How many idiots in here are going to vote for Biden?

On 3/4/20 10:19 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care,

As there in what country with universal health care?

because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism,

First: we are not talking about socialism but a social democracy.
Second, if you need you appendix removed NOW you are not going shopping.
The market fails there. Over 20 fairly recent studies have backed the
idea it would be cheaper and more effective. I will take real research
over your claims based on thinking this is even socialism when it is not.

as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

There is no reward to businesses for researching things like garlic oil
for ear aches. But there is reward for researching meds. And there still
would be.

Below you spew weird seemingly racist crap I am not going to even try to
decipher. Closest I can get is you share a common right wing view that
it is better for you to be doing less well if those you hate can end up
doing even worse. Maybe not though. Don't really care.

And why do you think that angry black "youths" should be allowed to
spend fifty to one hundred thousand dollars of "free" taxpayer money
(with no obligation to pay it back) to get worthless degrees in hating
white people?



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/4/20 11:06 AM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 8:57 PM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 6:44 PM, pjp wrote:
In article .at,
says...

You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

I pity Americans only have two choices neither of which appears suitable
for the needed task at hand.

Not true. You just never hear of the other candidates from the US
media. I just cast my primary ballot, and there are 6 (I think) primary
candidates on the Republican ballot.

What are you talking about? Doesn't matter what candidate they all will
never change that MONEY and maintaining control over all else is all the
US is really about. People are just a means to an end and treated as
nothing to be concerned about whenever need arises. You sow the seeds of
your own destruction but the whole world will pay for it when it finally
happens and becomes apparent.

WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep. Both seem more or less the same to me
and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
couple extra choices.


They are quite different. While there is a more "corporate" side of the
Democrats which are similar to the more "liberal" side of the
Republicans (a group which is shrinking), at its best the Democrats promote:

• Reducing big corporate control
• Universal health care (better outcomes and a lower cost)
• Accessible higher education
• Improved worker's rights
• Addiction treated as a health issue and not a criminal one,
• Equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community
• Equal rights for people of all races
• Equal rights for people of all religions (or none)
• Fewer wars
• Environmental protection
• Protecting a woman's right to her own body
• Ending the use of private prisons
• Trackable, fair elections
• Having people get more of the money they earn
• Paying teachers more and otherwise investing in our future
• Having evidence-based polices dealing with climate change

And more. The two parties are quite different.

You ****ing lied through omission you prick.

Democrats intend to repeal the 2nd amendment.
Democrats intend to restrict free speech.
Democrats intend to open borders at the expense of native
citizens.
Democrats buy support using social security for illegal aliens.
Democrats lie every election begging "Money for the children",
then the cocksuckers divert it for pork projects. Every
election it is the same.

There are no honest modern Democrats. They are all liars crooks
and thieves.

In article , Snit
wrote:

If Senator Sanders has his way, he's publicly stated he will raise your
taxes. How is that for keeping more of the money you earn?

you're ignoring that his way will eliminate health premiums, copays,
etc., which is larger than the additional tax.

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health. You
also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher education
for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like.

that will be nothing compared to the *massive* opposition to his plan.

But overall we would clearly be better off.

not necessarily.

nospam wrote:

Ken Springer wrote:

If Senator Sanders has his way, he's publicly stated he will raise your
taxes. How is that for keeping more of the money you earn?

you're ignoring that his way will eliminate health premiums, copays,
etc., which is larger than the additional tax.

That's what he CLAIMS would happen, anyway.

--
"Sadly, you liberals seem to delight in calling everything you don't
*believe* a lie." "Greg Hall", lying shamelessly

frank wrote:
In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/4/20 11:06 AM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 8:57 PM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 6:44 PM, pjp wrote:
In article .at,
says...

You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

I pity Americans only have two choices neither of which appears suitable
for the needed task at hand.

Not true. You just never hear of the other candidates from the US
media. I just cast my primary ballot, and there are 6 (I think) primary
candidates on the Republican ballot.

What are you talking about? Doesn't matter what candidate they all will
never change that MONEY and maintaining control over all else is all the
US is really about. People are just a means to an end and treated as
nothing to be concerned about whenever need arises. You sow the seeds of
your own destruction but the whole world will pay for it when it finally
happens and becomes apparent.

WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep. Both seem more or less the same to me
and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
couple extra choices.


They are quite different. While there is a more "corporate" side of the
Democrats which are similar to the more "liberal" side of the
Republicans (a group which is shrinking), at its best the Democrats promote:

• Reducing big corporate control
• Universal health care (better outcomes and a lower cost)
• Accessible higher education
• Improved worker's rights
• Addiction treated as a health issue and not a criminal one,
• Equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community
• Equal rights for people of all races
• Equal rights for people of all religions (or none)
• Fewer wars
• Environmental protection
• Protecting a woman's right to her own body
• Ending the use of private prisons
• Trackable, fair elections
• Having people get more of the money they earn
• Paying teachers more and otherwise investing in our future
• Having evidence-based polices dealing with climate change

And more. The two parties are quite different.

You ****ing lied through omission you prick.

Democrats intend to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Cite?

Democrats intend to restrict free speech.

Cite?

Democrats intend to open borders at the expense of native
citizens.

Cite?

Democrats buy support using social security for illegal aliens.

What does that even mean?

Democrats lie every election begging "Money for the children",
then the cocksuckers divert it for pork projects. Every
election it is the same.

Cite. And show they are worse then Republicans at this.

There are no honest modern Democrats. They are all liars crooks
and thieves.

Cite evidence they are less honest than Republicans.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

chrisv wrote:
nospam wrote:

Ken Springer wrote:

If Senator Sanders has his way, he's publicly stated he will raise your
taxes. How is that for keeping more of the money you earn?

you're ignoring that his way will eliminate health premiums, copays,
etc., which is larger than the additional tax.

That's what he CLAIMS would happen, anyway.


We are talking about what he wants. His plans.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks
and ignore the message time and time again.

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:34:09 +0100 (CET), Dementia-Remailer
wrote:

In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

Did you know you could vote for Biden using your iPhone?

Did you know that you've proven yourself stupid with that question?

In article
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:34:09 +0100 (CET), Dementia-Remailer
wrote:

In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

Did you know you could vote for Biden using your iPhone?

Did you know that you've proven yourself stupid with that question?

+1

On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.



--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ni�emu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Svi smo svedoci - oko 3 godine intenzivne propagande je dovoljno da jedan narod poludi -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

On 3/5/20 10:19 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.




Thankfully nobody in the US is pushing Socialism (at least nobody known
nationally or with any power or influence).

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM�): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM�): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. Also sometimes referred to as the "Nordic Model", or
something akin to it. With this system the middle class does better,
poverty decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is
defined by the respect for human rights and the environment.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article
wrote:

On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 01:34:09 +0100 (CET), Dementia-Remailer
wrote:

In article .at
"Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
wrote:


You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

Did you know you could vote for Biden using your iPhone?

Did you know that you've proven yourself stupid with that question?

Look who's asking!

In article
Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.

Democrats practice socialism every day. They can't even run a
simple election in a clodhopper state.

In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/5/20 10:19 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.




Thankfully nobody in the US is pushing Socialism (at least nobody known
nationally or with any power or influence).

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM�): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM�): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. Also sometimes referred to as the "Nordic Model", or
something akin to it. With this system the middle class does better,
poverty decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is
defined by the respect for human rights and the environment.

So you're saying Democrat incompetence and corruption is
intentional?

Anonymous Remailer (austria) wrote:

In article
Snit wrote:

On 3/5/20 10:19 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2020-03-05, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

Actually, for effort and above average performance you will be punished,
as socialism encurages mediocricy.




Thankfully nobody in the US is pushing Socialism (at least nobody known
nationally or with any power or influence).

REAL SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
little if any private property. This system allows for little personal
freedom and is closely aligned with Authoritarianism (rule by authority).

PLUTOCRACY (CORPORATE “SOCIALISM�): The government works largely for the
benefit of wealthy corporations and the rich. Most major industries are
privately owned (Capitalism), but their costs and risks are heavily
subsidized through lower taxes, direct government subsidies, leniency by
the justice system, and more. With Corporate Socialism the wealthy
become even wealthier at the expense of the lower classes, and the tie
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
defined by the open or de facto rule by the wealthy.

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY (DEMOCRATIC “SOCIALISM�): This government works largely
for the citizens as a whole, investing in infrastructure and the people.
Most major industries are privately owned (Capitalism), but they get few
government handouts and are generally held accountable for their own
risks and costs. Also sometimes referred to as the "Nordic Model", or
something akin to it. With this system the middle class does better,
poverty decreases, and the environment suffers less harm. This system is
defined by the respect for human rights and the environment.

So you're saying Democrat incompetence and corruption is
intentional?



Just like Republican incompetence, hypocrisy, and corruption.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

"Ken Springer" wrote

| Back to Bernie for a moment, now he's been saying that whoever gets a
| plurality of delegates should win. So, let's say he gets 40% of the
| delegates. Why should he win when 60% of the party does not want him.
| The *majority* does not want him. That's why you need a majority, so
| most of the people, at least in theory, have a candidate they can/will
| support.
|
| Was the majority arrived at honestly? Dunno, but that's a separate
| question.
|

If 40% is the highest then that's the closest to a majority.
I have no problem with multiple votes, but a superdelegate
is just a trump card. It's not a majority. If Biden gets the most
then I have no problem with him being the nominee. But if
Bloomberg is buying him trump cards behind the scenes
because Bernie won the most votes, that's undemocratic.

| The question is, what is a fair rate of return?

Yes. That's a good question. It gets to the heart of peoples'
moral beliefs. On one end are the people who don't believe
profit is fair. On the other end are people who believe that
their employees wouldn't have a job if not for them. They see
themselves as protecting children from ruin. So they figure they
deserve all the profits. And there's some truth in both views.

| In northern CO, there used to be a Kodak plant that was non-union. The
| unions tried over and over again to get the workers to unionize. Nope,
| never happened. Why? Kodak was paying them less than union wages.
| But, since no union dues and such were taken out of the workers
| paychecks, they had more money in the end.
|
I also have mixed feelings about unions. I've been in unions.
I was once connected with the Teamsters briefly when I had
a warehouse job as a young man. It was ugly. Thugs on both
sides. The union reps were usually corrupt. The job paid unusually
well, but the payrate was tied to a constantly increasing
production quota that required us to jog around the warehouse
to fill orders. And through it all, the relationship between
management and workforce was damaged. Then again, without
the union it probably would have been worse.

| FWIW, I've never understood management that never seems to realize that
| paying employees well means, in the long run, the employees will have
| extra money to buy the products being made.
|
I think that's a matter of personality. Some people
value getting a good mechanic, dentist, or contractor.
Others believe they get the best deal by being tough
and will call a different person each time, then try to
exploit them. Those are the people with the bumper
stickers that read, "He who dies with the most toys wins".

| Monopolies are rampant. Companies
| are stashing profits offshore.
|
| Ask yourself, why do people and companies stash money offsore?
|
Greed. It's not for Timmy Cook to tell us what a
fair tax rate is, especially when he's sitting on
something like $100B, gouging his customers, and
making iPhones with virtual slave labor in Asia.

| Microsoft is telling you that you don't
| have a right to control your own computer.
|
| They own the OS. If you don't like it, write your own. You write your
| own software, do you let your customers do what ever the want with it?
|
Of course! I don't think it's ethical to have my software
call home. It's certainly not ethical to alter it remotely.
Someone paid for a copy of my software. I don't own that.
Microsoft doesn't own what's on your computer.

I own the copyright on the code. My customer has no right
to reproduce it. But they have every right to do as they like
with that copy, including reselling it. And fair use doctrine
law was established in a 1909 case between Macy's
dept store and publishers, if I remember correctly. Which
means Microsoft are actually breaking the law to claim you
can't move or sell your copy of Windows.

These are not only my claims. Bill Gates himself put a lot
of effort into defining software as intellectual property
that's licensed. There's a limit to that license. But he wants
to have it both ways. And he's got enough lawyers and
congressmen to get what he wants.

Whether MS have a right to control or alter it should
not even be a serious question. But it's increasingly being
taken seriously. The same is happening with ebooks. It's
all part of the trend toward a rental/services model. The
basic idea has nothing to do with cloud, mobility, or saving
money on software. It's much simpler than that: Decades ago
Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by selling
software for crazy inflated prices. Lotus, IBM, Adobe.... they
all did the same. Then the golden goose stopped laying eggs.
So there's a new plan: If the next time you buy a car it's
officially licensed as a taxi, then they can be paid for every
mile you drive instead of just being paid for the car. Imagine if
you had to pay for a toothbrush or circular saw based on
how much you were likely to use it rather than based on
production costs. That's the difference with software. You
pay extra if you want to use your word processor to write
a business letter!

I was just reading the other day that publishers selling ebooks
to libraries "disappear" them after a time period. It's making
ebooks very expensive. It's also illegal. The library bought
a license for one copy. But who's going to stop them? The
publishers can just say the libraries signed their Mickey Mouse
license.

So, no, I would never dream of telling a customer what they
can do with my software. It's none of my business. What if I
sell you a hammer and stipulate that it can only be used to
build and repair houses for socialists? ...Where do we draw
the line? It's not just a rhetorical question. We now have
TVs that spy on you and car companies selling your personal
location data to marketers. They also claim you gave them
permission. It's nuts that anyone even considers that this
could be reasonable.

| * If this atmosphere had reigned in the first half of the
| century, you would have no social security, no medicare,
| and there would be no such thing as libraries. Social security
| was once considered socialist.* FDR had to compromise to
| get it through, going along with an idea that people would
| have to pay into it in order to collect.
|
| I don't have any problem with paying into it to collect. Otherwise, too
| many people would sit on their ass and do nothing to help support the
| system.
|
But it is partially socialistic. We all pay in. Some never
get their benefits. Others live to 100 and get far more
than they paid in. And there's no choice but to take part.
If we didn't have SS and Bernie suggested it then people
would be up in arms.

| Nothing I can do about the corona virus, but I
| sure as H*** don't have to vote for a candidate that is harmful to my
| retirement resources.
|
I look forward to the markets crashing. Corporate
amorality is being fueled by the pressure from people
with IRAs and 401Ks who want the profits to keep coming
without getting their hands dirty.

| That's not the current problem. The problem is that
| people are being micro-targetted with propaganda.
|
| Hell, they always have been. Go look at newspapers from 150 years ago.
|

That's not at all the same thing. Microtargetting is a whole
new approach. Propaganda has always existed, but the research
and specific targetting are new. Again, watch the movie Brexit.
It details the process. People on Facebook each getting different
ads aimed at their own personal views. Propaganda 150 years ago
was in the public square.

Even the idea of marketing is fairly new. There's a difference
between advertising and marketing. Advertising is when a
hardware store tries to sell 100 bicycles by putting a sale ad
in the paper. Marketing is when they still have 10 left, the
market is saturated, and they come up with an angle to sell the
last 10 to babies and paraplegics. Targetted marketing is why
data has become so valuable. It's why your TV and car are
spying on you. It's why Microsoft is spying on you.

| Basically, everyone votes for what they believe is in their best interest.
|

I don't. I vote for what I think is in our best interest.
That's citizenship.


| | "Unthinking peasantry", the type of comment that ****ed that
particular
| | group that got Trump elected.
|
| Maybe. You think it's not true?
|
| I think it's an insulting comment. Do you think people who insult
| others have much of a chance of changing the other person's minde?
|

I'm not trying to change his mind. I'm just talking facts.
I'm pointing out that he's basically an unthinking peasant.
As with most people, his views are shaped by the crowd.
You think that's mean, yet you don't think it's mean that
the same man proably can't afford a doctor's visit and
almost certainly can't afford prescriptions.

| Was the man
| from Tennessee who shot up the pizza parlor to
| save child prostitutes a college grad who had
| "weighed both sides?"
|
| I don't know. I don't know anything about him, his life, or anything to
| be able to make an "informed" decision as to the why he did it.
|

We know he drove from Tennessee to shoot up a
pizza shop because he heard from radio or social media
people that Hillary was running a child prostitution ring
out of the cellar. I think it's safe to say he's not a person
who thinks things through.

| You can say I'm elitist for
| labeling it, but it's true. Especially in the US. That's
| what's so scary for other countries. We're basically
| a hayseed society compared to European cultures.
| And we also have the biggest guns.
|
| I think we are too "conservative" based on various religious beliefs.
| But, let's not forget, that those European cultures fought 4 Crusades.
| And those European cultures did little to stem Hitler.
|

Touche. They all have their blind spots and nationalism.