130d
@no1marauder saidBut do you not see? In my simple question, 2 cllicks up, Sociallism is not mentioned. Nothing is mentioned except the simple question.
I already did multiple times.
The rules of society now allow persons to own private property in land and to exploit others by charging them rent to live there. A socialist society would not.
What part of that is unclear?
Too bad you wrote MYOFB.
130d
@AverageJoe1 saidThen I have no idea what you are talking about. Your "simple question" was referring to the disposition of private property in land IF socialism was implemented as far as I know. If it isn't about that, what is it about?
But do you not see? In my simple question, 2 cllicks up, Sociallism is not mentioned. Nothing is mentioned except the simple question.
Too bad you wrote MYOFB.
130d
@AverageJoe1
I'm glad you get rattled by me since you don't debate, just add word salad you think is some kind of coherent answer.
130d
@no1marauder saidSo sorry for the really complicated confusion. I said, after referring to K being a socialist, to let us just leave Socialism out of this discussion.
Then I have no idea what you are talking about. Your "simple question" was referring to the disposition of private property in land IF socialism was implemented as far as I know. If it isn't about that, what is it about?
So that lwft me wi If I own a lot of rental properties, you are saying I will lose ownership at the behest of 'the rules of society'. Can you tell me and Suzianne and everyone in between what that means?
This is a fair question.
th this simple question, which, after I restate hereinbelow, you will not answer.
130d
@AverageJoe1 said"I said, after referring to K being a socialist, to let us just leave Socialism out of this discussion."
So sorry for the really complicated confusion. I said, after referring to K being a socialist, to let us just leave Socialism out of this discussion.
So that lwft me wi If I own a lot of rental properties, you are saying I will lose ownership at the behest of 'the rules of society'. Can you tell me and Suzianne and everyone in between what that means?
This is a fair question.
th this simple question, which, after I restate hereinbelow, you will not answer.
oh, it was a hit and run socialist calling.
started to smell like embarrassment so you wanted to flee
@Zahlanzi saidK is a socialist. What is your point? Her candidacy gives rise to a Marauder issue that puts him closer to realizing an issue he brought up, that no one can own or rent housing. BTW, the question stands, without mention of Kamala or her party.
"I said, after referring to K being a socialist, to let us just leave Socialism out of this discussion."
oh, it was a hit and run socialist calling.
started to smell like embarrassment so you wanted to flee
So, that led me to ask him what happens to the houses when (some entity) rules that no one can own them.
He did not tell us what happens to the houses. He did say something like society decides.? What in the hell? We get this far down the road and he says THAT?!
So we. are left with him saying that houses cannot be owned, but does not go one step further to explain....just leaves it hanging and says society decides.
He wimps out. Just great. Sonhouse is more interesting
130d
@AverageJoe1 saidNo, I did nor say houses couldn't be owned.
K is a socialist. What is your point? Her candidacy gives rise to a Marauder issue that puts him closer to realizing an issue he brought up, that no one can own or rent housing. BTW, the question stands, without mention of Kamala or her party.
So, that led me to ask him what happens to the houses when (some entity) rules that no one can own them.
He did not tell ...[text shortened]... s it hanging and says society decides.
He wimps out. Just great. Sonhouse is more interesting
And no, Kamala Harris isn't a socialist.
130d
@no1marauder saidHere is quote. Come back with you meant something else?
No, I did nor say houses couldn't be owned.
And no, Kamala Harris isn't a socialist.
Kamal was the most liberal of all senators in 2019, google it. Capped it all off by saying .....then, have fun googling various opinions of whether she is a socialist and be surprised!!!
Here she says we should all end up in the same place at the end of day. Does that include losers, and people who work harder than others (just a pet question,, sorry).
If she is not a socialist, what in the hell is she?
Never mind, you have used up your answer-time today, all to no avail.
130d
@AverageJoe1 saidWe've been all over this. You and the other right wing clowns are reading something absurd into a little video directed at children.
Here is quote. Come back with you meant something else?
Kamal was the most liberal of all senators in 2019, google it. Capped it all off by saying .....then, have fun googling various opinions of whether she is a socialist and be surprised!!!
Here she says we should all end up in the same place at the end of day. Does that include losers, and people who work harder ...[text shortened]... ve used up your answer-time today, all to no avail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaAXixx7OLo
When Kamala Harris says "capitalism and private property should be abolished", let me know. Until she does, she isn't a socialist.
130d
@no1marauder saidIf she implies it, will that be worth sending to you? The four things which she changed her mind on last week (Like JD changed his mind?) were leaning socialistic big time, but she is after votes from people like, ...well.....me.
We've been all over this. You and the other right wing clowns are reading something absurd into a little video directed at children.
When Kamala Harris says "capitalism and private property should be abolished", let me know. Until she does, she isn't a socialist.
When she is elected, that will be when it all re-surfaces. Don't go anywhere. Do yuou know that she still is in favor of citizens paying the debts of other citiZens. Is that socialism? Just asking, You are the expert.
130d
@AverageJoe1 said"K is a socialist"
K is a socialist. What is your point? Her candidacy gives rise to a Marauder issue that puts him closer to realizing an issue he brought up, that no one can own or rent housing. BTW, the question stands, without mention of Kamala or her party.
So, that led me to ask him what happens to the houses when (some entity) rules that no one can own them.
He did not tell ...[text shortened]... s it hanging and says society decides.
He wimps out. Just great. Sonhouse is more interesting
bwahahaha what a moron
128d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou insist on making this concept about a financial motive.
At the end of the day, everyone ends up in the same place
You would, you're white.
This is about minorities and whites ending up in the same place, with the same ability to be free to move their families forward.
ALL of your hand-wringing about this in this forum has always been about "Oh my God, they want OUR stuff!!!" when it's not about that AT ALL.
128d
@Suzianne saidIt is about producers supporting non-producers.
You insist on making this concept about a financial motive.
You would, you're white.
This is about minorities and whites ending up in the same place, with the same ability to be free to move their families forward.
ALL of your hand-wringing about this in this forum has always been about "Oh my God, they want OUR stuff!!!" when it's not about that AT ALL.