• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Europe

Comrade Brian said:
Oh, so now you're rich if at least you can pay bills,

Many in the US are now rich :roll:

Compared with the rest of the world yes... THat is what I said before...
 
Quertol said:
Compared with the rest of the world yes... THat is what I said before...

many in the rest of the world can pay their bills, especially socialist, their bills for their needs are cheap, the world's also rich :roll:
 
Comrade Brian said:
many in the rest of the world can pay their bills, especially socialist, their bills for their needs are cheap, the world's also rich :roll:

Compared with the rest of the world, the US is rich...
 
Quertol said:
I never said that I was religious... I'm not. I merely have a personnal relationship with Jesus Christ...

Ah, so when Mr Christ pops in for coffee he tells you that his great plan for the human race is that we should all be utterly selfish, and that will make the world a better place to live?
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Ah, so when Mr Christ pops in for coffee he tells you that his great plan for the human race is that we should all be utterly selfish, and that will make the world a better place to live?


Dying for your sins. That seems pretty selfish to me...
 
Quertol said:
Compared with the rest of the world, the US is rich...

OK we have the most richest people, but many here are rich not from hard work, but from things from other countries. Africa, before Europe took it over, was quite civilized, Europeans took many things of value. And the US is still doing it a lot. We're rich from the hard labor of others.
 
Comrade Brian said:
OK we have the most richest people, but many here are rich not from hard work, but from things from other countries. Africa, before Europe took it over, was quite civilized, Europeans took many things of value. And the US is still doing it a lot. We're rich from the hard labor of others.


What are we taking from others? You must be talking about the trade deficit with China?
 
galenrox said:
Currently we're not taking anything, we're buying it. Buying, in case you don't know, is where we exchange a given amount of currency for goods or services, and the given amount is agreed upon by the parties involved. So if Africa didn't want us to have their stuff, we wouldn't get it.


Exactly... Trade deficit... That isn't good for us, now is it? And WE are stealing from the world? Not!
 
galenrox said:
Dude, I think that's the first time we've agreed on something


Thats a little eerie... But what the heck, I'm for a strong America!
 
Quertol said:
Exactly... Trade deficit... That isn't good for us, now is it? And WE are stealing from the world? Not!

Money people earned, if people earned the real amount to produce something, there would be no profits for the few people who own factories, mines and other things, that's also why its good to nationalize industries, so instead of a factory being private property, it would be government or public property, because it won't be run for profits for a single person or a few, it would be for the workers.
 
Comrade Brian said:
Money people earned, if people earned the real amount to produce something, there would be no profits for the few people who own factories, mines and other things, that's also why its good to nationalize industries, so instead of a factory being private property, it would be government or public property, because it won't be run for profits for a single person or a few, it would be for the workers.


And that type of government was tried in the USSR and it failed...
 
The USSR collapsed internally because Reagan increased the US military extraordinarilly, but the USSR tried to increase theirs too, so they wouldn't look weak to the capitalist bastards over here, they ended up with huge debts they couldn't pay off, and then also Gorbachev didn't try hard enough to keep the USSR together

and that type of economy is still present in Cuba, Venezuela is starting to, and W. Europe is pretty close
 
Comrade Brian said:
The USSR collapsed internally because Reagan increased the US military extraordinarilly, but the USSR tried to increase theirs too, so they wouldn't look weak to the capitalist bastards over here, they ended up with huge debts they couldn't pay off, and then also Gorbachev didn't try hard enough to keep the USSR together

and that type of economy is still present in Cuba, Venezuela is starting to, and W. Europe is pretty close

Exactly, The USSR couldn't keep up with a capitalist economy... They put a lot bigger percentage of their GNP into their military and still couldn't keep up... That is why Capitalism is superior!
 
Quertol said:
Dying for your sins. That seems pretty selfish to me...

Sorry, is that supposed to make some sense? What does it have to do with looking after the sick and needy of society? Did you have nothing more constructive to say?

If your beloved Mr Christ teaches you that you should neglect those who are unable to care for themselves, then I'm so glad I'm an atheist.
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Sorry, is that supposed to make some sense? What does it have to do with looking after the sick and needy of society? Did you have nothing more constructive to say?

If your beloved Mr Christ teaches you that you should neglect those who are unable to care for themselves, then I'm so glad I'm an atheist.

Christ showed us how to be selfish... By dying for the sins of the world...

There is a difference between the sick and needy and the lazy bums who wont work...
 
Quertol said:
Christ showed us how to be selfish... By dying for the sins of the world...

There is a difference between the sick and needy and the lazy bums who wont work...

And you are the one who will decide the difference?

Exactly how sick does a person have to be to qualify as not lazy?

And how did the death of Mr Christ make the world a better place? It doesn't look so good to me!
 
Naughty Nurse said:
And you are the one who will decide the difference?

Exactly how sick does a person have to be to qualify as not lazy?

And how did the death of Mr Christ make the world a better place? It doesn't look so good to me!

People now have a chance to have their sins forgiven...

Lazy, someone who doesn't work who otherwise could...
 
Quertol said:
Exactly, The USSR couldn't keep up with a capitalist economy... They put a lot bigger percentage of their GNP into their military and still couldn't keep up... That is why Capitalism is superior!


Capitalism has the upper hand in a world which functions on a market economy. And you measure success within a capitalist episteme. There are other ways of thinking as to what constitutes success. Of course the USSR didn't keep up with a capitalist economy - it wasn't trying to.
Many of the former communist states managed to provide employment, accommodation, education and health care for all its citizens. Austere it may have been, but those basics were there free to all the population. "Capitalist" Russia now has unemployment, inflation, pensioners starving and skyrocketting mortality rates. Your capitalist USA may be rich, but when you compare the gap between your richest people and the unemployed with no health care coverage, the obscenities of your system are stripped bare.
If as you claim, capitalism is superior, perhaps you can explain why in capitalist India, the most prosperous state with the highest levels of literacy, good health outcomes and employment is the communist state of Kerala?

The USSR failed in many ways.
The USA is an enormous failure.
We have yet to see a truly communist system, and it needs to be totally free of capitalist market ideals.
 
Quertol said:
Exactly, The USSR couldn't keep up with a capitalist economy... They put a lot bigger percentage of their GNP into their military and still couldn't keep up... That is why Capitalism is superior!

Yeah wars and large military helps capitalism succeed, it damages socialism

because businesses profit off of wars, supplying arms, and workers die, the rich hardly ever fight, and in socialism there really aren't businesses to profit, and workers die, and socialism is where workers are in control so wars and large militaries are hurt them more

The working class who make the sacrifices, who shed the blood, have never yet had a voice in declaring war. The ruling class has always made the war and made the peace. - E. Debs

And look at Halliburton, they really profited of the Iraq war
 
Last edited:
galenrox said:
But would it be fair to say that the fact that, after having so many attempts at creating this "communist ideal" without success, it might be a testament to how realistic the communist theory is?

And capitalism now isn't what its theories suggested, if those theories did come true, not as much people would be starving, so the capitalist idea of widespread prosperity hasn't come true in a few hundred years
 
But also most of the world has been under capitalism, and socialism is extremely hated by capitalism, as the two tend to be against each other

and socialism was intended to be worldwide in a short time since it had first appeared as an economy somewhere

but also to me capitalism tastes like candy, sweet but not nutritionous
socialism tastes like bread, may not be as sweet but more nutritionous for the whole society
 
Here's an interesting one for you Quertol:

In the UK, a woman might never work during her entire life. She may go from parents to husband. If she never works she will never pay any tax. And yet she will still be entitled to the same health care that I, as a worker, have to pay taxes for.

Should we label her a "lazy bum" for getting health care without making any contribution to the system?
 
Naughty Nurse said:
Here's an interesting one for you Quertol:

In the UK, a woman might never work during her entire life. She may go from parents to husband. If she never works she will never pay any tax. And yet she will still be entitled to the same health care that I, as a worker, have to pay taxes for.

Should we label her a "lazy bum" for getting health care without making any contribution to the system?

I believe that her husband should do what he vowed to do, and that would be take care of her... This would include health care... She might not never work, but her husband does...
 
Back
Top Bottom