|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 16, 2010 18:10:40 GMT -5
How many fucking times do we have to tell these nitwits that 1. that there is already socialitic elements in our economy, yeah we have a mixed economy, look it up,and 2. there is a fucking difference between communism (like they have in Cuba) and socialism, there isn't even a pure socialist state, and most countries have a mixed economy like the U.S. just better .
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 16, 2010 18:13:16 GMT -5
No one has ever successfully created an actual, pure "socialist" state. Every time someone tries, the people in power turn out to be gigantic asshats who sit in their palaces and bleed the nation dry in the name of "equality."
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 17, 2010 9:33:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 17, 2010 16:07:10 GMT -5
The difference there is under the margin of error, and even if it wasn't, money is about comparative wealth, so they actually do better under Republicans since they grow so much faster. It hardly need be said, however, that a prosperous middle class and lower class is of great benefit of the upper class, even if it means that their comparative financial power is somewhat reduced. Just like ya can't build a house from the top down, ya can't build an economy from the rich down, either.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 17, 2010 19:34:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 17, 2010 21:24:56 GMT -5
No one has ever successfully created an actual, pure "socialist" state. Every time someone tries, the people in power turn out to be gigantic asshats who sit in their palaces and bleed the nation dry in the name of "equality." Compounding the problem is that even people with good intentions who manage to amass enough power to create such a state will tend to turn into asshats with an eye toward their own aggrandizement. People sufficiently incorruptible to resist such a transition are both too rare and too unlikely to get power to actually succeed. Anyway. </ramble>
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Sept 17, 2010 21:40:52 GMT -5
No one has ever successfully created an actual, pure "socialist" state. Every time someone tries, the people in power turn out to be gigantic asshats who sit in their palaces and bleed the nation dry in the name of "equality." Compounding the problem is that even people with good intentions who manage to amass enough power to create such a state will tend to turn into asshats with an eye toward their own aggrandizement. People sufficiently incorruptible to resist such a transition are both too rare and too unlikely to get power to actually succeed. Anyway. </ramble> And if one of those rare individuals DO manage to get into power, all it does is stall the inevitable, as the next guy will probably be an asshat.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 18, 2010 10:38:21 GMT -5
Compounding the problem is that even people with good intentions who manage to amass enough power to create such a state will tend to turn into asshats with an eye toward their own aggrandizement. People sufficiently incorruptible to resist such a transition are both too rare and too unlikely to get power to actually succeed. Anyway. </ramble> And if one of those rare individuals DO manage to get into power, all it does is stall the inevitable, as the next guy will probably be an asshat. Case in point: the current state of the Great Republic. You guys started out pretty good and managed to hold it together for a good long time.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 18, 2010 10:43:44 GMT -5
How many fucking times do we have to tell these nitwits that 1. that there is already socialitic elements in our economy, yeah we have a mixed economy, look it up,and 2. there is a fucking difference between communism (like they have in Cuba) and socialism, there isn't even a pure socialist state, and most countries have a mixed economy like the U.S. just better . Does anyone else think that Fidel's little experiment might have worked out a hell of a lot better if, oh, say, the hemisphere's largest and most powerful player (and natural trading partner being a mere 60 miles away) hadn't slapped a total embargo on the country?
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 18, 2010 10:58:23 GMT -5
Cuba is actually (at least theoretically) small enough for a purely socialist system to work. Provided, of course, that the people in charge are altruistic, compassionate, fair, and competent. None of which were probably true in a Castro-led Cuba.
But you are right, it would have had a much better chance had the USA not decided to screw them for 5 decades over a difference in political ideology. It's even possible that Cuba would never have had to turn to the USSR for support and a major source of nuclear tension in the Cold War would have simply never existed.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 19, 2010 6:57:31 GMT -5
I have the solution to the socialist state problem: Batman can be the leader.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 19, 2010 9:30:02 GMT -5
I have the solution to the socialist state problem: Batman can be the leader. Because he's the president Cuba deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll embargo him because he can take it. Because he's not our president. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight. WHY IS NEWT WEARING A MEAT BIKINI?
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Sept 19, 2010 10:28:00 GMT -5
WHY IS NEWT WEARING A MEAT BIKINI? I don't give a damn; I just want that image off of my retinas! *gag, retch**lunges for a nearby empty grocery bag*
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Sept 19, 2010 10:53:59 GMT -5
I have the solution to the socialist state problem: Batman can be the leader. Wouldn't work. Batman is, very clearly, a fascist.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 20, 2010 13:30:00 GMT -5
|
|