Socialism gaining ground

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

16 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Nope, sorry, they always mean the exact same things. 

got it, cause I don't agree with something a gay says I am homophobic

cause I don't want socialism thats racist

you guys throw those words around any chance you get, democrats figured that out in the early 2000's play the race card, nobody wants to be called that so use it for everything and now it means ZERO

[FrancieFootball]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Cause you’re a homo

Is this a fantasy of yours?

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

6 minutes ago, FrancieFootball said:

Is this a fantasy of yours?

its a reality of yours

 

[FrancieFootball]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

its a reality of yours

 

Like it or not, we already are seeing The Blue Wave, and there will be no high ground for you to get to.

[TheNewGirl]

You're all ghey. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

1 hour ago, FrancieFootball said:

Like it or not, we already are seeing The Blue Wave, and there will be no high ground for you to get to.

Oh no what the fock are pansies like you gonna do to scare me?

[FrancieFootball]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Oh no what the fock are pansies like you gonna do to scare me?

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

3 hours ago, FrancieFootball said:

 

why would I care what a  washed up loser phag has to say?

 

[seafoam1]

7 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Nope, sorry, they always mean the exact same things. 

Like "No Kings" right?

[Big Guy]

On 3/5/2026 at 6:16 PM, shadrap said:

Socialism gaining ground

because half of America is an entitled lazy fook!

[seafoam1]

Just now, Big Guy said:

because half of America is an entitled lazy fook!

They deserve socialism. 

I'm set for life and am getting to the point of just letting them get what they are begging for. 

[Frozenbeernuts]

This nigga nails it

Socialism.

 

Do you know what socialism REALLY is? It is the mechanism to bring about a despotic nation. It has two ranks. The socialist major, which consists of the controllers, and the socialist minor, which consists of the plebeians who are under the control of the socialist major.

 

What the minor does not understand is that power aggregates at the top. The decision makers inside of the socialist major cabal will always enjoy a luxury that the minor will not, which means that inequality WILL persist, at extreme levels, in a socialist system. Maybe more than in a capitalist one.

 

Another thing that the minor does not understand is that socialism is dependent on capitalism and socialists work for the capitalist major cabal. That's right. The socialist minor works for the benefit of the capitalist major. Because the capitalist major will always be impervious to socialist policies while those same policies crush their competition in the lower and middle class. To reiterate, the socialist minor is a tool to crush the downtrodden; they were supposed to assist.

 

But what's worse than the socialist-minor? The BLACK socialist-minor. Physical slavery became antiquated so the cabal upgraded to a new form of slavery...Socialism. So, the black socialist minor is a tool to support the latest version of slavery. If socialism aggregates power at the top, and the government is mostly white, you cannot support socialism and fight white supremacy simultaneously.

 

Socialist programs turn poor black populations into wards of the state. They become dependent on the milk from Lady Liberty's breast. Their ambition is stripped from them. But more devastating, their coalition is stripped from them.

 

With government assistance taking care of the poor black population, there is less reason for the black population to organize for their benefit since the government feeds their poor. But if the black population fed themselves, they would be a unified unit. This is exactly what the socialist major does NOT want.

 

Socialism is a parasite with two hosts. One is capitalism, and the other is the socialist minor. Without an oppressed class, there would be no argument for socialism, so in order for socialism to survive, there needs to be oppression. Now, ask yourself, "Who is incentivized to sustain oppression?"

 

The socialist major is really a capitalist in sheep's clothing. They understand how socialism knocks over the ladder while people are trying to climb up. The socialist minor is kept ignorant, given just enough information to get the job done, but not enough to see how harmful their work is. All while the socialist major and capitalist major share the same penthouse suites.

 

Now, I must commend the socialist minor for their intentions. Many of them mean well. They are simply misguided by their emotions and not rational. They are big in heart but small in mind.

https://x.com/i/status/2049547490647577081

[SaintsInDome2006]

23 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Now, I must commend the socialist minor for their intentions. Many of them mean well. They are simply misguided by their emotions and not rational. They are big in heart but small in mind.

https://x.com/i/status/2049547490647577081

This guy is hustling energy supplements & crypto scams.

Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production (like if the federal government were to own a chip manufacturer) & the state’s treatment of core social needs as per se rights. 

All that other stuff above is cooked up meth dreams.

[Frozenbeernuts]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This guy is hustling energy supplements & crypto scams.

Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production (like if the federal government were to own a chip manufacturer) & the state’s treatment of core social needs as per se rights. 

All that other stuff above is cooked up meth dreams.

I don't care what else he sells. That post is accurate. Go move somewhere that celebrates socialism if that is what you want.

[SaintsInDome2006]

28 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

I don't care what else he sells. That post is accurate. Go move somewhere that celebrates socialism if that is what you want.

“Power aggregating at the top” can happen in multiple systems, including capitalism, nationalism, right wing theocracies like Iran, communist systems like Kim’s North Korea. Yes it can happen in socialism too but that’s not what defines socialism.

[Frozenbeernuts]

2 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

“Power aggregating at the top” can happen in multiple systems, including capitalism, nationalism, right wing theocracies like Iran, communist systems like Kim’s North Korea. Yes it can happen in socialism too but that’s not what defines socialism.

Socialism is about the state providing everything. The people become dependent on the state to provide and manage all. While everyone not at the top suffers, those at the top live like kings. I'm not sure why you need something so basic explained to you.

[SaintsInDome2006]

12 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Socialism is about the state providing everything. The people become dependent on the state to provide and manage all. While everyone not at the top suffers, those at the top live like kings. I'm not sure why you need something so basic explained to you.

Actually I mentioned social rights in my OP. You’re against all public subsidies then?

[Frozenbeernuts]

2 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Actually I mentioned social rights in my OP. You’re against all public subsidies then?

I'm against liberals like you trying to ruin the world. I look forward to seeing your spirits crushed.

[SaintsInDome2006]

1 hour ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

I'm against liberals like you trying to ruin the world. I look forward to seeing your spirits crushed.

It sounds like you’re going to crush the liberals by doing socialism better than they do it, just with a nationalist twist. Trumpismo means the state can own corporations, tax consumers, pour billions out to whatever group, run up astronomical deficits, start wars which drive global costs, simply at the whim of the leader & not involve Congress & without asking the people. That’s socialism on steroids. And when the liberals & some genuine socialists get their turn, what will you & Vitamin Man say, that they’re acting unconstitutionally?

[Mark Davis]

4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Actually I mentioned social rights in my OP. You’re against all public subsidies then?

In general public subsidies are a bad thing.  Why?  For reasons like this.  People can justify having more of them because there were any exceptions made at all.  Now, we can debate that some have merit, such as public education.  Keep in mind our country has had a longer history of kids having to pay for their own books etc rather than even having a free public education.  The main role I see for government is national defense and enforcing domestic laws and safety, but as a whole, the more government stays out of the way, the better off we are.

[SaintsInDome2006]

14 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

In general public subsidies are a bad thing.  Why?  For reasons like this.  People can justify having more of them because there were any exceptions made at all.  Now, we can debate that some have merit, such as public education.  Keep in mind our country has had a longer history of kids having to pay for their own books etc rather than even having a free public education.  The main role I see for government is national defense and enforcing domestic laws and safety, but as a whole, the more government stays out of the way, the better off we are.

Thanks for the response & the intellectual honesty. The farm bill that was just passed dumps something like $20 billion in ‘bridge’ subsidies alone just to try to cover for the ad valorum taxes aka tariffs that the President unilaterally executed. 

And I never call people hypocrites, I don’t believe in it. But I think we have folks like ol’ FBN there who actually love socialism when it’s applied the way they like. And in this administration that kind of socialism is bigger than ever.

[SaintsInDome2006]

13 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Now, we can debate that some have merit, such as public education.  Keep in mind our country has had a longer history of kids having to pay for their own books etc rather than even having a free public education.

I don’t think it’s really free. People pay taxes locally, that pays for the school system. Now vouchers are rightly also subsidies. The citizens pay taxes, they get a school system out of that (in my area that’s a crapshoot), but *then the state also takes public funds & will subsidize private school tuition. That’s socialism on top of socialism.

[Mark Davis]

12 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don’t think it’s really free. People pay taxes locally, that pays for the school system. Now vouchers are rightly also subsidies. The citizens pay taxes, they get a school system out of that (in my area that’s a crapshoot), but *then the state also takes public funds & will subsidize private school tuition. That’s socialism on top of socialism.

Well, locally they do for sure.  The differences in our local systems, specifically when it comes to sports here is quite different.  

Things like the interstate system it's hard to argue against in my opinion as well.  I think most agree that it's impossible to have a functioning country/society without a government for national defense and who is in charge of some infrastructure.  To me that's a different ballgame from government being involved in industry, certain regulations (specifically on pricing and production), and less popular Social Security. 

George W Bush was perhaps my least favorite President of my life, Carter was out by the time I was aware of much, but his privatization plan for Social Security would have been a huge help to our current budget shortfalls and national debt.  While I remember him for the Iraq War, had he gotten his way on privatization he would be a hero to those of us who worry about our country's fiscal peril.

[SaintsInDome2006]

7 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Well, locally they do for sure.  The differences in our local systems, specifically when it comes to sports here is quite different.  

Things like the interstate system it's hard to argue against in my opinion as well.  I think most agree that it's impossible to have a functioning country/society without a government for national defense and who is in charge of some infrastructure.  To me that's a different ballgame from government being involved in industry, certain regulations (specifically on pricing and production), and less popular Social Security. 

George W Bush was perhaps my least favorite President of my life, Carter was out by the time I was aware of much, but his privatization plan for Social Security would have been a huge help to our current budget shortfalls and national debt.  While I remember him for the Iraq War, had he gotten his way on privatization he would be a hero to those of us who worry about our country's fiscal peril.

Sports is a local “good”, it’s the circuses in the modern bread & circuses of the old emperors.

Louisiana is the deepest red state there is & we pay tens of millions one way or the other to subsidize the Saints. And I’m part of it, I do it too, guilty. New Orleans had never had a May Day march or a union but try to move the Saints & you’ll see the pitchforks & Molotov cocktails soon enough.

[easilyscan]

On 4/30/2026 at 7:08 PM, seafoam1 said:

They deserve socialism. 

I'm set for life and am getting to the point of just letting them get what they are begging for. 

I'm thankful to be in a similar position. Problem is, if those people begging for Socialism are ever successful on a wide scale, those like us will be the first ones they'll come after. By that I don't mean physical harm, (although you never know nowadays) I mean seizing our assets 'for the greater good' 

 

 

[Mark Davis]

38 minutes ago, easilyscan said:

I'm thankful to be in a similar position. Problem is, if those people begging for Socialism are ever successful on a wide scale, those like us will be the first ones they'll come after. By that I don't mean physical harm, (although you never know nowadays) I mean seizing our assets 'for the greater good' 

 

 

That's why the long term goal of those folks has to be a nationwide wealth tax.  Otherwise, everyone with the means will leave their area.  It's like that old quote, eventually you run out of everyone else's money.

[easilyscan]

1 hour ago, Mark Davis said:

George W Bush was perhaps my least favorite President of my life, but his privatization plan for Social Security would have been a huge help to our current budget shortfalls and national debt.  While I remember him for the Iraq War, had he gotten his way on privatization he would be a hero to those of us who worry about our country's fiscal peril.

[SaintsInDome2006]

Guys…

[seafoam1]

10 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Guys…

What is your obsession with being so triggered? No one cares.

He's the greatest US president of all time. 

[easilyscan]

22 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Guys…

OK, that wasn't good, but I won't become seriously concerned until he starts falling down regularly. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

U.S. Debt Tops 100% of GDP Federal debt exceeding the size of the economy is a potent symbol of the gathering fiscal stresses on the U.S.

<<<

The government is spending $1.33 for every dollar it collects in revenue. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

WASHINGTON—The U.S. national debt now exceeds 100% of gross domestic product, crossing a once-unthinkable threshold, on the way toward breaking the record set in the wake of World War II.

As of March 31, the country’s publicly held debt was $31.265 trillion, while GDP over the preceding year was $31.216 trillion, according to data released Thursday. That puts the ratio at 100.2%, compared with 99.5% when the last fiscal year ended Sept. 30. That figure will likely climb for the foreseeable future because the federal government is running historically large annual deficits of nearly 6% of GDP, which add to the debt.>>>