Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Heh. The only balance you have to worry about is trying to balance your huge arse-cheeks on a chair while you devour another cream pie, courtesy of a capitalist delicatessen.
A two part question for those considering Socialism
- Thread starter Rob Larrikin
- Start date
Heh. The only balance you have to worry about is trying to balance your huge arse-cheeks on a chair while you devour another cream pie, courtesy of a capitalist delicatessen.
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
You are too stupid to debate. Come back after you graduate from elementary school.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
:0) You ask a question, then you ban just about everyone who has answers from participating in your thread.
Why? Because you're just looking for an echo chamber.
As Donald Trump’s Popularity Dwindles, Bernie Sanders’ Surges
http://observer.com/2017/10/sanders-is-most-popular-us-politician-and-trump-is-least-popular/
BERNIE SANDERS IS THE MOST POPULAR U.S. POLITICIAN, EVEN AS SOME BLAME HIM FOR CLINTON’S LOSS
https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-most-popular-politician-655315
The Radical Left’s Agenda Is More Popular Than the Mainstream GOP’s
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...fts-agenda-is-more-popular-than-the-gops.html
Don't like Sanders or socialism ... who the fuck cares?
See you dummies in November.
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
I imagine RL to look and act exactly like his avatar.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Rob Larrikin,
Your questions are based on an incorrect assumption that we have to choose between capitalism and socialism.
We don't have to make that choice.
We can blend the two, we already have, and we will continue to do that.
Socialism should be used for needs.
Capitalism for wants.
Also, capitalism needs to be heavily regulated to ensure that the powerful don't take unfair advantage of the weak or the environment, and that the better interest of the nation and planet is kept.
We need big government to regulate big capitalism.
The larger the GDP gets, the larger our government needs to get.
Your questions are based on an incorrect assumption that we have to choose between capitalism and socialism.
We don't have to make that choice.
We can blend the two, we already have, and we will continue to do that.
Socialism should be used for needs.
Capitalism for wants.
Also, capitalism needs to be heavily regulated to ensure that the powerful don't take unfair advantage of the weak or the environment, and that the better interest of the nation and planet is kept.
We need big government to regulate big capitalism.
The larger the GDP gets, the larger our government needs to get.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Translation: "I can't answer the question."
Anyway, continue to enjoy all of capitalism's comforts like a bloated whore in a bed with ten sex addicted Indians, while telling everyone how ebil it is.
Controlled Opposition
Note my apathy
Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere. Who would want to create havoc there?
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
You have that ass-backwards. The trolls were banned when the thread was created, not after. They’ve already proved they have no interest in debate; only in cursing, swearing and acting like warthogs with rabies.
Another socialist who can’t name one thing in his caravan that is not there as a result of capitalism and can’t name one modern, full time, wage-paying job that could be had today, if rich capitalists never existed.
Yawn. So what else is new?
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Says the fat guy who gorges on capitalism every day, yet likes to wank off to his poster of Karl Marx.Precisely, known as hypocrisy and/or cowardness.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
You actually have no choice, which was the point of this thread. The reason you can’t name one thing in your home that is not there as a result of capitalism, or name one modern, full time, wage-paying job that you could have today, if rich capitalists never existed, is that socialism doesn’t work. It is a myth used by thieves to steal money.
Socialism is just a myth thieves use to steal money from business. It’s their excuse, but it’s like a pyramid scheme. They promise you this, and they promise you that, but when it all falls apart millions lose big time.
What you are talking about is crime, and that’s a separate subject. A law that says that stealing is prohibited includes everyone, from nuns to firemen, to businessmen. Lawyers prove theft occurred and a judge punishes accordingly, regardless of the perp. We don’t say “nuns must be heavily regulated,” and nor should we say that of businesspeople. As for the planet, it has no ‘interest’ in anything. It’s an inert rock.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Rob Larrikin.
Why do we have to choose between the two systems?
I see no reason we can't have a balanced blend of socialism and capitalism.
Capitalism and business are wonderful engines of creativity; but capitalism is not perfect. Capitalism has it's problems, has a lot of negatives. It simply doesn't work for everyone. The fit, the strong, the advantaged, the privileged, the shrewd do well under capitalism, but the weak, the disadvantaged, the incapable, the ill, the elderly, the inept do not. That is why we need some socialism mixed in with our capitalism. To take care of those that capitalism leaves behind. Unless you think an individual with a learning disability or physical impairment should simply be exterminated under 'survival of the fittest.'
You say that the Earth "has no ‘interest’ in anything. It’s an inert rock." That is coldly true. Earth is under no obligation to support human or other life. For billions of years it did not. Conditions were inhospitable. Only in relatively recent Earth history has life been able to take hold, evolve into what it is today, including the advent of human existence. We have the power to destroy our environment. Capitalism has no interest in preventing that. That is one of the reasons we need a big powerful government to strongly regulate capitalism.
Humans have the ability to destroy our own habitat. Some humans just don't care about other people or the environment. That's why we have to have laws and regulations.
Capitalism is like a powerful engine of creativity. But no engine can be allowed to constantly run at full speed or it would blow up. A throttle or 'governor' is used to harness the power, regulate it, control it.
Government is the control, the regulator, the throttle of capitalism.
Humans invented nuclear weapons which could destroy us. We have to be careful how we use it. We have to respect it, control it, regulate it.
Humans invented capitalism, which is very powerful. It could destroy us. We have to be careful how we use it. We have to respect it, control it, regulate it.
Why do we have to choose between the two systems?
I see no reason we can't have a balanced blend of socialism and capitalism.
Capitalism and business are wonderful engines of creativity; but capitalism is not perfect. Capitalism has it's problems, has a lot of negatives. It simply doesn't work for everyone. The fit, the strong, the advantaged, the privileged, the shrewd do well under capitalism, but the weak, the disadvantaged, the incapable, the ill, the elderly, the inept do not. That is why we need some socialism mixed in with our capitalism. To take care of those that capitalism leaves behind. Unless you think an individual with a learning disability or physical impairment should simply be exterminated under 'survival of the fittest.'
You say that the Earth "has no ‘interest’ in anything. It’s an inert rock." That is coldly true. Earth is under no obligation to support human or other life. For billions of years it did not. Conditions were inhospitable. Only in relatively recent Earth history has life been able to take hold, evolve into what it is today, including the advent of human existence. We have the power to destroy our environment. Capitalism has no interest in preventing that. That is one of the reasons we need a big powerful government to strongly regulate capitalism.
Humans have the ability to destroy our own habitat. Some humans just don't care about other people or the environment. That's why we have to have laws and regulations.
Capitalism is like a powerful engine of creativity. But no engine can be allowed to constantly run at full speed or it would blow up. A throttle or 'governor' is used to harness the power, regulate it, control it.
Government is the control, the regulator, the throttle of capitalism.
Humans invented nuclear weapons which could destroy us. We have to be careful how we use it. We have to respect it, control it, regulate it.
Humans invented capitalism, which is very powerful. It could destroy us. We have to be careful how we use it. We have to respect it, control it, regulate it.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
A “blended economy” is Socialist-speak for “stealing enough to keep the host alive”.
Saying capitalism has problems and negatives is like saying a healthy diet has problems and negatives. In fact there are no problems or negatives. Capitalism is perfect.
The reverse is true. Of all people the weak, disadvantaged, incapable, ill, elderly and inept benefit most of all from capitalism, as it naturally protects them from all kinds of bad things. These people are very vulnerable in communist nations, where you will see that nobody gives a toss about them. Handicapped kids are thrown into slummy buildings where they sit in their own feces, while coldhearted government workers ignore them. That’s the State at work in a Socialist regime as we have seen many times. In a capitalist country people are wealthier, and wealthy people are charitable. A tramp in America lived a better life than millions of workers in Soviet Russia. Why? Because in a bankrupt Socialist country every item is valuable and horded. In America a person’s trash would contain stuff a soviet serf would consider treasure. Food, gadgets, materials, tools, clothes, containers, batteries, shoes, hats, pens, paper, half used medicines, all kinds of useful things. In a poor socialist country nobody would throw anything of value out. Tramps there really suffered.
That’s like saying you need some cancer with your health. Only if you hate good health.
You are confusing the law of the jungle with business. Business requires the Rule of Law, which is the opposite of the Law of the Jungle.
My dear friend, it is no ‘colder’ to state that Earth is an inert rock than it is to say the boulder in my back yard can’t sew or bake apple tarts; it’s just a plain, happy fact. I’d be very unsettled if it could do those things. The statement that ‘earth is under no obligation to’ would indicate the possibility of obligation, which cannot be. There is no such possibility. When we say Earth “supports” life it is only an expression. The earth, through a lucky series of random accidents, happens to be perfect for the evolution of life, as would be the case in many millions of other worlds out there in our universe.
If you mean the immediate environment (houses, roads, buildings, suburbs, cities, animals, plants), then yes, we could destroy those if we chose to. The Earth would “feel” nothing, and aliens flying past would notice very little if anything. Not all life would be extinguished, so it would continue. The chances of us doing that is almost nil. You may as well point out that if humans wanted to they could all build statues of Kim Jong-un in their backyards and pee on them at midnight every day for fifty years. The chances of us doing that is almost nil. Just because something is theoretically possible doesn’t somehow make it likely.
First, capitalism is not a living entity with a mind, so you must mean ‘capitalists’. They have every interest in preventing the destruction of their environment. How the hell would Mr. Rutherford Elton Hastings do the following without an environment?
- Wear clothes
- Go to school
- Go out with girlfriends
- Get married
- Have sex
- Have kids
- Buy a house
- Start a business
- Attract customers
- Provide a product or service
- Enjoy a movie
- Eat meals
- Watch their children grow
- Send their kids to college
- Expand their business
- Win awards for customer service
- Watch their children graduate
- Leave their business to their kids
- Die happy
To stop Rutherford Elton Hastings destroying the environment? Why would he do such a thing? You’re thinking of criminals, not businessmen. Criminals break laws and hurt people, whether by robbing banks or tipping chemicals into rivers. They are not to be confused with businessmen. You can find them in the dictionary under ‘c’, as opposed to ‘b’.
Sure, just as they have the ability to murder their grandmothers. Very few do it though. You need laws that make murder illegal. That’s commonsense. It has nothing to do with capitalism, nuns, religion, pancake making, roller-skating, standup comedy or cooking. It has everything to do with crime. To say that you need big powerful government to strongly regulate nuns is wrong, and it’s just as wrong to say that about capitalism. You need the Rule of Law to outline what is a crime and what is not, and you need police to enforce those laws.
They are either inconsiderate or criminals, or both.
Exactly, but that has nothing to do with capitalism.
The sun is going at full speed, as is the giant black hole in the center of our galaxy. They haven’t blown up yet.
The Rule of Law controls everyone, from the nun to the flower seller, to the ballerina. There is no need to single out businessmen, without whom the nun would have no Habit, the flower seller no flowers, and the ballerina no ballet shoes.
Actually the Rule of Law and the Courts control everyone, including capitalists. The government is often a brake on business, which makes things worse for everyone, including the nun, the flower seller and the ballerina, who now have to pay more for their habits, flowers and shoes, and they are all a lower quality too. Big taxing governments may eventually lead to the flower seller going broke, the ballerina having to give up her ballet, and the nun committing suicide because she could not afford anti-depressants. Big taxing governments don’t realize how much they hurt ordinary people by overtaxing and attacking businesspeople.
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
hvilleherb
Verified User
We've been debating you liberals about socialism/communism since the days of the Vietnam War. If you let it exist in even the smallest form, it will spread. If there's the slightest chance we can get rid of social security and medicare, we should go for it without hesitation.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
You said it. When it comes to welfare, socialism or communism, Lefties have a very checkered past. Checkered Demon will be no exception.
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
That's racist!
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
You're to dumb to debate.
SouthernUnkleRitchie
Verified User
Yeah cause you're a bunch of dicks.