Is Sanders Retarded or Insane?

[Socialist]

We sure as **** wouldn't enjoy clean air, water, food or workers rights. Look at countries that allow the corporations to have their way...China, India, early 20th century America, etc. It isn't a pretty sight...

I'd say government is a good thing as long as it is kept honest.

Many posters on this site think early 20th century America was better then today..

 

[bripat9643]

What the **** are you talking about? I didn't even mention "diversity" in that response.

"Diversity has destroyed many countries" "Only COMMIES think its a good thing."

Nothing could be more obvious. Does the government run it? If the government owned and ran General Motors, would it be socialist? Of course it would.

The fact that you can't believe it only shows that you're a dumbass socialist.

Dear god, learn what socialism is, you keep repeating worn out talking points that make you look like a ******* idiot:

I know what socialism is. I don't swallow your polyanish delusions, however.

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

 

[Socialist]

"Diversity has destroyed many countries" "Only COMMIES think its a good thing."

Dear god, learn what socialism is, you keep repeating worn out talking points that make you look like a ******* idiot:

I know what socialism is. I don't swallow your polyanish delusions, however.

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Any attempt to implement pure capitalism fails dramatically, if not worse then "socialism" which only existed in Spain, Ukraine, and the Paris commune. Actually, the zapatistas and other various communities run along the lines of socialism/communism.

 

[bripat9643]

We sure as **** wouldn't enjoy clean air, water, food or workers rights. Look at countries that allow the corporations to have their way...China, India, early 20th century America, etc. It isn't a pretty sight...

I'd say government is a good thing as long as it is kept honest.

Many posters on this site think early 20th century America was better then today..

The laws were better. Obviously the standard of living wasn't as good because capital takes time to accumulate and technology advances over time. Anyone who says that the 19th century shows that capitalism is inferior is simply a lying scumbag demagogue who deliberately confuses two issues: social organization, on the one hand, and the steady advancement of material wealth under capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

I know what socialism is. I don't swallow your polyanish delusions, however.

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Any attempt to implement pure capitalism fails dramatically, if not worse then "socialism" which only existed in Spain, Ukraine, and the Paris commune. Actually, the zapatistas and other various communities run along the lines of socialism/communism.

Hmmmm, wrong. The closer a society moves to pure capitalism, the faster its economy grows and the better off its people become. The so-called "socialist communities" you refer to lasted how long?

 

[ScienceRocks]

"Diversity has destroyed many countries" "Only COMMIES think its a good thing."

Dear god, learn what socialism is, you keep repeating worn out talking points that make you look like a ******* idiot:

I know what socialism is. I don't swallow your polyanish delusions, however.

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

 

[bripat9643]

LOOOL. You act like your some all knowing genius who knows more about socialism then a Marxist professor and every self proclaimed socialist worldwide.

It doesn't take a genius to know that socialists are all liars.

This, my fellow forum posters, is yet another example of why I cannot take bripat seriously, he attributes socialism to anything the government does, so by this line of thought, every single person in the country is somehow a socialist if they support anything the government does. I guess we're all liars.

They are supporting socialism if they support government programs. That's the bottom line.

Name a first world country that doesn't use government for anything? I happen to believe we'd be a very fucked up place like Somalia without the government.

Somalia is a capitalist paradise, no regulations, no taxes, a truly free market.

Somalia is not an example of capitalism. That canard is a common ploy used by lying socialists.

 

[Socialist]

We sure as **** wouldn't enjoy clean air, water, food or workers rights. Look at countries that allow the corporations to have their way...China, India, early 20th century America, etc. It isn't a pretty sight...

I'd say government is a good thing as long as it is kept honest.

Many posters on this site think early 20th century America was better then today..

The laws were better. Obviously the standard of living wasn't as good because capital takes time to accumulate and technology advances over time. Anyone who says that the 19th century shows that capitalism is inferior is simply a lying scumbag demagogue who deliberately confuses two issues: social organization, on the one hand, and the steady advancement of material wealth under capitalism.

Oh dear god. The laws were better? LOOOL. Please, elaborate. Yes, yes, we know capitalism led to horrid conditions and monopolies/wealth inequality in Europe/America before the state stepped in, these conditions actually led to socialist uprisings, including the Paris commune and the October Revolution. Oh dear lord, what a sad excuse.

 

[Socialist]

It doesn't take a genius to know that socialists are all liars.

This, my fellow forum posters, is yet another example of why I cannot take bripat seriously, he attributes socialism to anything the government does, so by this line of thought, every single person in the country is somehow a socialist if they support anything the government does. I guess we're all liars.

They are supporting socialism if they support government programs. That's the bottom line.

Name a first world country that doesn't use government for anything? I happen to believe we'd be a very fucked up place like Somalia without the government.

Somalia is a capitalist paradise, no regulations, no taxes, a truly free market.

Somalia is not an example of capitalism. That's canard is a common ploy used by lying socialists.

Of course it's not, the thing is, as a socialist, I have actual examples i can point to that fit what socialism is, capitalists always rely on throwing out "crony" capitalism when they realize capitalism leads to horrid conditions without regulation. Tell me, how is Somalia not capitalist?

 

[bripat9643]

I know what socialism is. I don't swallow your polyanish delusions, however.

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It doesn't take a genius to know that socialists are all liars.

This, my fellow forum posters, is yet another example of why I cannot take bripat seriously, he attributes socialism to anything the government does, so by this line of thought, every single person in the country is somehow a socialist if they support anything the government does. I guess we're all liars.

They are supporting socialism if they support government programs. That's the bottom line.

Name a first world country that doesn't use government for anything? I happen to believe we'd be a very fucked up place like Somalia without the government.

Somalia is a capitalist paradise, no regulations, no taxes, a truly free market.

Somalia is not an example of capitalism. That's canard is a common ploy used by lying socialists.

There's no regulations, no taxes, etc...Anyone that wants to set up a business can do so(at their risk of course!)...How isn't that a perfect free market? You'd have to admit that some government is a good thing to argue otherwise.

 

[Socialist]

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

Who is forced to pay? What are you talking about? Universal healthcare? People don't care, they know it works and benefits them.

 

[Socialist]

I am a student of political science and you're delusional if you think we don't need government.

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Any attempt to implement pure capitalism fails dramatically, if not worse then "socialism" which only existed in Spain, Ukraine, and the Paris commune. Actually, the zapatistas and other various communities run along the lines of socialism/communism.

Hmmmm, wrong. The closer a society moves to pure capitalism, the faster its economy grows and the better off its people become. The so-called "socialist communities" you refer to lasted how long?

Name one. They were crushed by military force, the zapatistas are active today but they're not expanding anymore, for now.

 

[bripat9643]

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

Who is forced to pay? What are you talking about? Universal healthcare? People don't care, they know it works and benefits them.

I lot of people do care. They are forced to pay for it. The majority hates Obamacare. Nevertheless, it was still forced on them.

 

[Socialist]

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

Who is forced to pay? What are you talking about? Universal healthcare? People don't care, they know it works and benefits them.

I lot of people do care. They are forced to pay for it. The majority hates Obamacare. Nevertheless, it was still forced on them.

Prove that the majority hate obamacare, which isn't UHC by the way. Regardless, the Canadian right wing had to promise to keep UHC because of how loved it is, Europeans love it as well. They live longer lives and don't have to stress over medical bills.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

Who is forced to pay? What are you talking about? Universal healthcare? People don't care, they know it works and benefits them.

I lot of people do care. They are forced to pay for it. The majority hates Obamacare. Nevertheless, it was still forced on them.

Prove that the majority hate obamacare, which isn't UHC by the way. Regardless, the Canadian right wing had to promise to keep UHC because of how loved it is, Europeans love it as well. They live longer lives and don't have to stress over medical bills.

And most western European countries have far higher per capita $$$$ per person then we do...Must not be that bad!

 

[bripat9643]

You're a dumbass. So-called "political science" is 95% quackery.

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Any attempt to implement pure capitalism fails dramatically, if not worse then "socialism" which only existed in Spain, Ukraine, and the Paris commune. Actually, the zapatistas and other various communities run along the lines of socialism/communism.

Hmmmm, wrong. The closer a society moves to pure capitalism, the faster its economy grows and the better off its people become. The so-called "socialist communities" you refer to lasted how long?

Name one. They were crushed by military force, the zapatistas are active today but they're not expanding anymore, for now.

Yep, so they lasted about 5 weeks. That's hardly a valid test of an economic system.

"Active" doing what? Did they ever run an economy? Nope, they're just rebels wrecking havoc on the locals.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly,,,,

and a mixture of the two makes perfect sense and has worked very well throughout the first world!

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

Who is forced to pay? What are you talking about? Universal healthcare? People don't care, they know it works and benefits them.

I lot of people do care. They are forced to pay for it. The majority hates Obamacare. Nevertheless, it was still forced on them.

Prove that the majority hate obamacare, which isn't UHC by the way. Regardless, the Canadian right wing had to promise to keep UHC because of how loved it is, Europeans love it as well. They live longer lives and don't have to stress over medical bills.

And most western European countries have far higher per capita $$$$ per person then we do...Must not be that bad!

Wrong. They have significantly lower per capita income. When you look at their living standards in terms of size of homes, appliances, transportation, etc, their standard of living is even lower.

 

[Socialist]

So how can you tell the difference between social-democracy, pure capitalism, pure socialism, etc if it is all bull shit...

There's socialism, capitalism and various combinations of the two. Actually, there is no pure socialism because any attempt to implement it instantly implodes. So called "social democracy" is just a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Any attempt to implement pure capitalism fails dramatically, if not worse then "socialism" which only existed in Spain, Ukraine, and the Paris commune. Actually, the zapatistas and other various communities run along the lines of socialism/communism.

Hmmmm, wrong. The closer a society moves to pure capitalism, the faster its economy grows and the better off its people become. The so-called "socialist communities" you refer to lasted how long?

Name one. They were crushed by military force, the zapatistas are active today but they're not expanding anymore, for now.

Yep, so they lasted about 5 weeks. That's hardly a valid test of an economic system.

"Active" doing what? Did they ever run an economy? Nope, they're just rebels wrecking havoc on the locals.

5 weeks? What the **** are you talking about? The anarchists in Ukraine/Spain lasted years, the commune was crushed but it achieved a shit ton in just a short time. You know nothing of the zapatistas. They're on the defensive.

 

[Socialist]

It makes no sense whatsoever. How does anyone benefit by being forced to pay for stuff they don't want? It hasn't worked well at all. All the countries you use as examples of successful socialism became wealthy under capitalism, and they are still largely capitalism. The socialist features of their economies only serve to retard their economic growth and shovel huge amounts of wealth down the welfare sewer.

Who is forced to pay? What are you talking about? Universal healthcare? People don't care, they know it works and benefits them.

I lot of people do care. They are forced to pay for it. The majority hates Obamacare. Nevertheless, it was still forced on them.

Prove that the majority hate obamacare, which isn't UHC by the way. Regardless, the Canadian right wing had to promise to keep UHC because of how loved it is, Europeans love it as well. They live longer lives and don't have to stress over medical bills.

And most western European countries have far higher per capita $$$$ per person then we do...Must not be that bad!

Wrong. They have significantly lower per capita income. When you look at their living standards in terms of size of homes, appliances, transportation, etc, their standard of living is even lower.

Shit Americans Say
Talk to Europeans or Canadians.