Why do Republicans bash socialism - when it's all around them?

[Soupnazi630]

Dr Grump claims that American fiscal structure somehow "And creates huge disparities of wealth between the haves and the have nots.​

American have nots who have suffered the leftist-hated "trickle down" effect live better than kings and queens of the nineteenth century by an exponential rate.

Poor Demmies feel so bad about it, too.

I would say the corrupt unions haven't helped things. Mind you, if the haves were more fair in what they pay people, unions would never be needed. If only those uber capitalists could be counted on to do the right thing. You do realise those tinpot dictatorships of South America in the 1970s and 1980s are what your Utopian capitalist society looks like right? 0.01 per cent of the population unbelievably wealthy, the rest dirt poor? Why? No govt oversight due to the super rich paying off politicians. Without safeguards that is what your wonderful version of society would look like. Great, eh? The Cuban revolution didn't happen in a vacuum. Batista wasn't a benevolent guy. Fidel wasnt' the nicest guy either, but to suggest Cuba was doing great under Batista (with the help from the US) is just BS.

And no, they didn't live better than kings and queens. That's like saying the health care system is better than it was 400 years ago ergo it's better to be a pauper today than a king 400 years ago. Comparing apples and oranges.

Wrong

It is fact that in every measurable way Cuba was doing better under Batista.

They had a higher standard of living , better education and health care across ALL demographics

Batista was a corrupt tyrant bit so was Castro and far worse

 

[Dr Grump]

Those numbers are dreamed up stats

Living paycheck to paycheck is a choice and often it is living well. And it is always a volitional choice which needs no correcting.

It does not work well anywhere

What doesn't work well anywhere?
That is problem with out-and-out capitalists. On paper it all seems so simple. And it's not. As mentioned in a previous post, the end game of a capitalist society is South America circa 1970s and 1980s. Actually, quite a few of those countries are still like that.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Those numbers are dreamed up stats

Living paycheck to paycheck is a choice and often it is living well. And it is always a volitional choice which needs no correcting.

It does not work well anywhere

What doesn't work well anywhere?
That is problem with out-and-out capitalists. On paper it all seems so simple. And it's not. As mentioned in a previous post, the end game of a capitalist society is South America circa 1970s and 1980s. Actually, quite a few of those countries are still like that.

Socialism

Capitalism having an end like those nations is in fact an idiotic paper theory with no basis in reality

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong

It is fact that in every measurable way Cuba was doing better under Batista.

They had a higher standard of living , better education and health care across ALL demographics

Batista was a corrupt tyrant bit so was Castro and far worse

Bring out your stats. I would argue that one of the main reasons Cuba struggled was the US giving it the cold shoulder after the revolution and imposing sanctions. Without those, it would be interesting to see how the country would have gone.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong

It is fact that in every measurable way Cuba was doing better under Batista.

They had a higher standard of living , better education and health care across ALL demographics

Batista was a corrupt tyrant bit so was Castro and far worse

Bring out your stats. I would argue that one of the main reasons Cuba struggled was the US giving it the cold shoulder after the revolution and imposing sanctions. Without those, it would be interesting to see how the country would have gone.

The main reason it struggled was communism which always increases poverty regardless of relations with other nations

 

[Dr Grump]

Socialism

Capitalism having an end like those nations is in fact an idiotic paper theory with no basis in reality

I never said socialism on its own worked. Neither does capitalism. I have always advocated a mixture of both.
It is not idiotic. It has happened. Most of those countries have anywhere between 1-10 per cent super rich while the rest are dirt poor. Very small middle class if any at all. That is because the super rich (ie capitalists) have all the money and the rest are disenfranchised because there are no govt regs in place to protect them. No medicare. No social services. You think all those 10s of 1000s of people trying to cross the Mexican border every year are fleeing socialist regimes?

 

[Dr Grump]

Wrong

It is fact that in every measurable way Cuba was doing better under Batista.

They had a higher standard of living , better education and health care across ALL demographics

Batista was a corrupt tyrant bit so was Castro and far worse

Bring out your stats. I would argue that one of the main reasons Cuba struggled was the US giving it the cold shoulder after the revolution and imposing sanctions. Without those, it would be interesting to see how the country would have gone.

The main reason it struggled was communism which always increases poverty regardless of relations with other nations

Why too simple of an answer. Way too simple.

 

[danielpalos]

The left is advancing on the goal of equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation in our at-will employment States.

My State representative has informed me this issue is on the 2020 legislative agenda.

So where has this worked? You still haven't told me the solutions that are currently being used in left ran states such as California, which has the worst homeless problem in the United States, Washington State which has the second worst homeless problem in the United States and Oregon which has the third worst homeless problem in the United States. So far you haven't explained the left wing solution that these left wing states have implemented. Is there a plan in place? Does the left have a solution or are left wing states hoping someone else cleans up their mess?

i will let you know after a year of metadata.

So you lied, no solutions, nothing in progress. If you told me early on that the left had no solutions,we could have saved a lot of time. At least you admit the left has no answers

No, i simply didn't dumb it down enough for the clueless and Causeless right wing.

Solving for simple poverty by solving for capitalism's natural of unemployment is a simple solution in our at-will employment States.

What problems can you come up with, story teller, to make such a simple solution fail.

The scenario is, Labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

So why have the states of California, Oregon and Washington not solved simple poverty and homelessness. These states have done nothing to alleviate the issue. go ahead, we are all waiting for you to prove they can.

You prove it every time you reply with fallacy instead of valid arguments.

What problems can you come up with, story teller, to make such a simple solution fail.

The scenario is, Labor can apply for unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

I am saying our public sector is socialism. We have a mixed market economy. The private sector is capitalism.

The public sector is not socialism.

Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.

what you are saying is wrong as you are still defining socialism incorrectly

Sorry, the Declaration of Independence. Too bad for you. Now get back in line.

The Declaration of Independence does not say one nation under god either.

i get my understanding of socialism from encyclopedias not dictionaries.

No you do not

You have no understanding of socialism at all and no encyclopedia agrees with your stupid definition

You simply have no understanding of the concepts.

Government is socialism; eminent domain is pure socialism for the "public good."

I have far better understanding of the concepts than you

Government is not socialism and never has been

Eminent domain is not socialism

Socialism is the government ownership of all private and means of production. It is not all forms of government

That is from every dictionary every encyclopedia and every text book on the subject


You are wrong and you are ignorant and that is fact.


Your definitions are dreamed up out of your ass and they are false

lol. you are worse.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. i am not the one appealing to the authority of political jargon invented for an obsolete cold war.

You're mumbling with a tamale in your mouth again.

lol. you have nothing but the inferiority of fallacy.

That would be you actually

It is a fallacy to claim all government is socialist or to claim that the Constitution is a social contract.

Government is social-ism.

1. relating to society or its organization.

Government is not socialism

Socialism is only one form of government

Your definition does not even apply

You simply have no clue and no Cause.

Government is social-ism.

1. relating to society or its organization.

Our Constitution defines it.

 

[danielpalos]

Government must be socialism.

Every communist claims that.

only the economically ignorant claim otherwise.

Wrong

The claim that government must be socialist is an ignorant claim both economically and politically

LOL. All you need is any valid argument at all.

Not when your argument is manufactured crap.

I state facts, you simply dream up bullshit

lol. you are worse.

 

[danielpalos]

Socialism is Government.

Our Constitution is a social contract not a capital contract.

Where exactly does it say it's a social contract?

It defines our form of social-ism. It is a self-evident truth.

No it does not as we have no form of socialism

That is fact and in your face

the Public sector is Socialism.

No it is not .

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production

The public sector does not own the private sector

Fact you are wrong and ignorant and do not comprehend what socialism is .

The public sector is pure public sector ownership of the means of that public sector production.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The public sector is not socialism.

Socialism is the government ownership of the means of production.

what you are saying is wrong as you are still defining socialism incorrectly
The Declaration of Independence does not say one nation under god either.

i get my understanding of socialism from encyclopedias not dictionaries.

No you do not

You have no understanding of socialism at all and no encyclopedia agrees with your stupid definition

You simply have no understanding of the concepts.

Government is socialism; eminent domain is pure socialism for the "public good."

I have far better understanding of the concepts than you

Government is not socialism and never has been

Eminent domain is not socialism

Socialism is the government ownership of all private and means of production. It is not all forms of government

That is from every dictionary every encyclopedia and every text book on the subject


You are wrong and you are ignorant and that is fact.


Your definitions are dreamed up out of your ass and they are false

lol. you are worse.

No I am stating facts you are lying and that has been proven

 

[danielpalos]

the Public sector is Socialism.

Piss off, troll.

piss off, ogre.

Now about 15 pages of our resident troll and...NOTHING!

You merely appeal to ignorance of social-ism.

How noble is that?

No I do not

You are stating a bald faced lie.

I am correcting your willful lies about what socialism is with facts

Yes, you do. I am right and you are wrong. Simple as that.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Socialism

Capitalism having an end like those nations is in fact an idiotic paper theory with no basis in reality

I never said socialism on its own worked. Neither does capitalism. I have always advocated a mixture of both.
It is not idiotic. It has happened. Most of those countries have anywhere between 1-10 per cent super rich while the rest are dirt poor. Very small middle class if any at all. That is because the super rich (ie capitalists) have all the money and the rest are disenfranchised because there are no govt regs in place to protect them. No medicare. No social services. You think all those 10s of 1000s of people trying to cross the Mexican border every year are fleeing socialist regimes?

A mixture does not work either

As we have been told many of those people do come from socialist nations in fact not just Mexico

 

[Soupnazi630]

Piss off, troll.

piss off, ogre.

Now about 15 pages of our resident troll and...NOTHING!

You merely appeal to ignorance of social-ism.

How noble is that?

No I do not

You are stating a bald faced lie.

I am correcting your willful lies about what socialism is with facts

Yes, you do. I am right and you are wrong. Simple as that.

No I do not

You have been proven wrong and that is irrefutable fact

You know it and you are a liar

 

[danielpalos]

i get my understanding of socialism from encyclopedias not dictionaries.

No you do not

You have no understanding of socialism at all and no encyclopedia agrees with your stupid definition

You simply have no understanding of the concepts.

Government is socialism; eminent domain is pure socialism for the "public good."

I have far better understanding of the concepts than you

Government is not socialism and never has been

Eminent domain is not socialism

Socialism is the government ownership of all private and means of production. It is not all forms of government

That is from every dictionary every encyclopedia and every text book on the subject


You are wrong and you are ignorant and that is fact.


Your definitions are dreamed up out of your ass and they are false

lol. you are worse.

No I am stating facts you are lying and that has been proven

lol. you have no facts, only right wing fantasy.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Where exactly does it say it's a social contract?

It defines our form of social-ism. It is a self-evident truth.

No it does not as we have no form of socialism

That is fact and in your face

the Public sector is Socialism.

No it is not .

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production

The public sector does not own the private sector

Fact you are wrong and ignorant and do not comprehend what socialism is .

The public sector is pure public sector ownership of the means of that public sector production.

No it is not

The public sector is redistribution it is not ownership

 

[danielpalos]

piss off, ogre.

Now about 15 pages of our resident troll and...NOTHING!

You merely appeal to ignorance of social-ism.

How noble is that?

No I do not

You are stating a bald faced lie.

I am correcting your willful lies about what socialism is with facts

Yes, you do. I am right and you are wrong. Simple as that.

No I do not

You have been proven wrong and that is irrefutable fact

You know it and you are a liar

I am the truest witness bearer here. You must be the liar, Every time it comes up.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No you do not

You have no understanding of socialism at all and no encyclopedia agrees with your stupid definition

You simply have no understanding of the concepts.

Government is socialism; eminent domain is pure socialism for the "public good."

I have far better understanding of the concepts than you

Government is not socialism and never has been

Eminent domain is not socialism

Socialism is the government ownership of all private and means of production. It is not all forms of government

That is from every dictionary every encyclopedia and every text book on the subject


You are wrong and you are ignorant and that is fact.


Your definitions are dreamed up out of your ass and they are false

lol. you are worse.

No I am stating facts you are lying and that has been proven

lol. you have no facts, only right wing fantasy.

I am stating facts which you cannot dispute or refute

They are neither right now left wing but absolute facts proving you are wrong