Top Communist Admits: Communist Party ‘Utilizes’ the Democratic Party – a Lesson for

[PaintMyHouse]

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Die-hard? They were nothing of the kind.

Yes they were. In fact, plenty of them died fighting for a country with economic freedom.

The Founding Fathers died? So, they wrote the Constitution after death then? Amazing.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

A simple fix that could have been handled very easily and inexpensively by making sure that the owners' manual contained instructions warning the owner to never drive with the heat on and the windows rolled up.

Here's what Wiki has to say about the whole Corvair safety issue:

Handling controversy

First-generation (1960–1963) Corvair handling characteristics became the subject of controversy when Ralph Nader addressed them in his 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed. GM had over 100 lawsuits pending in connection with crashes involving the Corvair, which subsequently became the initial material for Nader's investigations.[23] The book highlighted crashes related to the Corvair's suspension and identified the Chevrolet suspension engineer who had fought management's decision to remove—for cost reasons—the front anti-sway bar installed on later models. Nader said during subsequent Congressional hearings, the Corvair is "the leading candidate for the un-safest-car title".[24] Subsequently, Corvair sales fell from 220,000 in 1965 to 109,880 in 1966. By 1968 production fell to 14,800.[24] Public response to the book played a role in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966.


A 1972 safety commission report conducted by Texas A&M University concluded that the 1960–1963 Corvair possessed no greater potential for loss of control than its contemporary competitors in extreme situations.[25] The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a press release in 1972 describing the findings of NHTSA testing from the previous year. NHTSA had conducted a series of comparative tests in 1971 studying the handling of the 1963 Corvair and four contemporary cars—a Ford Falcon, Plymouth Valiant, Volkswagen Beetle, and Renault Dauphine—along with a second-generation Corvair (with its completely redesigned, independent rear suspension). The 143-page report reviewed NHTSA's extreme-condition handling tests, national crash-involvement data for the cars in the test as well as General Motors' internal documentation regarding the Corvair's handling.[1] NHTSA went on to contract an independent advisory panel of engineers to review the tests. This review panel concluded that "the 1960–63 Corvair compares favorably with contemporary vehicles used in the tests...the handling and stability performance of the 1960–63 Corvair does not result in an abnormal potential for loss of control or rollover, and it is at least as good as the performance of some contemporary vehicles both foreign and domestic." Former GM executive John DeLorean asserted in his 1979 book On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors that Nader's criticisms were valid.[citation needed]


Car and Driver magazine criticized Nader for ignoring drivers' failure to adapt their driving and vehicle-maintenance practices to the characteristics and requirements of the Corvair.[citation needed] None of the issues Nader raised were problems among owners of the Porsche 911, which had the same layout and similar suspension, nor with the less powerful Volkswagen Type 1 Beetle.[citation needed]


Journalist David E. Davis, in a 2009 article in Automobile Magazine, noted that despite Nader's claim that swing-axle rear suspension were dangerous, Porsche, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen all used similar swing-axle concepts during that era.[26]
​

In other words, as usual, the libturd muck raker had his facts wrong.

Let the buyer beware when liberal politicians are trying to sell you something

 

[bripat9643]

The KKK wholeheartedly supports the 2nd Amendment. Do you?

So? If you don't then you are unAmerican. It's part of our constitution and our rights. Thanks for proving you're a commie.

The whole premise of this stupid thread is the claim that the Democratic Party is Communist because some people calling themselves communists agree with the Democratic Party on some issues.

If you agree with that premise, which YOU DO, then that premise is valid - by your measure - to apply to other circumstances.

The other circumstance cited, in accordance with your measure - is that YOU are KKK because you agree with the KKK on some issues.

Get it now?

the purpose of the thread is to remind everyone that the communist party feels comfortable aligning itself with the democrats. Thats all this is about. Spin all you wish, you cannot change the fact that communists and democrats have a lot in common.

So do rightwingers and Nazis. And KKK'ers.

No, they don't have a thing in common. The Nazis who have posted in here are all big socialists.

 

[Mr Natural]

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

 

[bripat9643]

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid. And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time. As long as they were trained and warned, that's on them for the most part. You can always sue but believe me, capitalists do the numbers first. A flaw that causes one person in a thousand driving the car to die will never be fixed in the cars already on the road. It would make no sense to do so, it's not cost-effective.

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

All we have for that is your word on the subject.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

All we have for that is your word on the subject.

That, and a few million cars.

 

[Mr Natural]

Actually, it's more like one person in 100,000. The flaws were are talking about are often not the direct cause of an accident. Take the infamous Corvair case. The accusation was that the placement of the gas tank caused the car to blow up when it was struck in the right way, So what we're actually talking about is the failure of the equipment to protect the occupants from accidents.

If you think costs should not be considered when making decision on safetey, you're a fool. We can make a car that is 100% safe, but it might cost $500,000 a copy.

What's the point of building a car that no one will buy?

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

All we have for that is your word on the subject.

My words make sense.

Yours, not so much.

 

[bripat9643]

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

All we have for that is your word on the subject.

That, and a few million cars.

Hmmm no we don't. They all went to the scrap heap.

 

[bripat9643]

Exploding gas tanks were in Pintos. Corvairs were just plain unsafe. Cute Little Deathtraps Nader called them.

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

All we have for that is your word on the subject.

My words make sense.

Yours, not so much.

Yeah, and the words a schizophrenic hears in his head make sense to him.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Thanks for the ideology, which is dead wrong of course. In the real world you figure out how much a problem is going to cost you before you fix it. Capitalists don't do the right thing just because. That is anti-capitalist even illegal depending on what you do because the only legal goal is to maximize shareholder value. it's why corporations can't just hand out cash unless they can justify how doing so will help the bottom line, which in the end is the only thing that matters.

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Well....truth to tell, Alexander Hamilton was a socialist too. What's important is that the socialists didn't have their values represented in the Constitution that was ratified, showing they were out of the mainstream of the time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Apart from it's unsafe handling, the Corvair used air from the engine to work the heater, allowing carbon monoxide to fill the passenger compartment.

But hey, Cavaet Emptor!

They did not ven exhaust gases directly into the passenger compartment. They used a heat exchanger, just like the volkswagon does.

Volkswagen's system worked. Chevrolet's did not.

All we have for that is your word on the subject.

That, and a few million cars.

Hmmm no we don't. They all went to the scrap heap.

Wrong as usual:

 

[bripat9643]

In the real world, you do the best you can to NOT HAVE A PROBLEM... we call that DUE DILIGENCE.

But, in fairness... there was no way that you could have known that. As such falls within a subject known as "Ethics"... which falls under "Virtue", which requires Objectivity, which you as a relativist, have no means to understand, let alone apply.

Which is why you're so poorly suited for freedom and that is why you're so rarely found participating in it, historically speaking.

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Well....truth to tell, Alexander Hamilton was a socialist too. What's important is that the socialists didn't have their values represented in the Constitution that was ratified, showing they were out of the mainstream of the time.

Hamilton was a merchantilist (crony capitalist). The fact that he managed to persuade many people was one of the great disasters to befall this country.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Well....truth to tell, Alexander Hamilton was a socialist too. What's important is that the socialists didn't have their values represented in the Constitution that was ratified, showing they were out of the mainstream of the time.

Hamilton was a merchantilist (crony capitalist). The fact that he managed to persuade many people was one of the great disasters to befall this country.

He also advocated for a national bank. Though it was rejected at first, his vision finally came true when the statists in this country created the Federal Reserve.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The freedoms this country has are because my people founded it, not yours. Your kind shouldn't even be here since you are anti-American.

So you feel that addle-minded communists founded the United States?

Are you sure?

Because the United States was founded upon the Charter of Principles which recognizes that All men are endowed by God with rights, and that those rights rests upon no less an authority THAN GOD and as a result that no power within humanity is capable of removing those rights... which would decidedly include the limitless power of Government.

And THAT is pretty much the antithesis of everything you've ever said on this here message board.

This country was founded by people like Thomas Paine, who advocated for a universal minimum income for all citizens.

Thomas Paine was the only socialist among the Founding Fathers. The rest were all die-hard capitalists.

Well....truth to tell, Alexander Hamilton was a socialist too. What's important is that the socialists didn't have their values represented in the Constitution that was ratified, showing they were out of the mainstream of the time.

Hamilton was a merchantilist (crony capitalist). The fact that he managed to persuade many people was one of the great disasters to befall this country.

Yes, Paine was European as was Hamilton, both were the fascists of their day.

No question... and as you correctly noted, that Hamilton existed when and where he was at that time, was an early calamity for the United States.

Madison shut down the brayers for an easier way in any number of instruments, but the most prolific example is Federal 10 wherein Madison thoroughly rinsed any hope the "Social Democracy" would have any kinship with the United States, stating that such was probably the greatest threat to liberty, imaginable.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just to keep the illustration fresh in the mind, let's revisit the comparative subject at hand:

Here is a graphic illustration of the two opposing points of view:

Of the two concepts presented below, which does the Reader feel 'serves a greater good'?

Old Sweden (Figuratively Speaking)

The Left's Solution to Old Sweden.

.

.

.

Reader: You pick which of the two you feel 'serves a greater good'.

The one where children are introduced to hard work and the value of their time, toward the goal of sustaining themselves and their family or the child does nothing, eats them self into a dysfunctional pile of fat learning nothing but that if they sit there, people are required to provide for them?​

Spam...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

112 people died building Hoover damn. It appears the government makes the same kind of calculations.

Yes, they do. It's how it works, now you know.

So you condemn capitalism for doing the same thing as the socialist government programs you defend?

I'm not condemning anything, I'm explaining to you that such things are numbers games. The human costs, meaning death and disability, are also part of the calculation. If I employ a 1,000 kids and 999 of them won't die because of some flaw in the equipment, I don't fix the equipment, it's not cost effective to do so.

But here's the problem with that. If that one kid that dies is mine... and I find out that you knew that there was a chance that my child MIGHT DIE doing what you asked them to do, from the moment that I discovered that you knew of that risk... and you subjected my child to that risk, I would immediately go to where you are and kill you.

If I knew you were that kind of nut I wouldn't hire your kid.

LOL! Dam' straight you wouldn't.

Reader: Do you see how well accountability works?

That same member, boasted of how 'business' calculates risks and hires people KNOWING that 1 in 1000 will die...

Of course that same idiot also implied that the US Government had SOLVED "Worker-Safety" issues.

In point of FACT: the US Federal Government has never solved anything... ever. What's more the US Federal Government creates problems, it does not solve them... such is so profound that one could easily argue that the Left's purpose for government is to MAKE problem, so that it can then declare itself as being necessary to solve the problems which it creates.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time.

But wait... you and your butt-buddy distick-whatherface claimed that government had solved WORKER SAFETY, when you claimed that 'capitalism had not'.

Yet here you are telling us, 50 years after OSHA was started for no other purpose that 'People die using perfectly working equipment all the time.'


So which is it?


(Reader it appears that yet another Leftist has screwed themselves YET AGAIN! So if you were operating under the impression that Liberals had done something that Capitalism had NOT... you've been misinformed by the usual suspects.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Again... if the reader has read this thread, they should have recognized by now that the key to defeating a Leftist in debate is found in two key points. For those that may have come in late, I'll provide those keys for you now:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to speak.

And that's IT!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And you would be breaking the law while I wouldn't be, at least if you had your way I wouldn't be. People die using perfectly working equipment all the time.

But wait... you and your butt-buddy distick-whatherface claimed that government had solved WORKER SAFETY, when you claimed that 'capitalism had not'.

Yet here you are telling us, 50 years after OSHA was started for no other purpose that 'People die using perfectly working equipment all the time.'


So which is it?


(Reader it appears that yet another Leftist has screwed themselves YET AGAIN! So if you were operating under the impression that Liberals had done something that Capitalism had NOT... you've been misinformed by the usual suspects.)

Worker safety is better but people still die. Learn not to be such a child.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just to keep the illustration fresh in the mind, let's revisit the comparative subject at hand:

Here is a graphic illustration of the two opposing points of view:

Of the two concepts presented below, which does the Reader feel 'serves a greater good'?

Children Laboring to help feed themselves and their family?

The Left's Solution to teaching children how to earn a living.

.

.

.

Reader: You pick which of the two you feel 'serves a greater good'.

The one where children are introduced to hard work and the value of their time, toward the goal of sustaining themselves and their family or the child does nothing, eats them self into a dysfunctional pile of fat learning nothing but that if they sit there, people are required to provide for them?​

Spam...