[prometheus]

OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

[Lights]

Cuz I'm bigger than you!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I personally like that idea of people contributing to the welfare of the nation. In a perfect society we wouldn't need taxes, but this country isn't perfect and is filled with selfish, greedy bastards who don't give a crap about the country because they only want to maximize their profits. As such, we are a constitutional republic and can pass laws to make people contribute, and if they don't want to then they are free to go elsewhere or face the penalties. So if there was enough support for a socialized health care system, then because we are a government of the people, we would be entitled to create one and tax for it.

Of course, it is obvious that the concept of a "democracy" or a "republic" would seem a little too authoritarian for an anarchist, but that is how our founding fathers wanted it and we weren't doing too bad up until about 7 years ago.

[Colette]

	Originally Posted by prometheus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

You=the Government? Me does not equal government, yet
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rocksteady]

	Originally Posted by Colette To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You=the Government? Me does not equal government, yet To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

if you support and vote for a socialist/liberal form of government, than you do = government.

[Colette]

	Originally Posted by rocksteady To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if you support and vote for a socialist/liberal form of government, than you do = government.

So I as a voter am fully responsible for anything the Government then does post-election? Hmm...ok.

*Attempts blatant thread derailment*

[Lights]

	Originally Posted by Colette To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So I as a voter am fully responsible for anything the Government then does post-election? Hmm...ok. *Attempts blatant thread derailment*

*Jumps aboard thread derailment*

Your responsible for picking good leaders, and you are also responsible for seeing they are held accountable.

[Colette]

	Originally Posted by Lights To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	*Jumps aboard thread derailment* Your responsible for picking good leaders, and you are also responsible for seeing they are held accountable.

OK, but aren't they only made accountable at the next ballot? How else could they be accountable, short of storming the Parliament?

Anyway enough now...this is for another thread methinks
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

Originally Posted by Lights To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cuz I'm bigger than you! To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I personally like that idea of people contributing to the welfare of the nation. In a perfect society we wouldn't need taxes, but this country isn't perfect and is filled with selfish, greedy bastards who don't give a crap about the country because they only want to maximize their profits. As such, we are a constitutional republic and can pass laws to make people contribute, and if they don't want to then they are free to go elsewhere or face the penalties. So if there was enough support for a socialized health care system, then because we are a government of the people, we would be entitled to create one and tax for it. Of course, it is obvious that the concept of a "democracy" or a "republic" would seem a little too authoritarian for an anarchist, but that is how our founding fathers wanted it and we weren't doing too bad up until about 7 years ago.

LOL I get a big kick out of you spouting the conservative mantra "America Love it, or Leave it." It must be the Wyoming upbringing. Do you have the bumper sticker?

There are the "selfish bastards" who don't care about others. There are also the silly people who don't care enough about themselves to lay enough aside for emergencies. I'm reminded of the Ant and the Grasshopper fable. Or the phrase "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

Your interpretation of the constitution is completely wrong also.

Here are the powers outlined in the constitution, don't confused todays muddled ideas on democratic mob rule with being constitutional. Show me where in the text below or in the amendments it says Big Brother can steal my earnings for your bunion cream.

The Congress shall have power

1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3 To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4 To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the Standard of weights and measures;

6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

7 To establish post offices and post roads;

8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of Nations;

11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

12 To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two years;

13 To provide and maintain a Navy;

14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17 To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings; --And

18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

[lowbrass]

I do not care for the proliferation of social programs because that's all legalized plunder. In some slight ways, yes - as a society, there should be a few safety nets, but I think that if this were the case, it should be very finite and strictly enforced. We in the USA instead loosely enforce this and seemingly try to find and allow more exceptions to enable more people to leech from this plunder.

Kind of how you might have heard the warning, "Do not feed the animals" - many modern social programs only seem to encourage the so-called less fortunate to prefer to remain that way, instead of holding them accountable to their actions and inspiring them to make the necessary life changes to get out of the rut. In the sense of the animals, they end up becoming a nuisance since they abandon their natural instincts and begin to harass those who they think should just be providing them food.

I oppose socialized healthcare not only for my distrust in government and its bureaucracy, but because to do such a thing ultimately limits MY choices. This is parallel to taking away some of my freedom. A better compromise would be to require certain levels of insurance coverage, much like most states have requirements to do so before you can drive your car on the road. That way, you have the ability to choose from the different providers AND you have the coverage. AND, if you keep yourself healthy, you're rewarded with lower premiums.

Federal minimum ought to be eliminated in favor of whatever the states decide. This is more complimentary to the free market system and economics than by forcing everyone into a one-size fits all approach. High minimum wages raise the cost of inputs, and you also raise the bar higher such that there remain even fewer unskilled people that are appropriate for any task. Nobody with half a brain will be inclined to pay someone $10/hr for a $5/hr task - especially in a state or rural area where $$ is not plentiful. A high wage might suit NY or CA whereas a low one might best suit WY or MT.

[Lights]

	Originally Posted by prometheus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	LOL I get a big kick out of you spouting the conservative mantra "America Love it, or Leave it." It must be the Wyoming upbringing. Do you have the bumper sticker?

A liberal with a conservative upbringing is a dangerous thing.

	There are the "selfish bastards" who don't care about others. There are also the silly people who don't care enough about themselves to lay enough aside for emergencies. I'm reminded of the Ant and the Grasshopper fable. Or the phrase "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

True. People aren't perfect. That's why compromise is usually a good solution.

	Show me where in the text below or in the amendments it says Big Brother can steal my earnings for your bunion cream.

First one.

1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

That gives Congress the ability to lay and collect taxes, and if people want a socialized health care system, then that is where Congress is granted the power to tax for it.

	Originally Posted by Colette To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	OK, but aren't they only made accountable at the next ballot? How else could they be accountable, short of storming the Parliament? Anyway enough now...this is for another thread methinks To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Censure, impeachment, judiciary process...

But I agree, back on topic. Ultimately the difference here is perspective. It's individual rights vs. social rights. To what degree should the individual be held accountable for society, and vice versa? And it's even more complicated when talking about property rights and civil rights, because people are naturally drawn to their own preference. I personally prefer more individualized civil rights and more social property rights. Obviously, promotheus is drawn strongly toward individualized civil rights and individualized property rights. In fact, that's even how promo defined liberals and libertarians. So it ultimately comes down to just a different philosophy based on personal preference. We will make about as much headway on this thread as if we were arguing Pepsi lovers against Coke lovers. And ultimately they are the same thing, just a slightly different flavor.

[Provoker]

	Originally Posted by rocksteady To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	if you support and vote for a socialist/liberal form of government, than you do = government.

This is ultimately incorrect. There is a distinction between the state and government. For example, George Bush is part of the American government. However, the bureaucracy, fire departments, police, etc are part of the state. Governments may come and go (depending on who's in power at a given time) but the state goes on.

Therefore, in a socialist system you = part of state.

[prometheus]

	Originally Posted by lowbrass To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A better compromise would be to require certain levels of insurance coverage, much like most states have requirements to do so before you can drive your car on the road. That way, you have the ability to choose from the different providers AND you have the coverage. AND, if you keep yourself healthy, you're rewarded with lower premiums.

WARNING Cold hearted bastard moment coming up.

How about ending the hospital requirement to have to treat every piss poor planning individual that comes in.

Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers.

Everyone has seen the woman in the grocery store who uses her food stamps on microwave dinners, junk food, and soda pops, and then pulls out a wad of cash for her beer and smokes, and then carts it out to her $40,000 SUV. With the current handout, dole, welfare system (whatever you want to call it) there are no checks and balances, unlike in the days of private charities.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar.





prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 41 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Lights To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1 To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States That gives Congress the ability to lay and collect taxes, and if people want a socialized health care system, then that is where Congress is granted the power to tax for it.

I wasn't arguing about collecting taxes, even though you are wrong here, the 16th amendment allowed income tax (and there is still an argument over whether it was properly ratified, FYI), what you cited was for use taxes. I was asking where do they have the power to institute a Federal health care program.

Those are the things the government is allowed to do on a national level. Weren't you taught about prohibition, they needed a constitutional amendment to do that, because it was not one of the specified powers.

[Lights]

	How about ending the hospital requirement to have to treat every piss poor planning individual that comes in.

How do you know who is a piss, poor, planning individual and who is somebody with just shitty luck?

	Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers.

Actually, there are far more charities today than ever before. With a larger, more diverse population, it is very hard to satisfy the need with just private charities.

	Everyone has seen the woman in the grocery store who uses her food stamps on microwave dinners, junk food, and soda pops, and then pulls out a wad of cash for her beer and smokes, and then carts it out to her $40,000 SUV. With the current handout, dole, welfare system (whatever you want to call it) there are no checks and balances, unlike in the days of private charities.

Such people exist. But there are many, many more who do have genuine need.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar.

Well, it's certainly nice to know how much we are appreciated while we're busting our asses in college and going into debt so we can get decent jobs and pay for the social security of all you old farts. I mean, we should know better with all the kids we are squeezing out. Obviously, it really doesn't matter that we have significantly lower birth rates than previous generations. But yeah, life is much easier for us since we only have to get a masters degree to get any professional occupation anymore.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Puhleez! Go get some chocolate pudding and just try not to mess yourself old man. We got it covered.


prometheus added to this post, 8 minutes and 41 seconds later...

I wasn't arguing about collecting taxes, even though you are wrong here, the 16th amendment allowed income tax (and there is still an argument over whether it was properly ratified, FYI), what you cited was for use taxes. I was asking where do they have the power to institute a Federal health care program. Those are the things the government is allowed to do on a national level. Weren't you taught about prohibition, they needed a constitutional amendment to do that, because it was not one of the specified powers.

Apples to oranges. Prohibition was outlawing alcohol. Setting up a health care system would be "providing for the general welfare."

[xhaan]

	Originally Posted by prometheus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	OK, here it is since some people don't think tax discussions or capitalist v. socialist discussions should be tied to socialist program threads. This the place to tell me why you think you are entitled to take a producers earnings for your own personal socialist pet program.

Interesting, how you paint with such broad strokes, and apparently bundle all socialists together.

In my socialist view, I'm not taking anything for myself, because it belongs to everybody. In my view, this doesn't mean you can't make profit, or even that you can't have property, it simply means that, for example a company; if everyone shares the company, then everyone should be able to get a share in what it produces. Personally, I don't mind profits, I don't even mind somebody owning the building or whatever that the company runs out of, as long as it is a benefit to everybody.

I don't want to take 'everything at gunpoint', I just want fairer distribution. In capitalism, it is possible for an utterly incompetent MORON, who was simply lucky enough to have money to start a business, hire people who actually know what they're doing to work for slave wages while the employer not only takes a bigger salary, but owns all the assets of the company too. I don't see this as fair, he gets rich simply because he is at the top of the pile?

[Colette]

	Originally Posted by prometheus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	WARNING Cold hearted bastard moment coming up. How about ending the hospital requirement to have to treat every piss poor planning individual that comes in

Are you advocating revisiting the Hippocratic oath, or having it overriden by administrators?

	Originally Posted by prometheus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Once upon a time there were charities that would help out "tough luck" cases. Back then they were few and far between unlike today, we have become a nation of enablers

There still are a lot of charities, because the system does not treat everyone, and many hard luck cases fall between the cracks. That said though, I agree with you to the extent that I believe in individual responsibility, and not having a system which enables people to make poor choices and avoid responsibility for them.

Originally Posted by prometheus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Which leads me into one of my favorite rants; the current generation (18-25 year olds) whatever they are called, know that they will be taken care of. They are happy to sit on their butts, squeezing out kids, playing video games, and picking up the welfare checks (hell, I have a cousin-in-law doing this). They know there is no longer any incentive to work hard. Why work hard and give it all to Uncle Sam, when you can have a similar lifestyle sitting on your ass and getting taken care of by Uncle Sugar

Yes, agree with this also. We are a soft couple of generations, and probably a soft society too. Travel to a place like India, or any other Third world nation, and you realize how damn lucky we are, and how little we expect of ourselves, in return. Fail to work in India, and you starve and die. Catch Polio, and you lose a limb, and you won't have been immunized against it.

Edit: Stop editing your posts before I respond, dammit :P

[thecraig]

Call me heartless. Call me a capitalist pig. I know it's a crazy idea, but I beleive the money I bust my ass making should be mine to do with as I please. Some one in this string was talking about fairness.... Is it fair that I have to work for a living just to give my hard earned earnings to some one who doesn't?

[Colette]

	Originally Posted by thecraig To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Call me heartless. Call me a capitalist pig. I know it's a crazy idea, but I beleive the money I bust my ass making should be mine to do with as I please. Some one in this string was talking about fairness.... Is it fair that I have to work for a living just to give my hard earned earnings to some one who doesn't?

Do you want to live in a society, or a collection of individuals in a barbaric condition? The choice is pretty simple.

[xhaan]

	Originally Posted by thecraig To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Call me heartless. Call me a capitalist pig. I know it's a crazy idea, but I beleive the money I bust my ass making should be mine to do with as I please. Some one in this string was talking about fairness.... Is it fair that I have to work for a living just to give my hard earned earnings to some one who doesn't?

It's not heartless, it makes sense. but this is not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying we have to take the food right off your plate or anything like that. If your money is hard earned, then it is.

Though on the other hand, potentially valued members of society can be lost when nobody gives a damn. If you don't give, and nobody else gives, then people lose. And I'm not talking about the unscrupulous sponges. I'm talking about possible Stephen Hawkings here.

[Gonzo]

OMG why do I get the impression that Americans see this topic as black and white? Am I wrong? Because just in case I'm right: There are middle grounds between 100% socialism and hardcore capitalism.

Cheers!

[xhaan]

	Originally Posted by Gonzo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	OMG why do I get the impression that Americans see this topic as black and white? Am I wrong? Because just in case I'm right: There are middle grounds between 100% socialism and hardcore capitalism. Cheers!

Indeed!
Can't say much else but that one word (and I'm American too!)

[thod]

Their are a basic set of needs that all humans have such as food, shelter, and energy to survive to the end of the week. There are others that are not of immediate need but will be needed at some point such as healthcare and police. Others are nice to have such transport, entertainment, and education.

The basic assumption is that everyone has equal capacity to earn. Yet your capacity to earn is dependent on you health, your location, your education etc. Your needs remain static. In the great depression for example, the capacity to earn was removed from many more yet they still must eat.

It is not that hard to meet the basic needs of everyone. You are not handing out BMW's and holidays in the sun to all. You meet only the basic needs. If you want more, luxury products, then you have to work for them.

If people can work to fulfil those basic needs then you it covered. If they cannot do so then they will do whatever they can to meet them. You criminalise being poor. The US does not have work schemes that allow everyone to work for a meal. A widow left alone with 4 kids is unable to do anything but childcare for example.

If you do have a situation where a man is on a "make work" scheme for survival rations then he is going to see that he put in the hours of another man yet gains nothing from it. This will lead to conditions as in the French revolution. You are only stable if there is a good size middle class too. They can see both places to rise and fall to and hold the status quo out of fear of losing their own comfortable lives. They see the poor as criminal vermin that should be exterminated, seeing only their impact on their own little lives. Yet the actions of the poor are a direct result of their poverty. If they were raised to middle class, the need for their actions would vanish. Without the poor though, the middle class now sees itself as the poor and you get the revolutionary scenario.

[xhaan]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Their are a basic set of needs that all humans have such as food, shelter, and energy to survive to the end of the week. There are others that are not of immediate need but will be needed at some point such as healthcare and police. Others are nice to have such transport, entertainment, and education. The basic assumption is that everyone has equal capacity to earn. Yet your capacity to earn is dependent on you health, your location, your education etc. Your needs remain static. In the great depression for example, the capacity to earn was removed from many more yet they still must eat. It is not that hard to meet the basic needs of everyone. You are not handing out BMW's and holidays in the sun to all. You meet only the basic needs. If you want more, luxury products, then you have to work for them. If people can work to fulfil those basic needs then you it covered. If they cannot do so then they will do whatever they can to meet them. You criminalise being poor. The US does not have work schemes that allow everyone to work for a meal. A widow left alone with 4 kids is unable to do anything but childcare for example. If you do have a situation where a man is on a "make work" scheme for survival rations then he is going to see that he put in the hours of another man yet gains nothing from it. This will lead to conditions as in the French revolution. You are only stable if there is a good size middle class too. They can see both places to rise and fall to and hold the status quo out of fear of losing their own comfortable lives. They see the poor as criminal vermin that should be exterminated seeing on their impact on their own lives. Yet the actions of the poor are a direct result of their poverty. If they were raised to middle class the need for their actions would vanish. Without the poor though, the middle class now sees itself as the poor and you get the revolutionary scenario.

Very good summary!
And BTW, I can tell you... these peiple who are 'driving $40,000 SUV and have a fist full of cash', must be doing something that I don't know about! I'm on SSI and SSD (and I did work, very well in fact, which is why I get SSD!) and I have... not very much. I'm not living in a box in the alley, but instead I have a tin shack on wheels. Luckily I have one television, and a computer, and the internet (which is my biggest 'luxury' I think.)

I get about $600 a month from SSD/I currently, and $150 for food only. Last month I had ZERO net income (actually went into negative by about $20) because my ISP SCREWED me, unexpectedly, with a nearly $400 bill because my deal ended... I guess they were making up for all that money I 'saved'.

I have my trailer, a TV, computer, a bed, a couple pieces of furniture, stove, fridge, and an old VCR. These are my 'assets', aside from clothing and personal items. I also have about $100 saved for emergencies... can't exceed $2000 in savings or assets though.

And also, most of this stuff was gotten out of luck, or good will. I didn't buy any of it except the computer and the trailer... before I moved in here, I had... clothes.

[prometheus]

	Originally Posted by Lights To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, it's certainly nice to know how much we are appreciated while we're busting our asses in college and going into debt so we can get decent jobs and pay for the social security of all you old farts.

I'm in my early thirties you silly whippersnapper. I'll never seen a dime of Social Security, which incidentally was sold as an insurance program, where TPTB would hold and invest your money, and not as the giant ponzi scheme it is. Furthermore, the fact I was a successful business owner prior to dropping out of the system, means I've paid butt loads of cash in that hole.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.






prometheus added to this post, 13 minutes and 35 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Lights To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How do you know who is a piss, poor, planning individual and who is somebody with just shitty luck?

That's not my job to decide, but I GUARANTEE you charities would be better at deciding this than a bureaucrat.

	Actually, there are far more charities today than ever before. With a larger, more diverse population, it is very hard to satisfy the need with just private charities.

Find a source to prove this, based on per capita from now and pre-income tax. You won't.

	Apples to oranges. Prohibition was outlawing alcohol. Setting up a health care system would be "providing for the general welfare."

Boy want to talk about a broad interpretation, that would work for killing Iraqi civilians, banning gay marriage, gun laws, and drug laws. Obviously you are alone with this thinking, because even TPTB used the interstate commerce clause to justify the establishment of antigun and antidrug laws.

[1OFMANY]

IM done talking about how socialism sucks and it leads to more suffering than the alternatives. I will therefore just watch you fight it out Prometheus, and throw in an encouraging "Yeah!! what he said!!" occasionally
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

	Originally Posted by 1OFMANY To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	IM done talking about how socialism sucks and it leads to more suffering than the alternatives. I will therefore just watch you fight it out Prometheus, and throw in an encouraging "Yeah!! what he said!!" occasionally To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Works for me, as a libertarian I respect your right to do as you want.