The Bernie Gimme Gimme Gimme Crowd

[Cow Poke]

are you projecting.

Did you just recently learn this phrase?

[Cow Poke]

Marxism is a classless society of the proletariat (workers) control.

And only a moron thinks such a system can actually work.

[Sparko]

If wealth were distributed equitably in the first place, there would be much less need for redistribution in the form of progressive taxation, welfare, food stamps etc etc. Hence the movement to up the minimum wage. The minimum wage today should be somewhere in the $17 an hour range when compared to the 1960's. With the rise in inflation people are earning 1960 wages in 2016 while at the same time corporate profits are soaring. Redistrubution of wealth in the form of government assistance to the needy is really, in part, nothing more than a tax payor subsidy for the wealthy.

Why do you liberals always talk as if there is this giant pile of money somewhere that the "rich" are just taking too much of because of greed. Money isn't a resource that needs to be distributed. Wealth is created and earned. It doesn't even exist till the "rich" folks you hate so much create it. It is not just paper that the Government prints up. Wealth is the value of labor and goods, and the paper just represents it. Without actual value there, the money the government prints is just pretty paper.

So tell me where this magical pile of wealth is warehoused for distribution, JimL.

[jordanriver]

Did you just recently learn this phrase?

Late 1990s. Talk Origins when outlook express had newsgroups.
an atheist called maff or maff99 or something like that used it all the time a creationist tried to label him/her.

used it on me too. And actually he was right a couple times

[lilpixieofterror]

are you projecting.


are you using tactic of deflecting blame for what you did?



YOU are the one who "change up the subject"

I initiated Dust Bowl topic in MY POST 16 only claim I made was that free market anarchy overplowing caused the Dust Bowl, and that was in reply that free market allows farmers and companies to innovate.

Nothing about how communism would have prevented it.

Then you remarked about me in YOUR POST 42 that the people were just following centuries old farming techniques failing to account for the wind..., nothing yet about claiming that I claimed communism would have prevented Dust Bowl.


so, I replied in MY POST 75 that the wind is kind of hard to miss in Kansas. I still never claimed that communism would have prevented Dust Bowl. (like i been sayin, how could I, no communist/Marxist states yet in the world)

then in my next post MY POST 83 I had to defend against something else I never said, that the farmers were sinning, and I again made my claim that Dust Bowl caused by Capitalism (profiteering), but still no claim that communism would have/could have prevented Dust Bowl.

then you returned with 2 posts, YOUR POST 87 and YOUR POST 88 where you imagined I ever watched Captain Planet (had to google that) and you still trying to make it look like I blamed the farmers although I already noted that my position was farmers were basically pawns and that it was the fault of the capitalist system we live it, BUT the point is here, that still there is no mention of me ever claiming communism would have/could have prevented Dust Bowl.

so i replied to that with MY POST 93 and still made no claim about communism preventing Dust Bowl, ...but I did get to say you "go off half cocked" and that was kind of fun.

BUT THEN it was in YOUR POST 95 where you demanded I provide proof to support my "claim" that "that a communist country would have done a better job"

WHAT??? where? when? how?

you pulled the switcheroo there, changing the dialogue that was only that capitalism caused the Dust Bowl (responding originally that the free market "allows farmers and markets to innovate")



consider yourself BUSTED.

hah, take that

I see you're trying to shove things down the memory hole and hope nobody remembers your own words and applications. You're the one trying to make claims you can't back up, not me. I'm asking you to prove that communist or socialist would have been better at preventing the dust bowl. You present zero evidence to prove this bold claim of yours and keep repeating yourself over and over again, hoping you can avoid answering the question because you don't care about truth. You care about trying to prove your system is 'superior' to others without actually having to prove your system is superior to others. I ask again:

Do you have any evidence to conclude that a communist would have done any better at preventing the dust bowl or solving it once it started?

Yes or no? It's a simple question, why all the avoiding?

[lilpixieofterror]

And only a moron thinks such a system can actually work.

Of course it will never work because it starts with the assumption that everybody is the exact same. That's why when socialism has been tried, it never works and seems to end up breaking down into a dictatorship. Yet if we double down on the same failure over and over again, by golly, it will end up working sooner or later.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why do you liberals always talk as if there is this giant pile of money somewhere that the "rich" are just taking too much of because of greed. Money isn't a resource that needs to be distributed. Wealth is created and earned. It doesn't even exist till the "rich" folks you hate so much create it. It is not just paper that the Government prints up. Wealth is the value of labor and goods, and the paper just represents it. Without actual value there, the money the government prints is just pretty paper.

So tell me where this magical pile of wealth is warehoused for distribution, JimL.

Because Jimmy likes ignoring things, such as the fact that not all goods and services have gone up at the exact same rate as others have or that min wage jobs were never met to be jobs to support a family with.

[Starlight]

Why do you liberals always talk as if there is this giant pile of money somewhere that the "rich" are just taking too much of because of greed.

Because that's a reasonably accurate model of how it actually works.

Money isn't a resource that needs to be distributed.

Actually, it is. The way our economic system works makes it essentially a resource like any other.

Wealth is created and earned.

Agreed, to a point. There are also natural resources (oil, coal, timber, fisheries etc) that exist without needing to be created per se.

It doesn't even exist till the "rich" folks you hate so much create it.

The rich don't create wealth. Workers do. The rich people just find ways to scam the workers out of their fair share of the wealth they are creating.

It is not just paper that the Government prints up. Wealth is the value of labor and goods, and the paper just represents it. Without actual value there, the money the government prints is just pretty paper.

Agreed.

So tell me where this magical pile of wealth is warehoused for distribution

Mostly in banks. e.g.

[Cow Poke]

Because that's a reasonably accurate model of how it actually works.

Wow.

THAT explains a LOT!

[lilpixieofterror]

Because that's a reasonably accurate model of how it actually works.

Scary part is, people like you actually vote.

[Cow Poke]

Scary part is, people like you actually vote.

I don't know --- some like him only bloviate and blog.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't know --- some like him only bloviate and blog.

And they might be able to convince those who do vote. Sounds like he got his ideas about rich people from watching cartoons like Duck Tales or Spongebob and hasn't moved past those ideas since. I've known people who are pretty well off, but just because they have a net worth in the millions doesn't mean they actually have that sitting around in some vault or under their mattress.

[KingsGambit]

Scary part is, people like you actually vote.

Not here, he doesn't

[jordanriver]

Of course it will never work because it starts with the assumption that everybody is the exact same. That's why when socialism has been tried, it never works and seems to end up breaking down into a dictatorship. Yet if we double down on the same failure over and over again, by golly, it will end up working sooner or later.

what ? (again "what?", have to get used to replying to you often a "what?" because your replies come from some other dimension or some other conversation, or God knows where)

so what is the deal, are you debating someone else at the same time and getting your replies mixed up?

This time the "what?" is to your "it starts with the assumption that everybody is the exact same"


since when?

Since when does Marxism "starts with the assumption that everybody is the exact same"

The Marxist axiom is that everybody IS NOT THE SAME.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need"

How in the world do you get from that , that it is claiming everybody is the exact same ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?


...it copies the Biblical Ideal, from Acts 2 and 4

ACTS 2:44-45
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

ACTS 4:34-35
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.


LPOT, .....why do you do these things, why do you replace people's positions with some other positions.

[Bill the Cat]

...it copies the Biblical Ideal, from Acts 2 and 4

ACTS 2:44-45
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

ACTS 4:34-35
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

When will you lot stop conflating a government system with a non-governed group of communal Christians in Acts 2???