LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:59 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

Of all the foul things Donald said about Hillary did he ever tell her to go back to where she came from?

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:40 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:59 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

Of all the foul things Donald said about Hillary did he ever tell her to go back to where she came from?

...well in fairness, he is not an exorcist!

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:40 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:59 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

Of all the foul things Donald said about Hillary did he ever tell her to go back to where she came from?

...well in fairness, he is not an exorcist!

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:48 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:40 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:59 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

Of all the foul things Donald said about Hillary did he ever tell her to go back to where she came from?

...well in fairness, he is not an exorcist!

Now, that is indeed funny and deserves a hands clapping emoji.

But point taken on Trump's very real racism...but sometimes you just wonder where he gets this stuff. Is it in his Twitter feed and he likes the sound of hateful things he hears there from racist tweeters? Or is this stuff from his childhood?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:43 pm So that means by definition, that we are already a Socio-Capitalistic Democracy.

Been saying that for years. No one will listen. Least of all guys like 6ftstick who thinks that he, and he alone, gets to decide what the word Socialism means.

Nah, guys like 6ft aren’t deciding anything ‘alone’.
Not when someone else, like Fox News, can tell him what to think.

Sorry, 6ft, couldn’t resist.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:29 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:54 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:58 pm "Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%," Axios added, whereas "capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable."

Oh, this should be great.

Hey Bandito: give me two examples of capitalism in America, and two examples of socialism in America.

Not things that are proposed---examples that are in place and operational.




Should be entertaining to see what you think the words socialism and capitalism means.

entertaining to see how you've dumbed down the definitions to fit your leftist agenda.

Here you go sport. Your king has you fooled: https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-be ... ism-195448

You have been brainwashed like most.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:40 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:59 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 3:21 pm Has Trump ever told Socialist Bernie Sanders to go back where he came from?

Of all the foul things Donald said about Hillary did he ever tell her to go back to where she came from?

...well in fairness, he is not an exorcist!

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:26 am

Sorry MD this is Websters definition of Socialism not For news or fans

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism (not unlike a mental diagnosis, in order for it to BE socialism, does it have to match every single definition ? )
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (can you go to jail for failure to pay taxes? foreclosure? Govt. sure seems to control things. Round about ownership. In your face hidden. When the GOVERNMENT controls the means of production and distrubution for , say, things like the F-35, are certain economic segments socialist? Why then, does US Congress/President have to sign off on selling killing machines to our frenemies?
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property ( how many US citizens OWN their own homes/business' ? )
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state .
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done: Are you denying that we DON"T have a system like this in place? ( I can send you my copy of "the great divide" by Joseph Stiglitz)

Lets see that would be like government taking over the health insurance segment. With NO non government alternatives.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:48 pm


Now, that is indeed funny and deserves a hands clapping emoji.

But point taken on Trump's very real racism...but sometimes you just wonder where he gets this stuff. Is it in his Twitter feed and he likes the sound of hateful things he hears there from racist tweeters? Or is this stuff from his childhood?

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:28 am

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:29 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 5:54 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:58 pm "Socialism was viewed favorably by 18% of the voters and unfavorably by 69%," Axios added, whereas "capitalism was 56% favorable; 32% unfavorable."

Oh, this should be great.

Hey Bandito: give me two examples of capitalism in America, and two examples of socialism in America.

Not things that are proposed---examples that are in place and operational.




Should be entertaining to see what you think the words socialism and capitalism means.

entertaining to see how you've dumbed down the definitions to fit your leftist agenda.

Here you go sport. Your king has you fooled: https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-be ... ism-195448

You have been brainwashed like most.

Absurd revisonist history and redefinition. See Websters definition I posted.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:26 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:43 pm So that means by definition, that we are already a Socio-Capitalistic Democracy.

Been saying that for years. No one will listen. Least of all guys like 6ftstick who thinks that he, and he alone, gets to decide what the word Socialism means.

Nah, guys like 6ft aren’t deciding anything ‘alone’.
Not when someone else, like Fox News, can tell him what to think.

Sorry, 6ft, couldn’t resist.

Sorry MD this is Websters definition of Socialism not Fox news or afans

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Lets see that would be like government taking over the health insurance segment. With NO non government alternatives.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:26 am Lets see that would be like government taking over the health insurance segment. With NO non government alternatives.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:00 pm

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:26 am Lets see that would be like government taking over the health insurance segment. With NO non government alternatives.

You mean like Medicare?

Dude. How many times do I have to utterly destroy your argument for you to concede? You're simply wrong.

Btw, where in the definition you gave do you see the phrase, "no non-government alternatives". You don't get to add things on to definitions because it suits your mood.


For whatever reason, you don't seem to get that our country can operate just fine using 100% private entities. Private roads, bridges, schools, parks, hospitals, insurance companies...and on and on and on.

We chose not do to that. We're socialists in places, and capitalist in others. It's a mixed economy. I have no earthly idea why this is so difficult for you to admit....

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:19 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:26 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:43 pm So that means by definition, that we are already a Socio-Capitalistic Democracy.

Been saying that for years. No one will listen. Least of all guys like 6ftstick who thinks that he, and he alone, gets to decide what the word Socialism means.

Nah, guys like 6ft aren’t deciding anything ‘alone’.
Not when someone else, like Fox News, can tell him what to think.

Sorry, 6ft, couldn’t resist.

Sorry MD this is Websters definition of Socialism not Fox news or afans

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Lets see that would be like government taking over the health insurance segment. With NO non government alternatives.

Ohh, but that's indeed quite the point. We're already a democratic socialist system.

Government owns, administers, controls, regulates all sorts of aspects of our otherwise capitalist economy and within a democratic framework of government.

We meet definition 1, not the rest.

Healthcare is already heavily regulated, and major portions of insurance are already 'administered' by government.

If healthcare does get insured through a Medicare for all, with no private alternative allowed by law, then indeed that insurance would be 'controlled' not simply regulated (as it is now). It's a further extension of what we already do.

Now, that doesn't mean that all healthcare, all hospitals, all doctors offices, etc are 'owned' by government, but how they get paid would indeed be controlled in a more centralized way.

But sure, this could get further extended to no privately owned hospitals, doctors offices, etc.

But the point is that the US has already adopted socialism as an important part of the economic/government construct.

The questions that we wrestle with are not socialism or no socialism, but rather when and how much governmental involvement is beneficial and when and how much can be harmful.

It needn't be a rejection of capitalism, rather socialism is a modification on capitalism. At least under definition 1.

Go to no private ownership of anything, whole other matter.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:35 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:19 am

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:26 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 9:37 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:14 pm

youthathletics wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 7:43 pm So that means by definition, that we are already a Socio-Capitalistic Democracy.

Been saying that for years. No one will listen. Least of all guys like 6ftstick who thinks that he, and he alone, gets to decide what the word Socialism means.

Nah, guys like 6ft aren’t deciding anything ‘alone’.
Not when someone else, like Fox News, can tell him what to think.

Sorry, 6ft, couldn’t resist.

Sorry MD this is Websters definition of Socialism not Fox news or afans

socialism noun
so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Lets see that would be like government taking over the health insurance segment. With NO non government alternatives.

Ohh, but that's indeed quite the point. We're already a democratic socialist system.

Government owns, administers, controls, regulates all sorts of aspects of our otherwise capitalist economy and within a democratic framework of government.

We meet definition 1, not the rest.

Healthcare is already heavily regulated, and major portions of insurance are already 'administered' by government.

If healthcare does get insured through a Medicare for all, with no private alternative allowed by law, then indeed that insurance would be 'controlled' not simply regulated (as it is now). It's a further extension of what we already do.

Now, that doesn't mean that all healthcare, all hospitals, all doctors offices, etc are 'owned' by government, but how they get paid would indeed be controlled in a more centralized way.

But sure, this could get further extended to no privately owned hospitals, doctors offices, etc.

But the point is that the US has already adopted socialism as an important part of the economic/government construct.

The questions that we wrestle with are not socialism or no socialism, but rather when and how much governmental involvement is beneficial and when and how much can be harmful.

It needn't be a rejection of capitalism, rather socialism is a modification on capitalism. At least under definition 1.

Go to no private ownership of anything, whole other matter.

BS. You and afan insist on duming down the definition to fit your agenda. Socialism is where the new democrats are taking us. everything they promise as free means government controlled to the exclusion of private industry.

6ftstick wrote: ↑Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:45 pm Still not socialism. No matter how hard you try to convince is. NOT Socialism.