Venezuela Is on the Verge of a Massive Humanitarian and Economic Collapse. the Culprit? Socialism.

[Rudy Canoza]

The recent and bizarre alleged assassination attempt on Venezuelan
President Nicolas Maduro, complete with exploding armed drones, remains
mostly a mystery. Regardless of who perpetrated it or why, however, the
controversy is already allegedly being used by the regime to persecute
political enemies and distract from the serious economic crisis besieging
that country.

Despite constant condemnation from outside observers, the situation in
Venezuela continues to worsen. A top U.N. official recently warned that the
country is on the verge of turning into “an absolute disaster in
unprecedented proportions for the Western Hemisphere.”

What was once Latin America’s richest nation, is now sending hordes of
refugees into neighboring countries. Since 2016, nearly two million people
have fled the country. Those unfortunate enough to stay are facing
life-threatening shortages of food and medicine, one of the highest murder
rates in the world and an annual inflation rate that now sits above 40,000
percent.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/venezuela-verge-massive-humanitarian-economic-collapse-culprit-socialism?fbclid=IwAR0ThXTBDuZGYFNwYCR635CSYB2Ds-amJ7sKlqagBH_8oDfhaESEZAHLL7o


The headline is, of course, belaboring the obvious. It is beyond dispute
that socialism is what has led to the collapse of the country.

Watch: that ex-ACORN liar "jim" will pop up and go into denial mode. This
is kind of a hot-button issue for him.

[%]

shut your face nose digger

[Ted]

Thanks for sharing these here, Rudy, they're interesting.

[ed...@post.com]

Socialism is not the culprit. It's that big, fat, mustachioed dictator that's the culprit, and that other porker Hugo Chavez before him. If even fat Tubby, who's fond of grotesque dictators, can't stand Maduro, then that alone should tell you where the real problem lies. Fuck, you're stupid.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:54:50 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

Yes and the Democrats or some of them want it here in the USA. Look
at Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Warren.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 2/19/2019 1:35 PM, ed...@post.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 3:54:50 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> The recent and bizarre alleged assassination attempt on Venezuelan
>> President Nicolas Maduro, complete with exploding armed drones, remains
>> mostly a mystery. Regardless of who perpetrated it or why, however, the
>> controversy is already allegedly being used by the regime to persecute
>> political enemies and distract from the serious economic crisis besieging
>> that country.
>>
>> Despite constant condemnation from outside observers, the situation in
>> Venezuela continues to worsen. A top U.N. official recently warned that the
>> country is on the verge of turning into “an absolute disaster in
>> unprecedented proportions for the Western Hemisphere.”
>>
>> What was once Latin America’s richest nation, is now sending hordes of
>> refugees into neighboring countries. Since 2016, nearly two million people
>> have fled the country. Those unfortunate enough to stay are facing
>> life-threatening shortages of food and medicine, one of the highest murder
>> rates in the world and an annual inflation rate that now sits above 40,000
>> percent.
>>
>> https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/venezuela-verge-massive-humanitarian-economic-collapse-culprit-socialism?fbclid=IwAR0ThXTBDuZGYFNwYCR635CSYB2Ds-amJ7sKlqagBH_8oDfhaESEZAHLL7o
>>
>>
>> The headline is, of course, belaboring the obvious. It is beyond dispute
>> that socialism is what has led to the collapse of the country.
>>
>> Watch: that ex-ACORN liar "jim" will pop up and go into denial mode. This
>> is kind of a hot-button issue for him.
>
>
> Socialism is not the culprit.

Socialism is, of course, the culprit.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:41:11 -0800, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:

On this we agree.

[Snit]

You name names but do not support your attacks. And here is the thing:
you cannot. You are merely lashing out... you know Republicans cannot
compete in a field of ideas.

--
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.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[Siri Cruise]

No need: Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Warren do that for him.

--
Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of
his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great
Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the
rest of us What It All Means.

Well...no. Just no.

[ed...@post.com]

Then it must explain why Denmark is the happiest country in the world, followed by all those other Socialist countries in the Top 10 - because it's the culprit. Fuck, you're stupid.

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel-and-adventure/visit-top-10-happiest-countries-world-2016

It's not the Socialism, it's the dictator, fuckhead.

[Mattb]

Shove it Snit when I do, you will just talk about how emotional I am
or some such bullshit. You have a Modus operandi and it is old now.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:14:38 -0800, Siri Cruise <chink...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

True.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 14:28:11 -0800 (PST), "ed...@post.com"

Denmark is not purely Socialist but a mix it has high taxes but not
that bad really. Denmark has a tax rate of about 22%. Norway get
much of it's income from oil.

Do try again.

Miss Cow Fart brand of socialism is exactly the problem in Venezuela.

[Sam Weaver]

On 2/19/2019 2:35 PM, Mattb wrote:
> Despite constant condemnation from outside observers, the situation in
> Venezuela continues to worsen. A top U.N. official recently warned that the
> country is on the verge of turning into “an absolute disaster in
> unprecedented proportions for the Western Hemisphere.”
>
> What was once Latin America’s richest nation, is now sending hordes of
> refugees into neighboring countries. Since 2016, nearly two million people
> have fled the country.

How is that different from Mexico or most Central American shit hole
countries?

--
"Success is not measured by what a man accomplishes, but by the
opposition he has encountered and the courage with which he has
maintained the struggle against overwhelming odds."
Charles Lindbergh

[Snit]

Would love to see evidence of this. Or do you just mean you have an
unsupported opinion that this is true?

[Snit]

Notice how emotional MattB is in his response. He does not even pretend
to have support for his claims about Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and
Warren.

Fair enough: he has an unsupported belief. He is welcome to it.

> Shove it Snit when I do, you will just talk about how emotional I am
> or some such bullshit. You have a Modus operandi and it is old now.
>

[Mattb]

All you have to do is read the news other than CNN. Yes I know I am
emotional will be your next BS.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:52:52 -0700, Sam Weaver
<Samuel...@komkast.net> wrote:

>On 2/19/2019 2:35 PM, Mattb wrote:
>> Despite constant condemnation from outside observers, the situation in
>> Venezuela continues to worsen. A top U.N. official recently warned that the
>> country is on the verge of turning into “an absolute disaster in
>> unprecedented proportions for the Western Hemisphere.”
>>
>> What was once Latin America’s richest nation, is now sending hordes of
>> refugees into neighboring countries. Since 2016, nearly two million people
>> have fled the country.
>
>How is that different from Mexico or most Central American shit hole
>countries?

Well there is this "annual inflation rate that now sits above 40,000
percent."

[Siri Cruise]

Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders both are self-avowed "democratic socialists".
Warren advocates all the same socialist policies they do. They're
socialists. Socialism is bad and wrong.

[Snit]

A simple now would have done.

> All you have to do is read the news other than CNN.

Can you explain your obsession with CNN? I personally am no fan of them
(if I needed any reminder of that it was brought to the fore today with
their insane crap they posted).

> Yes I know I am
> emotional will be your next BS.

You offer no support. You have an emotional tie to them being as you
claim but cannot show. You seem to take this -- which you repeatedly
show -- as an offense. I find that odd. If you want to present things
you can support them do so. If not do not. I am not attacking you for
your lack of doing so.

[Siri Cruise]

Notice how you immediately make personal attacks.

Now here comes the shit hemorrhage of Snot Michael Glasser responding to
his own posts.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:01:17 -0700, Snit

I was waiting for that "emotional MattB". Snit is so predictable.

>
>Fair enough: he has an unsupported belief. He is welcome to it.

Just stop watching and reading only CNN as CNN is pure bullshit most
the time.

>
>> Shove it Snit when I do, you will just talk about how emotional I am
>> or some such bullshit. You have a Modus operandi and it is old now.
>>

See I was right in the above. "Shove it Snit when I do, you will just

talk about how emotional I am or some such bullshit. You have a Modus

operandi and it is old now" so nice when you prove me right.

Be well

[F. Georg McDuffee]

On 2/19/2019 3:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Yes I know I am
>> emotional will be your next BS.
>
> You offer no support.

You offer nothing but personal attacks and sophomoric snark.

[Snit]

Correct.

> Warren advocates all the same socialist policies they do.  They're
> socialists.  Socialism is bad and wrong.

Ah, you are getting confused by the terms. Fair enough. Here, this might
help you:

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).

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 split
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
closely aligned with Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).

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. With this system the middle class does better, poverty decreases,
and the environment suffers less harm. This system is closely aligned
with Democracy (rule of the people).

The Republicans (and some Democrats) are Corporate Socialists. Do you
back them?

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 16:07:15 -0700, Snit

Be well you flake. You just think you will get more freebies as your
kind always do.

[Snit]

Personal attacks to try to feel better about yourself. Got it.

[Snit]

On 2/19/19 4:08 PM, F. Georg McDuffee wrote:
> On 2/19/2019 3:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> Yes I know I am
>>> emotional will be your next BS.
>>
>> You offer no support.
>
> You offer nothing but personal attacks and sophomoric snark.

A claim you will not back. Fair enough.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:07:22 -0800, Siri Cruise <chink...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Thank you and you are so right. I have to go do some work now get to
leave laughing at Snit.

[Snit]

It is predictable I will note your behavior. Sure. I would prefer for
you to be shocking and focus on trying to back your claims.

In this case you made claims about Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and
Warren and Venezuela. When asked if you could back them you showed you
could not.

Can you now?

>> Fair enough: he has an unsupported belief. He is welcome to it.
>
> Just stop watching and reading only CNN as CNN is pure bullshit most
> the time.

This is you making up claims about me. Interesting how you feel the need
to do so. It shows a pretty deep level of insecurity on your part.

>>> Shove it Snit when I do, you will just talk about how emotional I am
>>> or some such bullshit. You have a Modus operandi and it is old now.
>>>
>
> See I was right in the above. "Shove it Snit when I do, you will just
> talk about how emotional I am or some such bullshit. You have a Modus
> operandi and it is old now" so nice when you prove me right.
>
> Be well

Seems you do not want me to note your emotional reactions. I would also
prefer for you to focus on reason and evidence and logic and not just
your emotions. We share a goal even if we might have it for different
reasons. Cool!

So back to Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Warren... anything to back
your views?

[Snit]

On 2/19/19 4:06 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:

Siri responded with the idea that noting someone has emotions is an
insult. How odd.

[Snit]

It is interesting to watch as people get upset about their trolling
being bypassed.

Anyway, you made claims about Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Warren.
When asked you spoke of CNN. OK, if you think they have evidence to back
your claims point to it and offer quotes. Or use other sources (I know I
am no fan of CNN and do not bring them up as you do).

[Siri Cruise]

No, no confusion at all.

>
> SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is little if
> any private property.

What all three advocate.

[Siri Cruise]

Your stock in trade, along with sophomoric snark. Cool. Got it. OK.

[F. Georg McDuffee]

On 2/19/2019 3:10 PM, Snit wrote:

> On 2/19/19 4:08 PM, F. Georg McDuffee wrote:
>> On 2/19/2019 3:07 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> Yes I know I am
>>>> emotional will be your next BS.
>>>
>>> You offer no support.
>>
>> You offer nothing but personal attacks and sophomoric snark.
>
> A claim you will not back. Fair enough.

You just did!

[F. Georg McDuffee]

No. You write false sophomoric snark about his behavior. In fact, it
describes your own.

>
>>> Fair enough: he has an unsupported belief. He is welcome to it.
>>
>> Just stop watching and reading only CNN as CNN is pure bullshit most
>> the time.
>
> This is you making up claims about me. Interesting how you feel the need to
> do so. It shows a pretty deep level of insecurity on your part.
>
>>>> Shove it Snit when I do, you will just talk about how emotional I am
>>>> or some such bullshit.  You have a Modus operandi and it is old now.
>>>>
>>
>> See I was right in the above.  "Shove it Snit when I do, you will just
>> talk about how emotional I am or some such bullshit.  You have a Modus
>> operandi and it is old now" so nice when you prove me right.
>>
>> Be well
>
> Seems you do not want me to note your emotional reactions.

Seems as though you are lying every time you write about someone's
"emotional reactions". That's just more of your sophomoric snark.

[F. Georg McDuffee]

You aren't "noting" it. You're claiming it, without any evidence. It's
part of your snarky sophomoric style.

[F. Georg McDuffee]

You are describing yourself. You're the one who trolls and then gets
hyper-emotional when people don't fall for it.

[Snit]

Below you demonstrate otherwise.

>> SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is
>> little if any private property.
>
> What all three advocate.

Incorrect. They support:

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. With this system the middle class does better, poverty decreases,
and the environment suffers less harm. This system is closely aligned
with Democracy (rule of the people).

Meanwhile Republicans support:

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 split
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
closely aligned with Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).

So which form of socialism do you prefer?

[Siri Cruise]

No.

>
>>> SOCIALISM: The government owns most major industries and there is little
>>> if any private property.
>>
>> What all three advocate.
>
> Incorrect.

No, I am correct.

[Siri Cruise]

What "democratic socialists" support:

* confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing

* the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the efforts
of others

* meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling makes the
deadbeats *worse off*

* saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce employment
and raise prices, for no social benefit at all

* abrogation of property rights

* intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the name of a
fictional "common good"

* fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment among some
minority groups

[BeamMeUpScotty]

The government is always making bad investments.

They really have no power to invest anyone's money but their own. The
things they can spend tax money on are listed in the Constitution and
EDUCATION isn't one of them.

--

That's Karma

["""We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."""]

[Snit]

On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> What "democratic socialists" support:
>
> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>   undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
>   etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing

You are working to twist investing into the future of the country as a
bad thing. Interesting: this shows you cannot actual refute what they
believe.

Keep in mind those things you attack are common in much of the world.

> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the efforts
>   of others

Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy, but
YES, anyone who is alive and cannot take care of themselves should be
helped. I have NO issue with that.

> * meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
>   ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling makes the
>   deadbeats *worse off*

No longer subsidizing the rich. Not helping the "deadbeats". I am all
for that. Make the wealthy earn their money like others do.

> * saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce employment
>   and raise prices, for no social benefit at all

Such as? Do you mean working to protect human rights and the environment?

> * abrogation of property rights

A direct lie on your part.

> * intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the name of a
>   fictional "common good"

You think doing things which are good for the country, such as having a
stronger tie between productivity and financial gain, is a fiction. Fair
enough... we are not likely to see eye to eye.

> * fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment among some
>   minority groups

Not something I back.

[Snit]

“Socialism” 101

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).

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 split
between productivity and financial gain is weakened. This system is
closely aligned with Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy).

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. With this system the middle class does better, poverty decreases,
and the environment suffers less harm. This system is closely aligned
with Democracy (rule of the people).

I back Democratic Socialism. The right backs Corporate Socialism.

Let the reader decided which is the better choice.

[Snit]

Siri snipped in humiliation. So be it.

I prefer to focus on the claims in question... those about
Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Warren. But Siri cannot back that.
Fair enough. Explains his attacks.

[Snit]

We have a department of education and no court is suggesting that is not
legal.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:33:29 -0800, Siri Cruise <chink...@yahoo.com>

That is all Snit has.

[Siri Cruise]

On 2/19/2019 4:57 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> What "democratic socialists" support:
>>
>> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>>    undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
>>    etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing
>
> You are working to twist investing into the future

Spending on current consumption for deadbeats is not in any way "investing"
into the future.

>
>> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the efforts
>>    of others
>
> Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy

No such view. The left-wing view, which you don't deny, that deadbeats
have a "right" to live off the efforts of others is wrong and bad.

>
>> * meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
>>    ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling makes the
>>    deadbeats *worse off*
>
> No longer subsidizing the rich

There is no "subsidizing the rich". That's just proggie catechism.

>> * saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce employment
>>    and raise prices, for no social benefit at all
>
> Such as? Do you mean working to protect human rights and the environment?

No. That's not what any part of the proggie regulatory burden does.

>> * abrogation of property rights
>
> A direct lie on your part.

No.

>
>> * intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the name of a
>>    fictional "common good"
>
> You think doing things which are good for the country

"The country" is not a welfare-bearing entity; neither is "society". Only
individual persons are.

>
>> * fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment among some
>>    minority groups
> Not something I back.

Probably a lie.

[Siri Cruise]

No.

[Ron Hamilton]

Snot Michael Glasser, hyper-emotional narcissistic attention whore,
responded to his own post with snarky sophomoric bullshit again.

[Snit]

Siri was bothered by these ideas enough he felt the need to snip. Fair
enough. Not gonna put down his fear.

[Mattb]

Isn't that the truth.

[Ron Hamilton]

Snot Michael Glasser, hyper-emotional narcissistic attention whore,
responded to his own post with snarky sophomoric bullshit again.

[Snit]

On 2/19/19 6:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> On 2/19/2019 4:57 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> What "democratic socialists" support:
>>>
>>> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>>>    undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
>>>    etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing
>>
>> You are working to twist investing into the future
>
> Spending on current consumption for deadbeats is not in any way
> "investing" into the future.

Please quote whom you are speaking of who talks about "deadbeats".

>>> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the
>>> efforts
>>>    of others
>>
>> Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy
>
> No such view.

And yet we see it even in this group often.

> The left-wing view, which you don't deny, that deadbeats
> have a "right" to live off the efforts of others is wrong and bad.

Again, what "deadbeats" comment do you mean?

Remember: the liberal view includes having a stronger tie between
productivity and financial gain. How does that fit with your view of
"deadbeats"?

>>> * meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
>>>    ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling makes the
>>>    deadbeats *worse off*
>>
>> No longer subsidizing the rich
>
> There is no "subsidizing the rich".  That's just proggie catechism.

See: you deny basic facts. This is not something you will see me
joining you on.

>>> * saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce employment
>>>    and raise prices, for no social benefit at all
>>
>> Such as? Do you mean working to protect human rights and the environment?
>
> No.  That's not what any part of the proggie regulatory burden does.

You have no examples. Fair enough.

>>> * abrogation of property rights
>>
>> A direct lie on your part.
>
> No.

A claim you cannot back. Sure. I am OK with you having unsupported claims.

>
>
>>
>>> * intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the name
>>> of a
>>>    fictional "common good"
>>
>> You think doing things which are good for the country

Your Usenet client snipped past this in the sentence.

>>
>>> * fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment among
>>> some
>>>    minority groups
>> Not something I back.
>
> Probably a lie.
>

You assume others are as honest as you are. Got it.

[Snit]

Who in here do you think posts more peer reviewed articles and other
reputable sources as evidence than I do?

[Snit]

See: you have gone into meta-debate mode. Keep in mind why... you cannot
back the claims about Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and Warren.

You are making my point for me. Thank you.

[Siri Cruise]

On 2/19/2019 5:39 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 2/19/19 6:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> On 2/19/2019 4:57 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> What "democratic socialists" support:
>>>>
>>>> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>>>>    undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
>>>>    etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing
>>>
>>> You are working to twist investing into the future
>>
>> Spending on current consumption for deadbeats is not in any way
>> "investing" into the future.
>
> Please quote whom you are speaking of who talks about "deadbeats".

I said it.

Now you're doing what RatchetJaw said you do:

Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
Snit: Define red.
Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
Person: Ok, red like blood.
Snit: Blood isn't really red.
Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
Snit: What kind of rose?
Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose.
Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
Person: Because you are an idiot.
Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You
don't listen.
Snit: Define something.
Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
Snit: Why are you attacking me.
Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
Snit: You ran away. I won.
Person: dead silence.

And this is how snit keeps his circus alive.

He's right about you, and that's what you just did above. Or...tried to do,
but it doesn't work with me.

>
>>>> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the efforts
>>>>    of others
>>>
>>> Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy
>>
>> No such view.
>
> And yet we see it even in this group often.

No, we don't, because there is no such view.

>> The left-wing view, which you don't deny, that deadbeats have a "right"
>> to live off the efforts of others is wrong and bad.
>
> Again, what "deadbeats" comment do you mean?

My own.

> Remember: the liberal view includes having a stronger tie between
> productivity and financial gain.

No, that is the libertarian view. It is the opposite of the proggie view,
which you are mislabeling as the "liberal" view.

>
>>>> * meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
>>>>    ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling makes the
>>>>    deadbeats *worse off*
>>>
>>> No longer subsidizing the rich
>>
>> There is no "subsidizing the rich".  That's just proggie catechism.
>
> See: you deny basic facts.

No. What you said is not a fact.

>
>>>> * saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce employment
>>>>    and raise prices, for no social benefit at all
>>>
>>> Such as? Do you mean working to protect human rights and the environment?
>>
>> No.  That's not what any part of the proggie regulatory burden does.
>
> You have no examples. Fair enough.

You have only your empty sophomoric snark. Got it. Fair enough. Cool. OK.

>>>> * abrogation of property rights
>>>
>>> A direct lie on your part.
>>
>> No.
>
> A claim you cannot back.

Done.

>>
>>>
>>>> * intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the name of a
>>>>    fictional "common good"
>>>
>>> You think doing things which are good for the country
>>

> > "The country" is not a welfare-bearing entity; neither is "society".
Only individual persons are.
>

> I snipped what you wrote.

Yes, but I put it back.

>
>>>
>>>> * fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment among some
>>>>    minority groups
>>> Not something I back.
>>
>> Probably a lie.
>>
> You assume others are as honest as you are.

I know you are not honest. Fair enough. Cool. Got it. OK.

[Ron Hamilton]

You don't post any.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:40:10 -0700, Snit

Almost everyone?

[Ron Hamilton]

See: that's just more of what RatchetJaw said about you:

Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
Snit: Define red.
Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
Person: Ok, red like blood.
Snit: Blood isn't really red.
Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
Snit: What kind of rose?
Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose.
Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
Person: Because you are an idiot.
Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You
don't listen.
Snit: Define something.
Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
Snit: Why are you attacking me.
Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
Snit: You ran away. I won.
Person: dead silence.

And this is how snit keeps his circus alive.

He's right about you, and that's what you just did above. Or...tried to do,
but it doesn't work with me.

[Snit]

By all means back it. But you will not. Seriously, do you ever back
ANYTHING you claim? Look at how many times TODAY you have run from
requests to back your nonsense?

Klaus:
-----
Your gender is defined at birth.
-----
Gender = sex. No matter how leftists try and spin it
-----

And it is 100% predicable you will not back it now.

Warning: I have been giving your trolling a LOT of attention... but if
all you are going to do is go in circles you will get a lot less
attention from me. The worst thing someone who trolls as you do can do
is to be boring. Clearly you tried to improve your trolling -- hence the
greater attention you have been getting, but if you are just going to
run and throw tantrums that will not earn you as much attention as you
are begging for.

[Snit]

These are two sets of links I have posted repeatedly:

https://www.icloud.com/pages/0XiBH5dWXdOBFSedm4D6Lw8mQ

https://www.icloud.com/pages/0OxJ9LmqU3lZI9p0TBEFkbkBQ#Racial_Discrimination

Both of those show research I have brought to the table. Please show
someone who has brought more.

[Snit]

On 2/19/19 6:48 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> On 2/19/2019 5:39 PM, Snit wrote:
>> On 2/19/19 6:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> On 2/19/2019 4:57 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>> What "democratic socialists" support:
>>>>>
>>>>> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>>>>>    undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university
>>>>> education,
>>>>>    etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing
>>>>
>>>> You are working to twist investing into the future
>>>
>>> Spending on current consumption for deadbeats is not in any way
>>> "investing" into the future.
>>
>> Please quote whom you are speaking of who talks about "deadbeats".
>
> I said it.

OK, so not the people you say back them. Fair enough... you made that up.

> Now you're doing what RatchetJaw said you do:
>
>    Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
>    Snit: Define red.
>    Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
>    Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
>    Person: Ok, red like blood.
>    Snit: Blood isn't really red.
>    Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
>    Snit: What kind of rose?
>    Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose.
>    Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
>    Person: Because you are an idiot.
>    Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
>    Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You
>            don't listen.
>    Snit: Define something.
>    Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
>    Snit: Why are you attacking me.
>    Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
>    Snit: You ran away. I won.
>    Person: dead silence.
>
>    And this is how snit keeps his circus alive.
>
> He's right about you, and that's what you just did above. Or...tried to
> do, but it doesn't work with me.

Notice you need to use fiction to attack me, not reality. Sure, people
can make up stories about me. I do not deny that.

>>>>> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the
>>>>> efforts
>>>>>    of others
>>>>
>>>> Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy
>>>
>>> No such view.
>>
>> And yet we see it even in this group often.
>
> No, we don't, because there is no such view.

Yet I point it out often. Again, denial of that is of no value.

>>> The left-wing view, which you don't deny, that deadbeats have a
>>> "right" to live off the efforts of others is wrong and bad.
>>
>> Again, what "deadbeats" comment do you mean?
>
> My own.

If you support deadbeats that is on you. If you are conservative it is
not even uncommon for you to do so. Fair enough.

>> Remember: the liberal view includes having a stronger tie between
>> productivity and financial gain.
>
> No, that is the libertarian view.  It is the opposite of the proggie
> view, which you are mislabeling as the "liberal" view.

Keep in mind the main differences between liberal and conservative world
views:

* Liberals: support equal rights and environmental protection, with a
focus on investing in the future and building a stronger tie between
hard work / productivity and financial reward.

Additionally, Liberals want evidence-based regulation and oversight to
help ensure clean air and water, safe food, and human rights. This
includes following the scientific evidence about climate change and food
safety, and things like setting levels of lead and other harmful
substances allowed, and even to wanting to do research to reduce the
harm of tools such as cars and guns and swimming pools. This is a form
of control, and conservatives are right to note that. And they are right
to note that sometimes these measures are taken too far.

* Conservative: support special entitlements for whites, Christians,
males, heterosexuals, and the wealthy, with a focus on redistributing
wealth to the very richest in the nation with the idea that this will
somehow help others.

Conservatives want regulation and oversight based on their own feelings
and what they believe has historically existed (which is often
incorrect), or even just based on their own religion. This includes
controlling which consenting adults can marry each other, what a woman
can do with her own body, and even insisting the government gets to
define YOUR gender. They also work to create regulations on voting to
limit who can vote, for if the people truly get a voice they know their
ideas are less likely to be accepted. Liberals are right to call
conservatives out on this also being a form of control and, I think, a
less defensible one.

>>
>>>>> * meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
>>>>>    ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling
>>>>> makes the
>>>>>    deadbeats *worse off*
>>>>
>>>> No longer subsidizing the rich
>>>
>>> There is no "subsidizing the rich".  That's just proggie catechism.
>>
>> See: you deny basic facts.
>
> No.  What you said is not a fact.

How much federal taxes are NetFlix and Amazon paying for last year?

How much labor subsidies did Walmart get?

I bet you have no idea -- or twist these things.

>>>>> * saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce
>>>>> employment
>>>>>    and raise prices, for no social benefit at all
>>>>
>>>> Such as? Do you mean working to protect human rights and the
>>>> environment?
>>>
>>> No.  That's not what any part of the proggie regulatory burden does.
>>
>> You have no examples. Fair enough.

And you ran from this.

> You have only your empty sophomoric snark.  Got it.  Fair enough.
> Cool.  OK.
>
>
>>>>> * abrogation of property rights

You offer no support. Got it.

>>>> A direct lie on your part.
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> A claim you cannot back.
>
> Done.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> * intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the
>>>>> name of a
>>>>>    fictional "common good"
>>>>
>>>> You think doing things which are good for the country
>>>
>> > "The country" is not a welfare-bearing entity; neither is "society".
> Only individual persons are.
>>
>> I snipped what you wrote.
>
> Yes, but I put it back.

And you run. Fair enough.

>>>>> * fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment
>>>>> among some
>>>>>    minority groups
>>>> Not something I back.
>>>
>>> Probably a lie.
>>>
>> You assume others are as honest as you are.
>
> I know you are not honest.  Fair enough.  Cool.  Got it.  OK.

See: you make accusations you cannot back. In doing so you are
demonstrating dishonesty.

[Siri Cruise]

On 2/19/2019 6:38 PM, Snit wrote:
> On 2/19/19 6:48 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> On 2/19/2019 5:39 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 2/19/19 6:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> On 2/19/2019 4:57 PM, Snit wrote:
>>>>> On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>> What "democratic socialists" support:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>>>>>>    undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
>>>>>>    etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing
>>>>>
>>>>> You are working to twist investing into the future
>>>>
>>>> Spending on current consumption for deadbeats is not in any way
>>>> "investing" into the future.
>>>
>>> Please quote whom you are speaking of who talks about "deadbeats".
>>
>> I said it.
>
> OK, so not the people you say back them.

So you got it wrong.

They are deadbeats.

It is an accurate description of how you operate.

>>>>>> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the
>>>>>> efforts
>>>>>>    of others
>>>>>
>>>>> Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy
>>>>
>>>> No such view.
>>>
>>> And yet we see it even in this group often.
>>
>> No, we don't, because there is no such view.
>
> Yet I point it out often.

It's *your* claim - an empty claim with no support - yes, you state it
often. But it's wrong.

>
>>>> The left-wing view, which you don't deny, that deadbeats have a "right"
>>>> to live off the efforts of others is wrong and bad.
>>>
>>> Again, what "deadbeats" comment do you mean?
>>
>> My own.
>
> If you support deadbeats

You're doing it again:

Person: Doesn't that blade of grass over there look like it's red?
Snit: Define red.
Person: Red, you know, like a fire engine.
Snit: Fire engines where I live are yellow.
Person: Ok, red like blood.
Snit: Blood isn't really red.
Person: Sigh, ok, red like a red rose.
Snit: What kind of rose?
Person: I don't know, a fucking red rose.
Snit: Why are you getting vulgar with me?
Person: Because you are an idiot.
Snit: You attack me because you have nothing to say.
Person: I've been trying to say something to you for two days now. You
don't listen.
Snit: Define something.
Person: Are you some kind of asshole?
Snit: Why are you attacking me.
Person: I'm tired of playing your idiotic game.
Snit: You ran away. I won.
Person: dead silence.

And this is how snit keeps his circus alive.

I don't support deadbeats, and I didn't say or imply that I do. You're
just doing your circus act again, that's all.

>
>>> Remember: the liberal view includes having a stronger tie between
>>> productivity and financial gain.
>>
>> No, that is the libertarian view.  It is the opposite of the proggie
>> view, which you are mislabeling as the "liberal" view.
>
> Keep in mind the main differences between liberal and conservative world
> views:

We've seen these lies before, and they've been dismissed. We won't discuss
these lies again.

Those are only your self-flattery with respect to liberals, and your attack
on a straw man caricature regarding conservatives. Neither is accurate or
meaningful.

>
>>>
>>>>>> * meddling in markets - rent control, minimum wage, etc. - in ways
>>>>>>    ostensibly to help the deadbeats, when in fact the meddling makes the
>>>>>>    deadbeats *worse off*
>>>>>
>>>>> No longer subsidizing the rich
>>>>
>>>> There is no "subsidizing the rich".  That's just proggie catechism.
>>>
>>> See: you deny basic facts.
>>
>> No.  What you said is not a fact.

==================================================
==================================================
============= WARNING! WARNING! ===============
========== GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD! ============
================= WARNING! ====================
==================================================
==================================================

>
> How much federal taxes are NetFlix and Amazon paying for last year?

Sorry - you said subsidies to "the rich", not businesses.

> How much labor subsidies did Walmart get?

Zero. Welfare *raises* the wage that Walmart and other firms must pay. It
is a *tax* on labor imposed on firms.

>>>>>> * saddling business firms with absurd regulations that reduce employment
>>>>>>    and raise prices, for no social benefit at all
>>>>>
>>>>> Such as? Do you mean working to protect human rights and the environment?
>>>>
>>>> No.  That's not what any part of the proggie regulatory burden does.
>>>
>>> You have no examples. Fair enough.
>>

>> You have only your empty sophomoric snark.  Got it.  Fair enough. Cool.  OK.

You ran from this. Fair enough. Got it. OK.

>>
>>>>>> * abrogation of property rights
>>>>>

>>>>> A direct lie on your part.
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> A claim you cannot back.
>>
>> Done.

You ran from this.

>>>>>
>>>>>> * intrusive government sticking its snout into our lives in the name
>>>>>> of a fictional "common good"
>>>>>
>>>>> You think doing things which are good for the country
>>>>
>>> > "The country" is not a welfare-bearing entity; neither is "society".
>> Only individual persons are.
>>>
>>> I snipped what you wrote.
>>
>> Yes, but I put it back.
>
> And you run. Fair enough.

And you lie and you snark. Fair enough. Got it. Cook. OK.

>>>>>> * fomenting social discord by inculcating a sense of resentment among
>>>>>> some
>>>>>>    minority groups
>>>>> Not something I back.
>>>>
>>>> Probably a lie.
>>>>
>>> You assume others are as honest as you are.
>>
>> I know you are not honest.  Fair enough.  Cool.  Got it.  OK.
>
> See:

Yes.

[Ted]

Siri Cruise <chink...@yahoo.com> wrote:

LOL!

Perfect!!

[Siri Cruise]

On 2/20/2019 12:41 AM, Ted wrote:
> Siri Cruise <chink...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> LOL!

<grin>

It really is. People have been saying this about him for close to six
years. Here's the earliest I can find, from 2013, but it may go back farther:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.os.linux.advocacy/k3_zAqxNMj8/5RTquN-elP8J

What's funny, and also a little sad, is that Snot Michael Glasser has no
idea how many people have figured out his circus. It's weird to see
someone trying to play a game that so many people know he's playing, but he
doesn't know they know, even though they *tell* him. That starts to
suggest some kind of mental illness - willful delusion, maybe.

He suffers from a serious defect that Rupert McCallum over in a.a.e.v. also
has: Smartest Boy in the Room Syndrome. It's a special case of
Dunning-Kruger. One huge difference is that, unlike Snot Michael Glasser,
Rupert really is smart in one important area. His problem is, as is the
case with so many Ph.D.s, that he deludes himself into thinking he's
smarter than everyone else in everything. And so with Snot Michael
Glasser, except he doesn't have anything remotely comparable to Rupert's
mathematics Ph.D. He has absolutely no basis for considering himself the
Smartest Boy in the Room in *any* area.

But there's something Snot Michael Glasser has that Rupert doesn't have,
and that's guile. Rupert has plenty of bad qualities, but guile isn't
among them. Snot Michael has it by the barrel. It is not admirable. It's
also something that is immediately apparent to most observers, and is Snot
Michael Glasser's undoing, only - being stupid - he can't see it.

[Snit]

Why advertise your insecurities like that? It is odd to me.

But whatever. I prefer to talk about topics and not people.

[Siri Cruise]

And Snot Michael Glasser, true to form, comes through! LOL! You just
confirmed everything, Snot - every last word of it! "insecurities";
"emotion"; "attention"; "got it"; "cool"; "fair enough".

You confirmed *ALL* of it, Snot Michael Glasser! Too funny!

[Siri Cruise]

On 2/19/2019 10:19 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> On 2/19/2019 9:59 PM, Snit wrote:
>> Siri Cruise <chink....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2019 12:41 AM, Ted wrote:
>>>> Siri Cruise <chink...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> LOL!
>>>
>>> <grin>

See what I mean? LOL!

[Snit]

Siri responded with personal attacks.

Of course.

Not interested. Improve your trolling if you want continued high levels of
attention from me.

[Gary Roselles]

Snot Michael Glasser, hyper-emotional narcissistic attention whore,
responded to his own post with snarky sophomoric bullshit again.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 19:32:03 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>By all means back it. But you will not. Seriously, do you ever back
>ANYTHING you claim? Look at how many times TODAY you have run from
>requests to back your nonsense?

Look at how many times I've bitch-slapped you with the answer and
you've angrily pretended not to see it? LOL

[NoBody]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 18:39:04 -0700, Snit
<use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

>On 2/19/19 6:24 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> On 2/19/2019 4:57 PM, Snit wrote:
>>> On 2/19/19 5:05 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>> What "democratic socialists" support:
>>>>
>>>> * confiscating value from those who produce it in order to shower
>>>>    undeserved goodies - "free" health care, "free" university education,
>>>>    etc. - on deadbeats who produce little to nothing
>>>
>>> You are working to twist investing into the future
>>
>> Spending on current consumption for deadbeats is not in any way
>> "investing" into the future.
>
>Please quote whom you are speaking of who talks about "deadbeats".
>
>>>> * the notion that mere existence confers a "right" to live off the
>>>> efforts
>>>>    of others
>>>
>>> Better than the right wing view that we should worship the wealthy
>>
>> No such view.
>
>And yet we see it even in this group often.
>
>> The left-wing view, which you don't deny, that deadbeats
>> have a "right" to live off the efforts of others is wrong and bad.
>
>Again, what "deadbeats" comment do you mean?

Just FYI, you're being trolled by stupid, childish, Rudely. He is
best found in the bottom of a killfile as he serves no useful purpose.

[Mattb]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:19:15 -0800, Siri Cruise

That is all true only thing you forgot was "unsupported belief".

[Snit]

Does not speak well of me but I enjoy seeing you get so bothered by your
unsupported claims being called out.