Watch this... Hey libs, do you have any examples of successful socialist countries? List them.

[Checkerboard Strangler]

They also can't respond once they get their asses kicked.
They go into MEME mode because they don't have documentation, they don't have facts, they don't have scientifically valid proofs, they don't have evidence. They ain't got dick except idiotic memes and whining.

Just face it people just don’t wanna join the collective, the collective has nothing to do with freedom.
Freedom and individuality cannot exist in the vacuum of socialism… Fact

I don't think you actually understand the meaning of the word "collective".

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And in response to the OP: All hard Socialist/Communist countries are successful if the objective is to subjugate the masses and to make them equally poor, subservient, fearful, and obedient.

By "hard" I cautiously assume that you mean "pure".
Again, applying an excessive obsession with "purity" is a sure fire recipe for creating some kind of economic tension and exacerbating social frictions...in socialism, capitalism, ANY "ism".

The BEST and time tested approach is to create a flexible hybrid economy using the best tweaks of both socialism and capitalism. Some societies will do better with a more capitalistic mix, some will do better with a little more socialism. Veer toward the edges and, just as in bowling, you wind up with a gutter ball.

Communism isn't worth comparing at all, and neither is fascism, because both are exercises in obsessive ideological purity, so again, they are doomed from the start, due to being too extreme.

You assume incorrectly. By hard I mean firmly Totalitarian.

And your time tested hybrid is blithering nonsense. A country is either free or it isn't. To say that a bit of totalitarianism is desirable is a bargain with the devil.

You do not understand the definition of the word "totalitarian".

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

 

[bgrouse]

Wait a minute, Nazis are socialists, as in LIBERALS?
So all those tiki torch carrying khaki pants wearing goose stepping Nazis went to the WRONG RALLY?
You need to demand a refund for your education.
(It was called the "Unite the Right" rally)

It might help if your education didn't come from internet memes.
1. Hitler didn't make that quote, it came from Gregor Strasser.
2. Strasser paid for that quote with his LIFE.
Gregor Strasser (31 May 1892 – 30 June 1934) was an early prominent German Nazi official and politician who was murdered during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934.

He also said this about Adolt Hitler:
"He is such a hysteric that they need not take him seriously, and so he will not carry out his threat unfortunately. But it is all or nothing for him now. If I know him, he will make one desperate attempt to get into power. If this fails and he does not get his way, he is finished. He will burst into pieces like a frog."

Gregor Strasser was an early member of the Nazi Party. During Adolf Hitler's imprisonment Strasser attempted to take the Nazi Party in a different ideological direction. He failed in this and in 1934 Strasser paid the price for what Hitler considered a betrayal.


YOU ARE AN UNEDUCATED IDIOT.

CONFIRMED.

The fact remains, the Nazi party is/was socialist and they hate/hated capitalism and embraced socialism.
Confirmed...

I hear they also wore clothes and shit in toilets. What is your point?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The fact remains, the Nazi party is/was socialist and they hate/hated capitalism and embraced socialism.
Confirmed...

I hear they also wore clothes and shit in toilets. What is your point?

The ONLY time Nazis hated capitalism was when Jewish people practiced it.
And Rustic has yet to back up that spectacularly dumb claim with ANY kind of evidence whatsoever.
I bet five bucks Rustic cannot offer ONE SINGLE concrete example of Hitler shutting down any capitalist endeavor whatsoever. In fact, Hitler loved capitalism SO MUCH that he gave an award to a very famous antisemite named Henry Ford.

Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938

At a ceremony in Dearborn, Michigan, Henry Ford is presented with the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle on his 75th birthday. Henry Ford was the first American recipient of this order, an honor created in 1937 by Adolf Hitler. This was the highest honor Nazi Germany could give to any foreigner and represented Adolf Hitler’s personal admiration and indebtedness to Henry Ford. The presentation was made by Karl Kapp, German consul in Cleveland, and Fritz Heller, German consular representative in Detroit.

Rustic, so far I've KICKED YOUR ASS TO HELL AND BACK with EVERY SINGLE reply I've given, and you have yet to disprove or overturn ONE SINGLE THING that I have said, not ONE, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA.
You can yell, scream, flail about, post stupid internet memes, and contradict all you like but it doesn't change the fact that I have proven every single thing you have said is flat out WRONG, INCORRECT, ABSURD.

Why don't you just lay down and lick your nuts like the dumb dog that you are, and admit that you might just possibly be misinformed.
I know why...because secretly, you LOVE Hitler.
I bet you even have a giant swastika flag and posters of the guy in your Mom's basement where you live.

We're done here.

 

[Rustic]

Anyone else want to try spewing their Orwellian revisionist history of the Third Reich?
I'll take on all comers.
You MORONS couldn't debate a cold french fry...bring it, bitches.

NAZIS were RIGHT WING WHITE SUPREMACIST FASCISTS.

Na, They acted much more like left-wing socialists...
They performed genocide on Jews and Christians, and forced everyone into a collective.

That's called white supremacy and it wasn't a collective, it was a ghetto.
Collectives are economic enterprises, like farms. The only place capitalism was forbidden was IN the ghettos.
And no, Christians were NEVER forced into ghettos under the Third Reich.

Lol
Na, socialism was the Nazis game... fact

 

[boedicca]

And in response to the OP: All hard Socialist/Communist countries are successful if the objective is to subjugate the masses and to make them equally poor, subservient, fearful, and obedient.

By "hard" I cautiously assume that you mean "pure".
Again, applying an excessive obsession with "purity" is a sure fire recipe for creating some kind of economic tension and exacerbating social frictions...in socialism, capitalism, ANY "ism".

The BEST and time tested approach is to create a flexible hybrid economy using the best tweaks of both socialism and capitalism. Some societies will do better with a more capitalistic mix, some will do better with a little more socialism. Veer toward the edges and, just as in bowling, you wind up with a gutter ball.

Communism isn't worth comparing at all, and neither is fascism, because both are exercises in obsessive ideological purity, so again, they are doomed from the start, due to being too extreme.

You assume incorrectly. By hard I mean firmly Totalitarian.

And your time tested hybrid is blithering nonsense. A country is either free or it isn't. To say that a bit of totalitarianism is desirable is a bargain with the devil.

You do not understand the definition of the word "totalitarian".

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Being an expert on myself, I am quite confident in my understanding of what totalitarian means.

It's the end goal of loon progs like you.

 

[playtime]

Lol

Good mac, thank you for playing.

What do you notice about those countries? Notice anything? What?

An overwhelming percentage of the citizens of each country I listed have spleens.

Now. Perhaps you can make a point.
.

Mac, those aren't Socialist countries, those are welfare states.

A Socialist country is one that owns/controls the means of production, and controls/dictates the price of goods through mandate.

socialism vs. social democracy


In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Definition of SOCIALISM

In other words, capitalism is socialism. Pure horseshit.

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

 

[bripat9643]

Mac, those aren't Socialist countries, those are welfare states.

A Socialist country is one that owns/controls the means of production, and controls/dictates the price of goods through mandate.

socialism vs. social democracy


In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Definition of SOCIALISM

In other words, capitalism is socialism. Pure horseshit.

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

 

[playtime]

socialism vs. social democracy


In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

Definition of SOCIALISM

In other words, capitalism is socialism. Pure horseshit.

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

no, see official dictionaries do not do that. they print official definitions based on officially recognized terms from officially recognized sources..

but, you see.... i have seen you post opinions from the likes of breitbart & gateway pundit as if they were facts, so the very idea that you would know officially recognized anything is absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, capitalism is socialism. Pure horseshit.

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

no, see official dictionaries do not do that. they print official definitions based on officially recognized terms from officially recognized sources..

but, you see.... i have seen you post opinions from the likes of breitbart & gateway pundit as if they were facts, so the very idea that you would know officially recognized anything is absurd.

What is this "official" source of definitions you're talking about it? What is the name of the dept of word definitions?

There is no "official" definition of any word, moron. Dictionaries decide on definition by looking at how words are used in widely published books, magazines, web sites and newspapers.

You pretend you know something about dictionaries, but you just proved you're an ignoramus and a blowhard.

 

[Rustic]

In other words, capitalism is socialism. Pure horseshit.

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

no, see official dictionaries do not do that. they print official definitions based on officially recognized terms from officially recognized sources..

but, you see.... i have seen you post opinions from the likes of breitbart & gateway pundit as if they were facts, so the very idea that you would know officially recognized anything is absurd.

Says someone who trusts the federal government... lol

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You do not understand the definition of the word "totalitarian".

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Being an expert on myself, I am quite confident in my understanding of what totalitarian means.

It's the end goal of loon progs like you.

You should go back to "being an expert on yourself".

 

[boedicca]

You do not understand the definition of the word "totalitarian".

relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

Being an expert on myself, I am quite confident in my understanding of what totalitarian means.

It's the end goal of loon progs like you.

You should go back to "being an expert on yourself".

You should go back to kindergarten.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FC1LRY/?tag=ff0d01-20

 

[danielpalos]

Go ahead, we are interested in hearing these wonderful successes.

Please, list the countries.

There are no true AnCaps.

 

[Rustic]

The fact remains, the Nazi party is/was socialist and they hate/hated capitalism and embraced socialism.
Confirmed...

I hear they also wore clothes and shit in toilets. What is your point?

The ONLY time Nazis hated capitalism was when Jewish people practiced it.
And Rustic has yet to back up that spectacularly dumb claim with ANY kind of evidence whatsoever.
I bet five bucks Rustic cannot offer ONE SINGLE concrete example of Hitler shutting down any capitalist endeavor whatsoever. In fact, Hitler loved capitalism SO MUCH that he gave an award to a very famous antisemite named Henry Ford.

Henry Ford receiving the Grand Cross of the German Eagle from Nazi officials, 1938

At a ceremony in Dearborn, Michigan, Henry Ford is presented with the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle on his 75th birthday. Henry Ford was the first American recipient of this order, an honor created in 1937 by Adolf Hitler. This was the highest honor Nazi Germany could give to any foreigner and represented Adolf Hitler’s personal admiration and indebtedness to Henry Ford. The presentation was made by Karl Kapp, German consul in Cleveland, and Fritz Heller, German consular representative in Detroit.

Rustic, so far I've KICKED YOUR ASS TO HELL AND BACK with EVERY SINGLE reply I've given, and you have yet to disprove or overturn ONE SINGLE THING that I have said, not ONE, NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, ZIP, NADA.
You can yell, scream, flail about, post stupid internet memes, and contradict all you like but it doesn't change the fact that I have proven every single thing you have said is flat out WRONG, INCORRECT, ABSURD.

Why don't you just lay down and lick your nuts like the dumb dog that you are, and admit that you might just possibly be misinformed.
I know why...because secretly, you LOVE Hitler.
I bet you even have a giant swastika flag and posters of the guy in your Mom's basement where you live.

We're done here.

Lol
Angry much?
Capitalism is the enemy of every dictatorship, because capitalism improves the life of the individual not the collective. Dumbass

 

[Theowl32]

Any stupid liberal list a shit hole?

What racists

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Go ahead, we are interested in hearing these wonderful successes.

Please, list the countries.

There are no true AnCaps.

???

 

[playtime]

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

no, see official dictionaries do not do that. they print official definitions based on officially recognized terms from officially recognized sources..

but, you see.... i have seen you post opinions from the likes of breitbart & gateway pundit as if they were facts, so the very idea that you would know officially recognized anything is absurd.

What is this "official" source of definitions you're talking about it? What is the name of the dept of word definitions?

There is no "official" definition of any word, moron. Dictionaries decide on definition by looking at how words are used in widely published books, magazines, web sites and newspapers.

You pretend you know something about dictionaries, but you just proved you're an ignoramus and a blowhard.

webster's, oxford, etc do not define words based on the mere 'usage' of words. if they do duplicate what is written elsewhere it would be from BOOKS that ARE published from experts in the fields of origin. ie

legal terms, medical terms & the like. your idea of 'experts' are goons who hawk rag mags.

 

[playtime]

look little asswipe- straight from webster's dictionary. you know.... a DICTIONARY? you didn't even bother to see what the source was. my my- thanx for showing the class exactly why president tribblehead loves the poorly educated.

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

no, see official dictionaries do not do that. they print official definitions based on officially recognized terms from officially recognized sources..

but, you see.... i have seen you post opinions from the likes of breitbart & gateway pundit as if they were facts, so the very idea that you would know officially recognized anything is absurd.

Says someone who trusts the federal government... lol

says someone who is also poorly educated.

 

[bripat9643]

Dictionaries simply report how morons like you use a term. That doesn't make it rational or coherent.

don'tcha mean officially recognized definitions that all forms of higher education accepts as truth & fact?

no asswipe, you wouldn't know that for the very obvious reason i explained earlier.

i'll bet you think wikipedia is the go to source outside of your alternative factual based rw sites you frequent.

Accepting dictionary terms irregardless of what experts say is what morons like you do.

As for wikipedia, if the subject is political in any way, I assume the entry is a lie.

no, see official dictionaries do not do that. they print official definitions based on officially recognized terms from officially recognized sources..

but, you see.... i have seen you post opinions from the likes of breitbart & gateway pundit as if they were facts, so the very idea that you would know officially recognized anything is absurd.

What is this "official" source of definitions you're talking about it? What is the name of the dept of word definitions?

There is no "official" definition of any word, moron. Dictionaries decide on definition by looking at how words are used in widely published books, magazines, web sites and newspapers.

You pretend you know something about dictionaries, but you just proved you're an ignoramus and a blowhard.

webster's, oxford, etc do not define words based on the mere 'usage' of words. if they do duplicate what is written elsewhere it would be from BOOKS that ARE published from experts in the fields of origin. ie

legal terms, medical terms & the like. your idea of 'experts' are goons who hawk rag mags.

So who are these "official" sources of definitions for terms like "fake news," and "socialism?"