Liberal Forum

RichClem » 17 Sep 2014 8:59 am » wrote: Gosh, you took the time to write all that psychotic bulls*** but somehow didn't answer a single question. Surely that's just an unintentional oversight.

Here, try again.

Who exactly was threatening them with nukes?

You are one cum drunk little nancy, glory hole.

I TOLD you who owned those nukes, repeatedly - IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO, moron.

Whom do you THINK threatened them with nukes, retard - Monrovia? The people who PUT THE NUKES THERE did it, *******. And again, you **** goldfish, that was the USA and NATO.

Tell, me, gayboy: WHY WERE THOSE NUKES THERE, IF NOT TO THREATEN? WERE THEY THERE TO REASSURE?

RichClem » 17 Sep 2014 8:59 am » wrote:
Cite expressions of fear among the citizens there.

You require newspaper stories for proof that humans fear nukes?

RichClem » 17 Sep 2014 8:59 am » wrote:
Cite news stories documenting the fear and intimidation.

You require newspaper stories for proof that humans fear nukes?

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:21 am » wrote: You are one cum drunk little nancy, glory hole.

I TILD you who owned those nukes, repeatedly. Whom do you THINK threatened them with nukes, retard - Monrovia? The people who PUT THE NUKES THERE did it, *******.

Tell, me, gayboy: WHY WERE THOSE NUKES THERE OF NOT TO THREATEN? WERE THEY THERE TO REASSURE?

You require newspaper stories for proof that humans fear nukes?

As usual, not one iota of actual evidence to support your psychotic bleating.

Go play in traffic, psycho.

RichClem » 18 Sep 2014 10:29 am » wrote:
As usual, not one iota of actual evidence to support your psychotic bleating.

Go play in traffic, psycho.

Yes, we need evidence that the USA and NATO are the ones who put those nukes there, and we need evidence that humans are afraid of nukes. Tell me, glory hole, what "evidence" would you accept, ever, under any circumstances? You are denying that the cold war ever happened, essentially. You are denying that the arms race occurred. Because if it DID occur and it WAS real, then it relied on scaring folks -WITH NUKES, YOU **** IDIOT - in order to succeed, The success of the cold war PROVES that the east bloc nations feared the west's nukes. That's why they bankrupted themselves trying to keep up.

I will make you a deal, you simpering little disease. Prove the sky is blue. Cite newspaper stories discussing it and documenting it. When you have done this, I will prove the east bloc did not suddenly and uniformly cease to view the west's nukes as a threat, on the day the soviet empire fell apart.

By the way, glory hole, I have another challenge. Name one country in the last two centuries (1900s, 2000s) which actually VOTED for capitalism over socialism, without a gun pointed at it. I can name DOZENS of countries whose governments were unlawfully overthrown through murders and coups, and handed over to dictators in the employ of DOZENS of different wall street companies. You cannot name ONE NATION which actually VOTED to be capitalist. Capitalism is not chosen by people, ever. It is forced on them. And then you get things like Singapore, where two percent own almost everything, 10 percent live well by serving those 2 percent, and 88% are denied even the right to own real estate - are forced by law to "rent" their homes from the government at exorbitant rates which are set arbitrarily as a means of taxation. You get a country where chewing gum is a crime that can get you summarily beaten by police - a country where the only crime that anyone ever gets away with is sex slavery - and THAT crime is virtually never punished, because capitalism turns human beings into products - commodities that are packaged and repackaged, bought and sold.

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:57 am » wrote: Yes, we need evidence that the USA and NATO are the ones who put those nukes there, and we need evidence that humans are afraid of nukes.

The US has nukes. Are you afraid of them?
Israel has nuke. Are you afraid of them?

No, because they aren't a threat to you, duuuh.

During the Cold War, the liberal-left was afraid that the combination of US and Soviet nukes would cause a nuclear war, and guess what?

There were decades of news stories, public comments, opeds, etc. documenting that fear.

Where is the same evidence about Eastern Europe fearing US nukes?

That's a very, very, very easy request, but all you respond with is psychotic ranting, obvious lies and endless bulls***.

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:57 am » wrote:

Exactly what I asked for. What, you don't understand clear English?

Where is any evidence they felt so threatened they'd vote for an "economically oppressive" system of government?

Where is any evidence of the expressions of said intimidation by those doing the intimidating?

Who was doing the bullying, Reagan from retirement on his ranch? That evil, dastardly George H. Bush?

NATO? Who, psycho?

Where any evidence of expressions of fear by voters?

Where is any evidence of the expressions of outrage by their elected representatives?

Where are the angry US news stories to report this bullying?

Where were human rights groups decrying this intimidation?

Surely you can provide vast documentation of this gross violation of human rights.

Rather than your usual evasions, lies and psychotic ranting.

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:57 am » wrote:You are denying that the cold war ever happened, essentially. You are denying that the arms race occurred. Because if it DID occur and it WAS real, then it relied on scaring folks -WITH NUKES, YOU **** IDIOT - in order to succeed, The success of the cold war PROVES that the east bloc nations feared the west's nukes. That's why they bankrupted themselves trying to keep up.

No, moonbat, you utterly misunderstand the entire Cold War.
We weren't threatening ordinary citizens of Eastern Europe. We were threatening the oppressive, totalitarian Communist governments that had very, very little support from the citizens.
Once those governments had fallen, we weren't threatening a single country in Eastern Europe, unless perhaps it had retained its nukes, as Ukraine did for a short period.

If you think we were, provide evidence beyond your psychosis and fake logic.

I will make you a deal, you simpering little disease. Prove the sky is blue. Cite newspaper stories discussing it and documenting it. When you have done this, I will prove the east bloc did not suddenly and uniformly cease to view the west's nukes as a threat, on the day the soviet empire fell apart.

No, I won't go on a snark hunt for an evasive, lying psychotic.

It would have been huge news if the US was threatening to nuke newly free countries that posed no threat to us.

There absolutely would be evidence of it.

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:57 am » wrote:By the way, glory hole, I have another challenge. Name one country in the last two centuries (1900s, 2000s) which actually VOTED for capitalism over socialism, without a gun pointed at it.

Why are you suddenly limiting the dates, psycho?

To avoid admitting that your own country voted for it at its founding?

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:57 am » wrote: I can name DOZENS of countries whose governments were unlawfully overthrown through murders and coups, and handed over to dictators in the employ of DOZENS of different wall street companies.

Which has nothing to do with Free Market Capitalism, so what's your point?

And typically, you ignore the many cases where those coups weren't done for corporate reasons, but to prevent Communist takeovers.

Not to mention, your claim about being "in the employ of wall st. companies is hugely exaggerated.

Coups are generally done in pursuit of raw power or over philosophical reasons.

I was in Brazil when the Socialist president Sarney followed absolutely disastrous policies, some of which hurt the supposedly powerful Bank of Boston.

The Bank of Boston was comically reduced to writing letters to the editor in protest.

Wow, talk about all powerful!

And needless to say, the damage done to the bank was minimal compared to the horrific damage done to Brazil and its ordinary citizens.

Cannonpointer » 18 Sep 2014 10:57 am » wrote: Capitalism is not chosen by people, ever. It is forced on them.

Ignoring the undeniable claim that almost the entire the world is moving gradually in its direction, including most recently Socialist Greece.

And Socialist India in its recent election.

Who was threatening them with a gun or nukes, psycho?

Salvaged

Capitalism is a state run, state enforced economy of the gun. Just ask Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, anyone from South or Central America - or any of dozens of other countries wall streest has plundered using the U.S. armed forces.

The best feature of capitalism (which is an economic, not a political system) is competition, which encourages innovation and forces prices downward. There is nothing that an entrepreneur dislikes more than competition. Usually, taxes take a lot less of the capitalist's profits than competition.

The people of Singapore are far more prosperous and less oppressed by their government than the Chilean people under Pinochet.

RichClem » 18 Sep 2014, 1:31 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2014, 1:31 pm

Ignoring the undeniable claim that almost the entire the world is moving gradually in its direction, including most recently Socialist Greece.

And Socialist India in its recent election.

Who was threatening them with a gun or nukes, psycho?

India's worst problems lately seem to be Modi's deliberately unfair treatment of Muslims and other non Hindus.
Well, except for Parsis:  everyone in India like Parsis, except for their funeral practices.

RichClem » 18 Sep 2014, 1:29 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2014, 1:29 pm

Which has nothing to do with Free Market Capitalism, so what's your point?

And typically, you ignore the many cases where those coups weren't done for corporate reasons, but to prevent Communist takeovers.

Not to mention, your claim about being "in the employ of wall st. companies is hugely exaggerated.

Coups are generally done in pursuit of raw power or over philosophical reasons.

I was in Brazil when the Socialist president Sarney followed absolutely disastrous policies, some of which hurt the supposedly powerful Bank of Boston.

The Bank of Boston was comically reduced to writing letters to the editor in protest.

Wow, talk about all powerful!

And needless to say, the damage done to the bank was minimal compared to the horrific damage done to Brazil and its ordinary citizens.

Why would anyone champion the Bank of Boston?
Jair Bolsonaro has been far worse for Brazil than anyone since the generals of the 1970's.
I am hoping Lula beats Bolsonaro.

Cannonpointer » 08 Jul 2022, 4:21 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 4:21 pm

Capitalism is a state run, state enforced economy of the gun. Just ask Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis, anyone from South or Central America - or any of dozens of other countries wall streest has plundered using the U.S. armed forces.

What you state is not Capitalism...it's corruption.  The left is now wealthier than the right.
 

roadkill » 08 Jul 2022, 4:39 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 4:39 pm

What you state is not Capitalism...it's corruption.  The left is now wealthier than the right.

Oh. I see. That would make things very different than I paint them,

Tell us when capitalism was "not" corrupt.

What year was that? And when did it lose its purity?

Was cpitalism pure BEFORE the railrod barons, or after?

Also, how do we get it BACK to purity? MORE regulation, or less?

Cannonpointer » 08 Jul 2022, 5:58 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 5:58 pm

Oh. I see. That would make things very different than I paint them,

Tell us when capitalism was "not" corrupt.

What year was that? And when did it lose its purity?

Was cpitalism pure BEFORE the railrod barons, or after?

Also, how do we get it BACK to purity? MORE regulation, or less?

Tell us when socialism was not corrupt.

roadkill » 08 Jul 2022, 6:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 6:03 pm

Tell us when socialism was not corrupt.

Show us where I ever defended socilism as having been corrupted from some mythical pure state, as you defended capitalism. 

I owe no such defense, as I made no such silly claim. 

Cannonpointer » 08 Jul 2022, 6:06 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 6:06 pm

Show us where I ever defended socilism as having been corrupted from some mythical pure state, as you defended capitalism. 

I owe no such defense, as I made no such silly claim.

Yer multiple thread dump today did that very thing.  If this is how you proceed then another look is needed. I'm not into a kneejerk dump from the past that's already been debated...now we get saturated to the point that no point can be made?

roadkill » 08 Jul 2022, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Jul 2022, 6:09 pm

Yer multiple thread dump today did that very thing.  If this is how you proceed then another look is needed. I'm not into a kneejerk dump from the past that's already been debated...now we get saturated to the point that no point can be made?

The machine gets rid of threads that have not been hit in a year - just a bit of house-keeping. Why should I have to generate these important, well-argued theses twice?

As to them defending socialism, I have yet to see anyone on this board honest enough AND intelligent enough to agree to a definition and stick to it. 

For example, midwits INSIST that the man who saved capitlism - the very best friend that capitalism ever had - was a soshalust.

That would be FDR - under whose game rules we had zero bank bailouts for 50 years, and the scrapping of whose game rules by reagan saw chronic bailouts commence before reagan even left office (or, SOSHALIZUM).

So, we're gonna have to agree to disagree that I have defended that which you cannot even define (and then stick with that definition, ongoingly).