Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1.There would be no Federal Reserve under a Communist system it would be Nationalized
2. There would be no taxes on Private Land because there would be no Private Land
3.How horrible that Communist would support Public Education
4. You mean they would control Conrail and Amtrak
5. You mean no Farm Subsidies for the Mega Farms
6 There would be no corporations under Communism
7. That is Fascism a Right wing Dictatorship
8. Once again you are confusing Fascism with Communism, a Communist State would have a Peoples Army, without a Military Industrial Complex
9. Every other Industrialized Country in the world provides Health Care
Again, fair enough.
The label does not match, but the message was directed towards those that scream communism.
It would definitely be a dictatorship were moving toward where fewer and fewer control everything, by swallowing up smaller and smaller banks and big corps at everyone else's expense, and with the blessing of their players in the government.
All that you provide are weak personal attacks with no substance or thought behind them. You say nothing about why communism is based "privilege" or what "rights" you are talking about. You have nothing to say about what communist organizations or governments actually do. You have nothing to say about how America could be seen as communist are which direction the nation is headed.
I have made my position clear and elaborated on why I think the way that I do. The original poster even agrees with my comments. Don't bother responding if you can't make an intelligent point and actually back up your position like an adult. Try stringing together more than two sentences, or maybe avoid resorting to childish cliches.
Except, of course, when it comes to gay marriage, gay adoption, and other issues of personal morality. Not to mention the PATRIOT Act, overseas wars, "homeland security, etc."
Government is for defending our country. The communists have one party to play and that is the one who loves big Government.. when the communist party infiltrates it will be the party that wants big government.
Government is for defending our country. The communists have one party to play and that is the one who loves big Government.. when the communist party infiltrates it will be the party that wants big government.
The American Government is for protecting individual rights, which is our country.
really, whers the free healthcare????????? I want...someone forget to tell the damned Insurance company that thinks I am paying 12k for the ex's one hour visit to the ER
There are countless threads (and posts) on the pages of the P&OC Forum attacking Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Christians (particularly evangelicals), Republicans et.al., and the ridicule is nasty and brutal. The only Republican I have NOT seen ridiculed is Mitt Romney and I'm not sure why he has escaped. Maybe because he is the former governor of a liberal state.
I posted pictures in this post on this thread of a May Day rally in Los Angeles of the SEIU and several communist and other organizations. So, yes, the left wing of the political spectrum is peopled by Communists. Communism stifles entrepreneurship and ambition.
Health insurance in America:
Those who have health insurance are unhappy with the cost, don't like the terms and resent being nickled-and-dimed on every claim. Those without -- and there are millions -- would do just about anything to find affordable coverage.
It is a very sorry situation. Books have been written about it and there is little we can say here that would add anything worthwhile, other than a reminder to read your policy carefully. It means what it says. Verbal assurances by your agent, on the other hand, mean nothing if they contradict what's in the policy.
Unions dont threaten to cut off a persons healthcare coverage, while CEOs of these corrupt companies earn an avg of 8.9 million per year. I do not support capitalism at THAT corrupt level
CEO: Thomas Wilson 2007 compensation $10.7 million (predecessor Edward Liddy made $18.8 million in compensation and an additional $25.4 million in retirement benefits)
HQ: Northbrook, IL
Profits: $4.6 billion (2007)
Assets: $156.4 billion8
Those who have health insurance are unhappy with the cost, don't like the terms and resent being nickled-and-dimed on every claim. Those without -- and there are millions -- would do just about anything to find affordable coverage.
It is a very sorry situation. Books have been written about it and there is little we can say here that would add anything worthwhile, other than a reminder to read your policy carefully. It means what it says. Verbal assurances by your agent, on the other hand, mean nothing if they contradict what's in the policy.
Unions dont threaten to cut off a persons healthcare coverage, while CEOs of these corrupt companies earn an avg of 8.9 million per year. I do not support capitalism at THAT corrupt level
CEO: Thomas Wilson 2007 compensation $10.7 million (predecessor Edward Liddy made $18.8 million in compensation and an additional $25.4 million in retirement benefits)
HQ: Northbrook, IL
Profits: $4.6 billion (2007)
Assets: $156.4 billion8
Look, all you need to do, is be wealthy, and then you can pay cash for all your health needs, which allows you to bypass the insurance companies altogether.
Most problems have simple answers.
Insurance is for poor people who can't even afford it.
Look, all you need to do, is be wealthy, and then you can pay cash for all your health needs, which allows you to bypass the insurance companies altogether.
Most problems have simple answers.
Insurance is for poor people who can't even afford it.
"The person who, in response to the rise of colonialism and capitalism together, happened to develop ideas of controlling the fertility of "lower" classes locally and globally, was Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834). He was strongly embedded into colonial thinking (he was an instructor of colonial administrations) and into the debate over providing social relief to local social classes. (Malthus 1798, 1826, 1960, 1966) His main argument was that without ownership the lower classes have an inherent tendency to populate beyond the demand for their labor and thus endangering the overall social fabric and the position of the upper classes. This was the basis on which he opposed the Poor Law and any kind of social charity improving the situation of the poorer segments of the society:
But whatever steps may be taken on this subject [the poor law, A. M.], it will be allowed that with any prospect of legislating for the poor with success, it is necessary to be fully aware of the natural tendency of the labouring classes of society to increase beyond the demand for their labour or the means of their adequate support, and the effect of this tendency to throw the greatest difficulties in the way of permanently improving their conditions. (Malthus 1960, [1830], 58)"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
reality check
