A lot of people on here do not like socialism in any shape or form.

So is this a load of B/S or do you only like socialism when it suits you.



Quote:

For decades, socialism was a dirty word. But after 20 years in the wilderness, it seems to be making a comeback with support coming from the most unlikely of places, where the prevailing thinking seems to be that taxpayers, rather than risk-takers, should foot the bill for mistakes of the past. It's not a totally foreign concept for Australia where, for generations, the unofficial slogan of the Country Party (later the National Party) was: ''Capitalise your profits and socialise your losses.'' It might have been a joke. But clearly it is an enduring one, where the last laugh is destined to be had at the expense of taxpayers. In the past few weeks, European authorities have gone at each other hammer and tong, arguing about whether or not the banks that lent exorbitant amounts of money to wayward nations such as Greece should be required to take any losses at all for their reckless lending practices. In Australia, meanwhile, we have the ludicrous situation where both sides of the political spectrum agree they want to cut carbon emissions by the same amount which, in saner times, would have them working towards a common solution. But in an extraordinary twist, the conservative opposition is railing against a plan by a federal Labor government to make polluters pay for carbon emissions via a free-market based pricing solution. Instead, the opposition is proposing taxpayers directly fund all the costs to fix the problem via a big government-style direct intervention into the market, the kind of proposal that would have traditional Liberals such as Bob Menzies screaming from the grave. Once considered a panacea to the world's social problems, socialism became a derogatory term conservative politicians could sling at their leftie opponents, often with devastating consequences. At least, that was the case in the two decades after the 1980s when deregulation, open markets and competition became the mantra for a new world economic order. There is a compelling logic to free market economics. Take the risk, reap the rewards. Pretty simple, really. And its application through the 20 years up until 2007 delivered incredible lifts in living standards in the developed world and in emerging regions such as south-east Asia. If you've ever studied economics, the theory goes that a free market - a system where supply and demand determine prices - is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. Up until 2007, free-market devotees routinely denounced the intrusion of government into the market system. Any intervention, it was argued, detracted from the efficiency of an open pricing system. But when the world of finance turned on its head in 2008, when all the rules of capitalism and free markets seemed to be exposed as a farce - not because the theory was wrong but because it had been poorly applied - the greatest proponents of deregulation and free markets began squealing for government support. Mind you, that was only a temporary change of heart. Bankers around the world wanted to be propped up by taxpayers. Washington bailed out Wall Street and then Wall Street investment banks made a motza out of selling government securities to fund the bailouts. The idea that banks now can never be allowed to fail, and that investors in those institutions should be forever protected from loss, has become the accepted norm. Ever since the chaos that followed the Lehman Brothers collapse, when American authorities allowed the floundering operation to sink, central bankers and regulatory authorities universally have decided that no major bank ever will be allowed to crash. Since the latest debt crisis outbreak in Europe grabbed the headlines - before the potential default of America overtook it - European leaders again have begun stress-testing banks to ensure they could survive a worst-case scenario. The unspoken message again was that banks must be protected. Admittedly there have been some discussions on how to make banks and their investors share a small part of the pain. But that was about the extent of it. There were no hard resolutions, merely suggestions, with a nod towards further talks. You can understand the motives. No one wants a return to the chaotic events that ensued during 2008 and 2009. But it would appear banks now have been placed into an entirely different category to the rest of the capitalist system. And that begs the question: if bank shareholders are no longer prepared to take the risks, should they be entitled to the rewards? During the dark days of 2008 and 2009, we watched governments globally, including our own, offer taxpayer-guaranteed loans at discounted rates. Most of that money raised offshore was lent to us, the taxpayers, although more innovative organisations such as Macquarie Group decided they could earn bigger profits if they spread the love a little, opting to distribute the loans around the globe. Does that constitute socialism? Absolutely, although it is more along the lines of the National Party definition of offloading your dud hay during the rainy period at sunny-time prices. Here we are as taxpayers, delivering guarantees to financial institutions so they can borrow money offshore, bring it back here and lend it to us at a profit. Now that's a terrific deal. What a parallel to the great Australian carbon tax debate which has descended into a mire of misinformation and outright lies. Julia and Tony are on the same page as far as carbon emissions go. They both want them reduced because, according to their official policy statements, both believe in human-induced climate change. But while the rest of the developed world has accepted that a market price for carbon is the most efficient way to alter the behaviour of polluters, Australian voters have become sceptical, partly because of the avalanche of ill-informed rhetoric from ideologues with political axes to grind. Putting a price on carbon - as Europe has done - allows business leaders to make their own choices, to take their own risks, thereby reducing the heavy hand of government and minimising the risk of bureaucratic bungling. It is the sort of policy you would expect from a conservative, free market-based political party. Instead, harking back to the era of big government and direct intervention, the Coalition is proposing to spend $10 billion of taxpayers' funds to provide incentives to business to reduce their emissions and invest in new technology. That means taxpayer funds will be handed out to foreign companies so they can build new power stations and sell the power back to us at a profit. A terrific deal if you own a dirty coal-fired power station. A carbon tax on polluters, or doling out taxpayer funds? That's the choice.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/socialism-for-some-its-a-path-to-wealth-20110729-1i403.html#ixzz1oDKwXRr8

bomen_guy wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 2:45pm:

A lot of people on here do not like socialism in any shape or form. So is this a load of B/S or do you only like socialism when it suits you. Quote: For decades, socialism was a dirty word. But after 20 years in the wilderness, it seems to be making a comeback with support coming from the most unlikely of places, where the prevailing thinking seems to be that taxpayers, rather than risk-takers, should foot the bill for mistakes of the past. It's not a totally foreign concept for Australia where, for generations, the unofficial slogan of the Country Party (later the National Party) was: ''Capitalise your profits and socialise your losses.'' It might have been a joke. But clearly it is an enduring one, where the last laugh is destined to be had at the expense of taxpayers. In the past few weeks, European authorities have gone at each other hammer and tong, arguing about whether or not the banks that lent exorbitant amounts of money to wayward nations such as Greece should be required to take any losses at all for their reckless lending practices. In Australia, meanwhile, we have the ludicrous situation where both sides of the political spectrum agree they want to cut carbon emissions by the same amount which, in saner times, would have them working towards a common solution. But in an extraordinary twist, the conservative opposition is railing against a plan by a federal Labor government to make polluters pay for carbon emissions via a free-market based pricing solution. Instead, the opposition is proposing taxpayers directly fund all the costs to fix the problem via a big government-style direct intervention into the market, the kind of proposal that would have traditional Liberals such as Bob Menzies screaming from the grave. Once considered a panacea to the world's social problems, socialism became a derogatory term conservative politicians could sling at their leftie opponents, often with devastating consequences. At least, that was the case in the two decades after the 1980s when deregulation, open markets and competition became the mantra for a new world economic order. There is a compelling logic to free market economics. Take the risk, reap the rewards. Pretty simple, really. And its application through the 20 years up until 2007 delivered incredible lifts in living standards in the developed world and in emerging regions such as south-east Asia. If you've ever studied economics, the theory goes that a free market - a system where supply and demand determine prices - is the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources. Up until 2007, free-market devotees routinely denounced the intrusion of government into the market system. Any intervention, it was argued, detracted from the efficiency of an open pricing system. But when the world of finance turned on its head in 2008, when all the rules of capitalism and free markets seemed to be exposed as a farce - not because the theory was wrong but because it had been poorly applied - the greatest proponents of deregulation and free markets began squealing for government support. Mind you, that was only a temporary change of heart. Bankers around the world wanted to be propped up by taxpayers. Washington bailed out Wall Street and then Wall Street investment banks made a motza out of selling government securities to fund the bailouts. The idea that banks now can never be allowed to fail, and that investors in those institutions should be forever protected from loss, has become the accepted norm. Ever since the chaos that followed the Lehman Brothers collapse, when American authorities allowed the floundering operation to sink, central bankers and regulatory authorities universally have decided that no major bank ever will be allowed to crash. Since the latest debt crisis outbreak in Europe grabbed the headlines - before the potential default of America overtook it - European leaders again have begun stress-testing banks to ensure they could survive a worst-case scenario. The unspoken message again was that banks must be protected. Admittedly there have been some discussions on how to make banks and their investors share a small part of the pain. But that was about the extent of it. There were no hard resolutions, merely suggestions, with a nod towards further talks. You can understand the motives. No one wants a return to the chaotic events that ensued during 2008 and 2009. But it would appear banks now have been placed into an entirely different category to the rest of the capitalist system. And that begs the question: if bank shareholders are no longer prepared to take the risks, should they be entitled to the rewards? During the dark days of 2008 and 2009, we watched governments globally, including our own, offer taxpayer-guaranteed loans at discounted rates. Most of that money raised offshore was lent to us, the taxpayers, although more innovative organisations such as Macquarie Group decided they could earn bigger profits if they spread the love a little, opting to distribute the loans around the globe. Does that constitute socialism? Absolutely, although it is more along the lines of the National Party definition of offloading your dud hay during the rainy period at sunny-time prices. Here we are as taxpayers, delivering guarantees to financial institutions so they can borrow money offshore, bring it back here and lend it to us at a profit. Now that's a terrific deal. What a parallel to the great Australian carbon tax debate which has descended into a mire of misinformation and outright lies. Julia and Tony are on the same page as far as carbon emissions go. They both want them reduced because, according to their official policy statements, both believe in human-induced climate change. But while the rest of the developed world has accepted that a market price for carbon is the most efficient way to alter the behaviour of polluters, Australian voters have become sceptical, partly because of the avalanche of ill-informed rhetoric from ideologues with political axes to grind. Putting a price on carbon - as Europe has done - allows business leaders to make their own choices, to take their own risks, thereby reducing the heavy hand of government and minimising the risk of bureaucratic bungling. It is the sort of policy you would expect from a conservative, free market-based political party. Instead, harking back to the era of big government and direct intervention, the Coalition is proposing to spend $10 billion of taxpayers' funds to provide incentives to business to reduce their emissions and invest in new technology. That means taxpayer funds will be handed out to foreign companies so they can build new power stations and sell the power back to us at a profit. A terrific deal if you own a dirty coal-fired power station. A carbon tax on polluters, or doling out taxpayer funds? That's the choice. http://www.smh.com.au/business/socialism-for-some-its-a-path-to-wealth-20110729-1i403.html#ixzz1oDKwXRr8

when you learn the difference between socialist IDEOLOGY and social policy then come back and debate.

Social POlicy is not SOCIALIST policy. having 6 identical letters is almost all they have in common.

Quote:

But while the rest of the developed world has accepted that a market price for carbon is the most efficient way to alter the behaviour of polluters

while virtually no one has actually implemented them and the few that have, have found them to be massive failures.

imagine my surprise that that peice of informatino is missing from the article.

bomen_guy wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 2:45pm:

A lot of people on here do not like socialism in any shape or form. So is this a load of B/S or do you only like socialism when it suits you.

I only like socialism when it suits me.

It doesn't suit me very often though... :D

Quote:

Socialism: path to wealth

Oh yes Socialism that the europeans loved so much, THAT THEY PRACTICED IT ALL THE WAY TO HEARTBREAKING DEBT


And the Russians practiced it all the way to the break up of the Soviet Union


You silly lefties, spin me some more crap ,  ;D ;D ;D

The Soviet Union was a genocidal dictatorship and had as much do to with socialism as the Democratic Republic of Congo did with democracy.

Hilarious thread.

---

All western countries these days use a combination of socialism and capitalism.

So guys,
how is our current system going anyway?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 5:45pm:

So guys, how is our current system going anyway?

Fine by me. I have never been better off.

Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again.

So do you really have a shred of credibility?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 5:50pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility?

you may have noticed that this guy has some of the silliest posts iumnaginable, topped only by Greens-lose

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 5:50pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility?

Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury.

Please dont take my words out of context.
I will reply to clarify for other people but this is not in response to you.

I said that if being Jewish means you have to support Israel and its terrorist actions and slaughter of innocent people then they deserved the holocaust because clearly they condone the action

Socialism only ever dehumanises and commodifies people according to their grading as productive units for the human farm.  When the Government plays god people die. :-? :P :P :P

Socialism = extermination of the disabled - Stalin & Hitler style - so that the rest can profit the difference. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

The Government controls human breeding and when and how people die.... 8-) 8-) 8-)

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:50pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility? Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury. Please dont take my words out of context. I will reply to clarify for other people but this is not in response to you. I said that if being Jewish means you have to support Israel and its terrorist actions and slaughter of innocent people then they deserved the holocaust because clearly they condone the action

and you are actually that stupid that in defending your actions you repeat the same monstrous offense.  you are an obnoxious fool, the like of which even this forum struggles to match.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:50pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility? Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury. Please dont take my words out of context. I will reply to clarify for other people but this is not in response to you. I said that if being Jewish means you have to support Israel and its terrorist actions and slaughter of innocent people then they deserved the holocaust because clearly they condone the action and you are actually that stupid that in defending your actions you repeat the same monstrous offense.  you are an obnoxious fool, the like of which even this forum struggles to match.

Any peoples that slaughter innocent people deserve the same to happen to them

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 8:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:36pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:50pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility? Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury. Please dont take my words out of context. I will reply to clarify for other people but this is not in response to you. I said that if being Jewish means you have to support Israel and its terrorist actions and slaughter of innocent people then they deserved the holocaust because clearly they condone the action and you are actually that stupid that in defending your actions you repeat the same monstrous offense.  you are an obnoxious fool, the like of which even this forum struggles to match. Any peoples that slaughter innocent people deserve the same to happen to them

we always knew you were a bitter old irrelvant fool. all you do is prove it time and time again.

"PoliticalPuppet wrote Yesterday at 2:26pm:
If being jewish means you support Israel and its slaughter of innocent people then bugger the jews I hope they get the hollocaust again and they deserved it lasttime"


That's the direct quote so he can't be accused of being mis-quoted.

I have seen some poor form on here in the past.

Woody supporting and cheering Sea Shepherd's violence on the high seas.

Buzz thinking people suffering from Alzeheimers is funny and something to mock.

However the anti-semitism above is probably the worst by some distance.

The Jewish people are as diverse as any other group of people.
To say all Jews support what is happening to the Palestinian people is wrong just as saying all Palestinians are terrorists and do not recognise Israels right to exist is wrong.
As always individuals are responsible for their own actions not the whole race or group that person identifies with.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 6:04pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:50pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility? Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury.

;D ;D ;D

Billions of people live in poverty because there are billions too many people on the planet.

;)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 7:38am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:36pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:50pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility? Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury. Please dont take my words out of context. I will reply to clarify for other people but this is not in response to you. I said that if being Jewish means you have to support Israel and its terrorist actions and slaughter of innocent people then they deserved the holocaust because clearly they condone the action and you are actually that stupid that in defending your actions you repeat the same monstrous offense.  you are an obnoxious fool, the like of which even this forum struggles to match. Any peoples that slaughter innocent people deserve the same to happen to them we always knew you were a bitter old irrelvant fool. all you do is prove it time and time again.

He is a nasty, bitter anti-Semitie and has shown himself to be totally irrelevant.

Wishing another holocaust on the brave Jewish people...

Abolish all class based Socialist Government economic sanctions like the GST and Carbon Tax which transfer wealth from hard working business and workers into the hands of "Middle Australia".  The GST & The Carbon tax is an incentive against hard work and real business economic activity and growth and funds useless parasites and their massive bonus. >:( >:( >:(

philosemites anonymous

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 4:07pm:

Quote: But while the rest of the developed world has accepted that a market price for carbon is the most efficient way to alter the behaviour of polluters while virtually no one has actually implemented them and the few that have, have found them to be massive failures. imagine my surprise that that peice of informatino is missing from the article.

Unfortunately, people mistake socialism as heaven on earth and think nobody has to do anything and there will always be plenty of everything, which is completely wrong.
In capitalism you reap the profits and socialise the losses,as always happens after financial crises.
The banks are too big too fail, so they have to be propped up by taxpayers money.
What is going to be the next big thing to fail in Australia?
It is going to be the super industry!But before the effects of it emerge, the super money managers will have prospered enopurmously.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 8:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 8:36pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 6:04pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:50pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 5:45pm: So guys, how is our current system going anyway? Fine by me. I have never been better off. Then again, you're the same guy who says Jews deserved the holocaust and you hope they get it again. So do you really have a shred of credibility? Thats good to hear, and the only cost is that billions of people around the world have to live in poverty for you to enjoy this luxury. Please dont take my words out of context. I will reply to clarify for other people but this is not in response to you. I said that if being Jewish means you have to support Israel and its terrorist actions and slaughter of innocent people then they deserved the holocaust because clearly they condone the action and you are actually that stupid that in defending your actions you repeat the same monstrous offense.  you are an obnoxious fool, the like of which even this forum struggles to match. Any peoples that slaughter innocent people deserve the same to happen to them

WHAT A CONTEMPTIBLE FOOL.


THAT COULD ONLY BE SAID BY SOMEONE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA DOING VERY NICELY THANKYOU

playing on a keyboard and whilst never actually taking part,believes they know everything..

The Government cannot force anyone they have violently assaulted and ripped off in the workplace to surrender any private records to them or any employer, they cannot force them to work as casuals for them and they cannot cut them off their lawful right to social security. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Here is my logic.
You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism.
Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews.
Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree.

Luckily this is just your inference and not reality

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality

Do you support Palestinian terrorism?

I started this thread on Socialism the part to wealth and it has gone to the jews and the holocaust, it has nothing to do with what the OP said so if you want to talk about the jews and the holocaust start your own thread so stay on the subject on what the OP is about.

Now what do you think about socialism being the path to wealth

Half the people I know have a IQ above average. The other half vote conservative/liberal


With your way of reckoning you must be  a conservative/liberal voter.

I don't think you will understand why but the clue is in the highlight above.

blackadder wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 9:40am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality Do you support Palestinian terrorism?

yes he does.

My post in the prior thread sums the situation up in real terms.....


There is NO DOUBLE STANDARD!!

Any civilian death is regrettable and unfortunate.

However if you can't see this difference then you are retarded -

1) Palestinian suicide bombers TARGET civilians. They get onto buses in Jerusalem and blow it up. They blow up cafes and market places. There are many innocent Israeli civilian deaths because that is their aim!

2) Palestinian civilian casualties occur as a result of operations aimed at targetting terrorists. The aim of the Israeli Army is to remove the threat posed and to MINIMIZE civilian casualties.

3) Palestinian terrorists will often deliberately operate from densely populated civilian areas with the aim of hiding behind innocents.

4) Israeli operations (and I know this from several friends who have served in the Israeli Army) cannot respond or engage in fire unless specifically authorization comes from Tel Aviv. They then must adhere to Israeli rules of engagement.

5) MOSSAD removes the threat from terrorists. It will only carry out an operation to eliminate a suspect after it has been removed and approved at the highest level in Jerusalem. No civilians are ever targetted.


That is the reality.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 10:22am:

blackadder wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:40am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality Do you support Palestinian terrorism? yes he does.

I doubt many people support terrorism whether it is perpetrated by the state an individual or a group such as hamas or mossad.

Socialism promises vast wealth - but only for those who already have it.  I suppose it's too inconvenient to contemplate why uber-rich asswipes like warren Buffett or George Soreass advocate so strongly for it.  If they feel so strongly about the principle, as opposed to the payoff, they could "redistribute" their scores of billions as they please.  Not "pledging to" or donating to their own charity - actually giving up their privileged position.  Never in a million years. 

adelcrow wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 10:26am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 10:22am: blackadder wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:40am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality Do you support Palestinian terrorism? yes he does. I doubt many people support terrorism whether it is perpetrated by the state an individual or a group such as hamas or mossad.

Are you seriously placing the Hamas Terrorist Organization in the same group as Mossad?????

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 5:28pm:

Hilarious thread.

That looks like it was taken during the Depression. That was due to Capitalism wasn't it? Much like the GFC?? The latter bailed out by what could loosely be termed a form of socialism - ie socialising of losses?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 9:31am:

Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality

you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so.

France and Austria would also see him in some trouble for that comment.

hawil wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

In capitalism you reap the profits and socialise the losses,as always happens after financial crises. The banks are too big too fail, so they have to be propped up by taxpayers money.

Actually I don't think that's quite right. It's not socialism, but nationalism. You're not socialising the losses, you're nationalising them. Get it? The government takes control, in the name of national pride, national wealth, national security, or whatever.

It's like in America those big banks were so important to the country they had to be "bailed out." For some ridiculous reason, they were afraid America would never have banks again. It was the same thing with the Big Three automakers. They were so afraid America would never make cars again. So off they went to the government begging the politicians to save them from the vultures who would eat them up and sell them to China.

There is some socialism in it, in the sense that these companies go from being "private" to "public" and therefore instead of being private owned by individuals, they are owned collectively by the entire country through the government. But it reeks of nationalism as well in the sense that people are so afraid that someone is going to come and buy these companies and take them away to say China, India, Russia or Brazil.

And you know, when socialism and nationalism come together, you get nationalist socialism or Nazism. Nazism was a fascist ideology and therefore if your government tries to protect a company owned by your country, beware because this is the behaviour of a fascist government!!!!


hawil wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 7:12pm:

What is going to be the next big thing to fail in Australia? It is going to be the super industry!But before the effects of it emerge, the super money managers will have prospered enopurmously.

I have no idea where the money actually goes. It's like someone planted a bomb in the heart of these companies and scattered their remains to the wind. My guess is the vultures were already eating the company alive before the bomb went off and the explosion we expected from the time bomb was already tearing the company apart in slow motion over months and years.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so. France and Austria would also see him in some trouble for that comment.

i dont agree with those laws, but creeps like political_puppet certianly deserve all the disgust due to such a vile an obviously uneducated little maggot.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so.

No I didnt you idiot

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so. No I didnt you idiot

dont make a bigger fool of yourself than you alreadyb have by trying to deny something that has already been quoted back to you.

you truly are a stupid anti-semite.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 5:14pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so. No I didnt you idiot dont make a bigger fool of yourself than you alreadyb have by trying to deny something that has already been quoted back to you. you truly are a stupid anti-semite.

Quote:

Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality

You are all pyschopaths supporting US and Israeli terrorism

Quote:

Socialism: path to wealth

For career bludgers in Corporate & Government Bureaucracies and their mega bonuses stolen from their sanctions on hard work and free enterprise...
:P :P :P

bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 5:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 5:14pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 4:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 3:18pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 9:31am: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality you contemptible peice of trash... you wished the jewish people another Holocaust. be grateful you dont live in Germany because that is a jailable offence. Over here you are just mocked, pitied and rightfully so. No I didnt you idiot dont make a bigger fool of yourself than you alreadyb have by trying to deny something that has already been quoted back to you. you truly are a stupid anti-semite. Quote: Here is my logic. You call me anti Semitic for not supporting Israeli terrorism. Which would infer that all Jews support Israeli terrorism because anti Semitism means you have something against all Jews. Now if all Jews support this like you infer then I think they should have the same happen to them, which in comparison to a rapist or murderer in Australia I think a lot of you would agree. Luckily this is just your inference and not reality You are all pyschopaths supporting US and Israeli terrorism

let's hear you unequicovably denounce Hamas and Fatah or Hezbollah terrorism...

bu of course no. you are a anti-semite.

...so to sum up this thread.. the jews are a bunch of socialist commie bastards??

I give up. I'm completely confused.  :-? :-/

Gist wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

...so to sum up this thread.. the jews are a bunch of socialist commie bastards?? I give up. I'm completely confused.  :-? :-/

hardly news.

Gist wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 8:53pm:

...so to sum up this thread.. the jews are a bunch of socialist commie bastards?? I give up. I'm completely confused.  :-? :-/

Most Europeans reckon the Jews were worse than the Nazis,... or something like that!  ::) ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 9:02pm:

Gist wrote on Mar 7th, 2012 at 8:53pm: ...so to sum up this thread.. the jews are a bunch of socialist commie bastards?? I give up. I'm completely confused.  :-? :-/ hardly news.

Oh yeah, wasn't expecting that reaction.  ::)

The article is about the hypocrisy of the right.

The Government and big business is full of serial bludgers and parasites who devote their entire lives to living off the proceeds of others hard work, dreaming up schemes, scams and policy to undermine their ability to prosper from their own hard work and free enterprise and restricting their ability to compete, negotiate the price of their labour, skills and creativity as free individuals.  Everything they do in Government, bureaucracy and the corporate world is to extend the sphere of the control of their own socialist Government kind to bludge on our hard work, to perpetuate and grow their useless class and to minimize the reward that people can obtain from the work of their own hands.  JuLiar, Abbott, Brown ect enter public life with this one view in mind, that they will impose as many sanctions, penalties and restrictions on those who work hard, so they can lift the profit of that hard work from them, enter public life only with the view of making Government bigger, expanding big business and eliminating small business and free enterprise. ::) ::) ::) ::)

blackadder wrote on Mar 7^th, 2012 at 10:18am:

Half the people I know have a IQ above average. The other half vote conservative/liberal With your way of reckoning you must be  a conservative/liberal voter. I don't think you will understand why but the clue is in the highlight above.

So the conservatives have low IQ?

Then a low IQ must be the way to success because

mostly leftists are of the unemployed, those never satisfied with what they leech from taxpayers or union members, who forever demand more dollars for less hours'work, until their fed-up employers shift overseas.