Your view on Socialism/Communism/Liberalism

[regent]

In a hungry Venezuela, buying too much food can get you arrested

BARQUISIMETO, Venezuela – The hunt for food started at 4 a.m., when Alexis Camascaro woke up to get in line outside the supermarket. By the time he arrived, there were already 100 people ahead of him.

This happens every time when Socialism/Communism gets a hold on a country. Good ole Joe will be first in line, and buy up all the food, so he can sell it to the rest of US for obscene profits. Liberals love to screw over their fellow citizens, it is just their nature.

So of all the types of socialism how many were supposed to lead to communism?
Why did the USSR drop socialism and then communism a few years after their revolution?
Has any nation ever practiced Marx?

 

[JoeB131]

When you understand this, you see why liberals love to smoke dope, and sit in their parents basement, not having to use the grey matter that is above the shoulders. It is much easier for them to have others provide for them, which is why Socialism/Communism is so attractive. Problem is as with the USSR, and now Venezuela, when the money is gone, because NO ONE wants to work, then everyone finally is equal. Equally poor and equally miserable.

Guy, you can keep repeating this crap, but it just exposes your ignorance.

The USSR didn't fail because of Communism. It failed because the 60% of Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.

Venezuela didn't fail because of Socialism. It failed because its entire economy was based on one commodity- Oil.

Otherwise, THIS wouldn't be happening.

https://thinkprogress.org/why-175-o...-go-bankrupt-this-year-9003cd1932e#.t8vcbp6ob

The report, published Tuesday by consulting and business services firm Deloitte, looked at more than 500 oil and natural gas exploration and production companies worldwide. It found that 175 of the companies — or nearly 35 percent — were at high risk of going bankrupt, due largely to low oil prices. Together, these companies have more than $150 billion in debt.

 

[owebo]

When you understand this, you see why liberals love to smoke dope, and sit in their parents basement, not having to use the grey matter that is above the shoulders. It is much easier for them to have others provide for them, which is why Socialism/Communism is so attractive. Problem is as with the USSR, and now Venezuela, when the money is gone, because NO ONE wants to work, then everyone finally is equal. Equally poor and equally miserable.

Guy, you can keep repeating this crap, but it just exposes your ignorance.

The USSR didn't fail because of Communism. It failed because the 60% of Not Russians got tired of the Russians telling them what to do.

Venezuela didn't fail because of Socialism. It failed because its entire economy was based on one commodity- Oil.

Otherwise, THIS wouldn't be happening.

https://thinkprogress.org/why-175-o...-go-bankrupt-this-year-9003cd1932e#.t8vcbp6ob

The report, published Tuesday by consulting and business services firm Deloitte, looked at more than 500 oil and natural gas exploration and production companies worldwide. It found that 175 of the companies — or nearly 35 percent — were at high risk of going bankrupt, due largely to low oil prices. Together, these companies have more than $150 billion in debt.

You mean they failed because of socialism.....

 

[JoeB131]

You mean they failed because of socialism.....

Cleetus, go back to your home skule teacher and have her help you with the big words...

 

[owebo]

You mean they failed because of socialism.....

Cleetus, go back to your home skule teacher and have her help you with the big words...

OK Adolf....

 

[dblack]

I don't have a problem with socialism/liberalism/communism as long as they are voluntary.

Oxymoron: They can only be imposed by force.

Who forced the framers to write the liberal Constitution?

It's amazing how much the term 'liberal' has changed since then. It used to be directly related to liberty.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

You mean they failed because of socialism.....

Cleetus, go back to your home skule teacher and have her help you with the big words...

The Havana high life, before Castro and the Revolution

1920s-1950s Living the Havana High Life

Now, not all people were doing well off in Cuba during that period. In the story, there were sugar cane workers that only were employed 4 months out of the year and the rest of the year , unemployed and angry. So why didn't the sugar cane workers try to make their lives better by getting other skills? Because like Joe, they sat on their fat asses, bitched and moaned that somebody come save them, then when Fidel took over, NOW everyone was like those sugar cane workers, equally poor and equally miserable. Ah yes, when liberals get in charge soon that country fails, because the Dictator in Charge, makes all the rich people leave. Just like the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba and any other Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Liberal/Progressive country soon that country will be dirt poor and bankrupt, where long lines just to get food happen.


Notice that when Joe, starts to lose the argument(gets his ass handed to him) he resorts to the typical liberal playbook, and throws out insults? It is just his liberal way. What a retard Joe is.

 

[Votto]

Governments are like stars.

They grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen.

They either explode or are so massive they collapse on themselves and form a life sucking black hole from which nothing around it escapes.

Nuff said.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I don't have a problem with socialism/liberalism/communism as long as they are voluntary.

Oxymoron: They can only be imposed by force.

Who forced the framers to write the liberal Constitution?

It's amazing how much the term 'liberal' has changed since then. It used to be directly related to liberty.

What Is Classical Liberalism?

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety.

When the KKK members who visited the White House back when Woodrow Wilson was president, realized that if something wasn't done to change the persona of the left, they would never be in the presidency, so Woodrow through propaganda, started having liberalism, morphed into the new liberalism/progressivism/Marxism/socialism/communism. Each time it was figured out how bad the people behind the name was, they would change it to make it look better, but in the end, the results were the same. Which is why the term conservatism, was the new term for classical liberalism, so not to be confused with the LEFT WING NUT JOBS, like Joe.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Governments are like stars.

They grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen.

They either explode or are so massive they collapse on themselves and form a life sucking black hole from which nothing around it escapes.

Nuff said.

Dow 100,000? It could happen, says one of the stock market’s biggest bears

“They could essentially monetize everything, and then you have state ownership. And through the central banking system, you introduce socialism and communism, which is state ownership of production and consumption. I don’t think the central bankers are intelligent and smart enough to understand the consequences of their monetary policies at present.”

And the imminent devastation.

“I suppose the system will collapse before we become like Venezuela. In the West, if they start to print money, the end game will be brief. Within five years, I expect the system to implode.”

If this happens, a lot of people are going to die, not only of starvation, but of the rioting that will result. Bad for the liberals is that they don't like guns, and that will be the only thing to stop the looters.

 

[JoeB131]

Now, not all people were doing well off in Cuba during that period. In the story, there were sugar cane workers that only were employed 4 months out of the year and the rest of the year , unemployed and angry. So why didn't the sugar cane workers try to make their lives better by getting other skills? Because like Joe, they sat on their fat asses, bitched and moaned that somebody come save them, then when Fidel took over, NOW everyone was like those sugar cane workers, equally poor and equally miserable.

Wow, guy, you are a ******* idiot. Maybe you need to read about what Cuba was like under Batista. How 75% of the arable land was owned by foreigners. Or as JFK Said right before Ted Cruz's Dad shot him...

"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."—U.S. President John F. Kennedy, interview with Jean Daniel, 24 October 1963[27]

Wow. Just Wow. Imagine an American politician admitting this today!

But, no,no, Cuba is miserable because SOcialism, not because the United States waged a SIXTY YEAR economic war on them.

Ah yes, when liberals get in charge soon that country fails,

Funny, the only fail I've seen is when your boy George W. Stupid took a thriving economy and gave us the worst recession in 80 years...

Notice that when Joe, starts to lose the argument(gets his ass handed to him) he resorts to the typical liberal playbook, and throws out insults? It is just his liberal way. What a retard Joe is.

Who said you were winning the argument. Repeating the same angry shit you heard on Hate Radio isn't winning an argument, Cleetus. Now, I realize a lot of this kind of information has been deviously hidden from you inside things called "Books", but maybe if you picked one up.

(You see, that's what a clever insult looks like.)

When the KKK members who visited the White House back when Woodrow Wilson was president, realized that if something wasn't done to change the persona of the left, they would never be in the presidency, so Woodrow through propaganda, started having liberalism, morphed into the new liberalism/progressivism/Marxism/socialism/communism.

Wow. Seriously? You know, I was only joking about the Home Schooling, but Im starting to wonder if I hit the mark.

Okay, first, no Klan Members visited the White House when Wilson was President. The second incarnation of the Klan was only a small local organization until 1921, after Wilson left office and Harding got in. (Stories about Wilson praising Birth of a Nation were apocraphal.) When it went national, it had it's tentacles in both parties. It was more the result of nativism after WWI failed to make the world a better place like everyone promised.

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meanwhile, the Progressive movement could really be said to have begun much sooner than that. Teddy Roosevelt ran as the PROGRESSIVE (Bull Moose) Candiate in 1912- Well before the Klan came back. So what actually happened- Progressives who fought for workers rights and ending unbridled capitalism found they had no home in the GOP after Taft and went to the Democrats.

 

[Votto]

Governments are like stars.

They grow bigger, and bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen.

They either explode or are so massive they collapse on themselves and form a life sucking black hole from which nothing around it escapes.

Nuff said.

Dow 100,000? It could happen, says one of the stock market’s biggest bears

“They could essentially monetize everything, and then you have state ownership. And through the central banking system, you introduce socialism and communism, which is state ownership of production and consumption. I don’t think the central bankers are intelligent and smart enough to understand the consequences of their monetary policies at present.”

And the imminent devastation.

“I suppose the system will collapse before we become like Venezuela. In the West, if they start to print money, the end game will be brief. Within five years, I expect the system to implode.”

If this happens, a lot of people are going to die, not only of starvation, but of the rioting that will result. Bad for the liberals is that they don't like guns, and that will be the only thing to stop the looters.

If it does happen, it will be Bush's fault.

Then they will create an even less free system to enslave us.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I don't have a problem with socialism/liberalism/communism as long as they are voluntary.

Oxymoron: They can only be imposed by force.

Who forced the framers to write the liberal Constitution?

It's amazing how much the term 'liberal' has changed since then. It used to be directly related to liberty.

The problem is there are two aspects of liberalism : the social one and the economic one.
I tend to agree with libertarians on social issues and can agree with them on some economic issues ( e.g Hayek).

Conservatives : I find there is very little common ground and few things in which I can agree with them or even conceede they are right. The most extreme cases I've seen : people who consider themselves "right winged" but make use of medicare / medicaid... go figure.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I don't have a problem with socialism/liberalism/communism as long as they are voluntary.

Oxymoron: They can only be imposed by force.

Who forced the framers to write the liberal Constitution?

It's amazing how much the term 'liberal' has changed since then. It used to be directly related to liberty.

The problem is there are two aspects of liberalism : the social one and the economic one.
I tend to agree with libertarians on social issues and can agree with them on some economic issues ( e.g Hayek).

Conservatives : I find there is very little common ground and few things in which I can agree with them or even conceede they are right. The most extreme cases I've seen : people who consider themselves "right winged" but make use of medicare / medicaid... go figure.

People who mostly work, have put in money into Medicare / Medicaid over the years. Now Medicaid is used by states to give medical services for those less fortunate(or just scumbags) who cant find a job. For the scumbags, why should they get the privilege to use something they normally would be able to pay into, if they got off their asses and worked?
Medicare is for those who were lucky enough to retire(but since liberal taxed Social Security) and Obamacare stole 780 billion dollars from it, why should someone who never put a dime in both, but they receive both?
I find it deplorable that people spend all their money, thinking they wont live past 60, then at 80 complain that they don't have enough to live on.

 

[JoeB131]

People who mostly work, have put in money into Medicare / Medicaid over the years. Now Medicaid is used by states to give medical services for those less fortunate(or just scumbags) who cant find a job. For the scumbags, why should they get the privilege to use something they normally would be able to pay into, if they got off their asses and worked?
Medicare is for those who were lucky enough to retire(but since liberal taxed Social Security) and Obamacare stole 780 billion dollars from it, why should someone who never put a dime in both, but they receive both?
I find it deplorable that people spend all their money, thinking they wont live past 60, then at 80 complain that they don't have enough to live on.

I find it deplorable that we have people who've worked all their lives, and Republicans want to give away their retirement to pay for tax cuts for rich people.

But you think that's fine.

Okay, reality check Medicaid was ALWAYS designed to be there for poor people.

MediCare is still there for the elderly. But Republicans have let scams like Medicare Part C and Part D loot it for big insurance and big pharma...

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

People who mostly work, have put in money into Medicare / Medicaid over the years. Now Medicaid is used by states to give medical services for those less fortunate(or just scumbags) who cant find a job. For the scumbags, why should they get the privilege to use something they normally would be able to pay into, if they got off their asses and worked?
Medicare is for those who were lucky enough to retire(but since liberal taxed Social Security) and Obamacare stole 780 billion dollars from it, why should someone who never put a dime in both, but they receive both?
I find it deplorable that people spend all their money, thinking they wont live past 60, then at 80 complain that they don't have enough to live on.

I find it deplorable that we have people who've worked all their lives, and Republicans want to give away their retirement to pay for tax cuts for rich people.

But you think that's fine.

Okay, reality check Medicaid was ALWAYS designed to be there for poor people.

MediCare is still there for the elderly. But Republicans have let scams like Medicare Part C and Part D loot it for big insurance and big pharma...

Do you know why tax cuts work for everyone except the poor, Joe?
1 Wealthy people pay the most tax revenues in the US. Don't they deserve a break?
2. Middleclass, though not as rich, can use that extra money every year, so they can enjoy life?
3. The poor, who get earned income tax credits, already get a tax break, why should they get more, are they selfish?

Joe you are probably one of those who sit in your parents basement, smoking dope, and watching Netflix on your parents account. The way you complain about working people, just confirms why you act the way you do, but since you love Socialism/Communism and hate capitalism, do you think those in Venezuela are doing well, when no one has money? I have to pay over $60,000 a year in Federal and State taxes, isn't that enough? How much do you pay in a year? Or do you get EITC?

 

[JoeB131]

Do you know why tax cuts work for everyone except the poor, Joe?
1 Wealthy people pay the most tax revenues in the US. Don't they deserve a break?

Nope. They need to pay their fair share, because the country works better when they do.

2. Middleclass, though not as rich, can use that extra money every year, so they can enjoy life?

Except that money never "Trickles down". The reality is, whatever pittance the middle class gets is usually eaten up when states and municipalities have to raise taxes or cut services...Case in point... IL raised it's income tax from 3% to 5%.

3. The poor, who get earned income tax credits, already get a tax break, why should they get more, are they selfish?

It would be better if we gave them a fair wage... but that's just me.

The way you complain about working people,

I don't complain about working people. I complain about rich people. Again, only i your bizarro world is Paris Hilton a "Job Creator".

Oh, duly noted that you didn't understand the concept that Medicaid was always a poverty program, and that Medicare is for the elderly. One can only conclude you are ignorant.

here's the thing, most entitlements - what we spend the most money on - are MIDDLE CLASS entitlements, not welfare.

Social Security, MediCare and Unemployment Insurance, fat checks middle class people get from the mean old government because let's be honest, they generally suck at putting money to the side for these sorts of things.

If you Wingnuts ever called for eliminating THOSE programs so Romney Warbucks could buy another Dressage Horse, you'd be done.

But hint that some of that money is going to poor not-white people, and dumb-ass racist crackers like you will happily slit your own throats.

 

[dblack]

I don't have a problem with socialism/liberalism/communism as long as they are voluntary.

Oxymoron: They can only be imposed by force.

Who forced the framers to write the liberal Constitution?

It's amazing how much the term 'liberal' has changed since then. It used to be directly related to liberty.

The problem is there are two aspects of liberalism : the social one and the economic one.
I tend to agree with libertarians on social issues and can agree with them on some economic issues ( e.g Hayek).

The problem is that the concept of equality, as embodied by liberalism, has changed. Initially, liberalism was concerned with equality under the law: the idea that everyone, regardless of their status or socio-economic class, is held to the same laws and rules of due process. But this has been replaced with the notion is that everyone should have equal power in society, which can't be pursued as a goal without sacrificing equal protection. If we're going to use government to override society's distribution of economic power, the state will necessarily be treating different classes of people differently.

Conservatives : I find there is very little common ground and few things in which I can agree with them or even concede they are right. The most extreme cases I've seen : people who consider themselves "right winged" but make use of medicare / medicaid... go figure.

As an aside, I wonder if you can understand how this sounds to someone with principled objections to the welfare state? It's probably not taken as you imagine.

I suppose this jab aims at the stereotypical "stingy" Republican, misguided "individualists" who pretend they can do it all themselves. Pointing out their reliance on help from others, especially in the form of state programs they oppose, must feel like rubbing their noses in it. Especially when it comes to pompous windbags who like to look down their noses at the poor.

But most people, even most people who oppose the welfare state, aren't rich and know damned well that they can't do it alone. They just don't want government in charge of their social safety net. They, rightly or wrongly, think they'd be better off without the state interfering. So when government forces the issue, and interferes anyway, are they supposed to just pay their taxes and forgo the benefits that the taxes are paying for? How does that make any sense? They're not being hypocritical when they try to recoup their losses. And when they hear statists gloating about it as though they are, it just seems cruel and sadistic.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Joe hates it when you show his dad. And as for sitting in their parents basement, Joe, get out once in a while, actually go find a job in Obama's roaring economic recovery, stop eating that government cheese, and use your parents Netflix account. You sorry ass bastards, need to stop mooching off your parents and let them have a life. Damn Joe, Obamacare didn't have your parents healthcare cover you at 52.

Uh, guy, my dad (a guy who served in World War II) died in 1981. He managed to survive the war, but some corporate ********** you worship told him the asbestos he worked with was perfectly safe and not at all carcinogenic.

I have a job and a reasonably successful small business, thanks.

The thing is, if you look at the maps, most of the welfare is going to the Red States..

So let's review, shall we.

Wow, most of the food stamps are going to the Red States. Imagine that.

Oh, wait, let's look at the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Shit... why don't you Red State types get jobs and stop mooching off the rest of us?

Oh cook cook county illinois makes up 17% of people on food stamps, who would of thought?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I don't have a problem with socialism/liberalism/communism as long as they are voluntary.

Oxymoron: They can only be imposed by force.

Who forced the framers to write the liberal Constitution?

It's amazing how much the term 'liberal' has changed since then. It used to be directly related to liberty.

The problem is there are two aspects of liberalism : the social one and the economic one.
I tend to agree with libertarians on social issues and can agree with them on some economic issues ( e.g Hayek).

The problem is that the concept of equality, as embodied by liberalism, has changed. Initially, liberalism was concerned with equality under the law: the idea that everyone, regardless of their status or socio-economic class, is held to the same laws and rules of due process. But this has been replaced with the notion is that everyone should have equal power in society, which can't be pursued as a goal without sacrificing equal protection. If we're going to use government to override society's distribution of economic power, the state will necessarily be treating different classes of people differently.

Conservatives : I find there is very little common ground and few things in which I can agree with them or even concede they are right. The most extreme cases I've seen : people who consider themselves "right winged" but make use of medicare / medicaid... go figure.

As an aside, I wonder if you can understand how this sounds to someone with principled objections to the welfare state? It's probably not taken as you imagine.

I suppose this jab aims at the stereotypical "stingy" Republican, misguided "individualists" who pretend they can do it all themselves. Pointing out their reliance on help from others, especially in the form of state programs they oppose, must feel like rubbing their noses in it. Especially when it comes to pompous windbags who like to look down their noses at the poor.

But most people, even most people who oppose the welfare state, aren't rich and know damned well that they can't do it alone. They just don't want government in charge of their social safety net. They, rightly or wrongly, think they'd be better off without the state interfering. So when government forces the issue, and interferes anyway, are they supposed to just pay their taxes and forgo the benefits that the taxes are paying for? How does that make any sense? They're not being hypocritical when they try to recoup their losses. And when they hear statists gloating about it as though they are, it just seems cruel and sadistic.

Well, actually one of my friends didn't consider social security as "left winged" until I pointed the fact and then added: well, I am not exactly rich. The other one just grinded his teeth .
They need it, they use it, but they want it gone. What about the other 20% which are even poorer than them?

My answer to them : there are people poorer than you which have even more need of those services and you want them dismantled? They went completely mute.

Both Hayek and Friedman were in favour of a government provided safety net through a minimum income.
What is your idea of a safety net which is not provided by the government?