Why not move to Cuba or France if you want socialism?

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, horse crap, in the nicest way of course.

The capitalists used the courts to get orders so that violence could be meeted out to the workers who opposed their ruthlessness.

The libertarians would gain the right to use force against those they would oppress.

Remember that libertarians are the flip side of communism: they, instead of cadres, would use 'societies of equals' to oppress the poor and worker classes.

America is more capitalistic than the countries named above with America holding a far poorer health, longevity, access, and $ per person disadvantage to those countries.

bripat, you can't have it both ways, but you can accept our system is worse.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.


In conclusion , since the early 1900's the US has been a socialist banana republic.


.

 

[spectrumc01]

Why not move to Cuba or France if you want socialism?

Why destroy America???? We don't want your rat poison.

We got socialism here in the US, why leave? It's been here for over fifty years and counting, and we haven't died yet.

"We don't want your rat poison." ...Thats good because we ain't giving you any.

 

[tooAlive]

You are clearly ignoring the back story that informs the story of Cuba today.

Please give us the mission statement of the The Real Cuba website.

I am willing to discuss this in context, from 1940 to today.

Obviously that website is there to shed light on what really goes on in Cuba. Nobody on the island would consent to any of it, so I'm assuming it's being run by angry expatriates.

Thank you for your PM, I can see that you truly believe in what you're saying. I can't blame you; there's really no way of knowing the sad reality of life in Cuba unless you've visited or can talk to various people who have lived there.

You mentioned that life was a hell hole before Castro.

I'm not quite sure I follow. I've never spoken to an actual Cuban that has ever expressed any such feelings; in fact, it's pretty much the opposite.

My grandfather for example started working for a paper company in the 50's. He started out as a simple worker earning an entry-level wage, and eventually moved up to a management role within the company. He was quite happy, as were those who worked above and below him. Others were able to own their own farms, employ workers, and lived a pretty good life.

There even existed different industries within Cuba that also employed many workers. During the time that Castro was fighting for power, these industries were in their prime and rapidly growing. Once he took over, the government basically seized everything and production started to stop. It wasn't shortly after that my grandfather was fired from the paper company along with many others.

It's been a steady downhill decline since then. Today, most of those industries have ceased to exist.

So I'm a little stumped as to where you're getting the impression that Cuba was doing so bad before Castro took over. It was actually doing quite well.

 

[regent]

One of the primary purposes of our constitution was to get the government involved in the nation's economy. The framers abolished a government with no powers and no involvment in the economy-- about as limited as a government could be--and created a new government with one of its primary purposes to be part of the economy. As soon as the first government took office, it was involved in the economy and has been since. Too much for some and not enough for others.

 

[Wiseacre]

One of the primary purposes of our constitution was to get the government involved in the nation's economy. The framers abolished a government with no powers and no involvment in the economy-- about as limited as a government could be--and created a new government with one of its primary purposes to be part of the economy. As soon as the first government took office, it was involved in the economy and has been since. Too much for some and not enough for others.

I don't think so, mostly they just wanted to ensure free and fair trade between the states. I do not think they ever envisioned gov't controlled health care or bailouts of businesses that were poorly run.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, horse crap, in the nicest way of course.

The capitalists used the courts to get orders so that violence could be meeted out to the workers who opposed their ruthlessness.

The libertarians would gain the right to use force against those they would oppress.

Remember that libertarians are the flip side of communism: they, instead of cadres, would use 'societies of equals' to oppress the poor and worker classes.

You're a fucking moron, Starkey. I've been a libertarian for 35 years, and I've never heard or read any libertarian using the term "society of equals." Just how do you imagine libertarians intend to "oppress the poor and the working classes," by leaving them alone?

You're claims aren't just wrong, they are non-nonsensical. They don't even mean anything coherent. What does it mean to "gain the right to use force against those they would oppress?" It means libertarians want to oppress people, so your argument that libertarians want to oppress people is that libertarians want to oppress people. That's called a tautology. Look that up. I'm certain you have no clue what it means.

I could probably go on for another 20-40 paragraphs about how stupid your post is, but it's not worth the effort. Anyone with a brain can already see you're a first class numskull.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like a lot of Americans moving to Cuba and France

All those who received a free public school education, everyone on Social Security, those who claim aid to dependent children, veterans,

Who is going to be left?

 

[Wiseacre]

Looks like a lot of Americans moving to Cuba and France

All those who received a free public school education, everyone on Social Security, those who claim aid to dependent children, veterans,

Who is going to be left?

Who is going to pay the bills? That wasn't a flip smartass question, who do you think is going to endup with enormous gov't interest payments and debts?

 

[mamooth]

I keep wondering why the conservatives haven't all gone to North Korea yet. All any Republican needs for a happy life is a DearLeader to worship and outsiders to demonize, and North Korea would give them that.

Maybe it's the religion thing. In which case, I'd suggest Iran as a good fit. Chant a few different words, make some different gestures, otherwise nothing changes.

Or maybe they're more libertarian, and it's the taxes. In which case I'd suggest Somalia as a low-tax libertarian paradise.

They could all congregate in one spot and secede. And call the new nation "dumfukistan". It could combine all the best features of North Korea, Iran and Somalia, and thus be a Republican/Libertarian paradise.

 

[tooAlive]

I keep wondering why the conservatives haven't all gone to North Korea yet. All any Republican needs for a happy life is a DearLeader to worship and outsiders to demonize, and North Korea would give them that.

Maybe it's the religion thing. In which case, I'd suggest Iran as a good fit. Chant a few different words, make some different gestures, otherwise nothing changes.

Or maybe they're more libertarian, and it's the taxes. In which case I'd suggest Somalia as a low-tax libertarian paradise.

They could all congregate in one spot and secede. And call the new nation "dumfukistan". It could combine all the best features of North Korea, Iran and Somalia, and thus be a Republican/Libertarian paradise.

Our founding fathers laid down the blueprint for our country on ideals based on Republicanism.

No need for us to go anywhere.

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like a lot of Americans moving to Cuba and France

All those who received a free public school education, everyone on Social Security, those who claim aid to dependent children, veterans,

Who is going to be left?

Who is going to pay the bills? That wasn't a flip smartass question, who do you think is going to endup with enormous gov't interest payments and debts?

Just like any country, we all pay the bills and we all benefit

We survive much better in a society as a whole than we do as a bunch of individuals

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is engaged in his latest psycho-babble, just like Yosemite Sam firing off his guns.

The libertarians have no intent of leaving the poor and working classes alone. The evil ones intend to oppress and loot them. Getting the courts to issue injunctions against legitimate worker complaints so that the bosses can bring in gun thugs is oppression.

You just looked up "tautology", and you don't believe it, because you don't believe in dictionaries and encyclopedias, remember?

All here can see that you merely sit on your own finger and twirl on your ass when you post.

Here is bripat in his latest Yosemite Sam impression.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpzpdEZGZXk]Yosemite Sam Speech - YouTube[/ame]

Oh, horse crap, in the nicest way of course. The capitalists used the courts to get orders so that violence could be meeted out to the workers who opposed their ruthlessness. The libertarians would gain the right to use force against those they would oppress. Remember that libertarians are the flip side of communism: they, instead of cadres, would use 'societies of equals' to oppress the poor and worker classes.

You're a fucking moron, Starkey. I've been a libertarian for 35 years, and I've never heard or read any libertarian using the term "society of equals." Just how do you imagine libertarians intend to "oppress the poor and the working classes," by leaving them alone?

You're claims aren't just wrong, they are non-nonsensical. They don't even mean anything coherent. What does it mean to "gain the right to use force against those they would oppress?" It means libertarians want to oppress people, so your argument that libertarians want to oppress people is that libertarians want to oppress people. That's called a tautology. Look that up. I'm certain you have no clue what it means.

I could probably go on for another 20-40 paragraphs about how stupid your post is, but it's not worth the effort. Anyone with a brain can already see you're a first class numskull.

 

[bripat9643]

Just like any country, we all pay the bills and we all benefit

We survive much better in a society as a whole than we do as a bunch of individuals

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You literally have no idea of what you post. Utterly amazing.

Just like any country, we all pay the bills and we all benefit

We survive much better in a society as a whole than we do as a bunch of individuals

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

 

[rightwinger]

Just like any country, we all pay the bills and we all benefit

We survive much better in a society as a whole than we do as a bunch of individuals

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

We do better as a whole than a bunch of individuals......especially the wealthy

 

[bripat9643]

Just like any country, we all pay the bills and we all benefit

We survive much better in a society as a whole than we do as a bunch of individuals

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

We do better as a whole than a bunch of individuals......especially the wealthy

The phrase "do better as a whole" is utterly meaningless. It's the kind of "feel good" pablum that liberals are so fond of. Productive people do not do better when they are burdened with supporting an infestation of useless blood sucking tics. Of course, the tics would like their hosts to believe that they benefit from the tics presence.

 

[Friends]

Fidel Castro put it rather well when he said, "We often hear about the failure of socialism. What about the failure of capitalism in Latin America and Africa?'

The closest approximation of democratic socialism can be found in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have lower unemployment rates than the United States:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...mark&countryCode=da&regionCode=eur&rank=64#da

They have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...mark&countryCode=da&regionCode=eur&rank=69#da

Most of the countries that retain AAA ratings with Standard & Poor's and Moody's have Social Democratic economies.

As the U.S. Leaves, Who's Left Among Countries with Both Moody's, S&P AAA Ratings? | H...

 

[Friends]

The phrase "do better as a whole" is utterly meaningless. It's the kind of "feel good" pablum that liberals are so fond of. Productive people do not do better when they are burdened with supporting a infestation of useless blood sucking tics. Of course, the tics would like their hosts to believe that they benefit from the tics presence.

Most of those over the age of 65 vote Republican. The great majority are retired and benefit from Social Security and Medicare. With his comment about the 47 percent Mitt Romney demonstrated that he agreed with you that they are "useless blood sucking tics." I wish he expressed the attitude he shares with you in more of his campaign speeches.

 

[Friends]

Just like any country, we all pay the bills and we all benefit

We survive much better in a society as a whole than we do as a bunch of individuals

Wrong. We don't all pay the bills and we don't all benefit. this country if full of useless ticks on the ass of society who pay nothing and receive the bulk of the benefits.

I'm fairly certain that all the libturds posting in this forum are members of that class.

Quite a few members of that class are Republican voters who are retired, and dependent on Social Security and Medicare.

 

[tooAlive]

Fidel Castro put it rather well when he said, "We often hear about the failure of socialism. What about the failure of capitalism in Latin America and Africa?'

The closest approximation of democratic socialism can be found in Scandinavia. The Scandinavian countries of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland have lower unemployment rates than the United States:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...mark&countryCode=da&regionCode=eur&rank=64#da

They have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publica...mark&countryCode=da&regionCode=eur&rank=69#da

Most of the countries that retain AAA ratings with Standard & Poor's and Moody's have Social Democratic economies.

As the U.S. Leaves, Who's Left Among Countries with Both Moody's, S&P AAA Ratings? | H...

You've got to be kidding me.

The United States of America were responsible for the greatest period of growth and innovation the world has ever seen; all during a period of predominantly pure capitalism.

We often hear about the failure of socialism because it is a failure. And Fidel Castro is the least qualified to make that remark. It's laughable that you'd even quote him. If he knows how to execute socialism properly, why is Cuba a complete wasteland?