Best appropriation of a Charlie Brown cartoon ever
-
Have you read it?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Yes, actually. I spent about an hour reading it. Obviously, not the entire bill but enough to know that most of the people posting on this thread are full of shit, like usual.
-
Not at all – but I’m not interested in having an argument about it. As I said to MM before – do your own friggin’ research. But really, the reason is that it’s a waste of time. I’m happy enough to come on here and spout my opinions for fun, but I’m not interested in trying to convince you – because I won’t. Your mind is already made up, and it won’t matter what I say. I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!) So… you carry on believing what you want, and I’ll carry on as I do. Meanwhile I’m off for a couple of days for work reasons, so won’t be posting anything (you’ll be relieved to hear.) ving said all that. A lot goes to tax havens. Some of it goes to good causes (eg Gates Foundation). Some of it even goes to creating jobs - but jobs would be created anyway, one way or another. Mega-rich individuals are not a necessary condition for job creation. Some rich people are very nice people. That doesn’t alter the fact that they shouldn’t be that rich – no one should. And by “that rich” I mean billionaires. As I said, I have no problem with the odd million or two, but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions. Anyway – I have a train to catch.
A_Griffin wrote:
Not at all – but I’m not interested in having an argument about it. As I said to MM before – do your own friggin’ research. But really, the reason is that it’s a waste of time. I’m happy enough to come on here and spout my opinions for fun, but I’m not interested in trying to convince you – because I won’t. Your mind is already made up, and it won’t matter what I say. I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!) So… you carry on believing what you want, and I’ll carry on as I do. Meanwhile I’m off for a couple of days for work reasons, so won’t be posting anything (you’ll be relieved to hear.)
Boy do you prejudge big time!! :wtf: I asked a simple question. Nothing implied or said. It was an honest question. The money has to be somewhere. The only way to keep their riches from affecting others is by hiding it under a mattress, which none of them do (I don't think.)
A_Griffin wrote:
but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions.
Why not? So what would you do to "fix" this? Would you somehow prevent people from earning a billion dollars? Would you change the economic model to make it impossible? These are not baiting questions. I genuinely am interested in why you believe what you believe. I know that puts in my rare company here, but it is true. And I agree, neither of us will likely change our opinions but I do like to learn about why people believe things differently than me. I find that interesting.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
And he doesnt get the irony. :)
No, I don't get it. I am not english native. Would you mind to explain it?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
No, I don't get it. I am not english native. Would you mind to explain it?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
You accused me of misrepresenting what you said, then accused me of saying "all rich are nice and good people" when I said no such thing. :)
-
You accused me of misrepresenting what you said, then accused me of saying "all rich are nice and good people" when I said no such thing. :)
Well... arguing against "some rich people are bad people" can be confused with defending the opinion "all rich people are good people" realtively easy. Don't you think? If that's not what you were saying, then the other possibility is "some rich people are nice and good people" which already was included in my arguments. If you meant the second option... then I don't really understand why you started arguing against what I said.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Well... arguing against "some rich people are bad people" can be confused with defending the opinion "all rich people are good people" realtively easy. Don't you think? If that's not what you were saying, then the other possibility is "some rich people are nice and good people" which already was included in my arguments. If you meant the second option... then I don't really understand why you started arguing against what I said.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Look, you said " xxx wrote: Nobody is poor because someone else is rich. Tell that to the people that has lost rent insurances, fonds and other savings, just because a rich wanted to be richer and scammed them all. Or people working their asses off to see how the boss takes profit and get self-made boni while all the rest don't get a sh*t." Which is ranting socialist crap.
-
Those that are not rich are getting tax breaks too, not just the rich. Read the bill.
Slacker007 wrote:
Those that are not rich are getting tax breaks too, not just the rich. Read the bil
Perhaps what I said wasn't clear. So I will re-phrase it to make it clear. "Which however doesn't really address the claims that giving tax breaks specifically to the rich will provide a benefit to those that are not [rich]" And I am guessing you haven't read the tax bill either since the most recent one was only available to congress as physical photo copy (with hand written modifications.) Not to mention of course that even that was not available when I posted this.
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Read the bill.
OK, here's 429 pages...you have 2 hours to read it before voting...better hurry! :laugh: tps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/02/us/politics/document-Read-the-G-O-P-Tax-Bill.html[^]
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
You are a moron. Nobody is poor because someone else is rich. Rich people aren't thieves because they are rich, well, except maybe for Soros and his ilk. You want a 'fair' personal tax plan? Fine, every single man, woman, and child pays the exact same amount tax for every day they are alive with the only exceptions being those that are truly disabled and unable to work (physically or mentally handicapped). No business or corporate taxation whatsoever as business have no 'vote' (taxation without representation). That is a 'fair' tax plan. Maybe then, people will pay attention to the real problem, spending. Personally I think income tax is a terrible concept. Taxing should be done on consumption/sales only with also import taxation for the purpose of enforcing trade and market leveling. This is all typical envy and jealousy, you're not 'rich', therefore you hate them and want their success, 'luck', and hard work to pay your own way.
NotYourAverageGuy wrote:
No business or corporate taxation whatsoever as business have no 'vote' (taxation without representation).
With of course the stipulation that businesses, no business of any kind, has any right to involve themselves in politics or social issues of any kind. So no donations to PACs, no lobbying, no contributions to 'education' organizations with an agenda, no funding of 'documentaries' with an agenda, etc.
NotYourAverageGuy wrote:
Taxing should be done on consumption/sales only with also import taxation for the purpose of enforcing trade and market leveling.
What happens if the sale is in another country?
NotYourAverageGuy wrote:
This is all typical envy and jealousy, you're not 'rich', therefore you hate them and want their success, 'luck', and hard work to pay your own way
That ignores history. First of course the rich in the US used to pay a much higher tax and yet they still managed to be rich. Second of course is that history, far as I know in every case, demonstrates that income inequality is always resolved by the rich having all of their assets taken away and often with them being killed in the process. That doesn't make the poor better off and civil unrest can extend for decades making the poor actually worse off. The poor and I suspect the rich also would claim that neither want that. Third the legal system of this country and others is based on the concept that money can be used to punish those that misbehave rather than putting them in jail. The fine is intended as a deterrent to prevent the behavior again. So if they double park or kill an endangered species the fine is supposed to prevent them from doing it again. And $100 for someone that makes $1600 a month before taxes is significant but for someone that makes 30 million is not. So that is not "fair".
-
What a pile of crap. How does a 'rich person' 'scam poor people out of rent, funds, and insurance'? There are plenty of scammers out there, they are called criminals, some are in prison already, many will be soon. Some make a living, just, others are more successful, but you cant equate criminality with wealth, that is utterly wrong and very ignorant.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
How does a 'rich person' 'scam poor people out of rent, funds, and insurance'?
I can provide a very specific example. I lived in a town where a landowner owned and rented apartments. They were not 'good' apartments and they were in a town that has always had a high occupancy rate and still does. So there were no realistic options. For years when anyone moved out they charged a "curtain cleaning fee". So if you lived there for 6 months they claimed that the curtains needed to be cleaned. The funds however were never used to clean curtains. That wasn't hyperbole as the city investigated and found that to be the case. I believe I remember another case where the damage deposit at one apartment complex was never returned. The damage deposit is intended as a surety that the occupant will not damage in the apartment in ways that do not meet standard use. So knocking down a wall counts but normal wear and tear on the carpet does not. The apartment owners found a way to always claim damage.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
There are plenty of scammers out there, they are called criminals, some are in prison already,
The first case was not "criminal" rather it was a violation of civil law regarding landlord/tenant regulations. As for the second case I don't believe there was anything prevent it except perhaps standard understanding of what a 'damage' deposit was.
-
Is it actually possible for you to have a conversation without resorting to being rude? Come back when you can.
-
Not at all – but I’m not interested in having an argument about it. As I said to MM before – do your own friggin’ research. But really, the reason is that it’s a waste of time. I’m happy enough to come on here and spout my opinions for fun, but I’m not interested in trying to convince you – because I won’t. Your mind is already made up, and it won’t matter what I say. I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!) So… you carry on believing what you want, and I’ll carry on as I do. Meanwhile I’m off for a couple of days for work reasons, so won’t be posting anything (you’ll be relieved to hear.) ving said all that. A lot goes to tax havens. Some of it goes to good causes (eg Gates Foundation). Some of it even goes to creating jobs - but jobs would be created anyway, one way or another. Mega-rich individuals are not a necessary condition for job creation. Some rich people are very nice people. That doesn’t alter the fact that they shouldn’t be that rich – no one should. And by “that rich” I mean billionaires. As I said, I have no problem with the odd million or two, but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions. Anyway – I have a train to catch.
A_Griffin wrote:
I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!)
I have certainly changed my view several times when presented with evidence. To be fair the last two cases I can recall were because I was researching my point to refute someone else and I came up with reasonable evidence that demonstrated to me that my point was wrong. I believe that I convinced one or two others that their view was wrong (over a very long time.)
A_Griffin wrote:
I mean billionaires. As I said, I have no problem with the odd million or two, but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions.
I will note that I accept the legitimacy of the argument that no one is 1000x or 1000000x 'better' (in the sense that they are not 'working' that much more) than someone else and that it is not realistically possible for them to be that way. Where it gets fuzzy after that is how it then becomes "fair" to deny their luck. I have always worn glasses all my life and I know people who not only have good vision but who in fact have had better than normal vision all of their life. While my vision continues to deteriorate. Is that fair? If we must correct for monetary luck shouldn't there be a correction for physical luck as well?
-
Slacker007 wrote:
Those that are not rich are getting tax breaks too, not just the rich. Read the bil
Perhaps what I said wasn't clear. So I will re-phrase it to make it clear. "Which however doesn't really address the claims that giving tax breaks specifically to the rich will provide a benefit to those that are not [rich]" And I am guessing you haven't read the tax bill either since the most recent one was only available to congress as physical photo copy (with hand written modifications.) Not to mention of course that even that was not available when I posted this.
This is what I read, but it was dated 11/2. Their could be a more updated version somewhere. Republican Tax Plan: Read the Full Bill | Fortune[^]
jschell wrote:
Not to mention of course that even that was not available when I posted this.
:confused:
-
A_Griffin wrote:
Not at all – but I’m not interested in having an argument about it. As I said to MM before – do your own friggin’ research. But really, the reason is that it’s a waste of time. I’m happy enough to come on here and spout my opinions for fun, but I’m not interested in trying to convince you – because I won’t. Your mind is already made up, and it won’t matter what I say. I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!) So… you carry on believing what you want, and I’ll carry on as I do. Meanwhile I’m off for a couple of days for work reasons, so won’t be posting anything (you’ll be relieved to hear.)
Boy do you prejudge big time!! :wtf: I asked a simple question. Nothing implied or said. It was an honest question. The money has to be somewhere. The only way to keep their riches from affecting others is by hiding it under a mattress, which none of them do (I don't think.)
A_Griffin wrote:
but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions.
Why not? So what would you do to "fix" this? Would you somehow prevent people from earning a billion dollars? Would you change the economic model to make it impossible? These are not baiting questions. I genuinely am interested in why you believe what you believe. I know that puts in my rare company here, but it is true. And I agree, neither of us will likely change our opinions but I do like to learn about why people believe things differently than me. I find that interesting.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Quote:
Why not? So what would you do to "fix" this? Would you somehow prevent people from earning a billion dollars? Would you change the economic model to make it impossible?
Well, I am not sure it can be “fixed”. Like most socio-political questions, nothing will change until enough people want it to. All I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire – or even a multi-millionaire, above maybe a few million. (Let’s be generous and say 10.) Until such a time, tinkering with the rules won’t make a lot of difference. Rules can always be got round – especially when most people admire those who do it, and wish it were them. Sorry, but I do not admire George Soros, say. He made his billions by buying and selling other people’s money. I mean, seriously, wtf? For that – for making rich people even richer - he is rewarded with billions. Most billionaires are in the same boat – however many millions of product X they may have sold, their net worth of billions has accrued through investments made by their company. And anyway, they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner (else why would they have employed them?) yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage. (Of course they can pay themselves a dividend – I am not advocating some pure form of communism – just something a little bit fairer, and just simply more humane. While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht, their office cleaner is dying early because they can’t afford heating in their shitty flat.) Maybe one day we’ll find a way to embed our economic model within our social one in some way that works. The communists tried it (theoretically, anyway) but they went to an opposite extreme as bad the one they left behind. So now, of course, people use that as an excuse to shut off all talk of reform, as if one bad experiment is enough to prove that the status quo is the only workable solution. But having the economy so divorced from society and ethics – and the deregulation introduced by Reagan and Thatcher cemented the wall that keeps them separate – is morally repugnant. (Basically, deregulation said to the bankers and hedge fund managers etc “You can do what you want!” So guess what happened? They did what they wanted. Which was to make themselves extremely rich. Because that’s what society teaches us t
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I have never – ever- seen anyone (including me!) change their mind about anything as a result of an online discussion anywhere (or argument!)
I have certainly changed my view several times when presented with evidence. To be fair the last two cases I can recall were because I was researching my point to refute someone else and I came up with reasonable evidence that demonstrated to me that my point was wrong. I believe that I convinced one or two others that their view was wrong (over a very long time.)
A_Griffin wrote:
I mean billionaires. As I said, I have no problem with the odd million or two, but no-one has a morally legitimate claim to billions.
I will note that I accept the legitimacy of the argument that no one is 1000x or 1000000x 'better' (in the sense that they are not 'working' that much more) than someone else and that it is not realistically possible for them to be that way. Where it gets fuzzy after that is how it then becomes "fair" to deny their luck. I have always worn glasses all my life and I know people who not only have good vision but who in fact have had better than normal vision all of their life. While my vision continues to deteriorate. Is that fair? If we must correct for monetary luck shouldn't there be a correction for physical luck as well?
Well, indeed… as I said in answer to HappyFestivus above, there probably isn’t a “fair” solution available in the short term. These things have to evolve, along with society. Like you, I have poor eyesight. Mine is bad enough that I cannot drive – no way I’d get a licence, and quite right too – I’d be a danger to myself and everyone else on the road. But….. if there was a law made that no car could ever go above 25 mile an hour, then I’d be OK. I could cope with that, and drive safely. So – why can’t I demand that such a law be introduced? My right to drive is being denied by other people being selfish by wanting to drive faster! Of course such an argument is silly – sometimes we just have to accept the limitations imposed upon us by our physical frailties. But, in a decent society, we might hope that new buildings are made with, for example, wheelchair ramps. Because there’s no reason not, to, as a rule. Life isn’t fair – we all know that – but as decent people we can take reasonable steps to make it a little fairer when possible. The law of the jungle is only law in the jungle. In a civilised society, we should hope, and try, to do better. Maybe, one day, with improved medical care and decent funding, more and more people with poor eyesight can be helped. And maybe, one day, with a more enlightened society, we can reign in the billionaires and say “Look, you can be richer – but not that much richer.” Give them a few million if it makes them feel better – but no-one is deserving of billions.
-
Quote:
Why not? So what would you do to "fix" this? Would you somehow prevent people from earning a billion dollars? Would you change the economic model to make it impossible?
Well, I am not sure it can be “fixed”. Like most socio-political questions, nothing will change until enough people want it to. All I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire – or even a multi-millionaire, above maybe a few million. (Let’s be generous and say 10.) Until such a time, tinkering with the rules won’t make a lot of difference. Rules can always be got round – especially when most people admire those who do it, and wish it were them. Sorry, but I do not admire George Soros, say. He made his billions by buying and selling other people’s money. I mean, seriously, wtf? For that – for making rich people even richer - he is rewarded with billions. Most billionaires are in the same boat – however many millions of product X they may have sold, their net worth of billions has accrued through investments made by their company. And anyway, they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner (else why would they have employed them?) yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage. (Of course they can pay themselves a dividend – I am not advocating some pure form of communism – just something a little bit fairer, and just simply more humane. While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht, their office cleaner is dying early because they can’t afford heating in their shitty flat.) Maybe one day we’ll find a way to embed our economic model within our social one in some way that works. The communists tried it (theoretically, anyway) but they went to an opposite extreme as bad the one they left behind. So now, of course, people use that as an excuse to shut off all talk of reform, as if one bad experiment is enough to prove that the status quo is the only workable solution. But having the economy so divorced from society and ethics – and the deregulation introduced by Reagan and Thatcher cemented the wall that keeps them separate – is morally repugnant. (Basically, deregulation said to the bankers and hedge fund managers etc “You can do what you want!” So guess what happened? They did what they wanted. Which was to make themselves extremely rich. Because that’s what society teaches us t
A_Griffin wrote:
I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire
So, when someone says billionaire I immediately think of Bill Gates. So, are you suggesting that he did something morally wrong? Can you be specific about why you think having billionaires is so bad?
A_Griffin wrote:
they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner
I agree with this. What's funny is that we can see the same statement and get the opposite from it. This statement of yours shows "trickle-down" economics. That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly. Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
A_Griffin wrote:
yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage.
True, but I'm sure you know why that is. Anyone can be a janitor. It requires no education. Is it fair for someone to educate themselves and work hard to get paid the same amount someone who does not do that? I do not think so.
A_Griffin wrote:
While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht,
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it? It sounds like you want socialism. As I understand it, at the heart of socialism is the sharing of all resources so that none are rich and none are poor. The problem with socialism is that everyone has to buy into it. Meaning there is no room for lazy or jealous people. Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same. I'm OK with that. However, since we are human sooner or later people will want more than their neighbor and thus socialism can never work.
A_Griffin wrote:
I’m rambling now
Oh, not at all. As I said earlier, I do genuinely like to understand other people's points of view. I thi
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I’d like to see, as a start, is more and more people finding it unacceptable for anyone to be a billionaire
So, when someone says billionaire I immediately think of Bill Gates. So, are you suggesting that he did something morally wrong? Can you be specific about why you think having billionaires is so bad?
A_Griffin wrote:
they couldn’t have sold all those millions without the help of everyone that works for them, right down to the office cleaner
I agree with this. What's funny is that we can see the same statement and get the opposite from it. This statement of yours shows "trickle-down" economics. That janitor has a job because some guy worked very, very hard to develop and sell a product and then build a business to do it repeatedly. Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
A_Griffin wrote:
yet they reward themselves with billions while the office cleaner is lucky to get a minimum wage.
True, but I'm sure you know why that is. Anyone can be a janitor. It requires no education. Is it fair for someone to educate themselves and work hard to get paid the same amount someone who does not do that? I do not think so.
A_Griffin wrote:
While they’re sunning themselves on their luxury yacht,
This is more evidence of "trickle-down" working. It is the blue-collar people that have jobs because of this rich guy. They are the ones building the yacht and then maintaining it and cleaning it and stocking it, etc. That's what I was asking earlier, if the money is not trickling down then where is it? It sounds like you want socialism. As I understand it, at the heart of socialism is the sharing of all resources so that none are rich and none are poor. The problem with socialism is that everyone has to buy into it. Meaning there is no room for lazy or jealous people. Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same. I'm OK with that. However, since we are human sooner or later people will want more than their neighbor and thus socialism can never work.
A_Griffin wrote:
I’m rambling now
Oh, not at all. As I said earlier, I do genuinely like to understand other people's points of view. I thi
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Quote:
Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
This is a myth. Unless you're saying that that if Bill Gates couldn't become a billionaire he wouldn't have developed Windows? I don't believe that.
-
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Quote:
Without him, the janitor would be unemployed.
This is a myth. Unless you're saying that that if Bill Gates couldn't become a billionaire he wouldn't have developed Windows? I don't believe that.
A_Griffin wrote:
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Interesting. As nowhere did I even mention communism (although you did). I see you are not able to have a civil conversation on this. I mistakenly thought you could. Good day.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
I don't think you've read what I wrote. You've filtered it straight through your prism of "anything that isn't free market capitalism is communism", despite my trying rally hard to steer you away from that. Try reading it again. Slowly, this time.
Interesting. As nowhere did I even mention communism (although you did). I see you are not able to have a civil conversation on this. I mistakenly thought you could. Good day.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Bit touchy aren't you? It wasn't that rude...
Quote:
Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same
That is communism, not socialism - though most Americans (at least) equate the two. And it isn't what I was advocating - I was quite specific about that. The fact you've repeated it just reinforces my belief that you have not properly read what I wrote.
-
Bit touchy aren't you? It wasn't that rude...
Quote:
Socialism would say that the owner of the company and the janitor both provide equally meaningful services and therefore should be paid the same
That is communism, not socialism - though most Americans (at least) equate the two. And it isn't what I was advocating - I was quite specific about that. The fact you've repeated it just reinforces my belief that you have not properly read what I wrote.
A_Griffin wrote:
communism, not socialism
Not at all. Communism is when the government owns and controls everything.
A_Griffin wrote:
The fact you've repeated it
Now who's not reading? :laugh:
A_Griffin wrote:
you have not properly read what I wrote.
In that case just resort to putting me down instead of clarifying. Very noble of you. :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.