Capitalism's Dirty Byproduct

Try though you might, you're still the biggest lying, cheating, welshing, homophobic cocksucker who shines through your every handle. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

????

Which of your multiple personalities are you talking to now, assup?

.

Now that was a hum fucking dinger of a zinger there, Junior.

no wonder you're an also ran in the afternoon debate!

It is false reductionism to equate all theocracies. If your point is Christians want a theocracy, and Muslims want a theocracy, you should hardly congratulate yourself. Christians don't want a Muslim theocracy, nor do the Muslims wish Christianity upon themselves. Originally Posted by DSK

They both want a theocracy. They both want to use their religion in a position of power over those who don't believe. I never congratulated myself. And I can most certainly reduce all religions to the point where I address them equally.

They both want a theocracy. They both want to use their religion in a position of power over those who don't believe. I never congratulated myself. And I can most certainly reduce all religions to the point where I address them equally. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Except for YOUR religion of worshipping other GUYS cocks and assholes ya cum guzzler !

Now that was a hum fucking dinger of a zinger... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Did you say a hummerdinger? Isn't that one of your "daily dumpster specials" down at tallywackers?
.

Did you say a hummerdinger? Isn't that one of your "daily dumpster specials" down at tallywackers?
. Originally Posted by lustylad

You know it is. You came up with it, you silly dumbass.

You know it is. You came up with it, you silly dumbass. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Underpants, Underpants
does whatever an Underpants can
spins his lie, any size
catches cum between his eyes
Look out! here cums the Underpants
is he stupid? listen, Bud
He's got radioactive libtard blood
can he screw up a thread?
take a look at the post above
Hey there!!! there goes the Underpants
in the chill of night
at the scene of a post
like a streaking libtard
he arrives just in time!!
Underpants, Underpants
Friendly ECCIE Underpants
Wealth and fame?
he's got none
being a libtard is his reward
to him .. life is a great big libtard gang bang
wherever there's a thread he can fuck up
you'll find Underpants

Underpants, Underpants
does whatever an Underpants can
spins his lie, any size
catches cum between his eyes
Look out! here cums the Underpants
is he stupid? listen, Bud
He's got radioactive libtard blood
can he screw up a thread?
take a look at the post above
Hey there!!! there goes the Underpants
in the chill of night
at the scene of a post
like a streaking libtard
he arrives just in time!!
Underpants, Underpants
Friendly ECCIE Underpants
Wealth and fame?
he's got none
being a libtard is his reward
to him .. life is a great big libtard gang bang
wherever there's a thread he can fuck up
you'll find Underpants




Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

In typical conservatard fashion, you have forsaken the log in your own eye, for the splinter in mine. Idiot.

In typical conservatard fashion, you have forsaken the log in your own eye, for the splinter in mine. Idiot. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Stereotypes are the result of observation or close mindedness?

Tell me something, if you took a great idea, and implemented it badly, who'd be to blame?

The idea? or you? Originally Posted by shanm

The idea.

You have presented a FALSE argument.

Your built-in assumption - that it is a "great idea" - is the part that must be proven. Instead, when the idea fails repeatedly, you blame poor implementation rather than the idea itself.

That is de rigueur for progressives. The big government plans are never wrong in conception. It is always poor implementation and - or course - not enough money spent on it. So the answer is always more funding and more experts.

That same bullshit argument was always used by the American left to defend communism. No matter how badly economies got fucked up or how many millions died, it was always a problem of the people who were in charge (Mao, Lenin). It was never the idea itself that sucked balls.

Hmmm any evidence....let's see, why don't I begin with the fact that you have a huge problem distinguishing between socialism and communism. They're not inter-changeable, no matter how much you'd like them to be, dummy. Look them up and get back to me. Originally Posted by shanm

I have no fucking idea where that unsupported assertion comes from, but I have no problem distinguishing them. I assume you are desperately flailing around trying to look like you have an argument.

Now go back and find evidence where socialist countries were safer than capitalist ones.

Pakistan is a democratic country with a capitalistic system in place. Look how well it's worked out for them. Originally Posted by shanm

What color is the sky in your world, Cliff?

On what fantasy planet was Pakistan ever a capitalistic system? What stupid example.

India and Pakistan were both spawned out from the British Empire in the 1950s and they adopted the same rickety socialist economy that caused England to be referred to as "the sick man of Europe" prior to Margaret Thatcher's election..

Neither Pakistan nor India made any progress economically until the 1980s. India moved away from socialism and became more market oriented. Pakistan tried a little, but it is still a kleptocracy hopelessly mired in corruption.

So Pakistan and India are still poor because they started so far behind and tried socialism for decades. They are Third World shit holes and it will take capitalism a couple of generations to get them caught up to the First World - if capitalism is ever really fully tried.

Germany is a largely socialist ( and also democratic) country. Again, I say, look how well it's worked out for them. Originally Posted by shanm

Between Otto von Bismarck and 1945, I would say it was a disaster. What did they lose - about 25% of their population? Care to argue that point?

Since WWII, Germany has been a largely capitalist country, not socialist. Other than national healthcare, what makes them socialist? Their taxes are lower than most of Europe, they have the least amount of job protection for workers (you can get laid off there easily), and their economy prospered because they didn't have to pay for national defense. That was provided by the USA at great expense.

In fact ALL the countries of Europe would have much stingier social welfare systems if they had been paying for all of their own defense over the last 70 years.

No one system has a monopoly on anything. It's exactly the fact that dumb people believe that that half our problems remain unsolved. You, and many others of your ilk, cringe every time you hear the word socialism, without even understanding what it means. Originally Posted by shanm

Au contraire. They cringe because that know exactly what it means.

Let's look at it on a micro level. "Public safety" you say? What's the deal with Obamacare being socialist again?

It's goal is to have everyone covered with health insurance.
Is that not a viable goal for the best country in the world to have?
The answer is only NO in a capitalist system, where the fact that you're paying slightly more so that the less fortunate can escape the underpinnings of an unfair system is considered highway robbery. Originally Posted by shanm

Strawman arguments. You are changing the subject.

Go back and read the first post. The point the idiot OP was trying to make was that capitalism (but not socialism) was some inherently dangerous place to live in (pollution. skimping on safety, etc.) because capitalism put profits ahead of safety.

Obamacare has NOTHING to do with that. So why are you introducing it?

Your patriotism ends where your pockets begin. Originally Posted by shanm

The problem, however, is that your patriotism begins where other people's pockets begin.

The idea.

You have presented a FALSE argument.

Your built-in assumption - that it is a "great idea" - is the part that must be proven. Instead, when the idea fails repeatedly, you blame poor implementation rather than the idea itself.

That is de rigueur for progressives. The big government plans are never wrong in conception. It is always poor implementation and - or course - not enough money spent on it. So the answer is always more funding and more experts.

That same bullshit argument was always used by the American left to defend communism. No matter how badly economies got fucked up or how many millions died, it was always a problem of the people who were in charge (Mao, Lenin). It was never the idea itself that sucked balls.


I have no fucking idea where that unsupported assertion comes from, but I have no problem distinguishing them. I assume you are desperately flailing around trying to look like you have an argument.

Now go back and find evidence where socialist countries were safer than capitalist ones.


What color is the sky in your world, Cliff?

On what fantasy planet was Pakistan ever a capitalistic system? What stupid example.

India and Pakistan were both spawned out from the British Empire in the 1950s and they adopted the same rickety socialist economy that caused England to be referred to as "the sick man of Europe" prior to Margaret Thatcher's election..

Neither Pakistan nor India made any progress economically until the 1980s. India moved away from socialism and became more market oriented. Pakistan tried a little, but it is still a kleptocracy hopelessly mired in corruption.

So Pakistan and India are still poor because they started so far behind and tried socialism for decades. They are Third World shit holes and it will take capitalism a couple of generations to get them caught up to the First World - if capitalism is ever really fully tried.


Between Otto von Bismarck and 1945, I would say it was a disaster. What did they lose - about 25% of their population? Care to argue that point?

Since WWII, Germany has been a largely capitalist country, not socialist. Other than national healthcare, what makes them socialist? Their taxes are lower than most of Europe, they have the least amount of job protection for workers (you can get laid off there easily), and their economy prospered because they didn't have to pay for national defense. That was provided by the USA at great expense.

In fact ALL the countries of Europe would have much stingier social welfare systems if they had been paying for all of their own defense over the last 70 years.


Au contraire. They cringe because that know exactly what it means.


Strawman arguments. You are changing the subject.

Go back and read the first post. The point the idiot OP was trying to make was that capitalism (but not socialism) was some inherently dangerous place to live in (pollution. skimping on safety, etc.) because capitalism put profits ahead of safety.

Obamacare has NOTHING to do with that. So why are you introducing it?


The problem, however, is that your patriotism begins where other people's pockets begin. Originally Posted by ExNYer

An argument full of nothing but trite tropes. You are the one creating arguments out of thin air. I merely pointed out a weak point of capitalism. I did NOT, by extension, say that it could not occur under a socialist system. YOU offered up that straw man all by yourself. When I comment on capitalism, I'm commenting on capitalism. Don't presume to put words in my mouth about other systems. If I want to talk about socialism, I'll use the word socialism and address it directly.

Do companies put profit ahead of safety? There are countless examples of this.
Just as socialism and communism do not fully take human nature into account, neither does capitalism. It assumes honesty and truthfulness. Greed and corruption break the system. It's merely two sides of the same wretched coin. And because one side is all you've ever known, you fear the other side out of ignorance.

Germany pays for education, up through university. They also provide healthcare for their citizens. Those are two expenses the US does not have. Their labor force is among the most productive in the world. The world's third-largest exporter of goods. A nation of just 80 million people.

An argument full of nothing but trite tropes. You are the one creating arguments out of thin air. I merely pointed out a weak point of capitalism. I did NOT, by extension, say that it could not occur under a socialist system. YOU offered up that straw man all by yourself. When I comment on capitalism, I'm commenting on capitalism. Don't presume to put words in my mouth about other systems. If I want to talk about socialism, I'll use the word socialism and address it directly. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Gee, that's odd.... ExNYer thought he was talking to shammytard and now it turns out woomby is claiming authorship of shammy's posts....

How many fucking handles does this POS have?
.

An argument full of nothing but trite tropes. You are the one creating arguments out of thin air. I merely pointed out a weak point of capitalism. I did NOT, by extension, say that it could not occur under a socialist system. YOU offered up that straw man all by yourself. When I comment on capitalism, I'm commenting on capitalism. Don't presume to put words in my mouth about other systems. If I want to talk about socialism, I'll use the word socialism and address it directly. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Horseshit.

When you refer to chemical poisoning as "capitalism's dirty byproduct", the implication is clear - that It doesn't happen in non-capitalist economies. You don't have to state it explicitly.

And you STILL haven't present ANY argument that socialist economies are safer. Does Germany not have its own pollution problems? Don't they have toxic chemicals, too?

Instead, I'm hearing arguments about their healthcare system and college system. Changing the subject again.

The idea.

You have presented a FALSE argument.

Your built-in assumption - that it is a "great idea" - is the part that must be proven. Instead, when the idea fails repeatedly, you blame poor implementation rather than the idea itself.

. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Here, let me summarize your entire argument in a couple of words: Capitalism good.
socialism bad.
Anything good that happens---->capitalism,
anything bad happens--->socialism.
God knows I didn't even read that drivel till the end because it's just the work of a delusional buffoon.

That same bullshit argument was always used by the American left to defend communism. No matter how badly economies got fucked up or how many millions died, it was always a problem of the people who were in charge (Mao, Lenin). It was never the idea itself that sucked balls.

Again, your dumbass shines through. I am not defending communism. I specifically have mentioned that at least 4 times.

Since WWII, Germany has been a largely capitalist country, not socialist. Other than national healthcare, what makes them socialist? Their taxes are lower than most of Europe, they have the least amount of job protection for workers (you can get laid off there easily), and their economy prospered because they didn't have to pay for national defense. That was provided by the USA at great expense.

Typical knobhead. In your POV, socialism = taxes. It's the "boy, they don't have a 99% tax rate, they can't be socialist" attitude that just proves you're nothing more than an ignorant RW nut.

Let's review the facts:
universal healthcare.

free college education.

They've protected trade. One reason their export economy and manufacturing economy is still strong is because they've effectively barred trade with china.

Half the board members in any corporation are required to be workers representation (Mitbestimmung, look it up sonny).

I mean, are we living in fucking fantasy land?

Like I said, you have NO clue about what socialism is. If your idea of socialism is high taxation and gub'mint owning all the resources then you are a fucking fool, because THAT is communism NOT socialism. But hey, it's you we're talking about here.


On the flip side, let's review Pakistan. The country Exgirlfriend thinks is "socialist":

Has one of the most entrepreneurial economies in the world.
Resources are not owned by the government and you're free to start whatever business you want.
There is no provision of free healthcare.
There is no free college education.
The rich are rich, the poor are poor.



That's a pathetic argument, really. Any system that is fucked up, you refuse to accept it as capitalism, and instead keep blaming it on socialism. Your premise is failed from the start. Follows that the conclusion is equally retarded.

Facts are facts. Germany is a democratic nation with many socialist systems in place. It also has capitalistic tendencies in place. It's doing great as a country. In fact, the majority of Europe is the same way. Their economies are good or bad depending on their personal implementation, and not exactly "how much" socialism they use as opposed to capitalism.

Your original idea that "public safety" is more highly valued in a capitalist system is absolutely fucking retarded. I think even a child like IB could tell you that the safety of citizens is more important in socialist (not communist) economies. Anything that is made to "protect" you or me, is NOT capitalist. No one is making a profit on it. The police, firefighters you pick...all paid for by taxes and provided collectively with no profit motive in mind. Your argument is so childish I don't even know where to pick it apart from.

Go back and read the first post. The point the idiot OP was trying to make was that capitalism (but not socialism) was some inherently dangerous place to live in (pollution. skimping on safety, etc.) because capitalism put profits ahead of safety.

Healthcare has nothing to do with public safety....?

Let's review the facts:

They've protected trade. One reason their export economy and manufacturing economy is still strong is because they've effectively barred trade with china. Originally Posted by shanm

So Germany has "effectively barred trade with China"? And you call that a "fact"? Gee, that's odd! Last time I checked Germany was buying $102 billion a year worth of Chinese goods. That's $36 billion more than it buys from the US! In fact, China is Germany's 3rd biggest trading partner! And you say "they've effectively barred trade with china"?

When it comes to economics, you are the most clueless buffoon on this board! You make things up out of thin air and call them "facts". All it takes is 30 seconds of research to prove you are a fucking idiot. Here's the link, shammymoron:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ers_of_Germany

On the flip side, let's review Pakistan. Originally Posted by shanm

On second thought, let's not. You know even less about Pakistan than you know about Germany. Are you still claiming their per capita income is $9800 when the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics puts it at $1513? Hey, you were only off by a factor of 6 on that one, you sloppy retard!

http://tribune.com.pk/story/889024/p...s-1513-a-year/


And are you still referring to China's currency as the yen instead of the yuan?

The major opponent for the U.S is China.... They're already involved in artificially deflating the yen.... Originally Posted by shanm

China floods the market... This causes the value of the yen to fall... Originally Posted by shanm

You sure have a yen for fucking that one up, dontcha? Those Asian currencies must "all look alike" to you!


Listen shamfucker, there are a handful of people on this board who have an obvious background in economics - Ex-CEO, ExNYer, and me. All 3 of us cringe and laugh every time you post something here that has anything to do with economics. You really need to stop embarrassing yourself and leave such topics to the adults in the room.

.