for scrappy and joe:

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) FREE to watch for a limited time. on Vimeo


only 1:30 long.

good quote in this movie for you, Joe:

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...zones/6RDGkxLK

 

True, but Lenin himself famously held that "He who does not work shall not eat.”

I think it's safe to say that under American socialism, we have sufficiently perverted this ideal that we are not likely following the Marxist-Leninist path to "true" communism.

 

watch the movie and may disagree.

 

wishful thinking.




fear nuclear power.

 

Didn't Lenin also say, "He who does not agree with me shall not live."?

Which in short-hand can be applied to ANY administration who changes the rules on a whim, and then force all those not in compliance to obey. Until recently DOMA was the law, until it wasn't. Calling "illegal aliens" used to be OK, because that's what they were. Now they're a voting block. This week its the nebulous guarantees of the 2nd Amendment that need to be molded until they fit in with the desires of the ruling class.

 

I don't get it.

You're saying that we're a dictatorship?

 

what's the difference between it all?

 

Stop trying to use logic and reason with me, you goat-felching prolapsed *** clown of a turd wrangler.

But seriously...

Dictatorship is a form of government. Communism is a form of economic organization.

Some dictatorships are communist. Cuba, for instance.

Not all communist nations are headed by a dictatorship. China, for instance. The Chinese government has an elected congress, a President appointed by the congress to a five-year term, a functioning court system, etc. Somewhat like the USSR.

 

china has a controlling party and always will; they just like you believe to they have a democratic system.

 

Absolutely. But that doesn't make them a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires a dictator- an individual who wields absolute power. You can't have a dictatorship without a Bashar al-Assad, a Muammar Gaddafi or a Kim Jong-Il.

Ok, you can argue the Charmain Mao functioned as a de-facto dictator, but in modern China, power is wielded by a committee, just like in soviet-era Russia.

Is it democratic? Hell no. But it's not a dictatorship either.

 

Office Established by Obama with Intent of Closing Gitmo . . . Closes - By Patrick Brennan - The Corner - National Review Online

He also is disbanding his Jobs Council [not like he ever utilized them].



...now that he's been reelected he can focus more on paving the path to "true" communism.

 

"If economists are unable to predict what’s going to happen with the economy in the near future, why should we expect anything positive when politicians tinker with short-run economic performance? "




















EXCLUSIVE: IMMIGRANT sponger living off handouts REFUSES full-time job | The Sun |News

“There’s no chance we’re leaving. British benefits give me and my daughter a good life.”

 

China has a one-party Socialist system, which makes it exceedingly easy to shoo hundreds of thousands of people off their lands in order for "public works", such as the world's largest dam, trains, new buildings, etceteras. My friends in San Diego had a thriving business selling ornate doors and such that had once been the entrance to fine homes and monasteries in Beijing. That city was "revitaized", which means that you were kicked out of your familie's ancestral home and transplanted into a concrete condo. The family home was razed to make room for concrete high rise buildings.

America might as well have a one party system. Even with the Republicans, there's one set of rules for "them" and all those who pay to keep them in power, and there's a set of rules for the proletariat. It sucks, and it's only getting worse.

 

How does the source of that graph define "government benefits"?

For instance, in order go get anywhere near 50%, you have to include Medicare and Social Security. So take into account the fact that the total percentage of the US population over age 65 has risen considerably in the past 30 years. Why? A combination of increased life expectancy (due to advances in medicine and more aggressive treatment of geriatric disease) coupled with the fact that the baby boomers have been hitting retirement age in droves recently.

There has been an increase in recent years of households receiving medicaid benefits, which is directly attributable to the affordable care act. Prior to 2010, 26% of households received some type of healthcare benefit through the program. If the portion of the law making such assistance mandatory had not been struck down by the supreme court, that number would have risen to 40% by 2010. I can't find accurate projections yet for this number under the voluntary system.

Moving back to things that are actually measurable, the number of households receiving means-tested assistance (housing, food stamps, etc) hasn't really budged in decades. It's still around 15% for food-stamps, and slightly under 4% for housing.

 

Good grief, Braineack. You've been saving that one up for a while? :lol:

I can't be bothered to go through them all, but the graph on households receiving "some government benefits" actually makes sense if they are considering Social Security and government pensions of retirees as "government benefits."

 

I forgot this:



Why work? | The Sun |News




on the household benefits:

it's from this article: Nicholas Eberstadt: Yes, Mr. President, We Are a Nation of Takers - WSJ.com

so that probably does include SS, and medicaid and such. I find the increase due to seniors at only 1/10th the increase interesting.

 

You keep posting all these links to British tabloids featuring British families abusing the British social-services net. We already know that Great Britain is a communist empire (Jeremy Clarkson told us so.)

 

what's the difference?