Granule (04-25-2012)
"It [the draft] is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS."
-(Midcan5)
"Allow me to masturbate my patriotism furiously and publicly at this opportunity."
-(Ib1yysguy)
"There is no 'equal opportunity' today unless the government makes it so."
-(apple0154 )
"abortion is not killing Its birth control"
-(Desh)
Granule (04-25-2012)
No, the government took control of 60% of GM stock, fired the CEO and replaced him with who they wanted to run the company. Sounds an awful lot like they took over the company, to me.
Again, government passed legislation several years ago, which puts nearly every aspect of American's health care in the hands of government. If you want to play semantics games, that's fine... Marxist Socialists are NEVER honest about their socialist policies.The government didn't take over health care. Health care was failing and the government adjusted the rules of the game.
I never said the EPA and IRS take over industries. I stated that they CONTROL them with various regulations and mandates. Switching the conversation to discuss matters of local public health, which can be (an usually are) dealt with by local officials, is not helping you to refute any point I have made.The EPA and the IRS do not take over industries. They apply laws to industries just like laws are applied to people. If you saw your neighbor doing oil changes as a part time job and dumping the oil on the property line between your place and his wouldn't you want someone to stop him? How would you like it if your trees and hedges started dying and the other neighbors told you to mind your own business and let the guy earn money? Or an industry fracking for gas and having gas coming out of your kitchen tap?
Okay, so you are trying now to prove that socialists are not instigating class warfare socialist strategy by parroting more class warfare rhetoric? That's a strange take, I must say!As for class warfare and the redistribution of money it's already happening. Why do the wealthy pay less income tax on capital gains? Why does it make any difference from where a person gets money? Income is money coming in. All money should be taxed the same. Class warfare is a war against the poor and always has been.
The "wealthy" don't pay less income tax on capital gains. They pay the exact same rate as you and I pay on capital gains. All money should be taxed the same? What about money received by welfare recipients? What about the incomes of 48% of America who are currently not paying ANY income tax? Class warfare is a tool used by Marxists to implement socialist policy. Plain and simple!
Yes, Democrat Marxist Socialists have been hard at work for many decades in this country, implementing Marxist Socialist policies, so it is no surprise a lot of our current system follows the Marxist Socialist model. This is not a reason to continue on the path to Communism. Sorry!Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. What are we going to do with you? The definition of Socialism you posted read, ".... there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism." It would appear any government program would satisfy classifying a government Socialist. As soon as a government offered public transportation they could be considered Socialist.
No, because they do not have a Constitution or Constitutional rights protected by said Constitution, and no authority to enforce breaches to those non-existent rights. Therefore, any 'appearances' of free-market capitalism are mere illusions for show, so that nit wits like yourself, can run around the message boards pointing to them as 'examples' when they really aren't. China and Russia (there is no USSR anymore) are Communist countries, the government has full control over the people and businesses, and they ultimately call all the shots.On the other hand any government that did not control every means of production should be classified as a capitalist government. The USSR and China allow people to run small businesses. Can we classify them both as capitalist countries?
Capitalism doesn't fail, it has NEVER failed, any time it has ever been tried or attempted. It ALWAYS succeeds! The US, up until Obamacare, had the BEST health care system in the entire world. No other health care system has come anywhere close in terms of research, technical advancement, ground-breaking procedures, finding cures, developing vaccines, or treating the indigent. NOTHING the government can ever do, will eliminate all pain and suffering for all people.... just doesn't happen in OUR universe... only in Liberal Utopia, and we can't afford that.What socialist-screaming folks such as yourself fail to acknowledge is governments step in when Capitalism fails. Like, say, medical care run by capitalists when 45,000 people die each year from a lack thereof. Capitalism, free enterprise has been in force since 1776. While it worked very well for certain things 200 years later it's been discovered it is lacking in certain areas. Is it wise to just let shortcomings continue or let governments try to fix them? We know, beyond any doubt, that government supervised medical is preferable to capitalistic medical care. It has been proven in dozens of situations. In fact, there is not one exception. So the question is, "Why are you against progress?"
Granule (04-25-2012)
Poor apple, too fucking clueless to even comprehend what point \\||/// FAILED at making with his links. You see, in another thread, I said that Mitt Romney was the only man on the face of the planet who could legitimately prevent Obama from serving another 4 years. So now, bird-brains has dug up a bunch of threads where I supported and endorsed Herman Cain in the primaries. As if, that somehow proves that I have contradicted myself. At the time I supported Cain, there were 9 people who could have possibly ran against Obama, that is not the case today. So it doesn't matter who I endorsed months ago, or who could have possibly won the nomination back then, my statement is still true.
\\\||///, you can keep plugging my threads all you like, I love getting the attention and publicity, but I think some of your pinhead followers might be wondering what the purpose of this is. Now, I don't really care why myself, I am enjoying every second of it, and it doesn't matter what the purpose is, but others here might be wondering why you've turned into such a Dixie fan. Care to explain for them?
Bookmarks