Great: Another Socialist on the board...SouthernBelle82

[SouthernBelle82]

If you're going to spy on someone you need probable cause for a warrant. And he has no personal information on me except what I put out there on profiles I use. It's pathetic. This person needs a life. So what I'm a socialist and damn proud of it.

lol, stalking doesn't "violate the fourth ammendment".

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Gee how do I feel? A pathetic loser started a thread on me trying to smear me by doing nothing but using me being a socialist as a smear. What a loser.

Googling somebody isn't stalking. It's kind of creepy but you couldn't 'charge' him with anything.

Now let's all just calm down. How do you feel?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If you're going to spy on someone you need probable cause for a warrant. And he has no personal information on me except what I put out there on profiles I use. It's pathetic. This person needs a life. So what I'm a socialist and damn proud of it.

You don't need a warrant to search for publicly available material. You need a warrant to search someone's property. If he went onto your property, though, that would be burglary, not violating the fourth ammendment.

It is pathetic but also kind of funny, because he comes up here trying to discredit you with stuff we already know about it. What were ya hopin to get, Dano? A pat on the back?

 

[DigitalDave]

You don't need a warrant to search for publicly available material. You need a warrant to search someone's property. If he went onto your property, though, that would be burglary, not violating the fourth ammendment.

It is pathetic but also kind of funny, because he comes up here trying to discredit you with stuff we already know about it. What were ya hopin to get, Dano? A pat on the back?

Just some attention...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Gee how do I feel? A pathetic loser started a thread on me trying to smear me by doing nothing but using me being a socialist as a smear. What a loser.

Naw I was sort of trying to make a funny.

But it doesn't really matter anyway. Dano does stuff like this and we just don't put too much thought into it.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Well also if he wanted to go into my private records too he'd need a warrant. It's just more pathetic than funny. But yea all he's trying to do is smear me by saying I'm a socialist. Uh yeah damn straight I am one. I do have the right to be one the last time I checked. The last time I checked this message board was called "Just politics" and there can be all sorts of people on here with all sorts of views. I don't go around smearing people because they don't believe like I do. That'd be stupid and arrogant. I already did all this crap for him in my own intro thread where I was up front about my political views. Even if I wasn't who gives a damn really? Only they seem to. Everyone else is pretty cool even Asshat.

You don't need a warrant to search for publicly available material. You need a warrant to search someone's property. If he went onto your property, though, that would be burglary, not violating the fourth ammendment.

It is pathetic but also kind of funny, because he comes up here trying to discredit you with stuff we already know about it. What were ya hopin to get, Dano? A pat on the back?

 

[Chapdog]

Socialism is a lower level then capitalism.. yes it probably works better for developing countries.. but there is a short ceiling.. Eventually the switch to capitalism must take place in order to become a great nation.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Capitalism is teh roxxor.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

Uh what? That doesn't make any sense since we socialists hate capitalism and think it's corrupt and want to see it destoryed. So that makes no sense.

Socialism is a lower level then capitalism.. yes it probably works better for developing countries.. but there is a short ceiling.. Eventually the switch to capitalism must take place in order to become a great nation.

 

[Chapdog]

Uh what? That doesn't make any sense since we socialists hate capitalism and think it's corrupt and want to see it destoryed. So that makes no sense.

for example if this country got nuked or had widespread death via a WMD bio virus.. capitalism would likely have to be put aside for a bit and government would have to step in.

problem is in these cases that once country is back on its feet good luck getting government to back off. (your point)

but for us to have this lifestyle in this country with this opportunity.. capitalism is necessary.. Go see the standards of the middle class and poor are in socialist countries compared to a capitalist country.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

And you obviously don't know what socialists think of capitalism again. We don't have the capitalistic mindset. Our society is already deep in capitalism so anyone who says they can change that in a few years is either lying, manipulative or pathetically ignorant. I may not personally like capitalism or the capitalistic mind set but I know you can't change that here. And again with socialism the people decide the future and if the people in this country want capitalism than they want it and should get it no matter what individual socialists may think or want. If a socialist doesn't accept that than he/she is being pretty hypocritical.

for example if this country got nuked or had widespread death via a WMD bio virus.. capitalism would likely have to be put aside for a bit and government would have to step in.

problem is in these cases that once country is back on its feet good luck getting government to back off. (your point)

but for us to have this lifestyle in this country with this opportunity.. capitalism is necessary.. Go see the standards of the middle class and poor are in socialist countries compared to a capitalist country.

 

[Liberano]

And you obviously don't know what socialists think of capitalism again. We don't have the capitalistic mindset. Our society is already deep in capitalism so anyone who says they can change that in a few years is either lying, manipulative or pathetically ignorant. I may not personally like capitalism or the capitalistic mind set but I know you can't change that here. And again with socialism the people decide the future and if the people in this country want capitalism than they want it and should get it no matter what individual socialists may think or want. If a socialist doesn't accept that than he/she is being pretty hypocritical.

Yes you believe in the common good above individuals, old news.
Can I ask you a serious question? What do you think of the Socialists that called for this platform, do you agree with it?

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

 

[Cancel7]

Yes you believe in the common good above individuals, old news.
Can I ask you a serious question? What do you think of the Socialists that called for this platform, do you agree with it?

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

Where's Lorax? What do you think Lorax? A hitler quote?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yes you believe in the common good above individuals, old news.
Can I ask you a serious question? What do you think of the Socialists that called for this platform, do you agree with it?

"We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good."

It was written by the Nazi party, SB, don't take the bait. He's trying to get you on the fallacy of guilt by association.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

We all know that the Nazi party was moderate in economics, where it really stood out was it's social policies.

 

[Sum Dum Goi]

Just replace [citizen] with "German" and you have it straight from the lips of ol' Adolf himself.

 

[Cancel7]

"following planks of the Nationalist Socialist (NAZI) Party of Germany, adopted in Munich on February 24, 1920: "

Yeah, it's the nazi platform SB, I googled it. google everything and anything Dano asks you because his idea of a hot time is to trap someone on something like this.

Dano, I fucking knew it was a nazi thing right off, you are so predictable. How does it feel to be that predictable Dano?

 

[Lao Tse]

It was written by the Nazi party, SB, don't take the bait. He's trying to get you on the fallacy of guilt by association.

How about the fallacy of guilt by having the exact same ideas?

These parts aren't so bad actually. It was the racial superiority agenda that was sick.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

"following planks of the Nationalist Socialist (NAZI) Party of Germany, adopted in Munich on February 24, 1920: "

Yeah, it's the nazi platform SB, I googled it. google everything and anything Dano asks you because his idea of a hot time is to trap someone on something like this.

Dano, I fucking knew it was a nazi thing right off, you are so predictable. How does it feel to be that predictable Dano?

It's also important to note that the early platform was actually very socialistic. It was pandering and trying to differentiate itself from the other dominate nationalist party of the 20's. This changed over time, and that's why no one ever quotes the 1932 platform or whatnot.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

How about the fallacy of guilt by having the exact same ideas?

These parts aren't so bad actually. It was the racial superiority agenda that was sick.

Yes, exactly. Just because someone shares an idea or two doesn't mean they agree with the entire platform. This PART of the platform is innocous and many Americans might agree with it. It doesn't mean they accept the other PARTS.