Another example of why you shouldnt pay attention to fauci

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
25,281
Reaction score
21,081
Points
2,415
Spending taxpayer dollars to fund abortions oversees is radical leftism.
Okay. Let’s not do that.

You’re probably referring to a shoddy interpretation of the Mexico City Policy which you’ve been mislead to believe that without it the government funds abortions.

And that’s just not the case. The policy forbids funding any NGO that even talks about abortion.
Nope. Wrong again. Your ignorance is showing.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
25,281
Reaction score
21,081
Points
2,415
Thanks for admitting you have no way to refute my facts, Troll.
That’s your opinion, one which you failed to substantiate with any actual argument.

Nothing to refute, just worthless throwaway comment from a worthless throwaway poster.
Spending millions on gender equity studies for farmers is radical leftism.
 

marvin martian

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
3,580
Reaction score
6,379
Points
1,908
Location
Texas Hill Country
Right before the election, he said a vaccine won't stop infection.
Right after election, he said the end is near.
NOW the dipshit is saying this:

White House adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci told MSNBC on Sunday it's "still not" acceptable for Americans to eat indoors, even after they've received the COVID-19 vaccine.

Until Fauci discloses his financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies, nothing he says is legitimate.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
25,478
Reaction score
8,640
Points
465
Nope. Wrong again. Your ignorance is showing.
And yet here you are with another worthless throwaway post from a worthless throwaway poster.

Try contributing with actual information one of these days.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I did, you just don't want to actually try to read my points.
Not really. You bring up straw men like 70% tax rates.

Don’t forget, the point was that you called Biden a leftists and not a moderate because he wants sane fiscal policy that includes tax increases on the high income earners.

You lost that argument, now you’re making a different one.

Add up between State and local taxes and all others on high earners, and 70% isn't a straw man.

I called him a leftist for other reasons, TAX THE RICH is just one of them.

"sane fiscal policy" LOLOLOLOLOL.

You are a typical prog, you want other people to pay for your shit, and then still bitch about them not paying enough.

Smaller government never comes into your mind because you would be lost without some big mommy telling you what to do, how to live, and how to think.

You are a fucking lemming.
You lost the argument doofus. Higher taxes on the wealthy is a moderate position. Get over it, loser.

Calling policy radical or leftists or Marxist is scare tactics to make up for the fact that you can’t convince people to go along with what you want (or in this case what you’ve been told to want).

No, it's not a moderate position. Stop claiming that. It's a SJW/progressive jealousy position.

It's amazing how Marxists refuse to admit they are Marxists.

I read Marx, so I know what Marxism really is, and there really are no Marxists and never have been any.
He was really talking about Anarchism where there would be no coercive government at all.
He was idealistically assuming that somehow once you got rid of the evil corporate capitalists, that everything would turn into a utopia.
He not only was unrealistic, was unaware there were simpler solutions, such as anti-trust legislation and unions.

There are plenty of Marxists. My cousin is one. AOC is one, any Democratic Socialist is one. SJW types are usually ones.

Never met or heard of a single person in the US who said they were a Marxist, and have hardly ever even heard of anyone who knows what a Marxist is.
If you think it is a centralized state like Russia or China, you would be entirely wrong.
Those are Stalinist examples of state capitalism.
Nothing remotely collective, collaborative, cooperative, or remotely Marxist.
I am about as close to a Marxist one could actually get, but Marxism is way to impractical for anyone to really believe in.
According to Marx, when you provide what people need, then "the state will wither away and die" because it is no longer needed, and people will be cooperative by nature.

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Biden doesn't talk and doesn't act. he's effectively a rock.
Today he’s a rock. Yesterday he was a Marxist revolutionary, a month ago he was the greatest government grifter in the history of the nation.

Tomorrow he’s probably going to be the Antichrist, at least if the Republican Party continues to uphold Greene as their new intellectual leader.

He's got plenty of Marxists pulling the strings. I doubt he has a clue about half of what is going on in his name.

Also, before you go "no commies in the cabinet", socialism is Marxism as well.

No socialism is NOT at all Marxism.

Socialism is anytime the people decide to do anything cooperatively, like when farmers get together for a coop grain elevator or whole foods store. Public schools, free vaccinations, Social Security, and public roads are socialism.

Marxism is a totally theoretical view from around 1840, that assumed the only way to end the tyranny of the industrial revolution controlling workers, was to only allow collective means of production.
It was abstract, uninformed, and totally theoretical.

There are no similarities between socialism and Marxism except that they both were concerned with the dangers of growing capitalist power.

No, socialism IS Marxism, communism is just an extreme form of it.

cooperative endeavors under free enterprise are not socialism.

Yes, cooperative endeavors are socialism.
We decided as a nation to a cooperative, socialist, Post Office when it could easily have been done privately for profit instead.
That is socialism.
If you think socialism means no private enterprise is allowed and everything is centrally planned, you would be wrong.

Socialism goes back to pre-historic times.
All primitive societies are socialist.
Most primitive societies have large group housing and share the successes of the hunt by any member of the tribe.

And "free enterprise" is the least free in reality, because the greatest profit comes not from building and selling the best products, but from hiring the best mercenaries, taking over, and forcing everyone else into slavery.
Whenever people talk about the advantage of the "free market", I can tell they are just parroting propaganda, because no one should really want a "free market", and instead the term they should be "fair market".

The post office was created before socialism was "invented" by Marx.

Plus the Post office is setup as more of a company than a government agency.

Plus you can mail things not using the post office at all.

Primitive societies were authoritarian and brutish, not socialist.

Socialism predates Marx by millions of years. Even primative animals like Meerkats are socialist.
The post office being set up more like a company makes it more socialist, not less.
Socialism never precluded private enterprise like FedEx or UPS.

Primitive societies were NOT at all authoritarian or brutish, and were socialist.
In fact, the "back to the land" appeal of things like Israeli Kibbutzim are based on socialism being more natural and inherent to human nature,
When people read of brutish and authoritarian cultures in history, that is NOT primitives.
That is AFTER agriculture, weapons technology, currency, and lots of modern afflictions, only about 8000 years ago in the Mediterranean area.
Humans have been around at least a million years.

Meerkats are not socialists, they are meerkats.

And most of the Kibbutzes modified their approaches.

Socialism is living cooperatively, collectively, and cooperatively, which is what all primates and Meerkats do.
Kibbutzims. ashrams, and all collective living concepts are not just socialist, but based on inherent aspects of socialism in our DNA. It simply is more successful to share overhead between more individuals.
....
No, its not. Socialism is the people (community) owning the means of production. It has a meaning. Capitalism is a system where people are 'living cooperatively, collectively, and cooperatively' as is any other social or economic system as that would be what such systems are by definition.

Wrong.
If you look us the definition of socialism, is can be where all the means of production are collectively owned, but it can ALSO be just where all the means of production are regulated so that they do not commit abuses, like price fixing, monopolies, child labor abuse, etc.

Socialism allows capitalist ventures, but capitalism attempts to destroy or prevent any public ventures, so is dangerous.
Socialism can't ever be dangerous because it is driven collectively.
Capitalism is always dangerous because it is about each single individual maximizing profits any way they can.
And the easiest way to maximize profits is through the use of force.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I did, you just don't want to actually try to read my points.
Not really. You bring up straw men like 70% tax rates.

Don’t forget, the point was that you called Biden a leftists and not a moderate because he wants sane fiscal policy that includes tax increases on the high income earners.

You lost that argument, now you’re making a different one.

Add up between State and local taxes and all others on high earners, and 70% isn't a straw man.

I called him a leftist for other reasons, TAX THE RICH is just one of them.

"sane fiscal policy" LOLOLOLOLOL.

You are a typical prog, you want other people to pay for your shit, and then still bitch about them not paying enough.

Smaller government never comes into your mind because you would be lost without some big mommy telling you what to do, how to live, and how to think.

You are a fucking lemming.
You lost the argument doofus. Higher taxes on the wealthy is a moderate position. Get over it, loser.

Calling policy radical or leftists or Marxist is scare tactics to make up for the fact that you can’t convince people to go along with what you want (or in this case what you’ve been told to want).
Taxing for redistribution isnt moderate. Its authoritarian.
I get that you federal supremacists cant understand that, though. So its ok. :itsok:

No, you are right that in general, redistribution is not fair or legal.
The only exceptions would be like after slavery was made illegal or after it was discovered how dangerous asbestos was.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Socialism is people who don't own anything thinking they know better on how to run things than the people who actually own it.
Like a bunch of assholes telling Twitter how they should be run?

Telling them to follow their own supposed "goals" for the platform.

Why is Trump still banned? What part of the TOS did he violate?

As a socialist, I agree with you on this one.
Twitter did not create the internet and has to abide by the fair use doctrines of the internet, which means no political discrimination.
The only legal reasons to censor are slander or inciting violence.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Taxing for redistribution isnt moderate. Its authoriatrian.
I understand that you federal supremacists cant understand that, though. So its ok. :itsok:
It’s moderate in this country. Keeps this country successful, especially since we’ve been doing it for generations.

I don't agree we have ever done redistribution of wealth in the US.
We provide some minimal assistance, like ADC and disability, but in no way has the US ever tried to equalize the distribution of wealth.
Due to the growing disparity of wealth, I think we should start considering it, but we have never done it yet.
Food and housing programs are not wealth redistribution.
Wealth is money beyond mere survival.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
25,281
Reaction score
21,081
Points
2,415
Nope. Wrong again. Your ignorance is showing.
And yet here you are with another worthless throwaway post from a worthless throwaway poster.

Try contributing with actual information one of these days.
I have listed several radical left policies of Pedo Joe. You have ignored them After asking for examples.

That makes you a useless hack.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Taxing for redistribution isnt moderate. Its authoriatrian.
I understand that you federal supremacists cant understand that, though. So its ok. :itsok:
It’s moderate in this country. Keeps this country successful, especially since we’ve been doing it for generations.
It isnt moderate.
If we had a constitutional govt, they wouldnt feel the need for such high levels of theft.
Robbing me of the fruits of my labor, to send to some fucking terrorists in the ME, or bailing out corporate failures.

Taxing is not robbing because you are able to earn what you do largely because of the infrastructure that tax money has paid for.

When have we sent money to ME terrorists?

The car makers did not cause their own failure, and it was the recession cause by Bush borrowing too much that harmed them.
So it saved everyone time and money to bail them out.
They paid it all back with interest, so was actually capitalism, not socialism.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
72,995
Reaction score
20,819
Points
2,180
Taxing for redistribution isnt moderate. Its authoriatrian.
I understand that you federal supremacists cant understand that, though. So its ok. :itsok:
It’s moderate in this country. Keeps this country successful, especially since we’ve been doing it for generations.
It isnt moderate.
If we had a constitutional govt, they wouldnt feel the need for such high levels of theft.
Robbing me of the fruits of my labor, to send to some fucking terrorists in the ME, or bailing out corporate failures.

Taxing is not robbing because you are able to earn what you do largely because of the infrastructure that tax money has paid for.

When have we sent money to ME terrorists?

The car makers did not cause their own failure, and it was the recession cause by Bush borrowing too much that harmed them.
So it saved everyone time and money to bail them out.
They paid it all back with interest, so was actually capitalism, not socialism.
Yes it is.
Really? Guns to the mujahideen, money to palestine, iran etc. Come on man!
Yes they did.
Using money stolen from the working class to bail out failed policies from billionaires is NOT capitalism. We LOST over 11B dollars because of GM.
Then, to pay us back, they start investing billions into foreign jobs and production.
Everything you just said was horseshit. Good job.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Food and housing programs are not wealth redistribution.
yes it is.

The only food and housing programs are either very temporary or due to Aid to Dependent Children.
Are you saying we should left children starve or its a redistribution of wealth?
That would be a very foolhardy approach to society, because we already know that crime is caused by poverty, lack of economic opportunity, unfairness, lack of social programs for the unfortunate, etc.
You would not like to live in the society you describe as wanting.
 
OP
TNHarley

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
72,995
Reaction score
20,819
Points
2,180
Food and housing programs are not wealth redistribution.
yes it is.

The only food and housing programs are either very temporary or due to Aid to Dependent Children.
Are you saying we should left children starve or its a redistribution of wealth?
That would be a very foolhardy approach to society, because we already know that crime is caused by poverty, lack of economic opportunity, unfairness, lack of social programs for the unfortunate, etc.
You would not like to live in the society you describe as wanting.
I dont want kids to starve. Thats silly.
Tell that to rich people that break the law, genius.
You mean, a society that values individualism and liberty? LOL Thats paradise, homie.
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
25,478
Reaction score
8,640
Points
465
I have listed several radical left policies of Pedo Joe. You have ignored them After asking for examples.

That makes you a useless hack.
I didn't ignore, I specifically responded to your post about "funding abortions overseas" which is a false accusation and I explained why.

Your response was useless garbage, which is typical for you.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Taxing for redistribution isnt moderate. Its authoriatrian.
I understand that you federal supremacists cant understand that, though. So its ok. :itsok:
It’s moderate in this country. Keeps this country successful, especially since we’ve been doing it for generations.
It isnt moderate.
If we had a constitutional govt, they wouldnt feel the need for such high levels of theft.
Robbing me of the fruits of my labor, to send to some fucking terrorists in the ME, or bailing out corporate failures.

Taxing is not robbing because you are able to earn what you do largely because of the infrastructure that tax money has paid for.

When have we sent money to ME terrorists?

The car makers did not cause their own failure, and it was the recession cause by Bush borrowing too much that harmed them.
So it saved everyone time and money to bail them out.
They paid it all back with interest, so was actually capitalism, not socialism.
Yes it is.
Really? Guns to the mujahideen, money to palestine, iran etc. Come on man!
Yes they did.
Using money stolen from the working class to bail out failed policies from billionaires is NOT capitalism. We LOST over 11B dollars because of GM.
Then, to pay us back, they start investing billions into foreign jobs and production.
Everything you just said was horseshit. Good job.

That is not historically accurate.
It is true we supported the Mujahedeen, but that was in order to bankrupt the Soviets.
We never give more than peanuts to the Palestinians, but we stole over half their land and illegally gave it to European Zionists, so we owe the Palestinians, big time. But we give the Palestinians less than $200 million a year, and that barely covers their sanitation costs. Instead we give Israel over $5 billion a years, and that goes mostly to arms that murder Palestinians illegally.
We never give a cent to Iran.
The $1.7 billion we sent back to Iran was their own money we illegally were holding.

We did not lose any money to GM.
Bush harmed GM with a recession he caused, and by loaning GM money, we got out of the recession faster.
They paid it all back with interest.
That is capitalism.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,503
Reaction score
2,395
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Food and housing programs are not wealth redistribution.
yes it is.

The only food and housing programs are either very temporary or due to Aid to Dependent Children.
Are you saying we should left children starve or its a redistribution of wealth?
That would be a very foolhardy approach to society, because we already know that crime is caused by poverty, lack of economic opportunity, unfairness, lack of social programs for the unfortunate, etc.
You would not like to live in the society you describe as wanting.
I dont want kids to starve. Thats silly.
Tell that to rich people that break the law, genius.
You mean, a society that values individualism and liberty? LOL Thats paradise, homie.

I agree there are lots of rich people who break the law, and we should reduce that.
I agree we need to protect individualism and liberties.
The problem comes that we as individuals can't afford the means of production, so we have to work for others.
And to prevent us from being treated unfairly, we need capitalism to be heavily regulated so there is a fair market, not a free market.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top