Socialism Gets Tested

[Skylar]

Obvious nonsense. Virtually every aspect of patient care is determined by the private healthcare provider.

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.

Show me.

You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

And exactly as I've described that's insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.

Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.

None of that is 'facts'. But pure imagination.

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in the WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.


4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com

And once again, your spam doesn't even address my point that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private.

You never read your article before spamming it, did you 'Angel'? Irrelevant spam is your tell.

So...now your defense is that you don't understand how the article specifically destroys your attempt to deny that this administration controls every aspect of healthcare?

Why don't you explain it to us. As your own article is very clear that its talking about insurers. Who are hardly 'every aspect of healthcare'.

But you explaining your argument would require that you understand what you're trying to ape. And all you're good for is a cut and paste.

My point that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private remains gloriously uncontested. So far, variants of 'uh-uh' are the best your ilk have managed.

Oh, and have you officially abandoned all your inane babble about 'socialism', 'communism' and 'democrats'? As you won't touch it now with a 10 foot pole.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.

Show me.

You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

And exactly as I've described that's insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.

Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.

None of that is 'facts'. But pure imagination.

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in the WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.


4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com

And once again, your spam doesn't even address my point that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private.

You never read your article before spamming it, did you 'Angel'? Irrelevant spam is your tell.

So...now your defense is that you don't understand how the article specifically destroys your attempt to deny that this administration controls every aspect of healthcare?

Why don't you explain it to us. As your own article is very clear that its talking about insurers. Who are hardly 'every aspect of healthcare'.

But you explaining your argument would require that you understand what you're trying to ape. And all you're good for is a cut and paste.

My point that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private remains gloriously uncontested. So far, variants of 'uh-uh' are the best your ilk have managed.

Oh, and have you officially abandoned all your inane babble about 'socialism', 'communism' and 'democrats'? As you won't touch it now with a 10 foot pole.

Who's "us," liar?

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

 

[Camp]

Socialism in America and Europe has been tested and experimented with for almost a century. The general consensus seems to have been accepted that under certain conditions socialist ideas work well when blended and balanced with capitalism. Usually the socialist concepts are used when dealing with absolute necessities for a civilization and when those necessities are threatened with control by privately owned monopolistic entities that are able to cause great suffering and sacrifice by the public for the profit of a few.

Threads like this one are nothing more than a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party, the democratic party and "liberals" to promote a radical faction of conservatism/corporatism/fascism and bring about the rule by an aristocratic class. Ya, it is as evil and malicious as that.

 

[Skylar]

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

 

[PoliticalChic]

H

Socialism in America and Europe has been tested and experimented with for almost a century. The general consensus seems to have been accepted that under certain conditions socialist ideas work well when blended and balanced with capitalism. Usually the socialist concepts are used when dealing with absolute necessities for a civilization and when those necessities are threatened with control by privately owned monopolistic entities that are able to cause great suffering and sacrifice by the public for the profit of a few.

Threads like this one are nothing more than a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party, the democratic party and "liberals" to promote a radical faction of conservatism/corporatism/fascism and bring about the rule by an aristocratic class. Ya, it is as evil and malicious as that.

"... a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party..."

Very good, Captain Obvious!

You must be a trained investigator!


But...."effort" falls short of what the thread actually did.
I showed the failure of Dan Price's socialism, compared it to David Mamet's explanation of socialism's eternal flaws and failures....

...and proved, with a video, that even the chair of the DNC could identify any difference between socialism and the doctrines of the Democrat Party.


And...exposed a liar at the same time!

A good time was had by all.

 

[Skylar]

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew the online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

 

[edthecynic]

That's what Jesus thought and is why he put it in the Bible!

Oh? What book and verse is that in, edtheliar?

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales 35and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

"You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica (sic) saying nothing you did.

Oooo....let's see what you left out:


This is really what post #79 said:

Try this:
Books Mises Institute


"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."


Caught you again, huh?


The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's what Jesus thought and is why he put it in the Bible!

Oh? What book and verse is that in, edtheliar?

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales 35and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need

Where's the apology....you said I "lied" by leaving out the lawsuit.....but I didn't, did I.

Thanks for proving that I never lie.


Speaking of liars....you specifically said that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was a quote of Jesus.

It wasn't , was it......liar.

 

[Camp]

H

Socialism in America and Europe has been tested and experimented with for almost a century. The general consensus seems to have been accepted that under certain conditions socialist ideas work well when blended and balanced with capitalism. Usually the socialist concepts are used when dealing with absolute necessities for a civilization and when those necessities are threatened with control by privately owned monopolistic entities that are able to cause great suffering and sacrifice by the public for the profit of a few.

Threads like this one are nothing more than a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party, the democratic party and "liberals" to promote a radical faction of conservatism/corporatism/fascism and bring about the rule by an aristocratic class. Ya, it is as evil and malicious as that.

"... a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party..."

Very good, Captain Obvious!

You must be a trained investigator!


But...."effort" falls short of what the thread actually did.
I showed the failure of Dan Price's socialism, compared it to David Mamet's explanation of socialism's eternal flaws and failures....

...and proved, with a video, that even the chair of the DNC could identify any difference between socialism and the doctrines of the Democrat Party.


And...exposed a liar at the same time!

A good time was had by all.

Thanks for the bump. You didn't have to add that meaningless crap you put in there, but thanks again.

 

[Skylar]

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

"You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica (sic) saying nothing you did.

Oooo....let's see what you left out:


This is really what post #79 said:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf


"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."


Caught you again, huh?

Again, for the fourth time, dipshit....that's not a link. That's a folder on your own hard drive. None of us can verify anything on your hard drive without physically pushing you out of your chair, sitting in front of your computer and typing on your keyboard.

You've offered us nothing verifying anything you've said. With the actual link to Encyclopedia Britannica you did offer not matching any of your citation. And you later admitting that you knew Encyclopedia Britanicca online didn't include your quote.

Meaning you knew your link was a lie when you offered it. But this time we're expected to take your word for it? Sorry, you've already proven yourself a liar on this exact issue. You'll need a link.

Not a folder on your harddrive. Try again. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

H

Socialism in America and Europe has been tested and experimented with for almost a century. The general consensus seems to have been accepted that under certain conditions socialist ideas work well when blended and balanced with capitalism. Usually the socialist concepts are used when dealing with absolute necessities for a civilization and when those necessities are threatened with control by privately owned monopolistic entities that are able to cause great suffering and sacrifice by the public for the profit of a few.

Threads like this one are nothing more than a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party, the democratic party and "liberals" to promote a radical faction of conservatism/corporatism/fascism and bring about the rule by an aristocratic class. Ya, it is as evil and malicious as that.

"... a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party..."

Very good, Captain Obvious!

You must be a trained investigator!


But...."effort" falls short of what the thread actually did.
I showed the failure of Dan Price's socialism, compared it to David Mamet's explanation of socialism's eternal flaws and failures....

...and proved, with a video, that even the chair of the DNC could identify any difference between socialism and the doctrines of the Democrat Party.


And...exposed a liar at the same time!

A good time was had by all.

Thanks for the bump. You didn't have to add that meaningless crap you put in there, but thanks again.

Thanks for proving me correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

Who's "us," liar?

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

I already provided links to an expert explaining that socialism and communism, you're political views, are exactly the same in objective.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

You claiming not to understand it has no bearing...after all...you've been caught lying 3 or 4 times in this thread alone.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

"You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica (sic) saying nothing you did.

Oooo....let's see what you left out:


This is really what post #79 said:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf


"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."


Caught you again, huh?

Again, for the fourth time, dipshit....that's not a link. That's a folder on your own hard drive. None of us can verify anything on your hard drive without physically pushing you out of your chair, sitting in front of your computer and typing on your keyboard.

You've offered us nothing verifying anything you've said. With the actual link to Encyclopedia Britannica you did offer not matching any of your citation. And you later admitting that you knew Encyclopedia Britanicca online didn't include your quote.

Meaning you knew your link was a lie when you offered it. But this time we're expected to take your word for it? Sorry, you've already proven yourself a liar on this exact issue. You'll need a link.

Not a folder on your harddrive. Try again. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

Books Mises Institute

 

[PoliticalChic]

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

Me and every other poster in this thread. Or you could keep giving us excuses why you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Either works for me.

And 'liar'? Those are some big words from a gal who has yet to back up any of the bullshit she's offered us.

Helpless lies.

You provided no links to anything you've said. The first was link was an intentional lie to Encyclopedia Britannica....which didn't say what you claimed. And worse, you later admitted that your claims were no longer in Encyclopedia Britannica. Which means you knew your link was bullshit when you offered it.

Your second 'link' was to your own harddrive. Which none of us can access unless we're sitting in your house, typing on your computer.

You have yet to show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. Your failure was quite spectacular.

And exactly as predicted....excuses why you can't back up anything you've said. You're nothing if not predictable. You have no idea what you're apeing. Your article doesn't cite 'every aspect of healthcare', it cites insurers. Exactly as I told you it did.

Cut and paste something for us, Chic. As obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hey....let's catch you in another lie!

Are you pretending you didn't see post #79....another quote of the Cole statement in the Encyclopedia Britannica?

Sigh.....its like kicking a puppy.

This is the 'link' you offered us in post 79:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Post 79

That's to your own harddrive, dolt. I'd have to be sitting at your computer, typing on your keyboard to access it. That's not a link. That's an excuse for one.

You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica saying nothing you did.

And you already admitted that you knew no online version of Encyclopedia Britannica didn't include your citation. Meaning you knew you were lying when you offered us the link.

Sorry, Chic.....but you have no idea what you're talking about. As usual.

"You have yet to show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying anything you did. With your one link to Encyclopdia Britanica (sic) saying nothing you did.

Oooo....let's see what you left out:


This is really what post #79 said:

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf


"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."


Caught you again, huh?

Again, for the fourth time, dipshit....that's not a link. That's a folder on your own hard drive. None of us can verify anything on your hard drive without physically pushing you out of your chair, sitting in front of your computer and typing on your keyboard.

You've offered us nothing verifying anything you've said. With the actual link to Encyclopedia Britannica you did offer not matching any of your citation. And you later admitting that you knew Encyclopedia Britanicca online didn't include your quote.

Meaning you knew your link was a lie when you offered it. But this time we're expected to take your word for it? Sorry, you've already proven yourself a liar on this exact issue. You'll need a link.

Not a folder on your harddrive. Try again. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

Books Mises Institute

You'll find that I'm never wrong.

 

[edthecynic]

Liberalism and economics, ...oil and water.

CON$ervatism and the WHOLE truth, ...oil and water.

Like all professional liars, you left out the part that immediately after Dan Price changed the pay scale, his brother Lucas sued him, which is what caused the financial problems in the company.

I posted this earlier in the thread:

7. Then potentially the worst blow of all... Mr.Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences,filed a lawsuitthat potentially threatened the company’s very existence.With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0

Waiting for your apology.

Not in the OP I replied to.

Apology denied.

 

[Camp]

H

Socialism in America and Europe has been tested and experimented with for almost a century. The general consensus seems to have been accepted that under certain conditions socialist ideas work well when blended and balanced with capitalism. Usually the socialist concepts are used when dealing with absolute necessities for a civilization and when those necessities are threatened with control by privately owned monopolistic entities that are able to cause great suffering and sacrifice by the public for the profit of a few.

Threads like this one are nothing more than a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party, the democratic party and "liberals" to promote a radical faction of conservatism/corporatism/fascism and bring about the rule by an aristocratic class. Ya, it is as evil and malicious as that.

"... a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party..."

Very good, Captain Obvious!

You must be a trained investigator!


But...."effort" falls short of what the thread actually did.
I showed the failure of Dan Price's socialism, compared it to David Mamet's explanation of socialism's eternal flaws and failures....

...and proved, with a video, that even the chair of the DNC could identify any difference between socialism and the doctrines of the Democrat Party.


And...exposed a liar at the same time!

A good time was had by all.

Thanks for the bump. You didn't have to add that meaningless crap you put in there, but thanks again.

Thanks for proving me correct.

Correct? You're getting hammered, as usual, maybe even more than usual you dope.

 

[edthecynic]

That's what Jesus thought and is why he put it in the Bible!

Oh? What book and verse is that in, edtheliar?

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales 35and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need

Where's the apology....you said I "lied" by leaving out the lawsuit.....but I didn't, did I.

Thanks for proving that I never lie.


Speaking of liars....you specifically said that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was a quote of Jesus.

It wasn't , was it......liar.

You are lying yet again. There was no mention of the law suit by his freeloading brother in your OP.

Apology denied.

 

[edthecynic]

That's what Jesus thought and is why he put it in the Bible!

Oh? What book and verse is that in, edtheliar?

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. 34For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales 35and lay them at the apostles' feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need

Where's the apology....you said I "lied" by leaving out the lawsuit.....but I didn't, did I.

Thanks for proving that I never lie.


Speaking of liars....you specifically said that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need," was a quote of Jesus.

It wasn't , was it......liar.

The whole Bible is the word of God. Christians believe Jesus is God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

H

Socialism in America and Europe has been tested and experimented with for almost a century. The general consensus seems to have been accepted that under certain conditions socialist ideas work well when blended and balanced with capitalism. Usually the socialist concepts are used when dealing with absolute necessities for a civilization and when those necessities are threatened with control by privately owned monopolistic entities that are able to cause great suffering and sacrifice by the public for the profit of a few.

Threads like this one are nothing more than a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party, the democratic party and "liberals" to promote a radical faction of conservatism/corporatism/fascism and bring about the rule by an aristocratic class. Ya, it is as evil and malicious as that.

"... a standard effort to demonize any variety of socialism being used for any purpose and connecting socialism to a specific party..."

Very good, Captain Obvious!

You must be a trained investigator!


But...."effort" falls short of what the thread actually did.
I showed the failure of Dan Price's socialism, compared it to David Mamet's explanation of socialism's eternal flaws and failures....

...and proved, with a video, that even the chair of the DNC could identify any difference between socialism and the doctrines of the Democrat Party.


And...exposed a liar at the same time!

A good time was had by all.

Thanks for the bump. You didn't have to add that meaningless crap you put in there, but thanks again.

Thanks for proving me correct.

Correct? You're getting hammered, as usual, maybe even more than usual you dope.

Really?

Then why are you unable to deny anything in post #126?