When Lefties pitch Socialism do they realize what decent people hear?

[Rustic]

I am not forced to pay?

Taxes are not voluntary despite what you may think.

They are voluntary --- you just have to be willing to risk being sent to prison, but if you are really true to your principles, you will make that stand like a true Libertarian

How dare the government have a monopolization of force right?

When the coercive force of the state, imprisonment, is the hammer to force compliance then referring to taxes as voluntary is simply a lie.

Don't be a coward, stand up for your beliefs

Ali went to jail for his beliefs, he became a hero

Why don't you become a hero to pseudo-libertarians everywhere?

Maybe you can inspire them to believe that a libertarian government can actually work -- even tho a libertarian government has never existed in history

...but with your help, you can make them believe again

Why do you stand up for your goose-stepping beliefs and start the communist revolution?

Oh, that’s right. We still have guns. You’re scared of our guns.

What are you going to do with those guns, loser?

Nothing.


Maybe you should have invested those thousands you've spent in guns, ammo and prepper supplies in bettering yourself so as to function better in society.

Says a control freak

 

[Rustic]

I am not forced to pay?

Taxes are not voluntary despite what you may think.

They are voluntary --- you just have to be willing to risk being sent to prison, but if you are really true to your principles, you will make that stand like a true Libertarian

How dare the government have a monopolization of force right?

When the coercive force of the state, imprisonment, is the hammer to force compliance then referring to taxes as voluntary is simply a lie.

Don't be a coward, stand up for your beliefs

Ali went to jail for his beliefs, he became a hero

Why don't you become a hero to pseudo-libertarians everywhere?

Maybe you can inspire them to believe that a libertarian government can actually work -- even tho a libertarian government has never existed in history

...but with your help, you can make them believe again

Why do you stand up for your goose-stepping beliefs and start the communist revolution?

Oh, that’s right. We still have guns. You’re scared of our guns.

What are you going to do with those guns, loser?

Nothing.


Maybe you should have invested those thousands you've spent in guns, ammo and prepper supplies in bettering yourself so as to function better in society.

**** the collective

 

[Rustic]

Forced death and starvation then?

Why do you begrudge those less fortunate than yourself? Why do you have disdain for their struggles?

Why do youand those less valuable have such distain for our success?

Commie

I'm quite successful, dope. So much so, that I'm not concerned about SS or Medicare at all.

Well, I will never see a penny of what I’ve paid into Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately it was just a total waste of resources and time for me to pay them to them bullshit socialist entitlement programs...
They are fraudulent at best

 

[Rustic]

That being said I don't think your idea to give the bottom rung something is necessarily a bad one, but there must be some conditions... and it can't be the leftist style shake down where the bottom and upper classes aim to destroy the middle.

Well, there's always options. I'm all for guarding against going too far, for trying to avoid needlessly addicting people - generations - to government assistance.

It's a complicated matter, and complicated matters require collaboration and creativity if they're going to last. Swinging back and forth with each election gets us nowhere. At some point we have to get past our egos and decide to work together on this and other issues.
.

It also requires wages that grow with the economy.

Wages can’t and won’t grow when a nation is flooded with tens of millions of low grade, low iQ thirdworlders that can’t even speak the native language. Third graders know this. You can’t have it all people...someday you’ll realize that something has to give. This isn’t trivial.

You are truly damaged, dude.

Obviously all wages are not affected in the way you've suggested.

The nanny state always runs out of other peoples money....

 

[Norman]

Forced death and starvation then?

Why do you begrudge those less fortunate than yourself? Why do you have disdain for their struggles?

Why do youand those less valuable have such distain for our success?

Commie

I'm quite successful, dope. So much so, that I'm not concerned about SS or Medicare at all.

Well, I will never see a penny of what I’ve paid into Social Security and Medicare. Unfortunately it was just a total waste of resources and time for me to pay them to them bullshit socialist entitlement programs...
They are fraudulent at best

They are treason against the American people in an attempt to please the short sighted zombie horde that the democrat party so much loves.

No one from the more recent generations will see a shit from these scams.

 

[Rustic]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

If they gave a shit about decent people they wouldn’t push socialist notions.

Yeah . Don’t you just hate the VA? Lazy ass ex military folks need to get their own insurance like the rest of us!

Quit falling down the well, insurance is not healthcare… Get your head out of your ass

Then why do y’all cry that Obamacare is socialized medicine?

Socialized medicine is fraudulent at best

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am not forced to pay?

Taxes are not voluntary despite what you may think.

They are voluntary --- you just have to be willing to risk being sent to prison, but if you are really true to your principles, you will make that stand like a true Libertarian

How dare the government have a monopolization of force right?

When the coercive force of the state, imprisonment, is the hammer to force compliance then referring to taxes as voluntary is simply a lie.

Don't be a coward, stand up for your beliefs

Ali went to jail for his beliefs, he became a hero

Why don't you become a hero to pseudo-libertarians everywhere?

Maybe you can inspire them to believe that a libertarian government can actually work -- even tho a libertarian government has never existed in history

...but with your help, you can make them believe again

Why do you stand up for your goose-stepping beliefs and start the communist revolution?

Oh, that’s right. We still have guns. You’re scared of our guns.

What are you going to do with those guns, loser?

Nothing.


Maybe you should have invested those thousands you've spent in guns, ammo and prepper supplies in bettering yourself so as to function better in society.

It's not what we're gonna do. It's what your commie ass is NOT gonna do.

You won't do SHIT as long as we're armed and you ******* know it.

 

[bripat9643]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

Marx is decent people.


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

There really wouldn’t be any problem with socialism if it did not force everybody into the shit... But that is not how Socialism works if forces everybody whether they want to be part of it or not into the collective. So **** your village

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

The laws of economics are not the product of public opinion. That claim goes against logic.

 

[bripat9643]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

That’s your spin huh...you sticking with that?
I think we all know most don’t have a problem taking care of our elderly whom have paid their dues.
Why don’t you go ahead and try again.

Do you pay taxes to support schools? I do. Uet I have no children. Do I think my tax dollars have been unfairly confiscated? I do not. Because I would rather have the kids in school developing their skills and being made ready to enter society as productive citizens than have them poorly taught and become an incurious rabble.

We can't help it if you and the rest of the socialist cattle want to be slaughtered. The fact is government schools are where the government loots the innocent to pay for the brainwashing of their own children. There is no institution in American more corrupt or insidious than government run education.

Do you pay taxes to support community facilities like,parks, libraries or meeting halls? I do. Do I think my tax dollars are being unfairly confiscated for things I might not use? I do not. Because I think the increase in quality of life and property values is worth my taxes.

We all pay taxes, numskull. Property developers build recreations facilities in the communities they create. We don't need government to increase our property values.

So I think that healthcare and education are vital for our national vitality? Absolutely. Because no citizen should go bankrupt because the healthcare she needs is too expensive or worse, unavailable.

Really? Why not? You think it's perfectly OK to go bankrupt paying for lawyers because you happen to have worked in the Trump campaign at some point in your life. Why is it OK to go bankrupt for one reason, but not the other?

You can call it spin. But you also should defend why you think our health and education should be available only to those who can afford it. Is it that the right of the people is the wealthy have the right to horde their wealth while the rest of America's citizen have the right to live precariously?

The wealthy do have the right to keep what they earn. The claim that they don't is the battle cry of a thug. Life is inherently risky. There is no moral principle that says someone else has to pay to relieve you of that risk. That's your job, not theirs.

The wealthy do have the right to keep what they earn
Let them eat cake.
That didn't turn out so well for them, though, even though it was their right?
Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

So you believe taxation is extortion money paid to thugs? I agree.

 

[Tehon]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

Marx is decent people.


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

There really wouldn’t be any problem with socialism if it did not force everybody into the shit... But that is not how Socialism works if forces everybody whether they want to be part of it or not into the collective. So **** your village

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

The laws of economics are not the product of public opinion. That claim goes against logic.

Why don't the laws apply equally in all countries?

 

[bripat9643]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

Marx is decent people.


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

There really wouldn’t be any problem with socialism if it did not force everybody into the shit... But that is not how Socialism works if forces everybody whether they want to be part of it or not into the collective. So **** your village

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

The laws of economics are not the product of public opinion. That claim goes against logic.

Why don't the laws apply equally in all countries?

They do. Why do you believe they don't?

 

[Tehon]

Marx is decent people.


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

There really wouldn’t be any problem with socialism if it did not force everybody into the shit... But that is not how Socialism works if forces everybody whether they want to be part of it or not into the collective. So **** your village

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

The laws of economics are not the product of public opinion. That claim goes against logic.

Why don't the laws apply equally in all countries?

They do. Why do you believe they don't?

Because the socioeconomic reality in America is not the same as it is in any other country.
Canada, as an example, has a different health care system than we do.

 

[bripat9643]

There really wouldn’t be any problem with socialism if it did not force everybody into the shit... But that is not how Socialism works if forces everybody whether they want to be part of it or not into the collective. So **** your village

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

The laws of economics are not the product of public opinion. That claim goes against logic.

Why don't the laws apply equally in all countries?

They do. Why do you believe they don't?

Because the socioeconomic reality in America is not the same as it is in any other country.
Canada, as an example, has a different health care system than we do.

They both follow the laws of economics. When you establish a monopoly, the price goes up and the service goes down.

 

[Tehon]

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

The laws of economics are not the product of public opinion. That claim goes against logic.

Why don't the laws apply equally in all countries?

They do. Why do you believe they don't?

Because the socioeconomic reality in America is not the same as it is in any other country.
Canada, as an example, has a different health care system than we do.

They both follow the laws of economics. When you establish a monopoly, the price goes up and the service goes down.

Enjoy your red herring.
That has nothing to do with society determining its socioeconomic reality.

 

[skews13]

Don't have to. We already have Kandsa

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

Sounds like it might works.

Let's make a bargain.

Let's get rid of the federal government and the federal reserve, do away with it all together, abolition it entirely.

We'll let the states take over, like 50 seperate nations, doing what ever they like, for say, fifty years.

We'll see how that works. At the end of it, if things are not going any better. . . . We'll take the best of what the states are doing with their socialism, and take the best of all the socialism we see in Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc., hell, maybe we can make a one world socialist state by then.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't "capitalism," or "socialism," I have a sneaking suspcious that the real problem is government.

See, the wealth inequality, the labor force participation rate, and all these problems the government tries to fix but only makes worse? I have a feeling, it will all get so much better once we just get rid of it all.

Less levels of government, less income inequality, less corruption.

Any town, county, city or state that wants to be socialist?

More power to them.


And like I said, at the end of this fifty year experiment? If having no central government or no central bank makes things better? Well, we can go full on crazy in the opposite direction, we can have your one world socialist bank and government.


The only reason I think we should go with no government first, is we all know how difficult it is to cut as opposed to create laws. Once we create a socialist system, it is going to be for good.

Don't have to. We already have Kansas as a recent example, and unfettered capitalism, with cuts to the social safety net, and trickle down tax cuts for the rich has been a proven disaster, has been rejected by the citizens, and one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country rejected the Governors veto by over riding it by a large margin.

 

[Rustic]

Don't have to. We already have Kandsa

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

Sounds like it might works.

Let's make a bargain.

Let's get rid of the federal government and the federal reserve, do away with it all together, abolition it entirely.

We'll let the states take over, like 50 seperate nations, doing what ever they like, for say, fifty years.

We'll see how that works. At the end of it, if things are not going any better. . . . We'll take the best of what the states are doing with their socialism, and take the best of all the socialism we see in Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc., hell, maybe we can make a one world socialist state by then.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't "capitalism," or "socialism," I have a sneaking suspcious that the real problem is government.

See, the wealth inequality, the labor force participation rate, and all these problems the government tries to fix but only makes worse? I have a feeling, it will all get so much better once we just get rid of it all.

Less levels of government, less income inequality, less corruption.

Any town, county, city or state that wants to be socialist?

More power to them.


And like I said, at the end of this fifty year experiment? If having no central government or no central bank makes things better? Well, we can go full on crazy in the opposite direction, we can have your one world socialist bank and government.


The only reason I think we should go with no government first, is we all know how difficult it is to cut as opposed to create laws. Once we create a socialist system, it is going to be for good.

Don't have to. We already have Kansas as a recent example, and unfettered capitalism, with cuts to the social safety net, and trickle down tax cuts for the rich has been a proven disaster, has been rejected by the citizens, and one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country rejected the Governors veto by over riding it by a large margin.

Food stamps provide no good things for the average American, except someone else paying for someone else’s shit

 

[Nosmo King]

Don't have to. We already have Kandsa

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

Sounds like it might works.

Let's make a bargain.

Let's get rid of the federal government and the federal reserve, do away with it all together, abolition it entirely.

We'll let the states take over, like 50 seperate nations, doing what ever they like, for say, fifty years.

We'll see how that works. At the end of it, if things are not going any better. . . . We'll take the best of what the states are doing with their socialism, and take the best of all the socialism we see in Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc., hell, maybe we can make a one world socialist state by then.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't "capitalism," or "socialism," I have a sneaking suspcious that the real problem is government.

See, the wealth inequality, the labor force participation rate, and all these problems the government tries to fix but only makes worse? I have a feeling, it will all get so much better once we just get rid of it all.

Less levels of government, less income inequality, less corruption.

Any town, county, city or state that wants to be socialist?

More power to them.


And like I said, at the end of this fifty year experiment? If having no central government or no central bank makes things better? Well, we can go full on crazy in the opposite direction, we can have your one world socialist bank and government.


The only reason I think we should go with no government first, is we all know how difficult it is to cut as opposed to create laws. Once we create a socialist system, it is going to be for good.

Don't have to. We already have Kansas as a recent example, and unfettered capitalism, with cuts to the social safety net, and trickle down tax cuts for the rich has been a proven disaster, has been rejected by the citizens, and one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country rejected the Governors veto by over riding it by a large margin.

Food stamps provide no good things for the average American, except someone else paying for someone else’s shit

Is America better if some Americans can't feed their families? Is making Americans suffer hunger part of making America great again?

Do you pay taxes for parks? If you don't use the parks system, isn't that someone else (you) paying for someone else's stuff? If you have no children, should you pay school taxes?

 

[Thinker101]

Don't have to. We already have Kandsa

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

Sounds like it might works.

Let's make a bargain.

Let's get rid of the federal government and the federal reserve, do away with it all together, abolition it entirely.

We'll let the states take over, like 50 seperate nations, doing what ever they like, for say, fifty years.

We'll see how that works. At the end of it, if things are not going any better. . . . We'll take the best of what the states are doing with their socialism, and take the best of all the socialism we see in Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc., hell, maybe we can make a one world socialist state by then.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't "capitalism," or "socialism," I have a sneaking suspcious that the real problem is government.

See, the wealth inequality, the labor force participation rate, and all these problems the government tries to fix but only makes worse? I have a feeling, it will all get so much better once we just get rid of it all.

Less levels of government, less income inequality, less corruption.

Any town, county, city or state that wants to be socialist?

More power to them.


And like I said, at the end of this fifty year experiment? If having no central government or no central bank makes things better? Well, we can go full on crazy in the opposite direction, we can have your one world socialist bank and government.


The only reason I think we should go with no government first, is we all know how difficult it is to cut as opposed to create laws. Once we create a socialist system, it is going to be for good.

Don't have to. We already have Kansas as a recent example, and unfettered capitalism, with cuts to the social safety net, and trickle down tax cuts for the rich has been a proven disaster, has been rejected by the citizens, and one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country rejected the Governors veto by over riding it by a large margin.

Food stamps provide no good things for the average American, except someone else paying for someone else’s shit

Is America better if some Americans can't feed their families? Is making Americans suffer hunger part of making America great again?

Do you pay taxes for parks? If you don't use the parks system, isn't that someone else (you) paying for someone else's stuff? If you have no children, should you pay school taxes?

Personally, I'm all for helping legal Americans that are having difficulty feeding their families, it's only those that decide to make a career of it that I have a problem with....and there are plenty.

 

[Nosmo King]

Don't have to. We already have Kandsa

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

Sounds like it might works.

Let's make a bargain.

Let's get rid of the federal government and the federal reserve, do away with it all together, abolition it entirely.

We'll let the states take over, like 50 seperate nations, doing what ever they like, for say, fifty years.

We'll see how that works. At the end of it, if things are not going any better. . . . We'll take the best of what the states are doing with their socialism, and take the best of all the socialism we see in Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc., hell, maybe we can make a one world socialist state by then.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't "capitalism," or "socialism," I have a sneaking suspcious that the real problem is government.

See, the wealth inequality, the labor force participation rate, and all these problems the government tries to fix but only makes worse? I have a feeling, it will all get so much better once we just get rid of it all.

Less levels of government, less income inequality, less corruption.

Any town, county, city or state that wants to be socialist?

More power to them.


And like I said, at the end of this fifty year experiment? If having no central government or no central bank makes things better? Well, we can go full on crazy in the opposite direction, we can have your one world socialist bank and government.


The only reason I think we should go with no government first, is we all know how difficult it is to cut as opposed to create laws. Once we create a socialist system, it is going to be for good.

Don't have to. We already have Kansas as a recent example, and unfettered capitalism, with cuts to the social safety net, and trickle down tax cuts for the rich has been a proven disaster, has been rejected by the citizens, and one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country rejected the Governors veto by over riding it by a large margin.

Food stamps provide no good things for the average American, except someone else paying for someone else’s shit

Is America better if some Americans can't feed their families? Is making Americans suffer hunger part of making America great again?

Do you pay taxes for parks? If you don't use the parks system, isn't that someone else (you) paying for someone else's stuff? If you have no children, should you pay school taxes?

Personally, I'm all for helping legal Americans that are having difficulty feeding their families, it's only those that decide to making a career of it that I have a problem with....and there are plenty.

Are food benefits handed out without checking the eligibility of the recipients?

 

[Thinker101]

Don't have to. We already have Kandsa

Sounds like it might works.

Let's make a bargain.

Let's get rid of the federal government and the federal reserve, do away with it all together, abolition it entirely.

We'll let the states take over, like 50 seperate nations, doing what ever they like, for say, fifty years.

We'll see how that works. At the end of it, if things are not going any better. . . . We'll take the best of what the states are doing with their socialism, and take the best of all the socialism we see in Canada, Europe, Russia, China, etc., hell, maybe we can make a one world socialist state by then.

But I have a sneaking suspicion, the problem isn't "capitalism," or "socialism," I have a sneaking suspcious that the real problem is government.

See, the wealth inequality, the labor force participation rate, and all these problems the government tries to fix but only makes worse? I have a feeling, it will all get so much better once we just get rid of it all.

Less levels of government, less income inequality, less corruption.

Any town, county, city or state that wants to be socialist?

More power to them.


And like I said, at the end of this fifty year experiment? If having no central government or no central bank makes things better? Well, we can go full on crazy in the opposite direction, we can have your one world socialist bank and government.


The only reason I think we should go with no government first, is we all know how difficult it is to cut as opposed to create laws. Once we create a socialist system, it is going to be for good.

Don't have to. We already have Kansas as a recent example, and unfettered capitalism, with cuts to the social safety net, and trickle down tax cuts for the rich has been a proven disaster, has been rejected by the citizens, and one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country rejected the Governors veto by over riding it by a large margin.

Food stamps provide no good things for the average American, except someone else paying for someone else’s shit

Is America better if some Americans can't feed their families? Is making Americans suffer hunger part of making America great again?

Do you pay taxes for parks? If you don't use the parks system, isn't that someone else (you) paying for someone else's stuff? If you have no children, should you pay school taxes?

Personally, I'm all for helping legal Americans that are having difficulty feeding their families, it's only those that decide to making a career of it that I have a problem with....and there are plenty.

Are food benefits handed out without checking the eligibility of the recipients?

Abso---fricken---lutely