Communism-lite and why it doesn’t work for ‘Brown’ nations?

[BrokeLoser]

you cant turn people into criminals just for trying to survive, and uraguay works just fine

Most crime committed would / could be excused as required for survival. You sure you want to open that flood gate? Think once.

 

[Mac1958]

Just observing demographic trends. Existing data.

We'll see. Demographics are out of my hands.
.

Haha...that’s kinda the point and premise to this whole thread Mac...you know damn good and well where things are headed as this nation becomes browner...haha
Look around the globe at ALL brown nations....look at Mexifornia. Damn dude, stop playing stupid.

I guess I'm just fortunate. Unlike those on the hardcore Left/Right wings, I don't go through life consumed by skin color, I don't lose my shit over every possible little thing. Maybe that's why I've never had blood pressure issues. I do see decay, but it's cultural, not racial.

So, I'm comfy just observing the circus and being thankful that I'm not like that.


.

“I do see decay, but it's cultural, not racial.”
Haha...nice play Mac..damn you play the middle well. I can tell you take great pride in that non-confrontational you. I bet you’ve always steered way clear of picking sides and or standing firmly for something....ummm, cool...I guess.
For the record....you sound awfully matter of fact...how are you so sure the “decay” is cultural and not racial? Because that’s the safer play?
Is it total coincidence that as the populous of brown grows so to does the level of shitholeism?

My "stands" on the issues are in the link at the end of the second line of my sig.

I realize that people on the wings think you're supposed to join a tribe and obediently fall in line like a good little bunny, but I'm afraid that's just how my little brain works. That's dishonest to me. I like seeing the big picture in any given situation. Come to think of it, I need to.

I guess you'd better get started on getting rid of as many brown and black people as you can. I'll give you credit: Many on the Right aren't as forthcoming as you. I'm a huge fan of freedom of expression, so keep going.
.

While you’re giving out credit... Allow me to inquire... Whom are the real antagonists, and enemies? Those who would say it plain? Or those who would say anything, as long as it secured both your vote, and your money; meanwhile delivering what I offer for free...?

I always want to know what people are actually thinking and who agrees with them.

There's much more to learn when people can speak freely, don't you think?
.

 

[Kilgore.t1]

I'm sure you mean things like post roads and government in general.

btw - litterbugs are criminals too.

 

[Correll]

Is anybody courageous enough to discuss this topic?
Are there inherent deficiencies among certain ‘groups’?
Hoping Mac1958 will help out with this one.

What no one here, or anywhere these days, will tell you about is how the Big 3 applied political theories of the post-Enlightenment Era: Constitutional Democracy, Active State Socialism, and Communism, are like ideological power plants. What the hell am I talking about?

The civilizational "offspring" of each of the Big 3 mentioned above, in order to survive and thrive, had to remain plugged in to the respective world power to rise to such status by building nations founded on one of the Big 3 political theories. Follow?

America was and remains the great and enduring world power founded upon Constitutional Democracy. In order to survive and thrive after emulating the original American model, nations around the world had to remain plugged in, or perpetually interfaced with the good old US of A, in order to grow their economies and political systems—almost like software update, but for their economies and government; for their civilizations to progress under the Constitutional Democratic model. (As an aside, the farther European Constitutional and Parliamentary Democracies go Left from their America derived imitation societies, the more they tend to fail.)

And so it was also with Socialist and Communist "upstart" nations who modelled their own civilizations and nations on those world power Socialist and Communist "parent" founding governments, such as the USSR and China. Those much smaller, often Third World nations whose leaders derived and implemented their governing political theories from Marxism inspired superpowers are failing not because of skin color, but because the USSR unplugged them from its ideological power plant after collapsing, and so all the support Soviet Russia once provided, primarily in ideological and economical and governing "updates" was no longer available.

Of course, the opposite has been true for "white hat" ally nations who derived their governing systems from the USA. They have continued to thrive due to their having remained plugged in to American ideology, economy and governing theory updates.

The anti-Politically Correct "hot potato" regarding this topic, is the historical truth that no matter how we, Americans, initiated and achieved Third World government transitions from monarchies/dictatorships, etc. to democratic ones, the results were always the same: the peoples of said nations were better off following our political theory, until the USSR or China or whatever other Marxism derived more powerful nation came along and successfully pulled off a coup, and instituted their base Marxism derived brand of government. The Western world at large does not want to admit that. No, they wish to sweep it under a rug and rewrite history. You see, in today's pop political culture, it is forbidden to talk publicly about how Marxism, in all derived forms, fails individual freedom.

Three political ideologies have been at war for nearly three centuries now for control of all of the world's governments. Those three ideologies are; Constitutional Democracy, Socio-Communism, and Islam.

I was busy yesterday and missed this thread, but I want to first state that this poster was the only one to seriously address the question raised in the op.


NOte, btw, that race has nothing to do with his answer.

 

[Correll]

Is anybody courageous enough to discuss this topic?
Are there inherent deficiencies among certain ‘groups’?
Hoping Mac1958 will help out with this one.

1. I challenge you to support your unstated premise that socialism is working in non brown nations.

2. Any inherent differences are minor enough to not prevent a successful economy or political system.

 

[Correll]

Correll, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We can avoid it, ignore it, downplay it and deflect from it, but that's simply an insult to those who know better.

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

 

[Correll]

So you feel that brown and black people are lacking in IQ, morality, ambition, and decency. I used your words. Say "yes" or "no". Let's see if I can get a straight answer here.

YES....an unequivocal fucking YES!

Excellent, thank you.

Correll, at some point, conservatives need to start being honest and start cleaning their own house. Or not.
.

At the risk of derailing this thread, this guy, nor his viewpoint is not a major factor in American politics.

 

[Correll]

Is anybody courageous enough to discuss this topic?
Are there inherent deficiencies among certain ‘groups’?
Hoping Mac1958 will help out with this one.

It is certainly a matter of IQ, but that cannot be divorced from the concept of organization in which East Asians are best and blacks are worst.

Brown ... , well you figure it out.

Yet, east asian societies are not the world dominators that Europe has been. So, IQ and "concept of organization" are obviously not the deciding factor.

 

[Mac1958]

Correll, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We can avoid it, ignore it, downplay it and deflect from it, but that's simply an insult to those who know better.

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

 

[Norman]

Venezuela is not a brown nation. There are almost no browns in Venezuela.

It's also not socialists contrary to the common belief, the government spending about the same as United States for example. People have associated their crazy price controls as socialism.

Venezuela is also a lot richer than its neighbors.

And yeah, brown nations are poor partly because of the low average IQ, just as is Venezuela. And yes, part of it is racial.

 

[Correll]

Correll, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We can avoid it, ignore it, downplay it and deflect from it, but that's simply an insult to those who know better.

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

 

[Mac1958]

Correll, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We can avoid it, ignore it, downplay it and deflect from it, but that's simply an insult to those who know better.

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

 

[Correll]

Correll, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We can avoid it, ignore it, downplay it and deflect from it, but that's simply an insult to those who know better.

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

Do you know who you can't talk to?

 

[Mac1958]

Correll, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

We can avoid it, ignore it, downplay it and deflect from it, but that's simply an insult to those who know better.

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

Do you know who you can't talk to?

I don't understand the question.
.

 

[Correll]

Yet you did not challenge it. THe answers seem pretty obvious to me. Are you afraid that you cannot make the argument?


What would be better than having an actual debate about it, in the open? Which, btw, did not happen in 9 pages without me.

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

Do you know who you can't talk to?

I don't understand the question.
.

What category of person, can't you talk to?


YOu can talk to friends. You can talk to acquaintances. YOu can talk to strangers.


Who can't you talk to?

 

[Mac1958]

Trying to debate here is pointless. However, this place is very helpful for observation. It's a treasure trove for me. All I want to do is toss the softball up in the air and let someone whack it over the fence for me.

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.

My point to you is that ignoring, downplaying, discounting and deflecting from this is an insult to minorities. Minorities see it done constantly, and a vast majority of conservatives appear to be ill-equipped to understand that.

You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?

Do you like being insulted at your very core, at who and what you are? Of course not, no one does. That's my overall point, it drives voting and cultural behaviors, and I can't put it more clearly than that.
.

Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

Do you know who you can't talk to?

I don't understand the question.
.

What category of person, can't you talk to?


YOu can talk to friends. You can talk to acquaintances. YOu can talk to strangers.


Who can't you talk to?

Is this a riddle?

Animals?
.

 

[Correll]

Bullshit. People read debates. They are resist to ideas that challenge their preconceived notions, but those beliefs will NEVER change, if they are never even exposed to challenges to those ideas.


By just making snide comments, and being a jerk, you are actually helping to suppress any real debate.



You insult US, when you insist that a few guys on the internet define us.

Have I ever tried to define YOU, by what some random dem, on the internet said?


I will hold your side responsible for formal policies, or the statements and actions of major leaders, such as Hillary.


But have I ever held you responsible for what, say, rightwing says?



Yeah, I got that. But I don't do it. Neither have Trump. Neither did either of the Bushs. Neither did Reagan. Neither did Nixon. Neither did Ike.


Yet, you hold us responsible for what other people say.


I can't put it more clearly than that.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

Do you know who you can't talk to?

I don't understand the question.
.

What category of person, can't you talk to?


YOu can talk to friends. You can talk to acquaintances. YOu can talk to strangers.


Who can't you talk to?

Is this a riddle?

Animals?
.

You can't talk to enemies.


When you stop talking to someone, and you have conflicts of interests, the only option is to destroy them.


Because you can't compromise, or work with someone you can't talk to.

 

[Mac1958]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I think we fully understand each other now. Thanks.
.

Do you know who you can't talk to?

I don't understand the question.
.

What category of person, can't you talk to?


YOu can talk to friends. You can talk to acquaintances. YOu can talk to strangers.


Who can't you talk to?

Is this a riddle?

Animals?
.

You can't talk to enemies.


When you stop talking to someone, and you have conflicts of interests, the only option is to destroy them.


Because you can't compromise, or work with someone you can't talk to.

Yikes. Well, we disagree there, too. Without communication, little lasting progress can be made.

For example, I agree with talking with adversarial foreign leaders. At every opportunity.

Being unwilling to talk to adversaries only leads to shallow tribalism. As we're seeing.
.

 

[Correll]

Do you know who you can't talk to?

I don't understand the question.
.

What category of person, can't you talk to?


YOu can talk to friends. You can talk to acquaintances. YOu can talk to strangers.


Who can't you talk to?

Is this a riddle?

Animals?
.

You can't talk to enemies.


When you stop talking to someone, and you have conflicts of interests, the only option is to destroy them.


Because you can't compromise, or work with someone you can't talk to.

Yikes. Well, we disagree there, too. Without communication, little lasting progress can be made.

For example, I agree with talking with adversarial foreign leaders. At every opportunity.

Being unwilling to talk to adversaries only leads to shallow tribalism. As we're seeing.
.

You are refusing to talk. You. Not me. Not us.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't understand the question.
.

What category of person, can't you talk to?


YOu can talk to friends. You can talk to acquaintances. YOu can talk to strangers.


Who can't you talk to?

Is this a riddle?

Animals?
.

You can't talk to enemies.


When you stop talking to someone, and you have conflicts of interests, the only option is to destroy them.


Because you can't compromise, or work with someone you can't talk to.

Yikes. Well, we disagree there, too. Without communication, little lasting progress can be made.

For example, I agree with talking with adversarial foreign leaders. At every opportunity.

Being unwilling to talk to adversaries only leads to shallow tribalism. As we're seeing.
.

You are refusing to talk. You. Not me. Not us.

I've already told you that I think "debating" here is pointless. No problem is going to be solved, no groundwork is going to be laid, no plan is going to be put into effect. That's for real life, and I'm definitely involved there.

So far, the sum total of our conversations has been me trying to explain the other side to you, and you rejecting all of it out of hand. We have long since reached "beating a dead horse" territory. I tagged you a couple of times yesterday in a vain hope that you might at least acknowledge that a problem does exist on the Right, but I appear to have failed there, again.

What else is there to talk about that we haven't yet covered? Do you have something new?
.