The crapolla about claiming liberals promote misery is obviously BS when red states lead in poverty
You are equating poverty with misery. Misery is taking your dog for a walk and getting shot to steal the dog. Misery is going to the grocery store and getting carjacking in the parking lot. Misery is having grandma jumped by 10 teens having fun beating her to death. That's misery.
 
You are equating poverty with misery. Misery is taking your dog for a walk and getting shot to steal the dog. Misery is going to the grocery store and getting carjacking in the parking lot. Misery is having grandma jumped by 10 teens having fun beating her to death. That's misery.
Misery is getting sick and not having affordable healthcare ignoramus.
 
And all the poor people in Mississippi are so much happier ? Hilarious.
They are certainly happier than the woman who got shot for her dog. They are happier than the elderly man beaten to death for fun. Well, the teens who beat him to death had fun. Is that what you mean by those in blue states are happier than those in red states? On that basis, I have to agree with you.
 
The son and daughter-in-law are looking for jobs in Texas. They have family that already escaped and is living in Texas. They are very happy. Especially to have the kids in better schools.
 
The crapolla about claiming liberals promote misery is obviously BS when red states lead in poverty
and yet i never said that did i?....i was talking totaly about life in California,you are the one instead of countering what i said keep bringing up fucking red states......
 
maxresdefault.jpg
If California was actually a Marxist, socialist state with a hammer and sickle on its flag, it would eliminate homelessness overnight, and force drug addicts into rehab camps. All of the drug dealers would be charged with a capital crime and if convicted, put in front of a firing squad. Funds would be allocated to build housing and laws would be passed to ban landlordism. Even Adam Smith the father of capitalism had nothing good to say about landlords.

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce. The wood of the forest, the grass of the field, and all the natural fruits of the earth, which, when the land was in common, cost the laborer only the trouble of gathering them, come, even to him, to have an additional price fixed upon them. He must then pay for the license to gather them; and must give up to the landlord a portion of what his labor either collects or produces. This portion, or, what comes to the same thing, the price of this portion, constitutes the rent of land, and in the price of the greater part of commodities makes a third component part." (Wealth Of Nations, Book I, Chapter VI - )

A socialist state would house everyone, and those who already have a home would simply keep their homes for the purpose of inhabiting them, not renting them out or making a profit off of such properties. In socialism, there's a distinction between personal and private property. A home is personal property and is used for living in it, as one's residence, not as a means to exploit others who lack their own homes.
 
Last edited:
California is a 3rd world country thanks to the failed ideologies known as liberalism 😂
It’s the 5th largest economy in the world.
 

Forum List

Back
Top