Socialism does work

[zerostao]

And a bear was named in his honor.

i named a jeep i owned once in his honor too

[ralis]

I very much doubt Ron said that in context. It should be clear that anti-socialists would not rather see people dying on the streets, but presently that's precisely what we are witnessing because of socialism. We even had 1500 plus old people dying unnecessarily in just one NHS hospital. The final report suggested that there were many thousands of neglected old people suffering and dying unnecessarily. Some were forced to drink the water from flower vases in order to survive. Wherever socialism is, the death rate soars, just look at Venezuela, but, you say you aren't a socialist.

 

Yes he did state that! I imagine that is on YouTube.

[Karl]

In response to your side note;

 

Only after you pry my .20 gauge out of my dead fingers.

 

But really, if I paid no taxes to the state then I wouldn't expect any services from it.  However, I am forced to pay tax dollars to the state.  I have therefore earned compensation.

 

Exactly. People were surprised that Ayn Rand used Medicare, but she frequently told people they should take from the state whatever they were due-as it happens she didn't choose Medicare, by then she was too ill to decide and had given the power of attorney to her personal solicitor- who she did pay very well.

 

I want to learn to shoot at some point, but it's a right mess on in the UK. If I ever get the time I might go to East Europe where you can learn to fire anything from a small pistol to a 20mm canon.

[Marblehead]

Only a 20 gauge? I went rabbit hunting when I was a kid with a double barrel 10 gauge. LOL!

I would call that "over-kill".

[ralis]

I would call that "over-kill".

 

It was, but that is all we had. Also had a 22 rifle.

[Brian]

 

Land grant schools which 'The Ohio State University' is was originally funded and chartered by the Federal government.

Start with the Morrill Act of 1862 and work your way forward -- you will find that the central government was giving away land rather than claiming it for itself. Precisely the opposite of the Progressive practice which takes land from States and citizens to grow the central government -- are you aware of how little of New Mexico is not federal land at this point?

[Karl]

Yes he did state that! I imagine that is on YouTube.

 

I imagine it's out of context.

In a libertarian society everybody would provide for themselves and their families. Those that were unfit/ incapable would need charity. Ironically, socialists believe that taking charity is somewhat beneath them, but taking money by force is fine. There would be no Government safety net in a pure Laissez Faire society, which always brings out the virtue signalling liberals. The fact is, a society without government intervention would be far removed from how things are today. No doubt, if you told a hardline Russian communist that the state would no longer supply shoes they would be unable to understand the mechanism of the free market doing so. As it is, those in the West had many more, better fitting, better quality and cheaper pairs of shoes than a communist block citizen could ever comprehend.

[Marblehead]

It only has power because you gave it away. That's socialism, you give up your rights to the Government for security and fairness. Then, when it becomes obvious that it isn't working out you scream for stronger Government. More of what ails you cannot make you better in my book.

I did not give it away.  Don't be blaming me.  I'm a fuckin' Anarchist, remember?

 

I determine what I need regarding security and fairness.  I don't need a government to do that for me.

 

However, back to me being a socialist;

 

Yes, socialism sets the standard for security and fairness.  If the application is across the board, applied to everyone then it wouldn't be so bad.

 

And yes, that is the trend right now:  the system isn't working so we need more government.  Few fail to observe that it is the government that is making it so that it doesn't work.  Intentionally.

 

The powerful and wealthy love big government, it makes them more powerful and wealthier. They love regulation and tax laws and monetary/fiscal policies. They love it when the man in the street says he wants better Government, more regulation, more welfare, more security. They literally cream their Jocky shorts at the bozos who continually make it possible for them to retain the status quo. They have all the guns, education system, media, law, intellectuals, economists, judges-they have everything and each time the people call for more, that boot on their necks presses just a little tighter.

I can't argue with that.  Of course, that is why we Americans kicked the British out.  And then, WTF, we go and do the same thing.

 

The only way is to give up consent, stop asking for more, oppose everything that promises more and support everything that warns of less. Anytime they tell you it will be less comfortable, secure, financially destructive, you can know right away you are heading straight.

Agreement here.

[Marblehead]

 

on my campus open carry and concealed carry is allowed

For the record, I support both.

[ralis]

Start with the Morrill Act of 1862 and work your way forward -- you will find that the central government was giving away land rather than claiming it for itself. Precisely the opposite of the Progressive practice which takes land from States and citizens to grow the central government -- are you aware of how little of New Mexico is not federal land at this point?

 

Have you seen most of this state? Very little grows here and any cattle ranching is difficult. Grazing on public lands is legal with permits. I was just making a point about the original funding of land grand universities, nothing more.  FYI AAU schools share Federal research funding and without that funding, there is much progress that would never happen.

[Marblehead]

 I didn't visit Texas when I was last in the USA. I'm told the steak is good.

We got lots of steak in Vietnam.  All from LBJ's ranch.  (All shipped on LBJ's Sealand transport.)

[Karl]

I did not give it away.  Don't be blaming me.  I'm a fuckin' Anarchist, remember?

 

I determine what I need regarding security and fairness.  I don't need a government to do that for me.

 

However, back to me being a socialist;

 

Yes, socialism sets the standard for security and fairness.  If the application is across the board, applied to everyone then it wouldn't be so bad.

 

And yes, that is the trend right now:  the system isn't working so we need more government.  Few fail to observe that it is the government that is making it so that it doesn't work.  Intentionally.

 

 

I can't argue with that.  Of course, that is why we Americans kicked the British out.  And then, WTF, we go and do the same thing.

 

 

Agreement here.

 

...From man to pig and pig to man but could not tell the difference... Some are more equal than others.

 

[ralis]

We got lots of steak in Vietnam.  All from LBJ's ranch.  (All shipped on LBJ's Sealand transport.)

 

Texas if full of rattlesnakes, copperheads, cattle, coal and oil. Need I forget, beautiful babes with an attitude. I know a few!

[Marblehead]

Exactly. People were surprised that Ayn Rand used Medicare, but she frequently told people they should take from the state whatever they were due-as it happens she didn't choose Medicare, by then she was too ill to decide and had given the power of attorney to her personal solicitor- who she did pay very well.

I think it is only fair, even for the wealthy, to use services they have paid for.

 

I want to learn to shoot at some point, but it's a right mess on in the UK. If I ever get the time I might go to East Europe where you can learn to fire anything from a small pistol to a 20mm canon.

Well, the UK still allows weapons for hunting doesn't it?  True, hand guns are pretty much out of the question for you legally.

[Marblehead]

It was, but that is all we had. Also had a 22 rifle.

I would have better enjoyed using the 22.  I had a trappers 22 long pistol back in the 1960s.  Great weapon with high accuracy.

[Marblehead]

Texas if full of rattlesnakes, copperheads, cattle, coal and oil. Need I forget, beautiful babes with an attitude. I know a few!

You find a lot of BS there too.

[Karl]

I think it is only fair, even for the wealthy, to use services they have paid for.

 

 

Well, the UK still allows weapons for hunting doesn't it?  True, hand guns are pretty much out of the question for you legally.

 

Yes, fair for everyone. Funnily enough though, I'm not able to claim a penny, or even reduce my council tax despite being unemployed. I've paid in for solidly for 37 years without claiming a penny except for some minor surgery to an eyelid, a lung investigation and a broken arm that needed setting. Yet, I can get no benefits. Seems expensive to me. I've had more back from a car theft claim.

 

A handgun is more of what I had in mind, I'm not wanting to shoot game or skeets. So, owning one of those is pretty much out of the question.

[Marblehead]

Yes, fair for everyone. Funnily enough though, I'm not able to claim a penny, or even reduce my council tax despite being unemployed. I've paid in for solidly for 37 years without claiming a penny except for some minor surgery to an eyelid, a lung investigation and a broken arm that needed setting. Yet, I can get no benefits. Seems expensive to me. I've had more back from a car theft claim.

Sad that the system is set up that way.

 

Here in the USA, if a person hasn't paid a given amount into Social Security they cannot qualify for Medicare.  That means the money you have put into the system is untouchable and you can never put claim on it.

 

But this goes right back to my comments about mis-management.

 

 

A handgun is more of what I had in mind, I'm not wanting to shoot game or skeets. So, owning one of those is pretty much out of the question.

Yeah, I figured you were talking about a hand gun.  But you folks gave up that right, remember?

[ralis]

Start with the Morrill Act of 1862 and work your way forward -- you will find that the central government was giving away land rather than claiming it for itself. Precisely the opposite of the Progressive practice which takes land from States and citizens to grow the central government -- are you aware of how little of New Mexico is not federal land at this point?

 

I posted that link which refers to that act as part of my comments.

[Brian]

Yes but did you actually read it? It is very clearly an act of Congress to return land to the States, not the Federal government taking land from the States for public use, regardless of how noble that use might seem to some. Specifically, it called for the surrender of lands within the several States back to the States at 60,000 acres per State plus an additional 30,000 acres for each congressional district within the State. This is consistent with the pattern throughout the Union's growth of acquiring land (generally via purchase or treaty) and then finding a method for distributing it to States or directly to individuals.

 

The Constitution is pretty proscriptive in this area. Article I, Section 8 (the "Enumerated Powers") gives Congress authority over "the District" which became known as "Washington, District of Columbia" -- but only if the States chose to cede that ten square mile area for this purpose -- and it gave Congress authority "over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." Unless the contention is that Mount Rushmore or the Grand Canyon or grazing lands in New Mexico somehow fall into one of those specific categories, Congress has no constitutional authority to take or hold them in any fashion -- and the President has no authority in this regard whatsoever. Even in the cases of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings, the State Legislature must choose to sell that land to the central government.

[Karl]

Sad that the system is set up that way.

 

Here in the USA, if a person hasn't paid a given amount into Social Security they cannot qualify for Medicare.  That means the money you have put into the system is untouchable and you can never put claim on it.

 

But this goes right back to my comments about mis-management.

 

 

 

Yeah, I figured you were talking about a hand gun.  But you folks gave up that right, remember?

 

We gave up all rights centuries ago, we got stuck with the crap you kicked out, but then you appeared to miss the crap so much that you decided to re-adopt it.

[zerostao]

obi wan has generated a lil bit of excitement  wee bit about SOCIALISM

 

[Marblehead]

We gave up all rights centuries ago, we got stuck with the crap you kicked out, but then you appeared to miss the crap so much that you decided to re-adopt it.

Yes, that's ironic, isn't it?  Shouldn't be too much longer before we have a Monarchy.

[Karl]

Yes, that's ironic, isn't it?  Shouldn't be too much longer before we have a Monarchy.

 

You pretty well already have. Queen Obama followed by King Hillary.

[Marblehead]

You pretty well already have. Queen Obama followed by King Hillary.

Okay.  That's enough!  I spit coffee all over my keyboard.