Socialism only works in 2 places: Heaven where they don't need it, & hell where they already have it

[gipper]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

 

[AntonToo]

Socialism only works in 2 places: Heaven where they don't need it, & hell where they already have it
that's just the truth. deal with it, snowflakes!

No that is not the truth. Heaven and Hell do not exist except here on earth in people's minds. Can you deal with that?



And really, do we need to make this "SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK!" discussion every other week...for the past millennium? Just read the last one!

Neither pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism works - we need both elements, the engine of markets AND the regulatory framework responsible to people to steer it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When are we socialist and when are we not?

• At what level of personal income taxation are we socialist?
• At what level of government spending to GDP ratio are we socialist?
• At what level of government-owned means of distribution are we socialist?

This is a silly, shallow discussion until we're in agreement on details & definitions.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
.

Socialism (in it's truest form) is total government control of all things. Hence, it is merely another form of dictatorship by a small elite.

History clearly shouts that dictatorship seldom works for the vast majority of people and in most cases, results in death and destruction.

And does the US not have its dictators telling everyone what to do, with death and destruction? Well, kind of.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Or he realizes the US system doesn't work with a third party.

He knows 3rd party on the left means the right takes over.

 

[AntonToo]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

He is WRONG.

He is a "Democratic Socialist" like scandinavians are. He believes in a place for markets while real socialists do not and want all production owned by workers/public.

 

[Theowl32]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Considering he was part of the scam with the hillary endorsement, it is no surprise.

The democrats, including that asshole were all a part of it. They cannot admit it for obvious reasons.

 

[gipper]

When are we socialist and when are we not?

• At what level of personal income taxation are we socialist?
• At what level of government spending to GDP ratio are we socialist?
• At what level of government-owned means of distribution are we socialist?

This is a silly, shallow discussion until we're in agreement on details & definitions.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
.

Socialism (in it's truest form) is total government control of all things. Hence, it is merely another form of dictatorship by a small elite.

History clearly shouts that dictatorship seldom works for the vast majority of people and in most cases, results in death and destruction.

And does the US not have its dictators telling everyone what to do, with death and destruction? Well, kind of.

It sure does. I consider our federal government as bad as a socialist dictatorship.

Whenever a small elite control a nation, whether by dictator, monarch, or elected scumbag it always leads to the same place. As such, I have long advocated for the elimination of a central government.

 

[gipper]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Considering he was part of the scam with the hillary endorsement, it is no surprise.

The democrats, including that asshole were all a part of it. They cannot admit it for obvious reasons.

Agreed. Bernie exposed himself as an asshole when he campaigned for Hillary after losing the nomination. Hillary was the epitome of everything he railed against. She IS a warmongering corporatist criminal.

Bernie is a massive fucking fraud...like most American politicians.

 

[gipper]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Or he realizes the US system doesn't work with a third party.

He knows 3rd party on the left means the right takes over.

There is no difference between the two major parties. Only fools think otherwise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When are we socialist and when are we not?

• At what level of personal income taxation are we socialist?
• At what level of government spending to GDP ratio are we socialist?
• At what level of government-owned means of distribution are we socialist?

This is a silly, shallow discussion until we're in agreement on details & definitions.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
.

Socialism (in it's truest form) is total government control of all things. Hence, it is merely another form of dictatorship by a small elite.

History clearly shouts that dictatorship seldom works for the vast majority of people and in most cases, results in death and destruction.

And does the US not have its dictators telling everyone what to do, with death and destruction? Well, kind of.

It sure does. I consider our federal government as bad as a socialist dictatorship.

Whenever a small elite control a nation, whether by dictator, monarch, or elected scumbag it always leads to the same place. As such, I have long advocated for the elimination of a central government.

So, how do you make a system of government where a small elite doesn't control the country?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Or he realizes the US system doesn't work with a third party.

He knows 3rd party on the left means the right takes over.

There is no difference between the two major parties. Only fools think otherwise.

There are differences. What you mean is that the two main parties are as bad as each other and promote the "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" theory, all while selling themselves to the highest bidder.

 

[gipper]

When are we socialist and when are we not?

• At what level of personal income taxation are we socialist?
• At what level of government spending to GDP ratio are we socialist?
• At what level of government-owned means of distribution are we socialist?

This is a silly, shallow discussion until we're in agreement on details & definitions.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
.

Socialism (in it's truest form) is total government control of all things. Hence, it is merely another form of dictatorship by a small elite.

History clearly shouts that dictatorship seldom works for the vast majority of people and in most cases, results in death and destruction.

And does the US not have its dictators telling everyone what to do, with death and destruction? Well, kind of.

It sure does. I consider our federal government as bad as a socialist dictatorship.

Whenever a small elite control a nation, whether by dictator, monarch, or elected scumbag it always leads to the same place. As such, I have long advocated for the elimination of a central government.

So, how do you make a system of government where a small elite doesn't control the country?

Yes...I wish I could come up with a system that would work.

The thing is we know the current set up doesn't work. So, we need to try something else.

It is said democracy works best when very small...like Greece's city states of centuries ago, where democracy was founded. So, let's break up the USA into about 500 hundred city states and see how that works.

 

[gipper]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Or he realizes the US system doesn't work with a third party.

He knows 3rd party on the left means the right takes over.

There is no difference between the two major parties. Only fools think otherwise.

There are differences. What you mean is that the two main parties are as bad as each other and promote the "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" theory, all while selling themselves to the highest bidder.

The differences are slight and for the most part, merely propaganda.

Both parties have far more in common than they do differences. Their main goal is more power and wealth for themselves and both will work together to prevent the rising of a third party. Their monopoly on power is secure.

If after what the DNC did to Bernie does not terminate the D party altogether, nothing will.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When are we socialist and when are we not?

• At what level of personal income taxation are we socialist?
• At what level of government spending to GDP ratio are we socialist?
• At what level of government-owned means of distribution are we socialist?

This is a silly, shallow discussion until we're in agreement on details & definitions.

Looking forward to it, thanks.
.

Socialism (in it's truest form) is total government control of all things. Hence, it is merely another form of dictatorship by a small elite.

History clearly shouts that dictatorship seldom works for the vast majority of people and in most cases, results in death and destruction.

And does the US not have its dictators telling everyone what to do, with death and destruction? Well, kind of.

It sure does. I consider our federal government as bad as a socialist dictatorship.

Whenever a small elite control a nation, whether by dictator, monarch, or elected scumbag it always leads to the same place. As such, I have long advocated for the elimination of a central government.

So, how do you make a system of government where a small elite doesn't control the country?

Yes...I wish I could come up with a system that would work.

The thing is we know the current set up doesn't work. So, we need to try something else.

It is said democracy works best when very small...like Greece's city states of centuries ago, where democracy was founded. So, let's break up the USA into about 500 hundred city states and see how that works.

Well, that's why I advocate PR. It's a system where people have a far more of a chance of their voice being heard. Where politicians are far more on edge than in the US or most other FPTP systems.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bernie is not actually a socialist (unless you want to call Sweden a socialist country), so the joke is on you.

He admits here to being a socialist, some years ago. He even states we need a third party. After what the DNC and Clinton did to him, one would think he would be leading an effort for a third party. Alas, he is just another corrupt politician out to enrich and empower himself.

Or he realizes the US system doesn't work with a third party.

He knows 3rd party on the left means the right takes over.

There is no difference between the two major parties. Only fools think otherwise.

There are differences. What you mean is that the two main parties are as bad as each other and promote the "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" theory, all while selling themselves to the highest bidder.

The differences are slight and for the most part, merely propaganda.

Both parties have far more in common than they do differences. Their main goal is more power and wealth for themselves and both will work together to prevent the rising of a third party. Their monopoly on power is secure.

If after what the DNC did to Bernie does not terminate the D party altogether, nothing will.

I don't like either party, and often their differences are just a whore's make up, but there are differences. Yes, power and wealth for themselves. It's as corrupt as fuck. Unless the people stand up for themselves, then nothing will change. Unless PR gets put in place, the people won't have the power to make such a decision. The Koch brothers are growing in power and ambition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We have socialized medicine in this country. If you believe it doesn't work, tell us what works better.

 

[Mr Natural]

Their beloved military is about as socialistic as it gets.

 

[AntonToo]

We have socialized medicine in this country. If you believe it doesn't work, tell us what works better.

America does not have socialized medicine, so have SOME of our medicine socialized (Medicaid, VA, and some public hospitals/clinics) everything else (providers, insurers, pharmaceuticals) is regulated but is still privately owned.

 

[dudmuck]

Democratic control of means of production is so evil.

 

[Norman]

Road gas taxes work well
Public schools educate 90% of our children
Public schools in other countries make up everyone of the top 10 best educational k through 12 educational systems on earth!
Our military works well
Our police force works well
Our first departments work well

WTF are you talking about?

Public schools can't even compete with some random guy educating their own kids. Holy fuck are they bad.