Jump to content

Socialism


Cartman

Recommended Posts

I do not want to put words into Hugo's mouth, but it appears as though he finds all government to be oppressive by nature. As such, government institutions such as the police, the courts and regulators are, by definition, oppressive features of our society and tend to generate misery for the most part. For him, government seems to be "socialism" (feel free to correct me if I am wrong Hugo).

Others are not as consistent and tend to abuse the term (and thereby slander those who consider themselves democratic socialists). For some, it is socialist to want national day care, but not socialist to expect a national court system. It is socialist to desire welfare and employment insurance benefits, but not socialist to demand nicely paved roads and clean water.

What is the difference? If you believe that the government should not redistribute wealth in the form of taxes for things like health care or welfare, I could just as logically argue that I should not have to pay money to protect you from criminals when I am quite comfortable in protecting myself. If I am a vegan, why should my tax money go towards assisting the slaughter and consumption of animals (BSE bailout) and if I am an environmentalist, why should my money go towards the construction of yet more roads? Further, if it is laziness that generates the demand for welfare, is it also not laziness that creates the demand for policing? Again, what is the difference? If you expect any form of government assistance, you are, in a sense, a socialist.

There is a difference between socialism as put forth by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Jack Layton. Pretending that they are the same really reduces the overall intelligence of the board. Admittedly, debating the meaning of a word is tiring and even academic, but abuse of these terms is more loathsome and arguably hypocritical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For him, government seems to be "socialism" (feel free to correct me if I am wrong Hugo).

Corrected. Government as it is colloquially understood is not "socialism", it's "tyranny". All that democracy has done is to give us a novel way to pick the tyrants: instead of choosing the eldest son of the last tyrant, or letting some guy claw his way to absolute power by any means necessary, we let the largest percentage of the voting electorate pick them.

Socialism isn't necessarily tyrannical. There's nothing to stop fifty people forming a collective and organising their community on socialist lines. Indeed, such communities can be very successful and in a free world, I'd expect many such communities to spring up, and I'd wish them well.

The problem is when you use the tyrannical power of government to try and force everyone into this mode of life. Then the socialism ceases to be voluntary and also ceases to work.

Nazism, Communism, socialism etc. are different stripes of collectivism. Classical liberalism, libertarianism etc. are stripes of individualism. Collectivism is the actual mind-poison here: the idea that other people are in some way responsible for what you do, that other people owe you something, that you have a claim on other people and their possessions, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so·cial·ism n.

  1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

dictionary.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cartman, interesting thread that would normally go in the morals/religion section, I think. I also will take your question about "socialism" to mean the existence of government.

Hugo has given you a standard libertarian argument against any coercive government. While I often agree with Hugo, let me go about this a little bit differently (since I am not opposed to government).

If you believe that the government should not redistribute wealth in the form of taxes for things like health care or welfare, I could just as logically argue that I should not have to pay money to protect you from criminals when I am quite comfortable in protecting myself.
How is health related to redistributing wealth? If the purpose of government is to redistribute wealth, then it should do so. But why mix health care into the redistribution? To be more direct, the government can take money from the rich and give to the poor and then, if the poor want, they can buy health insurance.
If I am a vegan, why should my tax money go towards assisting the slaughter and consumption of animals (BSE bailout) and if I am an environmentalist, why should my money go towards the construction of yet more roads?
I see no legitimate reason for tax money to be involved in anyway in the slaughter of animals and I cringe at such things as the BSE bailout. As to roads and the CBC, I see good reason for the government to be involved. Let me take the CBC example. We can pay for radio through advertising and higher prices or we can pay for radio through taxation. Both are inexact methods but I think taxes probably get the job done better, in theory at least.
Further, if it is laziness that generates the demand for welfare, is it also not laziness that creates the demand for policing?
You've lost me here entirely. Do you mean that creating policing jobs is good for the economy? Or do you mean that welfare is a cheaper way to buy security?

-----

IMV, a key question to ask about individuals in a society is whether their relations are voluntary or involuntary. When individuals deal with one another through a market, their relationships are voluntary. When individuals deal with one another through government, their relationships are involuntary. Government is a coercive institution. It uses force to make people do things. This makes government a useful but dangerous institution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the purpose of government is to redistribute wealth, then it should do so. But why mix health care into the redistribution? To be more direct, the government can take money from the rich and give to the poor and then, if the poor want, they can buy health insurance.

I was specifically referring to the Canada Health Care Act. But, depending upon the numbers, I have little objection with the exception that profit may introduce inflated prices. This opens up an entire can of worms that I would rather avoid for purposes of this discussion.

As to roads and the CBC, I see good reason for the government to be involved. Let me take the CBC example. We can pay for radio through advertising and higher prices or we can pay for radio through taxation. Both are inexact methods but I think taxes probably get the job done better, in theory at least.

I thought you would believe it best determined by a free market rather than state intervention.

In terms of the comparison of policing and welfare, I was playing devil's advocate by making the argument that the existence of both institutions may be perceived as the result of laziness. If people should rely upon themselves to make a living (i.e. no welfare payments), people could also self-police (I was thinking of Hugo's ideas on voluntary communities). Why consider the nature of the demand for one government service to be any different from another? As Hugo so eloquently stated:

Collectivism is the actual mind-poison here: the idea that other people are in some way responsible for what you do, that other people owe you something, that you have a claim on other people and their possessions, etc.

For Hugo, all forms of government = tyranny. This is logical and used consistently. Many others on the right tend to equate some forms of government services (i.e. welfare) as socialism, but others as (i.e. police) as capitalism. This is very convenient but illogical. It gives the right the ability to label welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums but parents who send their kids to school as normal, regular people. Both are using my money to funds these services. If I am being robbed, why do I care how the criminal spends my money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Cartman,

Cartman, interesting thread that would normally go in the morals/religion section, I think.

Maybe you are right.

Perhaps, but it really is a 'federal political' subject so long as we are 'subjects'.
Socialism isn't necessarily tyrannical. There's nothing to stop fifty people forming a collective and organising their community on socialist lines. Indeed, such communities can be very successful and in a free world, I'd expect many such communities to spring up, and I'd wish them well.
As Hugo states, not all 'socialism' is bad, for the smallest example is the family unit. However, there must be rules and there must be enforcement, or the rules are worthless (like 'rights'). Whether or not 'voluntary socialism' is an attainable goal is another story. It is probably just as likely we will see a nation made up of 'responsible anarchists'. In both cases, it is likely never, but you never know. It will depend on what people value.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread , Cartman. I fear however, you seek in vain for consistency from some parties on this point.

Hugo's position, for example, seems to be that any collective action he approves of is 'voluntary' and therfore acceptable (irrespective of the views of his neighors) and any collective action he disapproves of is oppression, with seemingly nothing but his subjective preferences forming the distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugo's position, for example, seems to be that any collective action he approves of is 'voluntary' and therfore acceptable (irrespective of the views of his neighors) and any collective action he disapproves of is oppression, with seemingly nothing but his subjective preferences forming the distinction.

Not at all, and Cartman (as well as others) can recognise that my position is consistent and logical. The one you falsely tar me with is the one he ascribes to the self-contradictory conservatives and to which you yourself fall under, to wit, that some coerced collective actions are moral and others immoral. My position is that they are all immoral. If you doubt this, please think of an example of collective action taken under the threat of violence that I have advocated. Then think of an example of any noncoercive action that I have not at least insisted on a person's right to perform.

Basically, if violence is used, threatened or implied, it's oppressive. If it isn't, there's no oppression. For instance, Cartman has listened to my libertarian ideas and seems to have some sympathy for them. Perhaps that wasn't the case before he met me. I may have changed his mind, however, I never threatened to hurt him or steal from him, nor did I defraud him, so this is not oppressive.

The collectivism of the actions concerned is really irrelevant, and people voluntarily undertake collectivist projects all the time. If a bunch of people donate food to the homeless out of pity and compassion, all well and good. If they donate that food because someone threatened them with a sound beating if they didn't, that's oppressive and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Hugo, all forms of government = tyranny. This is logical and used consistently. Many others on the right tend to equate some forms of government services (i.e. welfare) as socialism, but others as (i.e. police) as capitalism. This is very convenient but illogical. It gives the right the ability to label welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums but parents who send their kids to school as normal, regular people. Both are using my money to funds these services. If I am being robbed, why do I care how the criminal spends my money?
Welfare is Robin Hood: steal from the rich and give to the poor. Policing is providing a service to the population that would be under-produced if privately provided. In my mind, these are two very different activities.

Rather than policing, let me consider something simpler - a street light. A rich person might install one as a gift to the community but in general, there won't be enough of such gifts. A group of people can share the cost together to install a streetlight but one individual in the group might falsely plead poverty intending to let the others pay. After all, once installed, everyone gets to use the light whether or not they contributed. So, invariably, installing a streetlight requires a coercive tax.

As opposed to Hugo, I would say that such a coercive tax is moral. Why? Because it would be immoral not to install a streetlight. After all, everyone wants one, and they're even prepared to pay for installing it. The problem is that people don't always tell the truth - they sometimes falsely plead poverty.

-----

Your school example is interesting. To a degree, I'd be willing to pay for my neighbour's kids to get a basic education. (I may have to sit beside them on a bus someday, or ask them for directions, and I would prefer to have someone literate as a neighbour.)

In addition, I would like to know that had I been born into a family of irresponsible parents, I still would have had the chance to get a basic education. IOW, children require special protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare is Robin Hood: steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Actually, the evidence shows that wealth redistribution generally moves money around within groups rather than between them. Poor neighbourhoods have more tax money flowing out than in. The welfare recipients in poor neighbourhoods are being supported by the working poor. Stealing from the poor to give to the poor isn't a particularly amazing feat. Robbers in poor neighbourhoods do it every day.

Rather than policing, let me consider something simpler - a street light. A rich person might install one as a gift to the community but in general, there won't be enough of such gifts. A group of people can share the cost together to install a streetlight but one individual in the group might falsely plead poverty intending to let the others pay.

So according to you, condominiums should all be rank failures. However, just looking through the real-estate adverts, I can see a great many successful condominiums where the residents pay fixed fees for services such as landscaping, lighting, garbage disposal etc. Clearly, I don't need much of an argument to dispel this nonsense - the empirical evidence speaks for itself.

If one person falsely pleads poverty as in your example, if the others found out, they could sue him for fraud. If they never found out (and it's hard to hide your financial status from your neighbours), then nothing would happen. But tell me, is this really so different from undiscovered tax evasion and welfare fraud?

However, this scenario is unlikely in the first place because if a person pleaded poverty and complained that he couldn't pay his condo fees before signing the contract it would almost certainly be suggested that he go find a cheaper condo. Of course, if he did so after signing he would be in breach of contract, plain and simple.

As opposed to Hugo, I would say that such a coercive tax is moral. Why? Because it would be immoral not to install a streetlight.

Says who? If a street full of people decided it wasn't worth paying for streetlights and that they'd be better off doing without them, who are you to tell them that their choice is immoral and that you will forcibly take money from them to install streetlights against their will?

Maybe they're environmentalists and they don't see the point burning countless kilowatt-hours of power when they're all asleep anyway. Maybe they all have burglar alarms and guns and don't fear break-ins. Maybe they want to discourage people from driving down their street at night and think that not lighting the street would accomplish that. Maybe they live in a gated community that shuts its doors at sundown. Maybe they've all installed motion-detector lights on the front of their houses and have effectively created a more efficient street lighting system themselves.

But according to you, all of these reasons are invalid and immoral, because you have decided they need streetlights regardless of their own desire, and you think they should be forced into buying them.

In addition, I would like to know that had I been born into a family of irresponsible parents, I still would have had the chance to get a basic education. IOW, children require special protection.

There are countless charities now working for the welfare of children. Without the dead hand of the state there would be countless more. Your argument is self-contradictory. You assume people won't care about children, so the State must. But the State is made of people, so what makes them care about children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare is Robin Hood: steal from the rich and give to the poor. Policing is providing a service to the population that would be under-produced if privately provided. In my mind, these are two very different activities.

I tend to disagree. Welfare may be Robin Hood to an extent, but I suspect that the middle-class and the working-class pay for the bulk of this program if only because they are numerically much larger than the upper class. This matters not for my central point is that the police are paid by the same taxpayers, but the more affluent tend to receive better service than others. For example, if you live in a wealthy area of a city (say North end of Vancouver) and there are reports of drug users roaming the area trespassing upon private property and causing fear amongst residents, the police will most likely leap to action. If there are reports of drug users doing the same thing on the East side, the police will probably wonder why the hell you are even pointing this out to them.

Why the difference? Why should some residents receive better protection by the state than others? All taxpayers must pay for this service, but the wealthy actually benefit disproportionately.

There is no reason why communities could not self-police. Failure to self-police is easily perceived as the result of laziness (as many argue is the case for welfare). It requires only time, effort and minimal expense. Imagine if people actually got off their butts and patrolled their neighborhoods to identify those causing harm. Eventually, criminals would be too afraid for fear of being identified and punished. As it stands now, most people do not even report crime when it takes place and engage in "bystander apathy" when they see it. Why does bystander apathy exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

Because we are trained to be passive and let the police deal with our problems.

If socialists, by definition, want more government, then why is it that the right seems to favour more police and taking crime out of the hands of individual citizens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare may be Robin Hood to an extent, but I suspect that the middle-class and the working-class pay for the bulk of this program if only because they are numerically much larger than the upper class.
I have never felt conmfortable with terms "upper class" and "working class" although I know what you mean. Rich and poor strikes me as more accurate, and even then I wonder. There is no question that a rich person pays more taxes than a middle income earner.

Despite what Hugo says above, referring to American studies about welfare, about a half of government expenditures in Canada are simply straight money transfers between individuals, with government as intermediary. The intention of these transfers is take from rich people and give to poor people, and for the most part it works. Welfare is the obvious example, but not the largest. About half of all people in Quebec pay no income taxes and many get a rebate on GST. The old age pension is another example. We can talk about the nefarious consequences of these transfers but they amount to Robin Hood, in purpose and effect.

This matters not for my central point is that the police are paid by the same taxpayers, but the more affluent tend to receive better service than others. For example, if you live in a wealthy area of a city (say North end of Vancouver) and there are reports of drug users roaming the area trespassing upon private property and causing fear amongst residents, the police will most likely leap to action. If there are reports of drug users doing the same thing on the East side, the police will probably wonder why the hell you are even pointing this out to them.

Why the difference? Why should some residents receive better protection by the state than others? All taxpayers must pay for this service, but the wealthy actually benefit disproportionately.

My first answer is to say: so what? The quality of roads and streetlamps are probably different too. They are certainly different between provinces. Following Hugo's example of a condo, some apartment entries are clean and some are not. The difference is reflected in rents, just as policing services are reflected in differing property taxes. If we gave money to poor people in East Vancouver, would they happily use it to pay for higher taxes and more police? Or would they prefer to buy something else with the extra cash, something no doubt of greater value to them.
There is no reason why communities could not self-police. Failure to self-police is easily perceived as the result of laziness (as many argue is the case for welfare). It requires only time, effort and minimal expense. Imagine if people actually got off their butts and patrolled their neighborhoods to identify those causing harm.
That is completely utopic. Since I am now in Moscow, I recall efforts after horrific apartment blasts here several years ago to self-police apartment entries. The efforts lasted for about a week or so and then people stopped showing up for "duty". Collective efforts require coercion. The easiest way to organize this to impose taxes and then hire someone.
If socialists, by definition, want more government, then why is it that the right seems to favour more police and taking crime out of the hands of individual citizens?
Markets are a wonderful institution, invented only a few thousand years ago, and still poorly understood. Markets turn the collective problem into an individual problem, and self-interest replaces the need for coercion. Markets don't always work and then we are back in the position of people living several thousand years ago. Policing, streetlamps, radio and roads are some of the examples where markets don't work well. For these cases, in the limit, we're back to the clan with the head guy ordering us what to do. I simplify greatly.

I'll replace the term "socialist" with "leftish" and note that leftish politicians such as Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Bob Rae do not want more government but rather better government.

So according to you, condominiums should all be rank failures. However, just looking through the real-estate adverts, I can see a great many successful condominiums where the residents pay fixed fees for services such as landscaping, lighting, garbage disposal etc.
The fees are not fixed. Most condo associations include a process for raising the fees. The fees are also based on the square footage of the living space. For all intents, the condo association is a "government". And of course, they are successful.
If a street full of people decided it wasn't worth paying for streetlights and that they'd be better off doing without them, who are you to tell them that their choice is immoral and that you will forcibly take money from them to install streetlights against their will?
But Hugo, how is teh street full of people to decide it isn't worth paying for a street light? You are asking for some collective decision method. If I believe my neighbours will pay for the streetlamp anyway, I'll vote to contribute nothing. If all do as I, there will be no streetlamp. Yet in fact I want one!

The world is filled with situations in which a group of people suffer a collective situation that none of them individually wants. Sitting in a traffic jam is the most obvious example that comes to mind, but street litter is another. (Fortunately, markets don't work that way.)

In another thread, I have argued that voting in elections suffers from the same flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare is Robin Hood: steal from the rich and give to the poor. Policing is providing a service to the population that would be under-produced if privately provided.

Welfare is not Robin Hood. Since we live in a democracy, taxation is not theft.

The policing distinction fails because welfare is exactly an effort by government to provide a value which would be underprovided by the market. I.e. food and shelter to the impoverished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 17th, I said:

There is a difference between socialism as put forth by Hitler, Lenin, Stalin and Jack Layton.

Too bad Conservative candidate Laurie Hawn was not listening because on the 24th he said:

Okay everyone, hands up all who think that Canada's national socialist leader, Jack Layton, would put himself at the back of the queue if he (or his wife) needed an MRI. I didn't think so.

http://strongandfree.blogspot.com/2005/06/...ypocrisies.html

Apparently, the post was edited from "National Socialist" (with capitals) to "national socialist". Harper should muffle yet another pinhead in his party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare is Robin Hood: steal from the rich and give to the poor. Policing is providing a service to the population that would be under-produced if privately provided.

Welfare is not Robin Hood. Since we live in a democracy, taxation is not theft.

The policing distinction fails because welfare is exactly an effort by government to provide a value which would be underprovided by the market. I.e. food and shelter to the impoverished.

I suppose I have no problem with the government confiscating a little bit of my money so that poor people get by and for essential services.

Many people would rather make their own choices about where their money is spent. So Rather than paying a big chunk of their incomes into a pool and letting the government decide where it gets spent, they'd rather do it themselves on most fronts.

Most industrialized societies DO agree on some services they'd rather not deal with on an individual basis: policing, water treatment, sewage, roads...

I don't mind some governement intervention for some services but I suppose each society has a value system determine what they consider "essential" and how important equality is.

Personally I think equality is a crock. People aren't equal, nor should they recieve equal $$$ if their contribution doesn't warrant it.

Class is GODD, not bad. The question for Canadians is: what level of intervention do we accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welfare is Robin Hood: steal from the rich and give to the poor. Policing is providing a service to the population that would be under-produced if privately provided.

Welfare is not Robin Hood. Since we live in a democracy, taxation is not theft.

The policing distinction fails because welfare is exactly an effort by government to provide a value which would be underprovided by the market. I.e. food and shelter to the impoverished.

I suppose I have no problem with the government confiscating a little bit of my money so that poor people get by and for essential services.

Many people would rather make their own choices about where their money is spent. So Rather than paying a big chunk of their incomes into a pool and letting the government decide where it gets spent, they'd rather do it themselves on most fronts.

Most industrialized societies DO agree on some services they'd rather not deal with on an individual basis: policing, water treatment, sewage, roads...

I don't mind some governement intervention for some services but I suppose each society has a value system determine what they consider "essential" and how important equality is.

Personally I think equality is a crock. People aren't equal, nor should they recieve equal $$$ if their contribution doesn't warrant it.

Class is GODD, not bad. The question for Canadians is: what level of intervention do we accept.

Although the answer to the real question will also answer your question, I don't think your question is the real question.

The real question is twofold: what do we value and how best to get it? In other words, intervention or not intervention doesn't overrule effective or not effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Everybody would rather make their own choices about how "their" money is spent. That is only a human trait.

It is also why we need a government to make decisions as to how it is to be spent for the public good.

Any particular class that you think is "good." Or just your own that shares in your classless personal selfishness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody would rather make their own choices about how "their" money is spent. That is only a human trait.

It is also why we need a government to make decisions as to how it is to be spent for the public good.

Any particular class that you think is "good." Or just your own that shares in your classless personal selfishness.

I am trying to stick tot the issue here so won't dignify that last part with an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fees are not fixed. Most condo associations include a process for raising the fees. The fees are also based on the square footage of the living space. For all intents, the condo association is a "government". And of course, they are successful.

This is essentially Sweal's Patented Useless Definition of Government revisited. If a condo association is government, then priests are government because they set the terms, conditions and dues for membership in the Church, and teachers are government because they set the requirements for education in their school, and corporate management is government because they set the requirements and compensation for their employees, and so forth. Basically, everyone is government.

However, the actual fact is that these examples are just private individuals and organizations exercising their property rights, to control their own things. If you are saying this is analogous to the Canadian Government, then you assume that this Government owns the entire nation.

But Hugo, how is teh street full of people to decide it isn't worth paying for a street light? You are asking for some collective decision method.

Why not? Corporations and shareholding, associations, boards, committees, PTAs - there are many voluntary methods of making collective decisions without resorting to the violence of government.

Again, it's about property rights. Buy a house and agree to abide by the decisions of the street committee. Don't like it, don't buy it. But to call this analogous to coercive, nation-state government is to say that government owns the entire country. After all, a street committee would not just turn up and decide it controls the street (unless it was a conquering invader, in which case it would simply be forming a State in the same way that all States have been formed) - it would have to be placed there by the people who actually first owned and built the street and as such is just an exercise of their rights and is not coercive at all.

The world is filled with situations in which a group of people suffer a collective situation that none of them individually wants. Sitting in a traffic jam is the most obvious example that comes to mind, but street litter is another.

Right, because these are public goods problems created by government interventionism and a lack of property rights.

Welfare is not Robin Hood. Since we live in a democracy, taxation is not theft.

You watch, Sweal, I'm going to make you apologize for the Holocaust, again. This'll get you goose-stepping mad:

If taxation is not theft then you are saying that what a democratically elected government does to its citizens is voluntary. Therefore, drug pushers send themselves to jail, people who double-park fine themselves, and all the Jews and minorities killed in the Holocaust actually committed suicide because it was done by a democratically and constitutionally elected government, and whatsoever a democratically elected government does to its citizens is voluntary.

It is also why we need a government to make decisions as to how it is to be spent for the public good.

Who is 'the public?'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? Why don't you complain to Greg again? I bet he does exactly what he did last time you complained about this: absolutely nothing, because you don't have a leg to stand on and are just throwing a little tantrum because your ideas don't pan out the way you'd like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? Why don't you complain to Greg again? I bet he does exactly what he did last time you complained about this: absolutely nothing, because you don't have a leg to stand on and are just throwing a little tantrum because your ideas don't pan out the way you'd like.

You're rotten lying scumbag fuck. If you're proud of that, it's just what I'd expect of such a completely degenerate piece of shit.

If Greg seems to think its okay for you to lie and abuse others, then his forum is not a wothwhile place to be.

You can't match me in argument, so you resort to infamy. You know what that makes you? Low. Weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah? Why don't you complain to Greg again? I bet he does exactly what he did last time you complained about this: absolutely nothing, because you don't have a leg to stand on and are just throwing a little tantrum because your ideas don't pan out the way you'd like.

You're rotten lying scumbag fuck. If you're proud of that, it's just what I'd expect of such a completely degenerate piece of shit.

If Greg seems to think its okay for you to lie and abuse others, then his forum is not a wothwhile place to be.

You can't match me in argument, so you resort to infamy. You know what that makes you? Low. Weak.

Actually his argument is logically tight. You got so emotional because he used the word "holocaust" (Typical Canadian hypersensitivity) that the thought was lost on you.

He's right: democratically elected governments were responsible for the holocaust.

And he's also right: Just because we elect a government doesn't mean it represents our interests.

ESPECIALLY in Canada, where Alberta's interests haven't EVER been represented federally. This country is nothing but dictatorship by central Canadians. There is "autocracy", "theocracy" --there should be a new terM: ONTARIOOCRACY -- dictatorship by lemming followers of the Liberal Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...