Top Communist Admits: Communist Party ‘Utilizes’ the Democratic Party – a Lesson for

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO! You have no 'case'.

You're an imbecile with a feeble, fecklessly advanced, bitch.

My old man was my employer... and getting fired was a fantasy with no hope of ever coming to pass.

Back sass your boss and he'll bitch and scream. Back sass my old an and he'd beat your ass. Then yell and bitch THEN you get to start over and do it all again! Every day was "Ground Hog Day", for me.

So you're product of child abuse. That's a partial explanation, I guess.

Sure sounds like it. One of those guys who thinks Daddy made a man out of me, by beating and abusing me. That tends towards sexual abuse as well, which would be no shock in this case.

I'm not accusing him of anything he is not himself offering in evidence.

I'm just enjoying the chance to debate someone who wants to put kids back in the mines.

No one is talking about putting kids in mines, jackass. There's no reason kids can't do simple jobs like cleaning up stocking shelves. Those are the kinds of jobs they have typically done. If a kid got hurt doing a dangerous job the parents could sue the employer for millions, so that isn't likely to happen.

Ah, your fantasy world that capitalism regulates itself. Got it.

Capitalism literally does regulate itself, where those engaged in such possess the virtue to do so.


Now which set of ideas is it that rejects the principles of virtue?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all? Which set of Ideas Rejects the Objectivity that is essential to virtue?

.

.

.

Surely someone else has noticed this... .

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marx, along with his butt-buddy Hegel, determined that employment equals exploitation. It's the cornerstone of Marxism.

Engels, you mean. Engels who developed his beliefs from having witnessed the horrors of the 19th century Industrial Revolution in Great Britain.

LIke a lot of Marxists, Engels was a pampered heir to a fortune who never worked a day in his life. He didn't know shit about the industrial revolution. The fact is that the industrial revolution brought a vast improvement in the quality of life for the average person.

Just take clothing, for example. Prior to the industrial revolution most people in Britain had to where scratchy woollen clothing, and they had only one suit of clothing to wear. They almost never washed their clothes.

The industrial revolution made cotton fabric cheap enough so even the poor could afford it. And they could afford to buy more than one shirt and one pair of pants, and they could afford to wash them.

But morons like you believe the industrial revolution caused only suffering. The reality is radically different.

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

It regulated its worst aspects, like child labor, unsafe working conditions, overly long hours, the lack of breaks, etc. Capitalism done right is a wonderful thing but when done wrong it is a literal hell on earth.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Anyone?

.

.

.

Come now... surely someone has noticed this trend?

Yes the far left Obama hailed Apple as a great company, but many of their products are made using child slave labor. If the far left wanted to put their money where their mouth is then they would stop using all electronics..

Oh Good one!

I love my Apple products... great example. Apple provides a fine living for many children who would otherwise be subject to dire poverty. Such a wonderful company. Highly profitable for we, their loyal clients.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Engels, you mean. Engels who developed his beliefs from having witnessed the horrors of the 19th century Industrial Revolution in Great Britain.

LIke a lot of Marxists, Engels was a pampered heir to a fortune who never worked a day in his life. He didn't know shit about the industrial revolution. The fact is that the industrial revolution brought a vast improvement in the quality of life for the average person.

Just take clothing, for example. Prior to the industrial revolution most people in Britain had to where scratchy woollen clothing, and they had only one suit of clothing to wear. They almost never washed their clothes.

The industrial revolution made cotton fabric cheap enough so even the poor could afford it. And they could afford to buy more than one shirt and one pair of pants, and they could afford to wash them.

But morons like you believe the industrial revolution caused only suffering. The reality is radically different.

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

It regulated its worst aspects, like child labor, unsafe working conditions, overly long hours, the lack of breaks, etc. Capitalism done right is a wonderful thing but when done wrong it is a literal hell on earth.

I get the impression that you feel that there is something intrinsically wrong with child labor.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU SEE IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG WITH CHILD LABOR?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Now... which set of ideas do we find the persistent rejection of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?

I have news for you, you owe more than just to yourself, you owe to your society, including your government.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

LIke a lot of Marxists, Engels was a pampered heir to a fortune who never worked a day in his life. He didn't know shit about the industrial revolution. The fact is that the industrial revolution brought a vast improvement in the quality of life for the average person.

Just take clothing, for example. Prior to the industrial revolution most people in Britain had to where scratchy woollen clothing, and they had only one suit of clothing to wear. They almost never washed their clothes.

The industrial revolution made cotton fabric cheap enough so even the poor could afford it. And they could afford to buy more than one shirt and one pair of pants, and they could afford to wash them.

But morons like you believe the industrial revolution caused only suffering. The reality is radically different.

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

It regulated its worst aspects, like child labor, unsafe working conditions, overly long hours, the lack of breaks, etc. Capitalism done right is a wonderful thing but when done wrong it is a literal hell on earth.

I get the impression that you feel that there is something intrinsically wrong with child labor.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU SEE IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG WITH CHILD LABOR?

Child labor as Capitalism, not just helping the folks with the cows or the garden? You bet its wrong. If your paycheck is anything other than an allowance from mommy and daddy then we have a problem.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Engels, you mean. Engels who developed his beliefs from having witnessed the horrors of the 19th century Industrial Revolution in Great Britain.

LIke a lot of Marxists, Engels was a pampered heir to a fortune who never worked a day in his life. He didn't know shit about the industrial revolution. The fact is that the industrial revolution brought a vast improvement in the quality of life for the average person.

Just take clothing, for example. Prior to the industrial revolution most people in Britain had to where scratchy woollen clothing, and they had only one suit of clothing to wear. They almost never washed their clothes.

The industrial revolution made cotton fabric cheap enough so even the poor could afford it. And they could afford to buy more than one shirt and one pair of pants, and they could afford to wash them.

But morons like you believe the industrial revolution caused only suffering. The reality is radically different.

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

Capitalism does not induce suffering.

Capitalism is merely the means by which people freely exchange goods and services, to the profit of all engaged in such.

Dogma, pure and wrong.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Just to keep the illustration fresh in the mind, let's revisit the comparative subject at hand:

Here is a graphic illustration of the two opposing points of view:

Of the two concepts presented below, which does the Reader feel 'serves a greater good'?

Child Labor!

The Left's Solution to Child Labor.

.

.

.

Reader: You pick which of the two you feel 'serves a greater good'.

I honestly do not see a point which is worthy of debate.
The US has nearly bred work out of its youth and as a result, our future looks very bleak indeed.​

 

[bripat9643]

ROFLMNAO! You have no 'case'.

You're an imbecile with a feeble, fecklessly advanced, bitch.

My old man was my employer... and getting fired was a fantasy with no hope of ever coming to pass.

Back sass your boss and he'll bitch and scream. Back sass my old an and he'd beat your ass. Then yell and bitch THEN you get to start over and do it all again! Every day was "Ground Hog Day", for me.

So you're product of child abuse. That's a partial explanation, I guess.

Sure sounds like it. One of those guys who thinks Daddy made a man out of me, by beating and abusing me. That tends towards sexual abuse as well, which would be no shock in this case.

I'm not accusing him of anything he is not himself offering in evidence.

I'm just enjoying the chance to debate someone who wants to put kids back in the mines.

No one is talking about putting kids in mines, jackass. There's no reason kids can't do simple jobs like cleaning up stocking shelves. Those are the kinds of jobs they have typically done. If a kid got hurt doing a dangerous job the parents could sue the employer for millions, so that isn't likely to happen.

Ah, your fantasy world that capitalism regulates itself. Got it.

So you don't think parents would sue if their kid was seriously hurt on the job?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

LIke a lot of Marxists, Engels was a pampered heir to a fortune who never worked a day in his life. He didn't know shit about the industrial revolution. The fact is that the industrial revolution brought a vast improvement in the quality of life for the average person.

Just take clothing, for example. Prior to the industrial revolution most people in Britain had to where scratchy woollen clothing, and they had only one suit of clothing to wear. They almost never washed their clothes.

The industrial revolution made cotton fabric cheap enough so even the poor could afford it. And they could afford to buy more than one shirt and one pair of pants, and they could afford to wash them.

But morons like you believe the industrial revolution caused only suffering. The reality is radically different.

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

Capitalism does not induce suffering.

Capitalism is merely the means by which people freely exchange goods and services, to the profit of all engaged in such.

Dogma, pure and wrong.

So you're conceding to the point?

Fair enough. Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(The Reader should know that the individual cited above, who has overtly conceded that they've no means to sustain their now failed position, will continue to argue as if it had not failed and conceded that they've no means to sustain their point of view... this is why everything that the left tries: FAILS! They lack the objectivity essential to the virtue necessary for success.)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Capitalism literally does regulate itself, where those engaged in such possess the virtue to do so.

Capitalism relegates itself by working the numbers. If it cost more to fix the defect in the cars already on the road than to pay off the lawsuits of people who die because of it, the defect doesn't get fixed. It's a numbers game, and it's why we regulate it.

 

[bripat9643]

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

Where do you get the utter crap dogma from? Have you never understood two sides of a coin, a double-edged sword, that too much of anything is a problem?

This is unregulated capitalism boys, and it isn't pretty or necessary.

Those kids aren't doing anything dangerous. their job is to tie the ends of thread together should it break while the spool is winding.

Besides, in those days people couldn't sue for being injured on the job. The primary reason work place injuries have decreased is because those kinds of law suites were given standing in the courts.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism literally does regulate itself, where those engaged in such possess the virtue to do so.

Capitalism relegates itself by working the numbers. If it cost more to fix the defect in the cars already on the road than to pay off the lawsuits of people who die because of it, the defect doesn't get fixed. It's a numbers game, and it's why we regulate it.

112 people died building Hoover damn. It appears the government makes the same kind of calculations. How many people died while on the VA waiting list?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

It regulated its worst aspects, like child labor, unsafe working conditions, overly long hours, the lack of breaks, etc. Capitalism done right is a wonderful thing but when done wrong it is a literal hell on earth.

I get the impression that you feel that there is something intrinsically wrong with child labor.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU SEE IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG WITH CHILD LABOR?

Child labor as Capitalism, not just helping the folks with the cows or the garden? You bet its wrong. If your paycheck is anything other than an allowance from mommy and daddy then we have a problem.

The question was not "IF" Child labor is wrong. You had already made it clear that you 'feel' child labor is wrong.

The question was: "WHY IS CHILD LABOR WRONG?"

(The reader should know that she understood the question, she merely had no answer. And the reason she had no answer is that she was NOT home schooled... she was indoctrinated by 'public schools' therefore she has no means to reason soundly.)

 

[bripat9643]

Marx, along with his butt-buddy Hegel, determined that employment equals exploitation. It's the cornerstone of Marxism.

Engels, you mean. Engels who developed his beliefs from having witnessed the horrors of the 19th century Industrial Revolution in Great Britain.

LIke a lot of Marxists, Engels was a pampered heir to a fortune who never worked a day in his life. He didn't know shit about the industrial revolution. The fact is that the industrial revolution brought a vast improvement in the quality of life for the average person.

Just take clothing, for example. Prior to the industrial revolution most people in Britain had to where scratchy woollen clothing, and they had only one suit of clothing to wear. They almost never washed their clothes.

The industrial revolution made cotton fabric cheap enough so even the poor could afford it. And they could afford to buy more than one shirt and one pair of pants, and they could afford to wash them.

But morons like you believe the industrial revolution caused only suffering. The reality is radically different.

It caused horrific suffering until liberalism began to impose reforms and regulations.

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

Notice that no one has bothered to answer this question. That's because the answer is "nothing."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you're product of child abuse. That's a partial explanation, I guess.

Sure sounds like it. One of those guys who thinks Daddy made a man out of me, by beating and abusing me. That tends towards sexual abuse as well, which would be no shock in this case.

I'm not accusing him of anything he is not himself offering in evidence.

I'm just enjoying the chance to debate someone who wants to put kids back in the mines.

No one is talking about putting kids in mines, jackass. There's no reason kids can't do simple jobs like cleaning up stocking shelves. Those are the kinds of jobs they have typically done. If a kid got hurt doing a dangerous job the parents could sue the employer for millions, so that isn't likely to happen.

Ah, your fantasy world that capitalism regulates itself. Got it.

So you don't think parents would sue if their kid was seriously hurt on the job?

See my post just above this. And if I were using child labor, you would not have the right to sue me. That would be in the contract.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone?

.

.

.

Come now... surely someone has noticed this trend?

Yes the far left Obama hailed Apple as a great company, but many of their products are made using child slave labor. If the far left wanted to put their money where their mouth is then they would stop using all electronics..

I don't think FOXcon uses child labor. However, it does push its workers quite hard.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure sounds like it. One of those guys who thinks Daddy made a man out of me, by beating and abusing me. That tends towards sexual abuse as well, which would be no shock in this case.

I'm not accusing him of anything he is not himself offering in evidence.

I'm just enjoying the chance to debate someone who wants to put kids back in the mines.

No one is talking about putting kids in mines, jackass. There's no reason kids can't do simple jobs like cleaning up stocking shelves. Those are the kinds of jobs they have typically done. If a kid got hurt doing a dangerous job the parents could sue the employer for millions, so that isn't likely to happen.

Ah, your fantasy world that capitalism regulates itself. Got it.

So you don't think parents would sue if their kid was seriously hurt on the job?

See my post just above this. And if I were using child labor, you would not have the right to sue me. That would be in the contract.

Such contracts are illegal. When you buy a lift ticket at a ski resorts, it says right on the ticket that you can't sue them for any injuries you incured while skiing, but people sue them all the time and win when they are at fault.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What did liberalism do to end that "suffering?"

BTW, life is what causes suffering, not capitalism.

NO one seems to want to answer this question, so I'll repeat it:

What did liberalism do to end the "suffering" caused by capitalism?

It regulated its worst aspects, like child labor, unsafe working conditions, overly long hours, the lack of breaks, etc. Capitalism done right is a wonderful thing but when done wrong it is a literal hell on earth.

I get the impression that you feel that there is something intrinsically wrong with child labor.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU SEE IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG WITH CHILD LABOR?

Child labor as Capitalism, not just helping the folks with the cows or the garden? You bet its wrong. If your paycheck is anything other than an allowance from mommy and daddy then we have a problem.

The question was not "IF" Child labor is wrong. You had already made it clear that you 'feel' child labor is wrong.

The question was: "WHY IS CHILD LABOR WRONG?"

(The reader should know that she understood the question, she merely had no answer. And the reason she had no answer is that she was NOT home schooled... she was indoctrinated by 'public schools' therefore she has no means to reason soundly.)

I don't "feel" that child labor is wrong, I "know" that child labor is wrong, and it's why it was outlawed. The history of child labor, and the massive abuses it produced, as well as the need for much better educated children and the need for the adults to not have to compete with much cheaper labor is why it was outlawed. I have history on my side, empirical data, while you have only dogma.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Anyone?

.

.

.

Come now... surely someone has noticed this trend?

Yes the far left Obama hailed Apple as a great company, but many of their products are made using child slave labor. If the far left wanted to put their money where their mouth is then they would stop using all electronics..

I don't think FOXcon uses child labor. However, it does push its workers quite hard.

Yeah, they live like slaves, which they more or less are.