Bill Gates warns of more pandemics !!!

BMS

Well-known member
Sure! Now that he is in the business of vaccines, they will be pumping out viruses!!

Just like I believed the people pumping out the viruses on computers, were the people selling anti-virus CD's!

Capitalist greed at it's worst....But he is not stopping there. He is buying up farmland in the USA at an unhealthy rate!

I dont think people in the west realise that whilst we still have some freedom that as the Bible says, money is the root of all kinds of evil, we arent aware of the influences on us that money imposes.
I would say that from God's perspective we should prosper by what we need and not prosper by what we want. This is more in line with socialism than capitalism. Why we have capitalism and not socialism, is because of human nature... but we as Christians would say that is the very reason we have a need for Christ as saviour.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
I hope you don't find me impertinent if I call for a neutral umpire.

Sure
I understand the language which is applied to capitalism in these discussions. I'm getting down below the language to the actual meaning as capitalism is really done in the real world. The distinction between capitalism and Socialism is the element of coercion. Capitalism is based on voluntary exchanges and Socialism is based on coercive theft.

This is where you are mistaken. The source of capitalist wealth was via wars and conquest(land theft), slaves and taxes..... I think that is defined as more than coercion but as oppression.
If you selectively pick out multiple definitions of a word and ignore the context you can make this argument that you're making. Unfortunately that's not how language is interpreted. You select the definition that makes sense in context. You're doing exactly the opposite.

Okay. Choose the definition of driven that defines coercion

driven
[ˈdrivən]

VERB
  1. past participle of drive.
ADJECTIVE
  1. operated, moved, or controlled by a specified person or source of power.
    "a chauffeur-driven limousine" ·
    [more]
  2. (of a person) relentlessly compelled by the need to accomplish a goal; very hard-working and ambitious.
    "my husband is a driven man"
  3. (of snow) piled into drifts or made smooth by the wind.
Again while you obsess on arguments that focus on language I'll talk about reality.

It appears your reality and my perception of reality differ. I believe my perception(obviously) is more accurate to the TRUTH,

It's 100% coercion. I own the means of production and I'm not giving it to you I have prevented Socialism from happening. The government is not going to stand idly by and allow that to prevail they're taking the property and that's coercion. The other form of socialism is national Socialism that Adolf Hitler used in Germany and in that case he left the assets alone and forced the managers to do his bidding by directives that were handed down from on high. Those directives are also coercion! Therefore it's not a matter of which brand of socialism, Socialism is coercion.
What came first? Capitalism or Socialism? Thats how the capitalist STOLE not the means of production but the REAL WEALTH of countries(Their resources) which is VITAL to production.

The people can just take those resources back from the elites. Like Agrarian reform, where the population took back land from the monarchs. Do you side with the people or the elitist monarchs?
I'm already married. But if you're available why don't you take out a dictionary.

If you dont want to learn the real meaning of words than ask your spouse. :p
Ya, be our slave or suffer. That's the voluntary option.

Greed is not an accrual item.

It is when you slap interest on it!
You can live on the street that doesn't have a super over priced home.

There exists none where I come from unless you move 2 (minimum)hours north of the city. And if you do, there are no jobs there, so you have to still be a slave in the city. Thats what people are doing. Moving out of the cities and then commuting 1-2 hours for work.. Now that the price of gas is going up, thats not even feasible. They take that money from your pocket one way or another.

You have it backwards. "The people" do not now, and never did own it. And in any odd case with that does not turn out to be strictly correct, "the people" chose to sell it into private hands, because they deem that to be in their best interest.

Never? GO ask the Indians if they "owned" the lands. They didnt chose to sell it but were CONQUERED via mass genocide for it. I guess they deemed that in their best interest right?(Note sarcasm).
I believe it mentions Socialism. That's the same thing.

Just as I thought. You haven't read the OP.LOL Try reading it and show me where I speak of thievery.
Cash is a form of capital therefore taxes is a form of Socialism.

Capitalism is supported by debt. And debt is supported by taxes. LOL. Sorry, You don't know what your talking about.

Are you laboring under the assumption that a poor shopkeeper isn't trying to turn a profit? Your view of economics is cartoonish.
There is profit and there is money earned(For his labour/service). Capish?

I'm quite certain if a neutral ump or ref were watching the debate, they'd know you are being schooled on economics.
 
Last edited:

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
I dont think people in the west realise that whilst we still have some freedom that as the Bible says, money is the root of all kinds of evil, we arent aware of the influences on us that money imposes.

Money is not necessarily evil. But greedy people can use money to impose their greedy/immoral nature on a larger group of people. Thus why people with alot of money are usually(if not almost always) corrupt. How? The use that money to buy muscle(soldiers, tanks) to impose their will.

I would say that from God's perspective we should prosper by what we need and not prosper by what we want. This is more in line with socialism than capitalism. Why we have capitalism and not socialism, is because of human nature...
Human nature, that is desire of the flesh.

but we as Christians would say that is the very reason we have a need for Christ as saviour.
BINGO!!! Someone that understands!

It is through Christ the desire of the flesh is conquered!!! Via the Spirit!

Therefore what we REALLY NEED is for our leaders to be TRULY born again. And they will choose socialism.

Not the socialism defined by capitalists but the socialism defined via the Spirit and the Bible!
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
Money is not necessarily evil. But greedy people can use money to impose their greedy/immoral nature on a larger group of people. Thus why people with alot of money are usually(if not almost always) corrupt. How? The use that money to buy muscle(soldiers, tanks) to impose their will.


Human nature, that is desire of the flesh.


BINGO!!! Someone that understands!

It is through Christ the desire of the flesh is conquered!!! Via the Spirit!

Therefore what we REALLY NEED is for our leaders to be TRULY born again. And they will choose socialism.

Not the socialism defined by capitalists but the socialism defined via the Spirit and the Bible!
AND if our leaders support capitalist greed, excessive wealth and immorality, then we KNOW they are of the flesh and NOT of the Spirit. And therefore NOT fit to lead the sheep.

We need true Sheppards to lead the flock!

The Bible says make the way STRAIGHT! And He will come(be in your midst).
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
2jKvGAMi3n.png

He is a Catholic who went atheist.


Here is what The right reverend Fauchee said March , 2020

Dr. Fauci: Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things that the CDC and the Department of Homeland Security are doing. But this is not a major threat for the people of the United States. And this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about.

Followed shortly by predicting 2,000,000 dead.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Actually, Gates has donated over $50 billion of his wealth to charity.


A hefty chunk of his money goes to supporting cutting edge scientific research. The top scientist in my department gets Gates money.
Bill Gates is all about profit at the expense of lives. Money funded to vaxxes is money siphoned off food and clean water. Starving people need food.

 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Peer review for published studies is not the end of the evaluation process.

Tell it to Flatline Fauci.

Findings in those papers are subject to evaluation by the broader scientific community
There is no broad community since Fauci controls it all with funds distribution. If they opposed Fauci their funds are dried up. Reputations destroyed. The good news is it is all coming back to Fauci in spades. Fauci is despised.
(peer reviewers can sometimes miss problems), and published results can be tested for reproducibility. Some studies do not withstand this additional level of scrutiny and sink into oblivion.
Tell it to Fauci who will not debate against opposing views.
 
Last edited:

BMS

Well-known member
Money is not necessarily evil. But greedy people can use money to impose their greedy/immoral nature on a larger group of people. Thus why people with alot of money are usually(if not almost always) corrupt. How? The use that money to buy muscle(soldiers, tanks) to impose their will.


Human nature, that is desire of the flesh.


BINGO!!! Someone that understands!

It is through Christ the desire of the flesh is conquered!!! Via the Spirit!

Therefore what we REALLY NEED is for our leaders to be TRULY born again. And they will choose socialism.

Not the socialism defined by capitalists but the socialism defined via the Spirit and the Bible!
Yep.. agreed
 

vibise

Well-known member
Trump has been under investigation by the anti-American scum since before he took the oath of office which you know perfectly well. Why don't you try dealing in the truth!

You don't have a particular complaint against Donald Trump you fall asleep wishing upon a star that he's guilty of something. Do you have any idea how that reflects on you? It's not good…

By people who have zero regard for the truth. They placed their politics where their morality belongs therefore they have no fidelity to the truth.

Do you remember James Comey talking about the results of the investigation and specifically saying that she was guilty of every element of the crime as measured by the exact language of the statute? I do, I can tell you exactly where I was as I was listening to him go from that to saying but we're not going to prosecute her because nobody would. Justice is no respecter of persons. And just because the elitists are all on one side of the political divide does not mean that they can commandeer "justice" to advance one side against the other. She is guilty and she should suffer the same consequences that any private in the army would suffer under the same circumstances.

Kenstar returned the equivalent of 14 indictments against the Clintons. What fantasy land do you live in? I can't believe you just said that! Talk about demonstrating seething contempt for the intelligence of the people reading this thread; I mean…
James Comey said “one of the mistakes I made” in connection to the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server was his choice of words.

“I should've worked harder to find a way to convey that it's more than just the ordinary mistake, but it's not criminal behavior, and find different words to describe that,” Comey said.

Yes there were investigations into Trump before he was inaugurated, because of the documented behavior of his associates. It is legitimate to investigate when there are reasons to do so.

Ken Starr spent years investigating the Clintons, and the upshot was impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair! You reference the "equivalent of indictments", but there were no indictments.

OTOH, you don't seem to remember that Mueller listed 10 instances of obstruction of justice by Trump, each of which met at least one of the 3 criteria for a case of obstruction, and 3 or 4 met all 3 criteria. Why is that not important and worth pursuing?
 

vibise

Well-known member
If I'm not mistaken AOC has something like 2 million followers on Twitter. She and her Socialist Spice Girls call them selves "democratic socialist." Since she apparently runs the Democratic Party these days, you'd be very hard-pressed to give any other explanation for Joe Biden's agenda, perhaps you should direct this complaint toward her.
In no way does AOC have the power you attribute to her. This is a RW fevered dream created out of whole cloth.

Democratic socialism is what is practiced in many European countries which have governments set up through elections, but broad social programs that benefit individuals funded through taxes. Life is quite pleasant in those countries for most residents, since they get benefits like universal healthcare, paid parental, sick and vacation leave, low cost or free pre-school and higher education, etc. Seems like a good deal to me.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member

Yes there were investigations into Trump before he was inaugurated, because of the documented behavior of his associates. It is legitimate to investigate when there are reasons to do so.
Political differences is not legit.
Ken Starr spent years investigating the Clintons, and the upshot was impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair!
Think it had to do with lying under oath. Not that you would know the difference.
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
haven't read all comments but

reminds me of a saying i heard once

you can tell what God thinks about money by who has it



+
Ive seen many variations of that saying. Basically means that the rich are ungodly. One of the saying refers to the people who have money as scoundrels.

But on here? Some Christians praise the rich and wealth.lol
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Sure

This is where you are mistaken. The source of capitalist wealth was via wars
That's not true. My mother grew up on a farm that was originally part of a 3000 acre parcel that was homesteaded during the Lincoln administration by her family. It was purchased from France as part of the Louisiana purchase. That 3000 acre farm is capital, the means of production. They didn't find any wars to get that.
and conquest(land theft),
There are very few places on planet earth that you can go where you can reliably say no wars were ever fought here. To start there and say that all capital formation is a result of wars and theft is just a complete softest argument. If there is anything worth stealing it's worth stealing because it's the product of capital formation before it's stolen. Nobody is stealing big sections of the Sahara desert.
It might be worth pausing on this for a moment. The farm my mother grew up on was a case in point. It was homesteaded when slavery was legal. As such to meet the terms of the homestead it actually required them to have a certain number of slaves in order to keep all of the terms of the homestead. I shouldn't modify that a little bit if they had used hired labor they could've kept those terms without slavery. That's an important distinction. The point being once those slaves were emancipated in just a few years later that capital was given away by the family to the slaves in the largest part. By the time I can remember, back in the 1960s, of the original 3000 acres all but 350 had been given away. Every freed family was given 40 acres, and when the children grew up and married they were all given 40 acres. So what did the family and the slaves, turn freemen, do to create this capital? They added human effort, we normally call "hard work," to the equation and turned it into something.
and taxes.....
There is no bigger tax than commandeering capital from those who have accumulated it, in the name of the people, and calling it Socialism. That's the biggest tax that you could ever have. This is why conservatives and libertarians and Republicans complain about taxes because it reminds them of the ultimate tax, which is Socialism.
I think that is defined as more than coercion but as oppression.
I think that distinction can be right in many instances. But the most prominent of those would be Socialism.
Okay. Choose the definition of driven that defines coercion

driven
[ˈdrivən]

VERB
  1. past participle of drive.
ADJECTIVE
  1. operated, moved, or controlled by a specified person or source of power.
    "a chauffeur-driven limousine" ·
    [more]
  2. (of a person) relentlessly compelled by the need to accomplish a goal; very hard-working and ambitious.
    "my husband is a driven man"
  3. (of snow) piled into drifts or made smooth by the wind.
Here's an example "My boss is a 'slave driver.'" The meaning of this idiom is that your boss exercises coercive power over you. These analogies come right out of the Paulina epistles and even the gospels. You were either a slave to righteousness or your slave to sin. The mental imagery is that you were "driven" to one of these or the other. The idea is that there is something within you that compels you in one of these two directions and you must choose who your "master" is going to be.

"Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone [as] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" - Romans 6:16 NASB95​

It appears your reality and my perception of reality differ.
Absolutely! That is not to say that one of our perceptions is not in substantially closer to reality than the other. It is instructive however that I can make my arguments without relying on language confusion misdirections, and you don't seem to be able to avoid them. See our discussion about the word "driven" above is a perfect example.
I believe my perception(obviously) is more accurate to the TRUTH,
I'm in no position to tell you what you believe, but I'll bet you'd be very hard-pressed to make a convincing case of that tour uninterested observer.
What came first? Capitalism or Socialism?
Capitalism is just a very small sliver of a much larger idea which is "thou shalt not steal." And to your question that came first.
Thats how the capitalist STOLE not the means of production but the REAL WEALTH of countries(Their resources) which is VITAL to production.
That's your contention, but I don't see any reason to believe it, and you've given no reason to believe it.
The people can just take those resources back from the elites.
There is your coercion, "I want what you have; I'm claiming it's mine, so I'm taking it." Having the means of production doesn't make you an elitist. It's a pretty good indication that you're productive member of society however.
Like Agrarian reform, where the population took back land from the monarchs.
I have ancestors who were agitators and members of parliament respecting the execution of Charles I. As you might be able to guess they were no fan of monarchs, and with the benefit of hindsight I agree with them. There's a pretty wide gulf between capitalists and monarchs. But for the record I'm not in favor of anybody acting like monarchs. Unfortunately every time we see an example of Socialism the people in charge act like monarchs.
Do you side with the people or the elitist monarchs?
I'm against elitism and I don't like monarchs at all. Neither one of those have a thing to do with capitalism.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
. . . Continued
If you dont want to learn the real meaning of words than ask your spouse. :p
That would at least end of the conversation…
Ya, be our slave or suffer. That's the voluntary option.
That is not the option. When my brother what is 20 years old he worked for a company called Chem-Lawn spreading fertilizer and insecticide on lawns from a tanker truck. His doctor told him he was absorbing carcinogenic chemicals into his body so he quit and started his own lawn company. He simply avoided applying fertilizer and insecticides in a water suspended fashion. He was not a slave because of capitalism he was the master of his own destiny. Some years later when he decided he would like to do something else, he simply changed his line of business because capitalism made that possible.
It is when you slap interest on it!
Your example was taxes which are levied by governments. Taxes is a step along the path to Socialism because you are taking part of the means of production in the name of the people.
There exists none where I come from unless you move 2 (minimum)hours north of the city. And if you do, there are no jobs there, so you have to still be a slave in the city. Thats what people are doing. Moving out of the cities and then commuting 1-2 hours for work.. Now that the price of gas is going up, thats not even feasible. They take that money from your pocket one way or another.
I used to do that. Then I started my own operation and leased commercial real estate closer to my home. Capitalism makes that possible. It appears that you have enslaved yourself to Socialism.
Never? GO ask the Indians if they "owned" the lands. They didnt chose to sell it
Yes, they did choose to sell it; that's exactly what they did! In fact Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island was quite insistent that all transactions with native American Indians be done on terms that were indistinguishable from those that would be extended to English settlers. And as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened. Great lengths we're gone to in order to establish which Indian tribes had the best claim on any particular parcel of land before any transaction could take place.
but were CONQUERED via mass genocide for it.
The European settlers were considered by the Native Americans just to be a different tribe. The settlers did the best they could to distinguish in the internal Indian wars which tribe had the superior cars before participating if they participated at all. The suggestion that these Indian wars would not be taking place but for the European settlers is the most ridiculous fantasy imaginable.
I guess they deemed that in their best interest right?(Note sarcasm).
Speaking of "best interests" it might be in your best interest to actually learn some American history, and avoid America haters like Howard Zinn. Rule number one, an objective historian must first be objective.
Just as I thought. You haven't read the OP.LOL Try reading it and show me where I speak of thievery.
No need to refer to ancient history because this is what you said just a few comments above "the Indians . . . didnt chose to sell it." Unless you mean to say that the American Indians gave the land away for nothing, that narrows it down to thievery at least according to you.
Capitalism is supported by debt.
You could just as easily say that capitalism is supported by productivity. Both of those are forms of capital that are deployed in the creation of wealth.
And debt is supported by taxes.
If you lend me money and I pay you back with interest the only tax that is levied is an income tax on the interest. And the tax required a constitutional amendment to Levy. If you're saying that you would be happy if we didn't have an income tax I agree. I love it when we agree.
LOL. Sorry, You don't know what your talking about.
I'm sorry, but I have a BS in accounting, so I'm afraid I do know what I'm talking about.
There is profit and there is money earned(For his labour/service). Capish?
When you're running your own business you're not guaranteed any return on your labor or service. If you're able to generate any revenues, and there's no guarantee of that, then you may cover some of your expenses, or all of your expenses, or all of your expenses plus some compensation for your labor. That compensation for your labor is called profit. The exception is if your business is a corporation then it is seen in the eyes of the law as a separate person and that separate person could hire you in which case you're a slave to it, but when you get paid it's an expense, and not a profit. That is a legal distinction, the fact is if you're paying yourself, its profit or you were increasing the debt of your enterprise which will have to be resolved by repayment or bankruptcy.
I'm quite certain if a neutral ump or ref were watching the debate, they'd know you are being schooled on economics.
You know, as remarkable as that comment is, I think that may be your honest opinion. So by all means, please don't let me take any of the shine off of your Potemkin view of economics.
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Flaten the curb on population growth via vaccines? Bill Gates Ted talk. Zero population growth via vaccines? How ya going to do that Bill? 4 minutes in


 

stjerome5

Active member
Why wouldn't the elites want more pandemics?

the last one was a great excuse to violate the Constitution and the state legislature protocols RE voting

so they could win. winning is their GOD

They knew they couldn't win without cheating (Trump was too popular)

and as always... they get away with everything

not for eternity, though... There is a hefty price they will have to pay Some Day (unless they repent but they are having such a good time...).


For God is not mocked; whatsoever a man sows, so shall he reap

What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Flaten the curb on population growth via vaccines? Bill Gates Ted talk. Zero population growth via vaccines? How ya going to do that Bill? 4 minutes in


So why wouldn't you wanna take an injection promoted by a Malthusian like Bill Gates?
 

wiseones2cents

Well-known member
That's not true. My mother grew up on a farm that was originally part of a 3000 acre parcel that was homesteaded during the Lincoln administration by her family. It was purchased from France as part of the Louisiana purchase. That 3000 acre farm is capital, the means of production. They didn't find any wars to get that.

The richest elitists in this world ALL have old money from war and slavery. The richest elites in the world run the banks and own all the large parcels of land.

There are very few places on planet earth that you can go where you can reliably say no wars were ever fought here. To start there and say that all capital formation is a result of wars and theft is just a complete softest argument. If there is anything worth stealing it's worth stealing because it's the product of capital formation before it's stolen. Nobody is stealing big sections of the Sahara desert.

Product of capital formation? ROTFLOL!! Resources are "capitalist formations"? Ummmmm you are mistaken. SLAVERY is capitalist formation.

Bingo! Sahara has no resources or oil like Iraq, Thus useless to the elites to conquer. You notice America and the west only enter conflicts(under the excuse of liberating the people) in resource rich nations only?

It might be worth pausing on this for a moment. The farm my mother grew up on was a case in point. It was homesteaded when slavery was legal. As such to meet the terms of the homestead it actually required them to have a certain number of slaves in order to keep all of the terms of the homestead. I shouldn't modify that a little bit if they had used hired labor they could've kept those terms without slavery. That's an important distinction. The point being once those slaves were emancipated in just a few years later that capital was given away by the family to the slaves in the largest part. By the time I can remember, back in the 1960s, of the original 3000 acres all but 350 had been given away. Every freed family was given 40 acres, and when the children grew up and married they were all given 40 acres. So what did the family and the slaves, turn freemen, do to create this capital? They added human effort, we normally call "hard work," to the equation and turned it into something.

OHHHH so you CLAIM most of YOUR homestead was given to slaves for free?(And probably taxed to death) since they couldn't make money off their backs anymore to work the fields. I bet all those parcels of land have since been bought back by capitalists.

Did your mother own the land, was she a slave, did she have slaves??
There is no bigger tax than commandeering capital from those who have accumulated it, in the name of the people, and calling it Socialism. That's the biggest tax that you could ever have. This is why conservatives and libertarians and Republicans complain about taxes because it reminds them of the ultimate tax, which is Socialism.

Tax is a capitalist invention! 100% And the capitalists have used taxation to "commandeer" people's earnings and property.

I think that distinction can be right in many instances. But the most prominent of those would be Socialism.

Disagree
Here's an example "My boss is a 'slave driver.'" The meaning of this idiom is that your boss exercises coercive power over you. These analogies come right out of the Paulina epistles and even the gospels. You were either a slave to righteousness or your slave to sin. The mental imagery is that you were "driven" to one of these or the other. The idea is that there is something within you that compels you in one of these two directions and you must choose who your "master" is going to be.

"Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone [as] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" - Romans 6:16 NASB95​

Its funny how you just described a greedy capitalist boss that coerces his workers to work harder so he can increase profits, and then say socialism coerces? LMAO!

The slave driver is different from slave driven. We are discussing the word "driven" nor driver.

Absolutely! That is not to say that one of our perceptions is not in substantially closer to reality than the other. It is instructive however that I can make my arguments without relying on language confusion misdirections, and you don't seem to be able to avoid them. See our discussion about the word "driven" above is a perfect example.

Ya. You are mistaken.
I'm in no position to tell you what you believe, but I'll bet you'd be very hard-pressed to make a convincing case of that tour uninterested observer.

LOL. Your opinion.
Capitalism is just a very small sliver of a much larger idea which is "thou shalt not steal." And to your question that came first.

Are you still going on about this nonsense that capitalism means though shall not steal?LOL
That's your contention, but I don't see any reason to believe it, and you've given no reason to believe it.

Go ask the Native indians, go ask the Mexicans, go ask Iraq
There is your coercion, "I want what you have; I'm claiming it's mine, so I'm taking it." Having the means of production doesn't make you an elitist. It's a pretty good indication that you're productive member of society however.

Im not talking about the "means of production" I'm talking about resources, No private citizen should be able to own resources. Most were not bought but stolen by conquers. Even if America bought land from France? France STILL stole it from the Indians.
I have ancestors who were agitators and members of parliament respecting the execution of Charles I. As you might be able to guess they were no fan of monarchs, and with the benefit of hindsight I agree with them. There's a pretty wide gulf between capitalists and monarchs. But for the record I'm not in favor of anybody acting like monarchs. Unfortunately every time we see an example of Socialism the people in charge act like monarchs.

I'm against elitism and I don't like monarchs at all. Neither one of those have a thing to do with capitalism.

Ohhh so you come from elitist families. That explains it. LOL

Difference between Capitalist and Monarchs? Like what? They were both run by a central back? They both thrive on taxation, debt and interest.
The both have capitalist middlemen known as nobles and merchants.

Now what do Monarchs have in common with socialism? Socialism is rule by the people. Do the people rule under a Monarchy? LOL Please elaborate.

Elitists have nothing to do with capitalism? LOL they are the very foundation of capitalism. Bankers and credit!
 

Thistle

Well-known member
The richest elitists in this world ALL have old money from war and slavery. The richest elites in the world run the banks and own all the large parcels of land.



Product of capital formation? ROTFLOL!! Resources are "capitalist formations"? Ummmmm you are mistaken. SLAVERY is capitalist formation.

Bingo! Sahara has no resources or oil like Iraq, Thus useless to the elites to conquer. You notice America and the west only enter conflicts(under the excuse of liberating the people) in resource rich nations only?



OHHHH so you CLAIM most of YOUR homestead was given to slaves for free?(And probably taxed to death) since they couldn't make money off their backs anymore to work the fields. I bet all those parcels of land have since been bought back by capitalists.

Did your mother own the land, was she a slave, did she have slaves??


Tax is a capitalist invention! 100% And the capitalists have used taxation to "commandeer" people's earnings and property.



Disagree


Its funny how you just described a greedy capitalist boss that coerces his workers to work harder so he can increase profits, and then say socialism coerces? LMAO!

The slave driver is different from slave driven. We are discussing the word "driven" nor driver.



Ya. You are mistaken.


LOL. Your opinion.


Are you still going on about this nonsense that capitalism means though shall not steal?LOL


Go ask the Native indians, go ask the Mexicans, go ask Iraq


Im not talking about the "means of production" I'm talking about resources, No private citizen should be able to own resources. Most were not bought but stolen by conquers. Even if America bought land from France? France STILL stole it from the Indians.


Ohhh so you come from elitist families. That explains it. LOL

Difference between Capitalist and Monarchs? Like what? They were both run by a central back? They both thrive on taxation, debt and interest.
The both have capitalist middlemen known as nobles and merchants.

Now what do Monarchs have in common with socialism? Socialism is rule by the people. Do the people rule under a Monarchy? LOL Please elaborate.

Elitists have nothing to do with capitalism? LOL they are the very foundation of capitalism. Bankers and credit!
 
Top