# This is what left-wing policy results in



## P@triot

They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.

Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'


How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'



I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Socialism will work this time.....roflmao. Dopes


----------



## Rexx Taylor

SassyIrishLass said:


> Socialism will work this time.....roflmao. Dopes


what about mary wanna brownies?


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!


It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.

We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
Click to expand...


Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.

I wonder where that post is from some guy on here who claimed that no such racists existed on USMB?


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be *allowed* to racially discriminate.


Thing of the idiocy and the arrogance of that comment. "Allowed"? Excuse me? Who the fuck are you to "allow" me to do _anything_?

Do you grasp the concept of *liberty*? People in the U.S. are *free* to hate _anything_ or _anyone_ that they want to hate. While the government cannot discriminate, a private citizen on private property can.

You are such a brainwahed little puppy that you actually believe we all belong to the state. That there is no private citizenry.


----------



## Mr.Blonde

NYcarbineer said:


> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.



Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate

Should  private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?

I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'


some on the left claim it is just, lousy social management.

Command economies should be able to command economize their way into prosperity.

A "Corp of Agricultural Engineers" should be able to provide, "ways and means" for better production.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> some on the left claim it is just, lousy social management.


Indeed they do. It's much like when Barack Obama and the Democrats swore that if we passed the "stimulus" unemployment would never reach 8% and when it actually surpassed 10% they said "well we just didn't spend enough". Which is why this cartoon is spot on. No matter how far the left goes and sees catastrophic failure, their response is always that they just didn't go left enough...


----------



## P@triot

I know that most left-wingers can't concentrate on anything for more than 30 seconds unless it is gay porn, but I implore you left-wingers to take 10 minutes out of your life and learn something. If the concepts presented here are too complex - ask an adult for help.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> some on the left claim it is just, lousy social management.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they do. It's much like when Barack Obama and the Democrats swore that if we passed the "stimulus" unemployment would never reach 8% and when it actually surpassed 10% they said "well we just didn't spend enough". Which is why this cartoon is spot on. No matter how far the left goes and sees catastrophic failure, their response is always that they just didn't go left enough...
> 
> View attachment 117358
Click to expand...

We had a socialized, Manhattan Project for fission via command economics.


----------



## Andylusion

IcebergSlim said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?
Click to expand...


Well since there is no flour from our benevolent government, none, or for anything else for that matter.   My workers Utopia is a bread line.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We had a socialized, Manhattan Project for fission via command economics.


No. No we didn't. Government handling their constitutional responsibilities is *not* "command economy". Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.


----------



## Andylusion

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> I wonder where that post is from some guy on here who claimed that no such racists existed on USMB?
Click to expand...


Ah see, one more left-winger authoritarian who believes American should dictate how everyone in the entire country lives.


----------



## P@triot

IcebergSlim said:


> How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?


What kind of "logic" is _that_? So the Nazi concentration camps didn't exist since there were some people who were never thrown into them?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

SYTFE said:


> Looks like H@triot is on one of his weird Saturday morning Hatescapades.  Today he's posting about Venezuela or some shit.  What non-point is he trying to make?  No one knows.


If you don't get the point you're the idiot lefty he's talking about. Tell us how good that socialism shit is working down in Chavez country.


----------



## bodecea

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
Click to expand...

I see how this is....


----------



## NYcarbineer

Mr.Blonde said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate
> 
> Should  private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?
> 
> I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.
Click to expand...


So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?


Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support *liberty* (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).


----------



## NYcarbineer

P@triot said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support *liberty* (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).
Click to expand...


They do?  So the long history of slavery in America needs to have it pointed out that Africans volunteered to be slaves?

lol, You. Fucking. Retard.


----------



## P@triot

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support *liberty* (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do?  So the long history of slavery in America needs to have it pointed out that Africans volunteered to be slaves?
Click to expand...

There was no "long history" of slavery in America, you freaking nitwit. It last _less_ than 100 years. Not thousands of years. Not even a hundred years. Less than a hundred. It was British tradition/culture and America corrected it.

Any other stupid things you'd like to say?


----------



## Andylusion

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> Each individual gets to decide for themselves whether or not they are used as slaves, dumb-ass. That's why we support *liberty* (and why you support the marxist/socialist states....because like all Dumbocrats, you want to see the return of slavery).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do?  So the long history of slavery in America needs to have it pointed out that Africans volunteered to be slaves?
> 
> lol, You. Fucking. Retard.
Click to expand...


Even if slavery existing in the US for its entire existence, that would be at most 240 years.

Slavery has existed for at least 6,000 years.   And by the way, there are parts of the world where slavery still exists.  Maybe not 'official' but it still is practiced routinely.

Second, slavery in the US ended in 1865, and the country was created in 1776.  That means that only 90 years of the 240 years we've existed, did we have slavery.   It wasn't a long history.

You are just ignorant, or a liar on that.


----------



## IcebergSlim

Andylusion said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since there is no flour from our benevolent government, none, or for anything else for that matter.   My workers Utopia is a bread line.
Click to expand...

For gay wedding cake?


----------



## IcebergSlim

P@triot said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of "logic" is _that_? So the Nazi concentration camps didn't exist since there were some people who were never thrown into them?
Click to expand...

Certainly not nearly as impervious to challenge as a "death camp" analogy....


Touche!


----------



## Nosmo King

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'


Let's review.  Venezuela imposed wage and price controls to stem inflation.  Those policies are not working.  Should the Venezuelan government adopt new economic policies now?  Absolutely.  There's no sin in having an open mind, and there's no virtue in doubling down due to partisan ideologies.

But your homophobic bakers in America under the heavy hand of government and the sweet bread and brownie makers in Venezuela doesn't line up.  The Venezuelan food shortage presents a challenge to society much the same as war does.  America rationed food in WW II to face the crisis of that war.  A state that is concerned about its citizens hunger takes steps to be assured that bread, at least, can be available is a worthy state.

But there isn't a food shortage in America.  The state isn't mandating a menu, a list of special services they provide to the public.  The state is protecting the rights of its citizens in public businesses.  These bakers provide wedding vendor service to the America public.  Gay customers are looking for the same high level of service that brought them to this vendor in the first place.

There is no piety in twisting Scripture to serve an unholy purpose.  Neither is there nobility in twisting the law to serve a religion.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

NYcarbineer said:


> Mr.Blonde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate
> 
> Should  private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?
> 
> I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously equating slavery with making a gay wedding cake? If you were then being forced to make that cake is actual slavery.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> The state is protecting the rights of its citizens in public businesses.


No citizen has a right to someone else's labor. We ended slavery in the 1860's. I know that bothers you hatriots who subsequently created the KKK and have been working day and night to find various ways to restore slavery. But at the end of the day - it doesn't change the fact that *nobody* has a constitutional right to someone else's labor.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> These bakers provide wedding vendor service to the America public.  Gay customers are looking for the same high level of service that brought them to this vendor in the first place.


And the wedding vendors are looking for all of their *rights* *guaranteed* to them by the U.S. Constitution to not only practice their religion, but also to not be forced into providing their labor or entering into commerce against their will.

Those rights trump whatever "high level of service" a homosexual is looking for. Would you like to try again?


----------



## Nosmo King

P@triot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state is protecting the rights of its citizens in public businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> No citizen has a right to someone else's labor. We ended slavery in the 1860's. I know that bothers you hatriots who subsequently created the KKK and have been working day and night to find various ways to restore slavery. But at the end of the day - it doesn't change the fact that *nobody* has a constitutional right to someone else's labor.
Click to expand...

Are Homosexual couples going into wedding vendors with nets and cages?  Are they kidnapping scores of bakers and florists, taking them to their Gay Plantations and whipping these poor people until they do I see what they chose to do for a living anyway?

Hyperbole is a poor foundations n for an argument.   Calling something slavery when it clearly isn't disrespects the victims of slavery and makes your next statement carry the tinge of ridicule.


----------



## Nosmo King

P@triot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> These bakers provide wedding vendor service to the America public.  Gay customers are looking for the same high level of service that brought them to this vendor in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> And the wedding vendors are looking for all of their *rights* *guaranteed* to them by the U.S. Constitution to not only practice their religion, but also to not be forced into providing their labor or entering into commerce against their will.
> 
> Those rights trump whatever "high level of service" a homosexual is looking for. Would you like to try again?
Click to expand...

Actually, the constitution says it will not favor, or establish a religion.  Seeking cover by religious objections is a weak way to practice a strong faith.  Using religion as a standard for our social comportment is so,thing fundamentalist nations do.  

Homosexuals are not breaking the law by merely being homosexual.  Why would you have a law abiding citizen regarded as less than you?  Where is that bit of arrogance enshrined in a document that exclusively protects rights as Americans.  It does not say protect rights for Christians, Jews, Taoist, Shinto and Buddhists.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Actually, the constitution says it will not favor, or establish a religion.


Yeah? And? So? Nobody is advocating that the government discriminate against homosexuals based on religion (or _anything_ else). You seem to be confused between government (which cannot discriminate) and private citizen (which _can_ discriminate).


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Homosexuals are not breaking the law by merely being homosexual.  Why would you have a law abiding citizen regarded as less than you?


I don't. But some people do. And that is absolutely their right to do so. Liberty includes the freedom to hate, be hateful, be bigoted, and every other ugly thing you can think of. It is a *small* price to pay for liberty.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Using religion as a standard for our social comportment is so,thing fundamentalist nations do.


And using a self-perceived moral high ground "as a standard for our social comportment" is something an arrogant, maniacal dictator like Saddam Hussein would do.


----------



## Nosmo King

P@triot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the constitution says it will not favor, or establish a religion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? And? So? Nobody is advocating that the government discriminate against homosexuals based on religion (or _anything_ else). You seem to be confused between government (which cannot discriminate) and private citizen (which _can_ discriminate).
Click to expand...

Can a license holding business discriminate?  A business paying taxes and receiving in return the protections afforded by the state discriminate?  Can lunch counters in Woolworth's or the County Registar of Voters or Greyhound bus lines?

Ways a business can refuse service and remain within the bounds of the law are, commonly, no shirt, no shoes, no service.  But this is discrimination with public safety in the balance.  What public safety concerns are addressed by discriminating against law abiding, tax paying customers with payment in hand who happen to be homosexual?


----------



## Nosmo King

P@triot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Using religion as a standard for our social comportment is so,thing fundamentalist nations do.
> 
> 
> 
> And using a self-perceived moral high ground "as a standard for our social comportment" is something an arrogant, maniacal dictator like Saddam Hussein would do.
Click to expand...

Isn't the moral high ground by means of self perceived piety something the homophobic vendors are trying to get?

Where did this dogma come from, this 'avoid commerce with homosexuals'?  I've been a member of the same church for forty six years.  Never once did my minister ever admonish the congregation to avoid commerce with anyone, let alone homosexuals.  There are some Fundamentalist Christians who will twist Scripture and create dogma to justify their hatred and bigotry, which are their rights, as you say.  But there are also Muslims who twist their Scripture to serve vile means too.  Should we stand up for a belief that refutes our society and its secular ethics to suit a minority of American Taliban?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We had a socialized, Manhattan Project for fission via command economics.
> 
> 
> 
> No. No we didn't. Government handling their constitutional responsibilities is *not* "command economy". Defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government.
Click to expand...

A true wartime economy is command economics.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Can a license holding business discriminate?


Yes. The U.S. Constitution says so.


Nosmo King said:


> A business paying taxes and receiving in return the protections afforded by the state discriminate?


Yes. What the hell does their paying taxes have to do with the group they choose to discriminate against?


Nosmo King said:


> Can lunch counters in Woolworth's


Yes.


Nosmo King said:


> or the County Registar of Voters


No. They are government. They *cannot* discriminate.


Nosmo King said:


> or Greyhound bus lines?


Yes.


Nosmo King said:


> Ways a business can refuse service and remain within the bounds of the law are, commonly, no shirt, no shoes, no service.


Legally,  businesses can refuse service any time, any where, for _any_ reason. The U.S. Constitution says so. And it trumps and an all laws. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution says so.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Isn't the moral high ground by means of self perceived piety something the homophobic vendors are trying to get?


Yes. But the difference is, they aren't *forcing* it on *all* of society like you're trying to do. When a baker declines to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they aren't telling you or someone else that you cannot bake that cake. That's the beauty of *liberty*. It's something you should study. You sound very much like a Saddam Hussein. Hell bent on forcing society to embrace _your_ view instead of leaving everyone be to embrace their own.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Should we stand up for a belief that refutes our society and its secular ethics to suit a minority of American Taliban?


We should stand up for *individual* *liberty* instead of standing for the absurd, insane, and ultimately destructive communist view of the collective.


----------



## P@triot

Nosmo King said:


> Where did this dogma come from, this 'avoid commerce with homosexuals'?


You got me. Personally, I wouldn't turn down a homosexual couple. Money is money. Why turn down business? But I recognize the right of the private citizen on private property to decide for themselves who they enter into commerce with.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> A true wartime economy is command economics.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


A _true_ *false* *narrative* is what you continue to create. I can't tell if it's because you're really this stupid or if you're just pushing propaganda in typical left-wing fashion. During "war time" - the government does not force a business to do _anything_. During the Gulf War, did President George H.W. Bush tell Microsoft how many version of Windows they could manufacture? No. No they didn't. Did they tell GM how many automobiles they were allowed to manufacture? No. No they didn't. We could go on all day but I think everyone already realizes how absurd your comments are.


----------



## Andylusion

Missouri_Mike said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Blonde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate
> 
> Should  private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?
> 
> I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously equating slavery with making a gay wedding cake? If you were then being forced to make that cake is actual slavery.
Click to expand...


Typical leftwing ideology.   Accuse others of promoting what you yourself are actually promoting.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true wartime economy is command economics.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> A _true_ *false* *narrative* is what you continue to create. I can't tell if it's because you're really this stupid or if you're just pushing propaganda in typical left-wing fashion. During "war time" - the government does not force a business to do _anything_. During the Gulf War, did President George H.W. Bush tell Microsoft how many version of Windows they could manufacture? No. No they didn't. Did they tell GM how many automobiles they were allowed to manufacture? No. No they didn't. We could go on all day but I think everyone already realizes how absurd your comments are.
Click to expand...

It was not a true, wartime economy; the proof is, that president and commander in chief, claimed out economic climate was such, that we should lower taxes not raise taxes to put our economy on a true, not false, wartime footing.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true wartime economy is command economics.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> A _true_ *false* *narrative* is what you continue to create. I can't tell if it's because you're really this stupid or if you're just pushing propaganda in typical left-wing fashion. During "war time" - the government does not force a business to do _anything_. During the Gulf War, did President George H.W. Bush tell Microsoft how many version of Windows they could manufacture? No. No they didn't. Did they tell GM how many automobiles they were allowed to manufacture? No. No they didn't. We could go on all day but I think everyone already realizes how absurd your comments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not a true, wartime economy;
Click to expand...

We were at war, snowflake. A real war. You lose. Have the humility to admit you were dead-wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true wartime economy is command economics.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> 
> 
> A _true_ *false* *narrative* is what you continue to create. I can't tell if it's because you're really this stupid or if you're just pushing propaganda in typical left-wing fashion. During "war time" - the government does not force a business to do _anything_. During the Gulf War, did President George H.W. Bush tell Microsoft how many version of Windows they could manufacture? No. No they didn't. Did they tell GM how many automobiles they were allowed to manufacture? No. No they didn't. We could go on all day but I think everyone already realizes how absurd your comments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was not a true, wartime economy;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We were at war, snowflake. A real war. You lose. Have the humility to admit you were dead-wrong.
Click to expand...

No dear, we have not been at war, since the end of the exigency requiring, real times of War, tax rates.  Only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were at war, snowflake. A real war. You lose. Have the humility to admit you were dead-wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No dear, we have not been at war, since the end of the exigency requiring, real times of War, tax rates.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
Click to expand...

Sorry snowflake - tax rates do *not* dictate whether a nation is at war. When a U.S. President appears before Congress because he wants to wage war on a country, he does not go there and request a new tax rate. He requests a declaration of war from Congress.

You continue to illustrate your desperation. Every time you are wrong (which is every time you post), you attempt to cover up your previous error by creating a new false narrative. It's killing you, snowflake. Time to be a big boy and have the humility to admit you were dead wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were at war, snowflake. A real war. You lose. Have the humility to admit you were dead-wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> No dear, we have not been at war, since the end of the exigency requiring, real times of War, tax rates.  Only the right wing, never gets it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry snowflake - tax rates do *not* dictate whether a nation is at war. When a U.S. President appears before Congress because he wants to wage war on a country, he does not go there and request a new tax rate. He requests a declaration of war from Congress.
> 
> You continue to illustrate your desperation. Every time you are wrong (which is every time you post), you attempt to cover up your previous error by creating a new false narrative. It's killing you, snowflake. Time to be a big boy and have the humility to admit you were dead wrong.
Click to expand...

There is no real time of war if Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for it, under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'


Where do you take your propaganda from? After the opposition and the private food companies ran the country into the crisis, people at least should get their bread, don´t you think? No, you don´t because you politicize the crisis for your wing nonsense. The thousandth moronic thread on the evil government while the opposition, their foreign backers (bakers, lol) and parts of the private economy ruin the country for wallstreet.

"Last week community councils, Local Food Production and Provision Committees (CLAPs), and collectives including La Minka from the Altagracia parish of Caracas took over the Mansion Bakery after it was sanctioned with a 90 day temporary closure by the government's Superintendency for Fair Prices (SUNDDE) for *violating health codes, refusal to abide by the government’s price controls on goods and low levels of production*. La Minka is now running the bakery, and supplying bread directly to the government's CLAPs in Altagracia to ensure its sale at fair prices to surrounding communities."
Grassroots-Run Bakery Faces Opposition Guarimba Attacks


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> Where do you take your propaganda from?


*Reality*. You know - that thing you left-wing hatriots can't accept? Only an idiot would call *reality* "propaganda".


Bleipriester said:


> After the opposition and the private food companies ran the country into the crisis, people at least should get their bread, don´t you think?


No. No, I don't. At all. For starters - how in the hell does a private company "run a country into crisis"? It is _literally_ *impossible*, you nitwit. It was idiotic left-wing government socialism that ran the nation into the ground. The private company doesn't owe anybody _anything_.


Bleipriester said:


> No, you don´t because you politicize the crisis for your wing nonsense.


Yeah - whenever reality is a repudiation of an ideology, those that support said failed ideology always cry "you're politicizing it". You're damn right I am! If you don't learn from history - you are doomed to repeat it. And I don't want to wallow in povert and misery because of stupid people like _you_.


----------



## P@triot

Amazing - Ronald Reagan was saying in the 1970's what left-wingers _still_ can't figure out today. Fascism is _exclusively_ a left-wing ideology. The fact that we still have to argue that with idiot left-wingers right here on this site almost 5 decades later speaks to the stupidity, the propaganda, and the limited intellect of the left...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you take your propaganda from?
> 
> 
> 
> *Reality*. You know - that thing you left-wing hatriots can't accept? Only an idiot would call *reality* "propaganda".
Click to expand...


The reality is, there are no wartime tax rates and our commander in chief, believes we can lower our tax burden.  

Everybody knows, real times of war require real times of war tax rates.



> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Amazing - Ronald Reagan was saying in the 1970's what left-wingers _still_ can't figure out today. Fascism is _exclusively_ a left-wing ideology. The fact that we still have to argue that with idiot left-wingers right here on this site almost 5 decades later speaks to the stupidity, the propaganda, and the limited intellect of the left...


liberal socialism is to the left of national socialism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The reality is, there are no wartime tax rates and our commander in chief, believes we can lower our tax burden.


It's impossible not to laugh at left-wing hatriots. Here is their _official_ platform:

We must _decrease_ the defense budget. It is bloated and unnecessary!

We must _increase_ taxes for defense - we are in a war!
You can always count on the left to contradict their own positions in a single breath. These people cannot figure out which way is up or what they believe.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Everybody knows, real times of war require real times of war tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
Click to expand...

Yes folks.... danielpalos _really_ did just quote the *Nazi's*.


----------



## evenflow1969

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> some on the left claim it is just, lousy social management.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed they do. It's much like when Barack Obama and the Democrats swore that if we passed the "stimulus" unemployment would never reach 8% and when it actually surpassed 10% they said "well we just didn't spend enough". Which is why this cartoon is spot on. No matter how far the left goes and sees catastrophic failure, their response is always that they just didn't go left enough...
> 
> View attachment 117358
Click to expand...

Evidently you did not look at the numbers very well. While it is true that the unemployment rate got up to 10% under Obama the upward trend started in 2007 under Bush when it went from under 5% to over 7.5%. When Obama entered office he inherited an economic fiasco. The economic Stimulus package was inacted February 13 it only took 4 months for a downward trend to start. If you look at the graphs that downward trend took hold by Jan 1 of 2011 for good and continued to splope down through his entire presidency again eaching below 5% before he left office. But I guess you are one of those idiots that think things like that are supposed to happen over night. Or maybe you are just to stupid to read a graph. United States Unemployment Rates by President, 1948-2016

By the way take a good look at those graphs and note the upward trend every time a republican takes office recently, and the downward trend every time a democrat takes office. Pretty telling story as to who workers benefit under. So Patriot(should be idiot) can you understand a graph? If so come back and tell me how the left is doing compared to the right!!!!!!! Reagan is the only one who left office with a lower unemployment rate than when he got into office. By the way he got it done with more across the isle support than any other republican president. He must be rolling over in his grave to see what his party has come to. Is he the last true Republican conservative to take office? I hope not!!!!!


----------



## P@triot

evenflow1969 said:


> While it is true that the unemployment rate got up to 10% under Obama


Of course it's true. I *never* lie. And it went above 10% after Obama "promised" that it would never hit 8% so long as we passed his stimulus plan. Interesting how you don't want to discuss that, uh snowflake?


evenflow1969 said:


> The economic Stimulus package was inacted February 13 it only took 4 months for a downward trend to start.


So wait....let me get this straight. You actually want to make the case that you are impressed that we unconstitutionally spent more than a *trillion* dollars in three separate rounds of "stimulus" packages just to see unemployment skyrocket over 10% after being *promised* that it wouldn't hit 8% while it took more than 4 months to start helping?!? Oh...and let's not forget the *hidden* "stimulus" packages like the bailout of GM and Chrysler, the idiotic "cash for clunkers", student loan forgiveness, and dozens more of illegal socialism!  

Wow. Just. _Wow_. That's like trying to make the case that one is impressed by the humanity of Adolf Hitler because he mass executed families as quickly as he could. 

You're clearly one of those left-wing numbskulls with absolutely no concept of what a trillion dollars is. For a trillion plus the hundreds of billions more in bailouts and other programs, I could have solved homelessness, unemployment, and insured everyone in the U.S. who didn't have health insurance.


evenflow1969 said:


> But I guess you are one of those idiots that think things like that are supposed to happen over night.
> 
> By the way take a good look at those graphs and note the upward trend every time a republican takes office recently, and the downward trend every time a democrat takes office.


Yeah genius. Like _you_ said - it doesn't happen over night. Every time a Republican takes office, it's after you idiot Dumbocrats have destroyed the economy with unconstitutional idiotic socialist nonsense. And every time a Dumbocrat takes office, it's after Republicans fixed everything and created a sound, solid economy based on the free market.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> No. No, I don't. At all. For starters - how in the hell does a private company "run a country into crisis"? It is _literally_ *impossible*, you nitwit. It was idiotic left-wing government socialism that ran the nation into the ground. The private company doesn't owe anybody _anything_.


Tell us then how it is socialism when the big food companies are private. How did then socialism destroy the country although there is no socialism.
Explanation: The companies boycott the economy, caused the food crisis to force the government down.




P@triot said:


> Yeah - whenever reality is a repudiation of an ideology, those that support said failed ideology always cry "you're politicizing it". You're damn right I am! If you don't learn from history - you are doomed to repeat it. And I don't want to wallow in povert and misery because of stupid people like _you_.


I support bread for the people. You support selling luxury foods in the midst of a food crisis.


----------



## Marion Morrison

The government hardly ever runs businesses right.

See: Pemex or Petróleos de Venezuela, PDVSA

Both are fail.


----------



## Bleipriester

Marion Morrison said:


> The government hardly ever runs businesses right.
> 
> See: Pemex or Petróleos de Venezuela, PDVSA
> 
> Both are fail.


They are currently making good contracts with a number of countries.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> I support bread for the people. You support selling luxury foods in the midst of a food crisis.


It's _your_ ideology which caused the "food crisis".


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government hardly ever runs businesses right. See: Pemex or Petróleos de Venezuela, PDVSA Both are fail.
> 
> 
> 
> They are currently making good contracts with a number of countries.
Click to expand...

Keeping telling yourself that...maybe you'll even start to believe it


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> Tell us then how it is socialism when the big food companies are private.


Tell us then how the "big food companies" are "private" when the government is controlling _every_ facet of their operations - right down to what type of breads they can make.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> I support bread for the people.


No - you support government control and oppression so that everyone is "equal" in poverty and misery.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is, there are no wartime tax rates and our commander in chief, believes we can lower our tax burden.
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible not to laugh at left-wing hatriots. Here is their _official_ platform:
> 
> We must _decrease_ the defense budget. It is bloated and unnecessary!
> 
> We must _increase_ taxes for defense - we are in a war!
> You can always count on the left to contradict their own positions in a single breath. These people cannot figure out which way is up or what they believe.
Click to expand...

It cannot be real times of War under Any form of Capitalism, if our federal Congress cannot justify Tax Rates, meet for the exigency.

If we can lower tax rates, then there is no national security problem sufficient to deny or disparage our Individual Liberty.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody knows, real times of war require real times of war tax rates.
> 
> 
> 
> In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore, we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes folks.... danielpalos _really_ did just quote the *Nazi's*.
> 
> View attachment 118265
Click to expand...

it is all the national socialist right wing, has to work with, besides just fantasy.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> It cannot be real times of War under Any form of Capitalism, if our federal Congress cannot justify Tax Rates, meet for the exigency.


Once again - tax rates do *not* dictate war time status. In addition to that reality, our Confress is fully empowered to set whatever tax rates they would like.


danielpalos said:


> If we can lower tax rates, then there is no national security problem sufficient to deny or disparage our Individual Liberty.


As long as defense is fully funded (*and it is*) your argument is irrational and idiotic.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It cannot be real times of War under Any form of Capitalism, if our federal Congress cannot justify Tax Rates, meet for the exigency.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again - tax rates do *not* dictate war time status. In addition to that reality, our Confress is fully empowered to set whatever tax rates they would like.
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we can lower tax rates, then there is no national security problem sufficient to deny or disparage our Individual Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As long as defense is fully funded (*and it is*) your argument is irrational and idiotic.
Click to expand...

No, they don't.  Congress has an obligation to pay the Debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

There is no national security concern, if our federal Congress cannot justify tax rates meet for that exigency.  It really is that simple.  Congress is Only delegated their authority by the People. 

There can be no government Infringement to Individual Liberty, if there is no fiscal exigency requiring it.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us then how it is socialism when the big food companies are private.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us then how the "big food companies" are "private" when the government is controlling _every_ facet of their operations - right down to what type of breads they can make.
Click to expand...

I am not talking about a bakery. Since the big food companies are private, who else can be responsible for the food crisis?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> There can be no government Infringement to Individual Liberty, if there is no fiscal exigency requiring it.


I've got news for you snowflake - there can be *no* government infringement to individual liberty, period. Whether there is a "fiscal exigency" or not. Whether we are at war or not. The fact that you believe there can be is why you are so woefully unqualified to be discussing _any_ of this.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Congress has an obligation to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.


No they *don't*. Neither one of those are one of their 18 enumerated powers. Here is Thomas Jefferson explaining it to left-wing nitwits looking for ways to grant the federal government unlimited powers:

“*Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - *Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)*

“*[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded,* *the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and* *general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers*.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – *Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)*


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us then how it is socialism when the big food companies are private.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us then how the "big food companies" are "private" when the government is controlling _every_ facet of their operations - right down to what type of breads they can make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not talking about a bakery. Since the big food companies are private, who else can be responsible for the food crisis?
Click to expand...

Uh...the government which collapsed their nation with socialism. The dictator who created limited resources with a *failed* left-wing ideology (one that he himself does not adhere to while living in tremendous wealth). What do you think - the "big food companies" all banned together and decided to devastate their own bottom line by throwing out all of the food supply?!?

You can't defend your precious little liberal ideology. It is a *failed* ideology. It ends in poverty and misery _every_ time.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us then how it is socialism when the big food companies are private.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us then how the "big food companies" are "private" when the government is controlling _every_ facet of their operations - right down to what type of breads they can make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not talking about a bakery. Since the big food companies are private, who else can be responsible for the food crisis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh...the government which collapsed their nation with socialism. The dictator who created limited resources with a *failed* left-wing ideology (one that he himself does not adhere to while living in tremendous wealth). What do you think - the "big food companies" all banned together and decided to devastate their own bottom line by throwing out all of the food supply?!?
> 
> You can't defend your precious little liberal ideology. It is a *failed* ideology. It ends in poverty and misery _every_ time.
Click to expand...

What socialism? The food companies are PRIVATE. Do you know what that means? Private? And stop bothering me with your ideology pigeonhole thinking.

The food companies are not banned. If they were banned nobody would complain that they are withholding food. Your view needs lies to prevail.
You need knockout arguments  (  SOCIALISM  ) because you have none. Not a single. Maybe, a week or two without food would make you think, what do you say?


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> What socialism? The food companies are PRIVATE. Do you know what that means? Private?


Snowflake....they are *NOT* "private". Private means the freedom to do as you wish. The government controls every aspect of their lives (as illustrated by them telling bakeries what type of breads they can bake - you moron). Venezuela is a *socialist* nation you dimwit. Here - let me know when you finally get it and are _embarrassed_ by your idiotic comments:

Socialist Venezuela owns hundreds of companies and most are going under

Why Venezuela's socialist meltdown COULD actually happen in the US

Venezuela: Socialism’s House of Horrors

Venezuela's socialist leaders are nationalising bakeries as the country’s 'bread war' escalates

Venezuela's socialist leaders seize bakeries in 'bread war'

Venezuela's socialist leaders seize bakeries in 'bread war'


----------



## P@triot

Boy Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Congratulations To Bolivarian Socialism - Brownies Are Now Illegal In Venezuela


----------



## P@triot

Ohhhh Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Socialism, Not Oil, Is the Cause of Venezuela’s Problems – InsideSources


----------



## P@triot

Ohhhh Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Opinion | As socialist Venezuela collapses, socialist Bolivia thrives. Here’s why.


----------



## P@triot

Ohhhh Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

WATCH: Ami Horowitz Destroys Democrats' Worship Of Socialism With Footage Of Venezuela


----------



## P@triot

Damn Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela. This is getting really embarrassing for you 

Socialist International: Socialist Venezuela Is a 'Failed State' - Breitbart


----------



## P@triot

Ohhhh Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

As socialism shattered Venezuela, the useful idiots applauded - The Boston Globe


----------



## P@triot

Seriously - how dumb do you look right now Bleipriester? For a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Socialism is Devastating Venezuela and Americans Don't Seem to Notice


----------



## P@triot

Ohhhh Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Venezuela's socialist leaders seize bakeries in 'bread war'


----------



## P@triot

Ohhhh Bleipriester - for a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Venezuela: A Socialist Basketcase


----------



## P@triot

You're like a small child Bleipriester - and I have you bent over my knee right now because you were a petulant little brat. How does it feel? For a nation which is "not" socialist (according to your dumb ass), the media sure does seem to be reporting a TON about the *socialism* of Venezuela...

Venezuelans Now On A Forced Starvation Diet — Thanks, Socialism!


----------



## Bleipriester

They should have nationalized that food companies in the first place. But who excepts such a fierce war on the people in order to bring down Venezuela´s sovereignty?


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> *They should have nationalized that food companies in the first place*. But who excepts such a fierce war on the people in order to bring down Venezuela´s sovereignty?


Well what do you know...the immature idealist nitwit who denied Venezuela was a socialist nation is openly advocating for more idiotic socialism. I am soooo shocked.

Just out of curiosity - _where_ exactly does the government derive the authority to "nationalize" _anything_? Immature idealist fascists such as yourself fail to understand the concept of authority. You believe that "might makes right". As long as you march in uninform with a gun, you can do anything you'd like.

However, rational and reasonable people subscribe to the rule of law. And no where are governments justified in simply taking because they want to take.

Time for you to go home now snowflake. Your credibility is shot.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They should have nationalized that food companies in the first place*. But who excepts such a fierce war on the people in order to bring down Venezuela´s sovereignty?
> 
> 
> 
> Well what do you know...the immature idealist nitwit who denied Venezuela was a socialist nation is openly advocating for more idiotic socialism. I am soooo shocked.
> 
> Just out of curiosity - _where_ exactly does the government derive the authority to "nationalize" _anything_? Immature idealist fascists such as yourself fail to understand the concept of authority. You believe that "might makes right". As long as you march in uninform with a gun, you can do anything you'd like.
> 
> However, rational and reasonable people subscribe to the rule of law. And no where are governments justified in simply taking because they want to take.
> 
> Time for you to go home now snowflake. Your credibility is shot.
Click to expand...

I don´t know if the guy who loves to enjoy donuts in front of the hungry people has the right whether the country may force the economy to work properly or not. If the capitalists try to enforce their rule by starving the people, they must be forced from their thrones. What we have currently in Venezuela was the standard situation before Chavez came to power. If socialism is the solution to greedy exploiters and tyrants, who are you to decide for the people? Venezuela is a good example why revolution and not "democracy" is the first step towards socialism.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> Venezuela is a good example why revolution and not "democracy" is the first step towards socialism.


So _now_ you're admitting that Venezuela is in fact, socialist?!?

You just admitted you've been *lying* this entire time (like a typical left-wing piece of shit).


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> I don´t know if the guy who loves to enjoy donuts in front of the hungry people has the right whether the country may force the economy to work properly or not.


Well I _do_ know - and the guy who likes to eat donuts in front of hungry people has _every_ *right* to eat as many donuts as he'd like. Those hungry people are free to provide for themselves. They choose not to. That's their choice. I know you fascists hate choice, but that's how the real world operates.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> If the capitalists try to enforce their rule by starving the people, they must be forced from their thrones.


Capitalism doesn't operate by force, snowflake. It operates on free will and choice. You spineless snowflakes have made the choice to starve. That's on you.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> If socialism is the solution to greedy exploiters and tyrants, who are you to decide for the people?


I'm not choosing _anything_ for Venezuela. I literally couldn't possibly care any less about that shithole third-world nation. I'm simply learning from their own stupidity and sharing with the American people what *not* to do.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> They should have nationalized that food companies in the first place.


Another idiot left-winger who wants the few to have a gun placed to their head and forced to uphold all of society. And they can't figure out why their failed ideology always ends in collapse, poverty, and misery. 

Can you say Atlas Shrugged?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no government Infringement to Individual Liberty, if there is no fiscal exigency requiring it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you snowflake - there can be *no* government infringement to individual liberty, period. Whether there is a "fiscal exigency" or not. Whether we are at war or not. The fact that you believe there can be is why you are so woefully unqualified to be discussing _any_ of this.
Click to expand...

let's, "ditch the drug war".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has an obligation to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No they *don't*. Neither one of those are one of their 18 enumerated powers. Here is Thomas Jefferson explaining it to left-wing nitwits looking for ways to grant the federal government unlimited powers:
> 
> “*Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - *Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)*
> 
> “*[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded,* *the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and* *general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers*.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – *Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)*
Click to expand...

Paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, is in our Constitution.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> let's, "ditch the drug war".


There is no question that the "drug war" is a state issue. The federal government has no business involving themselves in that.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has an obligation to...provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> No they *don't*. Neither one of those are one of their 18 enumerated powers. Here is Thomas Jefferson explaining it to left-wing nitwits looking for ways to grant the federal government unlimited powers:
> 
> “*Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated*; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - *Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)*
> 
> “*[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded,* *the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and* *general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers*.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – *Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paying the debts and providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, is in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

They are in the preamble. They are *not* a part of the enumerated powers which outlines the powers of the federal government.

Did Thomas Jefferson not make it clear enough for you?


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> Venezuela is a good example why revolution and not "democracy" is the first step towards socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> So _now_ you're admitting that Venezuela is in fact, socialist?!?
Click to expand...

Not yet but it will.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t know if the guy who loves to enjoy donuts in front of the hungry people has the right whether the country may force the economy to work properly or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I _do_ know - and the guy who likes to eat donuts in front of hungry people has _every_ *right* to eat as many donuts as he'd like. Those hungry people are free to provide for themselves. They choose not to. That's their choice. I know you fascists hate choice, but that's how the real world operates.
Click to expand...

No, you can´t because the wheat is needed for bread. If you continue to steal wheat you will be jailed.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the capitalists try to enforce their rule by starving the people, they must be forced from their thrones.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't operate by force, snowflake. It operates on free will and choice. You spineless snowflakes have made the choice to starve. That's on you.
Click to expand...

Most of the capitalist countries are poorhouses. Slums and Ghettos, crime without punishment and a small rich elite that claims capitalism doesn´t operate by force.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Capitalism doesn't operate by force, snowflake. It operates on free will and choice.


----------



## Bleipriester

News:

"BEIRUT, LEBANON (3:39 A.M.) – Bolivian President Evo Morales on Friday expressed solidarity with Venezuela against the latest aggressions by the head of the Organization of American States, OAS, his attempts to overthrow the democratically-elected government, TeleSUR reported.

“The U.S. could not defeat the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela. The OAS, with (Luis) Almagro, as if it were the U.S. ministry of the colony, is trying,” Morales posted on Twitter.

Almagro, a right-wing Uruguayan politician, is the Secretary General of the OAS.

“Anti-imperialists and social movements will defend our democratic revolutions. Venezuela is not alone,” he added.

Almagro has consistently asked for regime change in Venezuela and Cuba."

Bolivia's leader: US could not defeat Venezuela, Neither Will OAS


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the capitalists try to enforce their rule by starving the people, they must be forced from their thrones.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't operate by force, snowflake. It operates on free will and choice. You spineless snowflakes have made the choice to starve. That's on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the capitalist countries are poorhouses. Slums and Ghettos, crime without punishment and a small rich elite that claims capitalism doesn´t operate by force.
Click to expand...


LOL!!

Are you crazy?   Have you been to Cuba where buildings collapse routinely.... in the capital city?

Have you seen the satellite imagery showing what is believed to be mass graves in North Korea?

Have you seen the food riots in Venezuela?

Do you realize that a husband and wife, working entry level wages at Wendy's, places them in the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?

Have you seen how people live in non-capitalist countries?   I personally, with my $19,000 income live in a tiny condo, that is a MANSION compared to what I saw in Europe when I went there.  And those are Capitalist countries.   Non-Capitalist countries, are far worse off.

I've seen the Refrigerator box slums of the non-capitalist countries.

You are absolutely insane to even attempt that claim, unless you are trying to deceive ignorant people with what you know is a lie.

The poorest working people in this country, live like Kings and Queens, compared to non-capitalists countries.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't operate by force, snowflake. It operates on free will and choice.
Click to expand...


I'm confused.  You posted a picture of an avowed socialist.   What is your point?


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> News:
> 
> "BEIRUT, LEBANON (3:39 A.M.) – Bolivian President Evo Morales on Friday expressed solidarity with Venezuela against the latest aggressions by the head of the Organization of American States, OAS, his attempts to overthrow the democratically-elected government, TeleSUR reported.
> 
> “The U.S. could not defeat the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela. The OAS, with (Luis) Almagro, as if it were the U.S. ministry of the colony, is trying,” Morales posted on Twitter.
> 
> Almagro, a right-wing Uruguayan politician, is the Secretary General of the OAS.
> 
> “Anti-imperialists and social movements will defend our democratic revolutions. Venezuela is not alone,” he added.
> 
> Almagro has consistently asked for regime change in Venezuela and Cuba."
> 
> Bolivia's leader: US could not defeat Venezuela, Neither Will OAS



Bolivia, and Venezuela do not need to be defeated.  They are absolutely destroying themselves with their anti-capitalists policies.

Riots in the streets: Venezuela is in trouble, and it’s only getting worse

What a shock... the socialist worker Utopia, is a nightmare to the people.  You are making my case buddy.


----------



## Bleipriester

Socialism (North Korea):





Capitalism (Kenya):


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> let's, "ditch the drug war".
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that the "drug war" is a state issue. The federal government has no business involving themselves in that.
Click to expand...

why is it so difficult to get rid of that, "waste of the People's tax monies"?


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the capitalists try to enforce their rule by starving the people, they must be forced from their thrones.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't operate by force, snowflake. It operates on free will and choice. You spineless snowflakes have made the choice to starve. That's on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the capitalist countries are poorhouses. Slums and Ghettos, crime without punishment and a small rich elite that claims capitalism doesn´t operate by force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> Are you crazy?   Have you been to Cuba where buildings collapse routinely.... in the capital city?
> 
> Have you seen the satellite imagery showing what is believed to be mass graves in North Korea?
> 
> Have you seen the food riots in Venezuela?
> 
> Do you realize that a husband and wife, working entry level wages at Wendy's, places them in the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?
> 
> Have you seen how people live in non-capitalist countries?   I personally, with my $19,000 income live in a tiny condo, that is a MANSION compared to what I saw in Europe when I went there.  And those are Capitalist countries.   Non-Capitalist countries, are far worse off.
> 
> I've seen the Refrigerator box slums of the non-capitalist countries.
> 
> You are absolutely insane to even attempt that claim, unless you are trying to deceive ignorant people with what you know is a lie.
> 
> The poorest working people in this country, live like Kings and Queens, compared to non-capitalists countries.
Click to expand...

the US is not a capitalist economy.  we are a command economy.  

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror, prove it.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Socialism (North Korea):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism (Kenya):




 
Kenya Capitalism ^^^^^^

Haunting pictures inside North Korea... taken by a photographer who has now been banned from the rogue state for life | Daily Mail Online



 
Man eating grass in N.K.  No food, so weed food it is.



 
The government obviously faked this example of women using a computer, but then realized there was no electricity, and that the world wouldn't be fooled by women staring at a keyboard connected to a blank screen.



 
Lots of infrastructure in N.K.   Lots of money taxed by working people to pay for roads and bridges.  Of course no one owns a car, so the streets are largely deserted, with kids playing on a six-lane road.

Yeah, there's your socialism.  No electricity, people eating grass, and deserted roads.

You can see many other photos, some of people taking 'baths' in the river, and soldiers carrying wood.   The "hotel" the photographer was placed in, was actually old rock-wall homes, cobbled together.   The only store with anything in it, was a store for elite government officials. Common people not welcome, and couldn't afford anything anyway.

Maybe you missed it, but this photographer was banned from N.K. for showing what is really is like.
Point being, the only reason you can see a photo of slums in Kenya, but not in N.K., is because the government carefully controls the media.  Just like how the women were put in front of blank computers, likely that they had never used, given they were not even looking at the monitors.


That's your socialism for you.  Poverty, deception, myth, and lies.  Just like how the Cuban government boasts about super low infant mortality numbers, and then you find out that doctors who report an infant death, lose their job.  So none are reported.   Oddly you end up with low mortality numbers that way.

All lies.  All deceit.  All left-wing ideology.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> View attachment 118605
> Man eating grass in N.K.  No food, so weed food it is.


The man is not eating anything and has no grass in his bag but weed. He is cleaning the green.




Andylusion said:


> View attachment 118606
> The government obviously faked this example of women using a computer, but then realized there was no electricity, and that the world wouldn't be fooled by women staring at a keyboard connected to a blank screen.


This must be a propaganda fake picture. No one is dump enough to present this photo as people using computers.
Here is a real one:








Andylusion said:


> View attachment 118607
> Lots of infrastructure in N.K.   Lots of money taxed by working people to pay for roads and bridges.  Of course no one owns a car, so the streets are largely deserted, with kids playing on a six-lane road.


There is increasing traffic.

You see, the one fooled by propaganda/trying to fool others with propaganda is you. The comparison that I made is valid. In capitalism, you have 0,1 % of the wealth, which is a corrugated-iron shack and a bottle of brackish water in Kenya.


----------



## Ernie S.

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> I wonder where that post is from some guy on here who claimed that no such racists existed on USMB?
Click to expand...

I do support a person's right to discriminate against whoever you so choose hell I support a black man's right to


NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
Click to expand...

It is. If I own a business, I should be free to choose who I do business with. This, of course would also apply to blacks refusing to do business with whites and Muslims refusing to do business with Jews
Customers should also be free to choose not to do business with businesses who impose such restrictions. I actually would encourage this.
In my business, I am free to refuse service to anyone I choose because of the product I sell. I rarely exercise that right and I've never refused service to anyone simply because of their skin color or religion, though I have considered refusing service to Liberals.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118605
> Man eating grass in N.K.  No food, so weed food it is.
> 
> 
> 
> The man is not eating anything and has no grass in his bag but weed. He is cleaning the green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118606
> The government obviously faked this example of women using a computer, but then realized there was no electricity, and that the world wouldn't be fooled by women staring at a keyboard connected to a blank screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be a propaganda fake picture. No one is dump enough to present this photo as people using computers.
> Here is a real one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118607
> Lots of infrastructure in N.K.   Lots of money taxed by working people to pay for roads and bridges.  Of course no one owns a car, so the streets are largely deserted, with kids playing on a six-lane road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is increasing traffic.
> 
> You see, the one fooled by propaganda/trying to fool others with propaganda is you. The comparison that I made is valid. In capitalism, you have 0,1 % of the wealth, which is a corrugated-iron shack and a bottle of brackish water in Kenya.
Click to expand...


How funny....  so you declare anything that doesn't fit your views as propaganda... and then post your own propaganda, claiming it's real.

You remind me of the idiots in the early 1980s who laughed at Reagan when he said 

Shadowy world of Korea's people smugglers - BBC News

If what you say is actually true....

Please explain why thousands on thousands flee from N.K. socialism every year?

North Korea’s deputy ambassador to Britain defects from London

Explain why the ambassador defected?

100 Photos Inside North Korea - Part 1 - Earth Nutshell

At some point, your endless propaganda has to face reality.   If things were even a fraction as good as your BS, then people wouldn't be paying smugglers money, to get out of the country.


----------



## danielpalos

Mogadishu had no taxes and very little regulation for over a decade.  How many right wing firms, relocated there?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Mogadishu had no taxes and very little regulation for over a decade.  How many right wing firms, relocated there?


Mogadishu was oppressed by armed rulers. Kind of like how you hatriots want the U.S. to be (so long as liberals are the one's armed and in power).


----------



## Andylusion

I was going to say, reminds me of those people who laughed at Reagan when he predicted the end of the Soviet Union.   Sure enough, all the nay sayers were proven idiots, and Reagan was proven right.


----------



## Andylusion

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu had no taxes and very little regulation for over a decade.  How many right wing firms, relocated there?
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was oppressed by armed rulers. Kind of like how you hatriots want the U.S. to be (so long as liberals are the one's armed and in power).
Click to expand...


I ignore listed that idiot a long long time ago.
Do you really think that he believes Mogadishu is an example of free-market capitalist system?  

Of course not.  If he actually does.... then he is so far beyond Forest Gump stupid, that he will never have the intellectual ability to grasp your response.

Don't waste too much of your life on such people.   Better to spend your time teaching chimps quantum physics.  That would at least have research value.


----------



## Slyhunter

NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
Click to expand...

California is threatening to cease doing business with any business that supports the wall. Discrimination about who you chose to do business with is also wrong.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118605
> Man eating grass in N.K.  No food, so weed food it is.
> 
> 
> 
> The man is not eating anything and has no grass in his bag but weed. He is cleaning the green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118606
> The government obviously faked this example of women using a computer, but then realized there was no electricity, and that the world wouldn't be fooled by women staring at a keyboard connected to a blank screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be a propaganda fake picture. No one is dump enough to present this photo as people using computers.
> Here is a real one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118607
> Lots of infrastructure in N.K.   Lots of money taxed by working people to pay for roads and bridges.  Of course no one owns a car, so the streets are largely deserted, with kids playing on a six-lane road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is increasing traffic.
> 
> You see, the one fooled by propaganda/trying to fool others with propaganda is you. The comparison that I made is valid. In capitalism, you have 0,1 % of the wealth, which is a corrugated-iron shack and a bottle of brackish water in Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How funny....  so you declare anything that doesn't fit your views as propaganda... and then post your own propaganda, claiming it's real.
> 
> You remind me of the idiots in the early 1980s who laughed at Reagan when he said
> 
> Shadowy world of Korea's people smugglers - BBC News
> 
> If what you say is actually true....
> 
> Please explain why thousands on thousands flee from N.K. socialism every year?
> 
> North Korea’s deputy ambassador to Britain defects from London
> 
> Explain why the ambassador defected?
> 
> 100 Photos Inside North Korea - Part 1 - Earth Nutshell
> 
> At some point, your endless propaganda has to face reality.   If things were even a fraction as good as your BS, then people wouldn't be paying smugglers money, to get out of the country.
Click to expand...

North Korea is in an economic crisis. It will be overcome. You see the progress based on their own efforts? However, I could start to post nice pictures of ghettos, abandoned neighborhoods and projects in the USA and say its capitalism. Why can´t you leave other countries alone? What did they ever do to you?


----------



## miketx

IcebergSlim said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?
Click to expand...




NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
Click to expand...




NYcarbineer said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> I wonder where that post is from some guy on here who claimed that no such racists existed on USMB?
Click to expand...




P@triot said:


> I know that most left-wingers can't concentrate on anything for more than 30 seconds unless it is gay porn, but I implore you left-wingers to take 10 minutes out of your life and learn something. If the concepts presented here are too complex - ask an adult for help.





bodecea said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> 
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see how this is....
Click to expand...




NYcarbineer said:


> Mr.Blonde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate
> 
> Should  private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?
> 
> I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
Click to expand...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu had no taxes and very little regulation for over a decade.  How many right wing firms, relocated there?
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was oppressed by armed rulers. Kind of like how you hatriots want the U.S. to be (so long as liberals are the one's armed and in power).
Click to expand...

but, but, they had no government.


----------



## IcebergSlim

miketx said:


> IcebergSlim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> How many cakes for gay weddings have you been forced to bake, miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> I wonder where that post is from some guy on here who claimed that no such racists existed on USMB?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that most left-wingers can't concentrate on anything for more than 30 seconds unless it is gay porn, but I implore you left-wingers to take 10 minutes out of your life and learn something. If the concepts presented here are too complex - ask an adult for help.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that bakers in the US also have to serve Jews and blacks.  An outrage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is. Because the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from *forcing* private citizens on private property from entering into commerce.
> 
> We see how well your idiotic ideology is working in Venezuela...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see how this is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Blonde said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah see, one more conservative who believes that Americans should be allowed to racially discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should the government be allowed to discriminate? No government should be allowed to discriminate
> 
> Should  private citizens be allowed to discriminate? Yes. Why not?
> 
> I personally would never use or visit said business, but I would never try to take away their right to discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So who should decide whether or not Africans can be used as slaves by private citizens?  The states or the federal government, or the private citizens themselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 118703
Click to expand...

Mikey,

Did anyone tell you about the nearly 3 million vote NEGATIVE margin?


----------



## P@triot

I haven't been this happy since the American people told Hitlery Clinton to go home and not come back. Target is in serious trouble because they believed that catering to the left-wing hatriots would earn them business. Apparently their CEO skipped business school. Catering to those who mooch off of government to keep your business afloat is a bad strategy.

So glad to see the American people not only reject this insanity, but also make a private corporation pay the price for attempting to facilitate it.

Amid Stock Price Crash, Target Corp. Announces Store Re-Design - Breitbart


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118605
> Man eating grass in N.K.  No food, so weed food it is.
> 
> 
> 
> The man is not eating anything and has no grass in his bag but weed. He is cleaning the green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118606
> The government obviously faked this example of women using a computer, but then realized there was no electricity, and that the world wouldn't be fooled by women staring at a keyboard connected to a blank screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be a propaganda fake picture. No one is dump enough to present this photo as people using computers.
> Here is a real one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118607
> Lots of infrastructure in N.K.   Lots of money taxed by working people to pay for roads and bridges.  Of course no one owns a car, so the streets are largely deserted, with kids playing on a six-lane road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is increasing traffic.
> 
> You see, the one fooled by propaganda/trying to fool others with propaganda is you. The comparison that I made is valid. In capitalism, you have 0,1 % of the wealth, which is a corrugated-iron shack and a bottle of brackish water in Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How funny....  so you declare anything that doesn't fit your views as propaganda... and then post your own propaganda, claiming it's real.
> 
> You remind me of the idiots in the early 1980s who laughed at Reagan when he said
> 
> Shadowy world of Korea's people smugglers - BBC News
> 
> If what you say is actually true....
> 
> Please explain why thousands on thousands flee from N.K. socialism every year?
> 
> North Korea’s deputy ambassador to Britain defects from London
> 
> Explain why the ambassador defected?
> 
> 100 Photos Inside North Korea - Part 1 - Earth Nutshell
> 
> At some point, your endless propaganda has to face reality.   If things were even a fraction as good as your BS, then people wouldn't be paying smugglers money, to get out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea is in an economic crisis. It will be overcome. You see the progress based on their own efforts? However, I could start to post nice pictures of ghettos, abandoned neighborhoods and projects in the USA and say its capitalism. Why can´t you leave other countries alone? What did they ever do to you?
Click to expand...


And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.

The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.

All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.

Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.

Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.

Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.

The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.

Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.

It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.

Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.

Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.


I don´t agree.



Andylusion said:


> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.


It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.




Andylusion said:


> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.


Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.




Andylusion said:


> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.


No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.




Andylusion said:


> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.


That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding.


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118605
> Man eating grass in N.K.  No food, so weed food it is.
> 
> 
> 
> The man is not eating anything and has no grass in his bag but weed. He is cleaning the green.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118606
> The government obviously faked this example of women using a computer, but then realized there was no electricity, and that the world wouldn't be fooled by women staring at a keyboard connected to a blank screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This must be a propaganda fake picture. No one is dump enough to present this photo as people using computers.
> Here is a real one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 118607
> Lots of infrastructure in N.K.   Lots of money taxed by working people to pay for roads and bridges.  Of course no one owns a car, so the streets are largely deserted, with kids playing on a six-lane road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is increasing traffic.
> 
> You see, the one fooled by propaganda/trying to fool others with propaganda is you. The comparison that I made is valid. In capitalism, you have 0,1 % of the wealth, which is a corrugated-iron shack and a bottle of brackish water in Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How funny....  so you declare anything that doesn't fit your views as propaganda... and then post your own propaganda, claiming it's real.
> 
> You remind me of the idiots in the early 1980s who laughed at Reagan when he said
> 
> Shadowy world of Korea's people smugglers - BBC News
> 
> If what you say is actually true....
> 
> Please explain why thousands on thousands flee from N.K. socialism every year?
> 
> North Korea’s deputy ambassador to Britain defects from London
> 
> Explain why the ambassador defected?
> 
> 100 Photos Inside North Korea - Part 1 - Earth Nutshell
> 
> At some point, your endless propaganda has to face reality.   If things were even a fraction as good as your BS, then people wouldn't be paying smugglers money, to get out of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> North Korea is in an economic crisis. It will be overcome. You see the progress based on their own efforts? However, I could start to post nice pictures of ghettos, abandoned neighborhoods and projects in the USA and say its capitalism. Why can´t you leave other countries alone? What did they ever do to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.
Click to expand...

Where do you all get this propaganda and rhetoric from?

The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.

China has entire empty cities, just laying around, due to socialism, not capitalism.  Under truer capitalism, they would have never been built.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding.
Click to expand...

*
I don´t agree.*

You have the right to be wrong.

*It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.*

Wrong.   Not true.

Capitalism does not require, or cause, people to be unable to pay for their own livelihood.

What capitalism does, is allow people to make choices.   In socialism, in the pre-78 China, I have to work in the rice fields for the rest of my life.  I don't have a choice in the matter.   Which allows you to only earn as much as me, and we all get the same wage, some shelter, same food, same life.   We have no hope, and no future.  We are born poor, live poor, and die poor.

But.... we have a guaranteed income.

In Capitalism, you choose what you do.  If you work at Burger King until you die, flipping whoopers, then you live a meager life until you die.  But you don't have to.  No one has to.   They can choose to do something else.

Doug McMillon current CEO of walmart, started of working in the distribution center, unloading trucks.  Seasonal job, during the summer, earning a few bucks and hour, unloading trucks.

Did he stay there?  No, he went to college, got a degree, learned management skills, and then applied to move up to a new position.  Then a another position.  And kept moving every year or two, to a new spot in the company, and now he's CEO.

And here's the real kicker of Capitalism.  Everyone is a capitalist.  I'm a capitalist.  You are a capitalist.

The only difference between the rich capitalist, and the poor capitalist, is whether they choose to invest their money, or blow it.    If you spend all your money, you'll be the poor capitalist.  If you invest your money, you'll be the rich capitalist, even if you make very little relatively speaking.

Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital

This guy worked as a janitor his entire life.  End up with $8 Million.   How?   Saved and invested.  Real simple.  He saved up money, and invested into stocks of companies he liked.

Do you know Warren Buffet got to where he is?   When he was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route, and bought a pinball machine.  He then placed the pinball machine in a local business where it made more money.

Anyone can be a Buffet.  Anyone.  It's simply that people choose not to.   I have a co-worker that bought a bran new car, on 24% interest, because he just couldn't stand not having a new car any longer.   He's destined to be poor.

Years and years ago, a had a roommate, that spent every single penny they earned, from Friday's check, until they were flat broke by Thursday.   I tried to give some simple advice, that saving up some money would be wise, and I was told I was being 'critical' of them.

So I never said anything again.  Then their alternator blew on their car, and they has absolutely no money to fix it.

This is Capitalism.    They earned more money than be by far, yet they were broke, and I had cash in the bank.

Capitalism is freedom of people to make choices and reap the consequences of those choices.   For me, the choice to live frugally and invest, means I have cash in the bank, and stocks in large corporations.... even though I earned just $19,000 last year.

For others, Capitalism is the freedom to blow their money on things they desire, and have no money left.

Point being, "capitalism" doesn't cause wealth to accumulated in the hands of the few.   The freedom of people, causes wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.

Socialism is simply denying people the ability to choose.  When you take away choices, and make people slaves of the state, then magically everyone has the same level of wealth.   Granted... an impoverished amount of wealth... but at least it's equal impoverishment... right?

*Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.*

Nah, that's garbage.   It's not even logical.   Many socialist systems had slaves.  Soviets were massive numbers of slavers, and unlike American slave owners, literally worked them to death, some cases intentionally.  So was Maoist China.

If anything, a fundamental aspect of Capitalism, is property rights.   How can you ever have capitalism, if you can't own property?    Well if you are slave, that undermines the core aspect of property rights.    Slaves can't own other things.

So by it's nature, slavery subverts Capitalism.   And that's about the only connection between capitalism and slavery.

*No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.*

Nearly all.   Not some, or even a minority.  Nearly all.   Hilliard is a small suburb, and even here we introduced a section 8 housing area, and already it's a disaster.  Police are there all the time.  The place is trashed.    I'm currently supporting an effort to force the city to close the section 8, and get rid of the dope smoking hoodlums there.

I don't really care what you call it.  Fact is, it causes the very thing you claim it exists to remedy.

During the welfare reform of the 1990s, the local station sent a reporter to dig up one of these people that was going to get cut off.   She found some lady, and she was saying she'll have to get a job, and the reporter asked "How devastating will this be for you and your kids?"

The lady responded "Oh we'll be better off. I'll have more money for the family when I get a job"

The reporter was shocked.... stuttered a bit "Well uh... Why didn't you get a job sooner?"

"I didn't have to".

Government programs do not help people out of poverty.  They keep people in poverty.   You don't help anyone.  You harm everyone.  You harm them, by keeping them in poverty.  You harm us, the people who work paying for your crappy programs.  And you harm society, because we hate those lazy ticks sucking the blood out of our butts, and they hate us because living off government strips away dignity and pride of providing for ones self.

There is not one good aspect to your programs, except that it allows you to live inside the myth that you are good person because someone ELSE is paying money to the poor.

*That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding*

Completely illogical statement.  In a Capitalists system of voluntary exchange, she would not be able to force others to pay for her being lazy.

You are just stupid now.  You want to just make up random personal definitions of words, so you can live in the make-believe that it fits your argument?

If you can't argue logically, then you are disqualified from this discussion.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I don´t agree.*
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.
> 
> *It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.*
> 
> Wrong.   Not true.
> 
> Capitalism does not require, or cause, people to be unable to pay for their own livelihood.
> 
> What capitalism does, is allow people to make choices.   In socialism, in the pre-78 China, I have to work in the rice fields for the rest of my life.  I don't have a choice in the matter.   Which allows you to only earn as much as me, and we all get the same wage, some shelter, same food, same life.   We have no hope, and no future.  We are born poor, live poor, and die poor.
> 
> But.... we have a guaranteed income.
> 
> In Capitalism, you choose what you do.  If you work at Burger King until you die, flipping whoopers, then you live a meager life until you die.  But you don't have to.  No one has to.   They can choose to do something else.
> 
> Doug McMillon current CEO of walmart, started of working in the distribution center, unloading trucks.  Seasonal job, during the summer, earning a few bucks and hour, unloading trucks.
> 
> Did he stay there?  No, he went to college, got a degree, learned management skills, and then applied to move up to a new position.  Then a another position.  And kept moving every year or two, to a new spot in the company, and now he's CEO.
> 
> And here's the real kicker of Capitalism.  Everyone is a capitalist.  I'm a capitalist.  You are a capitalist.
> 
> The only difference between the rich capitalist, and the poor capitalist, is whether they choose to invest their money, or blow it.    If you spend all your money, you'll be the poor capitalist.  If you invest your money, you'll be the rich capitalist, even if you make very little relatively speaking.
> 
> Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
> 
> This guy worked as a janitor his entire life.  End up with $8 Million.   How?   Saved and invested.  Real simple.  He saved up money, and invested into stocks of companies he liked.
> 
> Do you know Warren Buffet got to where he is?   When he was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route, and bought a pinball machine.  He then placed the pinball machine in a local business where it made more money.
> 
> Anyone can be a Buffet.  Anyone.  It's simply that people choose not to.   I have a co-worker that bought a bran new car, on 24% interest, because he just couldn't stand not having a new car any longer.   He's destined to be poor.
> 
> Years and years ago, a had a roommate, that spent every single penny they earned, from Friday's check, until they were flat broke by Thursday.   I tried to give some simple advice, that saving up some money would be wise, and I was told I was being 'critical' of them.
> 
> So I never said anything again.  Then their alternator blew on their car, and they has absolutely no money to fix it.
> 
> This is Capitalism.    They earned more money than be by far, yet they were broke, and I had cash in the bank.
> 
> Capitalism is freedom of people to make choices and reap the consequences of those choices.   For me, the choice to live frugally and invest, means I have cash in the bank, and stocks in large corporations.... even though I earned just $19,000 last year.
> 
> For others, Capitalism is the freedom to blow their money on things they desire, and have no money left.
> 
> Point being, "capitalism" doesn't cause wealth to accumulated in the hands of the few.   The freedom of people, causes wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.
> 
> Socialism is simply denying people the ability to choose.  When you take away choices, and make people slaves of the state, then magically everyone has the same level of wealth.   Granted... an impoverished amount of wealth... but at least it's equal impoverishment... right?
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.*
> 
> Nah, that's garbage.   It's not even logical.   Many socialist systems had slaves.  Soviets were massive numbers of slavers, and unlike American slave owners, literally worked them to death, some cases intentionally.  So was Maoist China.
> 
> If anything, a fundamental aspect of Capitalism, is property rights.   How can you ever have capitalism, if you can't own property?    Well if you are slave, that undermines the core aspect of property rights.    Slaves can't own other things.
> 
> So by it's nature, slavery subverts Capitalism.   And that's about the only connection between capitalism and slavery.
> 
> *No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.*
> 
> Nearly all.   Not some, or even a minority.  Nearly all.   Hilliard is a small suburb, and even here we introduced a section 8 housing area, and already it's a disaster.  Police are there all the time.  The place is trashed.    I'm currently supporting an effort to force the city to close the section 8, and get rid of the dope smoking hoodlums there.
> 
> I don't really care what you call it.  Fact is, it causes the very thing you claim it exists to remedy.
> 
> During the welfare reform of the 1990s, the local station sent a reporter to dig up one of these people that was going to get cut off.   She found some lady, and she was saying she'll have to get a job, and the reporter asked "How devastating will this be for you and your kids?"
> 
> The lady responded "Oh we'll be better off. I'll have more money for the family when I get a job"
> 
> The reporter was shocked.... stuttered a bit "Well uh... Why didn't you get a job sooner?"
> 
> "I didn't have to".
> 
> Government programs do not help people out of poverty.  They keep people in poverty.   You don't help anyone.  You harm everyone.  You harm them, by keeping them in poverty.  You harm us, the people who work paying for your crappy programs.  And you harm society, because we hate those lazy ticks sucking the blood out of our butts, and they hate us because living off government strips away dignity and pride of providing for ones self.
> 
> There is not one good aspect to your programs, except that it allows you to live inside the myth that you are good person because someone ELSE is paying money to the poor.
> 
> *That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding*
> 
> Completely illogical statement.  In a Capitalists system of voluntary exchange, she would not be able to force others to pay for her being lazy.
> 
> You are just stupid now.  You want to just make up random personal definitions of words, so you can live in the make-believe that it fits your argument?
> 
> If you can't argue logically, then you are disqualified from this discussion.
Click to expand...

Even in socialism people move up the career ladder when they are excel in their job. Your few cases of from rag to riches do not mean everyone has the choice to become rich. You are glorifying a system and don´t allow criticism. We all were billionaires if it was true what you say. The best mix of socialism and capitalism has to be found and applied.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.


And that stupidity right there is why we're *$20 trillion* in debt and have lost most of our liberties.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.


Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".

By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".
> 
> By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.
Click to expand...

In fact, pure naked capitalism has halted human progress in Europe for centuries. Strong governments like Rome on the other hand rose. 

As we can sum up, capitalist slavery is the result from an absence of rules.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> In fact, pure naked capitalism has halted human progress in Europe for centuries. Strong governments like Rome on the other hand rose.
> 
> As we can sum up, capitalist slavery is the result from an absence of rules.


Repeating a *lie* doesn't make it true. Man suffered for thousands of years until capitalism. Then, the standard of living absolutely shot through the roof. Capitalism has done more to improve mankind than _anything_ else. That is an indisputable fact.


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, pure naked capitalism has halted human progress in Europe for centuries. Strong governments like Rome on the other hand rose.
> 
> As we can sum up, capitalist slavery is the result from an absence of rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating a *lie* doesn't make it true. Man suffered for thousands of years until capitalism. Then, the standard of living absolutely shot through the roof. Capitalism has done more to improve mankind than _anything_ else. That is an indisputable fact.
Click to expand...

Its bullshit. Capitalism needs socialism. In old Prussian capitalism, peoples´ wage for 16 hours of factory was a bag of potatoes. You can´t buy something with a potato and if you can´t buy something, the economy cannot grow. When socialist components were introduced, the economies started to grow.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> And that stupidity right there is why we're *$20 trillion* in debt and have lost most of our liberties.
Click to expand...

dude; those are Your policies.  Socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".
> 
> By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.
Click to expand...

dude, slavery is immorality.  we Only need, Ten simple Commandments from Any god.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> And that stupidity right there is why we're *$20 trillion* in debt and have lost most of our liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; those are Your policies.  Socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.
Click to expand...

Socialism is exclusively left-wing, snowflake. Who passed Obamacare? Who passed welfare? Who passed Social Security? Who passed Medicaid?

Are _any_ of those constitutional? Nope! Do they cost over $1 trillion per year - more than double the defense budget? Yep!

Do you look _really_ stupid right now? Yes! Do we all wonder why you keep coming back for more? Yep.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".
> 
> By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, slavery is immorality.  we Only need, Ten simple Commandments from Any god.
Click to expand...

Slavery _is_ immoral. Which begs the question - why are you left-winger so desperate to enslave everyone?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> And that stupidity right there is why we're *$20 trillion* in debt and have lost most of our liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; those are Your policies.  Socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism is exclusively left-wing, snowflake. Who passed Obamacare? Who passed welfare? Who passed Social Security? Who passed Medicaid?
> 
> Are _any_ of those constitutional? Nope! Do they cost over $1 trillion per year - more than double the defense budget? Yep!
> 
> Do you look _really_ stupid right now? Yes! Do we all wonder why you keep coming back for more? Yep.
Click to expand...

special pleading much?  our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, are worse.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".
> 
> By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, slavery is immorality.  we Only need, Ten simple Commandments from Any god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery _is_ immoral. Which begs the question - why are you left-winger so desperate to enslave everyone?
Click to expand...

you are the one begging that question.  We have a Commerce Clause.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery _is_ immoral. Which begs the question - why are you left-winger so desperate to enslave everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one begging that question.  We have a Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...

So you think the "Commerce Clause" legalizes slavery?!?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> And that stupidity right there is why we're *$20 trillion* in debt and have lost most of our liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; those are Your policies.  Socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism is exclusively left-wing, snowflake. Who passed Obamacare? Who passed welfare? Who passed Social Security? Who passed Medicaid?
> 
> Are _any_ of those constitutional? Nope! Do they cost over $1 trillion per year - more than double the defense budget? Yep!
> 
> Do you look _really_ stupid right now? Yes! Do we all wonder why you keep coming back for more? Yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading much?  our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, are worse.
Click to expand...

Well that's insanely idiotic - even by your normal standards. Waging a war against terror, crime, or drugs are not "socialism". Do you not understand what that term means? You were proclaiming the left engages in (and I quote) "national socialism". I pointed out that every idiotic socialist legislation in U.S. history was left-wing. You're best response to that indisputable fact was "our wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worse". What do any of those have to do with the fact that you were 100% *wrong* as usual?


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery _is_ immoral. Which begs the question - why are you left-winger so desperate to enslave everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one begging that question.  We have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the "Commerce Clause" legalizes slavery?!?
Click to expand...

You are the one "begging the question".  Why do you believe it does?

Capitalism is about market friendly transactions that involve mutually beneficial trade.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US has the Best form of Socialism in the Entire World.  The rich can even keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while on _means tested_ corporate welfare and the poor can still have steak and lobster on their EBT cards.
> 
> 
> 
> And that stupidity right there is why we're *$20 trillion* in debt and have lost most of our liberties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; those are Your policies.  Socialism on a national basis is all the right wing has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Socialism is exclusively left-wing, snowflake. Who passed Obamacare? Who passed welfare? Who passed Social Security? Who passed Medicaid?
> 
> Are _any_ of those constitutional? Nope! Do they cost over $1 trillion per year - more than double the defense budget? Yep!
> 
> Do you look _really_ stupid right now? Yes! Do we all wonder why you keep coming back for more? Yep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> special pleading much?  our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, are worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's insanely idiotic - even by your normal standards. Waging a war against terror, crime, or drugs are not "socialism". Do you not understand what that term means? You were proclaiming the left engages in (and I quote) "national socialism". I pointed out that every idiotic socialist legislation in U.S. history was left-wing. You're best response to that indisputable fact was "our wars on crime, drugs, and terror are worse". What do any of those have to do with the fact that you were 100% *wrong* as usual?
Click to expand...

Yes, government policy is command economics.  only the right wing, never gets it.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery _is_ immoral. Which begs the question - why are you left-winger so desperate to enslave everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one begging that question.  We have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the "Commerce Clause" legalizes slavery?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one "begging the question".
Click to expand...

Well _duh_. When someone makes a comment as astoundingly stupid as "the commerce clause legalizes slavery" it requires intelligent people to ask questions.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Yes, government policy is command economics.


It's "government policy" to arrest, prosecute, and imprison murders. What does that have to do with the economy?

(Hint: *nothing*)

You want so desperately to convince everyone that we already have a "planned economy" so that you can work toward an actual planned economy. It's not working snowflake. Unfortunately for you, we're all exponentially smarter than you are.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends in *failure* like left-wing policy...

Obama Tried to Placate Rebellious Students. It Backfired.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I don´t agree.*
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.
> 
> *It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.*
> 
> Wrong.   Not true.
> 
> Capitalism does not require, or cause, people to be unable to pay for their own livelihood.
> 
> What capitalism does, is allow people to make choices.   In socialism, in the pre-78 China, I have to work in the rice fields for the rest of my life.  I don't have a choice in the matter.   Which allows you to only earn as much as me, and we all get the same wage, some shelter, same food, same life.   We have no hope, and no future.  We are born poor, live poor, and die poor.
> 
> But.... we have a guaranteed income.
> 
> In Capitalism, you choose what you do.  If you work at Burger King until you die, flipping whoopers, then you live a meager life until you die.  But you don't have to.  No one has to.   They can choose to do something else.
> 
> Doug McMillon current CEO of walmart, started of working in the distribution center, unloading trucks.  Seasonal job, during the summer, earning a few bucks and hour, unloading trucks.
> 
> Did he stay there?  No, he went to college, got a degree, learned management skills, and then applied to move up to a new position.  Then a another position.  And kept moving every year or two, to a new spot in the company, and now he's CEO.
> 
> And here's the real kicker of Capitalism.  Everyone is a capitalist.  I'm a capitalist.  You are a capitalist.
> 
> The only difference between the rich capitalist, and the poor capitalist, is whether they choose to invest their money, or blow it.    If you spend all your money, you'll be the poor capitalist.  If you invest your money, you'll be the rich capitalist, even if you make very little relatively speaking.
> 
> Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
> 
> This guy worked as a janitor his entire life.  End up with $8 Million.   How?   Saved and invested.  Real simple.  He saved up money, and invested into stocks of companies he liked.
> 
> Do you know Warren Buffet got to where he is?   When he was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route, and bought a pinball machine.  He then placed the pinball machine in a local business where it made more money.
> 
> Anyone can be a Buffet.  Anyone.  It's simply that people choose not to.   I have a co-worker that bought a bran new car, on 24% interest, because he just couldn't stand not having a new car any longer.   He's destined to be poor.
> 
> Years and years ago, a had a roommate, that spent every single penny they earned, from Friday's check, until they were flat broke by Thursday.   I tried to give some simple advice, that saving up some money would be wise, and I was told I was being 'critical' of them.
> 
> So I never said anything again.  Then their alternator blew on their car, and they has absolutely no money to fix it.
> 
> This is Capitalism.    They earned more money than be by far, yet they were broke, and I had cash in the bank.
> 
> Capitalism is freedom of people to make choices and reap the consequences of those choices.   For me, the choice to live frugally and invest, means I have cash in the bank, and stocks in large corporations.... even though I earned just $19,000 last year.
> 
> For others, Capitalism is the freedom to blow their money on things they desire, and have no money left.
> 
> Point being, "capitalism" doesn't cause wealth to accumulated in the hands of the few.   The freedom of people, causes wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.
> 
> Socialism is simply denying people the ability to choose.  When you take away choices, and make people slaves of the state, then magically everyone has the same level of wealth.   Granted... an impoverished amount of wealth... but at least it's equal impoverishment... right?
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.*
> 
> Nah, that's garbage.   It's not even logical.   Many socialist systems had slaves.  Soviets were massive numbers of slavers, and unlike American slave owners, literally worked them to death, some cases intentionally.  So was Maoist China.
> 
> If anything, a fundamental aspect of Capitalism, is property rights.   How can you ever have capitalism, if you can't own property?    Well if you are slave, that undermines the core aspect of property rights.    Slaves can't own other things.
> 
> So by it's nature, slavery subverts Capitalism.   And that's about the only connection between capitalism and slavery.
> 
> *No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.*
> 
> Nearly all.   Not some, or even a minority.  Nearly all.   Hilliard is a small suburb, and even here we introduced a section 8 housing area, and already it's a disaster.  Police are there all the time.  The place is trashed.    I'm currently supporting an effort to force the city to close the section 8, and get rid of the dope smoking hoodlums there.
> 
> I don't really care what you call it.  Fact is, it causes the very thing you claim it exists to remedy.
> 
> During the welfare reform of the 1990s, the local station sent a reporter to dig up one of these people that was going to get cut off.   She found some lady, and she was saying she'll have to get a job, and the reporter asked "How devastating will this be for you and your kids?"
> 
> The lady responded "Oh we'll be better off. I'll have more money for the family when I get a job"
> 
> The reporter was shocked.... stuttered a bit "Well uh... Why didn't you get a job sooner?"
> 
> "I didn't have to".
> 
> Government programs do not help people out of poverty.  They keep people in poverty.   You don't help anyone.  You harm everyone.  You harm them, by keeping them in poverty.  You harm us, the people who work paying for your crappy programs.  And you harm society, because we hate those lazy ticks sucking the blood out of our butts, and they hate us because living off government strips away dignity and pride of providing for ones self.
> 
> There is not one good aspect to your programs, except that it allows you to live inside the myth that you are good person because someone ELSE is paying money to the poor.
> 
> *That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding*
> 
> Completely illogical statement.  In a Capitalists system of voluntary exchange, she would not be able to force others to pay for her being lazy.
> 
> You are just stupid now.  You want to just make up random personal definitions of words, so you can live in the make-believe that it fits your argument?
> 
> If you can't argue logically, then you are disqualified from this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in socialism people move up the career ladder when they are excel in their job. Your few cases of from rag to riches do not mean everyone has the choice to become rich. You are glorifying a system and don´t allow criticism. We all were billionaires if it was true what you say. The best mix of socialism and capitalism has to be found and applied.
Click to expand...


Yes, actually it does mean that.     Everyone can be rich.  Everyone can.  Every single person has the ability to live on less than they make, and save and invest.

Again, Warren Buffet didn't become a billionaire by random chance, or by excessive brilliance.   He simply didn't blow his money on crap.   It's the Pinball people verses the Beer Pong people.   When I was in high school, the popular thing to do was find some guy whose parents were going out of town or something, buy a keg of beer with your money, and play beer pong all weekend. (I lived in a middle class area).

Of course all of them were flat broke, even though they all worked jobs, because they spent everything they had on beer, video games, and of course those useless overpriced shoes and jackets.

Warren Buffet, in high school, was saving money from a paper route, and buying pinball machine, so that he could earn more money.  He was investing.  Not consuming.

People consume all their money, then wonder why they are poor.

I make barely $20,000.  Yet I have several thousand in the bank, and thousands in stocks. (invested through a couple of mutual funds in aggressive growth stocks)   I've met people that make double what I do, and have no money.

And, under socialism, yes some people can move up the income ladder..... namely by moving up the political party.   People promoted without skill or ability, but have the right connections.     China famously had a guy make friends with a politician, and was elected to run a steel mill.   The employees furious that this nobody that had a "friend" in high places, was now their boss, beat him to death.

Che Guevara famously put one of his buddies in charge of the Sugar cane fields.   Of course he had no idea how to run the plantations, and production dropped dramatically. 

So yeah, you can work your way up the income ladder in a Socialized system.  It's called "corruption" in our country, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".
> 
> By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, pure naked capitalism has halted human progress in Europe for centuries. Strong governments like Rome on the other hand rose.
> 
> As we can sum up, capitalist slavery is the result from an absence of rules.
Click to expand...


No, that's wrong.   Pure capitalism, is not pure liberty.   Because if you have pure liberty, there is no confines of justices and property rights.

If I can't own anything.....  that in, and of itself.... prevents the capitalist system.    You have to have the ability to own something.   And the rights of ownership, have to be protected.

If I can legally own something, but it doesn't matter because anyone can steal it, or take it by force... then regardless of what the law says I still have no property rights.   So under that situation there still is no capitalism.

None of that is capitalism.     You can't have capitalism without law, and law enforcement.  Doesn't work.

Your basic claim is fundamentally illogical and ridiculous.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I don´t agree.*
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.
> 
> *It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.*
> 
> Wrong.   Not true.
> 
> Capitalism does not require, or cause, people to be unable to pay for their own livelihood.
> 
> What capitalism does, is allow people to make choices.   In socialism, in the pre-78 China, I have to work in the rice fields for the rest of my life.  I don't have a choice in the matter.   Which allows you to only earn as much as me, and we all get the same wage, some shelter, same food, same life.   We have no hope, and no future.  We are born poor, live poor, and die poor.
> 
> But.... we have a guaranteed income.
> 
> In Capitalism, you choose what you do.  If you work at Burger King until you die, flipping whoopers, then you live a meager life until you die.  But you don't have to.  No one has to.   They can choose to do something else.
> 
> Doug McMillon current CEO of walmart, started of working in the distribution center, unloading trucks.  Seasonal job, during the summer, earning a few bucks and hour, unloading trucks.
> 
> Did he stay there?  No, he went to college, got a degree, learned management skills, and then applied to move up to a new position.  Then a another position.  And kept moving every year or two, to a new spot in the company, and now he's CEO.
> 
> And here's the real kicker of Capitalism.  Everyone is a capitalist.  I'm a capitalist.  You are a capitalist.
> 
> The only difference between the rich capitalist, and the poor capitalist, is whether they choose to invest their money, or blow it.    If you spend all your money, you'll be the poor capitalist.  If you invest your money, you'll be the rich capitalist, even if you make very little relatively speaking.
> 
> Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
> 
> This guy worked as a janitor his entire life.  End up with $8 Million.   How?   Saved and invested.  Real simple.  He saved up money, and invested into stocks of companies he liked.
> 
> Do you know Warren Buffet got to where he is?   When he was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route, and bought a pinball machine.  He then placed the pinball machine in a local business where it made more money.
> 
> Anyone can be a Buffet.  Anyone.  It's simply that people choose not to.   I have a co-worker that bought a bran new car, on 24% interest, because he just couldn't stand not having a new car any longer.   He's destined to be poor.
> 
> Years and years ago, a had a roommate, that spent every single penny they earned, from Friday's check, until they were flat broke by Thursday.   I tried to give some simple advice, that saving up some money would be wise, and I was told I was being 'critical' of them.
> 
> So I never said anything again.  Then their alternator blew on their car, and they has absolutely no money to fix it.
> 
> This is Capitalism.    They earned more money than be by far, yet they were broke, and I had cash in the bank.
> 
> Capitalism is freedom of people to make choices and reap the consequences of those choices.   For me, the choice to live frugally and invest, means I have cash in the bank, and stocks in large corporations.... even though I earned just $19,000 last year.
> 
> For others, Capitalism is the freedom to blow their money on things they desire, and have no money left.
> 
> Point being, "capitalism" doesn't cause wealth to accumulated in the hands of the few.   The freedom of people, causes wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.
> 
> Socialism is simply denying people the ability to choose.  When you take away choices, and make people slaves of the state, then magically everyone has the same level of wealth.   Granted... an impoverished amount of wealth... but at least it's equal impoverishment... right?
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.*
> 
> Nah, that's garbage.   It's not even logical.   Many socialist systems had slaves.  Soviets were massive numbers of slavers, and unlike American slave owners, literally worked them to death, some cases intentionally.  So was Maoist China.
> 
> If anything, a fundamental aspect of Capitalism, is property rights.   How can you ever have capitalism, if you can't own property?    Well if you are slave, that undermines the core aspect of property rights.    Slaves can't own other things.
> 
> So by it's nature, slavery subverts Capitalism.   And that's about the only connection between capitalism and slavery.
> 
> *No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.*
> 
> Nearly all.   Not some, or even a minority.  Nearly all.   Hilliard is a small suburb, and even here we introduced a section 8 housing area, and already it's a disaster.  Police are there all the time.  The place is trashed.    I'm currently supporting an effort to force the city to close the section 8, and get rid of the dope smoking hoodlums there.
> 
> I don't really care what you call it.  Fact is, it causes the very thing you claim it exists to remedy.
> 
> During the welfare reform of the 1990s, the local station sent a reporter to dig up one of these people that was going to get cut off.   She found some lady, and she was saying she'll have to get a job, and the reporter asked "How devastating will this be for you and your kids?"
> 
> The lady responded "Oh we'll be better off. I'll have more money for the family when I get a job"
> 
> The reporter was shocked.... stuttered a bit "Well uh... Why didn't you get a job sooner?"
> 
> "I didn't have to".
> 
> Government programs do not help people out of poverty.  They keep people in poverty.   You don't help anyone.  You harm everyone.  You harm them, by keeping them in poverty.  You harm us, the people who work paying for your crappy programs.  And you harm society, because we hate those lazy ticks sucking the blood out of our butts, and they hate us because living off government strips away dignity and pride of providing for ones self.
> 
> There is not one good aspect to your programs, except that it allows you to live inside the myth that you are good person because someone ELSE is paying money to the poor.
> 
> *That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding*
> 
> Completely illogical statement.  In a Capitalists system of voluntary exchange, she would not be able to force others to pay for her being lazy.
> 
> You are just stupid now.  You want to just make up random personal definitions of words, so you can live in the make-believe that it fits your argument?
> 
> If you can't argue logically, then you are disqualified from this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in socialism people move up the career ladder when they are excel in their job. Your few cases of from rag to riches do not mean everyone has the choice to become rich. You are glorifying a system and don´t allow criticism. We all were billionaires if it was true what you say. The best mix of socialism and capitalism has to be found and applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does mean that.     Everyone can be rich.  Everyone can.  Every single person has the ability to live on less than they make, and save and invest.
> 
> Again, Warren Buffet didn't become a billionaire by random chance, or by excessive brilliance.   He simply didn't blow his money on crap.   It's the Pinball people verses the Beer Pong people.   When I was in high school, the popular thing to do was find some guy whose parents were going out of town or something, buy a keg of beer with your money, and play beer pong all weekend. (I lived in a middle class area).
> 
> Of course all of them were flat broke, even though they all worked jobs, because they spent everything they had on beer, video games, and of course those useless overpriced shoes and jackets.
> 
> Warren Buffet, in high school, was saving money from a paper route, and buying pinball machine, so that he could earn more money.  He was investing.  Not consuming.
> 
> People consume all their money, then wonder why they are poor.
> 
> I make barely $20,000.  Yet I have several thousand in the bank, and thousands in stocks. (invested through a couple of mutual funds in aggressive growth stocks)   I've met people that make double what I do, and have no money.
> 
> And, under socialism, yes some people can move up the income ladder..... namely by moving up the political party.   People promoted without skill or ability, but have the right connections.     China famously had a guy make friends with a politician, and was elected to run a steel mill.   The employees furious that this nobody that had a "friend" in high places, was now their boss, beat him to death.
> 
> Che Guevara famously put one of his buddies in charge of the Sugar cane fields.   Of course he had no idea how to run the plantations, and production dropped dramatically.
> 
> So yeah, you can work your way up the income ladder in a Socialized system.  It's called "corruption" in our country, but whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...

You know that sounds kinda silly. At first, there is no benefit of money if you don´t spend it. Second, a pinball machine does not earn bullions. Third, if all would buy a pinball machine, nobody would spend money at a pinball machine. 

While Capitalism does indeed provide more chances to become rich, it also provides more chances to become poor. It is ignorant to say all those workers and poor could have been millionaires. Socialism on the other hand prevents you from falling out of the society. There are no barrel ovens, bums, starving people.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery*. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> Just think about that statement for a moment. It's as absurd as saying "the sun results in total darkness".
> 
> By its very nature - pure capitalism is _pure_ *liberty*. Rules are slavery. They tell a person what they can and can't do. When someone else is deciding for you what you can and can't do - you're not in complete control of your own life. That's a part of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact, pure naked capitalism has halted human progress in Europe for centuries. Strong governments like Rome on the other hand rose.
> 
> As we can sum up, capitalist slavery is the result from an absence of rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's wrong.   Pure capitalism, is not pure liberty.   Because if you have pure liberty, there is no confines of justices and property rights.
> 
> If I can't own anything.....  that in, and of itself.... prevents the capitalist system.    You have to have the ability to own something.   And the rights of ownership, have to be protected.
> 
> If I can legally own something, but it doesn't matter because anyone can steal it, or take it by force... then regardless of what the law says I still have no property rights.   So under that situation there still is no capitalism.
> 
> None of that is capitalism.     You can't have capitalism without law, and law enforcement.  Doesn't work.
> 
> Your basic claim is fundamentally illogical and ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I actually claim that Capitalism needs rules.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery _is_ immoral. Which begs the question - why are you left-winger so desperate to enslave everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> you are the one begging that question.  We have a Commerce Clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you think the "Commerce Clause" legalizes slavery?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one "begging the question".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well _duh_. When someone makes a comment as astoundingly stupid as "the commerce clause legalizes slavery" it requires intelligent people to ask questions.
Click to expand...

it is Your question.  You are the one, begging that question.  that is why, i don't take the right wing seriously.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, government policy is command economics.
> 
> 
> 
> It's "government policy" to arrest, prosecute, and imprison murders. What does that have to do with the economy?
> 
> (Hint: *nothing*)
> 
> You want so desperately to convince everyone that we already have a "planned economy" so that you can work toward an actual planned economy. It's not working snowflake. Unfortunately for you, we're all exponentially smarter than you are.
Click to expand...

command economics, not free market spending.  Only the right wing, never gets it.

We got a War on Drugs instead of a market friendly, Mission to Mars, by Nixon.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Nothing ends in *failure* like left-wing policy...
> 
> Obama Tried to Placate Rebellious Students. It Backfired.


Like the right wing would know, when all they have, is nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> *command economics*, not free market spending.


Why don't you just call it what it is? Communism.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> We got a War on Drugs instead of a market friendly, Mission to Mars


Because drugs have a major impact on our world. A "mission to Mars" would do *nothing* except fulfill your bizarre little fantasies.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Like the right wing would know, when all they have, is nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.


Because "repeal" results in constitutional government. We obey the law - unlike you power-hungry criminals.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> *command economics*, not free market spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you just call it what it is? Communism.
Click to expand...

Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simply that form of socialism on a national basis.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We got a War on Drugs instead of a market friendly, Mission to Mars
> 
> 
> 
> Because drugs have a major impact on our world. A "mission to Mars" would do *nothing* except fulfill your bizarre little fantasies.
Click to expand...

Just socialism on a national basis.  The right wing, merely likes to waste money repeating historical mistakes, and then claiming they are not really like that, afterward.

A Mission to Mars would do more to "change our world".


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like the right wing would know, when all they have, is nothing but repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.
> 
> 
> 
> Because "repeal" results in constitutional government. We obey the law - unlike you power-hungry criminals.
Click to expand...

so could a better solution at lower cost.  Only the right has Only, repeal.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I would argue that all of those ghettos and projects, and abandoned neighborhoods, are not examples of Capitalism, but rather of socialism.
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> All the 'projects' that have failed across this country, can't be blamed on capitalism, because under capitalism, they never would have existed.
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> It's a system that only exists because of socialism.   Socialism, literally harms everyone.  Capitalism benefits everyone.
> 
> Welfare, and other government programs, not only harm the welfare recipient, but it also harms all the working people who have to pay for the welfare recipient, and not only that it also harms the fabric of society, because working people hate the lazy slob not working, and the lazy slob hates the working people.
> 
> Socialism is the socioeconomic version of cancer, that destroys everything it touches.
> 
> 
> 
> I don´t agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most obvious being the "projects".  What do you think "projects" means?  It's government public housing.    Well if government is running it, paying for it, controlling it.... that's not Capitalism.   That's socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slums and ghettos in the US, I would also argue are largely due to government.  One of the primary reasons people stay poor, is because government teaches them to live off government.   Which again... is socialism.  Not Capitalism.   Capitalism, people live off their work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of these slums and ghettos, the majority of the people are living off of welfare, and food stamps, and section 8 housing.    In fact one of the quickest ways to create a slum, is to make the area section 8.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in the 90s, I worked at Wendy's, and a lady came in, and told us she had to work X number of days until she could get back on Welfare, and then she was gone.   Sure enough on the day she qualified for welfare, she stopped showing up for work.
> 
> The number one way any person moves up out of poverty, is by working, which gives them experience and skills, to move up the income chain.
> 
> Quitting because you qualify for welfare, means that you never get beyond entry level.   Which means you stay in poverty, and the slums, for life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> I don´t agree.*
> 
> You have the right to be wrong.
> 
> *It is capitalism. Capitalism accumulates so much wealth on a small group of people that some are unable to pay for their own livelihood and need assistance even if they have two or three jobs. If you say no we do not make projects, those people would not disappear but pose an even larger problem. Pure capitalism.*
> 
> Wrong.   Not true.
> 
> Capitalism does not require, or cause, people to be unable to pay for their own livelihood.
> 
> What capitalism does, is allow people to make choices.   In socialism, in the pre-78 China, I have to work in the rice fields for the rest of my life.  I don't have a choice in the matter.   Which allows you to only earn as much as me, and we all get the same wage, some shelter, same food, same life.   We have no hope, and no future.  We are born poor, live poor, and die poor.
> 
> But.... we have a guaranteed income.
> 
> In Capitalism, you choose what you do.  If you work at Burger King until you die, flipping whoopers, then you live a meager life until you die.  But you don't have to.  No one has to.   They can choose to do something else.
> 
> Doug McMillon current CEO of walmart, started of working in the distribution center, unloading trucks.  Seasonal job, during the summer, earning a few bucks and hour, unloading trucks.
> 
> Did he stay there?  No, he went to college, got a degree, learned management skills, and then applied to move up to a new position.  Then a another position.  And kept moving every year or two, to a new spot in the company, and now he's CEO.
> 
> And here's the real kicker of Capitalism.  Everyone is a capitalist.  I'm a capitalist.  You are a capitalist.
> 
> The only difference between the rich capitalist, and the poor capitalist, is whether they choose to invest their money, or blow it.    If you spend all your money, you'll be the poor capitalist.  If you invest your money, you'll be the rich capitalist, even if you make very little relatively speaking.
> 
> Janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune, left most of it to library and hospital
> 
> This guy worked as a janitor his entire life.  End up with $8 Million.   How?   Saved and invested.  Real simple.  He saved up money, and invested into stocks of companies he liked.
> 
> Do you know Warren Buffet got to where he is?   When he was in high school, he saved up money from a paper route, and bought a pinball machine.  He then placed the pinball machine in a local business where it made more money.
> 
> Anyone can be a Buffet.  Anyone.  It's simply that people choose not to.   I have a co-worker that bought a bran new car, on 24% interest, because he just couldn't stand not having a new car any longer.   He's destined to be poor.
> 
> Years and years ago, a had a roommate, that spent every single penny they earned, from Friday's check, until they were flat broke by Thursday.   I tried to give some simple advice, that saving up some money would be wise, and I was told I was being 'critical' of them.
> 
> So I never said anything again.  Then their alternator blew on their car, and they has absolutely no money to fix it.
> 
> This is Capitalism.    They earned more money than be by far, yet they were broke, and I had cash in the bank.
> 
> Capitalism is freedom of people to make choices and reap the consequences of those choices.   For me, the choice to live frugally and invest, means I have cash in the bank, and stocks in large corporations.... even though I earned just $19,000 last year.
> 
> For others, Capitalism is the freedom to blow their money on things they desire, and have no money left.
> 
> Point being, "capitalism" doesn't cause wealth to accumulated in the hands of the few.   The freedom of people, causes wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few.
> 
> Socialism is simply denying people the ability to choose.  When you take away choices, and make people slaves of the state, then magically everyone has the same level of wealth.   Granted... an impoverished amount of wealth... but at least it's equal impoverishment... right?
> 
> *Capitalism needs rules because it would result in slavery. Ghettos are the result of capitalist slavery in America´s early years. Also, Ghettos result from a lack of government.*
> 
> Nah, that's garbage.   It's not even logical.   Many socialist systems had slaves.  Soviets were massive numbers of slavers, and unlike American slave owners, literally worked them to death, some cases intentionally.  So was Maoist China.
> 
> If anything, a fundamental aspect of Capitalism, is property rights.   How can you ever have capitalism, if you can't own property?    Well if you are slave, that undermines the core aspect of property rights.    Slaves can't own other things.
> 
> So by it's nature, slavery subverts Capitalism.   And that's about the only connection between capitalism and slavery.
> 
> *No, not the majority. In some, maybe. Government welfare is a tool to deal with the insufficiencies of capitalism. Capitalism and civilization are opposites. This is not a plea against market economy but against the law of the jungle.*
> 
> Nearly all.   Not some, or even a minority.  Nearly all.   Hilliard is a small suburb, and even here we introduced a section 8 housing area, and already it's a disaster.  Police are there all the time.  The place is trashed.    I'm currently supporting an effort to force the city to close the section 8, and get rid of the dope smoking hoodlums there.
> 
> I don't really care what you call it.  Fact is, it causes the very thing you claim it exists to remedy.
> 
> During the welfare reform of the 1990s, the local station sent a reporter to dig up one of these people that was going to get cut off.   She found some lady, and she was saying she'll have to get a job, and the reporter asked "How devastating will this be for you and your kids?"
> 
> The lady responded "Oh we'll be better off. I'll have more money for the family when I get a job"
> 
> The reporter was shocked.... stuttered a bit "Well uh... Why didn't you get a job sooner?"
> 
> "I didn't have to".
> 
> Government programs do not help people out of poverty.  They keep people in poverty.   You don't help anyone.  You harm everyone.  You harm them, by keeping them in poverty.  You harm us, the people who work paying for your crappy programs.  And you harm society, because we hate those lazy ticks sucking the blood out of our butts, and they hate us because living off government strips away dignity and pride of providing for ones self.
> 
> There is not one good aspect to your programs, except that it allows you to live inside the myth that you are good person because someone ELSE is paying money to the poor.
> 
> *That smart woman knows there is no from rag to riches. Her behavior is capitalist and aims to get the most out of the least. She does what you are actually demanding*
> 
> Completely illogical statement.  In a Capitalists system of voluntary exchange, she would not be able to force others to pay for her being lazy.
> 
> You are just stupid now.  You want to just make up random personal definitions of words, so you can live in the make-believe that it fits your argument?
> 
> If you can't argue logically, then you are disqualified from this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in socialism people move up the career ladder when they are excel in their job. Your few cases of from rag to riches do not mean everyone has the choice to become rich. You are glorifying a system and don´t allow criticism. We all were billionaires if it was true what you say. The best mix of socialism and capitalism has to be found and applied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, actually it does mean that.     Everyone can be rich.  Everyone can.  Every single person has the ability to live on less than they make, and save and invest.
> 
> Again, Warren Buffet didn't become a billionaire by random chance, or by excessive brilliance.   He simply didn't blow his money on crap.   It's the Pinball people verses the Beer Pong people.   When I was in high school, the popular thing to do was find some guy whose parents were going out of town or something, buy a keg of beer with your money, and play beer pong all weekend. (I lived in a middle class area).
> 
> Of course all of them were flat broke, even though they all worked jobs, because they spent everything they had on beer, video games, and of course those useless overpriced shoes and jackets.
> 
> Warren Buffet, in high school, was saving money from a paper route, and buying pinball machine, so that he could earn more money.  He was investing.  Not consuming.
> 
> People consume all their money, then wonder why they are poor.
> 
> I make barely $20,000.  Yet I have several thousand in the bank, and thousands in stocks. (invested through a couple of mutual funds in aggressive growth stocks)   I've met people that make double what I do, and have no money.
> 
> And, under socialism, yes some people can move up the income ladder..... namely by moving up the political party.   People promoted without skill or ability, but have the right connections.     China famously had a guy make friends with a politician, and was elected to run a steel mill.   The employees furious that this nobody that had a "friend" in high places, was now their boss, beat him to death.
> 
> Che Guevara famously put one of his buddies in charge of the Sugar cane fields.   Of course he had no idea how to run the plantations, and production dropped dramatically.
> 
> So yeah, you can work your way up the income ladder in a Socialized system.  It's called "corruption" in our country, but whatever floats your boat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know that sounds kinda silly. At first, there is no benefit of money if you don´t spend it. Second, a pinball machine does not earn bullions. Third, if all would buy a pinball machine, nobody would spend money at a pinball machine.
> 
> While Capitalism does indeed provide more chances to become rich, it also provides more chances to become poor. It is ignorant to say all those workers and poor could have been millionaires. Socialism on the other hand prevents you from falling out of the society. There are no barrel ovens, bums, starving people.
Click to expand...


*a pinball machine does not earn bullions*

Oh come on man!   I am describing a pattern of living, that has good results.   Of course a pinball machine doesn't make billions.   But if you are saving and investing, and making money as a high school sophomore, it's that pattern of behavior, that leads you to wealth.

By the time Warren Buffet left college, he had over $100,000 net worth.   Again, not rocket science.   That one pinball machine, turned into three or four pinball machines, and then he sold the business, and walked away with $15,000 plus the profits from the machines while he ran it.

That was just over one summer.   He used that money to buy farm land, that he leased.   And made more money on that.

Now what would a modern American kid have done?  Even if by chance they were wise enough to do the pinball machine deal, they would have blown the $15K on a car or something, that falls in value like a rock.

Buffet again, invested, and made money.

*there is no benefit of money if you don´t spend it*

And it's that mentality that results in you being poor.

I'll give you another example.  Two people that both got $10 Million dollars.

Sharon Tirabassi in 2004 or around there, won $10 Million dollars from the lottery.  You can see pictures of her, in expensive outfits, driving an expensive car, at a new apartment, living it up.  By 2014, she was without a car, without a home, living in a subsidized apartment, riding the bus to her job.   Utterly impoverished.

But hey, there's no benefit of money if you don't spend it!   Well she spent it, now she's broke.

On the other side you have Steve Jobs. When Steve Jobs left Apple computer in the late 80s, (forced out I should say), he had a check for $10 Million dollars.   Now he could have done the same thing as Sharon, and lived it up!  Bought some luxury yachts.  Maybe a super mansion.

Instead, he invested the money into a new company.   A bran new computer graphics and special effects company.   He paid half the money to get the company.  And used the rest of the money to build the company up, and upgrade their stuff, and hire people.   That company grew year after year until they put out their first all original product in 1995 named.... "Toy Story".   The company is now called Pixar.

In 2006, Disney bought Pixar from Steve Jobs for stock worth $7.8 Billion dollars.    He turned $10 Million into $7.8 Billion.    While Sharon turned $10 Million into zero.

This is the difference between the pinball people, and the beer pong people.  This is why poor people are poor, and rich people are rich.   Rich people save and invest, and poor people spend and consume.

*Third, if all would buy a pinball machine, nobody would spend money at a pinball machine.*

Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?

There is literally limitless ways to make money.  You can make money doing almost anything.  Almost ANYTHING.

I remember years ago, there was a truck driving lady.  She would drive into the truck stop, where all the other truckers were, and pull out of her cab, this fold up swivel chair, and massive clipper, and tiny vacuum, and a bunch of gels and crap, and yell out "I'll clip your hair for $10".   And these guys would line up, and get their hair cut at the truck stop.

I live in a Condo, and this kid would walk over from the houses every spring.  Because our front stoops needed to be painted every year.   So he'd walk around painting the stoops for $20, and for another $15, he'd buy the paint.    Walk away with $1,000 over the weekend.

At my company we have a little old lady, got to be in her 60s, that owns the snack machines in the break room.   She comes in every other week, collects her cash, stocks the machine, and waddles out.

I just bought online, for a project (long story), 250 bread bag clips.   Some person collects those bread bag clips, and sells them online, in bags of 50, for $8 each.




Now if you are like most people, you are asking, why the heck are you buying these for?  It's a long boring story.   But they have over 200 feedback reviews, so it's not just me.

Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.   That doesn't mean everything you do will be fantastically profitable.  Some of the things Buffet did, didn't turn out real well.   But he just kept saving and investing, until he found stuff that worked.

That's the point.
*
While Capitalism does indeed provide more chances to become rich, it also provides more chances to become poor. It is ignorant to say all those workers and poor could have been millionaires. Socialism on the other hand prevents you from falling out of the society. There are no barrel ovens, bums, starving people.*

Entirely wrong.

*Capitalism does not offer more chances to become poor. *

The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.

Starving Venezuelans are giving away their children to survive

Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.

In America.... our poor people have an obesity problem.

*It is not ignorant to say that all those workers and poor could be millionaires.*

It's actually fact.

I'll prove it with numbers.   You can do math right?

I have a mutual fund that currently has a 13% year-over-year return.   Let's drop that to 10%, and call that good.

Say you work at Wendy's, and earn the bare minimum wage.  Now that's hard.  Because if you work full time, you automatically earn more than minimum wage.  But let's say you suck so bad as an employee, that you earn flat $7.25 an hour, 40 hours a week.

That's $15,000 a year.   Now FICA taxes you at 15.3%.   That's $177 a month.

If you invested.... just $177 into my mutual fund, from working age, that's 20 years old, until you are 60, at 10% annual return (again mine has a 13% return)...  by the time you are age 60... you will have over a million dollars.




Now that's assuming that you work 40 YEARS..... and never get a raise.   Oh and if you actually get married (which married men and women, who... stay married... routinely out earn those who don't), and your spouse also earns the absolute minimum wage, and you double that amount, obviously you are going to be a multimillionaire.

I know what you are saying 'yeah but they can't get that $177 from their FICA tax'.... you are right.  Whose fault is that?  (you have a mirror somewhere in your house I assume).

Which goes to your last statement.

*Socialism does not prevent people from falling out of society.  It is actually the direct cause of it.*

You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.   If we allowed people to take all the money you tax away from them, and put it into investments, everyone in this entire country would be millionaires.  Everyone.  Absolutely everyone.

Instead, you give them social security, which has an AVERAGE.... monthly payout of just $1300.     That's the AVERAGE.    That means 50% of the people on social security (because you taxed away their potential savings), are collecting a pay of less... LESS than $1300.   That's LESS than the minimum wage.

That's poverty.    You are dooming the majority of people in this country to object poverty in retirement.

Capitalism, if they had invested that money you stole from them... they'd be millionaires, or close to it.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?


If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.




Andylusion said:


> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.


Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.





Andylusion said:


> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.


Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,




Andylusion said:


> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.


Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.




Andylusion said:


> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.


Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?


----------



## P@triot

Andylusion said:


> Sharon Tirabassi in 2004 or around there, won $10 Million dollars from the lottery.  You can see pictures of her, in expensive outfits, driving an expensive car, at a new apartment, living it up.  By 2014, she was without a car, without a home, living in a subsidized apartment, riding the bus to her job.   Utterly impoverished.
> 
> But hey, there's no benefit of money if you don't spend it!   Well she spent it, now she's broke.
> 
> On the other side you have Steve Jobs. When Steve Jobs left Apple computer in the late 80s, (forced out I should say), he had a check for $10 Million dollars.   Now he could have done the same thing as Sharon, and lived it up!  Bought some luxury yachts.  Maybe a super mansion.
> 
> Instead, he invested the money into a new company.   A bran new computer graphics and special effects company.   He paid half the money to get the company.  And used the rest of the money to build the company up, and upgrade their stuff, and hire people.   That company grew year after year until they put out their first all original product in 1995 named.... "Toy Story".   The company is now called Pixar.
> 
> In 2006, Disney bought Pixar from Steve Jobs for stock worth $7.8 Billion dollars.    He turned $10 Million into $7.8 Billion.    While Sharon turned $10 Million into zero.
> 
> This is the difference between the pinball people, and the beer pong people.  This is why poor people are poor, and rich people are rich.   Rich people save and invest, and poor people spend and consume.





Andylusion said:


> There is literally limitless ways to make money.  You can make money doing almost anything.  Almost ANYTHING.





Andylusion said:


> I remember years ago, there was a truck driving lady.  She would drive into the truck stop, where all the other truckers were, and pull out of her cab, this fold up swivel chair, and massive clipper, and tiny vacuum, and a bunch of gels and crap, and yell out "I'll clip your hair for $10".   And these guys would line up, and get their hair cut at the truck stop.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> It is totally irrelevant in what I invest.


The only thing you "invest" in is socialism. You want the government to take from other people and hand it to you.


Bleipriester said:


> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.


Oh look...what do you know...Bleipriester playing the victim as usual. Shocking. Workers can do anything they want. Anything. That's the beauty of America. The sky is the limit. There are endless stories of poor or dirt-poor people amassing unimaginable wealth because they pursued their dreams.

But...it's so much easier to play the victim and demand socialism, uh snowflake?


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> 
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
Click to expand...

Snowflake....I already proved you were *lying* about this in another thread. There are no private companies in Venezuela. The government dictates everything to them. Everything. Venezuela is a pure socialist nation. And as _always_ the case, socialism has caused collapse, poverty, and misery.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
Click to expand...


*If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*

No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.

What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.

*Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*

Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.

So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.

I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.

I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.

The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.

I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.

I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.

One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.

*People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*

It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.

Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.

In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.

And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.

Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.

Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.

Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.

In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.

In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.

Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.


----------



## P@triot

One of the left's favorite false narrative is that nobody needs a firearm because we have law enforcement to "protect us". This woman strictly adhered to the left-wing ideology on personal protection - she relied solely on law enforcement. This morning, both she and her son are *dead*. Left-wing policy always ends in disaster.

Police tell Florida woman to 'stop calling 911' hours before her death


----------



## Andylusion

P@triot said:


> One of the left's favorite false narrative is that nobody needs a firearm because we have law enforcement to "protect us". This woman strictly adhered to the left-wing ideology on personal protection - she relied solely on law enforcement. This morning, both she and her son are *dead*. Left-wing policy always ends in disaster.
> 
> Police tell Florida woman to 'stop calling 911' hours before her death



Turned out to be not true.    They made a correction to the story, where the police apparently said that to someone else.  Which doesn't make any sense. 

Regardless of that, if the rest of the story is to be believed, then they were shot with an AK-47.   How many gun bans does that violate?   Apparently the fix-all gun control laws, didn't work.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
Click to expand...

Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
Click to expand...


But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.

I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.

I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.

Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.
> 
> I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.
> 
> I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.
> 
> Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.
Click to expand...

No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.
> 
> I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.
> 
> I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.
> 
> Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.
Click to expand...


Huh?    When did I ever say that.


----------



## Bleipriester

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.
> 
> I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.
> 
> I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.
> 
> Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?    When did I ever say that.
Click to expand...

Ok, 99 % made the decision to be poor and work all day.


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.
> 
> I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.
> 
> I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.
> 
> Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.
Click to expand...

Not all ventures, "pan out".


----------



## danielpalos

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so dense.  What is wrong with you?    You really think the only way to make money is pinball machines?
> 
> 
> 
> If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you can make money doing almost.... almost ANYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The poor of Cuba live lives that would be astonishing to the poor of America.   Our poor live like royalty compared to the Socialist poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both get food stamps. However, Cuba is sanctioned, has no access to the global trade. So it is sanctions in the first place that do harm the country,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Parents in socialist Venezuela are literally..... LITERALLY giving away their children.   Because they are flat out.... starving to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Propaganda. The private food companies run short the food. A capitalist and anti-social, anti-civilization measure to create the crisis to mount pressure on the government and profit from the crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> You tax away our money, then claim "see capitalism makes people poor".  No, socialism makes people poor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, if capitalism would make rich, socialism would not exist, would not have been invented. A socialist company does not fire people. People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.
> 
> I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.
> 
> I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.
> 
> Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.
Click to expand...

If it were that simple, we would not need corporate welfare or minimum wage laws; there is no upper limit to markets.


----------



## Andylusion

Bleipriester said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If I am investing my money it is not going into your pinball machine, right? It is totally irrelevant in what I invest. It is not going into your pinball machine.*
> 
> No one invests 100% of their money.   I have internet right now, obviously.   Yet I have thousands in stocks.   The two are not mutually exclusive.  You can do both.    The key is spending less than you make.    Don't be ridiculous in assuming that by advocating that people save and invest, that means they spend zero, and live under a rock so they don't have to pay rent.
> 
> What makes you poor, is when you spend more money than you make, and save and invest, nothing.
> 
> *Workers can´t put their money at risk. They have to do a living.*
> 
> Really?  I made $19,000 last year.   According to my tax filing, I also put several thousand into stocks.
> 
> So apparently.....   workers.... can put their money at risk, and do a living.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy this crap that American workers can't possibly save any money.  I already posted the article about the gas station attendant, who saved up $8 Million.   Granted I don't know what salary a gas station attendant makes these days, but back when I did it, it was $8/hour.
> 
> I also don't buy that people can't earn more.   You can have a second job, and be making $50k by the end of the month.   You can also just do a better job, and earn $50k by the end of the month.
> 
> I know people who on the weekend, started installing flooring.  6 months later, they were earning more money installing flooring, than they were at their job.  Pretty soon they had enough work lined up, they could double their income by quitting.
> 
> The the reality is, your ability to save and invest has mostly to do with your ability to determine the difference between a need and a want, and to cut your spending.
> 
> I've met people that literally make double what I do, and are flat broke.  And people who make less than I do, and have more money saved and invested.
> 
> I could live in a smaller cheaper place.   I could cut my internet and cell phone.   I could get a bunch of roomies, and divide the cost of heat, electricity, and rent.   I could sell the Grand Marquis and buy a cheaper econo-box.   I could even cut down on food, and eat more rice and chicken.    I could cut the amount of money I give to charity, and save that.    There are numerous ways I could reduce my spending even more than I already have... and again I only make $19k.
> 
> One thing that tends to boggle my mind, and also boggle the minds of the people I meet, is cable TV.   I'm always shocked to meet people who describe themselves as "poor" who have cable TV.   They are always shocked I don't even own a TV.   The average cable TV bill is over $100 a month.  Cut out the TV.  Put that money you are flushing down the boob-tube drain, into an IRA growth stock mutual fund.   If that alone doesn't make you a millionaire, it will get you close.
> 
> *People cannot get fired in socialism. And if the cake has 6 pieces in socialism, it will be shared by 6 people, not by one. In fact, true socialism means the rule of the workers, capitalism means the rule of the industrialists and bankers. What´s more democratic?*
> 
> It doesn't really matter "what it means".   You can claim that socialism means a workers paradise.  Fact is, every single socialist country end up a living hell.
> 
> Regardless of what you claim it means, the fact is socialism is always a rule of the elite.   Always.  No exception.   Every socialist based economic system, has elites that live in luxury, while the common people live in poverty.
> 
> In fact, anti-democratic, and pro-authoritarian, is inherently how socialism ends up.  That isn't to say some Capitalist based countries can't be authoritarian.  Of course they can.   But socialism is inherently authoritarian, because socialism is inherently immoral.    Thus people always consistently resist socialism, which then requires a police state to enforce the immoral system on the public.  This is why Cuba, the Soviets, Maoist China, Vietnam, Venezuela, Laos, and pretty much every Socialist country in the world, ends up a brutal dictatorship.
> 
> And lastly, you say 'people can not be fired' as if that's good.
> 
> Back when I went to college, I had a professor who would disappear.  Go eat lunch.  Go sit on a bench outside.  Ignore students.  We went to complain, and found a line of people complaining about this one guy.   Then we learned.  He had tenure, and was retiring the year after next.  Couldn't be fired.
> 
> Ever gone to the US Post Office?  5 stations, 3 employees, and only one is working.  The other two are standing there talking about the weekend.    Almost impossible to be fired from the post office.
> 
> Beyond the basic moral trap of having a system where no one can be fired.... the only way such a system can work, is by forcing people into economic stagnation.   Typewriter manufacturing used to hire thousands of people between all the companies.    No all those people are unemployed, and had to find other work.   Because no one wants a typewriter.    People want computers.   The value of a typewriter went down.
> 
> In a socialist system where people can't be fired, the government would have to keep paying people to produce goods that no one wants.   The Soviet Union famously had negative equity firms.   Businesses that produced goods, that had lower value, than the cost of the goods they used in making their products.
> 
> In order to never fire people, we'd all still be using pagers instead of smart phones.  The only way to never have an employee that makes pagers lose their job, you'd have to ban cell phones, so people kept buying pagers.
> 
> Not being able to fire people sounds good only to the people who don't want to learn new skills to fit with the current economy.   For everyone else, not being able to fire, is horrible both for consumers, employers, and the economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. They have families, cars, bills and loans to pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's not the fault of capitalism, banks, or anything.
> 
> I bought my car with cash.  I don't have a loan payment.
> 
> I don't own a credit card at all.  None.  I have no loans to pay.
> 
> Now if I can do that single, with a $19,000 a year income, why can't people who have a spouse that works?  Even if both of you make minimum wage?    That would still be 1/3 more than I make.   You should easily be able to afford to live on that and save money.  Your claim isn't logical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn´t. Your claim is that 99 % of the people are too dumb to make money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh?    When did I ever say that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, 99 % made the decision to be poor and work all day.
Click to expand...


Yes.  I don't necessarily think they 'make the decision' to be poor and work all day.   Rather I think they make choices, that lead them to that result.

It is more like a person on meth.   Does any person say to themselves "I want to lose all my teeth"?   No.
But they make the choice to start doing meth, which has the nearly universal result of losing your teeth.

No one says "I want to have my car repo'd".   But they choose to buy a car they can't afford, and then are shocked they end up with the car repo'd.

However, people make choices all the time to live earning less.   I have two direct real life examples.

Years ago when I was in high school, I worked at McDonalds, and a lady there had a degree in Architecture. I asked her, why the heck are you here!?    She explained very directly, she didn't want a job where she was expected to work tons of hours, and drive far from home, and couldn't take time off whenever she wanted to be with her kids.

So she stayed at McDonald's earning less than $10 an hour (in the 90s), when she could have been making $40K a year entry level.

Another example was an engineer just a few years ago.  She was the lowest paid engineer in the company.  Her job was just doing engineering documentation.  She decided she wanted to move up, and got a job at NetJets.  Now if you know anything about NetJets, they are top dollar hard core company.  They more than doubled her salary.  Of course they wanted her to put in the hours, and kick butt.    Well she spent 8 months there, and decided that she liked the relaxed easy going way of being a document engineer.   She quit, came back, had her salary dropped down to half, like it was before, and was perfectly happy earning less than the median income.

People make the choice to earn less than they could, all the time.

But the two largest problems in our society is that people don't want to work hard, or own up.   These are the two biggest problems that I constantly see.

The left-wing portrays that there are all these people working hard 80 hours a week, and getting $7.25 an hour.  I don't see this.  What I see constantly, is people that barely show up.  Milk the clock.  What to stand there and talk about nothing for hours on end. 

My company, we just fired 6 people over the last 2 months, because they simply don't work.  Even now, we've still got about two more that may need to go, and a third that doesn't look promising.   And that isn't including new people we hire in that barely last a week.  We hired two people, and after 3 days, one just disappeared, and the other said she didn't "feel like coming in"... and that was that.

The other problem is not wanting to own up.  Not wanting to take responsibility.  We have a guy that has about 10 years of experience in the tech industry.   When I first met this guy, I was thinking why on Earth is this dude here?   Now after I've gotten to know him, I know exactly why he's here making 12/hour, when he has enough skills to be working for Cisco or Microsoft.

He spend all his time, making sure that he has no responsibility for anything.  He won't plug in a power cable, unless there is some document that says he was told to do that by someone else.    You may be the best technician on the face of the Earth.  But people in leadership, don't need someone who stands around "I didn't do it, not my fault, he told me to, blaw blaw".  You will never move up the income ladder very far, trying to be captain of the 'not me club'.

Own your crap.  Yes, I plugged in this thing to see if it worked.  It didn't.  I made the choice, it didn't work.   Companies are desperately looking for that guy, not the "I have a note from a friend of the secretaries assistant, which says that someone in the engineering departments brother, gave the ok for me to plug this in!"

I have yet to meet anyone who actually worked, and worked more than 40 hours a week, that was poor.   Never seen it.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...

The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...
> 
> The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela


True capitalism, fails every time.  



> Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...
> 
> The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela
> 
> 
> 
> True capitalism, fails every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...
> 
> The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela
> 
> 
> 
> True capitalism, fails every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.
Click to expand...

A true AnCap, is stateless.

States and statism are a form of socialism.


----------



## Andylusion

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...
> 
> The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela
> 
> 
> 
> True capitalism, fails every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.
Click to expand...



That is 100% accurate.  I have never in the entire 20 years I've been on internet forums, advocated a state-less system of anarchy.  That's simply what the leftards must do.  They portray the right-wing as supporting something they have never advocated, in order to attempt to discredit what they can't argue against.


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'


The article doesn't say anything about forcing people to bake for gays.


----------



## Billo_Really

Andylusion said:


> That is 100% accurate.  I have never in the entire 20 years I've been on internet forums, advocated a state-less system of anarchy.  That's simply what the leftards must do, is portray something the right-wing has never advocated, in order to attempt to discredit, what they can't argument against.


 _"...what they can't argument against."_

Nobody has to discredit you; your grammar does it for them.


----------



## Andylusion

Billo_Really said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is 100% accurate.  I have never in the entire 20 years I've been on internet forums, advocated a state-less system of anarchy.  That's simply what the leftards must do, is portray something the right-wing has never advocated, in order to attempt to discredit, what they can't argument against.
> 
> 
> 
> _"...what they can't argument against."_
> 
> Nobody has to discredit you; your grammar does it for them.
Click to expand...


No no, let me help you out.... you can't.... discredit me.     Because I'm right.  That's why you have to find typos to point out, as a substitute for a counter argument.


----------



## Billo_Really

Andylusion said:


> No no, let me help you out.... you can't.... discredit me.     Because I'm right.  That's why you have to find typos to point out, as a substitute for a counter argument.


What are you right about?


----------



## danielpalos

Andylusion said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing ends with collapse, poverty, and misery like idiot socialism...
> 
> The Suffering of Socialist Venezuela
> 
> 
> 
> True capitalism, fails every time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says "stateless society" snowflake. Conservatives have never advocated for a "stateless society". We have only advocated for legal, constitutional government. The fact that you have to resort to a straw man proves that you know you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is 100% accurate.  I have never in the entire 20 years I've been on internet forums, advocated a state-less system of anarchy.  That's simply what the leftards must do.  They portray the right-wing as supporting something they have never advocated, in order to attempt to discredit what they can't argue against.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-Capitalism should be a right wing concept.

Anarcho-Communism is a left wing concept.

Want to "race"?


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> The article doesn't say anything about forcing people to bake for gays.
Click to expand...

Only the poor make poor lifestyle choices while actually being poor.

CEO's try to ensure their bottom line, because they know Performance Counts, come bonus time.


----------



## P@triot

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. *The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings*. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> The article doesn't say anything about forcing people to bake for gays.
Click to expand...

Yeah...which is why I said "here in the U.S."


----------



## Billo_Really

P@triot said:


> Yeah...which is why I said "here in the U.S."


The problem isn't you being forced to bake for gays, it is in this country, your racism and bigotry are not welcome.


----------



## Andylusion

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...which is why I said "here in the U.S."
> 
> 
> 
> The problem isn't you being forced to bake for gays, it is in this country, your racism and bigotry are not welcome.
Click to expand...


Well too bad.  Sucks to be you.     We can vote. Trump is president.  Nothing you can do about it, but keep saying we're not welcome, as if we care.

I can't image why you think that's an argument that matters to anyone but yourself... but whatever floats your tiny little boat!


----------



## Billo_Really

Andylusion said:


> Well too bad.  Sucks to be you.


No it doesn't.  I'm kick-ass!



Andylusion said:


> We can vote.


Is this the voter fraud you fuckers keep talking about?



Andylusion said:


> Trump is president.


He's so dumb, he just might impeach himself.  He doesn't read the documents he signs, so, I'm just sayin'...



Andylusion said:


> Nothing you can do about it,


Bullshit!  I can vote to, asshole.



Andylusion said:


> but keep saying we're not welcome, as if we care.


I said your racism is not welcome.  And who is "we"?



Andylusion said:


> I can't image why you think that's an argument that matters to anyone but yourself...


That's because you are a narcissist.



Andylusion said:


> but whatever floats your tiny little boat!


Big boat.  I have a big boat.


----------



## Andylusion

Billo_Really said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well too bad.  Sucks to be you.
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  I'm kick-ass!
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the voter fraud you fuckers keep talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's so dumb, he just might impeach himself.  He doesn't read the documents he signs, so, I'm just sayin'...
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing you can do about it,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!  I can vote to, asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> but keep saying we're not welcome, as if we care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said your racism is not welcome.  And who is "we"?
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't image why you think that's an argument that matters to anyone but yourself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you are a narcissist.
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> but whatever floats your tiny little boat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big boat.  I have a big boat.
Click to expand...


Well you are not kicking ass here.
And yet he's still president isn't he?
You can vote too?  It didn't change anything did it?  Trump is still president isn't he?
"We" refers to all the people you hate, who couldn't possibly care less what you think.
Which is why you think.... we care what you think... because I'm a narcissist?  And you call Trump dumb?
Not on this forum you don't.


----------



## danielpalos

Billo_Really said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...which is why I said "here in the U.S."
> 
> 
> 
> The problem isn't you being forced to bake for gays, it is in this country, your racism and bigotry are not welcome.
Click to expand...

The right wing prefers to "ditch Capitalism" for their socialism on a national basis, at every opportunity.  They still claim they are for capitalism.


----------



## P@triot

This is how left-wing policy ends. With a shortage of even toilet freaking paper.

China's high-tech solution to toilet paper theft


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> This is how left-wing policy ends. With a shortage of even toilet freaking paper.
> 
> China's high-tech solution to toilet paper theft


Why  blame socialism.  One source claims it has to more to do with undercapacity and "market manipulation".  New capacity is supposed to coming online, this year.


----------



## P@triot

This is the sort of absurdity that could _only_ come from the left. In a state where suicide is *legal*, San Francisco is spending $211 million of the tax payer's money to *prevent* people from committing suicide. 


> After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.
> 
> What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.
> 
> San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America.  *Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice*.


Now _that_ is a very special kind of stupid that isn't found anywhere else in the world than the bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology.

Articles: Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> This is the sort of absurdity that could _only_ come from the left. In a state where suicide is *legal*, San Francisco is spending $211 million of the tax payer's money to *prevent* people from committing suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> After 1,600 people, tragically died since 1937 by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, an obstacle to suicide will soon run the 9,000-ft. length of the bridge.
> 
> What’s perplexing is that this compassionate enterprise is taking place in a liberal state where assisted suicide is legal, and where, in 2011, out of 802,400 pregnancies, 184,552, or 23%, ended in abortion.
> 
> San Francisco is a city whose majority likely endorses the 3,000 abortions performed every day in America.  *Yet Bagdad-by-the-Bay plans to spend 211 million in taxpayer dollars to deny one person, every two weeks, the right to choose to do what California law otherwise maintains should hinge solely on personal choice*.
> 
> 
> 
> Now _that_ is a very special kind of stupid that isn't found anywhere else in the world than the bat-shit crazy left-wing ideology.
> 
> Articles: Preventing ‘Back Alley’ Suicides in San Francisco
Click to expand...

It is a Tourist attraction.  The Golden Gate Bridge should be used for fun and profit.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> What socialism?


Want to tell us again how Venezuela is "not" socialist, Bleipriester? 

GM car plant in Venezuela has been seized by the government with no warning


----------



## P@triot

Let's not kid ourselves - ignorance of _everything_ is what fuels leftward sentiments...

*New Data Show That Ignorance of US Tax Policy Fuels Leftward Sentiments*



> Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes. That year, the top 10% of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41% of all income, but paid 68% of all income taxes.
> 
> Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10% of Americans earned 41% of American money, when in fact they made 45% of American money.
> 
> But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10% pays 38% of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. *The top 10% pays 68% of all U.S. taxes*.


New Data: Leftward Views on Taxes Often Fueled by Ignorance


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Let's not kid ourselves - ignorance of _everything_ is what fuels leftward sentiments...
> 
> *New Data Show That Ignorance of US Tax Policy Fuels Leftward Sentiments*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another study conducted in December 2014 found a similar gap between reality and perception in personal income taxes. That year, the top 10% of American earners making $120,000 per year or more earned 41% of all income, but paid 68% of all income taxes.
> 
> Americans were fairly accurate when it came to who earns what: They guessed on average that the top 10% of Americans earned 41% of American money, when in fact they made 45% of American money.
> 
> But they were pretty far off when it came to guessing the proportion of the nation’s taxes they pay. They guessed the top 10% pays 38% of all taxes, and they were off by 30 points. *The top 10% pays 68% of all U.S. taxes*.
> 
> 
> 
> New Data: Leftward Views on Taxes Often Fueled by Ignorance
Click to expand...

Dear, the poor and the rich only pay the taxes they are legally obligated to pay.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> What socialism?


Want to tell us again how Venezuela is "not" socialist, Bleipriester? 

Socialist Venezuelan Leader Steps Up Arming of Supporters After Outlawing, Confiscating Civilian Guns


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> What socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> Want to tell us again how Venezuela is "not" socialist, Bleipriester?
> 
> Socialist Venezuelan Leader Steps Up Arming of Supporters After Outlawing, Confiscating Civilian Guns
Click to expand...

Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.


Oh look...the pathological *liar* danielpalos strikes again.


> In addition to a *nationalization* programme of industry and land


And then it goes on to say...


> By the late 1980s, Barre's regime had become increasingly unpopular. The authorities became ever more *totalitarian*, and resistance movements, encouraged by *Ethiopia's communist* *Derg* administration, sprang up across the country.


There is no such thing as free market collapse. Collapse is only the result of left-wing ideology (communism/socialism/fascism/marxism/etc.). You're a *liar*.

Mogadishu - Wikipedia


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look...the pathological *liar* danielpalos strikes again.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to a *nationalization* programme of industry and land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then it goes on to say...
> 
> 
> 
> By the late 1980s, Barre's regime had become increasingly unpopular. The authorities became ever more *totalitarian*, and resistance movements, encouraged by *Ethiopia's communist* *Derg* administration, sprang up across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as free market collapse. Collapse is only the result of left-wing ideology (communism/socialism/fascism/marxism/etc.). You're a *liar*.
> 
> Mogadishu - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Just right wing fantasy is all the right wing has; not any form of understanding of the propaganda and rhetoric they claim to advocate.



> *Somalia from 1991 to 2006*
> Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.[96][97] Since the fall of Siad Barre's government in January 1991, there had been no central government in Somalia[98] until the establishment of the Transitional National Government and its successor the Transitional Federal Government. While some urban areas such as Mogadishu had private police forces,[99] many Somalis simply returned to the traditional clan-based legal structures for local governance and dispute resolution.[100] Anthropologist Spencer MacCallum has identified the rule of law during the period as that of the Xeer, a customary law indigenous to Somalia. The law permits practices such as safe travel, trade, and marriage, which survives "to a significant degree" throughout Somalia, particularly in rural Somalia where it is "virtually unaffected".[96] MacCallum credits the Xeer with "Somalia's success without a central government, since it provides an authentic rule of law to support trade and economic development."[96] In the Xeer, law and crime are defined in terms of property rights; consequently the criminal justice system is compensatory rather than the punitive system of the majority of states, and the Xeer is "unequivocal in its opposition" to any form of taxation. Powell et al. (2006) find that the existence of the common law dispute resolution system in Somalia makes possible basic economic order.[101] MacCallum compares the Xeer to the common law in 6th century Scotland, and notes that there is no monopoly of either police nor judicial services,[96] a condition of polycentric law.
> 
> Nonetheless, many anarcho-capitalists argue that Somalia was not an anarchist society.[102][103]
> 
> Benjamin Powell argued that statelessness led to more order and less chaos than had the previous state under central government,[104] and economist Alex Tabarrok claimed that Somalia in its stateless period provided a "unique test of the theory of anarchy", in some aspects near of that espoused by anarcho-capitalists David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard.[105]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Somalia_from_1991_to_2006


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look...the pathological *liar* danielpalos strikes again.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to a *nationalization* programme of industry and land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then it goes on to say...
> 
> 
> 
> By the late 1980s, Barre's regime had become increasingly unpopular. The authorities became ever more *totalitarian*, and resistance movements, encouraged by *Ethiopia's communist* *Derg* administration, sprang up across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as free market collapse. Collapse is only the result of left-wing ideology (communism/socialism/fascism/marxism/etc.). You're a *liar*.
> 
> Mogadishu - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy is all the right wing has; not any form of understanding of the propaganda and rhetoric they claim to advocate.
Click to expand...

Snowflake...you just got _owned_ with *facts*. Somalia was 100% left-wing socialism. They "nationalized" industry and land (just as Wikipedia outlines). As a result of that idiotic left-wing socialism, the nation collapsed and the communists moved in during the chaos (communism....more left-wing idiocy). The result was a civil war that has left the nation in chaos ever since.


----------



## P@triot

Bleipriester said:


> What socialism?


Want to tell us again how Venezuela is "not" socialist, Bleipriester? 


> In the span of just over 20 years, President Nicolás Maduro, his predecessor Hugo Chavez, and their "*Socialism of the 21st Century*" have singlehandedly destroyed a country sitting atop the world's largest oil reserves.


This May Be Venezuela’s Tiananmen Square Moment


----------



## P@triot

Exactly like Somalia. It stars with socialism (ie failed left-wing policy) which rapidly deteriorates into extreme poverty and misery, which then turns to violence, and finally - civil war. Funny, the left is always forced to resort to controlling the masses at the barrel of a gun. Conservative policy always facilitates liberty for the individual, which always results in prosperity.

Armed Civilian Bands in Venezuela Prop Up Unpopular President


----------



## P@triot

This is what left-wing ideology culminates in: going completely off of the sanity rails. Going completely off of the _decency_ rails. This dreadful performance (the worst music, the worst vocals, and the worst lyrics I have _ever_ heard) cannot be unseen and it cannot be unheard...


----------



## Bleipriester

P@triot said:


> Bleipriester said:
> 
> 
> 
> What socialism?
> 
> 
> 
> Want to tell us again how Venezuela is "not" socialist, Bleipriester?
> 
> GM car plant in Venezuela has been seized by the government with no warning
Click to expand...

In socialism, there would be no privately owned plants that could be seized.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look...the pathological *liar* danielpalos strikes again.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to a *nationalization* programme of industry and land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then it goes on to say...
> 
> 
> 
> By the late 1980s, Barre's regime had become increasingly unpopular. The authorities became ever more *totalitarian*, and resistance movements, encouraged by *Ethiopia's communist* *Derg* administration, sprang up across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as free market collapse. Collapse is only the result of left-wing ideology (communism/socialism/fascism/marxism/etc.). You're a *liar*.
> 
> Mogadishu - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy is all the right wing has; not any form of understanding of the propaganda and rhetoric they claim to advocate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake...you just got _owned_ with *facts*. Somalia was 100% left-wing socialism. They "nationalized" industry and land (just as Wikipedia outlines). As a result of that idiotic left-wing socialism, the nation collapsed and the communists moved in during the chaos (communism....more left-wing idiocy). The result was a civil war that has left the nation in chaos ever since.
Click to expand...

dear, your snowflakes melt before it even gets to the ground.  right wing fantasy is all y'all have.

this is a capital fact regarding the transience of (micro-economic) capitalism:

_Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system._


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look...the pathological *liar* danielpalos strikes again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy is all the right wing has; not any form of understanding of the propaganda and rhetoric they claim to advocate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, your snowflakes melt before it even gets to the ground.  right wing fantasy is all y'all have.
> 
> this is a capital fact regarding the transience of (micro-economic) capitalism:
> 
> _Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system._
Click to expand...

Snowflake...repeating a lie doesn't make it true. For starters, no conservative wants a "stateless society". Second, Somalia became a "stateless society" because of left-wing policy. I proved it. You just got _owned_ with *facts*, snowflake.


> In addition to a *nationalization* programme of industry and land


And then it goes on to say...


> By the late 1980s, Barre's regime had become increasingly unpopular. The authorities became ever more *totalitarian*, and resistance movements, encouraged by *Ethiopia's communist* *Derg* administration, sprang up across the country.


There is no such thing as free market collapse. Collapse is only the result of left-wing ideology (communism/socialism/fascism/marxism/etc.). You got *owned*, snowflake.

Mogadishu - Wikipedia


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu was capitalist, until it failed, like usual.  Now they are more socialist.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look...the pathological *liar* danielpalos strikes again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just right wing fantasy is all the right wing has; not any form of understanding of the propaganda and rhetoric they claim to advocate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, your snowflakes melt before it even gets to the ground.  right wing fantasy is all y'all have.
> 
> this is a capital fact regarding the transience of (micro-economic) capitalism:
> 
> _Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Snowflake...repeating a lie doesn't make it true. For starters, no conservative wants a "stateless society". Second, Somalia became a "stateless society" because of left-wing policy. I proved it. You just got _owned_ with *facts*, snowflake.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to a *nationalization* programme of industry and land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And then it goes on to say...
> 
> 
> 
> By the late 1980s, Barre's regime had become increasingly unpopular. The authorities became ever more *totalitarian*, and resistance movements, encouraged by *Ethiopia's communist* *Derg* administration, sprang up across the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as free market collapse. Collapse is only the result of left-wing ideology (communism/socialism/fascism/marxism/etc.). You got *owned*, snowflake.
> 
> Mogadishu - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Anarho-Capitalism (_Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.); _It is a truer form of Capitalism, than any Thing, y'all on the right wing, can fantasize.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Anarho-Capitalism (_Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.); _It is a truer form of Capitalism, than any Thing, y'all on the right wing, can fantasize.


The nation functioned under left-wing policy (socialism and communism)! As is _always_ the case - it collapsed because of it. The result was an on-going civil war. There is no capitalism in Somalia and there *never* was.

Warlords stealing money is *not* capitalism. Warlords holding the food supply hostage is *not* capitalism. Capitalism does not occur at the barrel of a gun, snowflake.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anarho-Capitalism (_Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system.); _It is a truer form of Capitalism, than any Thing, y'all on the right wing, can fantasize.
> 
> 
> 
> The nation functioned under left-wing policy (socialism and communism)! As is _always_ the case - it collapsed because of it. The result was an on-going civil war. There is no capitalism in Somalia and there *never* was.
> 
> Warlords stealing money is *not* capitalism. Warlords holding the food supply hostage is *not* capitalism. Capitalism does not occur at the barrel of a gun, snowflake.
Click to expand...

Dude; why appeal to Your ignorance, when I even provided a link and re-stated the concept in a more cogent and concise manner, for the even the right wing to comprehend.


----------



## basquebromance

good job Michael Moore


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

Progressive policy once again regressing society...

Baby deaths soar in Venezuela crisis


----------



## P@triot




----------



## danielpalos

Mogadishu is the best the right wing has been able to offer regarding true capitalism, so far.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing generates unemployment like failed left-wing policy...


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Mogadishu is the best the right wing has been able to offer regarding true capitalism, so far.


Mogadishu fell into civil war after left-wing communism, you dimwit...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu is the best the right wing has been able to offer regarding true capitalism, so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu fell into civil war after left-wing communism, you dimwit...
Click to expand...

It was a "shining example of True Capitalism" for a little while.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu is the best the right wing has been able to offer regarding true capitalism, so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu fell into civil war after left-wing communism, you dimwit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a "shining example of True Capitalism" for a little while.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. Not even an hour. It was a pure socialist state, overthrown by communists, and from there into full civil war (where it remains).

Thank you for illustrating to everyone how you are unqualified to be discussing this material.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu is the best the right wing has been able to offer regarding true capitalism, so far.
> 
> 
> 
> Mogadishu fell into civil war after left-wing communism, you dimwit...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a "shining example of True Capitalism" for a little while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it wasn't. Not even an hour. It was a pure socialist state, overthrown by communists, and from there into full civil war (where it remains).
> 
> Thank you for illustrating to everyone how you are unqualified to be discussing this material.
Click to expand...

Link or it is just, right wing propaganda, like usual.


----------



## P@triot

Nothing generates unemployment like failed left wing policy...


> The board of trustees announced that Mills is currently running a $9 million yearly operating deficit.
> 
> The $9 million shortfall is about 16% of the school’s 2017 budget of $57 million.
> 
> The budgetary crisis will cause professors and administrators to lose their jobs, trustees said.


This is what happens when one ignores science, biology, and reason for a bizarre ideology.

First Women's College To Admit Transgender Dudes Declares Financial Emergency


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. Not even an hour. It was a pure socialist state, overthrown by communists, and from there into full civil war (where it remains).
> 
> Thank you for illustrating to everyone how you are unqualified to be discussing this material.
> 
> 
> 
> Link or it is just, right wing propaganda, like usual.
Click to expand...

Because you can't figure out how to use Google? 


> The *Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party* was the ruling party of the Somali Democratic Republic from 1976 to 1991.


Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party - Wikipedia


> The Somali Democratic Republic was the name that the *Marxist–Leninist government* of former President of Somalia Major General Mohamed Siad Barre gave to Somalia during its reign, after having seized power in a bloodless 1969 coup d'état. The putsch came a few days after the assassination of Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the nation's second President, by one of his own bodyguards. Barre's administration would rule Somalia for the following 21 years, *until the outbreak of the civil war in 1991*.


Somali Democratic Republic - Wikipedia

See, _this_ is what you uneducated, uninformed left-wing nitwits do. You just got caught pushing pure propaganda because you parrot what other idiot progressives say on this board without fact-checking anything.

And before you embarrass yourself further - Mogadishu is *not* a nation. It's the capital of Somalia (hence the links to Somalia).


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. Not even an hour. It was a pure socialist state, overthrown by communists, and from there into full civil war (where it remains).
> 
> Thank you for illustrating to everyone how you are unqualified to be discussing this material.
> 
> 
> 
> Link or it is just, right wing propaganda, like usual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you can't figure out how to use Google?
> 
> 
> 
> The *Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party* was the ruling party of the Somali Democratic Republic from 1976 to 1991.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Somali Democratic Republic was the name that the *Marxist–Leninist government* of former President of Somalia Major General Mohamed Siad Barre gave to Somalia during its reign, after having seized power in a bloodless 1969 coup d'état. The putsch came a few days after the assassination of Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the nation's second President, by one of his own bodyguards. Barre's administration would rule Somalia for the following 21 years, *until the outbreak of the civil war in 1991*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somali Democratic Republic - Wikipedia
> 
> See, _this_ is what you uneducated, uninformed left-wing nitwits do. You just got caught pushing pure propaganda because you parrot what other idiot progressives say on this board without fact-checking anything.
> 
> And before you embarrass yourself further - Mogadishu is *not* a nation. It's the capital of Somalia (hence the links to Somalia).
Click to expand...

The Red Herring specialist, "strikes again"?  

here is what You keep avoiding:

_Somalia, from 1991 to 2006, is cited as a real-world example of a stateless society and legal system._


----------



## P@triot

Nothing generates unemployment like *failed* left-wing policy...


> According to Eurostat, Spain’s overall unemployment rate is currently at 18.2%. And the country’s youth unemployment rate is more than 40%. Since the start of Spain’s financial crisis in 2008, it has become exceedingly common for children to remain at home into their 30s.


Spain sure as hell isn't using the conservative capitalism playbook. Neither is Greece - which collapsed. The ignorance of the left is _astounding_. No matter how many times their communist utopia collapses, they come back demanding more.

‘Lazy’ adult woman sues her parents for refusing to continue to support her financially


----------



## danielpalos

equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will, could solve that social dilemma.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will


Clearly _someone_ attended the school of Yogi Berra. 

Snowflake...at will employment _is_ the law (in some states). Which means "equal protection under the law" means ensuring everyone properly adheres to the at will employment laws.


----------



## P@triot

And the profound failure of left-wing policy continues...

Surprise, San Francisco Restaurant Workers! Minimum Wage Hike Is Killing Restaurants By The Dozens


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly _someone_ attended the school of Yogi Berra.
> 
> Snowflake...at will employment _is_ the law (in some states). Which means "equal protection under the law" means ensuring everyone properly adheres to the at will employment laws.
Click to expand...

Unemployment compensation can be a form of equality via equal pay regardless of gender, with that program.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly _someone_ attended the school of Yogi Berra.
> 
> Snowflake...at will employment _is_ the law (in some states). Which means "equal protection under the law" means ensuring everyone properly adheres to the at will employment laws.
Click to expand...

Employment is at-will, dear.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> And the profound failure of left-wing policy continues...
> 
> Surprise, San Francisco Restaurant Workers! Minimum Wage Hike Is Killing Restaurants By The Dozens


Just lousy management that had to close down; just their Own Fault, not the poor.  Thanks for the "market based metrics", right wingers.


----------



## danielpalos

Our drug war is what right wing policy results in, in Latin America.



> BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Colombia just discarded a cornerstone of the American-backed fight against drugs, blocking the aerial spraying of coca, the plant used to make cocaine. Bolivia kicked out the United States Drug Enforcement Administration years ago and allows farmers to grow small amounts of the crop. Chile, long one of Latin America’s most socially conservative countries, is gathering its first medical marijuana harvest.--https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/world/americas/latin-america-and-us-split-in-drug-fight.html?_r=0



The US war on drugs and its legacy in Latin America


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the profound failure of left-wing policy continues...
> 
> Surprise, San Francisco Restaurant Workers! Minimum Wage Hike Is Killing Restaurants By The Dozens
> 
> 
> 
> Just lousy management that had to close down
Click to expand...

Not true at all. The idiotic socialist left-wing policy forced onto businesses by government made business unsustainable. You know it too. You think by denying it you're achieving something. Maybe someday you'll mature as you grow up.


----------



## P@triot

This is classic left-wing lunacy. The left literally cannot see the forest for the trees 


> When the nuclear power plant closed, another environmental activist, Bill McKibben, confidently wrote that Vermont was “completely capable of replacing its power output with renewables . . .” That’s certainly a nice, happy, green thought — but that’s not exactly what happened. Vermont Yankee’s power supply was replaced with something else: Natural Gas.
> 
> The thing about natural gas is that it sounds pure and clean, but it’s still a fossil fuel that releases — you guessed it — CO2. What happened? Did the New England area continue to experience the annual decrease in emissions it was accustomed to with the switch to natural gas? In a word, no. The region saw a 5% _increase_ in carbon emissions — the first year-to-year increase since 2010.


Green Fail: Bernie Sanders’ Push for Nuclear-free Energy Comes Back to Bite Him


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly _someone_ attended the school of Yogi Berra.
> 
> Snowflake...at will employment _is_ the law (in some states). Which means "equal protection under the law" means ensuring everyone properly adheres to the at will employment laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at-will, dear.
Click to expand...

And thus it receives "equal protection of the law"


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the profound failure of left-wing policy continues...
> 
> Surprise, San Francisco Restaurant Workers! Minimum Wage Hike Is Killing Restaurants By The Dozens
> 
> 
> 
> Just lousy management that had to close down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true at all. The idiotic socialist left-wing policy forced onto businesses by government made business unsustainable. You know it too. You think by denying it you're achieving something. Maybe someday you'll mature as you grow up.
Click to expand...

Of course it must be true.  Only lousy capitalists are failing, not Good Capitalists.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly _someone_ attended the school of Yogi Berra.
> 
> Snowflake...at will employment _is_ the law (in some states). Which means "equal protection under the law" means ensuring everyone properly adheres to the at will employment laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employment is at-will, dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And thus it receives "equal protection of the law"
Click to expand...

The right wing, prefers to, "hate on the poor" than be, "legal" to our own laws.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> Of course it must be true.  Only lousy capitalists are failing, not Good Capitalists.


How can a capitalist "fail" when there is no capitalism? Forcing a $15 minimum wage is *not* "capitalism". It really is that simple.

See if you can come up with some better excuses for why your left-wing policy continues to fail catastrophically!


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> The right wing, prefers to, "hate on the poor" than be, "legal" to our own laws.


The right-wing is the _only_ wing enforcing the law, snowflake. Barack Insane Obama illegally granted illegal aliens "amnesty" through Presidential Memorandums. He also trampled on 1st Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, and 6th Amendment rights.

Bill de Blasio, Jerry Brown, and Nancy Pelosi all work to make their cities, states, and districts "sanctuary cities". The list goes on and on.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it must be true.  Only lousy capitalists are failing, not Good Capitalists.
> 
> 
> 
> How can a capitalist "fail" when there is no capitalism? Forcing a $15 minimum wage is *not* "capitalism". It really is that simple.
> 
> See if you can come up with some better excuses for why your left-wing policy continues to fail catastrophically!
Click to expand...

neither is micromanaging our tax codes in favor of the rich; your point?


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> neither is micromanaging our tax codes in favor of the rich


Exactly! Which is why a 10% flat tax across the board is opposed by Dumbocrats. Because it prevents said "micromanaging of the tax code in favor of the rich".


----------



## P@triot

This is what left-wing policy results in. Dumbed-down, ignorant, indoctrinated minions who constantly lower the bar...


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> neither is micromanaging our tax codes in favor of the rich
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Which is why a 10% flat tax across the board is opposed by Dumbocrats. Because it prevents said "micromanaging of the tax code in favor of the rich".
Click to expand...

end our drug war or the left will compete with nine percent and nine-tenths (of the law) percent.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> This is what left-wing policy results in. Dumbed-down, ignorant, indoctrinated minions who constantly lower the bar...


sounds like class envy.  Y'all have homeschooling and YouTube.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> end our drug war or the left will compete with *nine percent* and nine-tenths (of the law) percent.


So you're openly admitting that the left is:

A. Committed to drugs and getting high no matter what

and​
B. Hell bent on violating roughly 91% of U.S. law


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what left-wing policy results in. Dumbed-down, ignorant, indoctrinated minions who constantly lower the bar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like class envy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're a typical product of this form of "educayshun"


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> end our drug war or the left will compete with *nine percent* and nine-tenths (of the law) percent.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're openly admitting that the left is:
> 
> A. Committed to drugs and getting high no matter what
> 
> and​
> B. Hell bent on violating roughly 91% of U.S. law
Click to expand...

It means, the left is willing to compete with the right wing, for ten percent less and help with social costs.


----------



## danielpalos

P@triot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is what left-wing policy results in. Dumbed-down, ignorant, indoctrinated minions who constantly lower the bar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like class envy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're a typical product of this form of "educayshun"
Click to expand...

I don't have to care how much the rich make, when we have massive federal budget surpluses.


----------



## P@triot




----------



## P@triot

It _always_ ends the same with left-wing policy. Horrific results, unaffordable costs, miserable conditions. In a nutshell: collapse.

8 Reasons Why Obamacare Should Be Repealed


----------



## danielpalos

eight reasons and nine eighths, reasons to legalize marijuana and end the drug war. 

Marijuana Sales Totaled $6.7 Billion In 2016


----------



## Wry Catcher

P@triot said:


> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'



Slippery slope!


----------



## danielpalos

danielpalos said:


> eight reasons and nine eighths, reasons to legalize marijuana and end the drug war.
> 
> Marijuana Sales Totaled $6.7 Billion In 2016



Pot has already surpassed the Porn industry in sales.


----------



## P@triot

danielpalos said:


> eight reasons and nine eighths, reasons to legalize marijuana and end the drug war.
> 
> Marijuana Sales Totaled $6.7 Billion In 2016


I like the idea of it eliminating criminal empires. If drugs are legalized, the drug cartels die over night. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. It is a tremendous lost tax revenue right now. The state of Colorado has made a TON in tax revenues from marijuana.


----------



## P@triot

Wry Catcher said:


> P@triot said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are _only_ allowed to make "state-sanctioned" bread. First the left collapses the economy (on purpose) and then they take control of every little facet of your life. Even telling you what bread you can and can't bake. The left has already started here in the U.S. They are forcing people to make breads and cakes for gay weddings. It will only continue from there.
> 
> Venezuela arrests brownie and croissant bakers in 'bread war'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery slope!
Click to expand...

It's the left's entire strategy. Remember - "progress"? Just keep pushing step-by-step. Remember what Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare? "At least now we'll have something to tweak". It's always get your foot in the door first and then blow it off the hinges later.


----------

