The Liberal Gun Club Forum

This coming from a guy who wants to spend $2000 on a gun, a frivolous toy. Spare me the socialist bullshit when it comes to material things.

whitey wrote:This coming from a guy who wants to spend $2000 on a gun, a frivolous toy. Spare me the socialist bullshit when it comes to material things.

The car being destroyed doesn't actually belong to anyone. It is part of a performance art piece.
If you want to be spared " the socialist bullshit" then I suggest you don't open threads that blantantly announce that they are socialist.

A Nation's natural resources belongs to all citizens. A cooperative or corporation should not claim the wealth of the commons. They need to pay for access and only receive the wealth equivalent to the labor and equipment they invest into the project.

the comedian wrote:

whitey wrote:This coming from a guy who wants to spend $2000 on a gun, a frivolous toy. Spare me the socialist bullshit when it comes to material things.

The car being destroyed doesn't actually belong to anyone. It is part of a performance art piece.
If you want to be spared " the socialist bullshit" then I suggest you don't open threads that blantantly announce that they are socialist.

I may have worded my first statement wrong, figured it would've drawn the ire of the hardcore socialists here. I have a problem with being told I can feed so many starving kids if I didn't buy this or that. Its that persons money to do with whatever they choose to spend it on. Is it ridiculous to spend $350K on a car? Yes, its even more ridiculous to spend that much on it just to destroy it in the name of "art" . If that makes me a capitalist pig, so be it.

whitey wrote:

the comedian wrote:

whitey wrote:This coming from a guy who wants to spend $2000 on a gun, a frivolous toy. Spare me the socialist bullshit when it comes to material things.

The car being destroyed doesn't actually belong to anyone. It is part of a performance art piece.
If you want to be spared " the socialist bullshit" then I suggest you don't open threads that blantantly announce that they are socialist.

I may have worded my first statement wrong, figured it would've drawn the ire of the hardcore socialists here. I have a problem with being told I can feed so many starving kids if I didn't buy this or that. Its that persons money to do with whatever they choose to spend it on. Is it ridiculous to spend $350K on a car? Yes, its even more ridiculous to spend that much on it just to destroy it in the name of "art" . If that makes me a capitalist big, so be it.

I don't think that was Gendo's intention. And if I flew off of the handle, I apologize.

No worries, its always a live discussion, I'll be interested on gendos' take on it.

whitey wrote:This coming from a guy who wants to spend $2000 on a gun, a frivolous toy. Spare me the socialist bullshit when it comes to material things.

Yup. Because, fuck it. Actually the manufacturing labor time of the FS isn't much more than an AR, a great deal of the cost involved the FS is rarity. You do have a point though.

But in the end, I can't change the system, so fuck it, I'll be a greedy ass motherfucker just like the rest of them. Don't like it, change the system.

Edit: and yes, getting a much cheaper Ak in 5.45 was in the running, but i've all but given up on anything resembling fairness anywhere, so yeah, fuck it.

The original poster illustrates why both Capitalism and Socialism are irrational:

They are both based upon materialism and the belief that there is a "Free Lunch" (the value of gold beyond physical investment and labor.) They only dispute WHO gets the free lunch.

Historical amnesia and willfull ignorance... they are diseases of moderates as much as reactionaries.

+1

...............

the comedian wrote:...............

This * 1,000,000

yeah....

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah....

98289133.jpg

In the original Marxist definition a command economy would be planned by a committee of representatives elected by the people. The idea that a oligarchy of apparatchiks would decide what would be produced was a Stalinist one.

the comedian wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:yeah....

98289133.jpg

In the original Marxist definition a command economy would be planned by a committee of representatives elected by the people. The idea that a oligarchy of apparatchiks would decide what would be produced was a Stalinist one.

I know, but the point was they criticize that which they do not understand for being in efficient when their own system is deliberately inefficient

They call it reform.