If socialism is so bad

[Redfish]

“Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy.”

Winston Churchill

Winston had it right. What these libs don't understand is that under socialism, all the power and all the wealth is concentrated in a tiny group of super elite rulers and everyone else is equally miserable.

 

[dblack]

Or taking your land to build a border wall.

by paying a fair market price for it. Most border land owners will gladly sell a small portion of their land in exchange for better security.

socialism would just take the land, actually it would not need to be taken because the government would already own all of the land, there is no private property under socialism.

Most border land owners will gladly sell a small portion of their land in exchange for better security.

Liar. Post it up.

You Want a Wall? Landowners Still Fight Bush's Border Fence

The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence

Landowners Likely To Bring More Lawsuits As Trump Moves On Border Wall

there are always exceptions and greedy people looking for a windfall. Most (the majority, 51%) will gladly sell a small part of their land in exchange for border security.

And the 49%?

we don't know about the other 49%, do we? But my original statement that "most" would gladly sell is true. That's the way a democracy works, the majority opinion prevails.

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

 

[Redfish]

by paying a fair market price for it. Most border land owners will gladly sell a small portion of their land in exchange for better security.

socialism would just take the land, actually it would not need to be taken because the government would already own all of the land, there is no private property under socialism.

Most border land owners will gladly sell a small portion of their land in exchange for better security.

Liar. Post it up.

You Want a Wall? Landowners Still Fight Bush's Border Fence

The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence

Landowners Likely To Bring More Lawsuits As Trump Moves On Border Wall

there are always exceptions and greedy people looking for a windfall. Most (the majority, 51%) will gladly sell a small part of their land in exchange for border security.

And the 49%?

we don't know about the other 49%, do we? But my original statement that "most" would gladly sell is true. That's the way a democracy works, the majority opinion prevails.

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

 

[dblack]

Liar. Post it up.

You Want a Wall? Landowners Still Fight Bush's Border Fence

The Taking: How the federal government abused its power to seize property for a border fence

Landowners Likely To Bring More Lawsuits As Trump Moves On Border Wall

there are always exceptions and greedy people looking for a windfall. Most (the majority, 51%) will gladly sell a small part of their land in exchange for border security.

And the 49%?

we don't know about the other 49%, do we? But my original statement that "most" would gladly sell is true. That's the way a democracy works, the majority opinion prevails.

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

 

[Staidhup]

If one is so supportive of socialism, collectivism... then why do they remain in America? I am often puzzled as to why they say their moving and yet do not?

 

[dblack]

If one is so supportive of socialism, collectivism... then why do they remain in America? I am often puzzled as to why they say their moving and yet do not?

Because socialism works best when it's draining existing wealth. After that is over, it's not as pleasant.

 

[badger2]

The draining of existing wealth is time-relevant, so what eventually makes socialism impossible is the pivot between necessary labor and surplus labor. Time has radically entered altered being, so it's not simply the time of commodities in their decline, it's also happening to the living organism.

 

[Redfish]

there are always exceptions and greedy people looking for a windfall. Most (the majority, 51%) will gladly sell a small part of their land in exchange for border security.

And the 49%?

we don't know about the other 49%, do we? But my original statement that "most" would gladly sell is true. That's the way a democracy works, the majority opinion prevails.

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

In most cases the amount needed for the wall is very small, more like an easement, maybe 6-10 feet along the national border. Also in most of the areas in question the land is desert scrub, not good for much of anything.

 

[Redfish]

If one is so supportive of socialism, collectivism... then why do they remain in America? I am often puzzled as to why they say their moving and yet do not?

Because socialism works best when it's draining existing wealth. After that is over, it's not as pleasant.

exactly, Venezuela is a perfect example.

 

[dblack]

And the 49%?

we don't know about the other 49%, do we? But my original statement that "most" would gladly sell is true. That's the way a democracy works, the majority opinion prevails.

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if they don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

 

[Redfish]

we don't know about the other 49%, do we? But my original statement that "most" would gladly sell is true. That's the way a democracy works, the majority opinion prevails.

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if the don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

they are free to move to the other side of the border. Do you consider the interstate highway system a symbol or fascism? There was a lot more land claimed by eminent domain for that than will ever be needed for a border wall.

Is the wall around the Vatican a symbol of fascism? How about the wall around Obama's DC mansion? the wall around Pelosi's SFO mansion? the wall around Streisand's LA mansion? The fence around the whitehouse? the walls and barbed wire around every prison?

you continue to make a fool of yourself here. Maybe there is a kiddie forum you and join.

 

[dblack]

Right. That's why we chose to form a republic, rather than a democracy.

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if the don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

they are free to move to the other side of the border. Do you consider the interstate highway system a symbol or fascism? There was a lot more land claimed by eminent domain for that than will ever be needed for a border wall.

No, a highway is not a symbol of fascism. But using eminent domain to build it is a violation of property rights and I wouldn't have supported it. It is worth noting, however, that the national highway system was supported by a broad consensus - not a mere 51%. The border wall is not.

Is the wall around the Vatican a symbol of fascism? How about the wall around Obama's DC mansion? the wall around Pelosi's SFO mansion? the wall around Streisand's LA mansion? The fence around the whitehouse? the walls and barbed wire around every prison?

No, none of those things are symbols of fascism. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the Berlin wall and a hedgerow. The prison analogy is apt though - I'll give you that one.

 

[Redfish]

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if the don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

they are free to move to the other side of the border. Do you consider the interstate highway system a symbol or fascism? There was a lot more land claimed by eminent domain for that than will ever be needed for a border wall.

No, a highway is not a symbol of fascism. But using eminent domain to build it is a violation of property rights and I wouldn't have supported it. It is worth noting, however, that the national highway system was supported by a broad consensus - not a mere 51%. The border wall is not.

Is the wall around the Vatican a symbol of fascism? How about the wall around Obama's DC mansion? the wall around Pelosi's SFO mansion? the wall around Streisand's LA mansion? The fence around the whitehouse? the walls and barbed wire around every prison?

No, none of those things are symbols of fascism. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the Berlin wall and a hedgerow. The prison analogy is apt though - I'll give you that one.

so you equate the Berlin wall with a national border wall? The Berlin wall was put up to keep people inside east Germany. Not to keep people from entering illegally.

a secure border is supported by 80% of American citizens. and yes, its more than a wall, its lots of things and Trump has said that many times, he has never proposed a wall on the entire southern border, only where the border patrol has said it would work. It is working in San Diego, should we take it down there?

 

[Redfish]

yes, in terms of making laws and selecting presidents, but that's not what was being discussed. I said that most (a majority) of border land owners would sell part of their land for a wall, he disagreed. that topic had nothing to do with republic vs pure democracy.

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if the don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

they are free to move to the other side of the border. Do you consider the interstate highway system a symbol or fascism? There was a lot more land claimed by eminent domain for that than will ever be needed for a border wall.

No, a highway is not a symbol of fascism. But using eminent domain to build it is a violation of property rights and I wouldn't have supported it. It is worth noting, however, that the national highway system was supported by a broad consensus - not a mere 51%. The border wall is not.

Is the wall around the Vatican a symbol of fascism? How about the wall around Obama's DC mansion? the wall around Pelosi's SFO mansion? the wall around Streisand's LA mansion? The fence around the whitehouse? the walls and barbed wire around every prison?

No, none of those things are symbols of fascism. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the Berlin wall and a hedgerow. The prison analogy is apt though - I'll give you that one.

which of the politicians or celebrities that I mentioned has a hedgerow as a border barrier? All of them have physical walls, not shrubs

 

[dblack]

...so you equate the Berlin wall with a national border wall? The Berlin wall was put up to keep people inside east Germany. Not to keep people from entering illegally.

Actually, the stated purpose of the Berlin wall was to keep out "capitalist agitators". That changed after it was built of course. Eventually it was used to keep people in. The fact of the matter is that a wall serves both purposes, regardless of the intent.

 

[dblack]

Ok. I thought it was proffered as justification for eminent domain. So, you're ok with a wall that's only on the land of those who chose to sell?

of course not. My point was that under eminent domain the landowner is fairly compensated for the land needed by the government in order to protect the nation. I said that most would gladly sell, that is true, the ones that won't gladly sell will be fairly compensated, and if they don't like the offered compensation, they can go to court and get the amount reviewed and adjusted based on the fair market value of the land.

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if the don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

they are free to move to the other side of the border. Do you consider the interstate highway system a symbol or fascism? There was a lot more land claimed by eminent domain for that than will ever be needed for a border wall.

No, a highway is not a symbol of fascism. But using eminent domain to build it is a violation of property rights and I wouldn't have supported it. It is worth noting, however, that the national highway system was supported by a broad consensus - not a mere 51%. The border wall is not.

Is the wall around the Vatican a symbol of fascism? How about the wall around Obama's DC mansion? the wall around Pelosi's SFO mansion? the wall around Streisand's LA mansion? The fence around the whitehouse? the walls and barbed wire around every prison?

No, none of those things are symbols of fascism. I'm sorry you can't see the difference between the Berlin wall and a hedgerow. The prison analogy is apt though - I'll give you that one.

which of the politicians or celebrities that I mentioned has a hedgerow as a border barrier? All of them have physical walls, not shrubs

Seriously? Isn't that kind of grasping at straws? You really see a fence around private property as equivalent to a national border wall??

Sometimes it worries me that Trumpsters really have lost all perspective. I'm not sure what to do with that. Hopefully we can vote them out of office and the insanity will simmer down.

 

[Staidhup]

...so you equate the Berlin wall with a national border wall? The Berlin wall was put up to keep people inside east Germany. Not to keep people from entering illegally.

Actually, the stated purpose of the Berlin wall was to keep out "capitalist agitators". That changed after it was built of course. Eventually it was used to keep people in. The fact of the matter is that a wall serves both purposes, regardless of the intent.

Who is or was kidding whom, at the very offset it was to keep, retain, by force, skilled labor in the eastern sector as a result of the mass exodus of such to the west.

 

[Markle]

Ahh.. but if they don't want to sell, if they don't want a big ugly symbol of fascism decorating their lawn, they'll just have to roll over and take one for the team? See, that's the kind of majority rule horseshit our Constitution is supposed to protect us from.

Have you considered actually READING the US Constitution? You know, the Constitution you are MISQUOTING. Here's a hint, try reading the FIFTH AMENDMENT.

How many miles of US Highways and Interstate Highways are there in our country? Do you think those millions of people wanted the main highway in their back yard? How about that land used for millions of miles of pipelines? Does electricity get to your house without an easement?

Do you consider boasting about your ignorance to be helpful in supporting your credibility? Really, how?

 

[Markle]

No, a highway is not a symbol of fascism. But using eminent domain to build it is a violation of property rights and I wouldn't have supported it. It is worth noting, however, that the national highway system was supported by a broad consensus - not a mere 51%. The border wall is not.

Your ignorance about the US Constitution is sad and pathetic.

Here, for your reluctant edification is the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution.

The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[dblack]

No, a highway is not a symbol of fascism. But using eminent domain to build it is a violation of property rights and I wouldn't have supported it. It is worth noting, however, that the national highway system was supported by a broad consensus - not a mere 51%. The border wall is not.

Your ignorance about the US Constitution is sad and pathetic.

Here, for your reluctant edification is the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution.

The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 reads as follows:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

tl;dr

How about we match my "ignorance about the US Constitution" with your piss poor reading comprehension. I didn't say eminent domain was unconstitutional. I said if violated property rights, which it does.