The Left destroys everything, always (ideologies, financial, supporter, Libertarians)

[risotto11]

The real problem is that you are convinced that this is what the moderates and left wants to do.
You forget that most moderates and left own properties too. Why would the want the government to take away???

Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ

The problem is the Moderates and left wish to social engineer this country to a version of Socialism. The reality is these same groups think the rest of us is willing to pay the bills.

Their perceived fortunes will not be touched and they will keep on living the good life. The type of Socialism they advocate will have their money seized and no one will own property. Except the Gov.

That's the real problem!

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I do not believe that for one second.

You are so blindly partisan that your behavior can be predicted down to fine details.

You dont have to believe it, that is your own partisan views being projected again.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by risotto11

Where did you get this definition from? Its nonsensical as it doesn't explain anything specifically what are the property rights that it enforces, what are the individual economic rights and what ability to enforce contracts it talks about.

You argued that "capitalism" was defined as "private ownership of production".

That argument is sheer insanity, but I didn't ask you to prove it. It's as incomplete as saying "the practice of medicine is doctors looking at you while you're unclothed or partially clothed". While it may be true that doctors do see patients at times who are partially or wholly unclothed, that is not the practice of medicine. Nor is "private ownership of production" the definition of capitalism.

I said it was wrong and offered an objectively sensible one.

Tell me how you think its wrong. And tell me, what is confusing about ownership? About economic rights?

These are crystal clear concepts. If you own something, you own it. You have absolute control over it.

Economic rights are equally clear. You have the right to engage in trade, without interference or limitation or confiscation.

Tell me why you can't comprehend these things.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by risotto11

The real problem is that you are convinced that this is what the moderates and left wants to do.
You forget that most moderates and left own properties too. Why would the want the government to take away???

They do.

Look at the number of people here who applaud raising taxes, when they pay them.

Look at the number of people here who applaud Obamacare, even when it took away their choices.

You do realize, don't you, that people CAN brainwash themselves so completely they will give away their own interests and liberties in pursuit of government control - even over themselves.

The issue is, that they think it won't affect them. It's like playing with fire saying "it won't burn me, I'm too good".

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You dont have to believe it, that is your own partisan views being projected again.

I don't think you comprehend the difference between "partisan" and "rational". Nowhere am I partisan. I don't belong to a political party and won't.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I don't think you comprehend the difference between "partisan" and "rational". Nowhere am I partisan. I don't belong to a political party and won't.

I'm generalizing some here. Generally when someone isn't partisan but rather rational they will not attack a group trying to achieve the very same thing they say they are for, like with the ACLU going after the IRS.

[texan2yankee]

Originally Posted by risotto11

The real problem is that you are convinced that this is what the moderates and left wants to do.
You forget that most moderates and left own properties too. Why would the want the government to take away???

Factbox: Venezuela's nationalizations under Chavez
Reuters

Sun Oct 7, 2012


Below are the main nationalizations under Chavez:

OIL
* In 2007, Chavez's government took a majority stake in four oil projects in the vast Orinoco heavy crude belt worth an estimated $30 billion in total.
Exxon Mobil Corp and ConocoPhillips quit the country as a result and filed arbitration claims. Late last year, an arbitration panel ordered Venezuela to pay Exxon $908 million, though a larger case is still ongoing.
France's Total SA and Norway's StatoilHydro ASA received about $1 billion in compensation after reducing their holdings. Britain's BP Plc and America's Chevron Corp remained as minority partners.
* In 2008, Chavez's administration implemented a windfall tax of 50 percent for prices over $70 per barrel, and 60 percent on oil over $100. Oil reached $147 that year, but soon slumped.
* In 2009, Chavez seized a major gas injection project belonging to Williams Cos Inc and a range of assets from local service companies. This year, the energy minister said the government would pay $420 million to Williams and one of its U.S. partners, Exterran Holdings, for the takeover.
* In June 2010, the government seized 11 oil rigs from Oklahoma-based Helmerich & Payne Inc.
AGRICULTURE
* In 2009, Chavez nationalized a rice mill operated by a local unit of U.S. food giant Cargill Inc.
* In October 2010, Venezuela nationalized Fertinitro, one of the world's biggest producers of nitrogen fertilizer, as well as Agroislena, a major local agricultural supply company. It also said it would take control of nearly 200,000 hectares (494,000 acres) of land owned by British meat company Vestey Foods.
* Vestey had already filed for arbitration over the earlier takeover of a ranch. Chavez said the latest deal with Vestey was a "friendly agreement."
* In 2005, Chavez began implementing a 2001 law letting the state expropriate unproductive farms or seize land without proper titles. He has redistributed millions of acres deemed idle to boost food production and ease rural poverty.
* Chavez's government has repeatedly threatened to seize Empresas Polar, Venezuela's biggest employer and largest brewer and food processor.
FINANCE
* In June 2010, Venezuela took over the mid-sized bank Banco Federal, citing liquidity problems and risk of fraud. The bank was closely linked to anti-government TV station Globovision.
* In 2009, Chavez paid $1 billion for Banco de Venezuela, a division of Spanish bank Grupo Santander.
* The government has closed a dozen small banks since November 2009 for what it said were operational irregularities. Some were reopened as state-run firms. Brokerages have also been closed and some employees jailed. Chavez has vowed to nationalize any bank that fails to meet government lending guidelines or is in financial trouble.
INDUSTRY
* In October 2010, Chavez ordered the takeover of the local operations of Owens Illinois Inc, which describes itself as the world's largest glass container maker.
* Chavez in April 2008 announced the government takeover of the cement sector, targeting Switzerland's Holcim Ltd, France's Lafarge SA, and Mexico's Cemex SAB de CV.
GOLD
* Chavez has considered bringing mining more firmly into state hands, and in 2009 the mining ministry seized Gold Reserve Inc's Brisas project, which sits on one of Latin America's largest gold veins. Gold Reserve immediately filed for arbitration with ICSID.
* In August 2011, Chavez said he was nationalizing the gold industry. Toronto-listed Rusoro Mining Ltd, owned by Russia's Agapov family, was the only large gold miner operating in Venezuela, and this year it filed for arbitration.
STEEL
* The government paid $2 billion in 2009 for Argentine-led Ternium SA's stake in Venezuela's largest steel mill.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
* In 2007, the nation's largest telecommunications company CANTV was nationalized after the government bought out the U.S.-based Verizon Communications Inc's 28.5 percent stake for $572 million. Analysts said Verizon received fair compensations for its assets.
POWER
* In 2007, Venezuela expropriated the assets of U.S.-based AES Corp in Electricidad de Caracas, the nation's largest private power producer. The government paid AES $740 million for its 82 percent stake in the company. Analysts described the deal as fair for AES.
TRANSPORT
* In September 2011, the government nationalized a local ferry company, Conferry, which operates from the mainland to the resort island of Margarita. Conferry is owned by a wealthy family and began operating in 1959.
TOURISM
* In October 2011, Chavez said his government would seize private homes on the Los Roques archipelago in the Caribbean and use them for state-run tourism. The islands are among the nation's favorite and most expensive tourist spots, with pristine white beaches and coral reefs that teem with sea life.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

I'm generalizing some here. Generally when someone isn't partisan but rather rational they will not attack a group trying to achieve the very same thing they say they are for, like with the ACLU going after the IRS.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I don't think you comprehend the difference between "partisan" and "rational". Nowhere am I partisan. I don't belong to a political party and won't.

I comprehend it just fine.

You dont have to be part of a political party to be partisan. Your argument has been Democrat vs Other which is indeed partisan rather than Dem vs Repub which is no different in the grand scheme of this debate. (key phrase is this debate, not all)

but if it makes you feel better, i can use the word ideology rather than party.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by pknopp

I'm generalizing some here. Generally when someone isn't partisan but rather rational they will not attack a group trying to achieve the very same thing they say they are for, like with the ACLU going after the IRS.

LOL!!!

You can't make a rational argument.

Your argument - let's refresh it again - was that liberals were for individual rights. And, you "proved" it by saying the ACLU was liberal and that proves liberals are for individual rights.

I pointed out that the ACLU is far more about benefitting Democrats than about rights, and that it can reliably counted on to NOT support anything that doesn't in some way financially benefit it.

That is, the ACLU is not a consistent supporter of individual rights - not in this universe, anyway.

Which is to say that the ACLU lives up to the partisan democrat label quite well, and not at all to the "champion of individual liberties".

Which doesn't make your case for proving that liberals are for individual rights. They are totally hostile to the notion of individual rights.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with me being rational or not rational. The ACLU is not a reliable ally in defense of individual liberty and recognizing that IS an act of rationality.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

but if it makes you feel better, i can use the word ideology rather than party.

The words "ideology" and "party" have no overlap in meaning.

To change from one to another is to completely change the meaning of what you're saying.

You use them as if they're interchangeable. That's incomprehensibly fuzzy thinking.