DescentBB

As you are slowly getting what you deserve.


Cuban-American Filmmaker Warns America Is Morphing Into Communist Country

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/30/cuban ... z47QnxABwM

woodchip wrote:As you are slowly getting what you deserve.


Cuban-American Filmmaker Warns America Is Morphing Into Communist Country

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/30/cuban ... z47QnxABwM

And you voted for it Woody....

Trump = Hillary. She'll win because of your wasted support for Trump.

Watch out Capitalism, the pendulum is swinging the other way. Millennials are the up and coming generation, and they have a more negative of a view of Capitalism than do Boomers and GenXer's. Perhaps it's because they've been screwed the most by our 30 years of rampant greed and poorly regulated Capitalism. They can't afford to buy a house, they can't afford a college education without going into massive debt, wealth inequity in the country has gotten so extreme it's creating resentment, and all the former well-paying middle class jobs have been shipped overseas. No wonder Millennials like Sanders and his message.

http://mic.com/articles/3229/do-millenn ... capitalism

I'm cool with trying out communism.

I'm cool with you trying out communism too. Make sure whichever country you go to doesn't block the DBB so you can report your experiences here.

It would be a blessing to be forces away from the nonsense on here on "RightWingBB," but then I wouldn't be able to keep up with new D1 and D2 levels.

I understand Castro is looking for good people Vision, to immigrate to Cuba as everyone is leaving.

You know woody and ST, you wouldn't have to worry about that icky socialism being on the rise in this country if the capitalists of the world weren't so damn greedy these days, taking far to much of the world's wealth and keeping it for themselves like a bunch of fat pigs. We're headed right back to the days when we'll need another Hail Mary intervention by some future socialistic minded leader like FDR to bring our country out of yet another capitalist-caused Great Depression.

Yeah TC, FDR was so great he got us into WW2 to get us out of the depression

The level of your education just rolls over Communism has never been in the Soviet Union.

And Stalin never killed millions of his own people

tunnelcat wrote:You know woody and ST, you wouldn't have to worry about that icky socialism being on the rise in this country if the capitalists of the world weren't so damn greedy these days, taking far to much of the world's wealth and keeping it for themselves like a bunch of fat pigs. We're headed right back to the days when we'll need another Hail Mary intervention by some future socialistic minded leader like FDR to bring our country out of yet another capitalist-caused Great Depression.

Socialism didn’t end the depression…the war did.

Socialism helped a lot of people get through the thing…but it didn’t end it.

How many of you guys have insurance, regardless of type?

Dirty little secret of insurance is, it's a model of socialism in action. And I'm sure you guys have been in an auto collision at least once in your life. Socialism paid to get you back on the road. Also paid for your courtesy car/rental if you had one.

Wow Ferno, I guess you missed the part where Ins Co's are capitalistic profit making industries. And socialism certainly didn't pay for my premiums. Maybe it is different in your socialistic paradise.

woodchip wrote:Yeah TC, FDR was so great he got us into WW2 to get us out of the depression

Well, he kind of had to, didn't he? We were surrounded by 2 major powers with designs on conquering the world. Besides, I sure as hell don't see the current Republicans going for boosting our economy with some major socialistic infrastructure spending, so there's no help from that quarter, is there? Socialist projects are nothing but cooties to conservatives, even though those types of projects benefits us all, including business. And I don't see capitalism fixing the problem either.

Oh, and woody, that capitalist insurance you so love takes a good chunk of those cherished health care dollars you spend every month, and which doesn't go towards improving your health one little bit. It's nothing but blood money to a bunch of CEO and administrators as profit.

woodchip wrote:Wow Ferno, I guess you missed the part where Ins Co's are capitalistic profit making industries. And socialism certainly didn't pay for my premiums. Maybe it is different in your socialistic paradise.

Not only is insurance a privately owned for profit type of business, it is in fact the quintessential capitalist type of business that falls into the same category as other 'capital* used to generate capital' types, such as banking, Wall Street and other investment businesses. (this is actually where the term “capitalism” is derived)

In order for an insurance company to qualify as socialism it would have to be:

1. Owned by all of its policy holders, or the state
2. Non profit

*In contrast to generation of capital thru labor, manufacturing, agriculture or some kind of service.

But I would be interested to know why insurance is considered a model of socialism, using a simple definition.

Side note:

Anybody who doubts that insurance is capitalism…just remember that AIG was one of those capitalist pig companies that had to be bailed out.

That's one of the things that troubles me about the insanity of wanting to take a captialist economy and turn it communist or socialist. It's like taking a really heavy muscle car, and magically swapping the souped up, turbo-injected engine for a washing machine motor while doing 200MPH on the Autobahn. The new "engine" doesn't have any of the power that the car needs, but you have plenty of time to be in denial and blame every other system in the car until you finally get below 30MPH many miles down the road.

Two wrongs don't make a right, TC. Ills committed in a capitalist system do not truly create a need to dispose of capitalism.

geezus!! We don't have a PURE capitalist economy. We don't have to 'evolve' to become socialist. What world do some of you live in?

The thing I find amusing is that they are convinced all socialist models collapse but capitalist models don't. When if you examine the historical precedent you would find that all economic models eventually collapse as they approach their extremes. Show me a capitalist economic system that hasn't faced collapse in the last 200 years. Our very own had to be bailed out by socialist actions twice in the last 100 years.

Capitalism isn't some silver bullet that always works, it is every bit as failure prone as socialism and it fails for exactly the same reasons.

And yet Krom, the last bailout was caused by socialists repealing the Glass Steagall law and setting up the conditions for the collapse.

When large institutions lend capital to other large institutions that action is called “capitalism” so I’m having a hard time figuring out how bailing out the auto industry and the mortgage banks qualifies as a socialist action.

Much of the capital that was used in the bailouts was generated by banks, and the US government backed those loans with collateralization.

People keep claiming things to be socialism, but fail to give the definition that qualifies it as such.

.................

Krom wrote:Capitalism isn't some silver bullet that always works, it is every bit as failure prone as socialism and it fails for exactly the same reasons.

Then fix those reasons, otherwise you can replace as much capitalism with socialism as you want, and end up right in the same boat.

Spidey wrote:

woodchip wrote:Wow Ferno, I guess you missed the part where Ins Co's are capitalistic profit making industries. And socialism certainly didn't pay for my premiums. Maybe it is different in your socialistic paradise.

Not only is insurance a privately owned for profit type of business, it is in fact the quintessential capitalist type of business that falls into the same category as other 'capital* used to generate capital' types, such as banking, Wall Street and other investment businesses. (this is actually where the term “capitalism” is derived)

In order for an insurance company to qualify as socialism it would have to be:

1. Owned by all of its policy holders, or the state
2. Non profit

*In contrast to generation of capital thru labor, manufacturing, agriculture or some kind of service.

But I would be interested to know why insurance is considered a model of socialism, using a simple definition.

Side note:

Anybody who doubts that insurance is capitalism…just remember that AIG was one of those capitalist pig companies that had to be bailed out.

thanks for showing a complete lack of understanding of what the insurance industry is based on. you and woodchip.

I could explain it further, but it's clear neither of you want to listen.

Spidey wrote:...I would be interested to know why insurance is considered a model of socialism, using a simple definition.

Insurance is, by definition, an aleatory contract, meaning that the benefits are unequal, heavily weighted towards need.

That doesn't make it a model of socialism, but it certainly evokes "safety net" and "give to those who don't put in much" concepts that are commonly conflated with socialism.

woodchip wrote:And Stalin never killed millions of his own people

Woodchip, the Soviet system sought to communism, but as a social system, communism was not in the Soviet Union. In this sense, I believe China has wisely analyzed the shortcomings of the socialist system of the USSR, creating a powerful social-capitalist system.

Spidey wrote:Then fix those reasons, otherwise you can replace as much capitalism with socialism as you want, and end up right in the same boat.

The moment anyone suggests addressing any of the reasons, they get called out as a socialist and shut down by conservatives who are hell bent on destroying all forms of government regulation.

Ferno wrote:

Spidey wrote:

woodchip wrote:Wow Ferno, I guess you missed the part where Ins Co's are capitalistic profit making industries. And socialism certainly didn't pay for my premiums. Maybe it is different in your socialistic paradise.

Not only is insurance a privately owned for profit type of business, it is in fact the quintessential capitalist type of business that falls into the same category as other 'capital* used to generate capital' types, such as banking, Wall Street and other investment businesses. (this is actually where the term “capitalism” is derived)

In order for an insurance company to qualify as socialism it would have to be:

1. Owned by all of its policy holders, or the state
2. Non profit

*In contrast to generation of capital thru labor, manufacturing, agriculture or some kind of service.

But I would be interested to know why insurance is considered a model of socialism, using a simple definition.

Side note:

Anybody who doubts that insurance is capitalism…just remember that AIG was one of those capitalist pig companies that had to be bailed out.

thanks for showing a complete lack of understanding of what the insurance industry is based on. you and woodchip.

I could explain it further, but it's clear neither of you want to listen.

What you are really saying is you don't understand it either but just want to sound like you do.

Ferno wrote:thanks for showing a complete lack of understanding of what the insurance industry is based on.

Pooling risk isn't itself "socialist." It's the ownership of the capital backing the pool that determines this. If that capital is not owned by the insured, it's not "socialist."

Pooling risk does, however, share similar theoretical benefits with "socialism" in some regards. Smoothing inequity for communal benefit, for example.

woodchip wrote:And yet Krom, the last bailout was caused by socialists repealing the Glass Steagall law and setting up the conditions for the collapse.

wait a minute. 'socialists' caused the avarice and overreach of capitalists, so socialism is the problem? Wheeeee, off into fantasy land!!

woodchip wrote:Yeah TC, FDR was so great he got us into WW2 to get us out of the depression

Yes, of course, and the first thing that made USA, when received an economic advantage, they dropped atomic bombs on defenseless Japanese cities. And it is known that he had planned to do the same in relation to the Russian people.
The Yankees is just the standard of thinking monkeys, which found a grenade, to take revenge on all mankind after their period of American economic depression.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:And yet Krom, the last bailout was caused by socialists repealing the Glass Steagall law and setting up the conditions for the collapse.

wait a minute. 'socialists' caused the avarice and overreach of capitalists, so socialism is the problem? Wheeeee, off into fantasy land!!

No Mr red light district hawker, the socialist want affordable housing for all (even tho all couldn't afford it) and set up the avarice be forcing the repealing of Glass Steagall. I'm surprised you don't understand this (unless you are just feigning ignorance to protect the left)

deleted for double post

yes, I want to see housing for all(not all OWNING housing, mind you). Using that NOBLE goal as an excuse for greedy capitalists taking the economy down is idiotic. Oh, and the repeal of Glass Steagall related to housing how? Please, show linkage for that bizarre claim. That may have been the driver for pushing Freddy and Fannie to take excess risks, but I don't see where the removal of barriers to banks, investment houses and insurance firms merging into financial entities with diverse roles played in there.

sigma wrote:Yes, of course, and the first thing that made USA, when received an economic advantage, they dropped atomic bombs on defenseless Japanese cities. And it is known that he had planned to do the same in relation to the Russian people.
The Yankees is just the standard of thinking monkeys, which found a grenade, to take revenge on all mankind after their period of American economic depression.

there is apparently no end to the idiocy that you people are fed. First off, if you think the Japanese were 'defenseless', you know absolutely nothing about the 'to the last man' defense of the outer islands in the Pacific Theater. Secondly,
can you provide ONE SHRED OF PROOF that there was any plan to attack Russian territory? I know of no such plan, never heard even a suggestion by the most radical of conspiracy theorists, and frankly think you are talking out your ass.

callmeslick wrote:

sigma wrote:Yes, of course, and the first thing that made USA, when received an economic advantage, they dropped atomic bombs on defenseless Japanese cities. And it is known that he had planned to do the same in relation to the Russian people.
The Yankees is just the standard of thinking monkeys, which found a grenade, to take revenge on all mankind after their period of American economic depression.

there is apparently no end to the idiocy that you people are fed. First off, if you think the Japanese were 'defenseless', you know absolutely nothing about the 'to the last man' defense of the outer islands in the Pacific Theater. Secondly,
can you provide ONE SHRED OF PROOF that there was any plan to attack Russian territory? I know of no such plan, never heard even a suggestion by the most radical of conspiracy theorists, and frankly think you are talking out your ass.

First, you have made the Pacific Islands in the monstrous source of radiation, which is much, much worse than a random accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and then you immediately began to shout about the dangers to the environment that comes from other countries.
Second, you should thank God that I care about fate of ordinary Americans, because I see that the US is now in a situation of checkmate.

Krom wrote:

Spidey wrote:Then fix those reasons, otherwise you can replace as much capitalism with socialism as you want, and end up right in the same boat.

The moment anyone suggests addressing any of the reasons, they get called out as a socialist and shut down by conservatives who are hell bent on destroying all forms of government regulation.

I have to agree with you, but regulations are only part of the problem.

Example:

We have a school system that is stuck in the past, and is still using a template that Henry Ford gave us decades ago, when jobs were plentiful, we have to create a new paradigm where people are taught to create jobs instead of getting one.

So there is plenty of blame to go around.

Well…actually…Patton did offer up a plan to attack the USSR at the end of the second world war…but that plan was dismissed by the president.

sigma wrote:[First, you have made the Pacific Islands in the monstrous source of radiation, which is much, much worse than a random accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and then you immediately began to shout about the dangers to the environment that comes from other countries.

wrong again. If you knew anything about the nature of radiation, you'd realize that the nature of Chernobyl was FAR worse, and no one there was at war.

Second, you should thank God that I care about fate of ordinary Americans, because I see that the US is now in a situation of checkmate.

you are amusing some days, but clueless every day, and moreover rather evasive. Care to actually answer the question I asked, and provide ANY proof of ANY plan the US EVER HAD to attack Russia after Japan? I mean, once both had the bomb, there were plans and proliferation on both sides, but until that point?

Spidey wrote:Well…actually…Patton did offer up a plan to attack the USSR at the end of the second world war…but that plan was dismissed by the president.

I wasn't aware that nuclear strikes were involved.

Oh, no they weren’t.

I’m sorry, was the context limited to nuclear strikes, if so then you are correct.

callmeslick wrote:wrong again. If you knew anything about the nature of radiation, you'd realize that the nature of Chernobyl was FAR worse, and no one there was at war.

Pathetic excuse.

callmeslick wrote:you are amusing some days, but clueless every day, and moreover rather evasive. Care to actually answer the question I asked, and provide ANY proof of ANY plan the US EVER HAD to attack Russia after Japan? I mean, once both had the bomb, there were plans and proliferation on both sides, but until that point?

With all due respect, you don't need to know too much.