Unleashed you are evil, politicians are on our side.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

The elections are a fraud.

We can say for all elections and referendums to be fraudulent. For example, US elections are made by electronics, you push left or right button and then computer calculate all votes and you get that numbers on computer screen. Who guarantees me that politicians or CIA didnt change the numbers before posting them? Comparing to that, simple ballot papers are more safer because you can place guards and cameras to monitor elections and humans calculate the votes by hand surrounded by other people who observe that.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

Look at what happened in Tiananmen square when students wanted more democracy to choose their future (an event the current regime denies happened).

As i said, they dont allow multi party system, politcs should be controled by one party, while they allowed free economy. Communist party of China was by backed most of Chinese population during WW2 and Chinese Civil War, so now they lead the country, its not like they came to power by using force.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

They have "re-education" camps for political dissidents.

I dont know that, but i know North Korea has them.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

They restrict access to most social media programs, they restrict access to Google. Hell, they don't even let their people know the events going on in Hong Kong. That's not free, that's not fair, that's autocracy.

True, but US and Western democracies are doing the same: they sanctioned Russia and their own companies to trade and profit on Russian market. So now American civilians and European workers lose profit and their products(food) is rotting because they cant sell it while industrial companies have to fire workers because no money to pay them because they didnt sell products to Russia.

So i look at it this way: China ban their population to use internet, United States ban their population to make profit.

Which is worse?

Prispeval Gandalf The Jew, 08.07.2015 at 14:41

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:25

Different countries need different systems of government to match their different cultures. Socialism won't work in AMerica because we simply do not want it. We prefer to have lower taxes and less government to buy the things we want, to get the things we need over having higher taxes, losing more of our hard earned money to fund a government we know does not do well with budgeting.

In other words, you want to spend your money in shit you don't need rather than giving it to the government to help people in poverty or in the need for it.
go go US

Is that why you say that socialsim is bad? becuase people actually care about each other?

Its all about national choice, some countries want less taxes and government interference, laissen-faire, others want more government participation in important national matters.

I personally support government spending in healthcare, infrastructure, transportation and military, and i support high taxes. Because then we all gain from that, not individuals. Then healthcare will be free which lead to less stress and trauma to patients who worry about their pain and the bill they have to pay, transportation will be easier and more comfortable because of good roads, bridges, tunnels and railways, faster as well. Infrastructure will improve standard of living by building hospitals, schools, public libraries, sewerage, sanitations, laboratories and universities.

Problem is, if you want low taxes, then government cant spend on these projects, which mean private companies will. And they are notorious for corruption and inefficiency.

So you either choose high taxes but less risk, or low tax and high risk( of crime and corruption).

Prispeval Skanderbeg, 08.07.2015 at 14:52

Prispeval Gandalf The Jew, 08.07.2015 at 14:41

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:25

Different countries need different systems of government to match their different cultures. Socialism won't work in AMerica because we simply do not want it. We prefer to have lower taxes and less government to buy the things we want, to get the things we need over having higher taxes, losing more of our hard earned money to fund a government we know does not do well with budgeting.

In other words, you want to spend your money in shit you don't need rather than giving it to the government to help people in poverty or in the need for it.
go go US

Is that why you say that socialsim is bad? becuase people actually care about each other?

Its all about national choice, some countries want less taxes and government interference, laissen-faire, others want more government participation in important national matters.

I personally support government spending in healthcare, infrastructure, transportation and military, and i support high taxes. Because then we all gain from that, not individuals. Then healthcare will be free which lead to less stress and trauma to patients who worry about their pain and the bill they have to pay, transportation will be easier and more comfortable because of good roads, bridges, tunnels and railways, faster as well. Infrastructure will improve standard of living by building hospitals, schools, public libraries, sewerage, sanitations, laboratories and universities.

Problem is, if you want low taxes, then government cant spend on these projects, which mean private companies will. And they are notorious for corruption and inefficiency.

So you either choose high taxes but less risk, or low tax and high risk( of crime and corruption).

And that's what they do, America is runned by worthless insurance companies

They always say ''no need for free healthcare, if you pay good money they give you a good service'', yeah, and if you don't have the money, good luck out there
(well, you can always cook drugs like walter white to pay the hospital bills)

Prispeval Gandalf The Jew, 08.07.2015 at 14:41

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:25

Different countries need different systems of government to match their different cultures. Socialism won't work in AMerica because we simply do not want it. We prefer to have lower taxes and less government to buy the things we want, to get the things we need over having higher taxes, losing more of our hard earned money to fund a government we know does not do well with budgeting.

In other words, you want to spend your money in shit you don't need rather than giving it to the government to help people in poverty or in the need for it.
go go US

Is that why you say that socialsim is bad? becuase people actually care about each other?

I would rather spend my hard earned money that I worked for for my own family. For the people that depend on me. Myself and my family are my responsibility. If my government lacks the ability to balance a budget then I am not going to support programs that raise deficits. I don't want higher taxes because my government has a spending problem. I live within my economic needs, most people in America live within their economic needs. Our government should be doing the same. When they fix the deficit and begin to show a clear plan on how to make our country great again then maybe I will become more open minded to socialism. But no, I'm not going to support higher taxes to support other people if I still need money to support myself and my family. And in no world am I going to ask the government to provide me with other people's money when I can do the work myself. You can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

Prispeval Skanderbeg, 08.07.2015 at 14:42

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

The elections are a fraud.

We can say for all elections and referendums to be fraudulent. For example, US elections are made by electronics, you push left or right button and then computer calculate all votes and you get that numbers on computer screen. Who guarantees me that politicians or CIA didnt change the numbers before posting them? Comparing to that, simple ballot papers are more safer because you can place guards and cameras to monitor elections and humans calculate the votes by hand surrounded by other people who observe that.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

Look at what happened in Tiananmen square when students wanted more democracy to choose their future (an event the current regime denies happened).

As i said, they dont allow multi party system, politcs should be controled by one party, while they allowed free economy. Communist party of China was by backed most of Chinese population during WW2 and Chinese Civil War, so now they lead the country, its not like they came to power by using force.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

They have "re-education" camps for political dissidents.

I dont know that, but i know North Korea has them.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 14:30

They restrict access to most social media programs, they restrict access to Google. Hell, they don't even let their people know the events going on in Hong Kong. That's not free, that's not fair, that's autocracy.

True, but US and Western democracies are doing the same: they sanctioned Russia and their own companies to trade and profit on Russian market. So now American civilians and European workers lose profit and their products(food) is rotting because they cant sell it while industrial companies have to fire workers because no money to pay them because they didnt sell products to Russia.

So i look at it this way: China ban their population to use internet, United States ban their population to make profit.

Which is worse?

Elections are always going to be corrupt. Even without electronics, who is to stop people from faking their counts? In America though, I have more faith in our election system. I'm not a conspiracy theorist who thinks that both parties are the same, etc. But when I look at election results, I find it very hard to believe that any could be forged (only example would be election in 2000). I understand the events of WWII and the civil war led to the rise of the communist but when I look at the hundred flowers campaign. I have a personal opinion that multi parties are okay, that it's fine to have differing views. The only problem to this is gridlock but I and most Americans are willing to accept that as it allows free thinking. If gridlock is caused though, most Americans tend to back a single party in an attempt to end the gridlock. In times of war ( a popular one like WWII, not Iraq/Afghanistan), politicians are more united in the war and with President as commander-in-chief, this allows for greater ability of the military to conduct war.

Sanctions are a partially different debate. They affect the economy (though in America, they affected us less). Companies will still do okay and will find other outlets. The one thing is that banning the internet also bans people from making a profit. They can't advertise their goods on the internet. They can't see what is going on in other countries (or their own. My friend was video chatting his cousin in China and his cousin had no idea about the incidents in Hong Kong, he even tried looking it up). Banning the internet is banning free thinking and when Mao imprisoned political dissidents, when the army gunned down students for wanting democracy, to me that isn't "for the better", that is a regime continuing to have a hold over the country,

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:01

I would rather spend my hard earned money that I worked for for my own family. For the people that depend on me. Myself and my family are my responsibility. If my government lacks the ability to balance a budget then I am not going to support programs that raise deficits. I don't want higher taxes because my government has a spending problem. I live within my economic needs, most people in America live within their economic needs. Our government should be doing the same. When they fix the deficit and begin to show a clear plan on how to make our country great again then maybe I will become more open minded to socialism. But no, I'm not going to support higher taxes to support other people if I still need money to support myself and my family. And in no world am I going to ask the government to provide me with other people's money when I can do the work myself. You can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

"higher taxes bad" "socialists have spending problems"

Bullshit

Prispeval Tirpitz406, 08.07.2015 at 15:18

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:01

I would rather spend my hard earned money that I worked for for my own family. For the people that depend on me. Myself and my family are my responsibility. If my government lacks the ability to balance a budget then I am not going to support programs that raise deficits. I don't want higher taxes because my government has a spending problem. I live within my economic needs, most people in America live within their economic needs. Our government should be doing the same. When they fix the deficit and begin to show a clear plan on how to make our country great again then maybe I will become more open minded to socialism. But no, I'm not going to support higher taxes to support other people if I still need money to support myself and my family. And in no world am I going to ask the government to provide me with other people's money when I can do the work myself. You can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

"higher taxes bad" "socialists have spending problems"

Bullshit

Clintons surplus was due to a Republican controlled congress ordering clinton to balance the budget....

Loving that Gandalf the jew won't argue me on socialism

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:30

Clintons surplus was due to a Republican controlled congress ordering clinton to balance the budget....

first two years of bill's presedency were with a democratic congress and senate. you see, american presidents are like voted dictators for 8 years, the bush's totally destroyed your economy and as you can see, at the point when clinton got elected into office the american economy started to recover.

Prispeval Viruslegion, 08.07.2015 at 15:36

Loving that Gandalf the jew won't argue me on socialism

?

Prispeval Tirpitz406, 08.07.2015 at 15:55

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:30

Clintons surplus was due to a Republican controlled congress ordering clinton to balance the budget....

first two years of bill's presedency were with a democratic congress and senate. you see, american presidents are like voted dictators for 8 years, the bush's totally destroyed your economy and as you can see, at the point when clinton got elected into office the american economy started to recover.

the .com bubble brought in loads of new revenue all of which tanked in the early 2000's not because of Bush or Clinton, but because of new technology. Like all bubbles, ti burst leading to a minor recession in the early 2000's. The "totally destroyed" economy resulting from the recession in 2009 was due to the repeal of glass-steagall under Clinton which allowed for banks to get back into stocks leading to a housing bubble that when exploded resulted in banks losing out ig and shutting down. The only thing Bush did was allow Congress to vote on entering a war with democrat and republican approval against a nation that had the same listing as an enemy state as under the Clinton administration. You want to see democrat policies? Look at Detroit, you know, the city that went bankrupt.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 16:49

the .com bubble brought in loads of new revenue all of which tanked in the early 2000's not because of Bush or Clinton, but because of new technology. Like all bubbles, ti burst leading to a minor recession in the early 2000's. The "totally destroyed" economy resulting from the recession in 2009 was due to the repeal of glass-steagall under Clinton which allowed for banks to get back into stocks leading to a housing bubble that when exploded resulted in banks losing out ig and shutting down. The only thing Bush did was allow Congress to vote on entering a war with democrat and republican approval against a nation that had the same listing as an enemy state as under the Clinton administration. You want to see democrat policies? Look at Detroit, you know, the city that went bankrupt.

the .com bubble started in 1999, when clinton already started paying back debt...


(NASDAQ)

also, the economy after 2004, 2005 started recovering, while the deficit didnt under bush... my point still stands, bill clinton was the only president since 1960 to make the us make money.

also, the crisis started in 2008...

Prispeval Tirpitz406, 08.07.2015 at 18:01

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 16:49

the .com bubble brought in loads of new revenue all of which tanked in the early 2000's not because of Bush or Clinton, but because of new technology. Like all bubbles, ti burst leading to a minor recession in the early 2000's. The "totally destroyed" economy resulting from the recession in 2009 was due to the repeal of glass-steagall under Clinton which allowed for banks to get back into stocks leading to a housing bubble that when exploded resulted in banks losing out ig and shutting down. The only thing Bush did was allow Congress to vote on entering a war with democrat and republican approval against a nation that had the same listing as an enemy state as under the Clinton administration. You want to see democrat policies? Look at Detroit, you know, the city that went bankrupt.

the .com bubble started in 1999, when clinton already started paying back debt...


(NASDAQ)

also, the economy after 2004, 2005 started recovering, while the deficit didnt under bush... my point still stands, bill clinton was the only president since 1960 to make the us make money.

also, the crisis started in 2008...

I dont hate Clinton, I simply said it is wrong to say that he is a Democrat and that is why the budget got balanced- because he's a democrat.

The deficit under bush was outrageous because h and congress got involve din one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of the past century

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 18:16

I dont hate Clinton, I simply said it is wrong to say that he is a Democrat and that is why the budget got balanced- because he's a democrat.

The deficit under bush was outrageous because h and congress got involve din one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of the past century

you see, clinton was a democrat and balanced the budget, Bush was a republican and ruined the country for 10 years

Prispeval Tirpitz406, 08.07.2015 at 18:28

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 18:16

I dont hate Clinton, I simply said it is wrong to say that he is a Democrat and that is why the budget got balanced- because he's a democrat.

The deficit under bush was outrageous because h and congress got involve din one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of the past century

you see, clinton was a democrat and balanced the budget, Bush was a republican and ruined the country for 10 years

There was a democratic majority in congress during the latter half of Bush's presidency, which happens to be when the collapse happened

Prispeval Tirpitz406, 08.07.2015 at 18:28

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 18:16

I dont hate Clinton, I simply said it is wrong to say that he is a Democrat and that is why the budget got balanced- because he's a democrat.

The deficit under bush was outrageous because h and congress got involve din one of the worst foreign policy mistakes of the past century

you see, clinton was a democrat and balanced the budget, Bush was a republican and ruined the country for 10 years

LBJ was also a democrat that expanded an unpopular war. It was also democrats that refused to provide military aid (not troops) to South Vietnam in accordance to the Paris Peace Accord treaty. It wasnt about their political affiliation, ti was simply different presidents who did separate things. Bush was a Republican who didnt ruin our country. The recession is what ruined our economy, a recession brought on because of clinton.

Scandinavian liberalism? A hybrid economy coupled to a democratic monarchy with heavy taxes. An awesome model for any first world country. May not work so well in poorer countries.

Who could disagree with that? Sounds like paradise. Until the immigrants come knocking, that is...

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:01

You can't multiply wealth by dividing it.

I see your point there, and i must say i understand it because US is young nation and not long ago people settled America as individuals with families and no national(or ethnic) bond was created between citizens.

For example, Russians and Chinese are old nations which live in 1000 years old communities(towns) governed by themselves, or local lord, or later mayor who is representative of central government of state(nation). While Americans settled(west) with families alone on large territory, so you have a feeling you can live and work alone and thus no need for high taxes to pay to some 'central government' 2000 miles away from your town. When europeans settled and founded new cities, they had local teachers, priests, barbers who on their own opened schools, church and shops without help from the government in Washington, no police by sherriff to oversee the town, so when everyone work for themselves like that of course you dont need high taxes and central authority.

For me, thats good short term solution because then you dont depend on 'government tit' and you have to work hard to make profit which mean you are productive and not lazy to make an effort. But long term solution requires government interference because as you see, to build transportation and infrastructure cost more than before, and you need that, so your community cannot pay so much to build and maintain 'blood stream' of your country. Government can build and maintain more project and it can do it faster then every town to do alone, that will be even slower.

And the point is not to multiply wealth by dividing it, but to create equal opportunity for all, by providing same services. Its not right for East US to have developed transportation, infratstructure, ports while midwest have dirt roads, diesel trains and electricty until storm arrives.

Example, your town collect taxes $500 million every year, but US collect $3000 billion, they can spend more.

Prispeval Tirpitz406, 08.07.2015 at 07:07

also, kennedy got shot i dont really know much about his political achivements but wikipedia doesnt say much about it anyways.

That's the point you fucking idiot. You think they can afford you me and everyone else knowing? What do you expect wikipedia to say. I'll leave you with a quote of Kennedy

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

BAM

dead.

Prispeval Unleashed, 09.07.2015 at 05:21

-snip-

Conspiracy theories now, are we?

Can you provide any evidence to the effect that Kennedy was assassinated for his anti-government views, other than the silly claim that correlation - on a sample size of one, to boot - implies causation?

The rest of the world can't leave you alone. That's why you got religion, preachers, people who wanna tell you what to do. It's a disease. Right now there is someone who will read this and who doesn't want me to post it. My point exactly. You are diseased

Prispeval Viruslegion, 08.07.2015 at 15:36

Loving that Gandalf the jew won't argue me on socialism

This guy will

Prispeval Unleashed, 09.07.2015 at 10:08

Prispeval Viruslegion, 08.07.2015 at 15:36

Loving that Gandalf the jew won't argue me on socialism

This guy will

I think I'll pick the top one

Prispeval Tundy, 07.07.2015 at 08:41

Plot twist
Democracy does work as intended.

Prispeval Viruslegion, 09.07.2015 at 12:14

I think I'll pick the top one

I don't usually say this kind of crap, but I really hope you end up poor and miserable with cancer, if that actually happens, ask your country for help and see what they will do for such a proud american like yourself, if you prefer to pay taxes to have a strong army instead of a strong society you'll see that all that selfishness will hit you hard

Prispeval Gandalf The Jew, 09.07.2015 at 13:56

Prispeval Viruslegion, 09.07.2015 at 12:14

I think I'll pick the top one

I don't usually say this kind of crap, but I really hope you end up poor and miserable with cancer, if that actually happens, ask your country for help and see what they will do for such a proud american like yourself, if you prefer to pay taxes to have a strong army instead of a strong society you'll see that all that selfishness will hit you hard

I would never ask for help from my country if I am unable to provide for myself, just because I end up with cancer doesn't mean I should be a cancer to everyone else in the nation, and also thank you for proving that you have the reasoning and argumentative ability of a child for resorting to such immature statements, don't ever presume to speak to me again, scrub

Prispeval Viruslegion, 09.07.2015 at 12:14

I think I'll pick the top one

Definition is true: it is private ownership of property, but not yours, but of 1% of population.

Capitalism in first stage is beautiful, everyone equal, starting point, opportunity and chance. But later as few get richer and their business developed and branched, they tend to fight smaller entrepreneurs who wants to grow. That way they create monopoly which is followed by lies, propaganda, bribing of politicians, pursuing political policies, invasion, oil, dictators, crisis.

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:01

By the way, i just remembered, you know how they say it:

Do you want to live in capitalist country where rich generate great wealth but poor and sick are left behind to fend for themselves,
or do you want to live in socialist country where people are poor but equal?

Classic stereotype, but true.

Prispeval Viruslegion, 09.07.2015 at 14:57

I would never ask for help from my country if I am unable to provide for myself, just because I end up with cancer doesn't mean I should be a cancer to everyone else in the nation, and also thank you for proving that you have the reasoning and argumentative ability of a child for resorting to such immature statements, don't ever presume to speak to me again, scrub

Gandalf have the point, he just used direct example for it.

Socialist states developed good way to pay healthcare and society wont feel the burden of expense: State generate taxes, 5% of every salary is tax for healthcare. That goes to healthcare fond run by the state. That fond pay healthcare fills and medication for ill people, no matter what class, color, race they are. Point is that not many people get sick, and when they do, they have simple virus, flu or caugh, which dont need alot of money to spend, so its not great expense for healthcare fond. But rarely, people get aids, cancer or tumor, which need alot of money to buy medication, pay surgery and hospital, so that poor human cannot afford it because it cost average $300,000, he need 40 years to earn that money. So healthcare fond pay that for him. That way everyone get healthcare insurance guaranteed and covered, but they pay sligthly more taxes (5%).

Plus healthcare fond can use capital they have to invest in business, stock market, or bank, and make profit, so they can have even more money to spend on hospital bills for workers and families. But they dont invest in risky businesses(atleast not in USSR), they invested in tourist locations, restaurants, hotels, motels. It is small investition, small gain as well, but steady and guaranteed.

Prispeval Skanderbeg, 09.07.2015 at 15:34

Prispeval Pheonixking929, 08.07.2015 at 15:01

By the way, i just remembered, you know how they say it:

Do you want to live in capitalist country where rich generate great wealth but poor and sick are left behind to fend for themselves,
or do you want to live in socialist country where people are poor but equal?

Classic stereotype, but true.

If it's true, than you know no system is perfect. All I know is that in America, socialism will not work here. Socialism brings on burdens of higher taxation which results in people less likely or willing to buy commodities that make them happy (movie tickets, toys for children, dessert type foods, etc.). Instead, they act as if they are in austerity, holding off on buying the things they want and only getting the things they need. In America, we have a close to 18 trillion dollar debt. We have income inequality that wont be solved by raising taxes, but by looking at education (investing in vouchers so people can send their kids to charter schools if state schools aren't as good). I'm okay with a single payer healthcare system but I want it to be a good one, not the one we somewhat have with obamacare. I want the government to fund interest free loans to people who can't afford college and would like to see major re-investments in infrastructure. As I said before, I am not against a huge government, just one that comes at the expense of the people. I don't want to end up like Greece with spending more than we make (currently doing that). Am I fine with a social safety net? Yes. Do I want everyone to be equally poor? No. A poor man never built a factory. Do I want rich individuals having an immense hand in government? Of course not, and with citizens united it will only make it harder to fight big corporations, big unions, etc. Every country is different. Every country has a different culture. Germany has a culture where it's people work very hard and in turn make money that is able to be effectively invested in their country benefiting everyone. Likewise when they bailed out Greece, Greece took their money, but certainly not their values. They were able to push off a debt crisis by a couple of years but now that time is up.