This photo captures the difference between socialists and freedom loving capitalists...

[LadyMinstrel]

The capitalist will say...I got mine, fuck everyone else

No...that is actually what happens to people under socialism......then they start filling the mass graves with the people who object to that......

Ah ha..heres a man who knows his history!

Socialists..Progressives..are prolific liars...They will tell lies..to achieve their endgame...

Most IVe talke to..have no clue about history...and so they are doomed to repeat it...cept were not going to allow them to destory our country...

THIS IS WHAT WARS ARE FOR...CLEANSING THE LAND..according to the founding fathers.

A civil war in America might be a good idea..cause your never going to get these idiots to change their way of thinking...they are just to damed stupid..

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Here you go...this explains things pretty well.....

I believe your photo caption has it entirely backwards. The socialist wants everyone to have an opportunity to live in a nice house. The capitalist doesn't give a damn how anyone else lives. That would be their problem.

When you say everyone should have the opportunity to own a house like that do you mean everyone can freely purchase such a home of they wanted to? I thought we already had that.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Here you go...this explains things pretty well.....

Unlike no other Country or Economy in the World, US provides more opportunity for more people to have a house like this. Liberals will site Income Inequality in the US is unlike no other in the World; yet so is immigration demand (both legal and non-legal means) is higher to come to the US. Why would demand be so high to come to a country that has high income inequality? Liberals want US to be more like many of the countries that don't provide such opportunity in exchange for reduction in income inequality??? I'd rather have the best opportunity and higher income inequality vs. receding into another economy that locks in a true 1%, eliminates a Middle Class, and does not provide opportunity for economic upward mobility.

I think you'll find that Liberals that cite income inequality as a problem agree with you.
The point is that income inequality diminishes opportunity.

i think people who come here with nothing or are brought up in a poor environment who create opportunity lacking income would disagree.

 

[The Rabbi]

Shit, sucks to be you.
Death toll rises to 33 in knife attack on China train station Fox News

Meh.

OK you have been thoroughly pwned here. Time to move on.

I don't go searching for news stories in china. I also don't worship the confederate flag like some racist idiot.

SO you are intentionally ignorant.
Makes sense.
See, some of us are news junkies. We read newspapers and internet stories and remember them. So when some moron comes on here proclaiming that European socialism has produced an economic paradise we all know it's bullshit. Because we've read numerous stories, as well as books, detailing the stagnant economies, high structural unemployment rates and general malaise in Europe. Unlike you who gets his news from comics.

I read the news as well, but you cleartly, and specifically, searched up knife attacks to post that. When did I proclaim european social democracy is perfect? It's better then what we have. All of your "points" are dependent on the country and always change, idiot.

I remembered there was in fact a knife attack with multiple killings in China on the same day as some other event, I cant recall which. So I searched for that. Strangely the event I cited was not the one I remembered. Which only strengthens my case.
I never claimed you said Euro socialism was perfect. Try reading.
I have no idea what kind of argument "all of your points are dependent on the country and always change" means. Although I think it means you are out of arguments and have been thoroughly defeated in this debate. The numbers for Western European socialist economies are simply horrible. Enormous structural deficits, high levels of govt dependence, high levels of unemployment, deteriorating social structures. This is what socialism brings--100% failure.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Yes, when we give lower classes jobs, that is THEM supporting US. When all their bills are paid with money we pay them. You people are just ridiculous

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, when we give lower classes jobs, that is THEM supporting US. When all their bills are paid with money we pay them. You people are just ridiculous

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

That's irrelevant, borderline insane.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Yes, when we give lower classes jobs, that is THEM supporting US. When all their bills are paid with money we pay them. You people are just ridiculous

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

That's irrelevant, borderline insane.

As can be seen above, Kaz originally said that the upper classes support the lower classes by paying the lower classes' bills by giving them a paycheck and implied he still owned the money after giving it to his employees. I called him on that. British Patriot chimed in to call my point that the money he earns belongs to the government stupid. I pointed out that I didn't even say anything about the government let alone what belongs to it and reiterated my actual point that, once he compensates his employees for supporting him, he no longer owns that compensation. You're not paying their bills. You're paying your bill owed to them for working for you. It's not that hard a concept once you stop accepting the notion that you own your employees.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, when we give lower classes jobs, that is THEM supporting US. When all their bills are paid with money we pay them. You people are just ridiculous

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

That's irrelevant, borderline insane.

As can be seen above, Kaz originally said that the upper classes support the lower classes by paying the lower classes' bills by giving them a paycheck and implied he still owned the money after giving it to his employees. I called him on that. British Patriot chimed in to call my point that the money he earns belongs to the government stupid. I pointed out that I didn't even say anything about the government let alone what belongs to it and reiterated my actual point that, once he compensates his employees for supporting him, he no longer owns that compensation. You're not paying their bills. You're paying your bill owed to them for working for you. It's not that hard a concept once you stop accepting the notion that you own your employees.

OK what we have here is a failure to communicate.
He said nothing about upper classes and lower classes. Rather it was about employers and employees. In your mind that might be the samr thing.
Yes technically once the employer pays the employee the money is not his anymore but the employee's. So what? It came from somewhere. If the employer were not employing the worker the worker would have nothing. I think you havent made your case here.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Here you go...this explains things pretty well.....

Nah, the capitalist thinks "Nice house, all it needs is a wall to keep the 47% moochers out and some cheap illegal mexicans to mow the grass and do the laundry"

 

[The Rabbi]

Here you go...this explains things pretty well.....

Nah, the capitalist thinks "Nice house, all it needs is a wall to keep the 47% moochers out and some cheap illegal mexicans to mow the grass and do the laundry"

I've seen of your posts and already think you're a moron.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

I've seen of your posts and already think you're a moron.

I hear that a lot, mostly from delusional tea cultists like yourself

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

That's irrelevant, borderline insane.

As can be seen above, Kaz originally said that the upper classes support the lower classes by paying the lower classes' bills by giving them a paycheck and implied he still owned the money after giving it to his employees. I called him on that. British Patriot chimed in to call my point that the money he earns belongs to the government stupid. I pointed out that I didn't even say anything about the government let alone what belongs to it and reiterated my actual point that, once he compensates his employees for supporting him, he no longer owns that compensation. You're not paying their bills. You're paying your bill owed to them for working for you. It's not that hard a concept once you stop accepting the notion that you own your employees.

OK what we have here is a failure to communicate.
He said nothing about upper classes and lower classes. Rather it was about employers and employees. In your mind that might be the samr thing.
Yes technically once the employer pays the employee the money is not his anymore but the employee's. So what? It came from somewhere. If the employer were not employing the worker the worker would have nothing. I think you havent made your case here.

Employment is a contract. The employee sells their labor for money. The employer pays the employee at a mutually agreed upon rate in exchange for that labor. The money paid to the employee by the employer is just the employee's charge for services rendered. That's it. That's all a paycheck is. It's solely that person's property to do with as they will once it's in their hands and the employee's personal finances are otherwise not remotely the business of the employer. I would therefore argue that his point about the employer paying the employee's bills is what's irrelevant.

I am using "upper classes" and "employers" synonymously btw. Capitalist and laborer, employer and employee, rich and working poor, they're all just labels for the same dichotomy.

 

[kaz]

Yes, it checks itself. If businesses, consumers or employees misbehave, they lose out

Now days with the regulations, they will, but not so much before the era of regulations...

Liberals like to use the word "regulation" without actually committing to what you are referring to.

Be ignorant if you so desire then...

Ignorant of what? Your evasiveness?

Do you still need directions when using toilet paper?

You've been holding onto that gem looking for the perfect time to use it for a while now, haven't you?

 

[kaz]

The capitalist will say...I got mine, fuck everyone else

Clearly, you are not a capitalist. Only a true socialist/communist/fascist would even say that.

That way of thinking is exactly what the OP was saying. You see someone in a nice house and assume that they don't give a shit about anyone else. You have a big chip on your shoulder and resent those who believe in capitalism and do well. You really don't understand why some do well or why you don't have to be wealthy to live in a nice house. The average middle class American has a nice house and car and they still work very hard for what they have. Hell, our poor live better than the average people in other countries.

Republicans donate more to charity than Democrats, which shows who cares about the poor. There have been several threads/posts on that here in the forum, so don't ask for links. Look them up.

Dems want to confiscate wealth from others to win votes. Repubs want people to actually elevate themselves and have shown a willingness to help them do that. The left resents it when people seek independence from government. You see, the right wants more people doing well and reducing the need of nanny government because big government is oppressive and ultimately keeps people down.

If the left are the ones who support choice, why are they the ones who need to use force to get their way?

What other way do we have clean air, water, food and workers rights? History proves without a shallow of a doubt that unregulated capitalism doesn't do that. Force is a part of life.

it's done through tort law. You have no clue what history proves because you mind is thoroughly corrupted by propaganda.

I think this proves my point, you can deny the violent history that led to capitalism and the horrid conditions suffered before regulations, or keep living in a shelter.

Right, everything before socialism was "capitalism." When I say right I mean wrong...

 

[kaz]

Fascism is actually between liberalism ans socialism, Holmes. It's socialism lite.

I do like a Marxist like you advocating not being "extreme." Funniest thing I heard since Ted Kennedy decried extremism in DC

fascism politics Britannica.com

Fascism is neither conservative nor liberal. It's not capitalist or Communist. It's a "third way" movement. Do you know anything about Mussolini?

Fascism is where businesses are technically in private hands, but they are government controlled. That is one step away from full socialism and always leads there

Idiiot, your idea of non-regulated market place is far worse. There's nothing wrong with investing in r&d and infrastructure for the public good.

Stupid fuck.

There's everything wrong with it. Seldom is government "investment" for the public good. More often then not it's for the benefit of crony capitalists.

Err, government investment in domestic issues actually does help the public, and calling all capitalists who don't agree with you crony is childish.

Wow, "domestic issues." That covers everything, Holmes. Government has done good (roads, police, military) and bad (most of the rest of it). but your standard is if they did anything good that it's all good?

 

[kaz]

Fascism is where businesses are technically in private hands, but they are government controlled. That is one step away from full socialism and always leads there

Idiiot, your idea of non-regulated market place is far worse. There's nothing wrong with investing in r&d and infrastructure for the public good.

Stupid fuck.

There's everything wrong with it. Seldom is government "investment" for the public good. More often then not it's for the benefit of crony capitalists.

Err, government investment in domestic issues actually does help the public, and calling all capitalists who don't agree with you crony is childish.

government investment in domestic issues actually does help the public,

Until the people become so dependent on it they stop wanting to work...and then the money runs out...and the real socialists take over...and the mass graves get dug.....

Your posts are an example of why we need afforable college.

Your posts are an example of why we need economics as a core course in high school

 

[kaz]

Yes, when we give lower classes jobs, that is THEM supporting US. When all their bills are paid with money we pay them. You people are just ridiculous

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

I like how you chastise him for saying what you didn't say, then you repeat your assertion which no one else said....

LOL.

Your point is irrelevant, no one said that and it has nothing to do with anything being discussed. Remember we can't hear the voices in your head

 

[bedowin62]

Socialists are people who LIVE IN houses like that, but want to take their neighbors houses like that away, and give it to whomever the group of the moment is that they are pandering to for votes

 

[kaz]

Yes, when we give lower classes jobs, that is THEM supporting US. When all their bills are paid with money we pay them. You people are just ridiculous

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

That's irrelevant, borderline insane.

As can be seen above, Kaz originally said that the upper classes support the lower classes by paying the lower classes' bills by giving them a paycheck and implied he still owned the money after giving it to his employees

You are completely and utterly fucking stupid, I didn't imply that. I SAID that the money they pay their bills with they earned by working for me. Yet you say I am dependent on them. When they work for me and I pay them. You really are a dim wit, it's a simple point

I called him on that

You called me on what I didn't say because you are s-t-u-p-i-d

British Patriot chimed in to call my point that the money he earns belongs to the government stupid. I pointed out that I didn't even say anything about the government let alone what belongs to it and reiterated my actual point that, once he compensates his employees for supporting him, he no longer owns that compensation. You're not paying their bills. You're paying your bill owed to them for working for you. It's not that hard a concept once you stop accepting the notion that you own your employees.

Unlike you, bripat understood what I said

 

[kaz]

You think that you still own the money you pay your employees?

So what are you implying, that everything I earn belongs to the government?

That's pretty much the definition of "stupid."

I didn't say anything about the government. I said that you don't own the money you pay your employees. You don't get to reach into their pocket and take what you want because it's not yours anymore.

That's irrelevant, borderline insane.

As can be seen above, Kaz originally said that the upper classes support the lower classes by paying the lower classes' bills by giving them a paycheck and implied he still owned the money after giving it to his employees. I called him on that. British Patriot chimed in to call my point that the money he earns belongs to the government stupid. I pointed out that I didn't even say anything about the government let alone what belongs to it and reiterated my actual point that, once he compensates his employees for supporting him, he no longer owns that compensation. You're not paying their bills. You're paying your bill owed to them for working for you. It's not that hard a concept once you stop accepting the notion that you own your employees.

OK what we have here is a failure to communicate.
He said nothing about upper classes and lower classes. Rather it was about employers and employees. In your mind that might be the samr thing.
Yes technically once the employer pays the employee the money is not his anymore but the employee's. So what? It came from somewhere. If the employer were not employing the worker the worker would have nothing. I think you havent made your case here.

All play and no education makes Pedro a dim wit