🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

A Hamburger Now Costs $170 in Venezuela

GW Bush giving US tax payer funding to N Korea so they could buy nuclear reactors from a company Don Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of? And then a couple years later including them in his "axis of evil?

Where ya at on that one?

'Cause so far this sounds like particashit to me.
GW Bush is Carter and obama? Sounds like you're trying to rationalize failures with other failures. That's hypocrisy.

That what I thought, partisanshit.


Despite the doubts, the unexpected nuclear test is yet another reminder of how the U.S.-led nuclear deal with North Korea, brokered under President Bill Clinton in 1994, failed.


The slow death of the nuclear deal with North Korea


Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld
A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.
 
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.


None of that is socialist .

Jesus people are morons.


Sure it is, all of it, and you support it.


No it isn't you moron. Let's talk specifically about sport's teams. What the fuck? You think the there is social ownership of sport's teams? LOL If anything they are the polar opposite of socialism in that a few people own ALL of the sport's teams.

Where do sports team owners always turn to build a new stadium?

Tax payers. Subsidized by the public. Call it whatever you like, the funding source is what it is.


That doesn't make it socialism you fucking idiot.

Certainly not my fault that you are too stupid to understand why cities finance stadiums, BUT nevertheless , it isn't socialism.

Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #63
Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

False. Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the state. What you are describing is crony capitalism.
 
Sore loser, happens a lot to you don't it.
How about you respond to my post? Disparagement is an admission of defeat.

what this?

The difference between Carter and Obungle is that Carter reacted poorly to bad situations and Obungle has intentionally created bad situations.

What the hell is there to respond to? Just partisanshit drivel, to silly to be serious about. No substance.
Total substance.
Carter reacted to Iran poorly while obama aids them in gaining nukes; Carter reacted poorly to stifled oil supply while obama created the supply stifle; Carter signed well-intentioned but bogus treaties emboldening the soviets to invade Afghanistan while obama's intentional passivity has allowed Russian aggression; Carter gave the shah asylum which prompted the Iranians to kidnap American embassy workers while obama intentionally removed troops from Afghanistan and Iraq thereby fomenting the creation and expansion of more terrorists. The list is almost endless.
Obama is a proactive failure.


GW Bush giving US tax payer funding to N Korea so they could buy nuclear reactors from a company Don Rumsfeld had once sat on the board of directors of? And then a couple years later including them in his "axis of evil?

Where ya at on that one?

'Cause so far this sounds like particashit to me.
BTW, that was a Clinton deal that led to North Korea nukes.

Yeah, absolutely, see? All the same. Just like a "conservative" administration started the Wall Street socialist bailouts and a "liberal" administration followed in the same manner with the identical financial "advisors" team.

That what's partisanshit does to your mind. You're so damn busy blaming "one" side for everything and covering for the "other" side you can't see str8.
 
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.


actually, a more accurate term is crony socialism....
 
Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

False. Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the state. What you are describing is crony capitalism.

False, you just can't get your head around the fact that america has always had socialist aspects to its economy. Wall Street fucks up and needs tax payers to bail it out, socialism for the aristocracy. You just can't say it, that's all.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #68
Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

False. Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the state. What you are describing is crony capitalism.

False, you just can't get your head around the fact that america has always had socialist aspects to its economy. Wall Street fuck up and needs tax payers to bail it out, socialism for the aristocracy. You just can't say it, that's all.

Those things may have socialist roots with the redistribution element, but it does not meet the textbook definition of socialism. The U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea, China (although much less so now) are socialist economies.
 
Public funding = subsidizing = socialism. Just like we subsidize big pharma, agribusiness, Walmart, bailed out Wall Street. Socialism, and you defend it; redistribution of wealth to the top. You're just ok with it when it travels that direction because you've been taught that's different. By the folks who want your money for nothing.

False. Socialism is when the means of production are controlled by the state. What you are describing is crony capitalism.

False, you just can't get your head around the fact that america has always had socialist aspects to its economy. Wall Street fuck up and needs tax payers to bail it out, socialism for the aristocracy. You just can't say it, that's all.

Those things may have socialist roots with the redistribution element, but it does not meet the textbook definition of socialism. The U.S.S.R., Cuba, North Korea, China (although much less so now) are socialist economies.

Yes, that's the list folks from your perspective always cite.
 
Socialism works pretty well for Wall Street and corporate interests with well heeled lobbyists - not to mention professional sports teams owners.


actually, a more accurate term is crony socialism....

We can play with adjectives all day. Crony socialism. Crony capitalism is what you'll hear myopic defenders of what has happened in america with capitalism say when they can't admit capitalism has its own flaws and weaknesses left unchecked. But if the exact same thing happens with unchecked socialism - and it clearly has in some societies - then it is socialism itself as an idea that's went wrong. Crony socialism. Democratic socialism. European socialism. Whatever. It's just toddler level silly we can't even have a conversation about it in american society without folk retreating back into their fanaticisms. It exists, it always will. And like capitalism, it requires balance and should never be left unchecked in the hands of concentrated power and wealth. And like capitalism, socialism has worked better in some societies than others. But most advanced post industrial nations with a decent standard of living, decent levels of an educated population, and decent healthcare system outcomes have blended the two theories. The US is not among them, but at some point the concentrated wealth and power at the top will give way, always does, one way or another. We're behaving like a dying empire, cannibalizing society economically from within to maintain the illusion of empire expansion.
 
Actually $1.70 isn't that bad, now and then I'll catch a burger somewhere on sale for $.99, but most of the time you'll pay more than $1.70 just about anywh.................................................................................................Huh ? What's that ? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh $170.00 !!!!!
Well that's different. Nevermind.
 
This has nothing to do with Socialism... it's about having a government that is clueless, and mostly because their economy is based almost exclusively on oil which is now at a historically low price point.
 
GW Bush is Carter and obama? Sounds like you're trying to rationalize failures with other failures. That's hypocrisy.

That what I thought, partisanshit.


Despite the doubts, the unexpected nuclear test is yet another reminder of how the U.S.-led nuclear deal with North Korea, brokered under President Bill Clinton in 1994, failed.


The slow death of the nuclear deal with North Korea


Yes, exactly, see why that partisanshit is bad for ya?

Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea
Rumsfeld Company Sold Nuclear Weapon Equipment to North Korea


The Two Face of Rumsfeld
2000: director of a company which wins $200m contract to sell nuclear reactors to North Korea
2002: declares North Korea a terrorist state, part of the axis of evil and a target for regime change
The two faces of Rumsfeld
A board member is neither a ownership nor a Directors position, Einstein.

And? Playing both sides of the fence for profit, these guys, all of 'em.. I don't care who does it, you on the other hand do. You will defend "one" side from the same stuff you will decry the "other" side for.
Swiss have been playing both sides for centuries.
Here in the US we have ITAR which prohibits such things.
 
This has nothing to do with Socialism... it's about having a government that is clueless, and mostly because their economy is based almost exclusively on oil which is now at a historically low price point.
Not having basic food items in grocery stores is 100% about the socialist government.

No, it is about a government that is based on oil exports and a government that pretty much hates the outside world. People in the socialist countries in Europe are having no problem finding toilet paper to wipe their asses with. In fact all my friends that live there are very happy people, which would help to explain why those countries rank so highly on the list of happiest countries in the world.
 

Forum List

Back
Top