> 
> Now, you can make funny statements like_ "the less intelligent 'Folks' vote for the very people who keep them poor and miserable" _but that's what all voters do because they have no choice. The poor and middle class have no say in the matter. Their vote accounts for only misery or more misery. They know it when they go to the ballot boxes. Most of them (particularly this last election) only voted just to keep that hag out of the White House.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...elections have consequences, and if you vote Democrat you deserve the misery they FORCE upon you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point? You have none.
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suck it up buttercup, you have an IQ lower than 70, which is just a little higher than most dumbass liberals, but I repeat myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll match my IQ against yours any day of the week but I warn you that you may feel suicidal afterward.
Click to expand...

Yes, after attempting to communicate with retarded "folks" (what Obama calls people), yes I do want to commit suicide because I could bang my head against the wall, and get more satisfaction.  The poor are stupid, they make stupid choices, but what is worse, is that many of them stay poor, and not elevate themselves out of their poorness.  Here is an example of someone who didnt stay poor, but got educated, got rich and now is giving advice.  Will you listen, fuck no, because if you do, you will realize your whole life has been a lie.


----------



## Weatherman2020

ph3iron said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a nation on earth with no history of slavery.
> 
> I’ll wait here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume we are talking last 300 years?
> Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden ? I'm guessing they didn't lynch in the 1920s?
> Or was our last lynching after that?
> But our slavery  genes have been dying to get to the surface after the dreaded Kenyan
> Watch the all white don the con Nazi rallies?
> Read the obozo jokes on this forum?
Click to expand...

The Irish shipped their people overseas and sold them.

Were There Irish Slaves in America, Too?

Switzerland financed and profited from the slave industry.

Switzerland played key role in the slave trade

Slave industry was a big thing in Finland, blonde boys and girls brought a huge profit.

Why did Medieval Slave Traders go to Finland? - Medievalists.net

Sweden didn’t abolish slavery until 1847, just before America did.

Swedish slave trade - Wikipedia


My point stands. Your ignorance drives you to make dumb false accusations.


ph3iron said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a nation on earth with no history of slavery.
> 
> I’ll wait here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume we are talking last 300 years?
> Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden ? I'm guessing they didn't lynch in the 1920s?
> Or was our last lynching after that?
> But our slavery  genes have been dying to get to the surface after the dreaded Kenyan
> Watch the all white don the con Nazi rallies?
> Read the obozo jokes on this forum?
Click to expand...

The Irish shipped their people overseas and sold them. 

Were There Irish Slaves in America, Too?

Switzerland financed and profited from the slave industry. 

Switzerland played key role in the slave trade

Slave industry was a big thing in Finland, blonde boys and girls brought a huge profit. 

Why did Medieval Slave Traders go to Finland? - Medievalists.net

Sweden didn’t abolish slavery until 1847, just before America did. 

Swedish slave trade - Wikipedia


My point stands. Your ignorance drives you to make dumb false accusations.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

GLASNOST said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> 
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a nation on earth with no history of slavery.
> 
> I’ll wait here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume we are talking last 300 years?
> Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden ? I'm guessing they* didn't lynch in the 1920s?
> Or was our last lynching after that?*
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking about the U.S? Still lynching in the U.S. into the early 1960's. I recall it was at least 1962 or '63. But then the U.S. (with help of the V.A. Veterans Administration) was still injecting black Americans with syphilis and letting them die during the Tuskegee Experiment right up until 1972.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those damn Democrats kept lynching, then you know what?  The Democrats "LIED" and say the parties switched......Bwaaaahhhhaaaaa..  and only the stupid people fell for that.....


----------



## GLASNOST

ph3iron said:


> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.


No. Not true. Sweden once colonized the tiny Carribean island of St. Bartholomew which was directly in line with the slave-trade route between Africa and the Americas. This was some time in the 1700's. Sweden did trade in slaves but actually owning slaves themselves was a very minuscule number and never here on Swedish soil. Your statement of "millions" is a joke ... but maybe that is what you meant it to be?

Sweden sold the island to  France in the late 1800's and is now called Saint Barthélemy.


----------



## GLASNOST

andaronjim said:


> Suck it up buttercup, you have an IQ lower than 70, which is just a little higher than most dumbass liberals, but I repeat myself.





GLASNOST said:


> I'll match my IQ against yours any day of the week but I warn you that you may feel suicidal afterward.





andaronjim said:


> Yes, after attempting to communicate with retarded "folks" (what Obama calls people), yes I do want to commit suicide because I could bang my head against the wall, and get more satisfaction.  The poor are stupid, they make stupid choices, but what is worse, is that many of them stay poor, and not elevate themselves out of their poorness.


Unless you are totally senseless you know that the poor have very few opportunities to pull themselves out of their predicament. If you do not agree with that then we will end this dialogue right now.



andaronjim said:


> Will you listen, fuck no, because if you do, you will realize your whole life has been a lie.


If you knew anything about my life and some of the things I have done you would be bragging to your friends about "knowing" me. So, rather than making a fool of yourself over personal matters I suggest you stick to the subject of the poor in the U.S. But I must remind you of my words ......... If you do not agree that the poor in the U.S. have extremely unlikely chances of bettering their lives then just say so and don't bother trying to carry this discussion any further.


----------



## beagle9

GLASNOST said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suck it up buttercup, you have an IQ lower than 70, which is just a little higher than most dumbass liberals, but I repeat myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll match my IQ against yours any day of the week but I warn you that you may feel suicidal afterward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, after attempting to communicate with retarded "folks" (what Obama calls people), yes I do want to commit suicide because I could bang my head against the wall, and get more satisfaction.  The poor are stupid, they make stupid choices, but what is worse, is that many of them stay poor, and not elevate themselves out of their poorness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless you are totally senseless you know that the poor have very few opportunities to pull themselves out of their predicament. If you do not agree with that then we will end this dialogue right now.
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will you listen, fuck no, because if you do, you will realize your whole life has been a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you knew anything about my life and some of the things I have done you would be bragging to your friends about "knowing" me. So, rather than making a fool of yourself over personal matters I suggest you stick to the subject of the poor in the U.S. But I must remind you of my words ......... If you do not agree that the poor in the U.S. have extremely unlikely chances of bettering their lives then just say so and don't bother trying to carry this discussion any further.
Click to expand...

The generalization of the poor is a political thing for the purpose of usery in order to gain or retain power now.

Yes, men and women are born equal as human beings, but somewhere along the way a split happens. So depending on the choices made by each and every individual in life, then these splits cause each and every individual to either go forward or backwards in life.... This is always based upon those choices made.  The punishment of those who make better choices in life, where as such a punishment otherwise as being in regards to those who make bad choices in life (the way that it is going) is absolutely not how it should be done in America against those who make good choices in life.

Ever heard of "we as a nation must lead by example in the world", otherwise if we want to claim our nation as being exceptional, prosperous, moral, and decent in the world ?

Otherwise ever heard as to how we are to be a beacon of light in the world for others to see and maybe gravitate towards ?

Well we can't very well do that if we are being punished for leading by good example right ?? This idea that the good folks should be blamed and punished because of those who make bad choices in life is about as ridiculous as can be. It just don't get any more stupid than we have allowed ourselves to become anymore.

The Demon-crats are complete power hungry radicals who will use anything and everything to hold power. They can't make lives better, because they absolutely don't understand how too.


----------



## Weatherman2020

GLASNOST said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Not true. Sweden once colonized the tiny Carribean island of St. Bartholomew which was directly in line with the slave-trade route between Africa and the Americas. This was some time in the 1700's. Sweden did trade in slaves but actually owning slaves themselves was a very minuscule number and never here on Swedish soil. Your statement of "millions" is a joke ... but maybe that is what you meant it to be?
> 
> Sweden sold the island to  France in the late 1800's and is now called Saint Barthélemy.
Click to expand...

Sweden abolished slavery in 1847. 
US ended slavery in 1863.


----------



## GLASNOST

beagle9 said:


> The generalization of the poor is a political thing for the purpose of usery in order to gain or retain power now.
> 
> Yes, men and women are born equal as human beings, but somewhere along the way a split happens. So depending on the choices made by each and every individual in life, then these splits cause each and every individual to either go forward or backwards in life.... This is always based upon those choices made.  The punishment of those who make better choices in life, where as such a punishment otherwise as being in regards to those who make bad choices in life (the way that it is going) is absolutely not how it should be done in America against those who make good choices in life.
> 
> Ever heard of "we as a nation must lead by example in the world", otherwise if we want to claim our nation as being exceptional, prosperous, moral, and decent in the world ?
> 
> Otherwise ever heard as to how we are to be a beacon of light in the world for others to see and maybe gravitate towards ?
> 
> Well we can't very well do that if we are being punished for leading by good example right ?? This idea that the good folks should be blamed and punished because of those who make bad choices in life is about as ridiculous as can be. It just don't get any more stupid than we have allowed ourselves to become anymore.


In another world (read "country") this all makes sense. It is perfectly logical. But we are talking about the U.S. In the U.S. opportunities are smothered right from birth if a child is born 'on the wrong side of the tracks" so to speak. But this problem goes deeper than just that. Let's avoid the chicken or the egg for the moment. If you (or I) have not had the opportunities growing up then it is difficult for us to guide our own children in the right path to education and (maybe most importantly) self-discipline in studies. It's a perpetual dilemma that affects generations. 

Didn't this thread begin with the attributes of Socialism? Right. In a well-functioning socialist environment, EVERYONE has the same opportunities and it will be the individual performance and inspiration that will decide how far (or in what direction) the individual will take. But this is not the way the U.S. conducts itself and the problem is more complex when you consider the employment situation and wages. Look, in a perfect world everyone will have equal opportunities and there will be jobs for each and every citizen. A pipe dream? Sure. But reaching for that dream is not something the U.S. is working towards while other nations are.  So the examples you give above are excellent but the situation you describe is not found in the U.S. It is found elsewhere.



beagle9 said:


> The Demon-crats are complete power hungry radicals who will use anything and everything to hold power. They can't make lives better, because they absolutely don't understand how too.


The problem is not with any rift between the Democrats and the Republicans. There is little difference between the two at the end of the day. Politics, of course, lies at the bottom of the matter but it is because neither of your choices are going to lift the American population up. The only way that can be achieved is by revamping both the Democratic and Republican political philosophies and/or introducing new parties with deeper commitments to the American people. However, unless the U.S. rids itself of the Military-Industrial Complex (and any other *corrupt* entity) such as the arms industry, the pharmaceutical stronghold, the tobacco industry .... then each and every political endeavor is going to be _"bought off" _and you'll never make any progress. How to break that trend? Man, I wish I knew. I don't even want to pronounce the word "Revolution".


----------



## GLASNOST

Weatherman2020 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Not true. Sweden once colonized the tiny Carribean island of St. Bartholomew which was directly in line with the slave-trade route between Africa and the Americas. This was some time in the 1700's. Sweden did trade in slaves but actually owning slaves themselves was a very minuscule number and never here on Swedish soil. Your statement of "millions" is a joke ... but maybe that is what you meant it to be?
> 
> Sweden sold the island to  France in the late 1800's and is now called Saint Barthélemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweden abolished slavery in 1847.
> US ended slavery in 1863.
Click to expand...

Correct. But let us mention something that is important for people to understand. The U.S. kept untold numbers of slaves. You can give us a figure on that? Sweden never had any slaves with the exception of the Carribean island of St. Bartholomew. I don't' believe that slavery was ever legal in Sweden.


----------



## Weatherman2020

GLASNOST said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Not true. Sweden once colonized the tiny Carribean island of St. Bartholomew which was directly in line with the slave-trade route between Africa and the Americas. This was some time in the 1700's. Sweden did trade in slaves but actually owning slaves themselves was a very minuscule number and never here on Swedish soil. Your statement of "millions" is a joke ... but maybe that is what you meant it to be?
> 
> Sweden sold the island to  France in the late 1800's and is now called Saint Barthélemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweden abolished slavery in 1847.
> US ended slavery in 1863.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. But let us mention something that is important for people to understand. The U.S. kept untold numbers of slaves. You can give us a figure on that? Sweden never had any slaves with the exception of the Carribean island of St. Bartholomew. I don't' believe that slavery was ever legal in Sweden.
Click to expand...

Per capita Sweden had just as many slaves. 

I asked you to name one nation on earth with no history of slavery, and you can’t name one. 

You just hate America.


----------



## GLASNOST

Weatherman2020 said:


> Per capita Sweden had just as many slaves.


That is completely *IMPOSSIBLE*. You're just making things up as you go along to be dramatic. 



Weatherman2020 said:


> I asked you to name one nation on earth with no history of slavery, and you can’t name one.


I never even tried. But I can if I wanted to. 



Weatherman2020 said:


> You just hate America.


You just hate yourself.


----------



## beagle9

GLASNOST said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The generalization of the poor is a political thing for the purpose of usery in order to gain or retain power now.
> 
> Yes, men and women are born equal as human beings, but somewhere along the way a split happens. So depending on the choices made by each and every individual in life, then these splits cause each and every individual to either go forward or backwards in life.... This is always based upon those choices made.  The punishment of those who make better choices in life, where as such a punishment otherwise as being in regards to those who make bad choices in life (the way that it is going) is absolutely not how it should be done in America against those who make good choices in life.
> 
> Ever heard of "we as a nation must lead by example in the world", otherwise if we want to claim our nation as being exceptional, prosperous, moral, and decent in the world ?
> 
> Otherwise ever heard as to how we are to be a beacon of light in the world for others to see and maybe gravitate towards ?
> 
> Well we can't very well do that if we are being punished for leading by good example right ?? This idea that the good folks should be blamed and punished because of those who make bad choices in life is about as ridiculous as can be. It just don't get any more stupid than we have allowed ourselves to become anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> In another world (read "country") this all makes sense. It is perfectly logical. But we are talking about the U.S. In the U.S. opportunities are smothered right from birth if a child is born 'on the wrong side of the tracks" so to speak. But this problem goes deeper than just that. Let's avoid the chicken or the egg for the moment. If you (or I) have not had the opportunities growing up then it is difficult for us to guide our own children in the right path to education and (maybe most importantly) self-discipline in studies. It's a perpetual dilemma that affects generations.
> 
> Didn't this thread begin with the attributes of Socialism? Right. In a well-functioning socialist environment, EVERYONE has the same opportunities and it will be the individual performance and inspiration that will decide how far (or in what direction) the individual will take. But this is not the way the U.S. conducts itself and the problem is more complex when you consider the employment situation and wages. Look, in a perfect world everyone will have equal opportunities and there will be jobs for each and every citizen. A pipe dream? Sure. But reaching for that dream is not something the U.S. is working towards while other nations are.  So the examples you give above are excellent but the situation you describe is not found in the U.S. It is found elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Demon-crats are complete power hungry radicals who will use anything and everything to hold power. They can't make lives better, because they absolutely don't understand how too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is not with any rift between the Democrats and the Republicans. There is little difference between the two at the end of the day. Politics, of course, lies at the bottom of the matter but it is because neither of your choices are going to lift the American population up. The only way that can be achieved is by revamping both the Democratic and Republican political philosophies and/or introducing new parties with deeper commitments to the American people. However, unless the U.S. rids itself of the Military-Industrial Complex (and any other *corrupt* entity) such as the arms industry, the pharmaceutical stronghold, the tobacco industry .... then each and every political endeavor is going to be _"bought off" _and you'll never make any progress. How to break that trend? Man, I wish I knew. I don't even want to pronounce the word "Revolution".
Click to expand...

Your thinking is highly flawed, because I am a living example of being born into poverty, and being discriminated against because of my color, and losing out because of it all, but while everyone else was making bad choices around me, I was making the right choices. These choices led to financial freedom, marriage to one women for well over 40 years, kids, grandkids, homes and vehicles owned, job security etc.  I never look at others to blame for anything, I just forgive them if was wronged by them, and then move on in life. The blame game in politics is for power mostly, and it is not for healing purposes. It is jockeying for position whether it is by one group or another. It is for controlling vast amounts of resources, and then distributing those resources in a very suspicious way once power is gained.

We, as in me the wife and our grandkids stopped into a store, and a pickup was sitting next to us with the windows down as we were going into this store. The stereo was blasting that rap music where every other word was a curse word. I thought to myself, and this is the kind of crazy that liberals fight to protect everyday now. Disgusting situation, but the left embraces this deplorable stuff. Then we saw an outdoor karaoke thing going on in town, and the public was invited to join in. Well it quickly turned into an outdoor event you wouldn't want your kids ears to hear. I mean what has this nation done or what in the world is it doing ??? Seeing how quick it can make it to the bottom ??? I mentioned rap music, but that heavy metal or so called death music poisoning the young minds ain't no better either.

Choices brother, choices... It all comes down to the choices one makes in life. Covering up for bad choices is a terrible thing this nation has moved towards, and sadly with the many platforms we have today, most have since fell victim to the bullcrap.

I am living proof of the choices we make in life can lead to better things, and a better life. It's really that simple.


----------



## ph3iron

Weatherman2020 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Not true. Sweden once colonized the tiny Carribean island of St. Bartholomew which was directly in line with the slave-trade route between Africa and the Americas. This was some time in the 1700's. Sweden did trade in slaves but actually owning slaves themselves was a very minuscule number and never here on Swedish soil. Your statement of "millions" is a joke ... but maybe that is what you meant it to be?
> 
> Sweden sold the island to  France in the late 1800's and is now called Saint Barthélemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sweden abolished slavery in 1847.
> US ended slavery in 1863.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. But let us mention something that is important for people to understand. The U.S. kept untold numbers of slaves. You can give us a figure on that? Sweden never had any slaves with the exception of the Carribean island of St. Bartholomew. I don't' believe that slavery was ever legal in Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Per capita Sweden had just as many slaves.
> 
> I asked you to name one nation on earth with no history of slavery, and you can’t name one.
> 
> You just hate America.
Click to expand...

No I don't.
I'm a proud millionaire corporate drug guy, never voted for a dem in my life.
Of course countries had slaves 
I'm talking the history and lynchings relatively recently
Has sweden lynched anyone in the 20 th century?


----------



## anotherlife

The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.


The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.
Click to expand...


Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?
Click to expand...

Oh, stop pretending to know anything about it..You only believe the hysteria that Joseph McCarthy started and what you read in Dick and Jane books as if time stands still. Jesus Christ, get educated.


----------



## ph3iron

anotherlife said:


> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.


Omg a god nut.
Giving back your VA SS ?MEDICARE? Police,? Fire depts?
Darn socialist programs


----------



## GLASNOST

*"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*

What is that suppose to mean?


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?



It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
Click to expand...

It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
Click to expand...


Huh? What does any of that mean? "providing the needs so that one can strive for them"??? "can't refuse social welfare if there aren't enough jobs"???  

If English is a second language for you, I apologize for the harsh criticism, but none of this makes sense to me.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? What does any of that mean? "providing the needs so that one can strive for them"??? "can't refuse social welfare if there aren't enough jobs"???
> 
> If English is a second language for you, I apologize for the harsh criticism, but none of this makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

In the U.S. you can be criticized for not  working despite there not being any job for you. You might be given welfare but it isn't enough to survive. You might even find work that pays minimum wage which isn't enough to surivive either. This doesn't happen in socialism where you are required to work and recieve a fair wage.


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop pretending to know anything about it..You only believe the hysteria that Joseph McCarthy started and what you read in Dick and Jane books as if time stands still. Jesus Christ, get educated.
> 
> View attachment 270462
Click to expand...

Is this all your argument?  Sure you can do better!


----------



## Wyatt earp

bodecea said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's a lot like Israel's socialism?
Click to expand...


So you want 300 million Jews in the USA?


----------



## anotherlife

ph3iron said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> Omg a god nut.
> Giving back your VA SS ?MEDICARE? Police,? Fire depts?
> Darn socialist programs
Click to expand...

They existed before socialism.  Hehehe.  Does condescending refusal to argue a topic a standard winning strategy for socialists? 

If I were a dirty socialist, I would invent better arguments, such as for example that everyone will crave socialism when they starve under their student loan repayments.  Hehehe!


----------



## Wyatt earp

ph3iron said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It destroys nations, which is why the Left want it here.
> 
> 
> 
> Gawd, the constitution.
> A piece of paper written by slave owners and slave rapists?
> Think I prefer all the rest of educated countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gawd, you mean all those countries that also owned and sold slaves?  Those countries, since the beginning of time?
> 
> I just have to laugh.  You are so cocky you can’t see the forest for the trees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, Sweden and Finland owned millions of them.
> Are you really trying to compare our history with say the uk?
> I'm still looking for uk lynchings in the 20s
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really can’t be serious.  Really.  Keep moving the bar, don’t you.  Amazing.  Each country has its own sordid history with slave trade, yet you wish to discount it.  Their history, in number of years, lasted much longer than slave trade did in the US.  Much, much longer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course Africa was terrible but Got any numbers?
> U.K. Fewer years than USA? Eliminated it before us?
> USA
> Sweden?
> I guess you are loving send her back?
Click to expand...



The Main land UK didnt make it illegal till 10 or so years ago.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? What does any of that mean? "providing the needs so that one can strive for them"??? "can't refuse social welfare if there aren't enough jobs"???
> 
> If English is a second language for you, I apologize for the harsh criticism, but none of this makes sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the U.S. you can be criticized for not  working despite there not being any job for you.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Because, in the US, sitting around waiting for someone to offer you a "job" isn't the only easy to make a living. We can create our own jobs.


> This doesn't happen in socialism where you are required to work and recieve a fair wage.



It sure doesn't.


----------



## beagle9

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
Click to expand...

Your push for this is due your upbringing undoubtedly. We don't have nor do we want your way of thinking to engulf this nation.

It didn't work in the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and it won't work here because we don't want it.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop pretending to know anything about it..You only believe the hysteria that Joseph McCarthy started and what you read in Dick and Jane books as if time stands still. Jesus Christ, get educated.
> 
> View attachment 270462
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this all your argument?  Sure you can do better!
Click to expand...

I already gave you the most important points but you didn't get it. It would be useless for me to speak to you in algebraic terms if you cannot even add 2 + 2. It is very clear to me that your knowledge on the subject is zero …... and you are fanatically determined to resist improving it.


.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> Yes.  Because, in the US, sitting around waiting for someone to offer you a "job" isn't the only easy to make a living. *We can create our own jobs*.


But there's he problem - you're not able to do that and your level of poverty proves it. The American double-speak is that only the lazy are unemployed and you fall back on the equally double-speak nonsense of quoting what you just said about "creating your own job". You've got destitution up the Ying Yang in the US, you blame it on the the poverty-stricken & homeless themselves, then you criticize Socialism that all but eliminates poverty. If there's logic in that way of thinking I certainly don't see it. You're just running around in circles.


----------



## GLASNOST

beagle9 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your push for this is due your upbringing undoubtedly.
Click to expand...

I am 72 years old and I have been to most inhabited places on this earth. My "upbringing" was so long ago that I have to look at old photographs just to remind myself that I ever had one. My view is based upon personal experience of seeing all possibilities and living several of them.


beagle9 said:


> don't have nor do we want your way of thinking to engulf this nation.


I don't care what you do. It's not my business. But if someone asks a question I'll most probably answer it. If you don't like the answer it makes no difference to me.


beagle9 said:


> It didn't work in the Soviet Union ...


What does the USSR have to do with it?


beagle9 said:


> ... or elsewhere ...


You don't even know that. In fact, you are wrong.


beagle9 said:


> ... and it *won't work* here because *we don't want it*.


That's your issue not mine. But it makes me wonder why there is so much debate and discussion on the enormous problems of America's unemployment, violent crime, and uneducated population. I guess you figure that jobs and education *"won't work"* because you *"don't want it"*?


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most important aspect of socialism is that it turns neighbor against neighbor.  This way it is a direct opposition to God and to anything that God stands for.
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop pretending to know anything about it..You only believe the hysteria that Joseph McCarthy started and what you read in Dick and Jane books as if time stands still. Jesus Christ, get educated.
> 
> View attachment 270462
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this all your argument?  Sure you can do better!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the most important points but you didn't get it. It would be useless for me to speak to you in algebraic terms if you cannot even add 2 + 2. It is very clear to me that your knowledge on the subject is zero …... and you are fanatically determined to resist improving it.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Socialism is a big lie.  The Bible says, that when you sign up to a lie, then God will put a powerful delusion on you to force you to believe that lie.  This applies when the lie is directly to oppose God.  Lenin himself confessed on his death bed, that he was the biggest enemy of God.  

Every socialism including the current Venezuelan, starts with killing off people who don't accept the lie.  In East Europe, this killed off more than half the population.  

So, if you think that you have important points to share about socialism, bring it to this forum, and we can uncover each of those lies.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Because, in the US, sitting around waiting for someone to offer you a "job" isn't the only easy to make a living. *We can create our own jobs*.
> 
> 
> 
> But there's he problem - you're not able to do that and your level of poverty proves it.
Click to expand...


There are plenty of barriers to working for yourself - most of them imposed by government - but we are, still, able to do that. It happens all the time.



> The American double-speak is that only the lazy are unemployed


That's not what I said.



> You've got destitution up the Ying Yang in the US, you blame it on the the poverty-stricken & homeless themselves ...



Prove it. Find a single quote where I say anything like that.

The banksters and the socialists (more alike than they are different) each have a vested interest in promoting the idea that working a "job" for an "employer" is the only way to make a living. They both benefit from inculcating a slave mentality in society. They both seek a population that is dependent and obedient.


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Because, in the US, sitting around waiting for someone to offer you a "job" isn't the only easy to make a living. *We can create our own jobs*.
> 
> 
> 
> But there's he problem - you're not able to do that and your level of poverty proves it. The American double-speak is that only the lazy are unemployed and you fall back on the equally double-speak nonsense of quoting what you just said about "creating your own job". You've got destitution up the Ying Yang in the US, you blame it on the the poverty-stricken & homeless themselves, then you criticize Socialism that all but eliminates poverty. If there's logic in that way of thinking I certainly don't see it. You're just running around in circles.
> 
> View attachment 270589
Click to expand...


Socialism is not an answer to this job problem either.  This is because most jobs are done by automation, not people.  And the biggest problem is, that socialism uses an exclusive elite circle of select people, who are above everything, above people, above law, above God, and these select people tell everybody what to do.  Once you let wiseguys tell you what to do, you can as well just forget all about working, jobs, survival, and so on.  At that point, your only option is to beg for God's mercy, before your very own party secretary ships you to the gulag.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OPPOSITE is true. Should I assume that you are speaking from an American pespective? JUST LOOK AT IT your Capitalist nation. Murder, shooting, riots, war, poverty, unemployment, guns, corruption, homeless, racism, lack of education, pollution. Did I mention murder, murder, murder? And how is all of that murder possible if _"neighbour against neighbour"_ doesn't exist? It is, IN FACT, good neighbourly reality in Socialist countries. My wife is from Czechoslovakia and I have been to every Socialist country (during the cold war) in Europe.  I know what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, stop pretending to know anything about it..You only believe the hysteria that Joseph McCarthy started and what you read in Dick and Jane books as if time stands still. Jesus Christ, get educated.
> 
> View attachment 270462
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this all your argument?  Sure you can do better!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the most important points but you didn't get it. It would be useless for me to speak to you in algebraic terms if you cannot even add 2 + 2. It is very clear to me that your knowledge on the subject is zero …... and you are fanatically determined to resist improving it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is a big lie.  The Bible says, that when you sign up to a lie, then God will put a powerful delusion on you to force you to believe that lie.  This applies when the lie is directly to oppose God.  Lenin himself confessed on his death bed, that he was the biggest enemy of God.
> 
> Every socialism including the current Venezuelan, starts with killing off people who don't accept the lie.  In East Europe, this killed off more than half the population.
> 
> So, if you think that you have important points to share about socialism, bring it to this forum, and we can uncover each of those lies.
Click to expand...

You're using *the Bible as your reference* for political insight? Yeah, that should work really fine! No wonder logic goes over your head. What's logic when you have superstition to rely on!



anotherlife said:


> Socialism is not an answer to this job problem either.  This is because most jobs are done by automation, not people.  And the biggest problem is, that socialism uses an exclusive elite circle of select people, who are above everything, above people, above law, above God, and these select people tell everybody what to do.  Once you let wiseguys tell you what to do, you can as well just forget all about working, jobs, survival, and so on.  At that point, your only option is to beg for God's mercy, before your very own party secretary ships you to the gulag.


Again with the Bible already.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> That's not what I said.


You implied it, loud and clear.


dblack said:


> Prove it. Find a single quote where I say anything like that.


No, you didin't say "grey". You said half way between black and white.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> You implied it, loud and clear.
Click to expand...


No, you inferred it because you're more interested in maintaining your stereotypes than real discussion.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. Find a single quote where I say anything like that.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didin't say "grey". You said half way between black and white.
Click to expand...


Bullshit (again, quote it or STFU). I despise the "blame the victim" mindset you accused me of. It's very black and white in my book.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> You implied it, loud and clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you inferred it because you're more interested in maintaining your stereotypes than real discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. Find a single quote where I say anything like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didin't say "grey". You said half way between black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit (again, quote it or STFU). I despise the "blame the victim" mindset you accused me of. It's very black and white in my book.
Click to expand...

Look, if you don't want to help bring the American people out of their misery that's your business. But it's much more than that because I can see that you are very angry. Is it because I don't share your fear that  *"The Red Hoard is coming! Run for your lives!" * or is it that you believe *"I am either with you or against you"*?


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> You implied it, loud and clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you inferred it because you're more interested in maintaining your stereotypes than real discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. Find a single quote where I say anything like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didin't say "grey". You said half way between black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit (again, quote it or STFU). I despise the "blame the victim" mindset you accused me of. It's very black and white in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, if you don't want to help bring the American people out of their misery that's your business. But it's much more than that because I can see that you are very angry. Is it because I don't share your fear that  *"The Red Hoard is coming! Run for your lives!" * or is it that you believe *"I am either with you or against you"*?
Click to expand...


Neither. Your presumptions fail you again.

I'm not very angry. But I think merging economic power with state power is a very bad idea - approximately as bad a merging religion and government.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> You implied it, loud and clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you inferred it because you're more interested in maintaining your stereotypes than real discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it. Find a single quote where I say anything like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you didin't say "grey". You said half way between black and white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit (again, quote it or STFU). I despise the "blame the victim" mindset you accused me of. It's very black and white in my book.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, if you don't want to help bring the American people out of their misery that's your business. But it's much more than that because I can see that you are very angry. Is it because I don't share your fear that  *"The Red Hoard is coming! Run for your lives!" * or is it that you believe *"I am either with you or against you"*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not very angry. But I think merging economic power with state power is a very bad idea .... .
Click to expand...

You are not mature enough to understand any of this. It's not your fault.


----------



## ph3iron

beagle9 said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your push for this is due your upbringing undoubtedly. We don't have nor do we want your way of thinking to engulf this nation.
> 
> It didn't work in the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and it won't work here because we don't want it.
Click to expand...

But apparently you are in favor of draft dodgers by your pic


----------



## ph3iron

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Because, in the US, sitting around waiting for someone to offer you a "job" isn't the only easy to make a living. *We can create our own jobs*.
> 
> 
> 
> But there's he problem - you're not able to do that and your level of poverty proves it. The American double-speak is that only the lazy are unemployed and you fall back on the equally double-speak nonsense of quoting what you just said about "creating your own job". You've got destitution up the Ying Yang in the US, you blame it on the the poverty-stricken & homeless themselves, then you criticize Socialism that all but eliminates poverty. If there's logic in that way of thinking I certainly don't see it. You're just running around in circles.
> 
> View attachment 270589
Click to expand...

Nice foul mouth


----------



## ph3iron

GLASNOST said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Have the government to take care of me from cradle to grave"*
> 
> What is that suppose to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's referring to the common socialist belief that government should be responsible for providing people with their needs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a bit naïve. It is providing the needs so that one can strive for them. You can't refused social welfare if there aren't enough jobs. Socialism sees to it that there are means of earning an income among many other examples of "providing".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your push for this is due your upbringing undoubtedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am 72 years old and I have been to most inhabited places on this earth. My "upbringing" was so long ago that I have to look at old photographs just to remind myself that I ever had one. My view is based upon personal experience of seeing all possibilities and living several of them.
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't have nor do we want your way of thinking to engulf this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care what you do. It's not my business. But if someone asks a question I'll most probably answer it. If you don't like the answer it makes no difference to me.
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't work in the Soviet Union ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does the USSR have to do with it?
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... or elsewhere ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't even know that. In fact, you are wrong.
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... and it *won't work* here because *we don't want it*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your issue not mine. But it makes me wonder why there is so much debate and discussion on the enormous problems of America's unemployment, violent crime, and uneducated population. I guess you figure that jobs and education *"won't work"* because you *"don't want it"*?
Click to expand...

Lived in Sweden for any length of time?


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Czechoslovakia?  Czechoslovakia deported half of its population right when they started socialism in 1947.  In socialism neighbor's are trained to inform on each other too to the government.   How is an informant neighborly?  These principles are now imported to the west too.  Isn't it disgraceful?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, stop pretending to know anything about it..You only believe the hysteria that Joseph McCarthy started and what you read in Dick and Jane books as if time stands still. Jesus Christ, get educated.
> 
> View attachment 270462
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this all your argument?  Sure you can do better!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you the most important points but you didn't get it. It would be useless for me to speak to you in algebraic terms if you cannot even add 2 + 2. It is very clear to me that your knowledge on the subject is zero …... and you are fanatically determined to resist improving it.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is a big lie.  The Bible says, that when you sign up to a lie, then God will put a powerful delusion on you to force you to believe that lie.  This applies when the lie is directly to oppose God.  Lenin himself confessed on his death bed, that he was the biggest enemy of God.
> 
> Every socialism including the current Venezuelan, starts with killing off people who don't accept the lie.  In East Europe, this killed off more than half the population.
> 
> So, if you think that you have important points to share about socialism, bring it to this forum, and we can uncover each of those lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're using *the Bible as your reference* for political insight? Yeah, that should work really fine! No wonder logic goes over your head. What's logic when you have superstition to rely on!
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is not an answer to this job problem either.  This is because most jobs are done by automation, not people.  And the biggest problem is, that socialism uses an exclusive elite circle of select people, who are above everything, above people, above law, above God, and these select people tell everybody what to do.  Once you let wiseguys tell you what to do, you can as well just forget all about working, jobs, survival, and so on.  At that point, your only option is to beg for God's mercy, before your very own party secretary ships you to the gulag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again with the Bible already.
Click to expand...


Why do you want a politician who is an enemy of the Bible?  Your religion, the Marxism, with all of its Leninist scriptures, are nothing compared to the knowledge that has been revealed through the Bible and through all the Saints, for the pas 10 thousand years.  If Marxism is your belief, then any punk can write any bullshit and you will believe those, right?


----------



## GLASNOST

ph3iron said:


> Lived in Sweden for any length of time?


I don't understand the question. I am Swedish.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> Why do you want a politician who is an enemy of the Bible?  Your religion, the Marxism, with all of its Leninist scriptures, are nothing compared to the knowledge that has been revealed through the Bible and through all the Saints, for the pas 10 thousand years.  If Marxism is your belief, then any punk can write any bullshit and you will believe those, right?


I see what you believe in:


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want a politician who is an enemy of the Bible?  Your religion, the Marxism, with all of its Leninist scriptures, are nothing compared to the knowledge that has been revealed through the Bible and through all the Saints, for the pas 10 thousand years.  If Marxism is your belief, then any punk can write any bullshit and you will believe those, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I see what you believe in:
> 
> View attachment 270633
Click to expand...


She is pretty.  Is that what you mean?


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.



Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?

Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.

The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.

When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.

I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.

I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.

But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.

You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.


----------



## anotherlife

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
Click to expand...


This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
Click to expand...

Why should I give a shit? I can give you many examples of people ending up with a maltreated body, instead.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
Click to expand...

Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
Click to expand...


Yes Stalinism has evolved.  Now it can kill people with drones are computers.  Thanks God that Stalin didn't have this technology, or the human race would be extinct by now.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.



I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Stalinism has evolved.  Now it can kill people with drones are computers.  Thanks God that Stalin didn't have this technology, or the human race would be extinct by now.
Click to expand...

This is extreme nonsense.


----------



## anotherlife

GLASNOST said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Stalinism has evolved.  Now it can kill people with drones are computers.  Thanks God that Stalin didn't have this technology, or the human race would be extinct by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is extreme nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nonsense?  Are you from Europe?  Even Africans laugh at you how you have given up your whole life and all control over it, to some all-knowing, all-verifying, all-enforcing national computer system.


----------



## GLASNOST

anotherlife said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Stalinism has evolved.  Now it can kill people with drones are computers.  Thanks God that Stalin didn't have this technology, or the human race would be extinct by now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is extreme nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense?  Are you from Europe?  Even Africans laugh at you how you have given up your whole life and all control over it, to some all-knowing, all-verifying, all-enforcing national computer system.
Click to expand...

Was that passed on to you from some old hag with rings on her toes in a tent at the carnival or did some scraggly geezer give it to you straight from a black cat that crossed his path?


----------



## dblack

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
Click to expand...


Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.


----------



## Andylusion

anotherlife said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
Click to expand...








I agree with you.   Socialism would not allow people to work for billionaires.  It does allow them to starve to death.






Nothing to eat, but at least no one is working for a wealthy person.






In fact, under socialism, you might not have to work at all.

Starving protester shot by Maduro's military.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.   Socialism would not allow people to work for billionaires.  It does allow them to starve to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to eat, but at least no one is working for a wealthy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, under socialism, you might not have to work at all.
> 
> Starving protester shot by Maduro's military.
Click to expand...








"A human being is set on fire at a 'peaceful demonstration' by the opposition in Caracas,"
Venezuelan man set alight during protests











"I spend 8 hours on USMB each day to tell you how bad socialism is. In socialism I would not have all that bags and this laptop!"





"The first thing I think of when I wake up is how bad socialism is."


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.   Socialism would not allow people to work for billionaires.  It does allow them to starve to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to eat, but at least no one is working for a wealthy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, under socialism, you might not have to work at all.
> 
> Starving protester shot by Maduro's military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A human being is set on fire at a 'peaceful demonstration' by the opposition in Caracas,"
> Venezuelan man set alight during protests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I spend 8 hours on USMB each day to tell you how bad socialism is. In socialism I would not have all that bags and this laptop!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The first thing I think of when I wake up is how bad socialism is."
Click to expand...


I'm confused about what your point here was.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.   Socialism would not allow people to work for billionaires.  It does allow them to starve to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to eat, but at least no one is working for a wealthy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, under socialism, you might not have to work at all.
> 
> Starving protester shot by Maduro's military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A human being is set on fire at a 'peaceful demonstration' by the opposition in Caracas,"
> Venezuelan man set alight during protests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I spend 8 hours on USMB each day to tell you how bad socialism is. In socialism I would not have all that bags and this laptop!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The first thing I think of when I wake up is how bad socialism is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused about what your point here was.
Click to expand...

If your gov would take care of your country´s problems instead of creating problems in other countries, everything would be fine.

People are dying: Insulin being rationed as drug prices rise


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you idiots have any idea who many super wealthy people, started out working for the super wealthy?
> 
> Henry Ford, was working for a pittance as a mechanic, working for the super wealthy of his day.
> 
> The CEO of walmart started out a hourly wage worker, at a warehouse moving skids of product around.
> 
> When you say "My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires" that is exactly why you never did, and never will, become a millionaire.
> 
> I remember reading about the CEO who started off running the machines in the factory, and he slept in his car in the parking lot.
> 
> I worked for a company, where the CEO owner, had worked for the previous owner of that company for 15 years.  When the owner said he was going to close the business, he pulled out a mortgage on his home, and a loan from his extended family, bought the business, built it up, and repaid all the people he owed money too, by working 65 hours a week at the company he owned.
> 
> But that was 15 years of working for wealthy people, before he ended up being the wealthy person.
> 
> You show me someone who says "I'll never work for a billionaire" and I'll show you someone who will never be a billionaire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This level of idiocy is like greed on steroids.  Anyways, socialism would never allow this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.   Socialism would not allow people to work for billionaires.  It does allow them to starve to death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to eat, but at least no one is working for a wealthy person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, under socialism, you might not have to work at all.
> 
> Starving protester shot by Maduro's military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A human being is set on fire at a 'peaceful demonstration' by the opposition in Caracas,"
> Venezuelan man set alight during protests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I spend 8 hours on USMB each day to tell you how bad socialism is. In socialism I would not have all that bags and this laptop!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The first thing I think of when I wake up is how bad socialism is."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm confused about what your point here was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your gov would take care of your country´s problems instead of creating problems in other countries, everything would be fine.
> 
> People are dying: Insulin being rationed as drug prices rise
Click to expand...


Ah ok.  Now I can respond to your post.


Yes, people wait for socialism.  Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks.  It never works.   You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food?  Never.   It's never happened.  I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.


Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public?  When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so.   And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.

That's what it means to live in a civilized society.  You punish those that are acting uncivilized.   That's how you get people to act civilized in society.

Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
The Most Dangerous Cities in the World

*"I spend 8 hours on USMB each day to tell you how bad socialism is. In socialism I would not have all that bags and this laptop!"*​The irony of that statement, is that it is true.   Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.


*"The first thing I think of when I wake up is how bad socialism is.*"​While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Yes, people wait for socialism.  Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks.  It never works.   You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food?  Never.   It's never happened.  I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.


Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:

Government:
Abasto Bicentenario
Mercal (Charity Supermarket)

Private:
Automercados Plaza's
Central Madeirense
Líder
Makro
Mikro
San Diego
De Candido
Unicasa
Excelsior Gama

Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.




Andylusion said:


> Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public?  When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so.   And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.


There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.





Andylusion said:


> Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
> The Most Dangerous Cities in the World


A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.

​


Andylusion said:


> The irony of that statement, is that it is true.   Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.
> ​While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.


See here:
Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
About food delivery in Venezuela


----------



## Tehon

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
Click to expand...

Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.


----------



## dblack

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.


----------



## Tehon

dblack said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
Click to expand...

Did you even bother to look up what it is?


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people wait for socialism.  Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks.  It never works.   You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food?  Never.   It's never happened.  I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:
> 
> Government:
> Abasto Bicentenario
> Mercal (Charity Supermarket)
> 
> Private:
> Automercados Plaza's
> Central Madeirense
> Líder
> Makro
> Mikro
> San Diego
> De Candido
> Unicasa
> Excelsior Gama
> 
> Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public?  When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so.   And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
> The Most Dangerous Cities in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement, is that it is true.   Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.
> ​While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See here:
> Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
> About food delivery in Venezuela
Click to expand...


*Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.*

Amid Shortages, Venezuela Forces All Food Distribution into State Hands

What began as rumors of state meddling in the food-distribution market in Venezuela were finally confirmed on Monday. The Nicolás Maduro government is compelling the country’s food producers to send up to 100 percent of their output to state-owned distribution centers and stores, in an attempt to solve the nation’s shortage problems.​The shortages of food at private stores, is identical to the government run stores, because the government is imposing it's rule on both.   It is socialism.  Direct ownership is not required to impose socialism, as long as you have control.   If I dictate to you, every aspect of your life.... I may not own you on paper, but I certainly control you.

*There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.*

There was a general claim about violence against children.  If you are saying this is an isolated incident... then that isn't a systemic problem across the country.     Whereas the violence in Socialist Venezuela, most certainly is.  You can directly trace the rise and violence, to the policies that Chavez implemented.

If you are saying there is a general problem of police being violent against children, the only cases I know about, the children instigated the violence.

Nothing in that video shows what led up to that point.   I don't see anything wrong with what the officer was doing.   Innocent until proven guilty, is for all citizens, including citizens that become police officers.  You don't magically lose your constitutional rights when you get a badge.  When you can provide clear undeniable proof that officer just randomly starting beating a kid without reason or cause, then show it.   Even then, this isn't a national problem.  You have 3 videos out of 300+ million people.

Meanwhile, over 2 million people have fled Venezuela.   I don't see even a thousand people "fleeing" the US to get to Venezuela, but they are coming here.    So clearly the problem is there, not here.

*A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.*

Well yes.    Socialism and Capitalism are not like light-switches.   It's not one or the other system.   Some places have more socialism than others.  In fact, even in the Soviet Union, it wasn't 100% socialism.   Fun fact:  only about 90% of all farms in the USSR were government owned.  10% were still privately run, and ironically 33% of all food produced in the USSR, came from those private farms.  (Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics)

So yes, in many ways I would suggest that Detroit was highly socialized.  From their pro-union policies, to their heavy regulation, to their pro-minority and entitlement policies.

Regardless.... you do actually have a point.   I did not suggest to you that all violence is inherently due to just socialism.  Do you see the difference?

All socialism tends towards violence.

That statement does not imply that all violence is due to socialism.  

If you do not enforce the law, under any system, you will have violence.    Lack of law enforcement, results in violence.

But socialism inherently results in violence.

*About food delivery in Venezuela

For poor Venezuelans, a box of food may sway vote for Maduro - Reuters*

The government sources almost all the CLAP goods from abroad, especially from Mexico, since Venezuela’s food production has shriveled and currency controls restrict private imports.

Critics, including Maduro’s main challenger for the May 20 vote, Henri Falcon, say the CLAPs are a cynical form of political patronage and are rife with corruption.

Erratic supply and control of distribution by government-affiliated groups have sown resentment among others.

“I can’t count on it. Sometimes it comes, sometimes not,” said Viviana Colmenares, 24, an unemployed mother of six struggling to get by in Petare.

The administration of the CLAP - the Local Supply and Production Committees - does not hide its political motivation.

“It has helped us stop a social explosion and enabled us to win elections and to keep winning them,” he told Reuters, referring to government victories in 2017 local polls.​
So let's review.   This is a direct attempt to buy votes from the public, which is working.   They can't even source the food from Venezuela, which prior to the socialist revolution, was a net-exporter of food.   Not only this, but this makes people even more dependent on Maduro, which is his whole goal.  He wants to keep people under his control with food, which is why he maintains the policies that has destroyed the food production in the country.

To top it off, the program is funneled through politically connected groups, and rife with corruption.

You know what this is?   It's a real life version of the hunger games, except people are dumb enough to support it.

*Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program*

In Venezuela’s housing projects, even loyalists have had enough

The Villa Poligono housing project, near the city of San Félix, in Venezuela’s south-eastern Bolívar state, is somewhere President Maduro might once have felt his popularity was secure.

But for the past few weeks few of its residents have been at home. Instead they can be found on the road outside, mounting a noisy protest. “We’ve had enough’, says Anna Karena, 44. “This has to end.”

She has multiple grievances. Shockingly, none of the breezeblock homes in the entire complex has ever had running water. When the residents were given their keys in 2014, they were told that the plumbing would soon be connected. It never was. More recently, electricity blackouts, lasting four hours at a time, have become routine, as a combination of drought and inefficiency has left the nation without enough generating capacity.

But what seems to have persuaded her and her neighbours to protest openly is the extreme scarcity of basics, such as rice, soap and medicines. Unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the rampant black market, Karena has to queue for hours, sometimes from before dawn, just to buy enough to eat.

Hers are the same allegations of government incompetence and corruption that are echoing across this nation. A crash in the global price of oil, by far Venezuela’s most significant export, has unmasked both its dysfunctional economy and a calamitous lack of foresight on the part of its leaders. It is grappling with the world’s deepest recession, the world’s highest inflation (estimated at around 500%), and the world’s second highest murder rate. It has no sovereign wealth fund and is facing the serious risk of default by November.

“They have been telling us for years it’s about to get better,” says Karena, *pointing to a field that the residents use as a public latrine*. “You want to know what happened to the money that they should have set aside for electricity and water?” says her neighbour, Yanileth. “They stole it.”​2.7 Million flats, and they are all garbage.  No running water, no ventilation, and many buildings do not even have electricity.   I was blown away by some pictures posted by Maduro supporters, trying to show off how great the apartment buildings were, not one had any lights on.   Turns out, they didn't have power, and thus they couldn't turn on the lights.

Nicolás Maduro's plan for Venezuela adds bewilderment to despair

The UN estimates that 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015 with Colombian authorities predicting 2 million more could follow by 2020. That would mean some 4.3 million people – 14% of Venezuela’s population – had taken flight.​
Over 2 million people have fled the country, and more leaving every day.

If that food, and those houses were so great, why are literally millions of people leaving?    Do you see millions of people leaving the Capitalist based US, to get to Venezuela?  No you do not.  But they have free food and housing!

Socialism sucks.

I'm honestly a little baffled by some of the housing projects in Venezuela.  They build some of those million units, in areas that have no jobs.   So what exactly is the long term plan?   They stay in their apartments and die?
Whatever.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people wait for socialism.  Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks.  It never works.   You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food?  Never.   It's never happened.  I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:
> 
> Government:
> Abasto Bicentenario
> Mercal (Charity Supermarket)
> 
> Private:
> Automercados Plaza's
> Central Madeirense
> Líder
> Makro
> Mikro
> San Diego
> De Candido
> Unicasa
> Excelsior Gama
> 
> Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public?  When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so.   And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
> The Most Dangerous Cities in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement, is that it is true.   Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.
> ​While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See here:
> Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
> About food delivery in Venezuela
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.*
> 
> Amid Shortages, Venezuela Forces All Food Distribution into State Hands
> 
> What began as rumors of state meddling in the food-distribution market in Venezuela were finally confirmed on Monday. The Nicolás Maduro government is compelling the country’s food producers to send up to 100 percent of their output to state-owned distribution centers and stores, in an attempt to solve the nation’s shortage problems.​The shortages of food at private stores, is identical to the government run stores, because the government is imposing it's rule on both.   It is socialism.  Direct ownership is not required to impose socialism, as long as you have control.   If I dictate to you, every aspect of your life.... I may not own you on paper, but I certainly control you.
> 
> *There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.*
> 
> There was a general claim about violence against children.  If you are saying this is an isolated incident... then that isn't a systemic problem across the country.     Whereas the violence in Socialist Venezuela, most certainly is.  You can directly trace the rise and violence, to the policies that Chavez implemented.
> 
> If you are saying there is a general problem of police being violent against children, the only cases I know about, the children instigated the violence.
> 
> Nothing in that video shows what led up to that point.   I don't see anything wrong with what the officer was doing.   Innocent until proven guilty, is for all citizens, including citizens that become police officers.  You don't magically lose your constitutional rights when you get a badge.  When you can provide clear undeniable proof that officer just randomly starting beating a kid without reason or cause, then show it.   Even then, this isn't a national problem.  You have 3 videos out of 300+ million people.
> 
> Meanwhile, over 2 million people have fled Venezuela.   I don't see even a thousand people "fleeing" the US to get to Venezuela, but they are coming here.    So clearly the problem is there, not here.
> 
> *A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.*
> 
> Well yes.    Socialism and Capitalism are not like light-switches.   It's not one or the other system.   Some places have more socialism than others.  In fact, even in the Soviet Union, it wasn't 100% socialism.   Fun fact:  only about 90% of all farms in the USSR were government owned.  10% were still privately run, and ironically 33% of all food produced in the USSR, came from those private farms.  (Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics)
> 
> So yes, in many ways I would suggest that Detroit was highly socialized.  From their pro-union policies, to their heavy regulation, to their pro-minority and entitlement policies.
> 
> Regardless.... you do actually have a point.   I did not suggest to you that all violence is inherently due to just socialism.  Do you see the difference?
> 
> All socialism tends towards violence.
> 
> That statement does not imply that all violence is due to socialism.
> 
> If you do not enforce the law, under any system, you will have violence.    Lack of law enforcement, results in violence.
> 
> But socialism inherently results in violence.
> 
> *About food delivery in Venezuela
> 
> For poor Venezuelans, a box of food may sway vote for Maduro - Reuters*
> 
> The government sources almost all the CLAP goods from abroad, especially from Mexico, since Venezuela’s food production has shriveled and currency controls restrict private imports.
> 
> Critics, including Maduro’s main challenger for the May 20 vote, Henri Falcon, say the CLAPs are a cynical form of political patronage and are rife with corruption.
> 
> Erratic supply and control of distribution by government-affiliated groups have sown resentment among others.
> 
> “I can’t count on it. Sometimes it comes, sometimes not,” said Viviana Colmenares, 24, an unemployed mother of six struggling to get by in Petare.
> 
> The administration of the CLAP - the Local Supply and Production Committees - does not hide its political motivation.
> 
> “It has helped us stop a social explosion and enabled us to win elections and to keep winning them,” he told Reuters, referring to government victories in 2017 local polls.​
> So let's review.   This is a direct attempt to buy votes from the public, which is working.   They can't even source the food from Venezuela, which prior to the socialist revolution, was a net-exporter of food.   Not only this, but this makes people even more dependent on Maduro, which is his whole goal.  He wants to keep people under his control with food, which is why he maintains the policies that has destroyed the food production in the country.
> 
> To top it off, the program is funneled through politically connected groups, and rife with corruption.
> 
> You know what this is?   It's a real life version of the hunger games, except people are dumb enough to support it.
> 
> *Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program*
> 
> In Venezuela’s housing projects, even loyalists have had enough
> 
> The Villa Poligono housing project, near the city of San Félix, in Venezuela’s south-eastern Bolívar state, is somewhere President Maduro might once have felt his popularity was secure.
> 
> But for the past few weeks few of its residents have been at home. Instead they can be found on the road outside, mounting a noisy protest. “We’ve had enough’, says Anna Karena, 44. “This has to end.”
> 
> She has multiple grievances. Shockingly, none of the breezeblock homes in the entire complex has ever had running water. When the residents were given their keys in 2014, they were told that the plumbing would soon be connected. It never was. More recently, electricity blackouts, lasting four hours at a time, have become routine, as a combination of drought and inefficiency has left the nation without enough generating capacity.
> 
> But what seems to have persuaded her and her neighbours to protest openly is the extreme scarcity of basics, such as rice, soap and medicines. Unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the rampant black market, Karena has to queue for hours, sometimes from before dawn, just to buy enough to eat.
> 
> Hers are the same allegations of government incompetence and corruption that are echoing across this nation. A crash in the global price of oil, by far Venezuela’s most significant export, has unmasked both its dysfunctional economy and a calamitous lack of foresight on the part of its leaders. It is grappling with the world’s deepest recession, the world’s highest inflation (estimated at around 500%), and the world’s second highest murder rate. It has no sovereign wealth fund and is facing the serious risk of default by November.
> 
> “They have been telling us for years it’s about to get better,” says Karena, *pointing to a field that the residents use as a public latrine*. “You want to know what happened to the money that they should have set aside for electricity and water?” says her neighbour, Yanileth. “They stole it.”​2.7 Million flats, and they are all garbage.  No running water, no ventilation, and many buildings do not even have electricity.   I was blown away by some pictures posted by Maduro supporters, trying to show off how great the apartment buildings were, not one had any lights on.   Turns out, they didn't have power, and thus they couldn't turn on the lights.
> 
> Nicolás Maduro's plan for Venezuela adds bewilderment to despair
> 
> The UN estimates that 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015 with Colombian authorities predicting 2 million more could follow by 2020. That would mean some 4.3 million people – 14% of Venezuela’s population – had taken flight.​
> Over 2 million people have fled the country, and more leaving every day.
> 
> If that food, and those houses were so great, why are literally millions of people leaving?    Do you see millions of people leaving the Capitalist based US, to get to Venezuela?  No you do not.  But they have free food and housing!
> 
> Socialism sucks.
> 
> I'm honestly a little baffled by some of the housing projects in Venezuela.  They build some of those million units, in areas that have no jobs.   So what exactly is the long term plan?   They stay in their apartments and die?
> Whatever.
Click to expand...

Wow, your propaganda sources are really comprehensive. I guess this is why your days are all about Socialism. Truth is different though.

Paris priciest city, Caracas cheapest


----------



## Andylusion

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
Click to expand...


Yeah, it's just socialism.  

Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."

Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.

When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.


----------



## Tehon

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
Click to expand...

The outcome would be the same.


----------



## Tehon

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
Click to expand...

Socialism, like capitalism, describe systems of production. In the most basic terms, they describe how labor is organized to produce commodities. It is entirely possible to organize labor using socialist principles and still exchange the commodities in the market. It is already being done.


----------



## dblack

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
Click to expand...


I know what it is, you pompous prick. 

But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.


----------



## Tehon

dblack said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what it is, you pompous prick.
> 
> But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.
Click to expand...

You don't have a foundation to stand on. You are running away because what you know about political economy fits on a bumper sticker. You're right, we've already been down this road.


----------



## dblack

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
Click to expand...





> *Definition of socialism*





> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done



That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.

If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.


----------



## Tehon

dblack said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> 
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of socialism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.
> 
> If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.
Click to expand...

A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?


----------



## dblack

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of socialism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.
> 
> If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?
Click to expand...


Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking about is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?

Here's why: because you're lying. Because you want to spread confusion and doubt and undermine the meaning of the words we use in order to manipulate people. Fuck you.


----------



## Tehon

dblack said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of socialism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.
> 
> If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?
> 
> Here's why: because you're lying.
Click to expand...

I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.

You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose then I would advise you to find another one.

I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.


----------



## dblack

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of socialism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.
> 
> If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?
> 
> Here's why: because you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.
> 
> You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose than I would advise you to find another one.
> 
> I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.
Click to expand...


Sling your con job somewhere else.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea what it is all about, no experience, not even well-read. Even simple words like 'control' and 'regulate! are beyond your comprehension.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people wait for socialism.  Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks.  It never works.   You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food?  Never.   It's never happened.  I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:
> 
> Government:
> Abasto Bicentenario
> Mercal (Charity Supermarket)
> 
> Private:
> Automercados Plaza's
> Central Madeirense
> Líder
> Makro
> Mikro
> San Diego
> De Candido
> Unicasa
> Excelsior Gama
> 
> Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public?  When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so.   And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
> The Most Dangerous Cities in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement, is that it is true.   Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.
> ​While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See here:
> Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
> About food delivery in Venezuela
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.*
> 
> Amid Shortages, Venezuela Forces All Food Distribution into State Hands
> 
> What began as rumors of state meddling in the food-distribution market in Venezuela were finally confirmed on Monday. The Nicolás Maduro government is compelling the country’s food producers to send up to 100 percent of their output to state-owned distribution centers and stores, in an attempt to solve the nation’s shortage problems.​The shortages of food at private stores, is identical to the government run stores, because the government is imposing it's rule on both.   It is socialism.  Direct ownership is not required to impose socialism, as long as you have control.   If I dictate to you, every aspect of your life.... I may not own you on paper, but I certainly control you.
> 
> *There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.*
> 
> There was a general claim about violence against children.  If you are saying this is an isolated incident... then that isn't a systemic problem across the country.     Whereas the violence in Socialist Venezuela, most certainly is.  You can directly trace the rise and violence, to the policies that Chavez implemented.
> 
> If you are saying there is a general problem of police being violent against children, the only cases I know about, the children instigated the violence.
> 
> Nothing in that video shows what led up to that point.   I don't see anything wrong with what the officer was doing.   Innocent until proven guilty, is for all citizens, including citizens that become police officers.  You don't magically lose your constitutional rights when you get a badge.  When you can provide clear undeniable proof that officer just randomly starting beating a kid without reason or cause, then show it.   Even then, this isn't a national problem.  You have 3 videos out of 300+ million people.
> 
> Meanwhile, over 2 million people have fled Venezuela.   I don't see even a thousand people "fleeing" the US to get to Venezuela, but they are coming here.    So clearly the problem is there, not here.
> 
> *A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.*
> 
> Well yes.    Socialism and Capitalism are not like light-switches.   It's not one or the other system.   Some places have more socialism than others.  In fact, even in the Soviet Union, it wasn't 100% socialism.   Fun fact:  only about 90% of all farms in the USSR were government owned.  10% were still privately run, and ironically 33% of all food produced in the USSR, came from those private farms.  (Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics)
> 
> So yes, in many ways I would suggest that Detroit was highly socialized.  From their pro-union policies, to their heavy regulation, to their pro-minority and entitlement policies.
> 
> Regardless.... you do actually have a point.   I did not suggest to you that all violence is inherently due to just socialism.  Do you see the difference?
> 
> All socialism tends towards violence.
> 
> That statement does not imply that all violence is due to socialism.
> 
> If you do not enforce the law, under any system, you will have violence.    Lack of law enforcement, results in violence.
> 
> But socialism inherently results in violence.
> 
> *About food delivery in Venezuela
> 
> For poor Venezuelans, a box of food may sway vote for Maduro - Reuters*
> 
> The government sources almost all the CLAP goods from abroad, especially from Mexico, since Venezuela’s food production has shriveled and currency controls restrict private imports.
> 
> Critics, including Maduro’s main challenger for the May 20 vote, Henri Falcon, say the CLAPs are a cynical form of political patronage and are rife with corruption.
> 
> Erratic supply and control of distribution by government-affiliated groups have sown resentment among others.
> 
> “I can’t count on it. Sometimes it comes, sometimes not,” said Viviana Colmenares, 24, an unemployed mother of six struggling to get by in Petare.
> 
> The administration of the CLAP - the Local Supply and Production Committees - does not hide its political motivation.
> 
> “It has helped us stop a social explosion and enabled us to win elections and to keep winning them,” he told Reuters, referring to government victories in 2017 local polls.​
> So let's review.   This is a direct attempt to buy votes from the public, which is working.   They can't even source the food from Venezuela, which prior to the socialist revolution, was a net-exporter of food.   Not only this, but this makes people even more dependent on Maduro, which is his whole goal.  He wants to keep people under his control with food, which is why he maintains the policies that has destroyed the food production in the country.
> 
> To top it off, the program is funneled through politically connected groups, and rife with corruption.
> 
> You know what this is?   It's a real life version of the hunger games, except people are dumb enough to support it.
> 
> *Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program*
> 
> In Venezuela’s housing projects, even loyalists have had enough
> 
> The Villa Poligono housing project, near the city of San Félix, in Venezuela’s south-eastern Bolívar state, is somewhere President Maduro might once have felt his popularity was secure.
> 
> But for the past few weeks few of its residents have been at home. Instead they can be found on the road outside, mounting a noisy protest. “We’ve had enough’, says Anna Karena, 44. “This has to end.”
> 
> She has multiple grievances. Shockingly, none of the breezeblock homes in the entire complex has ever had running water. When the residents were given their keys in 2014, they were told that the plumbing would soon be connected. It never was. More recently, electricity blackouts, lasting four hours at a time, have become routine, as a combination of drought and inefficiency has left the nation without enough generating capacity.
> 
> But what seems to have persuaded her and her neighbours to protest openly is the extreme scarcity of basics, such as rice, soap and medicines. Unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the rampant black market, Karena has to queue for hours, sometimes from before dawn, just to buy enough to eat.
> 
> Hers are the same allegations of government incompetence and corruption that are echoing across this nation. A crash in the global price of oil, by far Venezuela’s most significant export, has unmasked both its dysfunctional economy and a calamitous lack of foresight on the part of its leaders. It is grappling with the world’s deepest recession, the world’s highest inflation (estimated at around 500%), and the world’s second highest murder rate. It has no sovereign wealth fund and is facing the serious risk of default by November.
> 
> “They have been telling us for years it’s about to get better,” says Karena, *pointing to a field that the residents use as a public latrine*. “You want to know what happened to the money that they should have set aside for electricity and water?” says her neighbour, Yanileth. “They stole it.”​2.7 Million flats, and they are all garbage.  No running water, no ventilation, and many buildings do not even have electricity.   I was blown away by some pictures posted by Maduro supporters, trying to show off how great the apartment buildings were, not one had any lights on.   Turns out, they didn't have power, and thus they couldn't turn on the lights.
> 
> Nicolás Maduro's plan for Venezuela adds bewilderment to despair
> 
> The UN estimates that 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015 with Colombian authorities predicting 2 million more could follow by 2020. That would mean some 4.3 million people – 14% of Venezuela’s population – had taken flight.​
> Over 2 million people have fled the country, and more leaving every day.
> 
> If that food, and those houses were so great, why are literally millions of people leaving?    Do you see millions of people leaving the Capitalist based US, to get to Venezuela?  No you do not.  But they have free food and housing!
> 
> Socialism sucks.
> 
> I'm honestly a little baffled by some of the housing projects in Venezuela.  They build some of those million units, in areas that have no jobs.   So what exactly is the long term plan?   They stay in their apartments and die?
> Whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, your propaganda sources are really comprehensive. I guess this is why your days are all about Socialism. Truth is different though.
> 
> Paris priciest city, Caracas cheapest
Click to expand...


You really posted that?    You really posted that.....    Did you actually read your own link?  Bottom of the page *YOU* posted.....

“Put simply, cheaper cities also tend to be less livable,” EIU said.​The super cheap cities to live in, are super cheap because they suck.    Duh....   When you can buy an entire house for $1,000... like in Detroit.... it's because people are leaving Detroit.   No one wants those properties.... that's why they are cheap.

Are you an idiot?  I'm completely baffled by this... you posted a link proving your own position idiotic.

“As Damascus and Caracas show, a growing number of locations are becoming cheaper because of the impact of political or economic disruption,” EIU said.​Again, this is from YOUR link....  Caracas has overtaken Damascus as the cheapest city......   Damascus... you know.... Damascus Syria where the government has dropped barrel bombs on schools, and used chemical gas on it's own people, where they have been in civil war for 8 full years now......

Caracas is even LESS desirable than the capital city of a country in full blown civil war.

You don't see how hilariously stupid you look to everyone on this forum now?
​


----------



## GLASNOST

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like you think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism ... past - present - and future? It never even occurs to you that Socialism has evolved just like any other ..... with the exception of North Korea, of course. Do you still feed on the teat or have you learned to eat solid food? Just asking as you don't seem to understand how things progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Stalinism is the definition of Socialism. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
Click to expand...

It is very civilized of you to ask him .... but we already know the answer so it's sort of a rhetorical question.


----------



## Andylusion

Tehon said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism is government control of capital. Period. The rest is just details. When we say we don't want more socialism, we're saying we don't want to expand government control of capital. It has nothing to do with views on Stalinism, or Venezuela, or Sweden.
> 
> 
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The outcome would be the same.
Click to expand...


If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.

You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> I know what it is, you pompous prick.
> But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.


You are just another voluntary ignorant side-stepping the onslaught of truth, sense, and logic heading your way.


----------



## Andylusion

Tehon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of socialism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.
> 
> If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?
> 
> Here's why: because you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.
> 
> You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose then I would advise you to find another one.
> 
> I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.
Click to expand...


I don't really have a problem with co-ops.... but generally co-ops are really only co-ops in name only.    The employees have no real ownership of the company.

What would you suggest as a successful co-op?

The only co-ops I've seen have been niche businesses, that were small, and employed few people.


----------



## Tehon

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Market socialism is a socialist model that is not defined by government control of capital.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The outcome would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.
Click to expand...

Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.


----------



## Tehon

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of socialism*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 
> 2 . a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the definition fo the word. It's pretty clear that, unless we're discussing anarchy, we're talking about government control.
> 
> If "market socialism" doesn't involve collective ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism, and advocates should find another name for it. But it does, so they don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A co-op is a collective ownership of the means of production. What's that got to do with government control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen, fake boy, if all you're talking is communes, or collectives, or employee owned companies - why call it socialism? Why scare people and make them think you're a commie?
> 
> Here's why: because you're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a commie, but that is besides the point. You only fear it because you don't understand it.
> 
> You proposed the definition and by your definition a co-op is socialist. If that definition doesn't suit your purpose then I would advise you to find another one.
> 
> I would also suggest you dig a little deeper into how the different social systems of production operate. Then maybe you can dispense with the bumper sticker talking points you've been trained to use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really have a problem with co-ops.... but generally co-ops are really only co-ops in name only.    The employees have no real ownership of the company.
> 
> What would you suggest as a successful co-op?
> 
> The only co-ops I've seen have been niche businesses, that were small, and employed few people.
Click to expand...

Mondragon Corporation is a successful co-op.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, people wait for socialism.  Whether that socialism is in New York, or in Venezuela, socialism sucks.  It never works.   You want to know how many times I have had to wait in a long line for Capitalist food?  Never.   It's never happened.  I go to the store, and there are 15 isles with more food than I could possibly eat before it rots.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all have enough money to buy capitalist food. Venezuela is a good example for this. The Supermarket Chains:
> 
> Government:
> Abasto Bicentenario
> Mercal (Charity Supermarket)
> 
> Private:
> Automercados Plaza's
> Central Madeirense
> Líder
> Makro
> Mikro
> San Diego
> De Candido
> Unicasa
> Excelsior Gama
> 
> Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that violent kids, should be allowed to abuse the public?  When I was a teenager, if I attacked a police officer, I would expect to get beaten, and rightly so.   And by the way, if I did that, after getting beaten and returned to my parents, my father would give me a beating too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if more police were stopping criminal youths in Venezuela, they wouldn't be the 2nd highest murder rate in the world.
> The Most Dangerous Cities in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of that statement, is that it is true.   Even the worst off people in our country, live better than most of the people in Venezuela.
> ​While I highly doubt anyone wakes up thinking how bad socialism is, it is still true that they would all be far worse off under socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See here:
> Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program
> About food delivery in Venezuela
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Do you see that the term Socialism doesn´t apply? Venezuela doesn´t run a Cuba or North Korea style Socialism.*
> 
> Amid Shortages, Venezuela Forces All Food Distribution into State Hands
> 
> What began as rumors of state meddling in the food-distribution market in Venezuela were finally confirmed on Monday. The Nicolás Maduro government is compelling the country’s food producers to send up to 100 percent of their output to state-owned distribution centers and stores, in an attempt to solve the nation’s shortage problems.​The shortages of food at private stores, is identical to the government run stores, because the government is imposing it's rule on both.   It is socialism.  Direct ownership is not required to impose socialism, as long as you have control.   If I dictate to you, every aspect of your life.... I may not own you on paper, but I certainly control you.
> 
> *There is simply nothing that hints to what you claim. Maybe one of the Kids stole a chewing gum or something.*
> 
> There was a general claim about violence against children.  If you are saying this is an isolated incident... then that isn't a systemic problem across the country.     Whereas the violence in Socialist Venezuela, most certainly is.  You can directly trace the rise and violence, to the policies that Chavez implemented.
> 
> If you are saying there is a general problem of police being violent against children, the only cases I know about, the children instigated the violence.
> 
> Nothing in that video shows what led up to that point.   I don't see anything wrong with what the officer was doing.   Innocent until proven guilty, is for all citizens, including citizens that become police officers.  You don't magically lose your constitutional rights when you get a badge.  When you can provide clear undeniable proof that officer just randomly starting beating a kid without reason or cause, then show it.   Even then, this isn't a national problem.  You have 3 videos out of 300+ million people.
> 
> Meanwhile, over 2 million people have fled Venezuela.   I don't see even a thousand people "fleeing" the US to get to Venezuela, but they are coming here.    So clearly the problem is there, not here.
> 
> *A big problem indeed. But that´s not socialism, unless Detroit and co are Socialist. It is about people outa control, an American phenomena that doesn´t exist to this extent in most other parts of the world.*
> 
> Well yes.    Socialism and Capitalism are not like light-switches.   It's not one or the other system.   Some places have more socialism than others.  In fact, even in the Soviet Union, it wasn't 100% socialism.   Fun fact:  only about 90% of all farms in the USSR were government owned.  10% were still privately run, and ironically 33% of all food produced in the USSR, came from those private farms.  (Thomas Sowell - Basic Economics)
> 
> So yes, in many ways I would suggest that Detroit was highly socialized.  From their pro-union policies, to their heavy regulation, to their pro-minority and entitlement policies.
> 
> Regardless.... you do actually have a point.   I did not suggest to you that all violence is inherently due to just socialism.  Do you see the difference?
> 
> All socialism tends towards violence.
> 
> That statement does not imply that all violence is due to socialism.
> 
> If you do not enforce the law, under any system, you will have violence.    Lack of law enforcement, results in violence.
> 
> But socialism inherently results in violence.
> 
> *About food delivery in Venezuela
> 
> For poor Venezuelans, a box of food may sway vote for Maduro - Reuters*
> 
> The government sources almost all the CLAP goods from abroad, especially from Mexico, since Venezuela’s food production has shriveled and currency controls restrict private imports.
> 
> Critics, including Maduro’s main challenger for the May 20 vote, Henri Falcon, say the CLAPs are a cynical form of political patronage and are rife with corruption.
> 
> Erratic supply and control of distribution by government-affiliated groups have sown resentment among others.
> 
> “I can’t count on it. Sometimes it comes, sometimes not,” said Viviana Colmenares, 24, an unemployed mother of six struggling to get by in Petare.
> 
> The administration of the CLAP - the Local Supply and Production Committees - does not hide its political motivation.
> 
> “It has helped us stop a social explosion and enabled us to win elections and to keep winning them,” he told Reuters, referring to government victories in 2017 local polls.​
> So let's review.   This is a direct attempt to buy votes from the public, which is working.   They can't even source the food from Venezuela, which prior to the socialist revolution, was a net-exporter of food.   Not only this, but this makes people even more dependent on Maduro, which is his whole goal.  He wants to keep people under his control with food, which is why he maintains the policies that has destroyed the food production in the country.
> 
> To top it off, the program is funneled through politically connected groups, and rife with corruption.
> 
> You know what this is?   It's a real life version of the hunger games, except people are dumb enough to support it.
> 
> *Venezuela marks 2,7 millionth flat built in gov´s social housing program*
> 
> In Venezuela’s housing projects, even loyalists have had enough
> 
> The Villa Poligono housing project, near the city of San Félix, in Venezuela’s south-eastern Bolívar state, is somewhere President Maduro might once have felt his popularity was secure.
> 
> But for the past few weeks few of its residents have been at home. Instead they can be found on the road outside, mounting a noisy protest. “We’ve had enough’, says Anna Karena, 44. “This has to end.”
> 
> She has multiple grievances. Shockingly, none of the breezeblock homes in the entire complex has ever had running water. When the residents were given their keys in 2014, they were told that the plumbing would soon be connected. It never was. More recently, electricity blackouts, lasting four hours at a time, have become routine, as a combination of drought and inefficiency has left the nation without enough generating capacity.
> 
> But what seems to have persuaded her and her neighbours to protest openly is the extreme scarcity of basics, such as rice, soap and medicines. Unable to afford the exorbitant prices of the rampant black market, Karena has to queue for hours, sometimes from before dawn, just to buy enough to eat.
> 
> Hers are the same allegations of government incompetence and corruption that are echoing across this nation. A crash in the global price of oil, by far Venezuela’s most significant export, has unmasked both its dysfunctional economy and a calamitous lack of foresight on the part of its leaders. It is grappling with the world’s deepest recession, the world’s highest inflation (estimated at around 500%), and the world’s second highest murder rate. It has no sovereign wealth fund and is facing the serious risk of default by November.
> 
> “They have been telling us for years it’s about to get better,” says Karena, *pointing to a field that the residents use as a public latrine*. “You want to know what happened to the money that they should have set aside for electricity and water?” says her neighbour, Yanileth. “They stole it.”​2.7 Million flats, and they are all garbage.  No running water, no ventilation, and many buildings do not even have electricity.   I was blown away by some pictures posted by Maduro supporters, trying to show off how great the apartment buildings were, not one had any lights on.   Turns out, they didn't have power, and thus they couldn't turn on the lights.
> 
> Nicolás Maduro's plan for Venezuela adds bewilderment to despair
> 
> The UN estimates that 2.3 million Venezuelans have fled since 2015 with Colombian authorities predicting 2 million more could follow by 2020. That would mean some 4.3 million people – 14% of Venezuela’s population – had taken flight.​
> Over 2 million people have fled the country, and more leaving every day.
> 
> If that food, and those houses were so great, why are literally millions of people leaving?    Do you see millions of people leaving the Capitalist based US, to get to Venezuela?  No you do not.  But they have free food and housing!
> 
> Socialism sucks.
> 
> I'm honestly a little baffled by some of the housing projects in Venezuela.  They build some of those million units, in areas that have no jobs.   So what exactly is the long term plan?   They stay in their apartments and die?
> Whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, your propaganda sources are really comprehensive. I guess this is why your days are all about Socialism. Truth is different though.
> 
> Paris priciest city, Caracas cheapest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really posted that?    You really posted that.....    Did you actually read your own link?  Bottom of the page *YOU* posted.....
> 
> “Put simply, cheaper cities also tend to be less livable,” EIU said.​The super cheap cities to live in, are super cheap because they suck.    Duh....   When you can buy an entire house for $1,000... like in Detroit.... it's because people are leaving Detroit.   No one wants those properties.... that's why they are cheap.
> 
> Are you an idiot?  I'm completely baffled by this... you posted a link proving your own position idiotic.
> 
> “As Damascus and Caracas show, a growing number of locations are becoming cheaper because of the impact of political or economic disruption,” EIU said.​Again, this is from YOUR link....  Caracas has overtaken Damascus as the cheapest city......   Damascus... you know.... Damascus Syria where the government has dropped barrel bombs on schools, and used chemical gas on it's own people, where they have been in civil war for 8 full years now......
> 
> Caracas is even LESS desirable than the capital city of a country in full blown civil war.
> 
> You don't see how hilariously stupid you look to everyone on this forum now?
> ​
Click to expand...

The meaning is that people there don´t have much money. Nobody denies this. Because of reasonable measures taken by the government, stuff is still affordable. Places that really suck, like some in Africa suffer from a lack of of countermeasures and there is no proper alternative for the small bottle of water for 2 Dollars.
Your logic is: The place sucks, this is why electricity ect is cheap. But actually, it is a good thing when stuff is cheap.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know what it is, you pompous prick.
> But apparently you don't. In any case, I haven't got time for your usual equivocation and evasion. You're not an honest debater. Take your shell game somewhere else.
> 
> 
> 
> You are just another voluntary ignorant *side-stepping the onslaught *of truth, sense, and logic heading your way.
Click to expand...


If it were only a matter of side-stepping it, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If socialists merely wanted to form collectives and communes - that would be great. But of course, they aren't satisfied with that and want to force their collectivism on everyone else.


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> ... socialists .....  want to force their collectivism on everyone else.


Who told you that?


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... socialists .....  want to force their collectivism on everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
Click to expand...


Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... socialists .....  want to force their collectivism on everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?
Click to expand...

Are you out of your mind? I am from Sweden. During the Cold War I have been to the Soviet Union. I have been to Poland. I have been to East Germany. I have been to Hungary. I have been to Romania. I have been to Czechoslovakia. I have been to the Ukraine. I  have been to Belarus. I have been to Yugoslavia. I have been to Albania. I have been to Latvia. I have been to Lithuania, I have been to Estonia. My wife is from Czechoslovakia. I guess your "Dick & Jane Easy Reader" didn't tell you that Socialism in this country, and that country, and the other country, and in the minds of the people who you've met, and in the minds of the people who I've met ........ are not the same. Why am I even trying to tell you anything? This is a waste of time.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... socialists .....  want to force their collectivism on everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you out of your mind? I am from Sweden. During the Cold War I have been to the Soviet Union. I have been to Poland. I have been to East Germany. I have been to Hungary. I have been to Romania. I have been to Czechoslovakia. I have been to the Ukraine. I  have been to Belarus. I have been to Yugoslavia. I have been to Albania. I have been to Latvia. I have been to Lithuania, I have been to Estonia. My wife is from Czechoslovakia. I guess your "Dick & Jane Easy Reader" didn't tell you that Socialism in this country, and that country, and the other country, and in the minds of the people who you've met, and in the minds of the people who I've met ........ are not the same. Why am I even trying to tell you anything? This is a waste of time.
Click to expand...


Are you trying to make a point here?


----------



## GLASNOST

dblack said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... socialists .....  want to force their collectivism on everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you out of your mind? I am from Sweden. During the Cold War I have been to the Soviet Union. I have been to Poland. I have been to East Germany. I have been to Hungary. I have been to Romania. I have been to Czechoslovakia. I have been to the Ukraine. I  have been to Belarus. I have been to Yugoslavia. I have been to Albania. I have been to Latvia. I have been to Lithuania, I have been to Estonia. My wife is from Czechoslovakia. I guess your "Dick & Jane Easy Reader" didn't tell you that Socialism in this country, and that country, and the other country, and in the minds of the people who you've met, and in the minds of the people who I've met ........ are not the same. Why am I even trying to tell you anything? This is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make a point here?
Click to expand...

I was, yes. But I've changed my mind. I am clicking the "ignore button" instead.


----------



## dblack

GLASNOST said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... socialists .....  want to force their collectivism on everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Socialists. Did someone try to convince you otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you out of your mind? I am from Sweden. During the Cold War I have been to the Soviet Union. I have been to Poland. I have been to East Germany. I have been to Hungary. I have been to Romania. I have been to Czechoslovakia. I have been to the Ukraine. I  have been to Belarus. I have been to Yugoslavia. I have been to Albania. I have been to Latvia. I have been to Lithuania, I have been to Estonia. My wife is from Czechoslovakia. I guess your "Dick & Jane Easy Reader" didn't tell you that Socialism in this country, and that country, and the other country, and in the minds of the people who you've met, and in the minds of the people who I've met ........ are not the same. Why am I even trying to tell you anything? This is a waste of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to make a point here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was, yes. But I've changed my mind. I am clicking the "ignore button" instead.
Click to expand...


Good for you. Whenever your core beliefs are challenged, it's best not to risk it. Turtle up!


----------



## Andylusion

Tehon said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You're going to quibble about 'control' vs 'regulate', but it's the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The outcome would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.
Click to expand...


But that simply isn't true.    You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.

If you control how "way in which you organize the factors of production" then that isn't how the market would have them.  That's socialism, and doesn't work.

That has a huge effect on production.

Let me give you a simple example:

I looked up the cost of building and starting up a restaurant, like any fast food place.   The startup costs were between $2 Million to $3.5 Million dollars.

Let us say for the sake of argument, that the cost to build and open a new store is $3 Million.

Now according to your own words, you said "factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately".

Under your system, why would I invest $3 Million into a store, that in the end, I don't own?    Well I would not.  Honestly, I could invest that $3 Million dollars in the stock market, and get a 10% return, for $300,000 a year in income, and that's doing nothing at all.   Don't have to deal with employees, or bills, or angry customers.    So I'll invest that money into stocks, before I build a store, that you take ownership of it away from me.

Now that does not mean that I don't build the store.  I will still build the store, just not in that country.  I'll find another country to invest my money into building a store.

What this is called in economic terms is "Capital flight"

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1954791.html

This is a perfect example:

Not only has money failed to come in, but Barclays Capital, an international investment bank, estimates companies have taken some $150 billion out of the country since currency exchange controls were instituted a decade ago. In part, they were supposed to prevent capital flight. An average of $20 billion a year has been sent abroad over the past five years.

In recent years Venezuelan companies have invested $920 million in the Dominican Republic, according to the Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center.

Although the Cisneros Group still has substantial holdings in Venezuela, it moved its operational headquarters to Coral Gables (Florida) in 2000.

A 2009 diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks, stated the principal owners of the company, the Cohen family, were “ready to negotiate, to give the government what it wants … but no one will talk to them,’” a lawyer who represents the family said, according to the cable.

The diplomat who wrote the cable added, “The Cohens were losing money because of the delay … and planned to concentrate new investment outside Venezuela.”​Now no doubt in the ultra short term, having "factors of production are organized socially" will reap results.  In the short term the cost of food went down in Venezuela.  In the short term, housing became affordable in Venezuela.   In the short term, things will improve.

But in the long term, controlling the 'factors of production' to be organized 'socially', will destroy the reason for investment.   The result is capital flight.

Multinational companies are dumping their Venezuela operations in fire-sale deals

Companies will sell off their operations, and reopen their operations in other countries.   The result will be massive job loss, production loss, and poverty and decline.

So to recap everything in the simplest terms.... 'market socialism' is just socialism.   And it does not work.


----------



## KissMy

Socialism cheaper than Wallstreet


----------



## Tehon

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even bother to look up what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The outcome would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that simply isn't true.    You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> If you control how "way in which you organize the factors of production" then that isn't how the market would have them.  That's socialism, and doesn't work.
> 
> That has a huge effect on production.
> 
> Let me give you a simple example:
> 
> I looked up the cost of building and starting up a restaurant, like any fast food place.   The startup costs were between $2 Million to $3.5 Million dollars.
> 
> Let us say for the sake of argument, that the cost to build and open a new store is $3 Million.
> 
> Now according to your own words, you said "factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately".
> 
> Under your system, why would I invest $3 Million into a store, that in the end, I don't own?    Well I would not.  Honestly, I could invest that $3 Million dollars in the stock market, and get a 10% return, for $300,000 a year in income, and that's doing nothing at all.   Don't have to deal with employees, or bills, or angry customers.    So I'll invest that money into stocks, before I build a store, that you take ownership of it away from me.
> 
> Now that does not mean that I don't build the store.  I will still build the store, just not in that country.  I'll find another country to invest my money into building a store.
> 
> What this is called in economic terms is "Capital flight"
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1954791.html
> 
> This is a perfect example:
> 
> Not only has money failed to come in, but Barclays Capital, an international investment bank, estimates companies have taken some $150 billion out of the country since currency exchange controls were instituted a decade ago. In part, they were supposed to prevent capital flight. An average of $20 billion a year has been sent abroad over the past five years.
> 
> In recent years Venezuelan companies have invested $920 million in the Dominican Republic, according to the Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center.
> 
> Although the Cisneros Group still has substantial holdings in Venezuela, it moved its operational headquarters to Coral Gables (Florida) in 2000.
> 
> A 2009 diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks, stated the principal owners of the company, the Cohen family, were “ready to negotiate, to give the government what it wants … but no one will talk to them,’” a lawyer who represents the family said, according to the cable.
> 
> The diplomat who wrote the cable added, “The Cohens were losing money because of the delay … and planned to concentrate new investment outside Venezuela.”​Now no doubt in the ultra short term, having "factors of production are organized socially" will reap results.  In the short term the cost of food went down in Venezuela.  In the short term, housing became affordable in Venezuela.   In the short term, things will improve.
> 
> But in the long term, controlling the 'factors of production' to be organized 'socially', will destroy the reason for investment.   The result is capital flight.
> 
> Multinational companies are dumping their Venezuela operations in fire-sale deals
> 
> Companies will sell off their operations, and reopen their operations in other countries.   The result will be massive job loss, production loss, and poverty and decline.
> 
> So to recap everything in the simplest terms.... 'market socialism' is just socialism.   And it does not work.
Click to expand...




Andylusion said:


> You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.


Yea, because they are.

The factors of production are land, labor and capital. Those inputs are organized to create an output which is then allocated via the market.


----------



## Andylusion

Tehon said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's just socialism.
> 
> Look... there is no "you control it, but I control it, but you do."
> 
> Either the government controls something, or the government does not control something.  This idea that you can have a non-government control, government control, is just the left-wing playing word games.
> 
> When you say "market socialism", if the outcome of "market socialism" is different from what the outcome would have been under just the "market"... then it isn't market.   It's just socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> The outcome would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that simply isn't true.    You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> If you control how "way in which you organize the factors of production" then that isn't how the market would have them.  That's socialism, and doesn't work.
> 
> That has a huge effect on production.
> 
> Let me give you a simple example:
> 
> I looked up the cost of building and starting up a restaurant, like any fast food place.   The startup costs were between $2 Million to $3.5 Million dollars.
> 
> Let us say for the sake of argument, that the cost to build and open a new store is $3 Million.
> 
> Now according to your own words, you said "factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately".
> 
> Under your system, why would I invest $3 Million into a store, that in the end, I don't own?    Well I would not.  Honestly, I could invest that $3 Million dollars in the stock market, and get a 10% return, for $300,000 a year in income, and that's doing nothing at all.   Don't have to deal with employees, or bills, or angry customers.    So I'll invest that money into stocks, before I build a store, that you take ownership of it away from me.
> 
> Now that does not mean that I don't build the store.  I will still build the store, just not in that country.  I'll find another country to invest my money into building a store.
> 
> What this is called in economic terms is "Capital flight"
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1954791.html
> 
> This is a perfect example:
> 
> Not only has money failed to come in, but Barclays Capital, an international investment bank, estimates companies have taken some $150 billion out of the country since currency exchange controls were instituted a decade ago. In part, they were supposed to prevent capital flight. An average of $20 billion a year has been sent abroad over the past five years.
> 
> In recent years Venezuelan companies have invested $920 million in the Dominican Republic, according to the Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center.
> 
> Although the Cisneros Group still has substantial holdings in Venezuela, it moved its operational headquarters to Coral Gables (Florida) in 2000.
> 
> A 2009 diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks, stated the principal owners of the company, the Cohen family, were “ready to negotiate, to give the government what it wants … but no one will talk to them,’” a lawyer who represents the family said, according to the cable.
> 
> The diplomat who wrote the cable added, “The Cohens were losing money because of the delay … and planned to concentrate new investment outside Venezuela.”​Now no doubt in the ultra short term, having "factors of production are organized socially" will reap results.  In the short term the cost of food went down in Venezuela.  In the short term, housing became affordable in Venezuela.   In the short term, things will improve.
> 
> But in the long term, controlling the 'factors of production' to be organized 'socially', will destroy the reason for investment.   The result is capital flight.
> 
> Multinational companies are dumping their Venezuela operations in fire-sale deals
> 
> Companies will sell off their operations, and reopen their operations in other countries.   The result will be massive job loss, production loss, and poverty and decline.
> 
> So to recap everything in the simplest terms.... 'market socialism' is just socialism.   And it does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, because they are.
> 
> The factors of production are land, labor and capital. Those inputs are organized to create an output which is then allocated via the market.
Click to expand...

Can you actually prove that, or respond to the real world example being played out in Venezuela?  OR no but you intend to keep saying your unsupportable statements?


----------



## Tehon

Andylusion said:


> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The outcome would be the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that simply isn't true.    You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> If you control how "way in which you organize the factors of production" then that isn't how the market would have them.  That's socialism, and doesn't work.
> 
> That has a huge effect on production.
> 
> Let me give you a simple example:
> 
> I looked up the cost of building and starting up a restaurant, like any fast food place.   The startup costs were between $2 Million to $3.5 Million dollars.
> 
> Let us say for the sake of argument, that the cost to build and open a new store is $3 Million.
> 
> Now according to your own words, you said "factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately".
> 
> Under your system, why would I invest $3 Million into a store, that in the end, I don't own?    Well I would not.  Honestly, I could invest that $3 Million dollars in the stock market, and get a 10% return, for $300,000 a year in income, and that's doing nothing at all.   Don't have to deal with employees, or bills, or angry customers.    So I'll invest that money into stocks, before I build a store, that you take ownership of it away from me.
> 
> Now that does not mean that I don't build the store.  I will still build the store, just not in that country.  I'll find another country to invest my money into building a store.
> 
> What this is called in economic terms is "Capital flight"
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1954791.html
> 
> This is a perfect example:
> 
> Not only has money failed to come in, but Barclays Capital, an international investment bank, estimates companies have taken some $150 billion out of the country since currency exchange controls were instituted a decade ago. In part, they were supposed to prevent capital flight. An average of $20 billion a year has been sent abroad over the past five years.
> 
> In recent years Venezuelan companies have invested $920 million in the Dominican Republic, according to the Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center.
> 
> Although the Cisneros Group still has substantial holdings in Venezuela, it moved its operational headquarters to Coral Gables (Florida) in 2000.
> 
> A 2009 diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks, stated the principal owners of the company, the Cohen family, were “ready to negotiate, to give the government what it wants … but no one will talk to them,’” a lawyer who represents the family said, according to the cable.
> 
> The diplomat who wrote the cable added, “The Cohens were losing money because of the delay … and planned to concentrate new investment outside Venezuela.”​Now no doubt in the ultra short term, having "factors of production are organized socially" will reap results.  In the short term the cost of food went down in Venezuela.  In the short term, housing became affordable in Venezuela.   In the short term, things will improve.
> 
> But in the long term, controlling the 'factors of production' to be organized 'socially', will destroy the reason for investment.   The result is capital flight.
> 
> Multinational companies are dumping their Venezuela operations in fire-sale deals
> 
> Companies will sell off their operations, and reopen their operations in other countries.   The result will be massive job loss, production loss, and poverty and decline.
> 
> So to recap everything in the simplest terms.... 'market socialism' is just socialism.   And it does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, because they are.
> 
> The factors of production are land, labor and capital. Those inputs are organized to create an output which is then allocated via the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you actually prove that, or respond to the real world example being played out in Venezuela?  OR no but you intend to keep saying your unsupportable statements?
Click to expand...

Definition of FACTOR
b: a good or service (such as land, labor, or capital) used in the process of production

Factors of Production | Economic Lowdown Podcasts | Education | St. Louis Fed
Factors of production are the resources people use to produce goods and services; they are the building blocks of the economy. Economists divide the factors of production into four categories: land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.


The market is not a factor in production. Its role is to inform the producers.
Land, labor and capital can be organized any number of ways, including socially. Co-ops exist, you know.


Venezuela is not a real world example of market socialism. So it deserves no response.


----------



## regent

America has always had socialism. There must be so many types that some may not even be aware they belong to a socialist organization,


----------



## Andylusion

Tehon said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tehon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the outcome would be the exact same.... then there is no socialism.   Free Market Capitalism, is just that.... free market capitalism.    There is no socialism involved.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.  It either is operating like a market, or it is not.  It can't be both.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you understand the basics of political economy? Factors of production are treated as independent of the market. Market socialism simply means that factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately. Regardless of the way in which you organize the factors of production, the products can still be sold in the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that simply isn't true.    You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> If you control how "way in which you organize the factors of production" then that isn't how the market would have them.  That's socialism, and doesn't work.
> 
> That has a huge effect on production.
> 
> Let me give you a simple example:
> 
> I looked up the cost of building and starting up a restaurant, like any fast food place.   The startup costs were between $2 Million to $3.5 Million dollars.
> 
> Let us say for the sake of argument, that the cost to build and open a new store is $3 Million.
> 
> Now according to your own words, you said "factors of production are organized socially as opposed to free market capitalism where the factors of production are owned and organized privately".
> 
> Under your system, why would I invest $3 Million into a store, that in the end, I don't own?    Well I would not.  Honestly, I could invest that $3 Million dollars in the stock market, and get a 10% return, for $300,000 a year in income, and that's doing nothing at all.   Don't have to deal with employees, or bills, or angry customers.    So I'll invest that money into stocks, before I build a store, that you take ownership of it away from me.
> 
> Now that does not mean that I don't build the store.  I will still build the store, just not in that country.  I'll find another country to invest my money into building a store.
> 
> What this is called in economic terms is "Capital flight"
> 
> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article1954791.html
> 
> This is a perfect example:
> 
> Not only has money failed to come in, but Barclays Capital, an international investment bank, estimates companies have taken some $150 billion out of the country since currency exchange controls were instituted a decade ago. In part, they were supposed to prevent capital flight. An average of $20 billion a year has been sent abroad over the past five years.
> 
> In recent years Venezuelan companies have invested $920 million in the Dominican Republic, according to the Dominican Republic Export and Investment Center.
> 
> Although the Cisneros Group still has substantial holdings in Venezuela, it moved its operational headquarters to Coral Gables (Florida) in 2000.
> 
> A 2009 diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks, stated the principal owners of the company, the Cohen family, were “ready to negotiate, to give the government what it wants … but no one will talk to them,’” a lawyer who represents the family said, according to the cable.
> 
> The diplomat who wrote the cable added, “The Cohens were losing money because of the delay … and planned to concentrate new investment outside Venezuela.”​Now no doubt in the ultra short term, having "factors of production are organized socially" will reap results.  In the short term the cost of food went down in Venezuela.  In the short term, housing became affordable in Venezuela.   In the short term, things will improve.
> 
> But in the long term, controlling the 'factors of production' to be organized 'socially', will destroy the reason for investment.   The result is capital flight.
> 
> Multinational companies are dumping their Venezuela operations in fire-sale deals
> 
> Companies will sell off their operations, and reopen their operations in other countries.   The result will be massive job loss, production loss, and poverty and decline.
> 
> So to recap everything in the simplest terms.... 'market socialism' is just socialism.   And it does not work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are acting like the factors of production, are separate from the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea, because they are.
> 
> The factors of production are land, labor and capital. Those inputs are organized to create an output which is then allocated via the market.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you actually prove that, or respond to the real world example being played out in Venezuela?  OR no but you intend to keep saying your unsupportable statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Definition of FACTOR
> b: a good or service (such as land, labor, or capital) used in the process of production
> 
> Factors of Production | Economic Lowdown Podcasts | Education | St. Louis Fed
> Factors of production are the resources people use to produce goods and services; they are the building blocks of the economy. Economists divide the factors of production into four categories: land, labor, capital, and entrepreneurship.
> 
> 
> The market is not a factor in production. Its role is to inform the producers.
> Land, labor and capital can be organized any number of ways, including socially. Co-ops exist, you know.
> 
> 
> Venezuela is not a real world example of market socialism. So it deserves no response.
Click to expand...


It's amazing how every self-proclaimed example of socialism, is magically not.... and how every self-proclaimed example of capitalism, is magically socialism.

Ok.   Do tell... where do you have an example of market socialism?  

Yes, co-ops exist, and generally either are insignificant in the economy, or they cease to exist, or they are only co-op in name, and otherwise are just traditional capitalist based companies, with a mask on them to keep left-wingers from screaming about them.


----------



## San Souci

beagle9 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot the all of above button..
> 
> We've always had socialism light, but due to what has happened over the long years leading back to the 60's and the Vietnam war, it has created years of generation's who are totally rebellious young folks that are easily courted by the powers to be, that want to be, and have been over the years.
> 
> Breaking the cycle is a very tough thing as we are seeing in the Trump presidency that has taken the task head on.
> 
> Anyone who is focused on fixing the problems of this nation, will be met with some serious backlash. Just ask Trump these days.
Click to expand...

Also a crooked ,bought and paid for Media.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Socialism is like that 28% interest credit card you took out. Come on, you never intended to PAY for it...


----------



## regent

I think the arguments put forth against socialism were better in 1935 when conservatives were fighting Social Security. At that time it led directly to Communism and all sorts of evils. America has always had  socialist programs, but the people made the decision not Wall Street.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?



FREESTUFF !!!! The reversal of science or evolution so that the least fit survive just like the  most fit do thus dooming humanity.


----------



## justinacolmena

regent said:


> I think the arguments put forth against socialism were better in 1935 when conservatives were fighting Social Security. At that time it led directly to Communism and all sorts of evils. America has always had  socialist programs, but the people made the decision not Wall Street.


The Social Security _Number_ and its use for a whole array of auxiliary government intelligence, surveillance and population control purposes "not originally intended" is a big part of the problem.

Add to that the way the Social Security Administration digs into each and every paycheck of every worker, even more intrusively than the IRS.

Then they put people away or institutionalize them at law for alleged "mental health" reasons, put them out on disability, make an horrifically anti-Constitutional gun grab.

Try to go work anywhere on benefits, the employer does an extended background check, finds out you're fucking mental and shit, and fires you before the end of your probationary period at your new job, because they can't hire anybody mental for a position of responsibility due to government regulations, business licensure, bonding, and corporate liability.

Meanwhile the SSA kicks you off the benefits, because they maintain that you can work, but you were fired due to your misconduct rather than because of your alleged mental health history, (which they illegally looked up at the corporate level along with your other medical records,) was deemed to be a corporate risk management problem, and the boss was ordered to find an excuse to dump you before the end of your probationary period of employment as a new hire, and you're supposed to consider yourself lucky it wasn't a sexual harassment lawsuit or some similar claim of that general nature.


----------



## San Souci

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FREESTUFF !!!! The reversal of science or evolution so that the least fit survive just like the  most fit do thus dooming humanity.
Click to expand...

Good point. If one can vote themselves free stuff ,freeloaders will always take advantage. That is why there is a Democrat Party.


----------



## justinacolmena

San Souci said:


> Good point. If one can vote themselves free stuff


Nothing is free at the ballot box in the registered sex offender district.


San Souci said:


> freeloaders will always take advantage.


Well if you're in any kind of business or commerce, you have to sell at a higher price that what you're paying for the goods. Money doesn't grow on trees, but apples do.


San Souci said:


> That is why there is a Democrat Party.


The Democratic Party is nothing but an atheist haircut at work on the job and a religious haircut on the church pew on Sunday.

The Democratic sermon doesn't cut it.


----------



## Flopper

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


Right now Covid 19 might well be the answer for a lot of people who are sitting at home and wondering how they're going feed the family next week


----------



## justinacolmena

A lot of shooting going on, I think it's target practice at the Air Force Base next door.

COVID-19?

I'm wondering it it's some advanced auxiliary supervisory video system for the latest generation of military aircraft.

Sort of like the chi-mo black box videos on the school buses, or the city cops' bodycams, to audit official misconduct, but this would be so highly classified, only Commissioned Officers would have clearance to access, and then you need to have other people commissioned from some other government agency in charge of the disciplinary proceedings.


----------



## San Souci

justinacolmena said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. If one can vote themselves free stuff
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is free at the ballot box in the registered sex offender district.
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> freeloaders will always take advantage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're in any kind of business or commerce, you have to sell at a higher price that what you're paying for the goods. Money doesn't grow on trees, but apples do.
> 
> 
> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why there is a Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Democratic Party is nothing but an atheist haircut at work on the job and a religious haircut on the church pew on Sunday.
> 
> The Democratic sermon doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Apples grow on trees. But freeloading Welfare moms would want working folks to pick 'em and deliver 'em. It is called Free Lunch Program.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

San Souci said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FREESTUFF !!!! The reversal of science or evolution so that the least fit survive just like the  most fit do thus dooming humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point. If one can vote themselves free stuff ,freeloaders will always take advantage. That is why there is a Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

yes, sadly freeloaders will always take advantage of liberal free stuff but even more sadly liberalism encourages more and more people to become free loaders by diminishing the value of work. This is how Stalin and Mao  slowly starved 115 million to death


----------



## San Souci

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> San Souci said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FREESTUFF !!!! The reversal of science or evolution so that the least fit survive just like the  most fit do thus dooming humanity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point. If one can vote themselves free stuff ,freeloaders will always take advantage. That is why there is a Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes, sadly freeloaders will always take advantage of liberal free stuff but even more sadly liberalism encourages more and more people to become free loaders by diminishing the value of work. This is how Stalin and Mao  slowly starved 115 million to death
Click to expand...

Yes. Spending other peoples money is the Socialist way. Democrats are good at it.


----------



## LuckyDuck

Bleipriester said:


> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.


Billionaires....How did they become billionaires (and millionaires for that matter)?  People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Ford, et cetera, all were and are "idea-men" that had ambition, some capital and went to the banks and investors to get loans for what investors agreed were good ideas based upon their products pitched.  Having secured the loans, and started their businesses, they hired people to make and sell their products so that they could repay the banks and lenders and make a profit.
The billionaires take all the financial risk (i.e., purchase of property and materials, building permits, business licenses, property taxes, insurance on the property, as well as having insurance to cover any damages to any of the public, or workers injuries, utility costs, et cetera, et cetera). 
Also, it requires the average consumer to be interested enough in their products to spend their money for the products.  No one has a gun pointed to their heads, demanding they buy the billionaires products. 
Without those billionaires and millionaires, there would be no innovation, no civilization advancement.   We'd all just be stuck back in the Middle Ages.
As for any wages, since the owner/creator came up with the product and must be burdened with the overall risk, the average worker is just an individual who puts a piece in part of the product, or stands behind a counter and gives the product to the buyer after being paid by that consumer.  He/she is not responsible for any of the risk, only doing his/her small part in the overall picture.  Thus, he/she isn't entitled to any more than he or she is being paid.
People who complain about millionaires and billionaires being just that, are simply....."jealous."
"Oh look, that person has three homes, four cars, a plane and a yacht....how terrible, because I can't have those things."
Under Marxism/Leninism, only the absolute head of the politburo has the best of anything.  All others, are poor.


----------



## Bleipriester

LuckyDuck said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> My hands are too precious to waste them working for the billionaires as no results can be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> Billionaires....How did they become billionaires (and millionaires for that matter)?  People like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Ford, et cetera, all were and are "idea-men" that had ambition, some capital and went to the banks and investors to get loans for what investors agreed were good ideas based upon their products pitched.  Having secured the loans, and started their businesses, they hired people to make and sell their products so that they could repay the banks and lenders and make a profit.
> The billionaires take all the financial risk (i.e., purchase of property and materials, building permits, business licenses, property taxes, insurance on the property, as well as having insurance to cover any damages to any of the public, or workers injuries, utility costs, et cetera, et cetera).
> Also, it requires the average consumer to be interested enough in their products to spend their money for the products.  No one has a gun pointed to their heads, demanding they buy the billionaires products.
> Without those billionaires and millionaires, there would be no innovation, no civilization advancement.   We'd all just be stuck back in the Middle Ages.
> As for any wages, since the owner/creator came up with the product and must be burdened with the overall risk, the average worker is just an individual who puts a piece in part of the product, or stands behind a counter and gives the product to the buyer after being paid by that consumer.  He/she is not responsible for any of the risk, only doing his/her small part in the overall picture.  Thus, he/she isn't entitled to any more than he or she is being paid.
> People who complain about millionaires and billionaires being just that, are simply....."jealous."
> "Oh look, that person has three homes, four cars, a plane and a yacht....how terrible, because I can't have those things."
> Under Marxism/Leninism, only the absolute head of the politburo has the best of anything.  All others, are poor.
Click to expand...

You can cite a few examples of self made billionaires and I don´t criticize them.
The majority of the fat cats, however, became rich by betting on your company´s demise. Not without setting your office ablaze, of course.
They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it. They are blood suckers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> The majority of the fat cats, however, became rich by betting on your company´s demise.



goofy liberal liar. If you have evidence of that I will pay you $10,000. Bet


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it. They are blood suckers.



pure 100% liberal ignorance. Nobody hoards money in their mattress, they invest it, to earn more,  through banks etc that makes loans for homes car educations businesses etc. Do you understand?


----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it. They are blood suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pure 100% liberal ignorance. Nobody hoards money in their mattress, they invest it, to earn more,  through banks etc that makes loans for homes car educations businesses etc. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

They will cause more crises with their speculations. Then you will head to the welfare office again together with millions of others. 









						Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it. They are blood suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pure 100% liberal ignorance. Nobody hoards money in their mattress, they invest it, to earn more,  through banks etc that makes loans for homes car educations businesses etc. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will cause more crises with their speculations. Then you will head to the welfare office again together with millions of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Actually, we can all post 1000's of links proving we are right thanks to Google but can you personally defend anything you wrote?? What does that teach you about liberalism? See why we say it is based in pure ignorance?


----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it. They are blood suckers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pure 100% liberal ignorance. Nobody hoards money in their mattress, they invest it, to earn more,  through banks etc that makes loans for homes car educations businesses etc. Do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They will cause more crises with their speculations. Then you will head to the welfare office again together with millions of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Financial crisis of 2007–2008 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we can all post 1000's of links proving we are right thanks to Google but can you personally defend anything you wrote?? What does that teach you about liberalism? See why we say it is based in pure ignorance?
Click to expand...

No. Look, I am talking about the economy. How fat fucks mess it up. And all you do is doing some random attacks against mysterious "liberals" as response.


----------



## emilynghiem

alang1216 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
Click to expand...

Dear andaronjim If you can imagine the difference between choosing how you want to run a Christian organization yourself vs. voting a Christian program into national policy mandatory for all citizens to fund with their taxes (while Congress votes on how to run the actual program instead of you having that choice), that's the difference between retaining your own rights to exercise your Socialist beliefs or Social programs through your own member run organization vs. giving up that right by granting authority to central Govt to mandate Social policies for all citizens nationally across all 50 states.


----------



## Regent23

We only have to look at the damage Social Security has done to this nation to realize how  right the conservatives were, that warned us that we were on the road to communism with that program. Why didn't we listen?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

emilynghiem said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> Which Constitutional Rights would I have to give up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dear andaronjim If you can imagine the difference between choosing how you want to run a Christian organization yourself vs. voting a Christian program into national policy mandatory for all citizens to fund with their taxes (while Congress votes on how to run the actual program instead of you having that choice), that's the difference between retaining your own rights to exercise your Socialist beliefs or Social programs through your own member run organization vs. giving up that right by granting authority to central Govt to mandate Social policies for all citizens nationally across all 50 states.
Click to expand...

Well if i want to have a CHOICE to give to a Christian organization or not, isnt that was CHOICE is. But to have a worthless bloated government TAKE , or else i have my wages garnished or thrown in jail, so some liberal fuck can have what he never fucking earned, just kinda rubs me wrong.  I never voted for any worthless Demoncrap to enact a Ponzi Scheme upon the United States, but have found ways not to pay into the system like the uber rich do, because i use their technics of tax loopholes, while i can still bring in more wealth than you make in 10 years.  If tax loopholes are wrong, why are they still legal?  Because Nancy Pelosi and her uber rich liberals , will never go with a flat tax, because they will have to pay more...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> How fat fucks mess it up.



how do they mess it up????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Regent23 said:


> We only have to look at the damage Social Security has done to this nation to realize how  right the conservatives were, that warned us that we were on the road to communism with that program. Why didn't we listen?



Why? Because people will always vote for free money taken from other people!! Now its free health care and education, and onward from there. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it.


 You think rich people hoard their money in their mattresses or invest it???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> The majority of the fat cats, however, became rich by betting on your company´s demise.



name the best example of this or admit you are BSing


----------



## justinacolmena

andaronjim said:


> Well if i want to have a CHOICE to give to a Christian organization or not, isnt that was CHOICE is.


Way to get pregnant on an internet forum!


----------



## LuckyDuck

Regent23 said:


> We only have to look at the damage Social Security has done to this nation to realize how  right the conservatives were, that warned us that we were on the road to communism with that program. Why didn't we listen?


Here's the issue with Social Security.  President Theodore Roosevelt, a progressive republican, first proposed it and it was shot down by his conservative republicans.  President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law in 1935.  The problem came when people started drawing into it too early.  The second problem came when, despite the fact that Social Security had its own Trust Fund, the federal government began siphoning from it for other projects, which they shouldn't have.  Over time they just siphoned away the Trust Fund.  Both are the blame of the government wanting more and more money for the growing government and its projects.
The fault doesn't fall on the people.  The idea is sound.  No one wants to see the elderly lying out in the streets, hungry and cold.  To think otherwise is cruel and those people should be ashamed.  How we treat the most vulnerable of our society, reflects on a nation.  So how our government treats its youngest and oldest citizens, to me, reflects on how proud a nation can be.
There are elements, no doubt yourself, that think that people should just put their earnings in the bank and save and invest in stocks and bonds. Well, the crash of 1929 and subsequent stocks and bonds reversals show the failing in that system. Most people can't save much by putting their money in the bank, because most people live paycheck to paycheck. Groceries, rent, utilities and your day to day life, adds up and costs are always rising, especially rent costs. There are people who work in silicone valley, but can't live there. They ride and sleep on buses.


----------



## DOTR




----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> How fat fucks mess it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do they mess it up????
Click to expand...

Moron-proof explanation:
1. Fat-Cat sent you home and relocated your job to overseas.
2. Fat-Cat sends you war with China to get it back.
3. Fat-Cat is hero, you are dead.


----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do fraudulent business all over and hoard the money instead of spending it.
> 
> 
> 
> You think rich people hoard their money in their mattresses or invest it???
Click to expand...

Yes, they hoard it. They don´t invest. Fonds invest, with others people money. They hoard it until they die.


----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of the fat cats, however, became rich by betting on your company´s demise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> name the best example of this or admit you are BSing
Click to expand...

Trump even wrote a book how to do it. Your hero is cashing in on your demise.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

LuckyDuck said:


> Most people can't save much by putting their money in the bank,



We could have a law that 15% be saved automatically. That way most Americans could retire as millionaires instead of on the dog food money they get from SS if they live long enough to collect a penny. Do you understand?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> Yes, they hoard it. They don´t invest



If you have evidence of this I will pay you $10,000. Bet? or admit to lying once again.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> Trump even wrote a book how to do it.



He did?? If this is true I will pay you $10,000. Bet????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> Moron-proof explanation:
> 1. Fat-Cat sent you home and relocated your job to overseas.



 then why was unemployment only 3% before covid19??????????????? It pays to think before you post.


----------



## LuckyDuck

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people can't save much by putting their money in the bank,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We could have a law that 15% be saved automatically. That way most Americans could retire as millionaires instead of on the dog food money they get from SS if they live long enough to collect a penny. Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron-proof explanation:
> 1. Fat-Cat sent you home and relocated your job to overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then why was unemployment only 3% before covid19??????????????? It pays to think before you post.
Click to expand...

I get 20.000. You owe me 20.000 USD.

You depend completely on China´s good will, like we do.
Imagine all the stuff China can block. It can cause an economic collapse.

"China’s manufacturing industry has experienced tremendous growth in the past century, with the country rising from being a small-scale player in global manufacturing to become the largest manufacturer in 2010, surpassing the United States which had held that distinction for over a century. As a testament to the booming industry in the country, China used more cement in three years between 2011 and 2013 than the US’s cumulative consumption in the entire 20th century. The total manufacturing output in China is equivalent to 19.8% of the total global production."









						The Biggest Industries In China
					

In China, 46.8% of the country's GDP is contributed by the industrial sector.




					www.worldatlas.com


----------



## anynameyouwish

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?




I don't want socialism the way YOU think of it;  I'm firmly opposed to totalitarian communist countries.

But I DO believe that in order for America to remain GREAT and continue to be GREAT into the future we need to invest in education. REALLY GOOD and AFFORDABLE education is a prerequisite!

I'd also like an AFFORDABLE health care system available to low income people

I'd prefer that ANYONE working a full time job be paid a decent/livable/above poverty wage

Seems to me that the MORE people who can spend on new products, new housing, old housing, dining out, going to the movies, etc would be GREAT for the economy and the country.

so THAT is how much of a socialist I am.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

anynameyouwish said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want socialism the way YOU think of it;  I'm firmly opposed to totalitarian communist countries.
> 
> But I DO believe that in order for America to remain GREAT and continue to be GREAT into the future we need to invest in education. REALLY GOOD and AFFORDABLE education is a prerequisite!
> 
> I'd also like an AFFORDABLE health care system available to low income people
> 
> I'd prefer that ANYONE working a full time job be paid a decent/livable/above poverty wage
> 
> Seems to me that the MORE people who can spend on new products, new housing, old housing, dining out, going to the movies, etc would be GREAT for the economy and the country.
> 
> so THAT is how much of a socialist I am.
Click to expand...

This country invests the most into any public education system, yet we see failing schools all over, do you know why?  Because those schools are like little Socialist communes, where the higher ups get most of the money then dictate down to the teachers what they will indoctrinate their kids with, all which those orders come from the Democrat Party.  Why are the Demoncraps so hell bent to keep black kids in public education, while those liberal elites send their kids to uber rich private schools?  Because we all know that Demoncraps are stupid people, they dont want any colored person's kids to be smarter than theirs.  When you understand this, you then realize why we have failing public education.









						The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: 7 Ways the Ruling Elite Are Making Us Dumber
					

To prevent the masses from waking up and revolting against their agenda of global control, the ruling elite are systematically working to make Americans dumber.




					wakeup-world.com


----------



## Regent23

progressive hunter said:


> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
Click to expand...

And yet America has both, and has had both, since the Revolution.


----------



## progressive hunter

Regent23 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet America has both, and has had both, since the Revolution.
Click to expand...

NOPE!!!
we have a constitution,,,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

LuckyDuck said:


> Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck.



So what?????????  15% gets deducted whether you live paycheck to paycheck or not!!! Do you understand??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> Seems to me that the MORE people who can spend on new products, new housing, old housing, dining out, going to the movies, etc would be GREAT for the economy and the country.


1) if true we could print money and give it to people to buy stuff


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

anynameyouwish said:


> REALLY GOOD and AFFORDABLE education is a prerequisite!
> I'd also like an AFFORDABLE health care system available to low income people



really really dumb govt  already provides mostly free health care and mostly free education, and spends far more than any other country for very very bad results. Govt socialism is a bureaucratic monopoly so is low low quality.  Do you understand now??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Bleipriester said:


> The total manufacturing output in China is equivalent to 19.8% of the total global production."


Imagine what our share of world manufacturing would be if Trump could have his way??? 

Manufacturing constitutes 27 percent of China’s overall national output, which accounts for 20 percent of the world’s manufacturing output. In the United States, it represents 12 percent of the nation’s output and 18 percent of the world’s capacity. In Japan, manufacturing is 19 percent of the country’s national output and 10 percent of the world total.


----------



## Indeependent

andaronjim said:


> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?


You just made Socialism sound reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal good!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Indeependent said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Socialism what is so attractive about it, that you would give up your Constitutional Rights to have in implemented?
> 
> 
> 
> You just made Socialism sound reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal good!
Click to expand...

How did he do that??????????????Do you have any idea. Again, independent of any ability to think.


----------



## Bleipriester

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The total manufacturing output in China is equivalent to 19.8% of the total global production."
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine what our share of world manufacturing would be if Trump could have his way???
> 
> Manufacturing constitutes 27 percent of China’s overall national output, which accounts for 20 percent of the world’s manufacturing output. In the United States, it represents 12 percent of the nation’s output and 18 percent of the world’s capacity. In Japan, manufacturing is 19 percent of the country’s national output and 10 percent of the world total.
Click to expand...

Trump has made a new trade deal with Mexico that imposes zero tariffs on US car imports. Do you think this will make US car companies produce in the US?


----------



## Indeependent

Bleipriester said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> The total manufacturing output in China is equivalent to 19.8% of the total global production."
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine what our share of world manufacturing would be if Trump could have his way???
> 
> Manufacturing constitutes 27 percent of China’s overall national output, which accounts for 20 percent of the world’s manufacturing output. In the United States, it represents 12 percent of the nation’s output and 18 percent of the world’s capacity. In Japan, manufacturing is 19 percent of the country’s national output and 10 percent of the world total.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has made a new trade deal with Mexico that imposes zero tariffs on US car imports. Do you think this will make US car companies produce in the US?
Click to expand...

The new trade deal is a one page, one line document?
Wow!


----------



## Regent23

progressive hunter said:


> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet America has both, and has had both, since the Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOPE!!!
> we have a constitution,,,
Click to expand...

Yes we do and we have socialism, and the Court approved.


----------



## progressive hunter

Regent23 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet America has both, and has had both, since the Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOPE!!!
> we have a constitution,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we do and we have socialism, and the Court approved.
Click to expand...

we do have some socialist programs but we are not a socialist country,,,


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte

Regent23 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regent23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GLASNOST said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... democrat socialism is still socialism,,,
> 
> 
> 
> That's true to a point. I guess you can say that it is the degree of democracy and the degree of socialism that separates them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and america is a republic that rejected both democracy and socialism,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet America has both, and has had both, since the Revolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOPE!!!
> we have a constitution,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes we do and we have socialism, and the Court approved.
Click to expand...

Why would they approve of socialism when it just killed 120 million innocent human beings?


----------

