Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's interesting how different opinions can be on the same subject. I would like to hear arguments both pro and con concerning socialism. Tell me why it's great, tell me why it's junk.

I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

They sure don't seem to care if the poor are poorer, so long as the rich can join them in poverty. That there is a disparity between people is all that seems to matter to them, which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Socialism: the re-distribution of poverty, because misery loves company.

What are your thoughts?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:23:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Class Struggle is liberating.

http://flag.blackened.net...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:24:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Socialists have this weird notion employers don't suffer if employees leave them and they have high staff turnover rates.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:25:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:23:05 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Class Struggle is liberating.

http://flag.blackened.net...

Burning things is production. Death is life. ^_^.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:34:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Socialism is two parts a moral position, one part intellectual developed in a vaccum without reference to reality. Because it is 'right' Socialists can often justify imposing it on the people, because ultimately it is for their good. Socialism works against human nature which is intrinsically selfish and lazy. It is in naive and dictatorial.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:52:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:34:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Socialism is two parts a moral position, one part intellectual developed in a vaccum without reference to reality. Because it is 'right' Socialists can often justify imposing it on the people, because ultimately it is for their good. Socialism works against human nature which is intrinsically selfish and lazy. It is in naive and dictatorial.:

Great answer. Socialism's greatest hindrance has always been human nature.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 9:55:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:52:22 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:34:06 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Socialism is two parts a moral position, one part intellectual developed in a vaccum without reference to reality. Because it is 'right' Socialists can often justify imposing it on the people, because ultimately it is for their good. Socialism works against human nature which is intrinsically selfish and lazy. It is in naive and dictatorial.:

Great answer. Socialism's greatest hindrance has always been human nature.

And the only way round that is force and dictatorship.

Of course a certain degree of social welfare, is in our interests... it is a hard sell however.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.

you make yourself sound like an ignorant jerk when you start a thread like this about people who disagree with you....
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:06:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.


How do they steal from the poor?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:08:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:06:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.


How do they steal from the poor?

HAHAHA! I like how you award her the point that libertarians stomp on babies' skulls.

She was being sarcastic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:09:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think comon counts fetuses as "babies."

There is assuredly no general libertarian prohibition on fetal skull stomping.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:09:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:06:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.


How do they steal from the poor?

That's your problem with her statement? You have no issue with the "libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls" claim?
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:11:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:09:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:06:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.


How do they steal from the poor?

That's your problem with her statement? You have no issue with the "libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls" claim?

i guess we know what comon does for fun then :D
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:14:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's interesting how different opinions can be on the same subject. I would like to hear arguments both pro and con concerning socialism. Tell me why it's great, tell me why it's junk.

I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

They sure don't seem to care if the poor are poorer, so long as the rich can join them in poverty. That there is a disparity between people is all that seems to matter to them, which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Socialism: the re-distribution of poverty, because misery loves company.

What are your thoughts?

"I disagree with them, therefor I will conceive of them in the worst possible terms."

Hey, where have I heard that before? Only from the lips of anyone who's ever disagreed with anyone...

Sure, there are some socialists and communists who think that way.

Because I conceive of things like air, water, seeds, environment as belonging to everyone, that means I want everyone to be poor? Really?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:15:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 9:24:21 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
What are your thoughts?

Socialists have this weird notion employers don't suffer if employees leave them and they have high staff turnover rates.

I guess McDonald's and similar companies which require little to no training are doin it rong.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:16:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:14:05 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's interesting how different opinions can be on the same subject. I would like to hear arguments both pro and con concerning socialism. Tell me why it's great, tell me why it's junk.

I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

They sure don't seem to care if the poor are poorer, so long as the rich can join them in poverty. That there is a disparity between people is all that seems to matter to them, which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Socialism: the re-distribution of poverty, because misery loves company.

What are your thoughts?

"I disagree with them, therefor I will conceive of them in the worst possible terms."

Hey, where have I heard that before? Only from the lips of anyone who's ever disagreed with anyone...

Sure, there are some socialists and communists who think that way.

Because I conceive of things like air, water, seeds, environment as belonging to everyone, that means I want everyone to be poor? Really?

Libertarians don't believe in private ownership of non-scarce resources either. No one suggests that the air can be owned by anyone, simply because it isn't scarce (that is, there is enough for everyone to have as much as they want).
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:17:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:09:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I think comon counts fetuses as "babies."


Yep.

There is assuredly no general libertarian prohibition on fetal skull stomping.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:17:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:08:03 PM, Nags wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:06:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.


How do they steal from the poor?

HAHAHA! I like how you award her the point that libertarians stomp on babies' skulls.


I thought that she was talking about abortion.
Whatever.

She was being sarcastic.

LOL
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:18:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:09:35 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:06:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:02:11 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

lol. and libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls and steal from the poor.


How do they steal from the poor?

That's your problem with her statement?

Yeah. Stealing from the poor is NO joke!

You have no issue with the "libertarians like to stomp on babies skulls" claim?
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:31:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:16:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:14:05 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's interesting how different opinions can be on the same subject. I would like to hear arguments both pro and con concerning socialism. Tell me why it's great, tell me why it's junk.

I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

They sure don't seem to care if the poor are poorer, so long as the rich can join them in poverty. That there is a disparity between people is all that seems to matter to them, which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Socialism: the re-distribution of poverty, because misery loves company.

What are your thoughts?

"I disagree with them, therefor I will conceive of them in the worst possible terms."

Hey, where have I heard that before? Only from the lips of anyone who's ever disagreed with anyone...

Sure, there are some socialists and communists who think that way.

Because I conceive of things like air, water, seeds, environment as belonging to everyone, that means I want everyone to be poor? Really?

Libertarians don't believe in private ownership of non-scarce resources either. No one suggests that the air can be owned by anyone, simply because it isn't scarce (that is, there is enough for everyone to have as much as they want).

The problem is that for you, it's scarcity. For me, it's how vital something is. If water becomes scarce, should someone who was born into wealth have automatically more access to it?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:34:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:31:51 PM, Yvette wrote:
The problem is that for you, it's scarcity. For me, it's how vital something is. If water becomes scarce, should someone who was born into wealth have automatically more access to it?

Yeah, that would sure suck if all the lakes, streams, rivers, and groundwater dried up and it never rained again!
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:35:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:34:13 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:31:51 PM, Yvette wrote:
The problem is that for you, it's scarcity. For me, it's how vital something is. If water becomes scarce, should someone who was born into wealth have automatically more access to it?

Yeah, that would sure suck if all the lakes, streams, rivers, and groundwater dried up and it never rained again!

At that point, we descend into anarchy.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:36:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Water is "scarce"now. And it is precisely because it is scarce that property rights are needed. Otherwise, there is no incentive to do what it takes to keep it getting where it needs to be.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:37:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:35:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:34:13 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:31:51 PM, Yvette wrote:
The problem is that for you, it's scarcity. For me, it's how vital something is. If water becomes scarce, should someone who was born into wealth have automatically more access to it?

Yeah, that would sure suck if all the lakes, streams, rivers, and groundwater dried up and it never rained again!

At that point, we descend into anarchy.

Nah, the US government would have nationalized the water companies and invaded other countries for water by that point.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:48:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:31:51 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:16:51 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:14:05 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/21/2010 9:01:37 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's interesting how different opinions can be on the same subject. I would like to hear arguments both pro and con concerning socialism. Tell me why it's great, tell me why it's junk.

I will begin with my own perceptions. Socialists seem to be on a perennial quest in search of victims for which to martyr. If there is a victim with which to use as a political weapon, there is no hesitation in using them to serve an agenda.

They sure don't seem to care if the poor are poorer, so long as the rich can join them in poverty. That there is a disparity between people is all that seems to matter to them, which of course goes back to Marx's morbid preoccupation with class struggle.

Socialism: the re-distribution of poverty, because misery loves company.

What are your thoughts?

"I disagree with them, therefor I will conceive of them in the worst possible terms."

Hey, where have I heard that before? Only from the lips of anyone who's ever disagreed with anyone...

Sure, there are some socialists and communists who think that way.

Because I conceive of things like air, water, seeds, environment as belonging to everyone, that means I want everyone to be poor? Really?

Libertarians don't believe in private ownership of non-scarce resources either. No one suggests that the air can be owned by anyone, simply because it isn't scarce (that is, there is enough for everyone to have as much as they want).

The problem is that for you, it's scarcity. For me, it's how vital something is. If water becomes scarce, should someone who was born into wealth have automatically more access to it?

I assume you mean very scarce, because water already is a scarce resource. That wouldn't happen, precisely because of how vital water is. Because of desalination technology, we have an infinite supply of water. And, furthermore, treating water as a scarce resource that can be bought at sold helps the poor. In places were water belongs to "everyone" it is inevitably greatly polluted (more about this in my next post). In 3rd world countries, this causes unimaginable amounts of suffering and death from disease. If it were privately sold, the profit incentive would give businesses an incentive to keep water purer. Could some people be simply too poor to afford water? I don't think so. One, because of desalination technology, and other technologies that might later be developed, the price of water could not possibly get very high. Two, private charities could help the few that are too poor to afford water. In a libertarian world, this would be even easier for them to do, because today, donations from charities to 3rd world countries often end up in the hands of governments rather than the people that need them.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:48:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
@Yvette

Also: When you say that you want the environment to belong to everyone, are you sure about that? If you want to protect the environment, then that's entirely the wrong thing to do. If say, a forest belongs to "everyone" then everyone has the right to use it. In a classic Nash Equilibrium situation, it will be in every person's best interest to use as much of the forest as quickly as possible, because even if they don't, the forest will soon be used up by everyone else anyway. But, say, instead, the forest could be privately owned. In a libertarian society, environmentalists could buy as much of a forest as they wanted, and could keep it preserved forever if they wanted to, and no person or government could come and take it (like they can now, under eminent domain laws). But even if a logging company owned the land, it would still be preserved better than if "everyone" owned it. Say a logging company owns $1 million dollars worth of forest. They have the choice between logging a sustainable amount of wood each year (replanting as much as they take), and getting, say, $200,000 of revenue from that land per year, or, they could cut down all the trees in a year without regard for sustainability, getting $1 million dollars in revenue. They'd obviously choose the 2nd, more profitable, option, right? Wrong. If they did the $1 million dollar revenue option, their land would lose most of its value. They'd get more revenue, but lose just as much in assets, and they would not be able to get any revenue from that land next year.

The situation is the same for bodies of water. Say a water company owns Lake Michigan. Because they are using the water to make drinking water, they obviously don't want any pollutants in it. And since the water is their property, they could sue any business that damaged it by dumping waste into the Lake. Not only that, they could sue anyone dumping pollutants into a river that fed into Lake Michigan.

Air pollution? Also solved by libertarianism, through proper enforcement of tort law. If a business releases harmful pollutants into the air around my home, and those pollutants harm me in some way (whether they harm my health, or my crop if I'm a farmer, or whatever), I would have the right to sue them for damages.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:59:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/21/2010 8:35:46 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:34:13 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/21/2010 8:31:51 PM, Yvette wrote:
The problem is that for you, it's scarcity. For me, it's how vital something is. If water becomes scarce, should someone who was born into wealth have automatically more access to it?

Yeah, that would sure suck if all the lakes, streams, rivers, and groundwater dried up and it never rained again!

At that point, we descend into anarchy.

I assume you mean, "descend into chaos." Society moving on to anarchy would be more accurately described as ascending, not descending.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 10:35:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Socialism -id est- tax, is extortion.

Extortion that leads to the most happy+stable states in the world, real social democracies. (NPfE look them up)

"a true lassiez faire state has never existed, and never will exist"

You heard it here first folks.
'sup DDO -- july 2013