Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Backbone of democracy...
Comments
-
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words. -
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
There's no need to bastardize the language just to satisfy Hondo's dishonest dumbfuckery.
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds. -
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words. -
But it's not just government picking up the tab. It's government dictating what will be covered and how much you can charge,YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words. -
Like everything else except disease resistance, we've always done trans better than the whites.YellowSnow said:What about Trans natives? @swaye ?
-
Marx's concept of socialism follows from his concept of man. It should be clear by now that according to this concept, socialism is not a society of regimented, automatized individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Even if the state as an "abstract capitalist" were the employer, even if "the entire social capital were united in the hands either of a single capitalist or a single capitalist corporation," [89] this would not be socialism. In fact, as Marx says quite clearly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "communism as such is not the aim of human development." What, then, is the aim?SFGbob said:There's no need to bastardize the language just to satisfy Hondo's dishonest dumbfuckery.
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Quite clearly the aim of socialism is man. It is to create a form of production and an organization of society in which man can overcome alienation from his product, from his work, from his fellow man, from himself and from nature; in which he can return to himself and grasp the world with his own powers, thus becoming one with the world. Socialism for Marx was, as Paul Tillich put it, "a resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality." [90]
Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91] -
Bob doesn't understand what "reassign those responsibilities" means. Idiot.SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words. -
Is Medicare democratic or no? It was passed by duly elected members of Congress and signed into law by Johnson who won in landslide election. Americans by a huge margin favor it. This a flaw after all with democracy- the electorate can vote them selves generous benefits based on someone else's tax dollars.Southerndawg said:
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse? -
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse? -
Wow. Hondo goggled communism. Post the link. I’d love to learn more.2001400ex said:
Marx's concept of socialism follows from his concept of man. It should be clear by now that according to this concept, socialism is not a society of regimented, automatized individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Even if the state as an "abstract capitalist" were the employer, even if "the entire social capital were united in the hands either of a single capitalist or a single capitalist corporation," [89] this would not be socialism. In fact, as Marx says quite clearly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "communism as such is not the aim of human development." What, then, is the aim?SFGbob said:There's no need to bastardize the language just to satisfy Hondo's dishonest dumbfuckery.
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Quite clearly the aim of socialism is man. It is to create a form of production and an organization of society in which man can overcome alienation from his product, from his work, from his fellow man, from himself and from nature; in which he can return to himself and grasp the world with his own powers, thus becoming one with the world. Socialism for Marx was, as Paul Tillich put it, "a resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality." [90]
Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91] -
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.Southerndawg said:
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
No I understand perfectly. The "responsibilities" are being "reassign[ed]" because Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol. Something you said was a lie.2001400ex said:
Bob doesn't understand what "reassign those responsibilities" means. Idiot.SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
-
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!YellowSnow said:
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.Southerndawg said:
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
I'm on hold with Venezuela and Cuba. Trying get get their full plans for their success and high standard of living. Vietnam, N. Korea and China didn't answer the phone.
-
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours? -
Bingo.SFGbob said:
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours? -
Never mind. Eric Fromm and the Frankfurt School. I’ve read it. To the re-education camps for those who disagree!MikeDamone said:
Wow. Hondo goggled communism. Post the link. I’d love to learn more.2001400ex said:
Marx's concept of socialism follows from his concept of man. It should be clear by now that according to this concept, socialism is not a society of regimented, automatized individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Even if the state as an "abstract capitalist" were the employer, even if "the entire social capital were united in the hands either of a single capitalist or a single capitalist corporation," [89] this would not be socialism. In fact, as Marx says quite clearly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "communism as such is not the aim of human development." What, then, is the aim?SFGbob said:There's no need to bastardize the language just to satisfy Hondo's dishonest dumbfuckery.
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Quite clearly the aim of socialism is man. It is to create a form of production and an organization of society in which man can overcome alienation from his product, from his work, from his fellow man, from himself and from nature; in which he can return to himself and grasp the world with his own powers, thus becoming one with the world. Socialism for Marx was, as Paul Tillich put it, "a resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality." [90]
Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91] -
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?Southerndawg said:
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!YellowSnow said:
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.Southerndawg said:
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
It would have worked but the USA imposed sanctions!!!!!Sledog said:I'm on hold with Venezuela and Cuba. Trying get get their full plans for their success and high standard of living. Vietnam, N. Korea and China didn't answer the phone.
-
Not really.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse? -
JFC. What are we arguing about again?SFGbob said:
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours? -
If tranny’s are the backbone of our nation or not.YellowSnow said:
JFC. What are we arguing about again?SFGbob said:
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours? -
Southerndawg said:
Not really.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
-
The Constitutional Republic and my choice of career paths have been good to me, can’t complain overall. But it is most definitely better during times of low taxation and lessened government interference.YellowSnow said:
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?Southerndawg said:
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!YellowSnow said:
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.Southerndawg said:
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
News flash. Those days are long gone.YellowSnow said:Southerndawg said:
Not really.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse? -
You can still get tyranny of the majority in a Constitutional Republic. It just takes longer. The trend line, however, is the losers in our society wanting ever more from the winners. The big question is what can we do to lessen the number of losers.Southerndawg said:
The Constitutional Republic and my choice of career paths have been good to me, can’t complain overall. But it is most definitely better during times of low taxation and lessened government interference.YellowSnow said:
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?Southerndawg said:
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!YellowSnow said:
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.Southerndawg said:
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.YellowSnow said:
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
-
Huh? The MI complex is long gone?Southerndawg said:
News flash. Those days are long gone.YellowSnow said:Southerndawg said:
Not really.YellowSnow said:
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.Southerndawg said:
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.YellowSnow said:
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?SFGbob said:
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.2001400ex said:
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.SFGbob said:
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.2001400ex said:
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!MikeDamone said:
Which no one did. Idiot.2001400ex said:
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTHMikeDamone said:Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
And sledog says hello.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse? -
I don't love Medicare
