Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. Like me, and the million of others like me, for instance.

What morality do you think I would impose that would affect you (unless you happen to be a sociopath)?

You want the state to force me, and millions like me, to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation, placing me, and millions like me, in a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude.
This, inarguably, takes freedom from me and those millions like me; in doing so, it harms us.

You and the millions like you apparently see yourselves as having started from nothing and rising to the commanding heights that you enjoy today. That's not the case.

Irrelevant to what I said and the issue at hand.
You imposition of your morality harms us; we have not harmed anyone.
According to your standard, you should oppose it.

In a large society, there will be a certain portion who fall on hard times. That's the downside of society. (he upside is that a whole bunch of good things are created like technology, art, medicine, etc.) There needs to be a way to mitigate the downside and unfortunately, you don't like it.

I see.

So, as long as you think there's a good reason to do so, you're OK with the state imposing your version of morality on people who have harmed no one, harming those people in the process.

In other worlds... you don't -really- care about people being harmed, you just want the state to impose your version of morality.

In that, you are no different than those in the RW that want the state to impose their morality on you.


.

 

[nat4900]

In the same way that many slaves within our country's sordid history were led to believe that such a social and economic structure was indeed how the world functioned and accepted their subjugated fate and even welcomed it......today's right wingers strongly defend corporate greed, low worker's wages, union busting, etc. as the way life should be....while the very rich laugh at how thoroughly they've been able to brainwash the slow-witted,

 

[nat4900]

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

Someday, when you try real hard, you may understand that what we have in the tax code and what corporations ACTUALLY pay because of the loop holes, you too would discern that the "high corporate tax bracket" is a freaking joke perpetuated precisely by the rich to brainwash the gullible,

 

[danielpalos]

Very few Left Wingers can explain the failures of socialism all over the world no less be able to articulate why it is economically viable to use government to steal money from the productive to give to the unproductive.

Gee, these listed countries (and IS allies) would be offended by your ignorant retort......but they do know how right wingers are just dumb jingoistic dunces.

• Denmark

• Finland

• Netherlands

• Canada

• Sweden

• Norway

• New Zealand

• Belgium

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

How does high corporate tax relate or not relate to better customer service on the part of any public sector?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Very few Left Wingers can explain the failures of socialism all over the world no less be able to articulate why it is economically viable to use government to steal money from the productive to give to the unproductive.

Gee, these listed countries (and IS allies) would be offended by your ignorant retort......but they do know how right wingers are just dumb jingoistic dunces.

• Denmark

• Finland

• Netherlands

• Canada

• Sweden

• Norway

• New Zealand

• Belgium

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

How does high corporate tax relate or not relate to better customer service on the part of any public sector?

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

what corporations ACTUALLY pay

too stupid all agree they actually pay very little by moving out of the country.

Do you understand now??

 

[danielpalos]

Very few Left Wingers can explain the failures of socialism all over the world no less be able to articulate why it is economically viable to use government to steal money from the productive to give to the unproductive.

Gee, these listed countries (and IS allies) would be offended by your ignorant retort......but they do know how right wingers are just dumb jingoistic dunces.

• Denmark

• Finland

• Netherlands

• Canada

• Sweden

• Norway

• New Zealand

• Belgium

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

How does high corporate tax relate or not relate to better customer service on the part of any public sector?

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

diversions are just silly, dear. How does high corporate tax relate or not relate to better customer service on the part of any public sector?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Very few Left Wingers can explain the failures of socialism all over the world no less be able to articulate why it is economically viable to use government to steal money from the productive to give to the unproductive.

Gee, these listed countries (and IS allies) would be offended by your ignorant retort......but they do know how right wingers are just dumb jingoistic dunces.

• Denmark

• Finland

• Netherlands

• Canada

• Sweden

• Norway

• New Zealand

• Belgium

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

How does high corporate tax relate or not relate to better customer service on the part of any public sector?

actually we have higher corporate taxes than all of them so arguably are more socialist than they are.

diversions are just silly, dear. How does high corporate tax relate or not relate to better customer service on the part of any public sector?

what?? who said it related??? you're too stupid to be here. Sorry

 

[JoeNormal]

What morality do you think I would impose that would affect you (unless you happen to be a sociopath)?

You want the state to force me, and millions like me, to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation, placing me, and millions like me, in a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude.
This, inarguably, takes freedom from me and those millions like me; in doing so, it harms us.

You and the millions like you apparently see yourselves as having started from nothing and rising to the commanding heights that you enjoy today. That's not the case.

Irrelevant to what I said and the issue at hand.
You imposition of your morality harms us; we have not harmed anyone.
According to your standard, you should oppose it.

In a large society, there will be a certain portion who fall on hard times. That's the downside of society. (he upside is that a whole bunch of good things are created like technology, art, medicine, etc.) There needs to be a way to mitigate the downside and unfortunately, you don't like it.

I see.

So, as long as you think there's a good reason to do so, you're OK with the state imposing your version of morality on people who have harmed no one, harming those people in the process.

In other worlds... you don't -really- care about people being harmed, you just want the state to impose your version of morality.

In that, you are no different than those in the RW that want the state to impose their morality on you.


.

It's interesting that you can't see that people get harmed if there's no government intervention - probably in much more profound ways than the minor harm that you feel has been done to you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's interesting that you can't see that people get harmed if there's no government intervention -

govt intervention slowly starved 120 million to death.

 

[bripat9643]

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you? I'll bet if you were caught burglering a house you would whine that the police were taking away your "freedom" to make a living.

in a way that's true...

It's true only if your definition of "freedom" means freedom to club people over the head and take their stuff. Of course, that is exactly the leftwing definition of freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

You want the state to force me, and millions like me, to provide goods and services to others w/o compensation, placing me, and millions like me, in a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude.
This, inarguably, takes freedom from me and those millions like me; in doing so, it harms us.

You and the millions like you apparently see yourselves as having started from nothing and rising to the commanding heights that you enjoy today. That's not the case.

Irrelevant to what I said and the issue at hand.
You imposition of your morality harms us; we have not harmed anyone.
According to your standard, you should oppose it.

In a large society, there will be a certain portion who fall on hard times. That's the downside of society. (he upside is that a whole bunch of good things are created like technology, art, medicine, etc.) There needs to be a way to mitigate the downside and unfortunately, you don't like it.

I see.

So, as long as you think there's a good reason to do so, you're OK with the state imposing your version of morality on people who have harmed no one, harming those people in the process.

In other worlds... you don't -really- care about people being harmed, you just want the state to impose your version of morality.

In that, you are no different than those in the RW that want the state to impose their morality on you.


.

It's interesting that you can't see that people get harmed if there's no government intervention - probably in much more profound ways than the minor harm that you feel has been done to you.

How do people get harmed without government intervention?

 

[JoeNormal]

You and the millions like you apparently see yourselves as having started from nothing and rising to the commanding heights that you enjoy today. That's not the case.

Irrelevant to what I said and the issue at hand.
You imposition of your morality harms us; we have not harmed anyone.
According to your standard, you should oppose it.

In a large society, there will be a certain portion who fall on hard times. That's the downside of society. (he upside is that a whole bunch of good things are created like technology, art, medicine, etc.) There needs to be a way to mitigate the downside and unfortunately, you don't like it.

I see.

So, as long as you think there's a good reason to do so, you're OK with the state imposing your version of morality on people who have harmed no one, harming those people in the process.

In other worlds... you don't -really- care about people being harmed, you just want the state to impose your version of morality.

In that, you are no different than those in the RW that want the state to impose their morality on you.


.

It's interesting that you can't see that people get harmed if there's no government intervention - probably in much more profound ways than the minor harm that you feel has been done to you.

How do people get harmed without government intervention?

Ruthless predators swoop in and change everything.

 

[bripat9643]

Irrelevant to what I said and the issue at hand.
You imposition of your morality harms us; we have not harmed anyone.
According to your standard, you should oppose it.

In a large society, there will be a certain portion who fall on hard times. That's the downside of society. (he upside is that a whole bunch of good things are created like technology, art, medicine, etc.) There needs to be a way to mitigate the downside and unfortunately, you don't like it.

I see.

So, as long as you think there's a good reason to do so, you're OK with the state imposing your version of morality on people who have harmed no one, harming those people in the process.

In other worlds... you don't -really- care about people being harmed, you just want the state to impose your version of morality.

In that, you are no different than those in the RW that want the state to impose their morality on you.


.

It's interesting that you can't see that people get harmed if there's no government intervention - probably in much more profound ways than the minor harm that you feel has been done to you.

How do people get harmed without government intervention?

Ruthless predators swoop in and change everything.

You mean armed bandits?

 

[JoeNormal]

In a large society, there will be a certain portion who fall on hard times. That's the downside of society. (he upside is that a whole bunch of good things are created like technology, art, medicine, etc.) There needs to be a way to mitigate the downside and unfortunately, you don't like it.

I see.

So, as long as you think there's a good reason to do so, you're OK with the state imposing your version of morality on people who have harmed no one, harming those people in the process.

In other worlds... you don't -really- care about people being harmed, you just want the state to impose your version of morality.

In that, you are no different than those in the RW that want the state to impose their morality on you.


.

It's interesting that you can't see that people get harmed if there's no government intervention - probably in much more profound ways than the minor harm that you feel has been done to you.

How do people get harmed without government intervention?

Ruthless predators swoop in and change everything.

You mean armed bandits?

Sometimes. Usually, it's corporations.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Democrats need to understand that Socialism, needs to be minimal or limited so that Capitalism can pay for it. Margaret Thatcher was correct and no Liberal or Democrat has ever been able to prove her incorrect......they simply shift the conversation and bash her.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

......today's right wingers strongly defend corporate greed,,

capitalism makes greed impossible. If a company is greedy a competitor can undersell him and drive him into bankruptcy. Socialism has no such regulation.

 

[Flash]

Very few Left Wingers can explain the failures of socialism all over the world no less be able to articulate why it is economically viable to use government to steal money from the productive to give to the unproductive.

Gee, these listed countries (and US allies) would be offended by your ignorant retort......but they do know how right wingers are just dumb jingoistic dunces.

• Denmark

• Finland

• Netherlands

• Canada

• Sweden

• Norway

• New Zealand

• Belgium

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this Moon Bat but the the traditionally more capitalistic US has had a better post WWII economic growth rate than any of those countries and better unemployment.

Socialism is always a drag on any economy. Even Sweden has ditched a lot of its socialism in the last decade or so. New Zealand cut down tremendously on the cost of government in the 1990s. Canada has had a worse economy than the US for decades. They are only doing OK nowadays because of oil exports.

However, don't you fret your little Moon Bat head. Thanks to idiots like Obama the US is fast turning in to an European style socialists shithole so don't worry about it. The result is that the real U-6 unemployment rate is over 11% and Americans families are losing income.

The cost of government in this miserable country now is over 40% of the GNP and that cost is dragging the middle class down. Our debt is astronomical. Productive people are losing income while the welfare queens are getting somebody to pay for their health care insurance. Greedy bastards.

 

[nat4900]

Placing your rabid hatred of Obama aside and placing aside what your moronic ilk have spent on un-necessary wars ask a neutral grown-up if what the chart below details is sustainable........
Remember the root causes for the French Revolution?

 

[nat4900]

capitalism makes greed impossible. If a company is greedy a competitor can undersell him and drive him into bankruptcy. Socialism has no such regulation

Tell that to the no-bid armament contractors, pharmaceutical companies, higher education board of regents, etc.