(05-22-2019 07:41 AM)king king Wrote:  I'm not for socialism, but it's not always police/prison apparatus.

Umm, actually, yes, it pretty much is.

Quote:Scandinavia is all pretty much socialist to the core.

Umm, actually, no, it isn't. They are capitalist with a safety net. That safety net is pretty expensive, so their tax rates are high. Except Norway, which is hugely subsidized with North Sea oil royalties. People like to say, look at Sweden with its 60% top personal income tax rate. But what they don't tell you is that Swedes start out from the bottom paying 35% (pretty close to our top rate), bump to 55% at around US$50,000 income, and get to 60% at about US$75,000. And they have a "regressive" 25% value added tax. And their corporate rate is 22%. With that tax structure, the "fair share" of their tax burden paid by the "wealthy" is significantly smaller than here, and their tax burden falls far more heavily on the middle and lower classes. And on the flip side, their benefits are generally available to everyone, not "meant tested" like here. They also have no-fault medical malpractice and privatized social security. So in many ways they are more capitalist than we are, and way more capitalist than anything proposed by the likes of Bernie or AOC.

Redistribution is where I draw the line between social democrats and out-and-out socialists/communists/collectivists. Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia are on the social democrat side of that line. Berne and AOC and the democrats are on the socialist/communist/collectivist side.

Quote:And they're some of the nicest countries I've ever been to. Well run. Maintained. Clean. Happy, educated, thriving people with thriving economies. The point I'm making here is that it's not always gulags and totalitarianism.

Until the redistribution starts. When people don't want their income and wealth redistributed elsewhere, you need force to make it happen. That's where you get the secret police and gulags.

(05-22-2019 08:12 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 07:53 AM)king king Wrote:  In fact, IF any comparison were to be extrapolated out of that post it would be Scandinavian countries to another country that's tried socialism and had it end in prisons/gulags. Which would decidedly NOT be America.

Go back to sleep.

I’m not sure how much you actually understand Scandinavian style democratic socialism, but your posts on this thread exhibit something of a disconnect. Scandanavia’s grand experiment with socialism has deep seated roots in private ownership and public stewardship. That’s the democratic part of it. The socialism part stems from the desires of a homogenous populace who already agree on a long list of issues and are willing to compromise in the things they don’t agree on. In essence, it’s a socialist package controlled in a transparent manner by a government largely free of (until recently) of special interest interference.

None of that describes the currently en vogue socialist policies of the far left. All of their policies rely heavily on massive wealth redistribution, special interest politics, and heavy government control. They can’t even come up with a climate change policy that doesn’t involve intimate government control of private lives, massive shifts in wealth and control of income, and heavy catering to special interests.

As to wondering why people think you are comparing Scandinavia to America, you do realize you are in a thread titled, “70% of Democrats say socialism would be good for America”, don’t you?

You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

(05-22-2019 11:19 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 06:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Hey Light Brights.....


What do you think Social Security, MediCare, and Medicaid are?????????

It's too bad they don't have an X (traditional Left right) and a Y graph ( O point with the median IQ of 100) with the quadrants. Graph a scatter plot of lib/cons vs. IQ. This room would solidly be in Quadrant 4.



https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-securi...l-security

Nearly nine in ten Americans (85%) say Social Security is more important than ever to ensure that retirees have a dependable income. ... About 8 in 10 (77%) say it is critical to preserve Social Security even if it means increasing the Social Security taxes paid by working Americans.


but muh socialism......................................

Medicaid is straight up socialism using tax dollars to fund income redistribution. The last time I checked however...I and my employer pay into the other two systems.

It's still socialism and they all poll above 70%. The op is bullchit................... Just pointing that out......

Very similar to the oranged hair emperor saying we will never be a socialist country. The neanderthals cheer not realizing we've been a socialist country for about 80 years.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/...s-poll-kff

MediCaid has a 74% popularity.....................

The op is low homeboys............................

but I do have to say......

These kind of things work on the low info Fox News crowd........ Just read the ignorance on the first page.................

It's simply amazing. It really is.

Like catnip to a Tomkat. Simply amazing.


70% of Democrats say socialism would be good for America! Well 74% of Americans agree with Medicaid and 85% agree with Social Security...............................

and you numb nuts think this is a bad thing.......... sheeeesh.......

You guys want me on that wall.....

you guys need me on that wall..................


You all just can't handle the truth.

Like an Ali right hand upside the head.

(05-22-2019 12:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guys want me on that wall.....

you guys need me on that wall..................


You all just can't handle the truth.

Like an Ali right hand upside the head.

lol, can I have some of whatever you are drinking? Entertaining I'll give you that!

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.

That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.

Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

(05-22-2019 11:21 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 07:41 AM)king king Wrote:  I'm not for socialism, but it's not always police/prison apparatus.

Umm, actually, yes, it pretty much is.

Quote:Scandinavia is all pretty much socialist to the core.

Umm, actually, no, it isn't. They are capitalist with a safety net. That safety net is pretty expensive, so their tax rates are high. Except Norway, which is hugely subsidized with North Sea oil royalties. People like to say, look at Sweden with its 60% top personal income tax rate. But what they don't tell you is that Swedes start out from the bottom paying 35% (pretty close to our top rate), bump to 55% at around US$50,000 income, and get to 60% at about US$75,000. And they have a "regressive" 25% value added tax. And their corporate rate is 22%. With that tax structure, the "fair share" of their tax burden paid by the "wealthy" is significantly smaller than here, and their tax burden falls far more heavily on the middle and lower classes. And on the flip side, their benefits are generally available to everyone, not "meant tested" like here. They also have no-fault medical malpractice and privatized social security. So in many ways they are more capitalist than we are, and way more capitalist than anything proposed by the likes of Bernie or AOC.

Redistribution is where I draw the line between social democrats and out-and-out socialists/communists/collectivists. Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia are on the social democrat side of that line. Berne and AOC and the democrats are on the socialist/communist/collectivist side.

Quote:And they're some of the nicest countries I've ever been to. Well run. Maintained. Clean. Happy, educated, thriving people with thriving economies. The point I'm making here is that it's not always gulags and totalitarianism.

Until the redistribution starts. When people don't want their income and wealth redistributed elsewhere, you need force to make it happen. That's where you get the secret police and gulags.

This is where the pretty much in my statement comes into play.

Agreed they're capitalist economies but the tax burden to provide for free healthcare, education, pension, retraining/re-employing of laid off workers, etc administered by the government equals a lot of social programs and a high redistribution of wealth.

By some accounts, because of transfer payments, Sweden's GDP is made up of 3/5 government involvement for example. FWIW, Wiki says it's industry is overwhelmingly public and state controlled.

"High taxes, strong unions and an equal distribution of wealth. That’s the recipe for success in a globalized world, according to Magdalena Andersson, the Social Democratic economist who’s also Sweden’s finance minister.

Link here

Further, as pertains to the Nordic model:

Their policy makers have chosen a mixed economic system that reduces the gap between the rich and the poor through redistributive taxation and a robust public sector while preserving the benefits of capitalism.

...The result is a nation of small entrepreneurial enterprises directed by citizens facing the same set of challenges. Solutions that benefit one member of the society are likely to benefit all members. This collective mentality results in a citizenry that trust its government because the government is led by citizens seeking to create programs that benefit everyone. Accordingly, the citizens willingly chose to pay higher taxes in exchange for benefits that they and their family members will get to enjoy. The result is publicly funded services, such as healthcare and education that are of such high quality that private enterprise has no reason to offer these services or room to improve them. This mindset remained intact as capitalist enterprises developed.

Link Here

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.

That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.

Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.

To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.

The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.

Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

The biggest problem with Socialism for a government is that once the leader is entrenched he ain't budging. That's been the case in every Socialist country. And they do it with their apparatus that will use force/imprisonment to remain there. Can you all imagine Bernie as a Dictator for the rest of YOUR and your CHILDRENS life.

Heck, I wouldn't want Bernie as my representative, much less as my president. He's a bonafide, certifiable idiot with no clue except that he want's to be that man in charge.

(05-21-2019 04:44 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:Seventy percent of Democrats say “some form of socialism” would be a “good thing” for the U.S., according to a new Gallup survey.

While socialism is popular among Democratic voters, a majority of voters overall, 51%, say embracing it would be bad for the country, the Gallup survey found.

Just 25% of Democrats said some form of socialism would be “a bad thing for the country as a whole,” according to the survey, which Gallup released Monday.

Among Republicans, 84% of respondents said that embracing some form of socialism would be bad for the U.S.. A plurality of independents, 48%, said the same.

The survey, which was conducted April 17-30 and had a margin of error of six percentage points, marked even more enthusiastic support for socialism among Democrats than in Gallup’s 2018 survey on the same subject.

The survey that year found that 57% of Democrats had a favorable view of socialism. That survey also marked the first time that Democrats had a more favorable view of socialism than capitalism.

Link

70% of dems live in their daddy's basement...

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

I thought we didn't believe polls?

(05-22-2019 03:31 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I thought we didn't believe polls?

Awwww.....you are trying something new! Congrats!

(05-22-2019 03:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 03:31 PM)fsquid Wrote:  I thought we didn't believe polls?

Awwww.....you are trying something new! Congrats!

Say, baby, baby why you dye your hair?
Why you always keeping with your mother's dare?

(05-22-2019 03:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 11:31 AM)king king Wrote:  You missed the point of my post in that previous posters ascribed socialism to always ending in prisons/gulags/totalitarianism. I simply pointed out that it doesn't always, eg socialism in Scandinavian countries has not ended up that way. If you'd like to discuss those differences, let's do that. I dont care what the title is, I was making a distinction to posts WITHIN the thread.

And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

Socialism is government takeover of the economy, entire industries. Government confiscation of Krogers, P&G, Ford, Microsoft, GE etc. There is not massive redistribution of wealth in those countries either. Welfare programs are limited there are caps.

(05-22-2019 05:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 03:26 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 02:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 01:55 PM)king king Wrote:  

(05-22-2019 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And I am making a different distinction. Social democracy in Scandinavian countries is not about government redistribution of income and wealth, it's about basically a capitalist economy with a safety net. Everybody benefits and everybody pays.
That's different from Bernie's and AOC's (among others') "democratic socialism." They have conveniently crafted a name that sounds sorta like social democracy, but really isn't. They are talking about massive government redistribution. And where you have massive redistribution, you end up needing to use force, because people don't having what they earned taken away. And that leads inevitably to secret police, gulags, and totalitarianism, whether intended or not.
Name a country that has crossed the line into collectivism that hasn't ended up with totalitarianism.

My post was responding to Dust My Broom, Owl.
To your point, collectivism = communism? That's a different argument than I'm making. I'm not arguing that communism doesn't equal totalitarianism. It most assuredly does.
The Nordic Model shows a penchant for the people to choose higher tax burdens to provide for a redistribution of wealth for the betterment of all. Capitalism can live within socialism but cannot within communism. Hence why this is true in Scandinavia. I'd argue that we also live in a socialist/capitalist hybrid here in the states whereby we've allowed social programs to be funded from taxation.
Medicare/Medicaid are taxpayer funded social programs for healthcare, and by some estimates Medicaid paid for 40% of all US births in 2013 (Link here). I'm sure it's higher now than in 2013 with the introduction of the ACA. Is there much difference between the "state" administering the program and the "state" funding the program with direct payments to doctors?

Funding social programs is not socialism. There are plenty of non-socialist countries that provide extensive social programs. It becomes socialism when the objective shifts from primarily providing a safety net to primarily redistributing income and wealth on a massive basis.

That's the difference between social democracies like Sweden and the democratic socialism of Bernie or AOC. Obviously the social democracies' policies accomplish some mild redistribution. But it is minimal because 1) their tax structures are flatter and less "progressive," and 2) benefits are generally available to all, rather than being restricted by "means testing." The European social democracies typically provide both a more comprehensive safety net at the bottom and a more tax efficient way to earn a return on investment at the top. That's not socialism.

And massive redistribution triggers the secret police and gulags. Why? Because people don't like having what they earned taken from them and redistributed, so that has to be compelled by force.

So whether you say you are for secret police and gulags or not (and what politician in his/her right mind would claim to favor such things), if you favor massive redistribution of income and wealth, then you favor totalitarianism and secret police and gulags--because the only way to achieve massive redistribution is through force.

Except that in the Nordic countries the people have chosen massive redistribution of wealth to serve the greater need without ever needing to use strongarm tactics.

Socialism is government takeover of the economy, entire industries. Government confiscation of Krogers, P&G, Ford, Microsoft, GE etc. There is not massive redistribution of wealth in those countries either. Welfare programs are limited there are caps.

Is complete socialized medicine and wholesale ownership by the state of mining companies, telecoms, etc not socialism?

According to Sweden's Minister of Finance, equal distribution of wealth is Paramount to their success.

(05-22-2019 12:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You guys want me on that wall.....

you guys need me on that wall..................


You all just can't handle the truth.

Like an Ali right hand upside the head.

I got to hand it to you, for someone who is so often spectacularly wrong, you have very strong opinions. Shame they are most all asinine.....