Your political views.

[Qwepir]

It's a 4-way clusterforget in here. Liberals v. Conservatives v. Inv3rted v. Duckmeister

[Ad Bot]

[Wizard]

I might be less mad at liberals if you guys stopped throwing your support at a socialist.

THIS IS AMERICA DAMMIT.

So because we're currently using a broken capitalist system in a country I'm not part of and the internet is not part of we cannot have liberal beliefs. That makes sense. Also it's socialism, something who is part of a body using socialism is a socialist.

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.

Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation, creates an unequal society, does not provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximize their potentialities and does not utilize technology and resources to their maximum potential nor in the interests of the public.

That's a good summary and a great argument for socialism.

Also @ heal: I fail to see how a private company is going to manage a corperation better than the government.

[Rekuddo]

They agree with me that you're both arrogant and ignorant, so they're now unthinking sheep.  Sirrus agrees with you yet neither of you are unthinking sheep.  There's that arrogance and ignorance.

The only ignorant one I see here is you, When I posted my chart you had a brain fart, "OMG GO WATCH FAWX NOOZE loving friend friend richard SUCK."

You're really that narrow if you can't see your mistakes, you always act ignorant then immediately call some other people out on their supposed ignorance in order to cover up for you, and the fact that you always refuse to believe in anything else tells you, And the fact that you called me a tribal prick. Don't get angry, remember this is America, land of the free. It's hilarious how you think any of my morals come from a media source that I pay no attention to, you think you know everything about everybody because of their political beliefs.

[Wedge]

[Pinto]

I think you got it backwards. Flip it.

[Sirrus]

That's a good summary and a great argument for socialism.

Read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. Wonderful argument against socialism.

I'll sum it up for you though: Socialism can't exist because of the flaws of humans. I've talked about this before.

[Corbiere]

The stupid test is pointless and too long lol, can't they just ask age, Gender and 'do you smoke' liek all other tests

[Sirrus]

The stupid test is pointless and too long lol, can't they just ask age, Gender and 'do you smoke' liek all other tests

If you're trying to be funny, I can assure you you've failed.

If you're trying to be poignant, I can assure you your intentions are in vain.

If you're trying to be a dumbass, you've passed with flying colors.

[Grumpy]

@continued from sirus, communism can not work because of all the idiots

[Sirrus]

@continued from sirus, communism can not work because of all the idiots

I think communism can't exist more because for a true communism we'd need anarchy, basically. There would need to be some catalytic event where every single man woman and child decided that it would be better to live in peace, harmony, and equality than to strive to meet consumeristic ends.

Without that, the only communism that could exist would be flawed communism where there a ruling class that was inherently more privileged than the people they put under them with the command "everyone must be equal."

I'd suggest reading one of my favorite short stories ever, Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. It's about total equality of human beings and how silly it would be.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html


Edit: Also, the worst part about even the truest communism is that it only takes one person to decide that being equal is foolish to make the whole system come apart: There is almost a chaotic relationship between one person striving to raise their standard of anything above other's and an entire communist community; like a pebble being thrown into a pond except much less predictable.

[Inv3rted]

Thanks for showing everyone that I've whittled you down to this pathetic argument, desperately trying to hang on to the delusion that you could be right.

Not once have you even tried to support your assertion. All you do is disregard modern science because it's an atheist conspiracy. I call that a pathetic argument.

All I am doing is saving you the trouble of realizing you will never be accepted.

@Sirrus, why do you think that total "equality" = liberal agenda? I read Harrison Bergeron a long time ago in seventh grade. The system was flawed because it had nothing to do with economic security of individuals. Government run health insurance option does not mean no private competition. The majority of the market is supposed to be private competition. The government run aspect is just a simple check and balance so people have the choice of leaving a company if they are unhappy with the way they are treated. I thought competition in capitalism was good, is it not?

[Inv3rted]

Anyone who supports total communism is an idiot, and that's not what I nor my fellow 'Marxist friends' agree with. That's a nice strawman you've set up, and I hope you don't mind when anyone who knows a single thing about what they're talking about lights it on fire.

[Sirrus]

why do you think that total "equality" = liberal agenda? I read Harrison Bergeron a long time ago in seventh grade. The system was flawed because it had nothing to do with economic security of individuals. Government run health insurance option does not mean no private competition. The majority of the market is supposed to be private competition. The government run aspect is just a simple check and balance so people have the choice of leaving a company if they are unhappy with the way they are treated. I thought competition in capitalism was good, is it not?

I don't disagree with you on the fact that capitalism is good, and a baseline option that people are provided with damn near for free sounds great on paper. Reading it there is like "Yeah, if we can't get the private insurance companies to simmer the forget down, then why not have a government option." But it's just that, a government option. The government debt at this point is beginning to reach theoretical number, how can the government provide free healthcare when they're 12.1 trillion dollars in debt?

Provide me an economic flowchart where the government keeps the same debt or turns a profit through a government run healthcare program without the people of this nation paying directly for healthcare. There's only two places that money can come from, essentially. It's either higher taxes on the healthcare companies, or higher taxes on the people. If I don't need the government healthcare, then why should I pay taxes for others to use it?

If I'm wrong, please tell me.

[Inv3rted]

I don't disagree with you on the fact that capitalism is good, and a baseline option that people are provided with damn near for free sounds great on paper. Reading it there is like "Yeah, if we can't get the private insurance companies to simmer the forget down, then why not have a government option." But it's just that, a government option. The government debt at this point is beginning to reach theoretical number, how can the government provide free healthcare when they're 12.1 trillion dollars in debt?

Another strawman argument. Ignorance is a bad thing, you know.

Anyway, the original public option (that was killed, thanks to what is essentially bribery, ask me to elaborate if you're interested) was to be paid for by the people who bought into it, along with some minor tax increases to the individuals making large sums of money. The whole idea was that it would be a lot cheaper because the premiums you pay would not be feeding a profit, but rather just trying to keep the system going.

[Sirrus]

Another strawman argument. Ignorance is a bad thing, you know.

Seeking enlightenment on a topic I obviously know less than you about isn't ignorance. I said at the end, if I'm wrong, please tell me. Regardless,

Anyway, the original public option (that was killed, thanks to what is essentially bribery, ask me to elaborate if you're interested) was to be paid for by the people who bought into it, along with some minor tax increases to the individuals making large sums of money. The whole idea was that it would be a lot cheaper because the premiums you pay would not be feeding a profit, but rather just trying to keep the system going.

So that's the system that got killed. It sounds good, though. If you're giving meager tax increases to the people who it's a drop in the bucket for, and cutting profit out of the equation that sounds alright.

But it got killed. What's out on the floor now?