Should America try to emulate Germany's socialism?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't see any proof that the USA survives "in spite of recent liberal enhancements" instead of "because of recent liberal enhancements".

you don't see that the Great Depression and current depression were caused by liberalism???

 

[Rshermr]

I don't see any proof that the USA survives "in spite of recent liberal enhancements" instead of "because of recent liberal enhancements".

you don't see that the Great Depression and current depression were caused by liberalism???

Not sure what you are talking about. You mean the great republican recession of 2008 and the great republican depression of 1929??

 

[Billo_Really]

I wonder why the goof liberal forgot to say what "totalitarianism and tyranny"!

On the issue of totalitarianism:

• the US has more people incarcerated than any nation on earth (70% of which, are in prison for non-violent crimes)
• we now have laws that allow for the indefinate detention of American citizens to be held without charges
• the FBI treats peaceful protestors as domestic terrorists
• dissent has been outlawed
• Rex 84

On the issue of tyranny:

• invasion of Afghanistan
• invasion of Iraq
• invasion of Pakistan
• invasion of Yemen
• invasion of Libya

And basically, anywhere our drones are flying overhead.

see why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

Slow about what?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

On the issue of totalitarianism:

• 
  
  the US has more people incarcerated than any nation on earth (70% of which, are in prison for non-violent crimes)

• 
  
  totalitarianism:
  Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority.
  
  Now do you know what totalitarianism is??????????????
  
  Slow liberal?????

 

[idb]

I don't see any proof that the USA survives "in spite of recent liberal enhancements" instead of "because of recent liberal enhancements".

you don't see that the Great Depression and current depression were caused by liberalism???

No, I would say rampant capitalism and greed.
As liberals hate capitalism then it can't be their fault.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't see any proof that the USA survives "in spite of recent liberal enhancements" instead of "because of recent liberal enhancements".

you don't see that the Great Depression and current depression were caused by liberalism???

No, I would say rampant capitalism and greed.
As liberals hate capitalism then it can't be their fault.

so then why be so afraid to show us exactly where capitalism caused a problem??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character?

 

[idb]

you don't see that the Great Depression and current depression were caused by liberalism???

No, I would say rampant capitalism and greed.
As liberals hate capitalism then it can't be their fault.

so then why be so afraid to show us exactly where capitalism caused a problem??? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character?

Because that isn't the conversation we are having.

The conversation is your dishonesty in stating that the US is doing well despite liberal policies and not being able to show that it's not because of those policies.

Your character is on clear display for all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the US is doing well despite liberal policies and not being able to show that it's not because of those policies.

liberals prolonged the Great Depression for 10 years, not the Girl Scouts. the Liberals created the Great society and War on Poverty that amounted to a near genocide against American blacks, not the Girl Scouts. The liberal fool bleeding hearts created the current depression by organizing much of the government to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford, not the Girl Scouts, and the liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb, not the Girl Scouts.

Do you know why the liberals spied for Stalin, not Hitler??

 

[georgephillip]

Can you explain how the Rich used elected Republicans AND Democrats to craft a housing and credit bubble that plunged the economy into recession when it popped in 2008?

 

[dblack]

Can you explain how the Rich used elected Republicans AND Democrats to craft a housing and credit bubble that plunged the economy into recession when it popped in 2008?

The problem with this view is that, while these kinds of policies obviously benefit the rich, it's our elected representatives who are responsible for creating them. The core of the problem is the pathetic fact that they do this, over and over again, and we continue to give them our support. Why do we do that?

Why do we let them get away with shit like this, for example?:

Liz Fowler and the government-corporate revolving door

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can you explain how the Rich used elected Republicans AND Democrats to craft a housing and credit bubble that plunged the economy into recession when it popped in 2008?

actually the rich share holders (owners) of the Wall Street Banks mostly got wiped out in the crash and the remaining banks are laying off 10's of 1000's. The knee jerk Marxism makes no sense ever and especially when it was idiot liberals who organized the entire Federal governemnt to get people into houses the Republican free market said they could not afford.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

while these kinds of policies obviously benefit the rich,

how do to rich benefit from going bankrupt?? brain dead class warfare Marxism never makes sense if you think before you blabber.

 

[Koios]

while these kinds of policies obviously benefit the rich,

how do to rich benefit from going bankrupt?? brain dead class warfare Marxism never makes sense if you think before you blabber.

Through incorporation of risks, while extracting, safely, personal wealth.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

while these kinds of policies obviously benefit the rich,

how do to rich benefit from going bankrupt?? brain dead class warfare Marxism never makes sense if you think before you blabber.

Through incorporation of risks, while extracting, safely, personal wealth.

they may limit damage that way but the shareholders of Merryl Lynch and all the others suffered billions in losses nevertheless thanks to Republican capitalism which according to libturd submoron Marxists is supposed to protect the rich??.

There are no losses under liberal socialism and so no incentives to manage a business well. Now you can see how liberalism killed 100 million in the USSr and Red China

 

[Koios]

how do to rich benefit from going bankrupt?? brain dead class warfare Marxism never makes sense if you think before you blabber.

Through incorporation of risks, while extracting, safely, personal wealth.

they may limit damage that way but the shareholders of Merryl Lynch and all the others suffered billions in losses thanks to Republican capitalism.

There are no losses under liberal socialism and so no incentives to manage a business well. Now you can see how liberalism killed 100 million in the USSr and Red China

Correct. "Limit damages" (risks) means bankruptcy protects personal assets. And Bush did not make coporate bankruptcies more difficult to file and less protective; he made personal bankruptcies thus.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Through incorporation of risks, while extracting, safely, personal wealth.

they may limit damage that way but the shareholders of Merryl Lynch and all the others suffered billions in losses thanks to Republican capitalism.

There are no losses under liberal socialism and so no incentives to manage a business well. Now you can see how liberalism killed 100 million in the USSr and Red China

Correct. "Limit damages" (risks) means bankruptcy protects personal assets. And Bush did not make coporate bankruptcies more difficult to file and less protective; he made personal bankruptcies thus.

dear, I think the point is that Republican capitalism caused Merryl stockholders, for example, to lose 98% of their invested capital! there were no significant laws to limit their lossses. Whereas, under socialism there is no penalty so all the bad management in the world does not matter.

Now you can understand how the Soviets starved 60 million to death.

 

[Koios]

they may limit damage that way but the shareholders of Merryl Lynch and all the others suffered billions in losses thanks to Republican capitalism.

There are no losses under liberal socialism and so no incentives to manage a business well. Now you can see how liberalism killed 100 million in the USSr and Red China

Correct. "Limit damages" (risks) means bankruptcy protects personal assets. And Bush did not make coporate bankruptcies more difficult to file and less protective; he made personal bankruptcies thus.

dear, I think the point is that Republican capitalism caused Merryl stockholders, for example, to lose 98% of their invested capital! there were no significant laws to limit their lossses. Whereas, under socialism there is no penalty so all the bad management in the world does not matter.

Now you can understand how the Soviets starved 60 million to death.

Yes. I already know what you think, and how far it is from reality. But then, as we both know, you're an abject moron. (why I'm anwering your questions: lifting you, hopefully, one day, to that of a mere garden variety moron, which might be delusional in your case. But I gotta have hope. So I persist.)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Correct. "Limit damages" (risks) means bankruptcy protects personal assets. And Bush did not make coporate bankruptcies more difficult to file and less protective; he made personal bankruptcies thus.

dear, I think the point is that Republican capitalism caused Merryl stockholders, for example, to lose 98% of their invested capital! there were no significant laws to limit their lossses. Whereas, under socialism there is no penalty so all the bad management in the world does not matter.

Now you can understand how the Soviets starved 60 million to death.

Yes. I already know what you think, and how far it is from reality. But then, as we both know, you're an abject moron. (why I'm anwering your questions: lifting you, hopefully, one day, to that of a mere garden variety moron, which might be delusional in your case. But I gotta have hope. So I persist.)

Translation: as a liberal I just lost another debate so will allow myself to be reduced to violence because I lack the character to learn and grow up!

 

[Koios]

dear, I think the point is that Republican capitalism caused Merryl stockholders, for example, to lose 98% of their invested capital! there were no significant laws to limit their lossses. Whereas, under socialism there is no penalty so all the bad management in the world does not matter.

Now you can understand how the Soviets starved 60 million to death.

Yes. I already know what you think, and how far it is from reality. But then, as we both know, you're an abject moron. (why I'm anwering your questions: lifting you, hopefully, one day, to that of a mere garden variety moron, which might be delusional in your case. But I gotta have hope. So I persist.)

Translation: as a liberal I just lost another debate so will allow myself to be reduced to violence because I lack the character to learn and grow up!

Hmmm? You need to translate English? Odd. But okay.

Meanwhile, violence = physical harm or the threat (reasonable) of it. Typically, reading anything, is not something you need fear as being a violent act toward you; and thus fingers crossed you get a library card and give 're a try.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes. I already know what you think, and how far it is from reality. But then, as we both know, you're an abject moron. (why I'm anwering your questions: lifting you, hopefully, one day, to that of a mere garden variety moron, which might be delusional in your case. But I gotta have hope. So I persist.)

Translation: as a liberal I just lost another debate so will allow myself to be reduced to violence because I lack the character to learn and grow up!

Hmmm? You need to translate English? Odd. But okay.

Meanwhile, violence = physical harm or the threat (reasonable) of it. Typically, reading anything, is not something you need fear as being a violent act toward you; and thus fingers crossed you get a library card and give 're a try.

Translation: as a liberal I just lost another debate so will allow myself to be reduced to violence because I lack the character to learn and grow up!

Verbal abuse is a form of battery that involves the use of words, rather than blows and punches. In a verbally abusive situation, words are used to attack, control, and inflict harm on another person. Verbally abusive behavior goes far beyond mean behavior; it involves inflicting psychological violence on another person, attacking the very nature of an individual's being and attempting to destroy his or her spirit. Verbal abuse can affect people of all ages and in all types of relationships. However, it is especially prevalent in marital relationships.

A number of behaviors are considered verbally abusive, including angry outbursts, screaming rages, and name-calling. Verbal abuse often includes blaming, brainwashing, and intimidation. Hidden aggression is a part of verbal abuse, as well. Verbal abuse is extremely manipulative, as insults are often disguised as caring comments. Verbal abuse can be overt or covert, but it is always about controlling and manipulating the victim.

Often, verbally abusive comments are offered as jokes. When the target of the joke is hurt or insulted, the verbal abuser laughs it off and says that the victim is overly sensitive. However, the intent of the verbal abuser is to cause this hurt. After a time, verbal abuse often escalates into physical abuse.