|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 29, 2013 22:53:57 GMT -5
Communism has never existed (and never will), so he's technically right.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 29, 2013 22:58:05 GMT -5
Communism has never existed (and never will), so he's technically right. Maybe not the Communism he or others today would like but it has killed millions including the Great Leap Forward and the Khmer Rouge. He can't just dismiss the deaths because it's inconvenient.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 29, 2013 23:06:38 GMT -5
I just wish he'd answer what I posted before...
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 15:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 15:29:42 GMT -5
Communism has never existed (and never will), so he's technically right. Maybe not the Communism he or others today would like but it has killed millions including the Great Leap Forward and the Khmer Rouge. He can't just dismiss the deaths because it's inconvenient. Ok, do I have to explain this again, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot are both Stalinist which is nowhere near the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The evidence lies with the Sino-Soviet Split when Soviet Union was returning to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and destroying all aspects of Stalin. Mao Zedong split from the USSR and created their own "Eastern Bloc" with the DPRK (Which isn't Marxist, its Juche which is nowhere near Marxism) and Cambodia (Which is Stalinist). And a Marxist-Leninist state ended the Khmer Rouge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_WarSo not a single true Marxist leader or government has killed a single person, sure Faux-Marxist. But the facts are against them and it shows they are truly fake and cause the great ideas of Marxism to be tainted with their evil manipulative ways.
|
|
|
Post by Scotty on Jan 30, 2013 15:42:12 GMT -5
Libertarian
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 15:52:15 GMT -5
Cuba's quality of life score: 90th out of 194 United States quality of life score: 6th out of 194 Yeah, I imagine that Cuba is having a SERIOUS problem of Americans trying to flood into their country. Lets look at Cuba's recent history, they lost a whole group of allies, the Soviet Union, all Eastern Bloc states, and Marxist states in Africa. They have also been subjected to a cruel embargo against them by the United States. But in all complications they have still stood testament to the will of Fidel Castro and his fight for the Cuban people with launching Cuba to number one in South America in multiple areas such as they have the greatest Health Care system proven by its highest life expectancy with a 78. The lowest crime rate, best education system proven by its highest literacy rate with a 99% in all demographics, and THE LOWEST DRUG USE PERCENTAGE with their good use of local and military force on drug operations. But tell me, the United States in world stage, it is lagging in its education system, the health care system has not caught up with much of the world, the US has yet to end its drug problem, the crime rate is ridiculousness high for a self proclaimed "safe country", and stupidity is still rampant with the acceptance of homophobia, racism, sexism, and elitism. I think Cuba with their "economic" problems is still more of a paradise then the United States. DEAL WITH IT
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 15:52:45 GMT -5
1. Mao was very radical and a Stalinist under the rouse of Marxist-Leninism who later employed Maoism, and as most Marxist-Leninist agree, Mao wasn't a communist. Same with Stalin! Stalin murdered Lenin and Lenin's closest allies including Trotsky! Stalin was an evil schizophrenic tyrant who's legacy was destroyed by later Soviet Premiers. So technically, a true Marxist-Leninist leader has never committed mass murder. 2. Sad because the imperialist ways of a capitalist government will destroy a peaceful communist society. and Again, communism hasn't killed a single person BUT capitalism is doom to eradicate us all one day. Communism hasn't killed a single person? You are delusional. Read the post I posted above directed to you
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 16:17:41 GMT -5
A. I have been waiting for your explanation for these votes... Almost all of them involve a tax increase. Ron Paul NEVER voted for a single tax increase the entire time he was in Congress. It's really quite simple. You can take all kinds of these little pet projects and talk about how good they are, how sweet they are, etc. but the truth is that if they increase federal taxes, then they are unconstitutional. Everyone likes to turn his votes into things like "he's racist!" or "he's homophobic!" No, he doesn't want to tax people to pay for morality. How is it "wasting peoples' money?" The money Gary Johnson's campaign raised was not TAX DOLLARS, it was donations from individuals and/or PAC's who all knew who he was, what he stood for, etc. I don't know a single person who donated to Gary Johnson that actually thought he was going to win -- and I literally know hundreds who donated to him. Look around you. If you don't see the libertarian message growing, you are ing blind. That is what the money was used for. Winning elections is important, but spreading the message of liberty is every bit as important. C. Not really, Libertarians believe in a limited government which equals no help at all! And is the current system a Marxist system or a socialist system? No, I thought this was Libertarian vs Marxist not Libertarian vs Current System Wrong again. Libertarians advocate that you should not be FORCED to give money to the government to provide for someone else. Not that you shouldn't still donate money and/or time. This is the difference between you and I. You see, I will, have and will continue to donate MY time and money to charities which I deem to be credible... Except, unlike you, I don't think that I have the right to point a gun at my neighbor's head and say, "NOW YOU DO IT." A. Part A. We have taxes, deal with it. I would be surprised if we find out later that Ronny Paul is a big tax evader! A. Part B. The only raise of federal taxes that is needed, is the raising of the rich. Simple, easy, fair, and effective! A. Part C. Then how come Ron Paul's biggest contributors and closest friends are racist white national groups? OH because he is indeed a racist himself. And sure maybe "he doesn't want to raise taxes" But their is also that deep hate for other races and the LGBT community B. Part A. Because, if he had no meaning to actually be a serious contender and presidential candidate, they he surely waste peoples money. People like Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein where strong and able contenders while Gary Johnson was too busy wasting peoples money to raise only a "message" ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC AND SCUMMY. And that is whats funny about libertarian's they'll waste money for a message while us Marxist and Socialist alike go out on the streets and protest. B. Part B. The only reason why the libertarian message is growing is because of Ronny Paul being a supporter of ANTI-Sopa bills and his Pro-Drug message. The majority of your movement is absolutely blind to the true ideas of libertarianism, which is to let the lower part of society that have no say and power to wither and die while the rich can just scavenge the land. Actually, I am right, even my conservative, drudge report reading professor is agains the libertarian version of limited government. Which is scary because when to total polar opposites agree on something, you know that idea is very VERY wrong. C. Part A. Like that idiot on the Thom Hartmann Show, THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND FORCE YOU. And these so called forced programs WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE AND SOMEONE ELSES LIFE. But obviously libertarian's love the idea of class warfare and not caring for each other because they need a disorganized society to gain power C. Part B. That is quite the accusation. But through surplus profit, there is no forcing. Just sharing and a harmonious society.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 30, 2013 16:21:44 GMT -5
Maybe not the Communism he or others today would like but it has killed millions including the Great Leap Forward and the Khmer Rouge. He can't just dismiss the deaths because it's inconvenient. Ok, do I have to explain this again, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot are both Stalinist which is nowhere near the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The evidence lies with the Sino-Soviet Split when Soviet Union was returning to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and destroying all aspects of Stalin. Mao Zedong split from the USSR and created their own "Eastern Bloc" with the DPRK (Which isn't Marxist, its Juche which is nowhere near Marxism) and Cambodia (Which is Stalinist). And a Marxist-Leninist state ended the Khmer Rouge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_WarSo not a single true Marxist leader or government has killed a single person, sure Faux-Marxist. But the facts are against them and it shows they are truly fake and cause the great ideas of Marxism to be tainted with their evil manipulative ways. And what of the tens of thousands of people killed by Lenin? Since he's one of the ones you cited as a true communist.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 16:30:33 GMT -5
Ok, do I have to explain this again, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot are both Stalinist which is nowhere near the ideas of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. The evidence lies with the Sino-Soviet Split when Soviet Union was returning to the ideas of Marxism-Leninism and destroying all aspects of Stalin. Mao Zedong split from the USSR and created their own "Eastern Bloc" with the DPRK (Which isn't Marxist, its Juche which is nowhere near Marxism) and Cambodia (Which is Stalinist). And a Marxist-Leninist state ended the Khmer Rouge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_WarSo not a single true Marxist leader or government has killed a single person, sure Faux-Marxist. But the facts are against them and it shows they are truly fake and cause the great ideas of Marxism to be tainted with their evil manipulative ways. And what of the tens of thousands of people killed by Lenin? Since he's one of the ones you cited as a true communist. Those thousands? Oh you mean the Menshevik's soldiers and the Tsar's soldiers? Well that's war, Abraham Lincoln did the same with Confederate soldiers. Its a Civil War buddy, craplike that happens.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 30, 2013 16:31:58 GMT -5
Communism hasn't killed a single person? You are delusional. Read the post I posted above directed to you Khmer Rouge and the Great Leap Forward among many killings that Communism took part in. You cannot deny it. You do deny it because it makes you look bad. It makes you look bad that you agreed that killing dissenters was a good thing. How do we even know if those numbers you posted are right and the dictator (He was a dictator, they have a new one now. Which is humorous because it seems the only way Communism/Socialism works is with a dictator) didn't just say "Hey, everything in my country is great. Nothing goes wrong here." And will you stop the Ron Paul boogeyman? He does not represent every Libertarian. Some shady people have donated to him, doesn't mean he agrees with them. How do you know he is close, personal friends with racists? Again, even if he was friends with them that does not mean he himself is racist. If your father is racist, does that make you racist? According to your logic, yes because you can't even be in the same room as a racist without being a racist yourself. What proof do you have of Paul being racist and hating the LGBT community. Don't give me any bs about him not supporting government programs or quotes from people who hate him. So because one conservative (who is not a Libertarian) agrees with you that means Libertarianism is bad? How does that make any sense? Government does put a gun to your head and force you though. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. They will bust into your home with their guns and arrest you.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 16:48:54 GMT -5
Read the post I posted above directed to you Khmer Rouge and the Great Leap Forward among many killings that Communism took part in. You cannot deny it. You do deny it because it makes you look bad. It makes you look bad that you agreed that killing dissenters was a good thing. How do we even know if those numbers you posted are right and the dictator (He was a dictator, they have a new one now. Which is humorous because it seems the only way Communism/Socialism works is with a dictator) didn't just say "Hey, everything in my country is great. Nothing goes wrong here." And will you stop the Ron Paul boogeyman? He does not represent every Libertarian. Some shady people have donated to him, doesn't mean he agrees with them. How do you know he is close, personal friends with racists? Again, even if he was friends with them that does not mean he himself is racist. If your father is racist, does that make you racist? According to your logic, yes because you can't even be in the same room as a racist without being a racist yourself. What proof do you have of Paul being racist and hating the LGBT community. Don't give me any bs about him not supporting government programs or quotes from people who hate him. So because one conservative (who is not a Libertarian) agrees with you that means Libertarianism is bad? How does that make any sense? Government does put a gun to your head and force you though. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. They will bust into your home with their guns and arrest you. A. They weren't communist, so I can deny it because I have took a look at the constitutions of the PRC and the Democratic Kampuchea. They hold no Marxist legislations and regulations. B. Those numbers where provided by outside sources. C. How can I? He is an evil vicious man and he is your God, Savior, and King. Here: www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/07/1052504/-Other-than-being-a-bigot-sexist-homophobic-hater-of-the-poor-sick-and-disenfranchisedD. He teaches economics and he extensively studies libertarianism. So he can play out the scenario of what impact libertarian laws and rules could have on society. Not just him, but many other conservative friends I have also agree. I just like to cite him since he is a teacher in economics and history, he also used to work for a firm on Wall Street. E. Well shit, Do you actually believe that? Is that what Alex Jones told you? hahahahha. But you know, I'm a Marxist? I don't support the laws of the government because well, it is capitalistic and all.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 30, 2013 17:17:30 GMT -5
Khmer Rouge and the Great Leap Forward among many killings that Communism took part in. You cannot deny it. You do deny it because it makes you look bad. It makes you look bad that you agreed that killing dissenters was a good thing. How do we even know if those numbers you posted are right and the dictator (He was a dictator, they have a new one now. Which is humorous because it seems the only way Communism/Socialism works is with a dictator) didn't just say "Hey, everything in my country is great. Nothing goes wrong here." And will you stop the Ron Paul boogeyman? He does not represent every Libertarian. Some shady people have donated to him, doesn't mean he agrees with them. How do you know he is close, personal friends with racists? Again, even if he was friends with them that does not mean he himself is racist. If your father is racist, does that make you racist? According to your logic, yes because you can't even be in the same room as a racist without being a racist yourself. What proof do you have of Paul being racist and hating the LGBT community. Don't give me any bs about him not supporting government programs or quotes from people who hate him. So because one conservative (who is not a Libertarian) agrees with you that means Libertarianism is bad? How does that make any sense? Government does put a gun to your head and force you though. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail. They will bust into your home with their guns and arrest you. A. They weren't communist, so I can deny it because I have took a look at the constitutions of the PRC and the Democratic Kampuchea. They hold no Marxist legislations and regulations. B. Those numbers where provided by outside sources. C. How can I? He is an evil vicious man and he is your God, Savior, and King. Here: www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/07/1052504/-Other-than-being-a-bigot-sexist-homophobic-hater-of-the-poor-sick-and-disenfranchisedD. He teaches economics and he extensively studies libertarianism. So he can play out the scenario of what impact libertarian laws and rules could have on society. Not just him, but many other conservative friends I have also agree. I just like to cite him since he is a teacher in economics and history, he also used to work for a firm on Wall Street. E. Well crap, Do you actually believe that? Is that what Alex Jones told you? hahahahha. But you know, I'm a Marxist? I don't support the laws of the government because well, it is capitalistic and all. So they just called themselves Communists? Those were only two examples of many that I could have given of Communists killing people. What are the sources? How is he an evil vicious man? He is not my god, savior or king. For 's sake. Stop bringing up the ing newsletters. You damn well know he didn't write them. Paul votes against ANY legislation that takes away money from US citizens. It doesn't matter what the issue is. He's not going to raise taxes or take money from people. He only had an issue with one of ten parts of the Civil Rights Act. So opposing affirmative action is racist? Better tell Thomas Sowell that he's racist. He opposes FEDERAL sexual harassment laws not STATE laws. He supports DOMA because he doesn't want one state to tell another state what laws it should have. He'd be against Texas telling Massachusetts that it can't have gay marriage, just like he's opposed to Massachusetts telling Texas it must have gay marriage. That quote about the bathroom comes from someone who hates Ron Paul. So there is no basis for it. Those programs ARE unconstitutional. It is hyperbole to say he wants to kill anyone. Just because the state is not taking care of someone does not mean they will die. The state should not be our nanny, mother, father, doctor, etc. They give no evidence as to why his economic policies are bad other than just saying they are. They go for ad hominem attacks all over the article so that helps their case none. Plus, the Daily Kos is one of the worst blogs there is. Conservatives has no idea about Libertarianism. They try to co-opt the word to make themselves sound good but in fact, they are usually big government, deficit spending war hawks. So what if he studies economics and claims he knows what Libertarianism would be about? Paul Krugman does the same thing and he's factually dishonest and wrong. Alex Jones. For 's sake. You do support tyrannical government but only if it imposes the laws you want. Your government would bust into people's houses with guns and arrest them. That's what the State does. The state is not a good thing. The state is harmful to society. The state kills.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jan 30, 2013 17:32:59 GMT -5
Cuba's quality of life score: 90th out of 194 United States quality of life score: 6th out of 194 Yeah, I imagine that Cuba is having a SERIOUS problem of Americans trying to flood into their country. Lets look at Cuba's recent history, they lost a whole group of allies, the Soviet Union, all Eastern Bloc states, and Marxist states in Africa. They have also been subjected to a cruel embargo against them by the United States. But in all complications they have still stood testament to the will of Fidel Castro and his fight for the Cuban people with launching Cuba to number one in South America in multiple areas such as they have the greatest Health Care system proven by its highest life expectancy with a 78. The lowest crime rate, best education system proven by its highest literacy rate with a 99% in all demographics, and THE LOWEST DRUG USE PERCENTAGE with their good use of local and military force on drug operations. But tell me, the United States in world stage, it is lagging in its education system, the health care system has not caught up with much of the world, the US has yet to end its drug problem, the crime rate is ridiculousness high for a self proclaimed "safe country", and stupidity is still rampant with the acceptance of homophobia, racism, sexism, and elitism. I think Cuba with their "economic" problems is still more of a paradise then the United States. You can talk about how great you think Cuba is all you want but the FACTS are that Cubans risk their lives to come to America on shitty boats. There is no debating that. The opposite does not happen with any sort of frequency whatsoever. A. Part A. We have taxes, deal with it. I would be surprised if we find out later that Ronny Paul is a big tax evader! See this is like me saying, "We have rights, deal with it." We're talking theoretical, bud. Obviously we have taxes as things exist now. And why would Ron Paul be some sort of "tax evader?" He made by far the least amount of money of any of the candidates for President this most recent election cycle yet he STILL refused his Congressional pension. He's irritatingly (to them, LoL) conservative with his own personal finances, according to people I've spoken to who are very close to the man, including his own family members. This witch hunt you have for Ron Paul is pathetic. A. Part B. The only raise of federal taxes that is needed, is the raising of the rich. Simple, easy, fair, and effective! Not even CLOSE to being true. The United States runs at a TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT each year as things are right now. That's in addition to the $16 trillion we're in debt to begin with. Simply raising taxes on 1% of people doesn't even come CLOSE to making up that difference. Do some math, for 's sake. A. Part C. Then how come Ron Paul's biggest contributors and closest friends are racist white national groups? OH because he is indeed a racist himself. And sure maybe "he doesn't want to raise taxes" But their is also that deep hate for other races and the LGBT community LoL, what the hell are you talking about? His "biggest contributors" are White National groups? Prove that blatantly ridiculous statement, please. www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00005906 - Here are his biggest contributors. Please point me in the direction of the White National group. Is it Google? Is it The US Army or Navy? AT&T? Verizon? IBM? WHICH ONE OF THESE GROUPS IS A HATE-FILLED WHITE POWER GROUP HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING!?!?!? My god, we need to get to the bottom of this IMMEDIATELY! Also, Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate for President who said he thinks LGBT's should be able to get married. What a bigot, huh? Do some research, dude. Stop just making crapup. B. Part A. Because, if he had no meaning to actually be a serious contender and presidential candidate, they he surely waste peoples money. People like Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein where strong and able contenders while Gary Johnson was too busy wasting peoples money to raise only a "message" ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC AND SCUMMY. And that is whats funny about libertarian's they'll waste money for a message while us Marxist and Socialist alike go out on the streets and protest. Again, your definition of "wasting money" is preposterous. If I give someone $10 to give a speech on why apples are better than oranges, they deliver that speech, and nothing in the world changes; have THEY wasted my $10? No. They did what I asked them to do for the money. Gary Johnson was spreading the message, which is exactly what everyone who donated to him expected him to do. No one expected him to win. He never said he was going to win. It cracks me up that you talk about how "strong" Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein were. Combined they got what, 1/3 as many votes as Johnson? HOW STRONG! B. Part B. The only reason why the libertarian message is growing is because of Ronny Paul being a supporter of ANTI-Sopa bills and his Pro-Drug message. The majority of your movement is absolutely blind to the true ideas of libertarianism, which is to let the lower part of society that have no say and power to wither and die while the rich can just scavenge the land. Wow, the first at least partially true thing that you've said. While I disagree that the pro-drug and anti-SOPA messaging alone is why the message is growing, I will at least concede that those ARE two reasons that people are jumping on board. For me, it was the anti-war argument. While Obama has proven to be a tyrant, the rest of the Republican candidates were all interested in continuing the Bush and Obama policies. Everyone except Ron Paul (well and Gary Johnson, who ran for the Republican nomination for a brief moment). Paul was the only guy advocating for PEACE all the way back before, during and after 9/11. That message, to me, is stronger than any pro-drug or anti-SOPA message. Actually, I am right, even my conservative, drudge report reading professor is agains the libertarian version of limited government. Which is scary because when to total polar opposites agree on something, you know that idea is very VERY wrong. You're right HOW? Because your "Drudge Report reading professor" is against something, that means that libertarianism means "no help at all" as you defined it? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Libertarians advocate that you should not be FORCED to give money to the government to provide for someone else. Not that you shouldn't still donate money and/or time. If you can prove THAT statement wrong, then you are right. But you can't. What your college professor thinks is of absolutely no relevance to this conversation. Try to stay on topic. C. Part A. Like that idiot on the Thom Hartmann Show, THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T GOING TO PUT A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND FORCE YOU. And these so called forced programs WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE AND SOMEONE ELSES LIFE. But obviously libertarian's love the idea of class warfare and not caring for each other because they need a disorganized society to gain power It's not a LITERAL gun to the head in most instances, it is a theoretical one. But it does become literal the minute you decide to stop participating. If I refuse to pay my taxes, what happens to me? Do I just get to keep on making an income while never paying taxes? Of course not. Eventually a man with a badge is going to come to my home, demand the money, or arrest me. If I refuse to pay him the money, I will be taken to prison for tax evasion. If I attempt to defend myself from this person who intends to take me against my will, I will be assaulted and/or killed. This is the problem with taxes. They are not voluntary, no matter how hard you try to justify them. People ARE being forced to pay for them, in the same way that they would be forced to give up their guns if the government decided to ban guns. C. Part B. That is quite the accusation. But through surplus profit, there is no forcing. Just sharing and a harmonious society. It's not an accusation, it's the truth. By saying, "this is what you do. You give us your profits," you ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO DO IT. What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend? Again, if they refuse, what do you do? You FORCE THEM. Now, please respond to the original conversation we were having about health care before you went on an incoherent rant about Ron Paul.Agreed. However, when you say that "health care is a right," you are inherently saying that you are entitled to the fruits of a doctor's labor. In theory, if people decided to stop becoming doctors, the only way for the population receiver their "right" of health care would be through FORCING others to become doctors. Do you get what I'm saying here? When I say something is a "right," I'm talking about something that we derive from no one else but ourselves. When you say something is a "right," you're saying that you get to take from someone to provide for yourself (or others). My above example of no doctors existing is a wide stretch, I understand, but let's take it down from there. Let's say that, theoretically, half of the doctors in America decided to quit practicing medicine because it just was not profitable enough for them anymore. They instead decided to become mechanics, teachers, garbage men, whatever... Now in this theory, the state is providing health care to its population as a right. So under this philosophy, SIGNIFICANTLY more people are receiving this care than under our current world as it exists today. So you've got, let's say 30% more people getting health care, but only being provided that health care by half of the population of doctors. As things are today, most doctors would tell you that they are ABSURDLY busy. So imagine increasing their workload by DOUBLE because half of the doctors have left the professional for more easier employment (because everyone gets the same benefits no matter what job they choose), in addition to the 30% increase in more clients. They're going to have to work significantly longer hours. They will want to be paid more for providing the service, but they can't because the government has decided that everyone makes the same amount of money. When their work continues to increase and become more stressful, again, more doctors drop off and look for other employment. Yes, many doctors will stick around. Many view their "duty" as a doctor to be taking care of others, even if it means no compensation at all. Good for them. But when you say that health care is a right, what you are saying is that you OWN those people. If they all decided "enough is enough," we would have no doctors under your theory. Because there could theoretically be a shortage of doctors (or no doctors at all) in your utopian world, and you refuse to force people to be doctors, then health care cannot be a "right."
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jan 30, 2013 17:44:29 GMT -5
And what of the tens of thousands of people killed by Lenin? Since he's one of the ones you cited as a true communist. Those thousands? Oh you mean the Menshevik's soldiers and the Tsar's soldiers? Well that's war, Abraham Lincoln did the same with Confederate soldiers. Its a Civil War buddy, crap like that happens. Two words - Red Terror. Google that shit.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 17:45:23 GMT -5
A. They weren't communist, so I can deny it because I have took a look at the constitutions of the PRC and the Democratic Kampuchea. They hold no Marxist legislations and regulations. B. Those numbers where provided by outside sources. C. How can I? He is an evil vicious man and he is your God, Savior, and King. Here: www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/07/1052504/-Other-than-being-a-bigot-sexist-homophobic-hater-of-the-poor-sick-and-disenfranchisedD. He teaches economics and he extensively studies libertarianism. So he can play out the scenario of what impact libertarian laws and rules could have on society. Not just him, but many other conservative friends I have also agree. I just like to cite him since he is a teacher in economics and history, he also used to work for a firm on Wall Street. E. Well crap, Do you actually believe that? Is that what Alex Jones told you? hahahahha. But you know, I'm a Marxist? I don't support the laws of the government because well, it is capitalistic and all. So they just called themselves Communists? Those were only two examples of many that I could have given of Communists killing people. What are the sources? How is he an evil vicious man? He is not my god, savior or king. For 's sake. Stop bringing up the ing newsletters. You damn well know he didn't write them. Paul votes against ANY legislation that takes away money from US citizens. It doesn't matter what the issue is. He's not going to raise taxes or take money from people. He only had an issue with one of ten parts of the Civil Rights Act. So opposing affirmative action is racist? Better tell Thomas Sowell that he's racist. He opposes FEDERAL sexual harassment laws not STATE laws. He supports DOMA because he doesn't want one state to tell another state what laws it should have. He'd be against Texas telling Massachusetts that it can't have gay marriage, just like he's opposed to Massachusetts telling Texas it must have gay marriage. That quote about the bathroom comes from someone who hates Ron Paul. So there is no basis for it. Those programs ARE unconstitutional. It is hyperbole to say he wants to kill anyone. Just because the state is not taking care of someone does not mean they will die. The state should not be our nanny, mother, father, doctor, etc. They give no evidence as to why his economic policies are bad other than just saying they are. They go for ad hominem attacks all over the article so that helps their case none. Plus, the Daily Kos is one of the worst blogs there is. Conservatives has no idea about Libertarianism. They try to co-opt the word to make themselves sound good but in fact, they are usually big government, deficit spending war hawks. So what if he studies economics and claims he knows what Libertarianism would be about? Paul Krugman does the same thing and he's factually dishonest and wrong. Alex Jones. For 's sake. You do support tyrannical government but only if it imposes the laws you want. Your government would bust into people's houses with guns and arrest them. That's what the State does. The state is not a good thing. The state is harmful to society. The state kills. A. I bet your going to list what Stalin did. And again, he isn't a communist. B. Wikipedia and various news sites. Also UN reports C. Well he is homophobic, racist, and aims to let the poor and needy die. and ahahha sureeee D. But he wrote them, its like treasure for me and a very dirty evil past that your King had. E. So he doesn't want to take away money nor does he want to help them? Well shit, what would he do if he was president? Just sit around? F. I don't see why a man should have any problem with the Civil Rights act. But you know, he is racist so yeah. G. He doesn't have to be racist, but he can be elitist. H. Why Federal? We have a Federal government what are we just not going to use? Plus sexual harassment laws should only be passes at a federal level to avoid the Red states going against it. I. DOMA is disgusting and the fact he supports it for that reason is disgusting. BLAH BLAH BLAH STATES RIGHTS. The LGBT community is being oppressed and with the passing of Gay marriage through federal government can get rid of that oppression but of course King Ronny supports it because hes secretly homophobic J. Quit making excuses, he actually said it. K. Well guess what, the constitution was made in the 18th century, we live in the 21st century, I dont care what it says about these programs. THEY SAVE LIVES AND BY GOD THEY SHOULD EXIST. L. Sounds alot like you, I see Libertarian's making themselves look good daily. M. Its been his lifes work and I think he knows more about it then you. N. BUT ALEX JONES IS YOUR VOICE! O. Actually, I only support the idea of a single party system where there is a dictator to avoid the bourgeoisie from gaining power again. Again, you and your accusations, My state would do any of that. My state would be a guiding father, supporting the people, and helping the people.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 30, 2013 17:57:17 GMT -5
So they just called themselves Communists? Those were only two examples of many that I could have given of Communists killing people. What are the sources? How is he an evil vicious man? He is not my god, savior or king. For 's sake. Stop bringing up the ing newsletters. You damn well know he didn't write them. Paul votes against ANY legislation that takes away money from US citizens. It doesn't matter what the issue is. He's not going to raise taxes or take money from people. He only had an issue with one of ten parts of the Civil Rights Act. So opposing affirmative action is racist? Better tell Thomas Sowell that he's racist. He opposes FEDERAL sexual harassment laws not STATE laws. He supports DOMA because he doesn't want one state to tell another state what laws it should have. He'd be against Texas telling Massachusetts that it can't have gay marriage, just like he's opposed to Massachusetts telling Texas it must have gay marriage. That quote about the bathroom comes from someone who hates Ron Paul. So there is no basis for it. Those programs ARE unconstitutional. It is hyperbole to say he wants to kill anyone. Just because the state is not taking care of someone does not mean they will die. The state should not be our nanny, mother, father, doctor, etc. They give no evidence as to why his economic policies are bad other than just saying they are. They go for ad hominem attacks all over the article so that helps their case none. Plus, the Daily Kos is one of the worst blogs there is. Conservatives has no idea about Libertarianism. They try to co-opt the word to make themselves sound good but in fact, they are usually big government, deficit spending war hawks. So what if he studies economics and claims he knows what Libertarianism would be about? Paul Krugman does the same thing and he's factually dishonest and wrong. Alex Jones. For 's sake. You do support tyrannical government but only if it imposes the laws you want. Your government would bust into people's houses with guns and arrest them. That's what the State does. The state is not a good thing. The state is harmful to society. The state kills. A. I bet your going to list what Stalin did. And again, he isn't a communist. B. Wikipedia and various news sites. Also UN reports C. Well he is homophobic, racist, and aims to let the poor and needy die. and ahahha sureeee D. But he wrote them, its like treasure for me and a very dirty evil past that your King had. E. So he doesn't want to take away money nor does he want to help them? Well crap, what would he do if he was president? Just sit around? F. I don't see why a man should have any problem with the Civil Rights act. But you know, he is racist so yeah. G. He doesn't have to be racist, but he can be elitist. H. Why Federal? We have a Federal government what are we just not going to use? Plus sexual harassment laws should only be passes at a federal level to avoid the Red states going against it. I. DOMA is disgusting and the fact he supports it for that reason is disgusting. BLAH BLAH BLAH STATES RIGHTS. The LGBT community is being oppressed and with the passing of Gay marriage through federal government can get rid of that oppression but of course King Ronny supports it because hes secretly homophobic J. Quit making excuses, he actually said it. K. Well guess what, the constitution was made in the 18th century, we live in the 21st century, I dont care what it says about these programs. THEY SAVE LIVES AND BY GOD THEY SHOULD EXIST. L. Sounds alot like you, I see Libertarian's making themselves look good daily. M. Its been his lifes work and I think he knows more about it then you. N. BUT ALEX JONES IS YOUR VOICE! O. Actually, I only support the idea of a single party system where there is a dictator to avoid the bourgeoisie from gaining power again. Again, you and your accusations, My state would do any of that. My state would be a guiding father, supporting the people, and helping the people. Since you like Wikipedia so much: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimesI need sources on him being homophobic, racist and aims to let the poor and needy die. He did not write them. His writing them has been debunked. James Powell wrote them. Again, not my king. He'd be like Grover Cleveland as President. He'd veto bills that increased taxes and spent the tax payers money. He'd veto bills that were unconstitutional. He has one problem with it out of ten parts. The one part infringes on the rights of business owners. Look at the Constitution. If it's not in there then only the states have the power to do it. Sexual harassment laws are not in the Constitution which means the states must deal with them. Are you gay? If not, I find it funny that a straight person is telling a gay person how we should feel on issues that impact our lives. Proof that he said it? I mean other than the guy who made the claim, the same guy who hates Paul? If the states want to enact the programs, they can. The federal government just can't. Thomas Sowell, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, Jeffrey Tucker, etc. Those are libertarian economists. They'd say different than your libertarian hating professor. He is not my voice. I don't now what gives you any clue that Alex Jones is the mouthpiece for the Libertarian movement. The vast majority of Libertarians despise him and what he stands for. Name one dictator that you can factually prove has not killed a single person.
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 18:51:08 GMT -5
A. I bet your going to list what Stalin did. And again, he isn't a communist. B. Wikipedia and various news sites. Also UN reports C. Well he is homophobic, racist, and aims to let the poor and needy die. and ahahha sureeee D. But he wrote them, its like treasure for me and a very dirty evil past that your King had. E. So he doesn't want to take away money nor does he want to help them? Well crap, what would he do if he was president? Just sit around? F. I don't see why a man should have any problem with the Civil Rights act. But you know, he is racist so yeah. G. He doesn't have to be racist, but he can be elitist. H. Why Federal? We have a Federal government what are we just not going to use? Plus sexual harassment laws should only be passes at a federal level to avoid the Red states going against it. I. DOMA is disgusting and the fact he supports it for that reason is disgusting. BLAH BLAH BLAH STATES RIGHTS. The LGBT community is being oppressed and with the passing of Gay marriage through federal government can get rid of that oppression but of course King Ronny supports it because hes secretly homophobic J. Quit making excuses, he actually said it. K. Well guess what, the constitution was made in the 18th century, we live in the 21st century, I dont care what it says about these programs. THEY SAVE LIVES AND BY GOD THEY SHOULD EXIST. L. Sounds alot like you, I see Libertarian's making themselves look good daily. M. Its been his lifes work and I think he knows more about it then you. N. BUT ALEX JONES IS YOUR VOICE! O. Actually, I only support the idea of a single party system where there is a dictator to avoid the bourgeoisie from gaining power again. Again, you and your accusations, My state would do any of that. My state would be a guiding father, supporting the people, and helping the people. Since you like Wikipedia so much: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimesI need sources on him being homophobic, racist and aims to let the poor and needy die. He did not write them. His writing them has been debunked. James Powell wrote them. Again, not my king. He'd be like Grover Cleveland as President. He'd veto bills that increased taxes and spent the tax payers money. He'd veto bills that were unconstitutional. He has one problem with it out of ten parts. The one part infringes on the rights of business owners. Look at the Constitution. If it's not in there then only the states have the power to do it. Sexual harassment laws are not in the Constitution which means the states must deal with them. Are you gay? If not, I find it funny that a straight person is telling a gay person how we should feel on issues that impact our lives. Proof that he said it? I mean other than the guy who made the claim, the same guy who hates Paul? If the states want to enact the programs, they can. The federal government just can't. Thomas Sowell, Peter Schiff, Walter Block, Jeffrey Tucker, etc. Those are libertarian economists. They'd say different than your libertarian hating professor. He is not my voice. I don't now what gives you any clue that Alex Jones is the mouthpiece for the Libertarian movement. The vast majority of Libertarians despise him and what he stands for. Name one dictator that you can factually prove has not killed a single person. A. All I saw was Stalin, Mao, and Pot. B. That article, the newsletters, and his political ideology C. Yes he did, its been proven. Of course he wouldnt want you to know about them, because you wouldnt like him then. D. And name one big thing Grover Cleveland did? E. Those same businesses and owners that where racist and oppressive of its black workers? F. Because it was written in the 18th century when anything a man did was okay. G. No, Im just compassionate and very supportive of the LGBT movement. H. Of course the guy would hate him, after Ron Paul said that he probably started to hate him. I. The Federal government is of higher power then state governments J. Of course they would THEY ARE BIASED TO THEIR SYSTEM K. Jones is indeed your voice in the media. L. Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko
|
|
|
Post by alwayssunny on Jan 30, 2013 19:13:00 GMT -5
No, forced labor is a sign of capitalism. But if there is a shortage of doctors, then through state media, I think it would be a great idea to emphasize the profession. Agreed. However, when you say that "health care is a right," you are inherently saying that you are entitled to the fruits of a doctor's labor. In theory, if people decided to stop becoming doctors, the only way for the population receiver their "right" of health care would be through FORCING others to become doctors. Do you get what I'm saying here? When I say something is a "right," I'm talking about something that we derive from no one else but ourselves. When you say something is a "right," you're saying that you get to take from someone to provide for yourself (or others). My above example of no doctors existing is a wide stretch, I understand, but let's take it down from there. Let's say that, theoretically, half of the doctors in America decided to quit practicing medicine because it just was not profitable enough for them anymore. They instead decided to become mechanics, teachers, garbage men, whatever... Now in this theory, the state is providing health care to its population as a right. So under this philosophy, SIGNIFICANTLY more people are receiving this care than under our current world as it exists today. So you've got, let's say 30% more people getting health care, but only being provided that health care by half of the population of doctors. As things are today, most doctors would tell you that they are ABSURDLY busy. So imagine increasing their workload by DOUBLE because half of the doctors have left the professional for more easier employment (because everyone gets the same benefits no matter what job they choose), in addition to the 30% increase in more clients. They're going to have to work significantly longer hours. They will want to be paid more for providing the service, but they can't because the government has decided that everyone makes the same amount of money. When their work continues to increase and become more stressful, again, more doctors drop off and look for other employment. Yes, many doctors will stick around. Many view their "duty" as a doctor to be taking care of others, even if it means no compensation at all. Good for them. But when you say that health care is a right, what you are saying is that you OWN those people. If they all decided "enough is enough," we would have no doctors under your theory. Because there could theoretically be a shortage of doctors (or no doctors at all) in your utopian world, and you refuse to force people to be doctors, then health care cannot be a "right." Sorry, I didn't see this post. A. I'm Glad we finally agree on something B. Technically the Doctor is his own worker, he does the work so he is entitled to his own fruits of his labor but in a Marxist society, we all share. C. But your theory would never happen, so its not a situation you would ever have to plan for. D. No no no, When I say something is a "right" it is a right to be shared with every single person in society no matter their race, class, creed, or background. E. I understand your thought that they cant profit off of their business, but dont forget, they have free programs and a free house that they dont have to pay for, so they can spend their money on other things so they don't need that extra cash. Also, I remember watching an interview with an old Ukrainian doctor who when living in the Soviet Union actually enjoyed his job because he felt like he was apart of a community and doing the right thing in being a doctor by saving lives. When it collapsed, he lost that feeling and felt like his job was worthless because the community had been broken because less and less people where able to come in due to an expensive bill for each patient he had to charge. F. You act as if the entire population is sickly and they all need those doctors immediatly. Dont forget certain illnesses don't need doctors, they just need generic medication and rest. G. All I have to look at for a model of my health care system is East Germany which is seen as one of the GDR's biggest successes and most citizens of the former GDR say that doctors where available H. But if there is an emphasis in state media, they'd be empowered to stay as a doctor and be the best they can be. I. Like I said above, those doctors that leave will be empowered by state media to stay. J. In Marxist thought, no one owns a single person not even in your so called "thought" K. No, In my world or in a historical model of my world, the Soviet Union, there was no shortage of doctors. SO my system has already been proven to actually work. And thus making healthcare a right
|
|