Peter Schiff trolls liberals at the DNC - Democrats agree that business profits should be banned or capped

Wow.. Just wow..

20 million died in the USSR for this idea you love that didn't work.

40 to 70 million died in China for it.

3 million in Cambodia died for it.

An unknown number have died in Cuba for it.

IOW, your Marxist idea isn't a good idea - in fact it is a terrible idea that killed more people than any other idea in known history.

And the people don't like it.


Anytime you want to explain why when Adolf Hitler absolutely CRUSHED Marxism with an iron fist and rejected everything thing about it unemployment was eliminated, prices remained stable, private property was respected, national health was never better, and technological advancements were beyond anything Communism, Marxism, Anarchism, or Social Democratic Capitalism [Capitalism is Left Wing, shit head, and always has been] have ever produced.

Some here obviously favor this idea.

SImply put, no profits means no jobs ---- ever.

No profits means no private businesses because no one would ever invest in them. Those who did would only hire family to keep whatever money is made in the home.

No ownership of land or homes also means everything gets trashed because no one feels responsible for it.

Of course, if there are no jobs, then there is nothing to tax so there would be no more "free" benefits because there would be no one to pay for those benefits.

Two fine examples of no profits is N. Korea where people regularly starve to death each winter altho no one really has a good count of just how many. The other is Castro's Cuba living in a 1950's time warp and where the people vote with their feet and get on anything that floats to get away from there.

And you just can't beat the old Soviet Union for dismal, worker housing units that are comparable to the housing projects that most cities in the USA have been getting rid of.

Even China, as devoted to communism and totalitarianism as the government is, recognizes that profits are what has gotten at least half of their massive population out of starvation level poverty and is making the other half quite well off.

if that's true then why is the Dem platform identical to your heroes?

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

[link to constitutionalistnc.tripod.com]

Last Edited by RTS REDUX on 09/06/2012 05:06 PM

if EVERYONE could earn 1 billion $ and EVERYONE could afford to have a Rolls-Royce - there's no problem in it.

but only if EVERYONE gets it, equal distribution. If it's NOT that way (not equal) - NOONE should get it.

Then don't karl, go on welfare or work for yourself as countless others do.

Shhh....
You are trying to explain FACTS to a gullible fool.
Every wanna-be tyrant needs useful idiots.

If "Everyone" made $1 Billion, then the Rolls would cost you $550, Billion.

And a Big Mac would be around $4 million dollars

bringing Hitler as an argument is a gross illustration how far to the "right" can Reps go...

it's no surprise Dems are "instinctively left-wing" (''communists'', if you will) - why would common people vote against their interests, since they are not part of the "1%"?!

most common people would be "instinctively left", if you ask them about definite steps and policies not names, -isms or ideologies. it has been so everywhere and in all times - no man in their right mind would support the rulers, "masters". if they do - theyre either a shill, or theyre fooled ito believing the "master's" tale (like many Americans are) and Ukrainians too btw).

Just to emphasize the point, these millions of people were murdered by the communist regimes. By their own government. Communists murder,starve and destroy people's lives, individuality and hope.

That is and always will be the ievitable result of this "good idea".

Good answer

isnt money supposed to represent all value existing and created in society?

then why there is scarcity of money? why isnt there enough money for everyone?

obviously, there IS enough water and food and place for everyone in this world. this planet could support even more than it currently does. but something artificial that people created for means of easier exchange - money - is somehow scarce...

weird, isnt it?

I read Marx (Capital and its works of sociology and philosophy). Li E Smith (The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments). Too many other economic and social thinkers. I love the ideas of the utilitarians. And my opinion is: we are selfish animals and no matter what kind of social organization. We always do the wrong thing. We need to ban religions and deliver the human ability to assert themselves. Develop the intellectual capacity and not perpetuate ignorance that makes us so stupid to the point of not divide what we have in excess. And how can anyone be happy being a millionaire knowing that 90% of the world population lives in poverty. Lack common sense. Sporting luxury and wealth in our world is a clear sign of ignorance and stupidity. Lack clarity and a greater sense of community. If Mandeville was right, then we admit our inability to be better than what we are.

Modern day Capitalism, or Neo-Liberalism, working in concert with Marxists is directly responsible for the open borders situation we have in the Western World -- because above all it is focused on the free flow of goods, labor, and capital without regard for the State, Nation, or People. In other words, Marx's dream of eliminating the State and National Identity is just fine with Capitalists. Why wouldn't it be? It makes them money without having to do any actual work.

The main economic tenets of National Socialism/Fascism revolve around business's need to directly serve the NATIONAL interest and the elimination of debt-bearing currency to serve these National interests. It doesn't eliminate different classes because it doesn't seek the wholesale confiscation of property of accumulated wealth, but rather de-emphasizes the class struggle through the most logical means -- guaranteeing worker's rights. If you don't understand the basic concept of making sure worker's are treated fairly just so problems don't arise, you're out to lunch.

re: no state, no borders, free flow - OK, let's close all borders so that you cannot leave the USA, and everyone else in the world is a prisoner of his government in a cage with borders called state.

re: Fascism - this only proves Hitler had nothing to do with Socialism whatsoever. German Democratic Republic or Congo also called themselves a democracy. were they truely democratic?

The problem is most people in America now are so stupid. This would work the exact same way if they did this the other way around at a RNC.

"Would you support banning unions, repealing minimum wage, removing anti-trust laws and allowing corporations to house and feed their 'employees'. They will get even more profit and that will be good for the economy"

You would get the same stupid herd following at an RNC.

you're all over the place in your replies. On Phens thread about the exact subject you said



so do you support capitalism or not?

and..you seem to be claiming that libtards don't believe in diversity

Profits should be capped, damn straight. Tax them, because DC is obviously running a DEFICIT... Restricting profits levels the playing field for everyone, reduces waste and inefficiency. It will put a stop to consumerism and a lot of pollution, too.

Better yet: ABOLISH CORPORATISM. The US Constitution, Bill of Rights, is for Individuals, not corporations. That would reduce government and bureaucracy, all of which is mostly in support of corporations. Then, lobbyists and politicians will have to actually ~work for a living.

Yeah that worked out REAL great for the USSR.

Restricting profits and/or abolishing Corporatism would also END MOST WARS, because our entire corporate economy is based mainly on warfare.

Restricting profits and/or abolishing Corporatism would also create nearly 100% employment, because everyone would have EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES under the Law.

Almost none of those people who were interviewed were qualified to answer. Most of them didn't even understand what the word profit means.

A few advocated for CAPS, which really isn't a completely obscene idea. If you think about how non-profits work, what is wrong with that model. I'm not in any way in favor of outright caps, but as in the non-profit model, The CEO can only make a certain multiple of the lowest paid person. I think THAT is a good idea. They have to bring up the bottom with them.

That would actually drive even more innovation because then there would be more competition in the labor pool to get into the successful companies.

It has nothing to do with being a "prisoner" of your country. Lots of Germans traveled abroad during the Third Reich and plenty of foreigners visited Germany during that time. But borders are militarized, as they should be. They are patrolled, as they should be. You do need permission to enter the country, as it should be.

I like how you didn't even try to refute the argument I put forward this time, re. capitalism being left wing. Because it is. The goals of Marxists and Capitalists are the same and always have been -- the concentration of all global resources into their precious few hands, distributed according to their vision.

They don't like National Socialism because it eliminates their ponzi scheme debt system, it respects private property [those capitalists sure do like to use eminent domain when it works for them, don't they?], it creates self-sufficient Nations who look to meet all National needs at home before looking abroad for trade and material.

As for whether or not certain government are democratic or not, I don't really care. I don't like democracy and it isn't a desirable aspect of a nation. It never works, it always creates division, and in case you haven't noticed nobody in any "Democracy" ever votes on anything that matters. When's the last time a Western Democracy got to vote on whether or not it wanted it's country full of third world immigrants? When's the last time a Western Democracy got to vote on whether it was going to be part of the Capitalist/Communist wet dream that is NAFTA?

He sure did.
In fact he is the first capitalist.

USSR has nothing to do with it. Just admit you'd rather discriminate in favor of the 1% wealthy class. The class which is destroying our entire civilization, along with our habitat. The class which is devouring and/or hoarding most of our natural resources.

They really don't have a clue what makes America tick do they?

I support BUSINESS. I recognize that BUSINESS works and supports local communities. Restricting what someone is genuinely earning is immoral, but that doesn't mean I swallow the entire Capitalist agenda -- which, again, is at the highest levels IDENTICAL to Marxism.

Open borders, no State, concentration of wealth in fewer hands. There is no difference in practical application of these specific points between Capitalism and Marxism. They work in harmony to achieve these ends, and have often banded together to make aggressive and genocidal war on countries who would not subscribe to these ends [World War 2].

You'll have to point out to be where I'm claiming "libtards" don't support diversity. I haven't used the phrase the "libtard" at all, and have only mentioned open border immigration to explain how capitalists and marxists both go out of their way to support it and how both love diversity because it erodes the State, it erodes National identity, it erodes the People -- which are ends that both camps work towards feverishly.

"As for whether or not certain government are democratic or not, I don't really care. I don't like democracy and it isn't a desirable aspect of a nation. It never works, it always creates division, and in case you haven't noticed nobody in any "Democracy" ever votes on anything that matters. When's the last time a Western Democracy got to vote on whether or not it wanted it's country full of third world immigrants? When's the last time a Western Democracy got to vote on whether it was going to be part of the Capitalist/Communist wet dream that is NAFTA?"

There's nothing wrong with Democracy. The problem is Congress legislates unConstitutionally. Probably 90% of our present laws are unConstitutional, thus NULL and VOID of legality. The country of Sweden in its early years of semi-socialist government, had ALL of its law recorded in ONE BOOK. That's what we need.

Examples of unConstitutional legislation (or its byproducts): Congress is OVERPAID, and their terms need to be sharply curtailed: no more career politicians who only represent the 1% wealthy of this country, and who do practically nothing of any use for the common people or for the good of this nation. The President is also OVERPAID and like Congress, represents only the wealthy. The Supreme Court needs to have their asses kicked out of office too: lifetime terms -- that's ILLEGAL, a miscarriage of Justice. That's just a small sampling of how the Federal government has abused their powers, since the very beginning.

Ask those who lived in the [now defunct] U.S.S.R. how employing the above ideology worked for them.

Idiot demonrats!

Last Edited by Biochemky on 09/06/2012 05:56 PM

Only because the USSR fell back on old habits. The status quo doesn't like change, but they're spoiled. BTW, Obama is an agent for the status quo, too (his slogan "change", was pure horseshit).

Not one candidate in this upcoming election, will do anything other than further weaken this nation.