U.S. presidential election 2016 (official thread)

[jgordon1111]

Now it has become a real discussion, thank you all, this is very democratic, anyone know any real politicians? Give them something to read and maybe they will understand what its like.

[patches70]

If patches' claim is to have validity, then, he would have to show evidence that these nations are moving towards communism over time. Does he have any?

I didn't make the claim, mets, Marx did. See-

He talked about the evolution or I suppose "progression" is the better term, of how economies go from capitalist-->socialist--->communist. Marx felt it was a natural progression, inevitable if you will.

If you want to determine the validity of the statement then go ask Marx.

I don't buy into Marx, he's the one who says socialism ends up progressing to communism. You can check the validity of his claims yourself.
I thought your reading comprehension was better than sym's at least. Go back and see where I claim anything of the sort. I clearly stated what I thought about Marx's claims-

Marx was full of shit

[Metsfanmax]

If patches' claim is to have validity, then, he would have to show evidence that these nations are moving towards communism over time. Does he have any?

I didn't make the claim, mets, Marx did. See-

He talked about the evolution or I suppose "progression" is the better term, of how economies go from capitalist-->socialist--->communist. Marx felt it was a natural progression, inevitable if you will.

If you want to determine the validity of the statement then go ask Marx.

I don't buy into Marx, he's the one who says socialism ends up progressing to communism. You can check the validity of his claims yourself.

No, right after that you said that it was a fair statement to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. So I am asking you to defend that claim.

[jgordon1111]

Mets, not sure but I believe you have somehow combined two different people's posts I think you might by your last post be thinking of Tzors post take a look.

[Metsfanmax]

It's a fair comment to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. Cradle to grave taken care of by the State. All the individual has to do is give up on their ambitions, liberty and freedom.

[patches70]

No, right after that you said that it was a fair statement to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. So I am asking you to defend that claim.

Tzor said that, I only say it's a fair statement, after all the biggest proponent of Communism said that exact thing. Just because you as a Socialist says "No way man!" doesn't change the inexorable march of Socialism to it's higher form, Communism. At least until enough people say "Hell no!" and put the Socialists in their place which always happens if the Socialist pushes too far. It is indisputable fact that modern Communism grew out of the Socialist movement of the 19th century. That alone is an indisputable link between the two.

Spoiler

All socialists whether they wish to admit it or not are part of the international socialist movement, the very thing Marx expounded about. A socialist knows no bounds, once they reach one line they wished to achieve they crate another line to move to. Communism requires a tyranny to implement. There is no way around it. The socialist is the same way. They have no problem with using the power of the State to enforce their view of how society should run and that includes using force.

The socialist of today whether they realize it or not are publicly espousing Marx's ideas. Socialism is a lower form of Communism where socialism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their contribution" where as Communism, a higher form of Socialism is "from each according his ability to each according to his need".
Every last avowed socialist does, will and will continue to espouse ever greater Communistic goals as their immediate goals are met. You included mets.
For instance, you yourself would and do advocate Sate owned and distributed vital resources. From energy, to food, to medical housing and pay. Minimum wage advocates are also communistic because they ignore the idea of market based price determination in favor of State declared prices (for labor or any other resource). It's fantasy land as Mises proved that if you don't have prices signaled in capital goods (i.e. market determined prices which includes labor) then you can't have a rational market.
Socialism's biggest problem is that since the prices of things can't be determined accurately because public entities own all the means of production. In that case there is no "final sale" as every transaction is just an internal transfer. Without being able to determine an accurate price of things leads to misallocation of resources.

That's what the socialist advocates, no more market based price discovery because apparently it's not the best way to determine what resources are needed where the most. Socialist advocate internal transfers, i.e. if someone has it (resource) to someone in need (of said resource) at the price determined by...whom? The State of course. This is irrational in so many ways. The person who labored to provide the resource knows better than anyone else the cost of extracting that resource. Not to mention by having the State intermediate just adds another layer of costs that need not be added if it weren't for the insistence of the mantra "from each according to his ability to each according to his contribution (or need if you want to admit to the higher form of Socialism, Communism).

The end goal of Socialism whether or not the Socialist admits or realizes is Communism. The State owned means of all production. All that needs to be said is that there is a need (right) for a service or product and that's enough for a Socialist to justify the State intervening and taking control of said resource. Even things that one would consider (or should consider) luxury items up to and including cell phones, computers, education, medical, housing, nutrition. You name it and a socialist can justify that people must have it even if it means that the State has to take control of the means of producing those resources.
It's Communism man, a stead inexorable march that always ends the same way. Badly.

Your heart's in the right place I think, I'm just not sure that's the best way to go about it. But whatever man, I have no problem with the statement that "the end goal of socialism is communism". You don't have to agree, I don't really care if you agree or not. If you want to disprove me, then lay out what in your mind is the "ideal" society and we'll take it to it's logical conclusion. The reason Bernie Sanders will never be elected President is because he proudly calls himself a Socialist and in too many people's minds that means he's a Communist. It's up to you (or him) to convince those people otherwise. Since you are a Socialist, Mets, why don't you explain why one can't or shouldn't assume your end goal is Communism?

[jgordon1111]

Just because someone a long time ago said a thing they believed at the time was true, doesn't make it so today.

Look at Freud, Jung, niezchte, what a bunch of total douches, and people get actual doctorate degrees, based on the Bullshit personal hangups of these idiots,based on their hangups about mommy,homosexuals, and sexual perversion. A whole pseudo science was built and based on these pissant morons ideaology, so take socialists then and now and do a real comparison

Before anyone gets bent out of shape I used this comparison to make a point what was thought fact then isn't so now.

Lets look at this another way. They used lobotomies, moved on to electro shock, and on to drugs that don't actually cure, hence pseudo science
Look up the cure rate for this science.
Wrong then wrong now, get the idea?

[Metsfanmax]

No, right after that you said that it was a fair statement to say that the end goal of a socialist is communism. So I am asking you to defend that claim.

Tzor said that, I only say it's a fair statement, after all the biggest proponent of Communism said that exact thing. Just because you as a Socialist says "No way man!"

I didn't say you were wrong (nor for that matter did I say I was a socialist), I asked you to defend the statement.

It is indisputable fact that modern Communism grew out of the Socialist movement of the 19th century. That alone is an indisputable link between the two.

Even if that was correct, it would not be particularly relevant to the state of modern socialism.

All socialists whether they wish to admit it or not are part of the international socialist movement, the very thing Marx expounded about. A socialist knows no bounds, once they reach one line they wished to achieve they crate another line to move to. Communism requires a tyranny to implement. There is no way around it. The socialist is the same way. They have no problem with using the power of the State to enforce their view of how society should run and that includes using force.

This sounds like the beginning of a (not very good) freshman essay in political philosophy class. Use of the state and its monopoly on legitimate force to enforce a particular way of living is by construction inherent to any system that isn't anarchic. This is true even in the case some libertarians would like where the main function of the state is limited to protection of private property. The view that men with guns should exist to protect your right to own whatever land you live on is not fundamentally different from the view that men with guns should exist to ensure that this land is the property of the collective. They are on the same continuum of ideas, even if they are different in many ways. So one has to do better than make vague hand-waving accusations that socialism and communism are the same because they both involve prodigious use of the state. As contemporaneously understood, they are different ideas and must be addressed separately.

The socialist of today whether they realize it or not are publicly espousing Marx's ideas. Socialism is a lower form of Communism where socialism is "from each according to their ability to each according to their contribution" where as Communism, a higher form of Socialism is "from each according his ability to each according to his need".

This particular distinction makes no sense. For example, most people would call basic income proposals to be socialist in nature, not communist. I am not very well schooled in political philosophy but I know enough to know that you need a better definition of these ideas if you want to be taken seriously. I understand that you seem to not care about the distinctions between these ideas but it makes you look uninformed when you don't acknowledge that serious scholarship has gone into developing various systems that are fundamentally different. And it makes you look like an idiot if you think that these systems can be summarized in one-sentence catchphrases. I know you are not an idiot, so please stop making arguments that an idiot would make.

Every last avowed socialist does, will and will continue to espouse ever greater Communistic goals as their immediate goals are met. You included mets.

Ignoring again the fact that I did not call myself a socialist, what if I say no? You'll just say "hush now sweety, patches knows best?"

Minimum wage advocates are also communistic because they ignore the idea of market based price determination in favor of State declared prices (for labor or any other resource). It's fantasy land as Mises proved that if you don't have prices signaled in capital goods (i.e. market determined prices which includes labor) then you can't have a rational market.

And this sounds like an economics 101 argument that completely ignores the many, many simple ways in which markets can act irrationally due to the presence of externalities. I am honestly sympathetic to the argument that state action often distorts the market more than it corrects it but I'm not at all sympathetic to the argument that market-based price determination always produces an optimal social outcome. It is possible to believe that minimum wage laws are economically counterproductive without devolving into the feces-throwing argument that minimum wage advocates are communists.

Socialism's biggest problem is that since the prices of things can't be determined accurately because public entities own all the means of production. In that case there is no "final sale" as every transaction is just an internal transfer. Without being able to determine an accurate price of things leads to misallocation of resources.

It is too much of a tangent to get into for this thread, but Kantorovich didn't think so. I am not sure the Soviet Union would have done better if they had adopted more rigorous price planning system; I am certainly do not know that such a system can outperform a free market system. But many of the arguments made against communism, such as this one, are made against the systems that have been implemented until now and not the ones that in principle could exist. While that's quite fair, it also means that one should be careful when making the implication that non-capitalist systems cannot determine an accurate price. It's just that the price might come from a different place and means a slightly different thing.

That's what the socialist advocates, no more market based price discovery because apparently it's not the best way to determine what resources are needed where the most. Socialist advocate internal transfers, i.e. if someone has it (resource) to someone in need (of said resource) at the price determined by...whom? The State of course.

I just don't get where this is coming from. The socialist democratic countries that exist today base their entire economies on markets; for the most part they don't deny the power of markets. Even for the countries with state-run health or energy systems, most other industries are privatized. The strongest claim you could make in these cases is that for those particular industries the belief exists that market-based price discovery is not the best way to determine resource allocation. And that's not even fully true for many of the countries with public medical systems. Socialism (at least in a form I could defend) isn't about state control of the means of production of these goods or services, it is about ensuring that those who need to obtain important goods and services from the market can do so.

The end goal of Socialism whether or not the Socialist admits or realizes is Communism.

Read: "I am patches70, and I know the inner workings of the minds of every person who denotes themselves socialists -- and even the people who don't."

If you want to disprove me, then lay out what in your mind is the "ideal" society and we'll take it to it's logical conclusion.

This is quite directly a nonsense statement. My ideal society is its own logical conclusion. If you changed it, it would no longer be my ideal.

The reason Bernie Sanders will never be elected President is because he proudly calls himself a Socialist and in too many people's minds that means he's a Communist.

Yes, I understand that many or most people are not well educated enough to understand the differences between the two ideas. Sadly, there is not much I can do about that, although Bernie Sanders might be able to get some more funding for the public education system lined up

However, at the end of the day people should be voting on concrete ideas, not on buzzwords. Calling Sanders a socialist or a communist as a way to end discussion rather than to begin one is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

(For the record, I am a registered Democrat and still haven't decided whether to vote for Clinton or Sanders in the primary.)

(Also for the record, I am not intentionally picking on patches here. The reason I am asking him to defend it and not tzor is that I think patches is at least one standard deviation more intelligent and more knowledgeable about economics than tzor is.)

[patches70]

Just because someone a long time ago said a thing they believed at the time was true, doesn't make it so today.

Look at Freud, Jung, niezchte, what a bunch of total douches, and people get actual doctorate degrees, based on the Bullshit personal hangups of these idiots,based on their hangups about mommy,homosexuals, and sexual perversion. A whole pseudo science was built and based on these pissant morons ideaology, so take socialists then and now and do a real comparison

Before anyone gets bent out of shape I used this comparison to make a point what was thought fact then isn't so now.

Lets look at this another way. They used lobotomies, moved on to electro shock, and on to drugs that don't actually cure, hence pseudo science
Look up the cure rate for this science.
Wrong then wrong now, get the idea?

With all due respect, Communism and Socialism both have the same focus- equality.
In Communism everything is owned by the working class and everyone works toward the same communal goal. Ideally there is no wealthy or poor classes in a Communist society and all production is distributed on need.
In Socialism the worker class is paid wages to spend as they please but don't own the the facilities or tools for production nor does any other individual(s). The State owns and manages the means of production for the benefit of the worker and the State provides the basic necessities to the worker.

Both Communism and Socialism are near opposites of Capitalism and there is no private ownership of Capital in either. The means of production are owned either by the State (Socialism) or by the worker (Communism).

Marx believed that a society would need to be Socialist first as it transitioned from Capitalism and if it was done correctly it would lead to a borderless, leaderless and classless society where everyone shares everything equally. They are both Utopian economic structures.
That's why Communism is considered the higher form of Socialism and thus is the true end goal of Socialism whether Socialists want to admit it or not.

The only real difference between the Socialist and the Communist is that the Communists believe that as soon as the worker class is in the position to do so that it must dismantle the character of the State by replacing the Capitalist dictatorship with the worker dictatorship over the Capitalist class. The workers must destroy the old and set up a new State apparatus. The worker class becomes the governing class.

Socialist on the other hand view the Capitalist State as a perfectly good piece of machinery that can be repurposed to Socialism. Socialists don't think that the character of the State necessarily needs to be changed. Socialists will allow the individual to own commercial goods but not allow individuals to own the means of production of those goods. Those are the two types of property in Socialism, the former is fine to be owned by individuals the latter is not. The latter is owned by the State.

In a true Socialist State for example, you can't be the owner of a farm. You can be a farmer. But the land you farm, the tools you use, the products you produce are all owned by the State. The State will distribute the food and you'll get what they give you or what you buy with your wages. Communism takes it one step further, the farmer and all the other farmers of the nation own the farm and everything produced is distributed by need.

We don't have any truly Communist nation states, nor do we have any truly Socialists states either. Communism won't work on anything much bigger than a Commune and those States that have gone too far into Socialism have collapsed. Socialists like Bernie Sanders thinks that because the citizens of a State may vote to become Socialist that it means the State should embrace Socialism even if the votes was 51% to 49%. It just won't work because people aren't going to accept that the sweat of their labors are not owned by them. Not unless every single citizen agrees, which won't happen, hence the term "Utopian Economic Structures". Utopian just being another word for fantasy.
People like Bernie just can't help themselves, they just keep pushing too far until finally the citizens revolt.

[Metsfanmax]

Socialists like Bernie Sanders thinks that because the citizens of a State may vote to become Socialist that it means the State should embrace Socialism even if the votes was 51% to 49%.

And if Sanders loses 51% to 49%, presumably we should not adopt any ideas from socialism at all?

[waauw]

[Bernie Sanders]

OOOoooOOOOOooOOOOo, the right wing morons think Socialism and Communism is the same thing or that Socialism will lead to Communism. OooOOOOooOOoOo!

What a bunch of hogwash!

Your stereotypical uninformed, uneducated, neanderthal thinker of so-called Christian conservatism.

[tzor]

The great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe firmly reject communism. It's completely possible to have a hybrid economy, where a free market provides the great engine but there is reasonable agreement that those on the express train leave something behind for those less fortunate. Protestations that a free market and a system of social protection cannot co-exist are pure propaganda, and quite false. Free markets and social services can and have been co-existing perfectly well in many places and at many times.

Communism generally collapses. Socialism generally collapses before the onset of communism. It's like a boy and his rocket; sure, he may have his goal of his rocket hitting the moon, but it runs out of fuel long before it hits the edge of the atmosphere. Hybrid systems don't work. It's like driving with three tires and one flat tire, yes you can move along, but the flat tire drags everything down. But the biggest threat of socialism is not to the "free market." The biggest threat is to the morale of the people. In the end, the free market does squat; the people do everything. When you have the attitude that the government does everything, (which it can't) the people decide that they don't have to to anything. If you want to see the lowest rates of charitable giving, look towards socialist Europe.

The opposite of socialism is actually subsidiarity, the notion that government belongs to the lowest level possible, not the highest. The question is not whether "social protection" but where. The closer it belongs to the people, the more people are motivated to maintain it. Charity gladdens the heart; taxes burdens the heart. Socialist Europe, which came from the dustpile of Secular Europe (which also game us secular capitalism which loves to exploit workers wherever they can find them) is a result of the moral collective guilt of striping the corporate works of mercy from the collective mind; a result that resulted in such wonderful things as the Holocaust and the culture of abortion / euthanasia.

And by the way, the "great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe" generally suck; just saying. If they were considered with the "states" of the United States, they would rank near the bottom of the list, economically speaking. If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States

Since Sweden is held up as a sort of promised land by American socialists, let's compare it first. We find that, if it were to join the US as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states, with a median income of $27,167.

Median residents in states like Colorado ($35,830), Massachusetts ($37,626), Virginia ($39,291), Washington ($36,343), and Utah ($36,036) have considerably higher incomes than Sweden.

With the exception of Luxembourg ($38,502), Norway ($35,528), and Switzerland ($35,083), all countries shown would fail to rank as high-income states were they to become part of the United States. In fact, most would fare worse than Mississippi, the poorest state.

Hey Sweden! New York called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"
Hey Sweden! New Jersey called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"
Hey Sweden! Colorado called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"

[jgordon1111]

This is what I was talking about, actual discussion, and current facts on socialism as it is being applied in the world today

[Symmetry]

The great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe firmly reject communism. It's completely possible to have a hybrid economy, where a free market provides the great engine but there is reasonable agreement that those on the express train leave something behind for those less fortunate. Protestations that a free market and a system of social protection cannot co-exist are pure propaganda, and quite false. Free markets and social services can and have been co-existing perfectly well in many places and at many times.

Communism generally collapses. Socialism generally collapses before the onset of communism. It's like a boy and his rocket; sure, he may have his goal of his rocket hitting the moon, but it runs out of fuel long before it hits the edge of the atmosphere. Hybrid systems don't work. It's like driving with three tires and one flat tire, yes you can move along, but the flat tire drags everything down. But the biggest threat of socialism is not to the "free market." The biggest threat is to the morale of the people. In the end, the free market does squat; the people do everything. When you have the attitude that the government does everything, (which it can't) the people decide that they don't have to to anything. If you want to see the lowest rates of charitable giving, look towards socialist Europe.

The opposite of socialism is actually subsidiarity, the notion that government belongs to the lowest level possible, not the highest. The question is not whether "social protection" but where. The closer it belongs to the people, the more people are motivated to maintain it. Charity gladdens the heart; taxes burdens the heart. Socialist Europe, which came from the dustpile of Secular Europe (which also game us secular capitalism which loves to exploit workers wherever they can find them) is a result of the moral collective guilt of striping the corporate works of mercy from the collective mind; a result that resulted in such wonderful things as the Holocaust and the culture of abortion / euthanasia.

And by the way, the "great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe" generally suck; just saying. If they were considered with the "states" of the United States, they would rank near the bottom of the list, economically speaking. If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States

Since Sweden is held up as a sort of promised land by American socialists, let's compare it first. We find that, if it were to join the US as a state, Sweden would be poorer than all but 12 states, with a median income of $27,167.

Median residents in states like Colorado ($35,830), Massachusetts ($37,626), Virginia ($39,291), Washington ($36,343), and Utah ($36,036) have considerably higher incomes than Sweden.

With the exception of Luxembourg ($38,502), Norway ($35,528), and Switzerland ($35,083), all countries shown would fail to rank as high-income states were they to become part of the United States. In fact, most would fare worse than Mississippi, the poorest state.

Hey Sweden! New York called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"
Hey Sweden! New Jersey called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"
Hey Sweden! Colorado called and she said ... "YOU SUCK!"

Hmm,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/world ... e-000.aspx

So, yeah, Gallup calls BS on that one.

[waauw]

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.

Communism generally collapses. Socialism generally collapses before the onset of communism. It's like a boy and his rocket; sure, he may have his goal of his rocket hitting the moon, but it runs out of fuel long before it hits the edge of the atmosphere. Hybrid systems don't work. It's like driving with three tires and one flat tire, yes you can move along, but the flat tire drags everything down.

You have absolutely not proof THAT ALL SOCIALIST NATIONS turn into COMMUNISM. In europe both socialists AND liberals(european meaning of the word) agree that the continent needs a hybrid system. Communist parties are tiny in most countries. They're despised by both left AND right wing. In my own country, Belgium, they hold a negligeable 2 seats out of 150 in federal parliament.

But the biggest threat of socialism is not to the "free market." The biggest threat is to the morale of the people. In the end, the free market does squat; the people do everything. When you have the attitude that the government does everything, (which it can't) the people decide that they don't have to to anything. If you want to see the lowest rates of charitable giving, look towards socialist Europe. The opposite of socialism is actually subsidiarity, the notion that government belongs to the lowest level possible, not the highest. The question is not whether "social protection" but where. The closer it belongs to the people, the more people are motivated to maintain it. Charity gladdens the heart; taxes burdens the heart.

Europe doesn't need high rates of charitable giving. Our Gini-coefficients are much better than that in the US, meaning our social security system is more effective than the charity in the US. Our poor are much better off than their counter-parts in the US. And as mentioned in another topic there is a correlation between happiness and the Gini-coefficient.

Socialist Europe, which came from the dustpile of Secular Europe (which also game us secular capitalism which loves to exploit workers wherever they can find them) is a result of the moral collective guilt of striping the corporate works of mercy from the collective mind; a result that resulted in such wonderful things as the Holocaust and the culture of abortion / euthanasia.

Typical american christian bullshit. I don't know if you realize it but the prosecution of jews was not a result of secularism. It's a christian tradition dating back more than a thousand years. Back in the middle-ages there was no such thing as secularism. I advise you to read some history books.

In the 19th century the only country in europe to fully accept jews was secular France. At the 1919 peace talks in Paris it was again secular France along with Japan, Italy, China, etc. that were pro global racial equality. Among the countries who voted against was hyper-christian USA who argued the white man stands above all others. In more recent times the US let the big banks off the hook after 2008, whilst in europe many european banks were forced by the state to break up into pieces. I'm not arguing it was enough, but we did more than the US ever did. On top of that at least in europe the FBI can't arrest anyone without trial. In the US all the the american government has to say is "suspect of terrorism" and it's over with.

FYI, secular europe has MORE rules to protect workers than hyper-christian USA.

And by the way, the "great Democratic Socialist nations of Europe" generally suck; just saying. If they were considered with the "states" of the United States, they would rank near the bottom of the list, economically speaking. If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States

A bunch of half-thruths. Without even spending much time on this multiple things already jump to mind:

• Doesn't take into account that the US economy has always been heavily reliant on its cheap oil and gas prices. European countries for the most part don't have that luxury.
• Your article ignores the fact that medians not only ignore the influence of the extremely rich 1%, it also ignores the extreme poverty of the bottom layers of society.
• It also ignores the fact that the US is much more than europe, a spending and loaning country. Europeans, rich northern and western europe, have much more the propensity to hoard money into their accounts rather than spend it. This results in less richness, but more stability.
• It doesn't take into account happiness. According to the world happiness report Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and Finland are the top 5 happiest nations on the planet.(mentioning this because your url seems to focus primarily on these scandinavian nations, Sweden is 10th btw still 3 places above the US)
• ...

There's a lot more to economics than median income.

[GoranZ]

Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.

That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.

Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my post
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.

[jgordon1111]

Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.

That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.

Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my post
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.

You make this way to easy!

First point of fact, I in fact did not ignore your post as my response to it indicates
Second at this point I am thinking you really do not have a good grasp on English or whatever translation device your using sucks and I say that because it took you several days to line up this brilliant, flawless response, really top notch, So in short put up or shut up boy
And Alexander is spinning in his grave knowing your ilk is his legacy.

[GoranZ]

Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.

That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.

Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my post
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.

You make this way to easy!

First point of fact, I in fact did not ignore your post as my response to it indicates
Second at this point I am thinking you really do not have a good grasp on English or whatever translation device your using sucks and I say that because it took you several days to line up this brilliant, flawless response, really top notch, So in short put up or shut up boy

Unlike you some people have real life

And Alexander is spinning in his grave knowing your ilk is his legacy.

GoranZ Rank: General > jgordon1111 Rank: Sergeant 1st Class

[jgordon1111]

Actually Goran, you have no idea of what I want, just for clarification I have no idea of what is in the image you provided, I disabled that on my CC account.

That aside I firmly believe the ability we have to speak, read, and write is the prime ability that sets us apart from every species on this planet.
And the use of gifs, pictures and drawings of any kind or form,shows, either laziness or inability on the users behalf to effectively communicate with others, and therefore has no standing or capacity in any rational discourse or dialog of any fashion.
So try again GORAN, and keep in mind what I have said about you or implied, was brought on by yourself alone,no one else just your firm belief that a non real rank on a gamesite has somehow overinflated your personal view of yourself.

Hahahaha what an idiotic excuse for ignoring my post
Dude if you want you can put your fingers where the sun don't shine, but the consequences of your actions are your problem, not mine.

You make this way to easy!

First point of fact, I in fact did not ignore your post as my response to it indicates
Second at this point I am thinking you really do not have a good grasp on English or whatever translation device your using sucks and I say that because it took you several days to line up this brilliant, flawless response, really top notch, So in short put up or shut up boy

Unlike you some people have real life

And Alexander is spinning in his grave knowing your ilk is his legacy.

GoranZ Rank: General > jgordon1111 Rank: Sergeant 1st Class

Why thank you, you should change your user name to, to easy,

You claim to have a real life
Then you validate my earlier statement about having an over inflated idea of your view of yourself and opinions due to a fake rank on a game site.
Again boy, thank you TO EASY

[notyou2]

What does Bernie needs to explain?

Why he never got a job until he was in his 40's.

Bernie worked hard all his life. Of course a conservative like yourself does not believe fighting for the rights of minorities, women, gay rights, the poor and other injustices is a not a job. Nope, you would call that racism and bigotry against the good old white boy network.

Stop lying to the people, Bernie Sanders is greedy socialist politician who wants to take money from others. He has never fought for someone's rights, he is only fighting for his own greedy ideas. But American democrats saw this and they are punishing him severely.



So whats gonna be next GREEDY MAN? Will you QUIT or you will continue to CRY?

One hole in your argument GORAN he actually went to jail for fighting for others RIGHTS which calls into question your whole argument against him, are you just anti democracy in general or against him because he is Jewish or just because the pigment of his skin? EXPLAIN PLEASE GORAN

He's living in an eastern block fantasy land. It's not his fault he is fed lies.

[Bernie Sanders]

GoranZ, lives in a fantasyland, where he's the genius and wins all arguments.

If he only knew what most people thought of his posts he would be embarrassed.

[tzor]

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.

What the hell does this have to do with "American politics?"

Yes, I have absolutely do not have any proof that the sun will eventually expand and destroy the earth. I mean I can't cite one example of our sun doing that, right? I just read you the quotes of the people who designed these systems in the first place. The goal of socialism is communism, just without the short term violent revolution. The fact that socialist Europe will probably become an Islamic Caliphate before that happens isn't any proof that I am wrong.

American politics has always been the history of European wannabes. From the people who worshiped the age of Enlightenment to the people who worshiped the murdering socialists (and I'm not talking Nazi's here ... I'm talking about the great socialist writers and thinkers who were proposing eliminating poverty by killing the poor because obviously they were poor because they were inferior and were only a drag on the society at large).

[waauw]

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.

What the hell does this have to do with "American politics?"

Yes, I have absolutely do not have any proof that the sun will eventually expand and destroy the earth. I mean I can't cite one example of our sun doing that, right? I just read you the quotes of the people who designed these systems in the first place. The goal of socialism is communism, just without the short term violent revolution. The fact that socialist Europe will probably become an Islamic Caliphate before that happens isn't any proof that I am wrong.

American politics has always been the history of European wannabes. From the people who worshiped the age of Enlightenment to the people who worshiped the murdering socialists (and I'm not talking Nazi's here ... I'm talking about the great socialist writers and thinkers who were proposing eliminating poverty by killing the poor because obviously they were poor because they were inferior and were only a drag on the society at large).

You're living the past. Contemporary socialism is nothing like the communist ideals of the 20th century. Socialism has moved on from that for several decades already.

[Bernie Sanders]

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS RIGHT NOW? What a load of bullshit and insults to social-capitalism and secular states. This is precisely what europeans despise about american politics: propagating state religion; and a load of half-truths and lies about socialism.

What the hell does this have to do with "American politics?"

Yes, I have absolutely do not have any proof that the sun will eventually expand and destroy the earth. I mean I can't cite one example of our sun doing that, right? I just read you the quotes of the people who designed these systems in the first place. The goal of socialism is communism, just without the short term violent revolution. The fact that socialist Europe will probably become an Islamic Caliphate before that happens isn't any proof that I am wrong.

American politics has always been the history of European wannabes. From the people who worshiped the age of Enlightenment to the people who worshiped the murdering socialists (and I'm not talking Nazi's here ... I'm talking about the great socialist writers and thinkers who were proposing eliminating poverty by killing the poor because obviously they were poor because they were inferior and were only a drag on the society at large).

You're living the past. Contemporary socialism is nothing like the communist ideals of the 20th century. Socialism has moved on from that for several decades already.

The rich fats cats in Amerika are scared shitless of Socialism. They would hate to contribute to the welfare of ordinary Americans. Plus the Republicans and corporate Democrats would not receive their bribes [political contributions] from them. The fat cats want us to continue to coddle them with more lax EPA regulations, more free trade agreements, tax cuts, subsidies and to destroy any type of collective bargaining that may cut into their profit margins.