Liberal Forum

MotherJonses » 19 Jul 2014 1:39 am » wrote: Again with sexual activity used as an insult..and you **** wonder why the right is accused of waging war on women.

MotherJonses » 19 Jul 2014 12:49 am » wrote: Excellent definition but since it does not suit their meme they will ignore it. You can't fix stupid.

It's a GREAT definition. Basically, any country with private property rights is not socialist, *******.

Str8tEdge » 19 Jul 2014 2:53 am » wrote:
It's a GREAT definition. Basically, any country with private property rights is not socialist, *******.

So you are standing AGAINST your own recent definitions - AGAIN.

Man, this gay **** never ends. Every **** post, these clowns are making up a whole new definition.

Here was Glory Hole's recent suggestion for a proper definition of socialism (emphasis his own, not mine),:

socialism
Syllabification: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm

noun
1A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /socialism

By that standard, there are very, very few nations - if any - which are not socialist.

The entire conjob community is forced to CONSTANTLY change it's tune - thread to thread, and post to post - on the definition of socialism, for this simple reason: THEIR MIND-CONTROL SITES ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITION EVERY TIME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY KICKS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY'S ***.

.

**** morons - they couldn't tell the truth to Jesus' face.

Cannonpointer » 19 Jul 2014 5:32 am » wrote:Here was Glory Hole's recent suggestion for a proper definition of socialism (emphasis his own, not mine),:
By that standard, there are very, very few nations - if any - which are not socialist.

The entire conjob community is forced to CONSTANTLY change it's tune - thread to thread, and post to post - on the definition of socialism, for this simple reason: THEIR MIND-CONTROL SITES ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITION EVERY TIME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY KICKS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY'S ***.

.

**** morons - they couldn't tell the truth to Jesus' face.

.

Gosh, I want to address Socialism as 1) secondarily defined in one prestigious dictionary and as actual Socialists themselves have applied it in the real world?

Outrageous!

To a psychotic.

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 7:47 am » wrote: Gosh, I want to address Socialism as 1) secondarily defined in one prestigious dictionary and as actual Socialists themselves have applied it in the real world?

Really? Where? When?

The last I saw, you were using a definition by which every country on Heritage's list is socialist. Here's that definition is, emphasis YOURS:

socialism
Syllabification: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm

noun
1A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... /socialism

You have used multiple conflicting definitions, and made up at least one out of whole cloth - my challenge of which resulted in you posting the definition above.

When Heritage finally let's you know what to parrot, get back to us, kid. This much is for sure: The easiest way to have Heritage and their shills stop calling you socialist, is to manage your state-planned economy well.

Here, let's juxtapose what one of you morons recently claimed as a definition, with whatever you are currently claiming in this ten minute time frame, clem:

Str8tEdge » 19 Jul 2014 2:53 am » wrote: Basically, any country with private property rights is not socialist, *******.

Your defintion? Regulation = socialism. His? There's no such thing as socialism, if there are any private property rights in a country.

You girls have a meeting, huh? I mean, it's amusing, y'all being walking lob generators. But it grows tiresome, you mediocre spewbot.

Cannonpointer » 19 Jul 2014 7:55 am » wrote: Really? Where? When?

The last I saw, you were using a definition by which every country on Heritage's list is socialist.

Here's a hint, troll. Countries are ranked from freest to least free.

Ranked.

Meaning in rough practical terms, it goes from relatively Communist to relatively Socialist to relatively Free Market.

Because there is no strict definition of any of those terms, the ranking cannot be exact.

But for real world discussion, it serves quite well.

But you don't live in the real world and distort anything and everything to fit your psychosis. It's stupid and/or blatantly dishonest to call countries that rank among the freest "Socialist."

They are among the least Socialist.

You have used multiple conflicting definitions, and made up at least one out of whole cloth - my challenge of which resulted in you posting the definition above.

The two definitions I cited aren't conflicting. They are two means to the same goal; control of the private sector either through seizure, purchase or regulation.

Cannonpointer » 19 Jul 2014 5:32 am » wrote: So you are standing AGAINST your own recent definitions - AGAIN.

Man, this gay **** never ends. Every **** post, these clowns are making up a whole new definition.

Here was Glory Hole's recent suggestion for a proper definition of socialism (emphasis his own, not mine),:
By that standard, there are very, very few nations - if any - which are not socialist.

The entire conjob community is forced to CONSTANTLY change it's tune - thread to thread, and post to post - on the definition of socialism, for this simple reason: THEIR MIND-CONTROL SITES ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITION EVERY TIME A SOCIALIST COUNTRY KICKS A CAPITALIST COUNTRY'S ***.

.

**** morons - they couldn't tell the truth to Jesus' face.

The only countries where the "community" regulates the entire economy is in North Korea and Cuba, *******.

Wait.... Let me guess..... You thought ANY country that has a regulation is socialist.......

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 8:02 am » wrote: Here's a hint, troll. Countries are ranked from freest to least free.

Ranked.

Yes, and you assume from facts not in evidence that socialism - which doesn't even have a definition anymore, according to you - is "less free." On what do you base that, the word having no precise meaning?

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 8:02 am » wrote:Meaning in rough practical terms, it goes from relatively Communist to relatively Socialist to relatively Free Market.

According to you, and based on facts not in evidence. On which definition of socialism do you base that claim? Capitalism regulates market control to state sanctioned oligarchs with official imprimaturs and the various privileges attendant thereto. How is undefined socialism less free?

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 7:52 am » wrote:Because there is no strict definition of any of those terms, the ranking cannot be exact.

Now they ALL lack definition - yet you insist on making definitive statements, and calling any who dare disagree moonbats?

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 7:52 am » wrote: The two definitions I cited aren't conflicting. They are two means to the same goal; control of the private sector either through seizure, purchase or regulation.

TWO, you preposterous little man? LOFL. You have a different definition every time you run your mouth, spewie.

In another thread, you ran this tripe:

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 7:52 am » wrote: This brainless troll can't deal with the fact that as Wikipedia and other sources clearly state, Socialism has no exact definition; it has many variants.

Perhaps my confusion is related to the fact that you use a different "variant" every time you tell another lie, hack - and so does every other retardo-con on the board.

CAPITALISM BOO!!!!

Cannonpointer » 19 Jul 2014 8:12 am » wrote:

Yes, and you assume from facts not in evidence that socialism - which doesn't even have a definition anymore, according to you - is "less free." On what do you base that, the word having no precise meaning?

Little if anything in politics has a precise meaning, yet reasonable people manage to debate it.

We agree upon the primary definition. On the basis of nothing you reject the secondary definition I cited.

Then lie about my claims regarding regulation. No, moderate regulation doesn't make a country Socialist.

But when, for example, thousands of pages of law and 10's of thousands of pages of regulation micromanage a sector as Obamacare does, that law has obviously Socialized that sector.

TWO, you preposterous little man? LOFL. You have a different definition every time you run your mouth, spewie.

In another thread, you ran this tripe:
Perhaps my confusion is related to the fact that you use a different "variant" every time you tell another lie, hack - and so does every other retardo-con on the board.

The fact that there are variants, that no system is pure doesn't refute my obvious point that government controlling a sector via ownership or government micromanaging a sector via regulation achieve essentially the same goal.

Government control.

Duuuh.

...str8edge, roach clip, goofboy and the other republican c@cksuckers here enjoy working their gaping holes about some illion 'dollar' 'free market' economy when the f@cking fools can't/won't even honestly explain the origin or nature of even one 'dollar'...man, wouldn't you f@cking idiots be fun to debate face to face!!..i'd shut your red faced, monetary ignoramus, c@cksuckers quickly!..

Where's the psychotic?

Were the restraints tightened again?

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 9:07 am » wrote: Little if anything in politics has a precise meaning, yet reasonable people manage to debate it.

We agree upon the primary definition. On the basis of nothing you reject the secondary definition I cited.

Then lie about my claims regarding regulation. No, moderate regulation doesn't make a country Socialist.

But when, for example, thousands of pages of law and 10's of thousands of pages of regulation micromanage a sector as Obamacare does, that law has obviously Socialized that sector.
The fact that there are variants, that no system is pure doesn't refute my obvious point that government controlling a sector via ownership or government micromanaging a sector via regulation achieve essentially the same goal.

Government control.

Duuuh.

Where's the psychotic?

Off on a drug and drinking binge?

Picked up for vagrancy?

Had his restraints tightened again?

RichClem » 19 Jul 2014 9:07 am » wrote: Little if anything in politics has a precise meaning, yet reasonable people manage to debate it.

We agree upon the primary definition. On the basis of nothing you reject the secondary definition I cited.

Then lie about my claims regarding regulation. No, moderate regulation doesn't make a country Socialist.

But when, for example, thousands of pages of law and 10's of thousands of pages of regulation micromanage a sector as Obamacare does, that law has obviously Socialized that sector.
The fact that there are variants, that no system is pure doesn't refute my obvious point that government controlling a sector via ownership or government micromanaging a sector via regulation achieve essentially the same goal.

Government control.

Duuuh.

So, what Richclem is saying is that we shouldn't trust the academic work of professional historians about historical issues-such as economic history. Instead, we ought to trust Richclem and the fine, unbiased "experts" at the National Review or Wall Street Journal opinion page.

Historians talking about historical issues? Utter nonsense!

Technocrat » 20 Jul 2014 7:42 pm » wrote:So, what Richclem is saying is that we shouldn't trust the academic work of professional historians about historical issues-such as economic history. Instead, we ought to trust Richclem and the fine, unbiased "experts" at the National Review or Wall Street Journal opinion page.

Historians talking about historical issues? Utter nonsense!

Being a historian doesn't mean you know dick about economics.

Technocrat » 20 Jul 2014 7:42 pm » wrote:So, what Richclem is saying is that we shouldn't trust the academic work of professional historians about historical issues-such as economic history. Instead, we ought to trust Richclem and the fine, unbiased "experts" at the National Review or Wall Street Journal opinion page.

Historians talking about historical issues? Utter nonsense!

The topic was Economics, moonbat.

When is the last time a liberal didn't bungle Economics?

Say, speaking of, how's that roaring Obama Economy with its glorious 12% real unemployment rate?

And who says liberal Academics aren't biased?

littlehawk12 » 18 Jul 2014 3:11 pm » wrote:Cannonhomo really doesn't care what economic system is used as long as the handouts keep coming.

Says the turd in the fish bowl who gets government handouts and has his family on welfare!!! LMAO!!

Str8tEdge » 19 Jul 2014 2:53 am » wrote: It's a GREAT definition. Basically, any country with private property rights is not socialist, *******.

Only in the sense of the means of production, resources and equipment that create wealth. dumb ****. Personal property like homes, cars, etc. belong to you, even more so than they do in America. You never own you home in America, you only rent it with taxes. Don't pay the rent (taxes) and your *** is out and a new renter moves in who will pay the taxes.

Cannonpointer » 18 Jul 2014 9:51 am » wrote: Like in Singapore? Roger.
I posted their ranking, stupid. The number two country has a government that owns 30% of the means of production. Before Heritage told you to think otherwise, that was known as "socialism."


Since retard ronnie and his successors gutting regulations led to a predictable melt down, you **** idiot.

My my my. Such name calling and lying to boot. Ronald fixed the Carter stagflation and gave us a booming economy by reducing the overall taxes especially income tax.

To set the record straight there are currently 750,000 pages of regulations with a 1000 page index. Only a very big company can afford to hire enough lawyers to keep them in line with them. A small business has no hope. A government team of regulation specilaists could walk into any small business, investigate a little, and shut them down.

THE LAND OF THE FREE???

shintao » 20 Jul 2014 10:50 pm » wrote: Only in the sense of the means of production, resources and equipment that create wealth. dumb ****. Personal property like homes, cars, etc. belong to you, even more so than they do in America. You never own you home in America, you only rent it with taxes. Don't pay the rent (taxes) and your *** is out and a new renter moves in who will pay the taxes.

The banks really own everything.