Socialism

[richard_daily]

Now we're all Socialists when not but a month ago since the day you first signed up your conservative insult buzzword du jour was either "liberal" or "Democrat."

Fuck, you poor parrots train so well. I hope the pellet feed is tasty, at least.





http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/TJV_pNZu_6I/AAAAAAAALKs/PQq9HOQX8wA/s1600/socialism.jpg

Nonono... You got it all wrong... Eeyore doesn't GET any mail. I'm not sure how he pulls that off exactly. Eeyore, care to enlighten us???

 

[JenAltArmy]

A refund indicates the government took more than it was entitled to, and returns it without interest.

yes, but you fail to see that by paying more in taxes, you become a better collective member!

 

[JenAltArmy]

clearly those that crave socialism are those that never benefited from Capitalism.

is that because you are ignorant or lazy?

Nonono... You got it all wrong... Eeyore doesn't GET any mail. I'm not sure how he pulls that off exactly. Eeyore, care to enlighten us???

 

[HB1965]

your counter arguement is that socialist democracies can't produce billioniares?

ever heard of Conrad Black?

Don't bother. She ignores anything that doesn't prove her point

I love how he states: "us; a, b and c"... but fails to mention what a, b, and c actually are....

I think he's almost into lovelynice territory; "you KNOW what I'm talking about, I proved it already!".

Dude, they already are in lovelynice territory. I've added two of these crazies to my iggy list because their insanity is just too painful to watch

 

[KingOrfeo]

clearly those that crave socialism are those that never benefited from Capitalism.

Actually, some of the earliest socialists were successful business entrepreneurs, such as Robert Owen. Engels was the son of a rich-capitalist family. And "champagne socialist," like "limousine liberal," has been a cultural cliche since the 1930s at least.

 

[richard_daily]

clearly those that crave socialism are those that never benefited from Capitalism.

is that because you are ignorant or lazy?

Are you also making the claim that you don't get mail service?

 

[JenAltArmy]

please, one or two

so you fools what to give up what we have, just because you guys are too foolish to enjoy the fruits? wow. why not just roll over on your backs and kick your feet up.

bunch of quitters

sad, you, richard, babysitter, bronze, sean, and the other left wingers are just sad pathetic little crybabies unable to compete in the world.

Don't bother. She ignores anything that doesn't prove her point



Dude, they already are in lovelynice territory. I've added two of these crazies to my iggy list because their insanity is just too painful to watch

 

[JenAltArmy]

Are you also making the claim that you don't get mail service?

and are you saying that mail is now part of "government"

again, pull that dick out of your ear. we all want some services and the best way to keep those services low is by spreading out the cost. i.e. schools k-12 (which needs to be overhauled to streamline and reduce costs), roads, military, police, fire, this and that.

what you wing nuts want is nuts.

people like you, would make the founding fathers roll their eyes. why? cuz you are exactly "What" they were trying to get away from.

now you want to take a nation, and fuck it up. thank god you fools are on a porn board and not in the real world where you could do damange

when did you become a quitter? when did you give up?

 

[richard_daily]

and are you saying that mail is now part of "government"

Ummm. Yes. I am indeed making that claim.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Actually, some of the earliest socialists were successful business entrepreneurs, such as Robert Owen. Engels was the son of a rich-capitalist family. And "champagne socialist," like "limousine liberal," has been a cultural cliche since the 1930s at least.

and what did Robert Owen do with his money? I'm totally with the individual having fantasies about socialism (to each their own), but I would never want to be in a socialist country.

Just to quash the fuck tards, yes we have government programs but do we really need more? No. remember welfare is not a career (regardless of what obama says).

 

[JenAltArmy]

Ummm. Yes. I am indeed making that claim.

didn't the post office serperate so that they could earn a profit? only problem is that they have government workers and government managment and these fucktards are unable to create a profit.

also if they are a government enterprise, why can't they get more money from the government at will? cuz they are not 100% government enterprise, there was seperation.

Point being, government will never be able to run an enterprise effectively or efficiently

Its like having cancer, see a private Dr and they take out 100% of the cancer. Under government dr, they can only remove 80%. Why do you accept that? how can you accept that?

 

[JenAltArmy]

this is why we need someone like Trump, that can say to most government workers "you're fired"

Nonono... You got it all wrong... Eeyore doesn't GET any mail. I'm not sure how he pulls that off exactly. Eeyore, care to enlighten us???

 

[JenAltArmy]

Ummm. Yes. I am indeed making that claim.

so just to be clear (as you blew it on the obama birth certificate) the post office is the same as the military, or lets say a branch like the Navy. they both have the same "government" power?

 

[Peregrinator]

That's why I rarely engage in it.



See? You always make that jump. If you don't believe in "SOME" targeted regulation, then you want ANARCHY!

Straight to Black and White.

Discussion over.

"Some" implies "All."

Therefore we are justified, by your own form of argumentation in calling you a Socialist because you advocate "some..."

Don't you see it? You're doing precisely the same thing. You're fine with some, but not as much as we have.

Or, you're not fine with any. Which is it?

It's as reasonable to call YOU a socialist, by your own criteria. You've said you believe in some government intervention; I've showed that there's no quantifiable criteria for that. You might as well go ahead and make the leap from "some" to "all."

 

[JenAltArmy]

Don't you see it? You're doing precisely the same thing. You're fine with some, but not as much as we have.

Or, you're not fine with any. Which is it?

It's as reasonable to call YOU a socialist, by your own criteria. You've said you believe in some government intervention; I've showed that there's no quantifiable criteria for that. You might as well go ahead and make the leap from "some" to "all."

I would say we have zero socialism. look at it how you want. what we have are essential services provided by government, where the cost is spread out to not overly burdern one group of people.

is that sociliasm? kind of. what I like to think of it as smart capitalism

 

[Peregrinator]

I would say we have zero socialism. look at it how you want. what we have are essential services provided by government, where the cost is spread out to not overly burdern one group of people.

is that sociliasm? kind of. what I like to think of it as smart capitalism

This is an interesting and moderate post. What do you make of the folks in the thread who are screaming that we're already socialist?

 

[HB1965]

I would say we have zero socialism. look at it how you want. what we have are essential services provided by government, where the cost is spread out to not overly burdern one group of people.

is that sociliasm? kind of. what I like to think of it as smart capitalism

Hmm... When I said something similar you called me socialist.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

This is an interesting and moderate post. What do you make of the folks in the thread who are screaming that we're already socialist?

Which includes "her." Depending on who "she's" sounding off of at the moment.

Hmm... When I said something similar you called me socialist.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/comment/39/2010/11/ab2047320767808a1fa0962a684f4580/original.png

 

[JenAltArmy]

This is an interesting and moderate post. What do you make of the folks in the thread who are screaming that we're already socialist?

Depends upon how someone wants to look at the subject. Like I said in the other post, it’s a capitalist way to create essential services (police, military, done the line) but have the minimal impact on the individual.

So in my point of view, this is the ultimate capitalist country. The way that we were set up, the way that government was operating until obama.

Some how under Bush an underbelly of socialism started, comprised mostly from those who are disenfranchised from enjoying the fruits of capitalism (of the past two –three bubbles).

Under obama, there has been a shift to changing out system to a socialist one. The major differences between current socialist countries is that everyone must contribute to the collective but here in America that was found to be unconstitutional; hence people can get a entitlement check for doing nothing. Our founders, and those that setup entitlement programs never meant for thse to become “career” options, but the left clearly has abused the powers of government.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Hmm... When I said something similar you called me socialist.

Well then I apologize for that.

 

[JenAltArmy]

Don’t you agree that our way (non socialist style government) was what help end Russia? The only high end goods that Russia was able to create were military weapons. Consumer good lagged, quality of housing lagged, nuclear safety lagged (the list is endless)

why do you want to take america and make it a 3rd world nation (under socialism)?


The only time that socialism works is under war, or hunting and farming communities.

Which includes "her." Depending on who "she's" sounding off of at the moment.

 

[Peregrinator]

Depends upon how someone wants to look at the subject. Like I said in the other post, it’s a capitalist way to create essential services (police, military, done the line) but have the minimal impact on the individual.

So in my point of view, this is the ultimate capitalist country. The way that we were set up, the way that government was operating until obama.

Some how under Bush an underbelly of socialism started, comprised mostly from those who are disenfranchised from enjoying the fruits of capitalism (of the past two –three bubbles).

Under obama, there has been a shift to changing out system to a socialist one. The major differences between current socialist countries is that everyone must contribute to the collective but here in America that was found to be unconstitutional; hence people can get a entitlement check for doing nothing. Our founders, and those that setup entitlement programs never meant for thse to become “career” options, but the left clearly has abused the powers of government.

"Under Bush?"

Really?

What do you make of those who posted here that either the founders or various presidents way, way before Bush were socialists?

 

[JenAltArmy]

"Under Bush?"

Really?

What do you make of those who posted here that either the founders or various presidents way, way before Bush were socialists?

Could be, I wasn’t on the GB during the Bush years. All I can say is that under obama the whiners have grown in number. Obama courted that group to get elected. Now that obama has mad many mistakes in office, he will being to court that group again. Sad.


Its hard to say 100% what the founders of the country had in mind, or if they even knew what socialism is/was. Other than bronze and luke, who else was there? Now, I have not read nor do I plan to read any books that past presidents might have published.

My stance on socialism but what most governments turn out to be is a communist system, is morally wrong and fails (as with USSR)

its interesting to see how USSR has morphed, and how China is walking their fine line

basically countries that were purly socilist are moving away to a capitalist system, while many of the fucktards here want America to move to a stronger socialist system.

why?

what is the reason?

how can they support more socialist programs?

how can they support increasing socialist in our government?

 

[JenAltArmy]

your counter arguement is that socialist democracies can't produce billioniares?

ever heard of Conrad Black?

that is great. you have 1 person. awesome. where did his family wealth come from?

 

[clt48011]

That's about right.