So you love socialism ?????

[bripat9643]

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Put down that bottle, bripat.......Your stupidity is getting worse.

You have been singularly unable to prove it.

 

[nat4900]

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Put down that bottle, bripat.......Your stupidity is getting worse.

You have been singularly unable to prove it.

Well, I don't have to prove you're an idiot.....Its fairly obvious to anyone (except a few of your fellow imbeciles)

 

[bripat9643]

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Put down that bottle, bripat.......Your stupidity is getting worse.

You have been singularly unable to prove it.

Well, I don't have to prove you're an idiot.....Its fairly obvious to anyone (except a few of your fellow imbeciles)

It's "obvious" only to proven idiots like you.

Are you claiming using force against innocent people is good?

 

[Contumacious]

Venezuela Declares Another Emergency: It Has Run Out of Food

Getty Images
by FRANCES MARTEL12 Feb 2016225

Venezuela’s opposition legislature has declared a “nutritional emergency,” proclaiming that the country simply does not have enough food to feed its population. The move comes after years of socialist rationing and shortages that forced millions to wait on lines lasting as long as six hours for a pint of milk, a bag of flour, or carton of cooking oil.
Opposition legislator Julio Borgesannounced the measure on Thursday, which would allow the legislature to push for more imports on basic food goods and inspect government-owned food companies to ensure they are meeting efficiency standards. “This will make corporations and expropriated lands produce food again, will simplify the process of national and foreign investment, and establish incentives for investors,” Borges promised.

Socialist party members are arguing that the decree goes beyond the scope of the power of the legislature and cannot override the executive decree President Nicolás Maduro put into motion in January, which declared an “economic emergency” and allowed the government to further intervene in private corporations. Venezuela’s Supreme Court extended the viability of the emergency decree this week, in a move many consider an attempt to keep the opposition legislature from asserting too much power over the food industry in Venezuela.


Venezuela Declares New Emergency: It Has Run Out of Food

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can argue that, but capitalism is the reason why their standard of living went even lower still.

Capitalism is the reason why mass immigration exists, socialism is just an economic platform.

Utter horseshit. Capitalism is responsible for all the wealth in the world, and I mean all of it. Socialism, at best, is a parasite that sucks off capitalism. It produces nothing.

It enhances capitalism . Having a patent /copywrite laws is socialist . But it helps capitolism by protecting intellectual property .

No it doesn't enhance capitalism. It loots the wealth of the country for the sake of parasitic government constituencies.

So once a movie is released it should be freely accessible to anyone with the means to copy it?

You're getting into an obscure area that even libertarians argue about.

You're the one who said copyrighting is parasitic looting.

 

[regent]

Liberals now are all communists.

Now that you finally got THAT out of your system, don't forget to flush and wash your hands thoroughly.

I've proven it over and over. Please list one plank of the American Communist Party that liberals would disagree with.

So that's how Americans become communists, they don't disagree with one plank in the American Communist platform. Do conservatives have to disagree also or are they given a free pass? Seems like a little more proof than that should be required, but then you have proven it over and over so that's it. My kids haven't even read the platform and already they're communists.

Conservatives do disagree with almost all of it. You just admitted you couldn't find anything you disagreed with. Welcome to the communist club, Komrade.

I've never read it so I couldn't agree or disagree, so does that make me a communist? And what about my wife and kids they've never read the American communist platform either. All communists eh?
So where do we get a copy to read? And after we read it and disagree then we're not communists, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Put down that bottle, bripat.......Your stupidity is getting worse.

You have been singularly unable to prove it.

Well, I don't have to prove you're an idiot.....Its fairly obvious to anyone (except a few of your fellow imbeciles)

It's "obvious" only to proven idiots like you.

Are you claiming using force against innocent people is good?

Democratic socialism is using the will of the People. Once you've abandoned the will of the People as a means of government,

what's left?

 

[Contumacious]

Sweden is doing just fine.
View attachment 63300View attachment 63301

SO is Somalia

Safe water remains scarce in Somalia, contributing to disease and malnutrition

 

[Camp]

When personal life decisions have effects and interference with others, a referee and moderators are needed to rectify the disagreements and disturbances. That is a government's role. You can argue that seat belts should be a personal life decision and not the concern of government, but by not wearing a seatbelt, we know beyond any doubt that others will be paying for the cost of you not wearing that belt if you are injured to a certain extent in an accident. Your personal life decision will cost others and that makes it the government's decision.

the only reason others are paying the cost is the fact that government forces them to. Ino ther words, you used government intervention in the market place as a justification for more government intervention.

How typically liberal

Laws are passed, adjusted or repealed by elected officials who are selectively chosen by citizens. People aren't forced into anything. If a person, as in the seatbelt example, do not want to wear a seatbelt, they don't have to. They can live lives of not riding in cars and using public transportation instead, or they can risk having to pay fines for refusing to wear a seatbelt. They have options, hence, the wearing of the seatbelt is not something being forced upon them.

All laws are enforced with guns. To claim people aren't forced into anything by a law is the height of idiocy. The claim that it isn't force if you have options is even more idiotic. A mugger gives you the choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the belly. According to you that isn't force because you sill have "options."

I think you just proved that to be a liberal you have to be a complete moron.

You are mixing the option of being killed or shot with the option of being robbed. You are distorting to make try and make your point. Plus, you are not using the example that was given, instead, you have created a new one, hence, you have failed to dispute the original argument about the seatbelt example.

I used an example that made it perfectly clear what liberals like you mean when you say "we have a choice." When a mugger holds you up, he's giving you the "choice" of being shot and killed or handing over your wallet. How do you separate those two? You can't have an armed robbery without a robber holding a gun on someone.

Those are exactly the same options the government gives you: pay the tax or you will be shot and killed or we will take your stuff by force. There's no meaningful difference. In your example the government doesn't give you the choice of buying a car without airbags because the government is holding a gun on the auto manufacturer. If they make cars without airbags, men with guns will come and shut down their plant and impose huge fines on them.

All of your rants are based on your concept of "no meaningful difference" in options presented and the exaggeration of the government holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to follow their commands or risk death. In the case of the car manufacturer and airbags you fail to recognize that the manufacturer has agreed to follow regulations and laws before going in or maintaining the business. If the manufacturer has a problem with those rules and regulations they have the option of getting out of that business and getting into a different one.
You are just an extremist nut job who stupidly believes there is a place for anarchy in a modern world.

 

[Contumacious]

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Put down that bottle, bripat.......Your stupidity is getting worse.

You have been singularly unable to prove it.

Well, I don't have to prove you're an idiot.....Its fairly obvious to anyone (except a few of your fellow imbeciles)

It's "obvious" only to proven idiots like you.

Are you claiming using force against innocent people is good?

Democratic socialism is using the will of the People. Once you've abandoned the will of the People as a means of government,

what's left?

And of course the "will of the people" is a subterfuge for the will of the socialists - those of us that believe in hard work and freedom are no longer people.


.

 

[elektra]

Sure, but never at planned parenthood which has a history of actually killing women while attempting to abort babies.

Only when I scratch your head.

How often do you pull these types of statements out of your arse????LOL

 

[bripat9643]

Utter horseshit. Capitalism is responsible for all the wealth in the world, and I mean all of it. Socialism, at best, is a parasite that sucks off capitalism. It produces nothing.

It enhances capitalism . Having a patent /copywrite laws is socialist . But it helps capitolism by protecting intellectual property .

No it doesn't enhance capitalism. It loots the wealth of the country for the sake of parasitic government constituencies.

So once a movie is released it should be freely accessible to anyone with the means to copy it?

You're getting into an obscure area that even libertarians argue about.

You're the one who said copyrighting is parasitic looting.

I just haven't seen a way to accomplish the same result without government getting involved. Some libertarians say there should be no copyright laws. I believe in private law.

 

[Timmy]

Socialism worked fine in previously homogenous countries like Sweden and Denmark.

Multiculturalism and multiracialism destroys the opportunity for socialism to work.

It doesn't work even then. It reduces their standard of living.

You can argue that, but capitalism is the reason why their standard of living went even lower still.

Capitalism is the reason why mass immigration exists, socialism is just an economic platform.

Utter horseshit. Capitalism is responsible for all the wealth in the world, and I mean all of it. Socialism, at best, is a parasite that sucks off capitalism. It produces nothing.

Socialism = Bad =......................................... Untrue...

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Capitolism doesn't use force ? Back in the day companies hired strike breakers to physically assault their workers .

 

[elektra]

The federal government should not be involved in personal life decisions whatsoever...

Well, good for you......Women will approve of your new-found advocacy for a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE......Now tell that to your conservative ilk.

Right To Choose? Killing Babies is not a right. It certainly is not a medical procedure. The Democrats have a long history of being on the wrong side of right and wrong.

Call it killing if that is what you prefer, but abortion is a constitutional right determined to be such according to our Constitution. So you are factually wrong.
The right that does not exist is the one that you think you have to force your religious and moral beliefs on others.

Abortion is in the constitution, please tell me where.

 

[Timmy]

It enhances capitalism . Having a patent /copywrite laws is socialist . But it helps capitolism by protecting intellectual property .

No it doesn't enhance capitalism. It loots the wealth of the country for the sake of parasitic government constituencies.

So once a movie is released it should be freely accessible to anyone with the means to copy it?

You're getting into an obscure area that even libertarians argue about.

You're the one who said copyrighting is parasitic looting.

I just haven't seen a way to accomplish the same result without government getting involved. Some libertarians say there should be no copyright laws. I believe in private law.

How about anti trust laws? Without them you'll end up with monopolies which destroy the base of capitalism......competition !

 

[bripat9643]

the only reason others are paying the cost is the fact that government forces them to. Ino ther words, you used government intervention in the market place as a justification for more government intervention.

How typically liberal

Laws are passed, adjusted or repealed by elected officials who are selectively chosen by citizens. People aren't forced into anything. If a person, as in the seatbelt example, do not want to wear a seatbelt, they don't have to. They can live lives of not riding in cars and using public transportation instead, or they can risk having to pay fines for refusing to wear a seatbelt. They have options, hence, the wearing of the seatbelt is not something being forced upon them.

All laws are enforced with guns. To claim people aren't forced into anything by a law is the height of idiocy. The claim that it isn't force if you have options is even more idiotic. A mugger gives you the choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the belly. According to you that isn't force because you sill have "options."

I think you just proved that to be a liberal you have to be a complete moron.

You are mixing the option of being killed or shot with the option of being robbed. You are distorting to make try and make your point. Plus, you are not using the example that was given, instead, you have created a new one, hence, you have failed to dispute the original argument about the seatbelt example.

I used an example that made it perfectly clear what liberals like you mean when you say "we have a choice." When a mugger holds you up, he's giving you the "choice" of being shot and killed or handing over your wallet. How do you separate those two? You can't have an armed robbery without a robber holding a gun on someone.

Those are exactly the same options the government gives you: pay the tax or you will be shot and killed or we will take your stuff by force. There's no meaningful difference. In your example the government doesn't give you the choice of buying a car without airbags because the government is holding a gun on the auto manufacturer. If they make cars without airbags, men with guns will come and shut down their plant and impose huge fines on them.

All of your rants are based on your concept of "no meaningful difference" in options presented and the exaggeration of the government holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to follow their commands or risk death. In the case of the car manufacturer and airbags you fail to recognize that the manufacturer has agreed to follow regulations and laws before going in or maintaining the business. If the manufacturer has a problem with those rules and regulations they have the option of getting out of that business and getting into a different one.
You are just an extremist nut job who stupidly believes there is a place for anarchy in a modern world.

The car manufacturer has no more agreed than a bar owner has agreed to pay Guido the Leg Breaker his monthly protection fee by buying a bar in Guido's territory. Again, the "option" you list are of exactly the same option the mugger or Guido gives you.

Ultimately all laws are enforced with guns. If you say it's not enforce with guns, it's enforced with fines, then what happens when you refuse to pay the fine? At some point men with guns will show up at your door and take you to prison.

The claim that laws are not enforced at gunpoint is muttered only by morons who don't have a clue about what government is or how it functions.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sweden is doing just fine.
View attachment 63300View attachment 63301

Funny you should mention Sweden

Sweden is falling apart

 

[bripat9643]

No it doesn't enhance capitalism. It loots the wealth of the country for the sake of parasitic government constituencies.

So once a movie is released it should be freely accessible to anyone with the means to copy it?

You're getting into an obscure area that even libertarians argue about.

You're the one who said copyrighting is parasitic looting.

I just haven't seen a way to accomplish the same result without government getting involved. Some libertarians say there should be no copyright laws. I believe in private law.

How about anti trust laws? Without them you'll end up with monopolies which destroy the base of capitalism......competition !

Antitrust laws are nowadays used by one competitor against another competitor who's getting more market share. They have never been used to prevent true monopolies because such a thing is impossible in a free market.

 

[Contumacious]

No it doesn't enhance capitalism. It loots the wealth of the country for the sake of parasitic government constituencies.

So once a movie is released it should be freely accessible to anyone with the means to copy it?

You're getting into an obscure area that even libertarians argue about.

You're the one who said copyrighting is parasitic looting.

I just haven't seen a way to accomplish the same result without government getting involved. Some libertarians say there should be no copyright laws. I believe in private law.

How about anti trust laws? Without them you'll end up with monopolies which destroy the base of capitalism......competition !

BULLSHIT

CITE ONE EXAMPLE


I AM MORE CONCERN ABOUT THE VAST GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY THAT EXISTS

WHO THE FUCK IS GOING TO PROTECT US FROM OUR "PROTECTORS"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[bripat9643]

It's absolutely true. Socialism is based on using force against innocent people. That is intrinsically bad. Nothing good can come from it.

Put down that bottle, bripat.......Your stupidity is getting worse.

You have been singularly unable to prove it.

Well, I don't have to prove you're an idiot.....Its fairly obvious to anyone (except a few of your fellow imbeciles)

It's "obvious" only to proven idiots like you.

Are you claiming using force against innocent people is good?

Democratic socialism is using the will of the People. Once you've abandoned the will of the People as a means of government,

what's left?

By "will of the people" you really mean "they tyranny of the majority." I would abandon all government because it all sucks.