Some white men arrested for inciting riots

[Mac-7]

It's a circle and when both sides go too far, they both end up the same place.

This is correct. The problem is it is the left that is going too far as they keep promoting that there is rampant racism and inequality with no opportunity for upward mobility. They are desperately trying to gain more government dependence. The numbers simply don't support the narrative the left is trying to sell, but the only numbers the masses know is what the MSM tells them, or doesn't tell them

And you are too blind to see that if left unchecked, Rump is doing his damnedest to take it so far right he would also take it to the same place.

Here are just four of Mussolini's rules to establish what he sought

Control 2/3rds of the Congress
Either control the majority of the Supreme Court of abolish it
Destroy the Media that may disagree with you
Use the Military to subdue the People

Mussolini was successful because Italy didn't have our Constitution. To date, Rump only has been successful in 2 out of the 4 but he keeps trying for all 4. The Military has it's own UCMJ that prevents it (the Militaries version of the US Constitution). Rump, if left unchecked, would plunge us into an extreme right wing Fascist Movement which is the same thing as a Dictatorship. But we have the Constitution that protects us from ourselves and despots like him.

Think of this, The US is supposed to be a Federal Republic. What makes Fascism work is when the Corporations control the government. We aren't far off that right now. The US has always gone from a bit of Fascism to a bit of Social Democracy and back again over and over from the very day it was created. I prefer the Federal Republic that is somewhat in between Fascism and Social Democracy where the Elected Officials are elected and work for the people. We don't have that right now. We need to swing a bit to the left but not too far. And to place all the blame on the Democrats is just wrong. Get the hard core Fascists out of the Government, give the power back to the people and make the Elected Official work for the people once again. Otherwise, we will continue to be in serious trouble. I like Ike.

And you are too blind to see that if left unchecked, Rump is doing his damnedest to take it so far right he would also take it to the same place.

dont bother asking Daryl who or what he is for

because he cant tell you tell

His schtick is attacking whatever others are for

I have been very specific. You just don't like what I have to say therefore, you claim I haven't said anything. Well, I won't toe the line you draw. Insanity may make you draw that line but sanity forces me to not follow you and the party of the rump.

What happened Daryl?

Did you mislay your prerecorded response and are afraid to go off script In your own words?

bummer

You are dumber than a box of rock. Just one rock in that box. You aren't smart enough for the plural. You just won another award.

View attachment 346329
Original enough for you?

Now I can see why you avoid using your own thoughts

 

[Mac-7]

Too bad all he has done is hurt American farmers.

You mean its too bad the CCP is hurting American farmers

Chin is attacking Australia the same way for calling for an investigation of china and the WHO over the wuhan virus

they (china) are bullying wine importers, coal and barley producers among others

its the same thing as sending gunboats to Sydney harbor to remind the locals who’s boss

 

[sakinago]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

 

[Andylusion]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

The irony of this, is that if you don't believe in G-d given rights.... then you have no rights at all.

If there are no 'god' given rights, then your "rights" are merely your opinion. It's just one persons opinion of what should be a 'right' verses another persons opinion of what should be a right.

And if all it is, is opinion, then who are you to say that Floyds "rights" were violated? Isn't that just your made up opinion of what rights he should have?

Basically, if 51% of the public says Floyd didn't have any rights, then that's reality, and there was nothing wrong with his death, other than your 'opinion' that it was wrong.

You need to be very careful when you fight against G-d given rights. Because that is exactly how oppression by tyrants happens.

 

[francoHFW]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

Pure GOP hate propaganda bologna. That is communism or at least pure socialism-that only a dictatorship and revolution make possible. Socialism is fair capitalism with a good safety net like in every modern country but us. Every foreign language speaker knows it. Only English-speaking Savage capitalist brainwashed people are confused. Canada France Australia New Zealand are not that scary, brainwashed functional morons.Canada Australia New Zealand and the UK already are socialist but they don't know it. "We are all socialists now!"--president of Finland when ObamaCare passed. of course the GOP obstructed and sabotaged to the point where we no longer are....

 

[francoHFW]

Too bad all he has done is hurt American farmers.

You mean its too bad the CCP is hurting American farmers

Chin is attacking Australia the same way for calling for an investigation of china and the WHO over the wuhan virus

they (china) are bullying wine importers, coal and barley producers among others

its the same thing as sending gunboats to Sydney harbor to remind the locals who’s boss

No our problems are caused by this stupid tariff wars and trade wars that are pure bluster from the orange clown. The French invented diplomacy for a reason. The orange clown uses gunboat diplomacy with no backup the idiot coward and fraud.

 

[francoHFW]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

The irony of this, is that if you don't believe in G-d given rights.... then you have no rights at all.

If there are no 'god' given rights, then your "rights" are merely your opinion. It's just one persons opinion of what should be a 'right' verses another persons opinion of what should be a right.

And if all it is, is opinion, then who are you to say that Floyds "rights" were violated? Isn't that just your made up opinion of what rights he should have?

Basically, if 51% of the public says Floyd didn't have any rights, then that's reality, and there was nothing wrong with his death, other than your 'opinion' that it was wrong.

You need to be very careful when you fight against G-d given rights. Because that is exactly how oppression by tyrants happens.

Keep God out of politics for crying out loud. As well as crap hate GOP propaganda for the brainwashed functional morons.....

 

[Mac-7]

Too bad all he has done is hurt American farmers.

You mean its too bad the CCP is hurting American farmers

Chin is attacking Australia the same way for calling for an investigation of china and the WHO over the wuhan virus

they (china) are bullying wine importers, coal and barley producers among others

its the same thing as sending gunboats to Sydney harbor to remind the locals who’s boss

No our problems are caused by this stupid tariff wars and trade wars that are pure bluster from the orange clown. The French invented diplomacy for a reason. The orange clown uses gunboat diplomacy with no backup the idiot coward and fraud.

Fighting back against china mercantilism is not stupid

its the first smart thing a US president has done on that topic in 40 years

china must be stopped,

a fact that many are waking up to

 

[francoHFW]

Too bad all he has done is hurt American farmers.

You mean its too bad the CCP is hurting American farmers

Chin is attacking Australia the same way for calling for an investigation of china and the WHO over the wuhan virus

they (china) are bullying wine importers, coal and barley producers among others

its the same thing as sending gunboats to Sydney harbor to remind the locals who’s boss

No our problems are caused by this stupid tariff wars and trade wars that are pure bluster from the orange clown. The French invented diplomacy for a reason. The orange clown uses gunboat diplomacy with no backup the idiot coward and fraud.

Fighting back against china mercantilism is not stupid

its the first smart thing a US president has done on that topic in 40 years

china must be stopped,

a fact that many are waking up to

Unfortunately your orange clown is he incompetent fool and fraud and his policies are not working. The Chinese have pride too. Diplomacy exist for a reason. Trade wars tariff wars are stupid. Always have been always will be. The GOP did that in 1930 and made sure everybody got in on the great depression they started...

 

[Mac-7]

Unfortunately your orange clown is he incompetent fool and fraud and his policies are not working. The Chinese have pride too. Diplomacy exist for a reason.

Does calling trump childish names make you feel better?

I think it calls your rationality into question

The chinese are not innocent victims being picked on by mean old donald trump

are you aware of how the chinese are treating austrailia?

The aussies dared call for an independent investigation of wuhan virus and the WHO

so china is threatening trade sanctions against them

just as they did against US farmers

The chinese are bullies

 

[imawhosure]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Antifah, lol. And you dumbasses let them hijack something we all could support. Congrats! You aren't as dumb as a box of rocks, you are DUMBER!

Hey PYRO, you like to burn things down, do you!

 

[Gantlemagne]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

G-d given rights.

Is Osiris missing in your life? As a Christian, I dislike you dashing what is Göd, Good. If you don't worship the Allfather and what is Göd, then why don't you just say your deity is Bäl. I guess Bäl given rights doesn't have the same ring, does it?

 

[Andylusion]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

G-d given rights.

Is Osiris missing in your life? As a Christian, I dislike you dashing what is Göd, Good. If you don't worship the Allfather and what is Göd, then why don't you just say your deity is Bäl. I guess Bäl given rights doesn't have the same ring, does it?
View attachment 346760View attachment 346762

I'll keep that in mind, and consider the deep meaning of your words. In the mean time, I'll put you on ignore. Have a good one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Too bad all he has done is hurt American farmers.

You mean its too bad the CCP is hurting American farmers

Chin is attacking Australia the same way for calling for an investigation of china and the WHO over the wuhan virus

they (china) are bullying wine importers, coal and barley producers among others

its the same thing as sending gunboats to Sydney harbor to remind the locals who’s boss

No our problems are caused by this stupid tariff wars and trade wars that are pure bluster from the orange clown. The French invented diplomacy for a reason. The orange clown uses gunboat diplomacy with no backup the idiot coward and fraud.

Fighting back against china mercantilism is not stupid

its the first smart thing a US president has done on that topic in 40 years

china must be stopped,

a fact that many are waking up to

Actually, a few years ago (and in USMB no less) I announced that a complete across the board 25% Tariff on all Chinese Goods were in order. And THEN and only THEN negotiate. No half stepping. No waffling. The way that Rump has done it has done much more bad than good. And our Farmers have paid the price. But it hasn't been the Corporate Farmers, the price has been paid by the 1500 acre Family Farmers who can't even cover operating costs even with what little they got of that bailout. MOST of the bailout went to Rumps Corporate Buddies. It even went to people that aren't even farmers. By the time it got down to the Family Farmers, there wasn't much left.

We didn't stop China. And it isn't "WE". It's Rump that has stopped America.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

G-d given rights.

Is Osiris missing in your life? As a Christian, I dislike you dashing what is Göd, Good. If you don't worship the Allfather and what is Göd, then why don't you just say your deity is Bäl. I guess Bäl given rights doesn't have the same ring, does it?
View attachment 346760View attachment 346762

I'll keep that in mind, and consider the deep meaning of your words. In the mean time, I'll put you on ignore. Have a good one.

OH, do me next, do me next, you arrogant Fascist.

 

[Gantlemagne]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

G-d given rights.

Is Osiris missing in your life? As a Christian, I dislike you dashing what is Göd, Good. If you don't worship the Allfather and what is Göd, then why don't you just say your deity is Bäl. I guess Bäl given rights doesn't have the same ring, does it?
View attachment 346760View attachment 346762

I'll keep that in mind, and consider the deep meaning of your words. In the mean time, I'll put you on ignore. Have a good one.

OH, do me next, do me next, you arrogant Fascist.

Yep, I'm pointing out that I know his handle means Andalusian, and that his heart (ib) is as heavy as iron compared to the feather of a falcon.

 

[sakinago]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

Pure GOP hate propaganda bologna. That is communism or at least pure socialism-that only a dictatorship and revolution make possible. Socialism is fair capitalism with a good safety net like in every modern country but us. Every foreign language speaker knows it. Only English-speaking Savage capitalist brainwashed people are confused. Canada France Australia New Zealand are not that scary, brainwashed functional morons.Canada Australia New Zealand and the UK already are socialist but they don't know it. "We are all socialists now!"--president of Finland when ObamaCare passed. of course the GOP obstructed and sabotaged to the point where we no longer are....

New Zealand, Canada, Australia, are all examples of capitalistic nations. If you want bigger social programs, talk about that. If you want socialism, even in limited fashion, you’re going to have to expand government power. Once again, Venezuela was “socialism done right” according to the left. The next guy who came in after Chavez started ruling by decree within 2 years of office. That all happened within this decade. There’s popular network sitcoms praising Venezuela system while ripping on the US system. How many more fucking examples do y’all need??? Everywhere it’s tried, dictators take hold, and people start dying. But no, this time is going to be different. We’re going to do it democratically.

It’s a system based off of class warfare, that centralizes power. There’s only one logical conclusion to it. Capitalism is monetizing service to humanity. You make a product or service that people are willing to spend money on because it improves their lives...and you are rewarded for that. The only power in capitalism is in who decides to buy what. Capitalism has its pitfalls, but it has been by far the best bad idea we’ve ever come up with.

“Then the gods of the market tumbled, and their smooth tongue wizards withdrew. And the hearts of the meanest were humbled, and began to believe it was true. That all is not gold that glitters. And two and two make four. And the gods of the copybook headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of man. There are only four things certain, since social progress began. That the dog returns to his vomit. And the sow returns to her mire. And the burnt fools bandaged finger, goes wobbling back to the fire.
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins. Where all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins. As surely as water will wet us, as surely as fire will burn. The gods of the copybook headings, with terror and slaughter return.”

 

[Andylusion]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

G-d given rights.

Is Osiris missing in your life? As a Christian, I dislike you dashing what is Göd, Good. If you don't worship the Allfather and what is Göd, then why don't you just say your deity is Bäl. I guess Bäl given rights doesn't have the same ring, does it?
View attachment 346760View attachment 346762

I'll keep that in mind, and consider the deep meaning of your words. In the mean time, I'll put you on ignore. Have a good one.

OH, do me next, do me next, you arrogant Fascist.

No, your posts are hilariously ignorant. I enjoy them.

He failed at being entertaining. If you are not going to say something interesting or of value, or something that adds to the conversation, you have to at least be amusing to others.

You are very amusing. Not much else, but very amusing.

That guy, not amusing at all. If all you are going to do is complain that I type "G-d".... well, I don't have much use for that in my life. I'm not here to fit into how you think I should act.

But no, I'll keep you around for amusement, as long as you keep saying that wacky hilarious stuff you post.

 

[Gantlemagne]

There are people being paid to create mayhem and discredit the protests against policy brutality.
WaPo reports:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/protests-white-instigators/2020/06/01/b916bd98-a426-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Thanks, Soro$

White nationalist group posing as antifa called for violence on Twitter

Other misinformation and misleading claims spread across Twitter on Sunday night and into Monday related to the protests.

www.yahoo.com

I find it hard to believe that some red-necks from the rural countryside with their camos and deer-hunter shirts, are organizing a high-tech campaign to setup bots and pay people to raise mayhem.

It could be true. It could be.

If they are, then ship them to prison with the rest of the rioters and looters.

Well read this and we're not talking about some rednecks.

Fringe groups point finger back at Trump, Democrats

Even some alt right turning on the trumpturd.

The Boogaloo Movement Wants To Be Seen as Anti-Racist, But It Has a White Supremacist Fringe

CTEC Digital Research Lead Alex Newhouse and Researcher Nate Gunesch investigate the Boogaloo Movement’s recent involvement in the Minneapolis protests following the killing of George Floyd.

www.middlebury.edu

Far-Right Extremists Are Hoping to Turn the George Floyd Protests Into a New Civil War

Armed extremists are showing up to protests and urging a “boogaloo” — code for civil war — online.

www.vice.com

Administrators of pages such as Big Igloo Bois and Boojahadeen Memes actively supported the anti-racist and Black Lives Matter protests.

Doesn't that make them left-wing? How do you identify with everything the left-wing stands for, and then claim to be right-wing?

What exactly do the boogaloo bois stand for, that is the opposite of the left-wing BLM and Anarchists?

AFter you research them get back with me. So are the oath keepers left wing?

I did research them. For about an hour.

I don't see what they are that makes them right-wing.

Let me start with this. Between left-wing radicals, and right-wing radicals, what is the difference?
What makes one right, and the other left?

One difference is the sheer numbers. The national unite the right demonstration that got non stop media coverage of it for weeks leading up to it, turned out to be the saddest protest/demonstration in the history of media coverage. Not even 25 showed up. Sad for them, hilarious for us.

As far as politics go. Both want socialism. One wants a “pure race state”, in the “radical right”. The other wants social hierarchy based on identity, including race, as well as other identity factors. Both hate Israel. On the European political spectrum they are not far off from each other, outside the issue of race. The radical left would like to see communism ushered in, the radical right probably wouldn’t go that far.

National socialism a.k.a. nazism; where does that fall on the political spectrum. They nationalized the nation's property, then parceled control to members of the regime and those loyal to it. People who weren't compatible to their regime (based on ethnic or religious or linguistic [sometimes that persecution has been the same cause] policies) were "removed".

Thats left wing

Nazism was and still is Fascism to the extreme. I can understand why you would try and change the definition since you may have realized that you may be a fascist.

LOLz Nazism supports individual rights and liberties? That's what you imagine?

Only for those that have like ideas. Everyone else doesn't get that opportunity. I suggest you read up on the Spanish Civil War in the 30s and see where both the Fascists and Socialists went to war with each other. Or you can stay clueless because you can't stomach being called what you are, a Fascist like MOST The Party of the Rumpsters are. A mind is a terrible thing to waste but in your case, it's no big loss.

Well in socialism everyone has to have the right idea or they get thrown in the gulag. Or starved to death. Or become the scape goat and the rest of the starving population takes out their anger on them. If you want to make all the trees equal in size, you have to cut them all to the same size.

And no libertarianism isn’t contained to those with the same ideologies. Everyone has the same rights, you can be a communist, talk about it as much as you want, you just can’t force anyone else into your communism. That’s silly. Get your ears cleaned out, or learn comprehensive reading.

Communism is a dictatorship that owns all business and industry and no one here is a communist. Shows you are an idiot. Socialism is democratic so not communism as everyone in the world but Anglo American conservatives know at this point.

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said anyone here was a commie. There are actually a couple. Socialism is not at all strictly democratic. Lenin was a “democratic socialist”. He created that term. He also created the USSR, which stands for.....Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Socialism is the government ownership of means of production. There are really only 2 socialist countries that I can think of, Cuba, and Venezuela. Neither are in the least bit democratic. Nor have any of the other socialism experiments there have been in the past. If your referring to the Nordic states as socialist, they will vehemently disagree with you. They are fully capitalistic. They happen to have larger social programs than us. They are still very much capitalistic countries. Bernie will refer to these countries often, much to the dismay of their economic leaders who correct him on Twitter, but the policies that Bernie pushes are closer to that of Venezuela, and Cuba. The closest Nordic country to socialism would be Norway. Government is a shareholder in the oil business, but the government is barred from making business decisions.

Stop and think about it. Your history is a bit Cracked.

The Government of Canada owns a share in the Oil industry as well as just about every major corporation. They only have a say when it benefits the entire nation. Otherwise, the Corporate Boards run things. MOST Western Countries are Social Democracies and that term far dates Lenin. In fact, even the United States have Government interests in many Corporation such as Passenger Trains.

Lenin set up the USSR in order to take over the world because he saw it as the only way to make Communism (Marxism) work. And he was right on that. What he was wrong about was the cooperation of the rest of the world. So he set up a country that was run by Military Leaders, not Corporate Leaders. The experiment was doomed from the start because Communism can only exist in very small groups of people. So instead of making the Utopian Society, he made a Dictatorship or a Oliarchy. There was nothing Social about it. You can call a pig a rose but that doesn't make it smell any better.

Before Hitler seized power, it was a Social Democratic Nation. He changed that to a Dictatorship. Mussolini did the same thing. Both of these changed the Social Democratic Nation into the direct opposite (Fascism) because, again Socialism that has little Democracy to it doesn't work. It becomes an Oliarchy.

Italy was a huge mess so Mussolini could mold it to Fascism because people were scare to death. When over half of your population doesn't have enough to eat then it's fairly easy to get them to grab the brass ring.

Germany was different. It had a workable Social Democratic Government. But due to the Treaty, the people thought they could do better. Along comes Hitler who promises them better. And for a time period he more than delivered. Germany became the envy of much of the western world. Then he got the idea that he wanted the Triangle. The Triangle is parts of Belgium, France and Germany that is high in natural resources. And in order for Germany to grow, it needed control of all the Triangle. So he does that his ancestors have done and decides to just take it. Of course, Hitler was a piecefull kind of guy. He took a piece of this and a piece of that and decided to take ALL of Europe. He was also an extreme bigot who hate the Slavs and any race of color. Hence the hatred of the USSR which isn't all white. Germany became a Dictatorship, not a Social Democratic Country. Like Communism, Democracy can only work in small groups. Once again, you can call a pig a rose but it still smells like a pig. Germany and Italy became Fascism that morphed into Dictatorships.

Meanwhile, Franco had a much healthier Fascist State that survived clean into today. While it's not what we would want, it's worked pretty well for the Spaniards for so many decades. What makes it work? Unlike what you claim as Socialism, Fascism is heavily supported by the Corporate Industries. If it's good for them it's good for the nation. But it only works if the Capitalists are nationalists. They still are even today. But Spain has been drifting towards a Social Democratic Government slowly. Yes, in order to do that, a shift to the left has to happen. A shift to the right of Fascism leads to a Dictatorship of Oligarchy.

Like Capitalism, Socialism is NOT a government model. It's an economic model. I'll do a in depth on that by itself. But trust me, neither one can exist without the other in anything other than small groups.

Think of Government Models being a complete circle. At the top you have the Dictatorship and at the bottom you have the Federal Republic. Going left of the Federal Republic you move into Social Democracies. Going right of the Federal Republic you go into Fascism. But I think you will find that a Federal Republic actually has models from both the Social Democracies and the Fascists while having it's own Representative Government.

Now, move to both the right of Fascism and Social Democracies and you end up the same place, the Dictatorship or Oligarchy. You just made the complete circle. Hence the starting of Hitler was so good but it ended up so bad. He completed the circle.

There are NO Socialist, Democratic nor Communist countries that exist. There never was and never will be.

Wtf, A. You’re conflating regulation with government ownership. 2 totally different things. B. Just because a dictator runs a country, doesn’t automatically disqualify it as a socialist country. That’s a ridiculous point. It’s the natural progression of socialism. You give that much power to a centralized organization, eventually an authoritarian takes over, or turns authoritarian. Which is what you see in Venezuela. Praised as a socialist done right by the left, don’t deny it, up until it wasn’t. Then all of a sudden, it wasn’t socialism, it magically turned into “Maduro is actually a right wing extremist”. To believe in socialism, it requires a narcissism to think that a centralized entity, if run by the right type of people, can make the correct top down decisions on extremely complex and nuanced systems that are all tied into each other. It’s impossible to do without “breaking a few eggs”. Kings figured this out Millenia ago. You need viceroys, lords, and governors. And even that was a way too top down system. In that system, just like in socialism, the only “games” to win at are government sanctioned, and you have to play by the rules as sanctioned by the government. In capitalism, you see that there’s a near infinite “games” to win at, there’s a niche for everything, and you don’t even have to be at the top of the game to earn substantial wealth.

Socialism is Marxist. And Marx was wrong. He believed the working class would eventually rise up. There wouldn’t be a need for world domination, it would happen naturally. It still hasn’t. Unless you want to consider the Mao’s, the Lenin’s, the Pol Pots, as the “workers” rising up. Those didn’t turn out well at all. None of them do. Socialism is inherently authoritarianism. It has to be to achieve its goals. It may even get voted in. That doesn’t mean it’s what’s best, or that people understand what they’re voting for. Jim Crow was the populist movement of the south. Very popular. Problem is, it’s the majority imposing their will on the minority. At its best socialism is utilitarianism. Taking care of the needs of the many, over the needs of the few. Especially if it’s “democratic”. You have to put policies in place that’ll get the votes.

Communism Is a dictatorship. Socialism is democratic. Marx was wrong Lennon was a liar. Every definition of socialism includes regulation or control by the community. That is democracy. The committees in the Soviet Union or the Soviets turned out to not have any democracy as advertised.... Only English speaking conservatives have your problem of confusion. Or other people who are misinformed....

Controlled by the ”community“ through a centralized force, AKA government.

bologna. Totally.economy controlled or regulated by the community means democracy end of story.

Through a very powerful centralized government that’s not gonna want to give up that power once it gets it. Maduro was elected. Then a couple of years later he needed to rule by decree, you know, because his people needed him.

That's one of the pitfalls that can happen to either the Fascist or the Social Democratic Government. When times get tough, a strong man may come by with his promises and bag of tricks and take it all the way into a Dictatorship or at least an Oliarchy. Many countries have things written into their laws to prevent that from happening. The US is just one of them. But not all have that luxury.

Well how we’ve written the Checks and Balances to insure that an authoritarian doesn’t seize power is to make the governments authority as small as possible. In order for socialism to be enacted, those checks on power have to be removed, new powers have to be created for the government. Our argument isn’t that there’s not good intentions behind socialism, it’s that those intentions have been the road paved to hell over and over and over and over again. You give that kind of power to the government, and maybe you have nothing but wonderful and altruistic leadership for a decade. But it’s human nature that the people who seek the power of government offices usually do so not because they are altruistic. They also tend to be the people who think they’re always right. And if you’re always right, and know what’s best for the people, then you should do what you think is right for them, even if it’s against some or even most of their wishes.

It’s only a matter of time for power to get abused. Which is why our government is set up so it’s only mandate is to protect the god given rights of its citizens. It does so by not violating the laws made against it. Not by creating synthetic “rights”, like socialism, and carrying out synthetic rights.

And who's God is giving those rights? And what right do you have to interject your "God" and supersede mine? Or do we come up with a set of laws for ALL people under God, not just the one you want to cram down my throat.

G-d given rights.

Is Osiris missing in your life? As a Christian, I dislike you dashing what is Göd, Good. If you don't worship the Allfather and what is Göd, then why don't you just say your deity is Bäl. I guess Bäl given rights doesn't have the same ring, does it?
View attachment 346760View attachment 346762

I'll keep that in mind, and consider the deep meaning of your words. In the mean time, I'll put you on ignore. Have a good one.

OH, do me next, do me next, you arrogant Fascist.

No, your posts are hilariously ignorant. I enjoy them.

He failed at being entertaining. If you are not going to say something interesting or of value, or something that adds to the conversation, you have to at least be amusing to others.

You are very amusing. Not much else, but very amusing.

That guy, not amusing at all. If all you are going to do is complain that I type "G-d".... well, I don't have much use for that in my life. I'm not here to fit into how you think I should act.

But no, I'll keep you around for amusement, as long as you keep saying that wacky hilarious stuff you post.

Not your decision to make. You sound as a Francoist. I exist of My own Accord, und Je suis Liberty.