Corporation Socialism

[Age]

Well, it's only because of the oil that Norway has welfare. So do you want to feed "climate change", or do you want to give up the funding for your welfare programs? Because it's one or the other.

Other countries have sufficient wealth to fund welfare programs.

How many, and for how long? Not many, and not forever. Look at the NHS or the Canadian system: people can't even get a GP appointment, the technology is dated, lines for all procedures are getting longer, some procedures are not even available -- especially cutting-edge ones, and people are dying in emergency waiting rooms. How long can that go on?

'People', in the, laughingly called, "united states of america", can NOT even get to see a doctor, let alone allowed in a hospital to get treated if they just do NOT have things of 'monetary value', like pieces of paper, or accounts, with numbers on them.

Of course fossil fuels are a problem. But your response fails to address the issue. Why is efficiency all-important?

Sustainability. That was the word. Not mere "efficiency," as good as that word also is. What you can't sustain, you can't have forever. If you love social welfare, then sustainability has to be a major concern to you.

Of course, if you don't care if you, or future generations, always have access, then I guess you can dismiss sustainability as an issue, and hope that while the clock runs out, you don't personally get caught.

LOL 'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES that the VERY FEW SEEKING OUT and OBTAINING AS MUCH OF 'the money' that they CAN GET, FROM others and/or FROM RIDDING 'the world' and DESTROYING ACTUALLY NEEDED RESOURCES is some how 'sustainable'.

[Alexiev]

Well, it's only because of the oil that Norway has welfare. So do you want to feed "climate change", or do you want to give up the funding for your welfare programs? Because it's one or the other.

Other countries have sufficient wealth to fund welfare programs.

How many, and for how long? Not many, and not forever. Look at the NHS or the Canadian system: people can't even get a GP appointment, the technology is dated, lines for all procedures are getting longer, some procedures are not even available -- especially cutting-edge ones, and people are dying in emergency waiting rooms. How long can that go on?

Of course fossil fuels are a problem. But your response fails to address the issue. Why is efficiency all-important?

Sustainability. That was the word. Not mere "efficiency," as good as that word also is. What you can't sustain, you can't have forever. If you love social welfare, then sustainability has to be a major concern to you.

Of course, if you don't care if you, or future generations, always have access, then I guess you can dismiss sustainability as an issue, and hope that while the clock runs out, you don't personally get caught.

Nothing is sustainable forever. The sun will burn out. Capitalism promotes unsustainable economies, because the quest for growth and profit is often at odds with sustainability. The notion that a market economy promotes sustainability contradicts economic theory.

Here in the U.S. we must wait months for GP appointments, just like they do in Canada.

Modern Capitalusm has existed for only a couple of centuries. There's evidence it promotes economic growth; not much that the growth is sustainable.

Besides, isn't the Rapture due any day now?

[Immanuel Can]

Other countries have sufficient wealth to fund welfare programs.

How many, and for how long? Not many, and not forever. Look at the NHS or the Canadian system: people can't even get a GP appointment, the technology is dated, lines for all procedures are getting longer, some procedures are not even available -- especially cutting-edge ones, and people are dying in emergency waiting rooms. How long can that go on?

Of course fossil fuels are a problem. But your response fails to address the issue. Why is efficiency all-important?

Sustainability. That was the word. Not mere "efficiency," as good as that word also is. What you can't sustain, you can't have forever. If you love social welfare, then sustainability has to be a major concern to you.

Of course, if you don't care if you, or future generations, always have access, then I guess you can dismiss sustainability as an issue, and hope that while the clock runs out, you don't personally get caught.

Nothing is sustainable forever. The sun will burn out.

Seriously.

Capitalism promotes unsustainable economies,

Not at all, actually. What we can see is that free markets can add value to the world. This is something about which Socialists are willfully ignorant or ridiculously blind: they think "wealth" is a zero-sum game! Can you imagine? How stupid is that?

No, human creativity doesn't "redistribute" value, it actually generates new value. It adds to the stock of goods and services available in the world. Whose money did Bill Gates "redistribute" when he invented his computer? Nobody's. He added value to what we already had, and millions and millions of people have freely voted with their own money to support his invention. That's a value-add. Socialists never talk about that.

And that's because they're a bunch of green-eyed simpletons, who, lacking any ability to add value to the world, content themselves with envy.

But the problem is that Socialism is the death of the welfare state. We can't keep taking value out of the world, without adding at least the equivalent back in; and since medical system run on money, that means we have either to make socialized medicine pay for itself, or we need a money-generating "machine" that can replace the capital that is being drawn out by the medical system. And that "machine" is private enterprise.

[Alexiev]

Not at all, actually. What we can see is that free markets can add value to the world. This is something about which Socialists are willfully ignorant or ridiculously blind: they think "wealth" is a zero-sum game! Can you imagine? How stupid is that?

No, human creativity doesn't "redistribute" value, it actually generates new value. It adds to the stock of goods and services available in the world. Whose money did Bill Gates "redistribute" when he invented his computer? Nobody's. He added value to what we already had, and millions and millions of people have freely voted with their own money to support his invention. That's a value-add. Socialists never talk about that.

And that's because they're a bunch of green-eyed simpletons, who, lacking any ability to add value to the world, content themselves with envy.

But the problem is that Socialism is the death of the welfare state. We can't keep taking value out of the world, without adding at least the equivalent back in; and since medical system run on money, that means we have either to make socialized medicine pay for itself, or we need a money-generating "machine" that can replace the capital that is being drawn out by the medical system. And that "machine" is private enterprise.

Oh, bosh! Free Markets are a zero sum game. One person sells, another buys. This is obvious and irrefutable. Of course I agree that wealth is not a zero sum game -- and I agree that it appears that free markets and capitalism promote wealth. Indeed the last 200 years in which capitalism has become the dominant economic ideology have shown gigantic increases in human health, wealth, and objective well being (perhaps IC will agree that they have also led to atheism, agnosticism and a culture which may be detrimental to human happiness). It is arguable whether the technological advances that have accompanied capitalism would have occurred without it -- but the correlation remains.

There is little evidence, however, that the welfare state -- supported by taxes in a fundamentally capitalist economy -- has a significant impact on this growth. Medicine is a good example. The profit motive has benefited humanity: most of the new HIV drugs (for example) were developed in the U.S. by for profit pharmaceutical companies. The flip side: in the U.S. we pay many times more for health care than people do in most rich countries, and we get worse results (as measured statistically). In addition, the HIV drugs we have developed could potentially save millions of lives in Africa, but our Pharmaceutical companies won't sell them there, even at a profit. (These sales would cut into their profits because of diversion -- some of the affordable drugs being sold to Africans would be diverted back to the U.S,.and Europe, where prices are much higher) Perhaps we can find a balance that supports property rights and innovation, but also promotes human welfare. That (it seems to me) should be the goal.

GK Chesterton had a series of debates with GB Shaw, the socialist. Both decried the poverty and abuse endemic to the capitalism of the late 19th century. Shaw thought nobody should own private property; Chesterton thought everyone should. I can't remember the details --but everyone owning a house seems like a good idea. It makes everyone a partner in the property-based system, instead of some people being dependent on others.

[Immanuel Can]

Not at all, actually. What we can see is that free markets can add value to the world. This is something about which Socialists are willfully ignorant or ridiculously blind: they think "wealth" is a zero-sum game! Can you imagine? How stupid is that?

No, human creativity doesn't "redistribute" value, it actually generates new value. It adds to the stock of goods and services available in the world. Whose money did Bill Gates "redistribute" when he invented his computer? Nobody's. He added value to what we already had, and millions and millions of people have freely voted with their own money to support his invention. That's a value-add. Socialists never talk about that.

And that's because they're a bunch of green-eyed simpletons, who, lacking any ability to add value to the world, content themselves with envy.

But the problem is that Socialism is the death of the welfare state. We can't keep taking value out of the world, without adding at least the equivalent back in; and since medical system run on money, that means we have either to make socialized medicine pay for itself, or we need a money-generating "machine" that can replace the capital that is being drawn out by the medical system. And that "machine" is private enterprise.

Oh, bosh! Free Markets are a zero sum game.

Seriously? You believe that?

Even when you can see it's not true? What do you think happens when somebody invents something new? Or when somebody modifies an existing idea, and finds a way to make it better?

If what you were saying were true, how did the poor in Industrial Revolution England turn out to be the middle class? When a person turns a piece of iron worth practically nothing into a pair of scissors or a surgeons scalpel, what process do you think has happened?

Seriously? You can't believe that. Nobody who has eyes can.

One person sells, another buys.

That's not zero sum. The money is fungible. Its value goes up or down based on the perceived value of the currency and the transaction, so how much value either holds at a given time isn't stable, but negotiable. That's why prices can go up and down. But all such transactions are voluntary, too: the buyer doesn't have to buy, and the seller doesn't have to sell. That is, unless you have a command economy, like in Socialism; in which case, the buyer is forced to buy, whether he wants to or not, and the seller cannot refuse the sale, because the State handles it all.

Of course I agree that wealth is not a zero sum game -- and I agree that it appears that free markets and capitalism promote wealth.

Well, good: it seemed for a moment like you were arguing obvious nonsense. I'm relieved to see you're not.

There is little evidence, however, that the welfare state -- supported by taxes in a fundamentally capitalist economy -- has a significant impact on this growth. Medicine is a good example. The profit motive has benefited humanity: most of the new HIV drugs (for example) were developed in the U.S. by for profit pharmaceutical companies.

HIV's a terrible example: it's a behaviourally-transmitted disease. It could be stopped tomorrow, and with no need for pharmaceuticals. But yes, the profit motive has often been helpful as well as detrimental. That's why the Bible says not "Money is root of all evil," as is sometimes misquoted, but rather, "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's the misplaced affections that are the problem, not the use of capital.

The flip side: in the U.S. we pay many times more for health care than people do in most rich countries, and we get worse results (as measured statistically).

That's the opposite of the truth, actually. Your health-care system has better doctors, newer treatments, and far more accessibility than, say, the Canadian system, which is run on a social-welfare model. Canada's going bankrupt on their medical system. People can't get important treatments. The technology is second-rate. And now people are actually dying in emergency waiting rooms, where the average wait is nearly four hours long. And all Canada's doctors leave for the US, where they can get better equipment, better wages and higher level medical opportunities.

But this I'll give you: the medical treatment in the US is also too expensive for the average person to afford. And that's a serious problem. There's a desperate need for a DOGE-style inquiry into the US health system. And maybe that's coming.

In addition, the HIV drugs we have developed could potentially save millions of lives in Africa, but our Pharmaceutical companies won't sell them there, even at a profit.

Yes, that's true. But it's much more complicated than you're letting on.

Drug research is very expensive and wasteful. Without a profit motive, there's no reason for researchers to find new treatments, and no money for them to do the research. When they do discover something, they can't just give it away, or that's the end of the line; they have to make a reasonable profit on it, so the incentive and means for research remain. But do our current companies gouge too much? Absolutely. Pfizer's a great example. And here is one of the legitimate functions of governance: to protect markets and consumers. To decide what is a fair balance of profit and accessibility, one that allows both the populace and the profits to remain. But governments are doing a horrible job at this right now, because the Socialists are ganging up with Big Pharma (like Pfizer), just as they're on the side of Big Military (Raytheon), Big Business (Blackrock), Big Ag (Monsanto) and Big Media (CBS, NBC, etc.) That's the point.

GK Chesterton had a series of debates with GB Shaw, the socialist. Both decried the poverty and abuse endemic to the capitalism of the late 19th century. Shaw thought nobody should own private property; Chesterton thought everyone should. I can't remember the details --but everyone owning a house seems like a good idea. It makes everyone a partner in the property-based system, instead of some people being dependent on others.

Now you've hit the key point. Socialism removes the self-interest motive...and hence, it removes any motive for people to contribute to the system, as well. If I don't own my home, and I know the government does, then whose job is it to make sure my home remains solid and stable? If my wages are paid by my government, why would I ever work? If I can't get profit for my goods, why bother to make them? If my health care is paid for, why shouldn't I take trips to my doctor for a hangnail or a cold, as well as for cancer or hernia surgery? And so, the predictable has happened in every Socialist state: everybody just stops contributing, and the state runs out of money...then there's poverty, starvation, misery, illness...and no freedom.

We have the perfect example provided for us right now: North and South Korea. One is Socialist, one is free market. Both have the same people, culture, language, approximate geographical area, etc. Why is one rich, and one a hellhole?

[Alexiev]

Not at all, actually. What we can see is that free markets can add value to the world. This is something about which Socialists are willfully ignorant or ridiculously blind: they think "wealth" is a zero-sum game! Can you imagine? How stupid is that?

No, human creativity doesn't "redistribute" value, it actually generates new value. It adds to the stock of goods and services available in the world. Whose money did Bill Gates "redistribute" when he invented his computer? Nobody's. He added value to what we already had, and millions and millions of people have freely voted with their own money to support his invention. That's a value-add. Socialists never talk about that.

And that's because they're a bunch of green-eyed simpletons, who, lacking any ability to add value to the world, content themselves with envy.

But the problem is that Socialism is the death of the welfare state. We can't keep taking value out of the world, without adding at least the equivalent back in; and since medical system run on money, that means we have either to make socialized medicine pay for itself, or we need a money-generating "machine" that can replace the capital that is being drawn out by the medical system. And that "machine" is private enterprise.

Oh, bosh! Free Markets are a zero sum game.

Seriously? You believe that?

Even when you can see it's not true? What do you think happens when somebody invents something new? Or when somebody modifies an existing idea, and finds a way to make it better?

If what you were saying were true, how did the poor in Industrial Revolution England turn out to be the middle class? When a person turns a piece of iron worth practically nothing into a pair of scissors or a surgeons scalpel, what process do you think has happened?

Seriously? You can't believe that. Nobody who has eyes can.

One person sells, another buys.

That's not zero sum. The money is fungible. Its value goes up or down based on the perceived value of the currency and the transaction, so how much value either holds at a given time isn't stable, but negotiable. That's why prices can go up and down. But all such transactions are voluntary, too: the buyer doesn't have to buy, and the seller doesn't have to sell. That is, unless you have a command economy, like in Socialism; in which case, the buyer is forced to buy, whether he wants to or not, and the seller cannot refuse the sale, because the State handles it all.

Of course I agree that wealth is not a zero sum game -- and I agree that it appears that free markets and capitalism promote wealth.

Well, good: it seemed for a moment like you were arguing obvious nonsense. I'm relieved to see you're not.

There is little evidence, however, that the welfare state -- supported by taxes in a fundamentally capitalist economy -- has a significant impact on this growth. Medicine is a good example. The profit motive has benefited humanity: most of the new HIV drugs (for example) were developed in the U.S. by for profit pharmaceutical companies.

HIV's a terrible example: it's a behaviourally-transmitted disease. It could be stopped tomorrow, and with no need for pharmaceuticals. But yes, the profit motive has often been helpful as well as detrimental. That's why the Bible says not "Money is root of all evil," as is sometimes misquoted, but rather, "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's the misplaced affections that are the problem, not the use of capital.

The flip side: in the U.S. we pay many times more for health care than people do in most rich countries, and we get worse results (as measured statistically).

That's the opposite of the truth, actually. Your health-care system has better doctors, newer treatments, and far more accessibility than, say, the Canadian system, which is run on a social-welfare model. Canada's going bankrupt on their medical system. People can't get important treatments. The technology is second-rate. And now people are actually dying in emergency waiting rooms, where the average wait is nearly four hours long. And all Canada's doctors leave for the US, where they can get better equipment, better wages and higher level medical opportunities.

But this I'll give you: the medical treatment in the US is also too expensive for the average person to afford. And that's a serious problem. There's a desperate need for a DOGE-style inquiry into the US health system. And maybe that's coming.

In addition, the HIV drugs we have developed could potentially save millions of lives in Africa, but our Pharmaceutical companies won't sell them there, even at a profit.

Yes, that's true. But it's much more complicated than you're letting on.

Drug research is very expensive and wasteful. Without a profit motive, there's no reason for researchers to find new treatments, and no money for them to do the research. When they do discover something, they can't just give it away, or that's the end of the line; they have to make a reasonable profit on it, so the incentive and means for research remain. But do our current companies gouge too much? Absolutely. Pfizer's a great example. And here is one of the legitimate functions of governance: to protect markets and consumers. To decide what is a fair balance of profit and accessibility, one that allows both the populace and the profits to remain. But governments are doing a horrible job at this right now, because the Socialists are ganging up with Big Pharma (like Pfizer), just as they're on the side of Big Military (Raytheon), Big Business (Blackrock), Big Ag (Monsanto) and Big Media (CBS, NBC, etc.) That's the point.

GK Chesterton had a series of debates with GB Shaw, the socialist. Both decried the poverty and abuse endemic to the capitalism of the late 19th century. Shaw thought nobody should own private property; Chesterton thought everyone should. I can't remember the details --but everyone owning a house seems like a good idea. It makes everyone a partner in the property-based system, instead of some people being dependent on others.

Now you've hit the key point. Socialism removes the self-interest motive...and hence, it removes any motive for people to contribute to the system, as well. If I don't own my home, and I know the government does, then whose job is it to make sure my home remains solid and stable? If my wages are paid by my government, why would I ever work? If I can't get profit for my goods, why bother to make them? If my health care is paid for, why shouldn't I take trips to my doctor for a hangnail or a cold, as well as for cancer or hernia surgery? And so, the predictable has happened in every Socialist state: everybody just stops contributing, and the state runs out of money...then there's poverty, starvation, misery, illness...and no freedom.

We have the perfect example provided for us right now: North and South Korea. One is Socialist, one is free market. Both have the same people, culture, language, approximate geographical area, etc. Why is one rich, and one a hellhole?

Did you read my post? It appears not, since you ignored what I wrote to rant about something else. Oh, well. What else is new?

To answer your last question: no, North and South Korea do not have "the same people" -- unless of course, you fail to differentiate between individuals of similar descent. The rich one -- by the way -- was aided by the richest country in the world. That's us, the U.S. Yet, for some reason, anti-U.S. bigotry is endemic on these boards. Jealousy, I assume. (Although, of course, our health care system is demonstrably inferior to the socialized systems in every other rich country.)

[Immanuel Can]

To answer your last question: no, North and South Korea do not have "the same people" -- unless of course, you fail to differentiate between individuals of similar descent.

Same language, same culture, same history, same genetics...up to the middle of the last century, one country. Don't talk nonsense.

North Korea's where everybody wants to escape, a totalitarian nightmare of the first order...starvation, rape, gulags...you get shot for failing to cry or laugh on cue.

Compare that to South Korea...wealthy, a tech leader, strong education, good public services, a democracy.

Get it?

[Alexiev]

To answer your last question: no, North and South Korea do not have "the same people" -- unless of course, you fail to differentiate between individuals of similar descent.

Same language, same culture, same history, same genetics...up to the middle of the last century, one country. Don't talk nonsense.

North Korea's where everybody wants to escape, a totalitarian nightmare of the first order...starvation, rape, gulags...you get shot for failing to cry or laugh on cue.

Compare that to South Korea...wealthy, a tech leader, strong education, good public services, a democracy.

Get it?

Hmmm. Wasn't the South Korean president impeached and arrested for corruption last month? Didn't he impose Marshall law, attempting to copy his brethren to the north?

Everyone knows oligarchies are repressive. Norway seems to be doing OK. So do other welfare-friendly states. It's the U.S. -- that bastion of capitalism -- that is moving toward autocracy.

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone knows oligarchies are repressive.

Everybody knows Socialist states are repressive. That's their record.

Norway seems to be doing OK.

Well, thanks to its oil, yeah.

So do other welfare-friendly states.

Canada the UK and Australia are in serious trouble, economically and socially. Germany's a mess, and France is going under its own immigration crisis. But a person in the US usually only knows their own country, and usually not more than a region of that.

What story do you tell yourself about how horrible America is, since everybody in every other country is desperate to get in there? Tell me how you manage to been in the most free and opportunity-rich country in history, and still hate yourselves. I'd be interested in that.

[Alexiev]

Everyone knows oligarchies are repressive.

Everybody knows Socialist states are repressive. That's their record.

Norway seems to be doing OK.

Well, thanks to its oil, yeah.

So do other welfare-friendly states.

Canada the UK and Australia are in serious trouble, economically and socially. Germany's a mess, and France is going under its own immigration crisis. But a person in the US usually only knows their own country, and usually not more than a region of that.

What story do you tell yourself about how horrible America is, since everybody in every other country is desperate to get in there? Tell me how you manage to been in the most free and opportunity-rich country in history, and still hate yourselves. I'd be interested in that.

Once again, you are making up.my opinions for me. I specifically said (several posts ago) that capitalism has been correlated with a dramatic increase in human welfare. Good grief! Can't you read?

I also have repeatedly defended my country against the anti Americans on this site, most of whom, contrary to your idiotic claim, are not desperate to come here. Please make at least some attempt to refrain from making a fool of yourself.

P.s. I mentioned Norway only because someone else did. Natural resources have played a role in America's wealth, too.

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone knows oligarchies are repressive.

Everybody knows Socialist states are repressive. That's their record.

Norway seems to be doing OK.

Well, thanks to its oil, yeah.

So do other welfare-friendly states.

Canada the UK and Australia are in serious trouble, economically and socially. Germany's a mess, and France is going under its own immigration crisis. But a person in the US usually only knows their own country, and usually not more than a region of that.

What story do you tell yourself about how horrible America is, since everybody in every other country is desperate to get in there? Tell me how you manage to been in the most free and opportunity-rich country in history, and still hate yourselves. I'd be interested in that.

Once again, you are making up.my opinions for me.

Nothing of the kind. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether your opinion conforms to them or not decides whether your opinion's actually right or not.

I also have repeatedly defended my country against the anti Americans on this site, most of whom, contrary to your idiotic claim, are not desperate to come here.

Really? So those millions coming across your borders are just lost?

[Gary Childress]

Everybody knows Socialist states are repressive. That's their record.


Well, thanks to its oil, yeah.


Canada the UK and Australia are in serious trouble, economically and socially. Germany's a mess, and France is going under its own immigration crisis. But a person in the US usually only knows their own country, and usually not more than a region of that.

What story do you tell yourself about how horrible America is, since everybody in every other country is desperate to get in there? Tell me how you manage to been in the most free and opportunity-rich country in history, and still hate yourselves. I'd be interested in that.

Once again, you are making up.my opinions for me.

Nothing of the kind. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether your opinion conforms to them or not decides whether your opinion's actually right or not.

I also have repeatedly defended my country against the anti Americans on this site, most of whom, contrary to your idiotic claim, are not desperate to come here.

Really? So those millions coming across your borders are just lost?

As a Christian, how do you discern between what is the will of God and what is something we humans need to actively do something about to prevent ourselves? And are you sure that Trump is not someone that we need to get out of office? Is there reason to believe that Trump is good. And if so, what are those reasons?

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, you are making up.my opinions for me.

Nothing of the kind. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether your opinion conforms to them or not decides whether your opinion's actually right or not.

I also have repeatedly defended my country against the anti Americans on this site, most of whom, contrary to your idiotic claim, are not desperate to come here.

Really? So those millions coming across your borders are just lost?

As a Christian, how do you discern between what is the will of God and what is something we humans need to actively do something about to prevent ourselves? And are you sure that Trump is not someone that we need to get out of office? Is there reason to believe that Trump is good. And if so, what are those reasons?

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm not an American. I can't do anything about your political situation.

[Age]

Everybody knows Socialist states are repressive. That's their record.


Well, thanks to its oil, yeah.


Canada the UK and Australia are in serious trouble, economically and socially. Germany's a mess, and France is going under its own immigration crisis. But a person in the US usually only knows their own country, and usually not more than a region of that.

What story do you tell yourself about how horrible America is, since everybody in every other country is desperate to get in there? Tell me how you manage to been in the most free and opportunity-rich country in history, and still hate yourselves. I'd be interested in that.

Once again, you are making up.my opinions for me.

Nothing of the kind. I'm just pointing out the facts.

LOL "Immanuel can" just KEEPS ON, KEEPING ON, PROVING just how Truly CLOSED, STUPID, and an ABSOLUTE IMBECILE, here.

LOL It ACTUALLY STATED "canada", "united kingdom", AND "australia" are in SERIOUS TROUBLE, while ALSO, LAUGHING, CLAIMING EVERY body in EVERY other country is, LAUGHINGLY, DESPERATE to get IN "america". LOL Not just WANTING TO, but are DESPERATE to get in "america".

"immanuel can", could NOT HAVE FOOLED and DECEIVED "itself" MUCH MORE, here.

And, it CLAIMS that it is JUST POINTING OUT 'the facts'. "immanuel can" has MANAGED TO ABSOLUTELY FOOL and DECEIVE "its" OWN 'self', here.

But, 'this' is the POWER OF 'BELIEF', itself.

Also, what ELSE can be CLEARLY SEEN and RECOGNIZED, here, by 'this one' is that it CONTINUAL ATTEMPTS TO DETRACT, DEFLECT, and DECEIVE.

Whether your opinion conforms to them or not decides whether your opinion's actually right or not.

So, if your OPINION 'conforms' TO a Falsehood, then 'this' somehow decides whether your OPINION is ACTUALLY right, or not. Well TO "immanuel can", anyway.

I also have repeatedly defended my country against the anti Americans on this site, most of whom, contrary to your idiotic claim, are not desperate to come here.

Really? So those millions coming across your borders are just lost?

LOL Does 'this one' REALLY BELIEVE that 'millions' EQUATES TO EVERY one of over 'eight billion'?

'immanuel can" just about could NOT GET MORE LOST, CONFUSED, and DELUSIONAL, here.

"immanuel can" STARTED A thread titled - Corporation Socialism. But ENDS UP SHOWING and PROVING not just HOW DELUDED it REALLY IS, but even HIGHLIGHTS just HOW LOST and DELUDED it REALLY IS.

[Age]

Once again, you are making up.my opinions for me.

Nothing of the kind. I'm just pointing out the facts. Whether your opinion conforms to them or not decides whether your opinion's actually right or not.

I also have repeatedly defended my country against the anti Americans on this site, most of whom, contrary to your idiotic claim, are not desperate to come here.

Really? So those millions coming across your borders are just lost?

As a Christian, how do you discern between what is the will of God and what is something we humans need to actively do something about to prevent ourselves?

The one known, here, as "immanuel can" is NOT A "christian" AT ALL.

People like "yourself" "gary childress" are FAR MORE CHRISTIAN LIKE that people like 'immanuel can" could EVER IMAGINE TO BE.

And are you sure that Trump is not someone that we need to get out of office? Is there reason to believe that Trump is good. And if so, what are those reasons?