what so bad about socialism

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, Dodd Frank is weak enough to allow a powerhouse to thrive and strong enough to add too much overhead to a smaller Entity.

so who is the powerhouse with a monopoly??

JP Morgan, Goldman, Citibank, BOA and a very few others on the Financial Industry.
IBM, Oracle, MS, and up and coming Facebook and Google in the Tech Industry.

Got it now? Your questions belie an unfocused mind.
Have you been diagnosed?

so maybe 10-20 companies have monopolies???

 

[Indeependent]

Five Biggest U.S. Banks Control Nearly Half Industry's $15 Trillion In Assets
.

and is this a good thing or a bad thing. Why?

They control Business Visas and Credit Ratings.
Without Obama, those who received undeserved Mortgages would never have been able to modify their mortgages.
JP Morgan sent out 2 million Forecloser notices to people who didn't have mortgages with JP and JP was taking their homes away.
Don't you love it when MNCs have nobody in law enforcement on their side?

 

[Indeependent]

, Dodd Frank is weak enough to allow a powerhouse to thrive and strong enough to add too much overhead to a smaller Entity.

so who is the powerhouse with a monopoly??

JP Morgan, Goldman, Citibank, BOA and a very few others on the Financial Industry.
IBM, Oracle, MS, and up and coming Facebook and Google in the Tech Industry.

Got it now? Your questions belie an unfocused mind.
Have you been diagnosed?

so maybe 10-20 companies have monopolies???

Could be; perhaps 30.
The closer to handing over Legislation with others people's money, the more power over the Nations Fiscal and Economic Policy.

Time to eat.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Could be; perhaps 30.
.

dear stupid, a monopoly is one not 30!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Time to eat.

we can continue your lesson at any time

 

[Searcher44]

Who said anything about monopolies?

dear, independent said "Dodd Frank eliminates competition". Without competition there is a monopoly. Now do you understand?

Elimination of competition in the financial sector is an lively ongoing enterprise. This you know as well as I. Give up your amature attempts at sophistry and try to concentrate on the original argument. I believe the original discussion between us simply was whether money has too much power in elections or not. Did you hear Donald Trump say Jeb was a puppet primed for his big donors to manipulate?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I believe the original discussion between us simply was whether money has too much power in elections or not.

well dear the issue throughout world history has been freedom versus govt. That is still the issue between Democrats and Republicans so that means money has no power at all.

Do you understand?

 

[Searcher44]

I believe the original discussion between us simply was whether money has too much power in elections or not.

well dear the issue throughout world history has been freedom versus govt. That is still the issue between Democrats and Republicans so that means money has no power at all.

Do you understand?

Utter nonsense. It's hard to discern what you're really saying there, sounds a little anarchisty/libertarian but who knows. The only thing there that doesn't need clarification is "that means money has no power at all." That's a clear statement and so far into the realm of nonsense I doubt if you could find one person of any political stripe to agree. Maybe you're as nutty as the guy you borrowed your screen name from.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I believe the original discussion between us simply was whether money has too much power in elections or not.

well dear the issue throughout world history has been freedom versus govt. That is still the issue between Democrats and Republicans so that means money has no power at all.

Do you understand?

Utter nonsense. It's hard to discern what you're really saying there, sounds a little anarchisty/libertarian but who knows. The only thing there that doesn't need clarification is "that means money has no power at all." That's a clear statement and so far into the realm of nonsense I doubt if you could find one person of any political stripe to agree. Maybe you're as nutty as the guy you borrowed your screen name from.

dear stupid liberal , if money had power the top 1% would not pay 40% of all federal income taxes(highest in world) and we would not have the top corporate income tax rate in the world, ...unless of course you feel the rich use their money to successfully lobby for higher and higher taxes on themselves??

See why we say the liberal will be slow??

 

[Igrok_]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

That is not an answer. It's just evasive. Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

That is not an answer. It's just evasive. Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

That is not an answer. It's just evasive. Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

Let me try this again? Can you document how 40% of the worlds poverty was "instantly eliminated" ? Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

That is not an answer. It's just evasive. Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

Let me try this again? Can you document how 40% of the worlds poverty was "instantly eliminated" ? Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

have you ever heard of China????? See why we say the liberal will illiterate????

 

[Indeependent]

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

That is not an answer. It's just evasive. Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

Let me try this again? Can you document how 40% of the worlds poverty was "instantly eliminated" ? Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

have you ever heard of China????? See why we say the liberal will illiterate????

The majority of Chinese are starving and don't live in the suburb known as Shanghai.
China is Totalitarian, NOT Socialist; not even close.
Almost every person who calls for Socialism is really a tyrant in disguise.
On the other hand, so is everyone who calls for the Free Market.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Can you provide documentation of any of that in an historical and political context?

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

That is not an answer. It's just evasive. Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does the dummy liberal think China got poorer when it switched to Republican freedom and capitalism???

Let me try this again? Can you document how 40% of the worlds poverty was "instantly eliminated" ? Sounds pretty nonsensical to me.

have you ever heard of China????? See why we say the liberal will illiterate????

I see how this goes. You make an outrageous claim that you can't back up. I call you on it several times. Each time you respond with a question to mask the fact that you can't support your statement with any sort of documentation. Now I see what we are dealing with here.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing bad with socialism as fas as it doesn't require to abandon the faith in God and moral principles, like was once.

whats bad with socialism is that it slowly starved 120 million to death and as soon as Red China switched to capitalism it instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world's poverty.

just bad management, last millennium; Hooverville proved it beyond any shadow of any doubt.