PDA

View Full Version : Marx Would Be Impressed



PoliCon
03-29-2010, 07:09 AM
Socialists believe that the way to paradise is for governments to own "the means of production." Thus, decades ago even democratic countries such as France and Britain nationalized considerable swathes of their economies to achieve "social justice." That didn't work so well; therefore, since the days of Margaret Thatcher there have been wave after wave of privatizations in Europe and around the world.

Today's neosocialists are smarter than their ancestors. Instead of outright takeovers, they are achieving much the same goal through rigid regulations. ObamaCare is a prime example. Health insurers will eventually be private in name only, as the details of their policies will be dictated by governmental decrees. About the only thing companies will have any autonomy over--perhaps--will be their corporate logo.

Entitlements go hand in hand with sweeping, overbearing regulations. President Obama wants higher education in this country to be free of charge, which is why his Administration is pushing for a government takeover of student lending. With such powers it will be but a wee stretch to intrude even further into the governance of the nation's colleges and universities--including, ultimately, admissions.

Senator Chris Dodd's (D--Conn.) recently unveiled package of financial regulatory reforms is a neosocialist's dream. It is also destructively stupid. The bill doesn't address the key causes of the recent economic crisis: the Fed's too loose monetary policy, the behavior of Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ) in buying or guaranteeing almost $1.5 trillion in junk mortgages and the failure to properly regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives.

Dodd's punting on swaps is astonishing. Years ago Washington should have mandated that such instruments go through clearinghouses so there'd be full transparency and proper margin requirements. After all, classic derivatives such as soybeans and currency futures have had margin requirements and clearing mechanisms.

In the name of fighting Washington's too-big-to-fail doctrine for major financial institutions, Dodd's bill is a de facto institutionalization of them. Financial outfits that are deemed a threat to financial stability will actually be protected by the government. The bill establishes a $50 billion fund to deal with big failures, but the fact that such a fund exists tells the market that when trouble comes big banks will be saved. Thus these biggies, like Fannie and Freddie, will have lower costs of borrowing--debt is by far the biggest component of their capital--which will put their smaller competition at a crippling disadvantage.

Moreover, the bill doesn't address the problem small businesses have with the current credit system. Bank examiners are applying a mark-to-market mentality in evaluating bank loans. This is an unfair bias toward bigger-sized borrowers and, of course, the debt-hungry U.S. government. Thus the paradox of today: bargain-basement rates of interest for larger firms and higher costs--or no credit at all--for smaller borrowers.

With favored access to low-cost debt the big will get bigger--and they will be beholden to Washington.

Dodd's scheme would create a new regulatory bureaucracy, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), with sweeping powers for itself (and the Fed). Chief among its tasks would be assessing risk of banks and their products and activities, yet Washington has demonstrated that it is incapable of judging risk. Washington would have vast sway over the operations of the U.S. financial system. In this new world banks would have to get permission from Washington for any innovation. If an institution incurred Washington's displeasure, bureaucrats could order divestitures of businesses or could even put a firm out of business.

The Dodd bill is an open invitation for government to micromanage the whole breadth of finance in America, including even your local pawnshop. Nationalizing the U.S. financial system without formally nationalizing it--Karl Marx would be drooling in delight.

Washington already has the power to impose requirements--for instance, if you want to buy stock on margin, you have to put 50% down. In 2004 debt restrictions on investment banks were lifted by the SEC. Reimpose them. One overdue action is repealing the 2000 law banning the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating new financial derivatives.

Sensible debt-to-equity ratios, including stiffer equity requirements for volatile short-term debt, and clearinghouses for almost all derivatives would efficiently accomplish what Dodd's monstrosity purports to do and manifestly does not.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0412/fact-comment-steve-forbes-neosocialists-obama-obamacare-marx-impressed.html?feed=rss_opinions

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 08:37 AM
Actually every advanced nation in the world except ours has a strong Socialist party and they aren't concerned with overthrowing the system or having the state own all the property. Instead, they function primarily as a "workers party", looking out for the interests of their workers as their societies continuously evolve. (for example, every advanced nation in the world has universal preschools, childcare, and parental-leave from work when they have a child. also workers in those nations make upwards of 50-70% more on average than do American workers, and receive inexpensive educational opportunities to keep them comptetative, while we have the highest poverty rate of any advanced western nation)

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 08:39 AM
Most modern socialists aren't looking to overthrow anything (like they even could lmao) or take the means of production from the wealthy or anything like that. Rather, they are simply looking for some workers solidarity and recognition of working-class interests.

Sonnabend
03-29-2010, 08:45 AM
Most modern socialists aren't looking to overthrow anything (like they even could lmao) or take the means of production from the wealthy or anything like that


Obama: "spread the wealth around"


. Rather, they are simply looking for some workers solidarity and recognition of working-class interests.

There is no such thing as a working class.

FlaGator
03-29-2010, 08:48 AM
Actually every advanced nation in the world except ours has a strong Socialist party and they aren't concerned with overthrowing the system or having the state own all the property. Instead, they function primarily as a "workers party", looking out for the interests of their workers as their societies continuously evolve. (for example, every advanced nation in the world has universal preschools, childcare, and parental-leave from work when they have a child. also workers in those nations make upwards of 50-70% more on average than do American workers, and receive inexpensive educational opportunities to keep them comptetative, while we have the highest poverty rate of any advanced western nation)

Why is it that "every advanced nation in the world" having a strong Socialist party relevent to the U.S. and it's government? To borrow a quote from my mother, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump too? The point being is that just because something is done by the majority doesn't make it a good and right thing to do?

dixierat
03-29-2010, 08:52 AM
Why is it that "every advanced nation in the world" having a strong Socialist party relevent to the U.S. and it's government? To borrow a quote from my mother, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump too? The point being is that just because something is done by the majority doesn't make it a good and right thing to do?

His comment is inaccurate at any rate. The Dems are a VERY socialist Party as they have proven over and over for the last 50-70 years. Any statement to the contrary is just a misstatement of the facts. History don't lie.

:cool:

FlaGator
03-29-2010, 08:55 AM
His comment is inaccurate at any rate. The Dems are a VERY socialist Party as they have proven over and over for the last 50-70 years. Any statement to the contrary is just a misstatement of the facts. History don't lie.

:cool:

Wasn't there once a German party that defined itself as Socialist?;)

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:03 AM
Why is it that "every advanced nation in the world" having a strong Socialist party relevent to the U.S. and it's government? To borrow a quote from my mother, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you jump too? The point being is that just because something is done by the majority doesn't make it a good and right thing to do?

Because we have no basis to compare anything if we only examine ourselves at the present situation. I'm not saying "we should do it because everyone else does", I'm saying we should stop arguing with imaginary boogy-men and simply look around and what has and hasn't worked in other nations. There's a big difference between blindly following others and observing/learning from them.

Also, it's important to remember that we live in a global economy now. America is no longer the island that it was right before and autonomous system. It's part of the reason for major economic shifts in the last half century and ignoring it makes no sense. Pretending that we are an island and ignoring the rest of the world is only making us less and less competitive in the global marketplace.

dixierat
03-29-2010, 09:04 AM
Wasn't there once a German party that defined itself as Socialist?;)

I believe they had many mandates for their people during the 30's and 40's. Didn't end well for them, as I recall.

:cool:

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:06 AM
Because we have no basis to compare anything if we only examine ourselves at the present situation. I'm not saying "we should do it because everyone else does", I'm saying we should stop arguing with imaginary boogy-men and simply look around and what has and hasn't worked in other nations. There's a big difference between blindly following others and observing/learning from them.

Also, it's important to remember that we live in a global economy now. America is no longer the island that it was right before and autonomous system. It's part of the reason for major economic shifts in the last half century and ignoring it makes no sense. Pretending that we are an island and ignoring the rest of the world is only making us less and less competitive in the global marketplace.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/ObamaCommie.jpg?t=1269867896

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:08 AM
His comment is inaccurate at any rate. The Dems are a VERY socialist Party as they have proven over and over for the last 50-70 years. Any statement to the contrary is just a misstatement of the facts. History don't lie.

:cool:

You're saying that we've had half of our government run by Full Blooded Socialists yet we still remain the most uber-capitalist nation in the world with the wealthiest people and the largest gap between the rich and poor? You're saying we have had full blown socialists running the US government and we still don't have public health care, universal childcare, affordable college? You're saying we've had full blown socialists transformation the nation over the last half a century despite the fact that workers wages have been stagnant since 1973 while the wealthiest individuals have increased their worth by several fold?

Democrats are not socialists, not by a LONG shot. There is a socialist party but it's extremely weak in our country.

Calling the democrats socialists is just designed to scare people who don't understand what socialism is into voting for republicans. It's the lowest of low-brow political strategy.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:09 AM
I believe they had many mandates for their people during the 30's and 40's. Didn't end well for them, as I recall.

:cool:

Oh I get it. Mandates are a SOCIALIST thing. Sort of like the bill that just passed that has a mandate in it requiring everyone to buy PRIVATE insurance? :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:10 AM
You're saying that we've had half of our government run by Full Blooded Socialists yet we still remain the most uber-capitalist nation in the world with the wealthiest people and the largest gap between the rich and poor? You're saying we have had full blown socialists running the US government and we still don't have public health care, universal childcare, affordable college? You're saying we've had full blown socialists transformation the nation over the last half a century despite the fact that workers wages have been stagnant since 1973 while the wealthiest individuals have increased their worth by several fold?

Democrats are not socialists, not by a LONG shot. There is a socialist party but it's extremely weak in our country.

Calling the democrats socialists is just designed to scare people who don't understand what socialism is into voting for republicans. It's the lowest of low-brow political strategy.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/obama_commie1.jpg?t=1269868191

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:12 AM
Oh I get it. Mandates are a SOCIALIST thing. Sort of like the bill that just passed that has a mandate in it requiring everyone to buy PRIVATE insurance? :rolleyes:
You forget the AIG bailout. The new USA already owns a huge interest in insurance companies.

FlaGator
03-29-2010, 09:36 AM
Because we have no basis to compare anything if we only examine ourselves at the present situation. I'm not saying "we should do it because everyone else does", I'm saying we should stop arguing with imaginary boogy-men and simply look around and what has and hasn't worked in other nations. There's a big difference between blindly following others and observing/learning from them.

Also, it's important to remember that we live in a global economy now. America is no longer the island that it was right before and autonomous system. It's part of the reason for major economic shifts in the last half century and ignoring it makes no sense. Pretending that we are an island and ignoring the rest of the world is only making us less and less competitive in the global marketplace.

I understand your point, and I agree with it as it concerns looking at what works and doesn't work. I would suggest that socialism does not work to the extent that many who do not live under socialistic governments believes that is does. I think that perhaps it is a case of 'I don't like what we have so this other thing must be better'.

I don't think that I suggested that America should act as an island unto itself, but I do believe that America should consider what is best for America in respect to what other nations are doing. Sometimes moving in the same direction as other nations may not be in the best interests of the U.S. Sometime it might be, but each decision must be made on a case by case basis. I think that you would agree that a one size fits all economic system from a global perspective is not in anybody's best interest.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 10:09 AM
I understand your point, and I agree with it as it concerns looking at what works and doesn't work. I would suggest that socialism does not work to the extent that many who do not live under socialistic governments believes that is does. I think that perhaps it is a case of 'I don't like what we have so this other thing must be better'.

Ah yes, a common fallacy to find the complete Other in some specific other. Things would only be complete and perfect if so-and-so, that other system is surely the right one. Sort of like people who view the far East as some untouched pure land of spirituality or how people imagine the native Americans living in harmony with nature in happy communes while ignoring the institutional domestic abuse and other issues.

I'm not saying Socialism (in pure theoretical form) is even possible or that any incarnation of it would be perfect. However, we should also keep in mind that socialism is not some free floating thing. If we are looking at "socialistic policy" or "socialist programs" then it should be obvious to everyone that we never had and never will have a purely capitalist system (which also wouldn't work) and in fact we have some weird mesh.

We have a hybrid system, and the people who isolate "Socialism" from that network of meaning and talk about it as a thing in itself which needs to be purged are just as naive as the radicals who isolate "Capitalism" as an evil in itself and believe that some sort of revolution-leading-to-communist-utopia is desirable or even possible.

We can't talk about socialism as some Thing which is entering our system, at best we can call things within our system socialistic in that they aim at the interests of working and middle class wage laborers.


I don't think that I suggested that America should act as an island unto itself, but I do believe that America should consider what is best for America in respect to what other nations are doing. Sometimes moving in the same direction as other nations may not be in the best interests of the U.S. Sometime it might be, but each decision must be made on a case by case basis. I think that you would agree that a one size fits all economic system from a global perspective is not in anybody's best interest.

I'd agree with that. Still, it's tough to talk about "America" as a unified entity with interests of it's own. Really there are different groups with different interests, and they aren't always sligned with nationalistic interests (for example, our major "American" corporations use parts and production from all over the world, and are only American by name, because they were founded here. In these cases, the interests of those who run these corporations are transnational.)

AmPat
03-29-2010, 02:36 PM
Today's neosocialists are smarter than their ancestors. Instead of outright takeovers, they are achieving much the same goal through rigid regulations. ObamaCare is a prime example. Health insurers will eventually be private in name only, as the details of their policies will be dictated by governmental decrees. About the only thing companies will have any autonomy over--perhaps--will be their corporate logoThis is the classical definition of Fascism isn't it?

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 05:49 PM
This is the classical definition of Fascism isn't it?

actually - yes. ;)


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html


“Capitalism,” a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for “economic individualism,” which Adam Smith earlier called “the obvious and simple system of natural liberty” (Wealth of Nations). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. There is no natural limit to the range of their efforts in terms of assets, sales, and profits; or the number of customers, employees, and investors; or whether they operate in local, regional, national, or international markets.http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html

Constitutionally Speaking
03-29-2010, 07:52 PM
Actually every advanced nation in the world except ours has a strong Socialist party and they aren't concerned with overthrowing the system or having the state own all the property. Instead, they function primarily as a "workers party", looking out for the interests of their workers as their societies continuously evolve. (for example, every advanced nation in the world has universal preschools, childcare, and parental-leave from work when they have a child. also workers in those nations make upwards of 50-70% more on average than do American workers, and receive inexpensive educational opportunities to keep them comptetative, while we have the highest poverty rate of any advanced western nation)

They have higher unemployment rates, lower mobility and our poverty rates are skewed by the standards with which we measure poverty.

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 08:34 PM
They have higher unemployment rates,

This is true. This is the real trade-off. However, those who are employed have unmatched benefits, for example:

All Norwegian women receive 42 weeks of full paid maternity leave when she's having a child, get full reimbursement for medical costs and receive anual stipends of approx. $1,800 every year for every child under 18 she has.

Also, those who are unemployed are less likely to stay unemployed for a long period of time, and have access to full health care and other necessities along with their unemployment benefits.



lower mobility

This is because they have a much larger middle class than we do. Far more of their populations are comfortably in the middle with wages that are 50-60% higher than American counterparts. The the larger slightly more uniform distribution means mobility is less apparent.


and our poverty rates are skewed by the standards with which we measure poverty.

Um... actually they are skewed in the opposite direction.

Our official poverty rate was set at 3 times "the minimum amount required to sustain a nutritionally adequate diet" back in 1964 (the other 2 thirds to cover all other expenses including housing and clothes)and despite the radical change in our economy and technology, the only changes to the poverty line was inflation adjustments. That means that our current poverty line is the equal to 3 times the amount it took to sustain yourself nutritionally in 1964 adjusted for inflation or $19,971 for a family of four in today's dollars. Now, we should keep in mind that changes in economic conditions and consumer goods means that families no longer spend a third of their income on food, but a seventh. This means there are more costs today than before, which our povery line doesn't account for.

As for the European Union, they use a different standard: 1/2 of the median income.

If we followed that standard our poverty line would raise substantially and so would the number of newly defined "poor".

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 08:39 PM
This is true. This is the real trade-off. However, those who are employed have unmatched benefits, for example:

All Norwegian women receive 42 weeks of full paid maternity leave when she's having a child, get full reimbursement for medical costs and receive anual stipends of approx. $1,800 every year for every child under 18 she has.

Also, those who are unemployed are less likely to stay unemployed for a long period of time, and have access to full health care and other necessities along with their unemployment benefits.




This is because they have a much larger middle class than we do. Far more of their populations are comfortably in the middle with wages that are 50-60% higher than American counterparts. The the larger slightly more uniform distribution means mobility is less apparent.



Um... actually they are skewed in the opposite direction.

Our official poverty rate was set at 3 times "the minimum amount required to sustain a nutritionally adequate diet" back in 1964 (the other 2 thirds to cover all other expenses including housing and clothes)and despite the radical change in our economy and technology, the only changes to the poverty line was inflation adjustments. That means that our current poverty line is the equal to 3 times the amount it took to sustain yourself nutritionally in 1964 adjusted for inflation or $19,971 for a family of four in today's dollars. Now, we should keep in mind that changes in economic conditions and consumer goods means that families no longer spend a third of their income on food, but a seventh. This means there are more costs today than before, which our povery line doesn't account for.

As for the European Union, they use a different standard: 1/2 of the median income.

If we followed that standard our poverty line would raise substantially and so would the number of newly defined "poor".

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/commie-1.jpg?t=1269909509

Wei Wu Wei
03-29-2010, 09:20 PM
Oh so Norway's economic and government style is "communist" now? Or is it socialist? Sounds like a nightmare for anyone who loves capitalism.

Hmm, how about we ask one of the biggest Capitalists in the nation, the CEO of Norway's largest supermarket chain had this to say about their system:

"We are a very social democratic society, and we don't know any other system. It may be costly, but there is social peace. There are no poor people in Norway and I don't want to see any. There are no strikes and no high demands for wage increases. I want to adjust the system, but only to preserve it."

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:23 PM
Oh so Norway's economic and government style is "communist" now? Or is it socialist? Sounds like a nightmare for anyone who loves capitalism.

Hmm, how about we ask one of the biggest Capitalists in the nation, the CEO of Norway's largest supermarket chain had this to say about their system:

"We are a very social democratic society, and we don't know any other system. It may be costly, but there is social peace. There are no poor people in Norway and I don't want to see any. There are no strikes and no high demands for wage increases. I want to adjust the system, but only to preserve it."

One moment please!

Rockntractor
03-29-2010, 09:24 PM
Thank you!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/communism-party.jpg?t=1269912241

Ranger Rick
03-29-2010, 09:35 PM
Oh so Norway's economic and government style is "communist" now? Or is it socialist? Sounds like a nightmare for anyone who loves capitalism.

Hmm, how about we ask one of the biggest Capitalists in the nation, the CEO of Norway's largest supermarket chain had this to say about their system:

"We are a very social democratic society, and we don't know any other system. It may be costly, but there is social peace. There are no poor people in Norway and I don't want to see any. There are no strikes and no high demands for wage increases. I want to adjust the system, but only to preserve it."

Nice, now lets compare France, or England.

PoliCon
03-29-2010, 10:38 PM
Tell me WEE WEE - what's the birth rate in Norway?

AmPat
03-30-2010, 01:48 PM
Oh so Norway's economic and government style is "communist" now? Or is it socialist? Sounds like a nightmare for anyone who loves capitalism.

Hmm, how about we ask one of the biggest Capitalists in the nation, the CEO of Norway's largest supermarket chain had this to say about their system:

"We are a very social democratic society, and we don't know any other system. It may be costly, but there is social peace. There are no poor people in Norway and I don't want to see any. There are no strikes and no high demands for wage increases. I want to adjust the system, but only to preserve it."

may I suggest that Norway is the perfect place for you?:cool:

Wei Wu Wei
03-30-2010, 06:16 PM
Tell me WEE WEE - what's the birth rate in Norway?

very close to that in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

Apache
03-30-2010, 08:06 PM
Oh so Norway's economic and government style is "communist" now? Or is it socialist? Sounds like a nightmare for anyone who loves capitalism.

Hmm, how about we ask one of the biggest Capitalists in the nation, the CEO of Norway's largest supermarket chain had this to say about their system:

"We are a very social democratic society, and we don't know any other system. It may be costly, but there is social peace. There are no poor people in Norway and I don't want to see any. There are no strikes and no high demands for wage increases. I want to adjust the system, but only to preserve it."

America is the land of possibilities, not certaintees. You want government to run your life move to Norway...

Wei Wu Wei
03-30-2010, 08:35 PM
America is the land of possibilities, not certaintees. You want government to run your life move to Norway...

This doesn't mean anything. We have government funded health insurance for the elderly, for the very poor, for children of low income parents, we have social security and we have welfare, we have unemployment benefits and financial aid for advanced education and so on and so on

Those are all also part of America, trying to narrowly define the nation as one thing and ignore everything to the contrary is an extremely limited way of thinking and child-like in it's ability to establish thorough, meaningful conclusions.

PoliCon
03-30-2010, 08:43 PM
very close to that in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

And what is the birthrate of the native Norwegians as compared to that of the Muslim immigrants?

Wei Wu Wei
03-30-2010, 08:54 PM
And what is the birthrate of the native Norwegians as compared to that of the Muslim immigrants?

I suppose we should also use the birthrate of Pure Blooded Aryans for the US numbers and count the rest as 3/5th's of a person huh?

Rockntractor
03-30-2010, 08:58 PM
I suppose we should also use the birthrate of Pure Blooded Aryans for the US numbers and count the rest as 3/5th's of a person huh?

Yeah! Why not moron, we are used to this every conservative is a racist crap and frankly we don't give a shit!

PoliCon
03-30-2010, 08:59 PM
I suppose we should also use the birthrate of Pure Blooded Aryans for the US numbers and count the rest as 3/5th's of a person huh?

There you go being a FUCKTARD again. :rolleyes: The point is that the native populations of Europe are in decline. They are experiencing negative birthrates - while the birthrates of Islamic immigrants - NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF RACE OR SKIN COLOR HERE YOU TOTAL FUCKTARD - are high. SO - it behooves Norway to go out of their way to encourage their native populations to breed. :rolleyes:

AmPat
03-30-2010, 09:00 PM
I suppose we should also use the birthrate of Pure Blooded Aryans for the US numbers and count the rest as 3/5th's of a person huh?

No, no. That would be a DUMB Jackass-o-RAT. The Republicans did away with that.

Wei Wu Wei
03-30-2010, 09:00 PM
Yeah! Why not moron, we are used to this every conservative is a racist crap and frankly we don't give a shit!

lol no not every conservative is a racist. You see it was a joke because Policon was exposed as a reader/proponent of Neo-Nazi News

Rockntractor
03-30-2010, 09:02 PM
There you go being a FUCKTARD again. :rolleyes: The point is that the native populations of Europe are in decline. They are experiencing negative birthrates - while the birthrates of Islamic immigrants - NOTICE THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF RACE OR SKIN COLOR HERE YOU TOTAL FUCKTARD - are high. SO - it behooves Norway to go out of their way to encourage their native populations to breed. :rolleyes:

We are all racists Poli! We are white conservatives, we feed half the world and we are still hated by the parasitic left.

Rockntractor
03-30-2010, 09:05 PM
lol no not every conservative is a racist. You see it was a joke because Policon was exposed as a reader/proponent of Neo-Nazi News
Why don't we just lynch him for it! I have read some pretty rank shit and it doesn't make me racist. I read your posts and that doesn't make me communist!:rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-30-2010, 09:08 PM
lol no not every conservative is a racist. You see it was a joke because Policon was exposed as a reader/proponent of Neo-Nazi News

Wee wee - I'm as racist as you are effective as making points - which is to say: NOT AT ALL. NOT BY A LONG SHOT. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
03-30-2010, 09:09 PM
lol no not every conservative is a racist. You see it was a joke because Policon was exposed as a reader/proponent of Neo-Nazi News

You poor deluded moron. I read much more than just crap that I agree with. :rolleyes: I'm not a leftist that needs to live in an echo chamber.

Rockntractor
03-30-2010, 09:11 PM
You poor deluded moron. I read much more than just crap that I agree with. :rolleyes: I'm not a leftist that needs to live in an echo chamber.
If he only knew all the hours you spend reading the Huffington post and relishing every word!

PoliCon
03-30-2010, 09:19 PM
If he only knew all the hours you spend reading the Huffington post and relishing every word!

I only read huff -n- puff when someone links me to it. :p Now moveon.org - that's a site I just can't get enough of! :D