Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If you cant explain how I am a socialist, please dont say I am. ThanksI dont see where you explain how I am socialist.Explain how I am a socialistNo right-winger I know of "loved" Tulsi. She was given credit for being one of the few Democrats who had a working brain, but the general consensus was that she's still a libtard and a socialist.
We are all and have long been Socialists. You are simply not honest about it.
I've done it many times including my post of a few minutes ago. You can claim you do not support any of that but you do.
You may claim you would be good living in the 19th century but you would not or you would be here posting.
We have done this over and over.
Right. Over and over, and it's failed every damned time. The reason it's failed is because we haven't tried it here.
Speak for yourself, my personal philosophy has nothing to do with socialism. Doesn’t mean I found the works of Marx, et al repulsive just that I don’t find any substantial areas where I agree with his ideas.No right-winger I know of "loved" Tulsi. She was given credit for being one of the few Democrats who had a working brain, but the general consensus was that she's still a libtard and a socialist.
We are all and have long been Socialists. You are simply not honest about it.
This country doesn't run like it does without Socialism. Of course you don't see the government funding of business as socialism but something that they simply have to do.
Helping poor people, bad.
Giving a business millions in taxpayers dollars, good.
Tell me where in Capitalism do we find this chapter?
That's idiotic. Do you not understand the concept of "corporate tax breaks"?
Allowing upper-income earners to keep more of their money is not "giving" them taxpayer's dollars. It's not "taxpayer's dollars" until it's collected by the IRS. Then it belongs to the government.
But that money is not doled out to upper-income earners. They just get to keep more of the wealth they themselves created. It's their money: Not yours, not the government's. They get those tax breaks because they generally create jobs for other people who pay revenue to the government.
Jesus Christ, man. For someone who supposedly knows so much about socialism, your grasp on basic math and economics really sucks.
If you cant explain how I am a socialist, please dont say I am. ThanksI dont see where you explain how I am socialist.Explain how I am a socialistNo right-winger I know of "loved" Tulsi. She was given credit for being one of the few Democrats who had a working brain, but the general consensus was that she's still a libtard and a socialist.
We are all and have long been Socialists. You are simply not honest about it.
I've done it many times including my post of a few minutes ago. You can claim you do not support any of that but you do.
You may claim you would be good living in the 19th century but you would not or you would be here posting.
We have done this over and over.
Right. Over and over, and it's failed every damned time. The reason it's failed is because we haven't tried it here.
Tried what? Living in the 19th Century? We did do that.
She's a nobody now, so even Russia has lost interest in her.
Hillary Clinton was right. She was a Russian asset. That doesn't mean she was working for Russia. It means the Russians found her positions to be useful, same as they now find the positions of the Trump cult to be useful.
If you cant explain how I am a socialist, please dont say I am. ThanksI dont see where you explain how I am socialist.Explain how I am a socialistNo right-winger I know of "loved" Tulsi. She was given credit for being one of the few Democrats who had a working brain, but the general consensus was that she's still a libtard and a socialist.
We are all and have long been Socialists. You are simply not honest about it.
I've done it many times including my post of a few minutes ago. You can claim you do not support any of that but you do.
You may claim you would be good living in the 19th century but you would not or you would be here posting.
We have done this over and over.
Right. Over and over, and it's failed every damned time. The reason it's failed is because we haven't tried it here.
Tried what? Living in the 19th Century? We did do that.
Tried socialism. But it failed every damned time.
Of course even though it failed, it only failed because we haven't tried socialism here. Now have we?
America's First Experiment With Socialism
Speak for yourself, my personal philosophy has nothing to do with socialism. Doesn’t mean I found the works of Marx, et al repulsive just that I don’t find any substantial areas where I agree with his ideas.No right-winger I know of "loved" Tulsi. She was given credit for being one of the few Democrats who had a working brain, but the general consensus was that she's still a libtard and a socialist.
We are all and have long been Socialists. You are simply not honest about it.
This country doesn't run like it does without Socialism. Of course you don't see the government funding of business as socialism but something that they simply have to do.
Helping poor people, bad.
Giving a business millions in taxpayers dollars, good.
Tell me where in Capitalism do we find this chapter?
That's idiotic. Do you not understand the concept of "corporate tax breaks"?
Allowing upper-income earners to keep more of their money is not "giving" them taxpayer's dollars. It's not "taxpayer's dollars" until it's collected by the IRS. Then it belongs to the government.
But that money is not doled out to upper-income earners. They just get to keep more of the wealth they themselves created. It's their money: Not yours, not the government's. They get those tax breaks because they generally create jobs for other people who pay revenue to the government.
Jesus Christ, man. For someone who supposedly knows so much about socialism, your grasp on basic math and economics really sucks.
Bail outs are not tax breaks. This is why I can't take you "I don't support Socialism" fakers, seriously.
Speak for yourself, my personal philosophy has nothing to do with socialism. Doesn’t mean I found the works of Marx, et al repulsive just that I don’t find any substantial areas where I agree with his ideas.No right-winger I know of "loved" Tulsi. She was given credit for being one of the few Democrats who had a working brain, but the general consensus was that she's still a libtard and a socialist.
We are all and have long been Socialists. You are simply not honest about it.
This country doesn't run like it does without Socialism. Of course you don't see the government funding of business as socialism but something that they simply have to do.
Helping poor people, bad.
Giving a business millions in taxpayers dollars, good.
Tell me where in Capitalism do we find this chapter?
That's idiotic. Do you not understand the concept of "corporate tax breaks"?
Allowing upper-income earners to keep more of their money is not "giving" them taxpayer's dollars. It's not "taxpayer's dollars" until it's collected by the IRS. Then it belongs to the government.
But that money is not doled out to upper-income earners. They just get to keep more of the wealth they themselves created. It's their money: Not yours, not the government's. They get those tax breaks because they generally create jobs for other people who pay revenue to the government.
Jesus Christ, man. For someone who supposedly knows so much about socialism, your grasp on basic math and economics really sucks.
Bail outs are not tax breaks. This is why I can't take you "I don't support Socialism" fakers, seriously.
What "bail out"? Do you mean like the one Obama gave GM, Wall Street, and the green energy industry?
And just how did President Trump "bail out" any American industry?
I disagree that public schools are not more efficient.
Anything private always costs more because instead of just hiring those people with needed skills, you also have to pay the extra profit to the private investors, that you do not have to pay if it is publicly financed.
Thats fine and all... but irrelevant. Everyone is not a socialist.Private schools are more efficient academically wise. The rest of it would be more efficient, too.First of all we all want public transportation, schools, libraries, museums, fie fighting, police, etc.
All utilities should be private.We also all tend to like public utilities.
I dont recognize itWe also recognize the value of public regulation and preservation of things like banks, through FDIC
No we do not.We agree Social Security, Medicare, etc., are all necessary.
But you made an excellent case. Just like pk
I disagree that public schools are not more efficient.
Anything private always costs more because instead of just hiring those people with needed skills, you also have to pay the extra profit to the private investors, that you do not have to pay if it is publicly financed.
Private schools only seem to get a better bang for their buck because they only accept the cream of the crop that have home advantages like encyclopedias, travel, tutors, etc.
This is true with everything.
It always costs less for people to pool their revenue publicly and to create the services they need, instead of paying extra to a private entrepreneur.
The only times private enterprise has some advantages is when people are not as far sighted as the innovative entrepreneur.
The private entrepreneur also can make decisions and change plans more quickly.
