Thoughts?

[vodkazvictim]

Anyways, for all those who disagree with the sentiments, it's time to reveal that the original post is in fact a quote from Einstein.

So if you disagree with that sentiment now, you're essentialy saying you're smarter than Einstein.
Think about that.

 

[mikexmoran]

Yeah... my point was a VEHEMANT attack, not a subtle one.

You are right. I am wrong.

Drinking too much coke is a bad ide...

...wait - he beat me to it.

It doesn't say coke.

 

[Red XXX]

So it was you, always outside Camden tube station :horse:

 

[vodkazvictim]

Red XXX[/URL][/B], post: 7259940, member: 55251"]So it was you, always outside Camden tube station :horse:

If this is a joke; yes I'm stalking you.
If it isn't; I don't know what is going on.

 

[bobjustbob]

Is that the best you can do capitalist fan boys? Johan is pwning you...
C'mon, refute my OP, show us why it's wrong, or ask yourself why you can't!

You never answered my questions for me to give you an answer. Those were not joke questions. How does this utopian even distribution of work and wealth fit into a track setting? Are we not allowed to take risks from what we earn to better ourselves?

 

[RavinFlamer]

I am surprised that you haven't caught more heat for this post...

Anyway, I (a liberal) agree that socialism does have some things going for it. It makes sense that the government should be able to play a part in the economy ie buy stocks and provide universal healthcare and social security. Also, capitalism has some inherent flaws (widening the wealth gap, minimizing the middle class, off shoring). However, a fully structured planned economy would be difficult to achieve due to the vast bureacracy in the United States already and the corruption that would ensue. And of course, the idea is so absurdly radical that most conservatives would attempt armed rebellion at any sort of planned economy.

Your best bet would be to a, move to Sweden or b, become a leader in a fast developing nation (ie Ghana, Congo, Laos, Cote d'Ivoire) in attempt to create a "new government". The latter is highly unlikely.

 

[vodkazvictim]

You never answered my questions for me to give you an answer. Those were not joke questions. How does this utopian even distribution of work and wealth fit into a track setting? Are we not allowed to take risks from what we earn to better ourselves?

I don't understand what you mean by track setting.
I don't remember any questions.
There should be some risk, but it should be limited and reasonable risk.

I am surprised that you haven't caught more heat for this post...

Anyway, I (a liberal) agree that socialism does have some things going for it. It makes sense that the government should be able to play a part in the economy ie buy stocks and provide universal healthcare and social security. Also, capitalism has some inherent flaws (widening the wealth gap, minimizing the middle class, off shoring). However, a fully structured planned economy would be difficult to achieve due to the vast bureacracy in the United States already and the corruption that would ensue. And of course, the idea is so absurdly radical that most conservatives would attempt armed rebellion at any sort of planned economy.

Your best bet would be to a, move to Sweden or b, become a leader in a fast developing nation (ie Ghana, Congo, Laos, Cote d'Ivoire) in attempt to create a "new government". The latter is highly unlikely.

I doubt things could be any MORE corrupt in the US if they became Socialist.
I don't think Sweden is Socialist, I think it's just more left-leaning than many countries (and look! They have a better quality of life. Coincidence? No.)