Support NATA 2014

What is so bad about Socalism?

  • 2,728 Views
  • 137 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 9th, 2013 @ 09:38 PM Reply

At 1/9/13 08:40 PM, Warforger wrote: You said government regulation is fine as long as it doesn't benefit any one group. Any type of regulation is coercion of some sort.

Bullshit. The role of government is to protect the rights and equality of everyone. Not back companies, not hand out money to people, not murder people overseas.

That is not coercion. Cops stop criminals. Is that coercion too?

No seriously not even just in some random way you quite literally said something then I responded and you replied saying the complete opposite.

No, I have not.

all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67

Exactly. The value of gold at the time was not $20.67...until the Federal Reserve made it that price.

BTW, thank you for proving my entire point, which was that government/FDR forced citizens into a transaction. Which is quite illegal.

Then what are you saying? You're saying that the government teaches kids that government intervention is good and that they're always biased in favor of the government. That's akin to indoctrination (which is quite a hilarious claim nonetheless).

Yes. That is indoctrination.

What I said, is schools falsely interpret and teach things that are blatantly false. Lincoln being some anti-slavery hero. Europeans discovering America. The New Deal taking us out of the Depression. Ronald Reagan and free markets are evil. They teach bullshit, and anyone who actually pays attention to reality, can see their lies. Hence, I would rather study actual history, than a biased, liberal viewpoint.

If that was the case no one would have bailed them out, not Bush not Obama. Everyone HATED the Bailouts, but they were necessary.

If it was necessary, why was GM the only one begging for money? Because THEY fucked up. Ford had no problems. Chrysler sold to Fiat. Point is GM was the only one who was having a problem. Every business does. What I have a problem with is them getting money while small business goes under, and also, why they deserve bailout money when they didn't give a fuck about their own company.

Oh please son you don't even know history. I'll accept actual history, just not the interpretation of fringe revisionists with obvious bias who won't consider any other interpretation.

That's odd because everything you've been quoting is the very definition of "revisionism"

Right, it's called de-regulation, it's a core Libertarian belief, hence history says Libertarianism helps monopolies.

That isn't what de-regulation is at all. Deregulation implies that you're letting consumers and the business make choices that will decide the fate of said company. Deregulation is when the govt takes it's hand off the wheel. The Robber-baron era does not fall under this category, as it was government and industry working together.

The FDA has the incentive to keep contaminated foods from the markets and they have been pretty good about that. Simply being part of a corrupt company doesn't necessarily mean you're not capable of doing a job, I mean many of the top anti-Global Warming scientists gets boatloads of money from oil companies, but that doesn't mean their arguments are instantly invalidated because they're getting money.
Right, and it says the government broke up another monopoly.

No it doesn't. It just says they broke up into smaller companies, on paper.

If they did that would have increased inflation, and they didn't. Learn history son.

Then you're wrong, because they totally fucking did according to....every economist and historian ever.

lulz.

Hi, have you not noticed that a loaf of bread is almost $4 now?

That's fine as long as real wages increase, which they have.

Wages are not increasing.

Even IF they were, it wouldn't matter because of the dollar's purchasing power has decreased so much.

It's more or less more stable than before WWII. I mean there were many panics pre-WWII constantly, Panic of 1893 was one of the worst until the Great Depression occurred. Before WWII the economy was as unstable as shit, but since then Keynesian economics have been applied, which weaken the effect of the business cycle. Hence our recessions aren't nearly as bad as the ones pre-WWII.

Kenyesian economics cause the recessions in the first place.

If you did then you would be talking about how it doesn't indicate the size of the Labor Force. For example, Unemployment rose to 7.9% around the time of the election, this was actually a good thing because it meant that people were re-entering the Labor Force. People seem to think that the unemployed are those people who don't have a job , but it's not and that's what you seem to be talking about.

Unemployment is a good thing now...wow...

The Department of Labor says it's 7.9%.

No, they don't/

No, because I describe what inflation is and when it occurs. You didn't refute anything.

You can't seem to tell the difference between natural and forced inflation

You linked to more articles about how Hoover was a big government Liberal. I'm calling bullshit on that.

Well, he expanded govt power/influence in the private sector. That's called LIBERALISM

We weren't even talking about this administration.

I am

Obama on the other hand has many military and national security advisers who have the most experience in the military so I'm sure he knows alot more about the military than you do.

Sure, but at the end of the day, they listen to his orders. And his orders are high risk "look how awesome I am" kid shit.

The foreign policy of Bush and Obama are quite different. Obama isn't launching invasions on the scale of Bush. He hasn't occupied more foreign nations for example. Powell resigned because Bush didn't give a shit what he thought and took Cheney's and Rumsfelds advice over his. He was the biggest opponent of the Iraq war in Bush's cabinet and had to soil his reputation when he was forced to make the case for it in the UN.

Their foreign policy is identical. Illegal wars, and assassination. You can try to polish it anyway you want by saying Obama's invasions "aren't as big", but he's still ordering invasion nontheless, and people are dying because of it.

That's what your articles said he was doing and that's what drone strikes are.

Um, he's guilty of more than one thing. Drone strikes against innocent civilians being one. Assassinations being another.

The interpretation of how far they go though are not.

Says who?

Aye doing so would make actually fighting terrorists alot harder.

Right, so since the definition is up to whatever the president says at the time, what's to stop him from saying "warforger" is now an enemy combatant? No trial, no nothing. They just come into your house, and arrest you. Or just kill you. Is that okay? After all, with no defintion of enemy combatant, there's no distinction between you, or a common al-quida member.

You admitted yourself that he didn't order the killing of Bin Laden. Secondly, are you seriously saying that Bin Laden was innocent?

He's sure taking a lot of credit for it though! As for Bin Laden's innocence...that's not for me to decide...that's why we have trials. When did presumed guilt warrant assassination?

So natural ones don't?

Do you not know the difference between the natural life cycle of money, vs. some banker standing up and just saying "a dollar is worth this much now"

No it's not. What Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did was take idea's without paying the original creators anything such as DOS and then selling it.

You can't trademark electrical theory and equations.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 9th, 2013 @ 10:53 PM Reply

At 1/9/13 09:38 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Bullshit. The role of government is to protect the rights and equality of everyone. Not back companies, not hand out money to people, not murder people overseas.

It's also to create security.

That is not coercion. Cops stop criminals. Is that coercion too?

Yes that is coercion.

No, I have not.

Re-read every post.

Exactly. The value of gold at the time was not $20.67...until the Federal Reserve made it that price.

It was per ounce, and it was around 300$ in today's currency if you bothered reading the link.

BTW, thank you for proving my entire point, which was that government/FDR forced citizens into a transaction. Which is quite illegal.

No I haven't, did you seriously forget how this entire conversation started? I said that you were wrong that he was flat out taking money away without compensation, you said that wasn't true, i responded by saying he did compensate them for their loss of gold and pointed to a link which quotes the order directly.

Yes. That is indoctrination.
What I said, is schools falsely interpret and teach things that are blatantly false. Lincoln being some anti-slavery hero.

I remember distinctly learning that he wasn't in my AP US history class.

Europeans discovering America.

Um what do you mean?

The New Deal taking us out of the Depression.

Again I was explicitly taught this wasn't true.

Ronald Reagan and free markets are evil.

And yet again not true. But to an extent they do try to argue some things without implicitly saying they're true, like Lincoln being an anti-slavery hero.

They teach bullshit, and anyone who actually pays attention to reality, can see their lies. Hence, I would rather study actual history, than a biased, liberal viewpoint.

By god no. The education system is heavily Federalist, meaning the stuff each teacher teaches in their class varies state to state. Thus you see like in Texas where there is a push to put Creationism in the classroom and put things like "Evolution is just a theory!" in textbooks. They also try to revise history by cutting out the influence of minorities on our history, they want to remove more things in the history books so that kids "will feel more proud of their country". Is it Liberal? Hell no.

If it was necessary, why was GM the only one begging for money? Because THEY fucked up. Ford had no problems. Chrysler sold to Fiat. Point is GM was the only one who was having a problem. Every business does. What I have a problem with is them getting money while small business goes under, and also, why they deserve bailout money when they didn't give a fuck about their own company.

They would have to have declared bankruptcy and fired alot of workers. If another company bought them out then they would've been liquidated (it's a common business practice, buy out competition then liquidate their assets).

That's odd because everything you've been quoting is the very definition of "revisionism"

Quite the contrary. I at least argue your points and interpretations of history, you don't even bother to disagree other than "nuh uh" and then I respond with sources which you don't read and go "nuh-uh".

That isn't what de-regulation is at all. Deregulation implies that you're letting consumers and the business make choices that will decide the fate of said company. Deregulation is when the govt takes it's hand off the wheel. The Robber-baron era does not fall under this category, as it was government and industry working together.

BUT YOU JUST SAID IT WAS DE-REGULATED.

No it doesn't. It just says they broke up into smaller companies, on paper.

Oh wow. Conspiracy time.

Then you're wrong, because they totally fucking did according to....every economist and historian ever.

Like who? Because I've only seen the opposite.

Hi, have you not noticed that a loaf of bread is almost $4 now?

Right but now we actually have 4$. Back before WWII when a recession hit you would barely have 4$ to spend.

Wages are not increasing.

They've increased alot. But again do you seriously think our economy is not as good as it was say under Grover Cleveland? Because a whole lot more people were poorer then than today.

Even IF they were, it wouldn't matter because of the dollar's purchasing power has decreased so much.

REAL wages have increased tremendously so inflation is irrelevant.

Kenyesian economics cause the recessions in the first place.

No they didn't. Recessions aren't caused by economic policies, they're part of the business cycle; they naturally occur. There is nothing you can do to stop them from occurring. Keynesian economics has merely limited the effect of them.

Unemployment is a good thing now...wow...

Ahah! There you go off demonstrating that you have no idea what unemployment is!

No, they don't/

Too bad they do.

You can't seem to tell the difference between natural and forced inflation

I can tell the difference. You don't even have an understanding of inflation.

Well, he expanded govt power/influence in the private sector. That's called LIBERALISM

No Liberalism just means change. It doesn't refer to any specific brand of policies much like how Conservatism doesn't. Now he didn't expand gov't influence in the private sector, he just gave people more money.

I am

Congrats can you please say something relevant now?

Sure, but at the end of the day, they listen to his orders. And his orders are high risk "look how awesome I am" kid shit.

Nice understanding of Obama, it's great you know him so well.

Their foreign policy is identical. Illegal wars, and assassination. You can try to polish it anyway you want by saying Obama's invasions "aren't as big", but he's still ordering invasion nontheless, and people are dying because of it.

Lolz. Please, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Um, he's guilty of more than one thing. Drone strikes against innocent civilians being one. Assassinations being another.

That was not intentional, it happens in war you kill civilians. He never attacked innocent civilians. Of course this argument is retarded "The government kills people in a war so it should go to prison".

Says who?

Supreme Court. For example states can restrict your free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

Right, so since the definition is up to whatever the president says at the time, what's to stop him from saying "warforger" is now an enemy combatant? No trial, no nothing. They just come into your house, and arrest you. Or just kill you. Is that okay? After all, with no defintion of enemy combatant, there's no distinction between you, or a common al-quida member.

Of course they won't come after me. There is however a distrinction, I'm not trying to kill Americans.

He's sure taking a lot of credit for it though! As for Bin Laden's innocence...that's not for me to decide...that's why we have trials. When did presumed guilt warrant assassination?

Because he was a criminal?

Do you not know the difference between the natural life cycle of money, vs. some banker standing up and just saying "a dollar is worth this much now"

You can't define "Real wages" so it's not worth it.

You can't trademark electrical theory and equation

Not relevant.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 9th, 2013 @ 11:21 PM Reply

At 1/9/13 10:53 PM, Warforger wrote: It's also to create security.

At what expense? By your logic, Nazi's SS was totally justified because it "created security"

Yes that is coercion.

LOL. No it's not

Re-read every post.

Yep...

It was per ounce, and it was around 300$ in today's currency if you bothered reading the link.

Yes, after it was artificially price fixed.

No I haven't, did you seriously forget how this entire conversation started? I said that you were wrong that he was flat out taking money away without compensation, you said that wasn't true, i responded by saying he did compensate them for their loss of gold and pointed to a link which quotes the order directly.

And the conversation has somewhat evolved...as they do. I was merely pointing out the illegality of the order.

I remember distinctly learning that he wasn't in my AP US history class.

Good. However this is not what, say middle schoolers are taught

Um what do you mean?

School children are taught that Europeans discovered the new world.

Again I was explicitly taught this wasn't true.

Good. When I was in school, this was not the case and we were taught as if FDR was some sort of savior of the US. Much like teachers teach about Obama now.

And yet again not true. But to an extent they do try to argue some things without implicitly saying they're true, like Lincoln being an anti-slavery hero.

Again, maybe we're talking different levels of education. I was speaking of my experiences in public schools/elementary/middle/high school

By god no. The education system is heavily Federalist, meaning the stuff each teacher teaches in their class varies state to state. Thus you see like in Texas where there is a push to put Creationism in the classroom and put things like "Evolution is just a theory!" in textbooks. They also try to revise history by cutting out the influence of minorities on our history, they want to remove more things in the history books so that kids "will feel more proud of their country". Is it Liberal? Hell no.

This was not my experience. My experience had an air of liberalism to it.

They would have to have declared bankruptcy and fired alot of workers. If another company bought them out then they would've been liquidated (it's a common business practice, buy out competition then liquidate their assets).

And how is that my fault? Why should I pick up the slack for their fuckups?

Maybe if they're unions weren't blackmailing them, it wouldn't be an issue?

Quite the contrary. I at least argue your points and interpretations of history, you don't even bother to disagree other than "nuh uh" and then I respond with sources which you don't read and go "nuh-uh".

Because posting anything beyond "nuh uh" will ust result in more revisionist bullshit. I already know what you're going to say before you say it, there's no point in going in depth to dispute you when I'm just gonna be met with more bullshit.

BUT YOU JUST SAID IT WAS DE-REGULATED.

No I didn't. I've been saying the entire time that the government worked with and favored the robber barons.

Oh wow. Conspiracy time.

Um, no. lol

Like who? Because I've only seen the opposite.
Right but now we actually have 4$. Back before WWII when a recession hit you would barely have 4$ to spend.

And now we barely have enough to cover all of our bills. Hence the large amount of personal debt, foreclosures, homelessness, etc.

They've increased alot. But again do you seriously think our economy is not as good as it was say under Grover Cleveland? Because a whole lot more people were poorer then than today.

No I don't. Pound for pound it's the same. People are still struggling to make ends meet. PEople are still in debt. People are still homeless....only difference now is, government and taxpayers pick up the tab.

No they didn't. Recessions aren't caused by economic policies, they're part of the business cycle; they naturally occur. There is nothing you can do to stop them from occurring. Keynesian economics has merely limited the effect of them.

No it hasn't. It has propagated them.

Ahah! There you go off demonstrating that you have no idea what unemployment is!

LOL. Right. Here's a clue. Unemployment is bad. People starving is bad. People being kicked out of their homes, is bad.

Too bad they do.

No

I can tell the difference. You don't even have an understanding of inflation.

It isn't rocket science. To put on this attitude of "Oh, only I understand inflation, you're dumb", is rediculous.

No Liberalism just means change. It doesn't refer to any specific brand of policies much like how Conservatism doesn't. Now he didn't expand gov't influence in the private sector, he just gave people more money.

Liberalism, in this context, refers to certain policies.

And "giving people money" is govt interferance in the private sector.

Congrats can you please say something relevant now?

You can't refute what I'm saying, so it's "irrelevant". That's nice.

Nice understanding of Obama, it's great you know him so well.

Anyone who interacts with humans on a daily basis can see it. It's pretty basic "people reading", a skill that can easily be gained by interacting with them.

Lolz. Please, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Good one. Obama's still a murderer and war criminal.

That was not intentional, it happens in war you kill civilians. He never attacked innocent civilians. Of course this argument is retarded "The government kills people in a war so it should go to prison".

We are not in a legal war. So it's just murder, at this point. With modern technology and intelligence, there should not be this much blood on our hands.

Supreme Court. For example states can restrict your free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

Oh...liberal interpretations of the Constitution....yay.

Of course they won't come after me. There is however a distrinction, I'm not trying to kill Americans.

How do you know they won't come after you? What do you think makes you safe?

As for killing Americans...that has nothing to do with enemy combatant, as there is no definition.

Because he was a criminal?

How do you know? There was no trial. What was his crime?

I suspect my neighbor stole a car. Should the Navy Seals come over and kill him?

You can't define "Real wages" so it's not worth it.

Nice dodge

Not relevant.

It is. Because Gates and Jobs used knowledge (that can't be patented or trademarked) to create a new product/item

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 12th, 2013 @ 08:30 PM Reply

At 1/9/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: At what expense? By your logic, Nazi's SS was totally justified because it "created security"

No, the Nazi SS was created to pursue a policy of genocide. The Jews did not actively try to attack Germany, there were not many groups which did.

LOL. No it's not

Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is coercion.

Yep...

Good so you admit you contradict yourself constantly?

Yes, after it was artificially price fixed.

All prices are artificial technically.

And the conversation has somewhat evolved...as they do. I was merely pointing out the illegality of the order.

It wasn't illegal at all, the President has the power to manipulate Currency like how he can mint a trillion dollar coin.

Good. However this is not what, say middle schoolers are taught

Well technically he was an anti-Slavery hero, he did ban slavery after all, but I think what you're looking for was that he wasn't about Civil Rights for blacks. He would've gladly accepted a Segregationist South if it meant the Union would come back together (although the North and his home state of Illinois was Segregated too, so it probably would've been pretty progressive).

School children are taught that Europeans discovered the new world.

They're taught about the first Europeans to do so. Even then Columbus wasn't the first and the reason for his discovery is wrong (not to prove the Earth was round for example). Of course migrants from Siberia were the first technically. Even then you could also argue an expedition from China discovered it as well.

Good. When I was in school, this was not the case and we were taught as if FDR was some sort of savior of the US. Much like teachers teach about Obama now.

FDR was a good President, you don't get elected 4 times in a row if you're not after all, but teachers don't teach Obama is a savior in fact if they do that it will probably be illegal.

This was not my experience. My experience had an air of liberalism to it.

Where'd you go then?

And how is that my fault? Why should I pick up the slack for their fuckups?

Because it would've caused a domino of companies to fail. Not only would they go out of business but so would their suppliers, and then since there are less total workers other businesses will be effected and pretty soon every business left and right is declaring bankruptcy.

Because posting anything beyond "nuh uh" will ust result in more revisionist bullshit. I already know what you're going to say before you say it, there's no point in going in depth to dispute you when I'm just gonna be met with more bullshit.

Ok fine, then let's just stop debating since we're going in circles.

No I didn't. I've been saying the entire time that the government worked with and favored the robber barons.

How could they if they give up any control they had?

And now we barely have enough to cover all of our bills. Hence the large amount of personal debt, foreclosures, homelessness, etc.

Yah it's much better than in the 1890's.

No I don't. Pound for pound it's the same. People are still struggling to make ends meet. PEople are still in debt. People are still homeless....only difference now is, government and taxpayers pick up the tab.

Ah but a smaller amount of people are. During the 1920's 50% of people lived in poverty and another 20% were in danger of joining them, by 1960 that number had declined to 20% and by 1969 it declined further to 10% and has remained around there since.

No it hasn't. It has propagated them.

Like what? Where has low taxes and higher gov spending during a recession then high taxes and lower gov spending during an economic boom caused recessions? This current Recession is the same as it usually is, a couple of large companies or banks mismanage their funds and bring the rest of the economy with them, same as it was previous to the Federal Reserve and after.

LOL. Right. Here's a clue. Unemployment is bad. People starving is bad. People being kicked out of their homes, is bad.

Unemployment is just a rate, you have to interpret it to know if it's bad or good. The Unemployment rate rose not because people were losing their jobs, but because people who stopped looking for one actually started looking again and hadn't got one yet, so the Labor Force grew but with people who hadn't gotten a job yet, therefore it was technically a good thing because it is a sign the economy is turning around.

It isn't rocket science. To put on this attitude of "Oh, only I understand inflation, you're dumb", is rediculous.

You said inflation is a sign of a recession, I challenged you to look for any economic boom where there wasn't inflation and you dodged the question again. I pointed out only in Staglation does inflation rise and the economy well stagnates and you responded with "You're a Keynesian retard". You went off on some tangent complaining about how the dollar isn't as worth as much as it was before and I pointed it out that doesn't matter when people have enough dollars to make up for the difference. You barely try to argue the actual definition or the causes of inflation and just respond with "No it doesn't" so I feel I have a better grasp of the concept than you do.

Liberalism, in this context, refers to certain policies.

No it doesn't because you were talking about Hoover, "Liberalism" as we know it know wasn't defined until FDR thus it meant something completely different at the time.

And "giving people money" is govt interferance in the private sector.

Well they hired people to build roads along with a whole assortment of projects, that's not really interference in the Private Sector. But FDR did interefere in the Private sector alot, mostly making Unions stronger (well this was back when they were starting to get any remote sense of the word of power).

You can't refute what I'm saying, so it's "irrelevant". That's nice.

refute what?

Anyone who interacts with humans on a daily basis can see it. It's pretty basic "people reading", a skill that can easily be gained by interacting with them.

When a politician makes a speech he is essentially acting so that wouldn't matter. Otherwise you're basing this off of a hunch, not actually talking to him or what people have to say about him.

We are not in a legal war. So it's just murder, at this point. With modern technology and intelligence, there should not be this much blood on our hands.

It's still a war so people will still die......

Oh...liberal interpretations of the Constitution....yay.

Actually only two justices were appointed by Democrats (and this was a time where the Conservative wing of the Democrats was still dominant), the rest were appointed by Republicans, like for example William Howard Taft.

How do you know they won't come after you? What do you think makes you safe?

Because I've done nothing and if Obama would go after me it would make a huge story on the news and his popularity will crash and he will probably be impeached? If he goes after some terrorist people will let it slide, if he goes after innocents who've done nothing his entire career is down the drain.

As for killing Americans...that has nothing to do with enemy combatant, as there is no definition.

There is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

How do you know? There was no trial. What was his crime?

OBL? He claimed responsiblity and he was the head of the organization which did it. It's like saying Holmes didn't shoot up the theater.

I suspect my neighbor stole a car. Should the Navy Seals come over and kill him?

Well when your neighbor is driving around in it and told you he did I think it's pretty fair to say he did.

Nice dodge

Kind of hard to explain economics to someone who denies your definitions and explanations.

It is. Because Gates and Jobs used knowledge (that can't be patented or trademarked)

Ideas are patented......


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 12th, 2013 @ 08:34 PM Reply

Socialism is great also so is Communism.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 12th, 2013 @ 09:13 PM Reply

At 1/12/13 08:30 PM, Warforger wrote: No, the Nazi SS was created to pursue a policy of genocide. The Jews did not actively try to attack Germany, there were not many groups which did.

No, it was created for "safety" to "protect Germany"...or the Fatherland...or "Homeland" as we like to call it now

Forcing people to do something they don't want to do is coercion.

Exactly. And cops don't fall under this description

Good so you admit you contradict yourself constantly?

Nope. Because I haven't

All prices are artificial technically.

No they aren't. Do you even know how trade works?

It wasn't illegal at all, the President has the power to manipulate Currency like how he can mint a trillion dollar coin.

No he doesn't. That power lies solely with Congress.

Well technically he was an anti-Slavery hero, he did ban slavery after all, but I think what you're looking for was that he wasn't about Civil Rights for blacks. He would've gladly accepted a Segregationist South if it meant the Union would come back together (although the North and his home state of Illinois was Segregated too, so it probably would've been pretty progressive).

Freed slaves? Sure, people couldn't be "owned" anymore. But they were still just as oppressed and persecuted. Lincoln was pro-slave. He only changed his mind when it was politically convenient.

They're taught about the first Europeans to do so.

Not when I was in school

FDR was a good President, you don't get elected 4 times in a row if you're not after all, but teachers don't teach Obama is a savior in fact if they do that it will probably be illegal.

No, he was actually a shit president, and what we're dealing with now is a direct result of his policies. And being elected does not make you a good president, and schools absolutely teach students about Obama as if he's some sort of "hero"

Where'd you go then?

If I gave you the name of my high school, would that change anything?

Because it would've caused a domino of companies to fail. Not only would they go out of business but so would their suppliers, and then since there are less total workers other businesses will be effected and pretty soon every business left and right is declaring bankruptcy.

No, Ford or any of the myriad car companies in the US would've taken their place. It would've left a wide open piece of the market for new companies to get involved.

Ok fine, then let's just stop debating since we're going in circles.

Good.

How could they if they give up any control they had?

Who gave up control of what?

Yah it's much better than in the 1890's.

You're talking about 2 completely different economic climates. Comparing the two is ludicrous at best. You gonna compare ancient chinese economy to post-industrial revolution America too?

Ah but a smaller amount of people are. During the 1920's 50% of people lived in poverty and another 20% were in danger of joining them, by 1960 that number had declined to 20% and by 1969 it declined further to 10% and has remained around there since.

Of course they did! Times have changed. The economic and technological climate has changed as well. More people have entered the workforce as well. Comparing the modern economy to back then, is just crazy.

Like what? Where has low taxes and higher gov spending during a recession then high taxes and lower gov spending during an economic boom caused recessions?

YOU'RE FUCKING LIVING IN IT!

Unemployment is just a rate, you have to interpret it to know if it's bad or good. The Unemployment rate rose not because people were losing their jobs, but because people who stopped looking for one actually started looking again and hadn't got one yet, so the Labor Force grew but with people who hadn't gotten a job yet, therefore it was technically a good thing because it is a sign the economy is turning around.

No, it's a sign that there is no job market. Of course, it's easy to shift around number when you change the definition of "unemployment"

You said inflation is a sign of a recession..

No, I implied government caused/dictated inflation is the sign of a weak economy.

No it doesn't because you were talking about Hoover, "Liberalism" as we know it know wasn't defined until FDR thus it meant something completely different at the time.

Not really. every politician since the mid 1910's has been a liberal.

Well they hired people to build roads along with a whole assortment of projects, that's not really interference in the Private Sector. But FDR did interefere in the Private sector alot, mostly making Unions stronger (well this was back when they were starting to get any remote sense of the word of power).

Exactly.

refute what?

Anything

When a politician makes a speech he is essentially acting so that wouldn't matter. Otherwise you're basing this off of a hunch, not actually talking to him or what people have to say about him.

Yes. They are bad actors. Transparent, if you will

It's still a war so people will still die......

So, as long as it's a war, dead people are okay?

Actually only two justices were appointed by Democrats (and this was a time where the Conservative wing of the Democrats was still dominant), the rest were appointed by Republicans, like for example William Howard Taft.

Right. Liberals.

Because I've done nothing and if Obama would go after me it would make a huge story on the news and his popularity will crash and he will probably be impeached? If he goes after some terrorist people will let it slide, if he goes after innocents who've done nothing his entire career is down the drain.

LOL. How do you know you've done nothing? What's to stop you being accused? No trial would even be needed. As for impeachment...Obama does illegal shit all the time. Impeachment is clearly not on the table. Of course when you're a lawyer, you figure out how to skirt the law.

FYI, he has gone after innocent people. A man was recently arrested and detained for making a supposedly "anti-muslim" video. A VIDEO. That's protected by the first amendment. And he was detained.

There is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

And there's the problem. Most of the enemy combatants...in Gitmo, for example, aren't being detained under laws and customs of war. They are not enlisted soldiers. So that makes them civilians. So, they need to be tried for their crimes.

OBL? He claimed responsiblity and he was the head of the organization which did it.

Well, if you're so sure, surely the DOJ would've been able to build a case. But why build a case when you can just murder someone. Saves a lot of money and time, right?

Well when your neighbor is driving around in it and told you he did I think it's pretty fair to say he did.

Even then, legally, it would take a trial to prove it. Even then, would it be okay for him to be killed?

Kind of hard to explain economics to someone who...

Tell me about it.

scoutthesoldier
scoutthesoldier
  • Member since: Jul. 25, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 14th, 2013 @ 07:10 PM Reply

Because it's bad for the economy, pfft, everyone knows that!


That Scout is a Soldier!

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 14th, 2013 @ 07:47 PM Reply

At 1/14/13 07:10 PM, scoutthesoldier wrote: Because it's bad for the economy, pfft, everyone knows that!

There would not be an economy without socialism as well there would be no need for an economy if people are not taken care of.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 12:34 AM Reply

At 1/14/13 07:47 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: There would not be an economy without socialism as well there would be no need for an economy if people are not taken care of.

Yes there would. People's need to survive and their want of nice things (or luxuries) is what birthed economies.

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 01:44 AM Reply

At 1/15/13 12:34 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/14/13 07:47 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: There would not be an economy without socialism as well there would be no need for an economy if people are not taken care of.
Yes there would. People's need to survive and their want of nice things (or luxuries) is what birthed economies.

That's greed you speak of not "Economy"
Economy - To practice economy, as by avoiding waste or reducing expenditures.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 15th, 2013 @ 11:56 AM Reply

At 1/15/13 01:44 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's greed you speak of not "Economy"
Economy - To practice economy, as by avoiding waste or reducing expenditures.

Greed is the economy.

The government taxes you because they are greedy. Your phone is a product of greed. You car, is both the autmoaker being greedy, and you being greedy for wanting it. Same goes for TV, newspapers, books, water, electricity, gas, clothes, your house, shampoo, soap, a refrigerator, you toilet, kitchen counters. Hell, even your OWN JOB is because of greed.

People like to demonize greed....so where are these non-greedy people in the world?

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 12:45 AM Reply

At 1/15/13 11:56 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/15/13 01:44 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: That's greed you speak of not "Economy"
Economy - To practice economy, as by avoiding waste or reducing expenditures.
Greed is the economy.

LOL not even close however I do agree that sometimes even many times certain countries lean toward greed more than common sense while dealing with the acquisition and distribution of resources, goods, and services. Also the word economy has been bastardized from it's original and true meaning for the true meaning of economy is at the very leased anti greed.

The government taxes you because they are greedy.

That's corruption you speak of not greed. Greed is a condition inherent to plebs not to the power elite.

Your phone is a product of greed.

How do you know what premise Alexander Gram Bell invented the telephone under. Also almost all modern products are produced by poor people not greedy Americans whom consume far more than they produce.

You car, is both the autmoaker being greedy, and you being greedy for wanting it.

I don't drive or own any cars as I sold them all some time ago for a boatload of reasons.

Same goes for TV, newspapers, books, water, electricity, gas, clothes, your house, shampoo, soap, a refrigerator, you toilet, kitchen counters. Hell, even your OWN JOB is because of greed.

Wow you have a very misconstrued and very un positive attitude toward reality.

People like to demonize greed

No it's just that you are exalting it as something it is not.

so where are these non-greedy people in the world?

The people that work hard every day to pay for your lazy ass to sit in front of the computer screen trollin on NGS forums. See it's about the family unit and taking care of each other however society today does a real good job a busting up the family unit. In life at some point you will find true satisfaction and contentment in doing things for others instead of rubbing your own ego off. You will learn that you are a part of a very large team weather you like it or not or you will learn complete and utter economic collapse enter the US&A. Greed will bring the demise of the individual, the family unit, the extended family unit, the workplace, the corporation, the state/province, the government and ultimately the nation. To be greedy is to disrespect yourself.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 01:12 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 12:45 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: LOL not even close

Name a function involving money, that is not driven by greed.

That's corruption you speak of not greed. Greed is a condition inherent to plebs not to the power elite.

No, it's greed.

How do you know what premise Alexander Gram Bell invented the telephone under. Also almost all modern products are produced by poor people not greedy Americans whom consume far more than they produce.

Well, he patented it, so it's pretty obvious he wanted money. Or at least wanted to prevent others from profiting from it.

Also, why do you think those employers of the "poor people" make those phones? Why do you think those "poor people" get jobs making those phones. Is it out of the goodness of their heart? Or do you think it's because they want money in exchange for their labor (greed)?

Wow you have a very misconstrued and very un positive attitude toward reality.

Ok, so why are the above mentioned things produced at all? Do you think the companies just do it for fun? Why do you have a job? Does you employer just do it feel good? Do you go to work because it's cool? Why do you work, and why do you suppose products and goods are manufatcured?

No it's just that you are exalting it as something it is not.

No, greed is the want or need of something. And exchanging something for another something is the basis of economy.

so where are these non-greedy people in the world?
The people that work hard every day to pay for your lazy ass to sit in front of the computer screen trollin on NGS forums.

Those people aren't greedy? Then why do they have jobs?

What is the whole point of employment?

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 01:18 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 01:12 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
so where are these non-greedy people in the world?
The people that work hard every day to pay for your lazy ass to sit in front of the computer screen trollin on NGS forums.
Those people aren't greedy? Then why do they have jobs?

What is the whole point of employment?

You can sure tell that you don't have kids and probably still live at home with your parents.


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 16th, 2013 @ 01:34 AM Reply

At 1/16/13 01:18 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: You can sure tell that you don't have kids and probably still live at home with your parents.

It wouldn't matter if I had a kid, 12 kids, lived in a box, or a mansion, or even on the fucking moon.

Why does one obtain employment?

Zanroth
Zanroth
  • Member since: Jul. 22, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Artist
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Jan. 20th, 2013 @ 08:32 AM Reply

At 12/21/12 05:16 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: Isn't the basis of it taxing the rich to help out the poor? What's so bad about that? correct me if i'm wrong about that, but I've researched it and that's what usually comes up.

Anyway, the rich have plenty of money to help out the poor, I don't see what's so bad about sharing money, sure you earned it, but you're not going to help little Timmy who is your best friend's son survive his fight with a cold because his family can't afford it? I do not see what is so bad about this concept, and why people would even care if Obama is socialist or not. also, not everybody who is poor is a "lazy dirt bag" stuff happens, most people in this class work their hearts out. I know from personal experience.

So correct if I'm wrong, but what is so bad about this concept?

It hinders the very core of our progress as a species, our very drive.
Ambition.

While I do favor the concept of taxes, I don't think said money should be GIVEN to the poor.
No, if I were in control I'd make sure facilities were established that:
A: Provide housing, basic medical care, internet access and necessities for survival
B: Provide the means to get work/training and education to be able to get a job.

But let's approach the subject from yet another angle, shall we.
For a major part, it's rich entrepreneurs who actually provide a lot of jobs. How does that not constitute helping the poor?

Iron-Claw
Iron-Claw
  • Member since: Apr. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Artist
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 05:42 AM Reply

The proplem with socialism is that most people who come out against it like the Republicans don't have a fucking clue as to what socialism is they often confuse it with Fascism which is most definitely far worse you don't want Fascism either nevertheless socialism is still bad by definition and in the act of. This is what Socialism is:

A group of political leaders establish a Commune that becomes the leadership similar to a senate only much smaller they decide what and where things will be done for the people and the Commune vote for them similar to Democracy except the trouble therein is that the leaders establish themselves there are no elections where the people vote, vicariously the people have no say in the government, vicariously the peoples welfare and well being is out of sight out of mind of The Government and the people will suffer indefinitely. That is Socialism.

No one on this or any other planet should have a socialist government. It never lasts long. The Soviet Union fell relatively quickly and China will fall soon enough.


Your Arrogance Will Be Your Undoing
Perfection Is An Illusion And Delusion Of Narcissists And Despots
It's Not Who You Were It's More In Who You Are And Who You Will Be

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to What is so bad about Socalism? Feb. 5th, 2013 @ 01:17 PM Reply

At 2/5/13 05:42 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: A group of political leaders establish a Commune that becomes the leadership similar to a senate only much smaller they decide what and where things will be done for the people

Yes and no one wants to be forced into having decisions pushed upon them, and that is a the major issue. No one wants things forced upon them. Now if you can placate the people into wanting it via threats, starvation and genocide, then of course it will work.

But people usually don't want their choices made for them.