[commieprof]

Resources aren't scarce. There is enough food produced every year to feed everyone 54 times over--most of it is dumped in the ocean because it wouldn't get a profit on the market. That's our system's sick set of priorities.

[Rodney King]

On a more debative point. Have you ever wondered why the countries where eveybody starves, and/or where food must be imported are all socialist, while the Capitalist countries produce an excess of wealth and food?

[VRWC_minion]

Resources aren't scarce

You have just lost complete credibility.

[ThinkDifferent]

There is enough food produced every year to feed everyone 54 times over--most of it is dumped in the ocean because it wouldn't get a profit on the market.

Source please. While you're at it, examine how much of the world's food is produced by capitalist vs socialist nations.

[Inkie]

Re: resources. You might be right about our being able to feed everybody. But you are wrong about why people are starving. This is because distribution is left to their corrupt, frequently Marxist, leaders. This includes the likes of Ethiopia, Somalia, etc. The West sends billions in aid and it goes to the leader's favored factions, his soldiers, etc. There is no predictable rule of law -- only who has the most power at any given time. Without predictable laws that guarantee personal freedoms and property rights, you will never have the prosperity you envisage. Have a look at Zimbabwe. A few years ago, they had a food surplus and actually sold food to their neighbors. The insane megalomaniac Mugabe has placated the "natives" and driven the white farmers and any blacks who knew the ropes off their farms. Now they're all starving, with what took years to build destroyed.

As far as being a Trotskyite, this system has never worked anywhere in the world. It only produces political coercion and shortages of goods . Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Your way will never work.

[John O]

(replying to post 1. and other things we've learned about you)

In the first place we do not live in a democracy. We never have and we never will. We live in a constitutional republic (Thank God). Take a good conservative history course.

Apparently you also do not understand the use of your body. Women are not designed to lay with women. Pretty obvious really, insert tab a into socket b and all that stuff.

Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse

You also seem to fail to grasp that if a baby is alive and distinct from it's mother one day after birth it is also alive and distinct from it's mother one day before birth (and one day before that, and one day before that all the way back to conception). A baby has a different DNA from it's mother. Therefore abortion is murder.

Many liberals much better equipped than you have tried to prove their points here. None have succeeded because truth always wins over liberal propaganda. While one Freeper may not know all the truth, some one in the 80,000 plus posters has the facts on any issue you'd care to discuss. Liberal spin doesn't work here (other than serving as good examples of idiocy)

God Save America (Please)

[John O]

one other thing. Israel holds lands that it took during the wars of arab agression against it. Figure that these lands belong to Israel now by right of conquest as they were the defender in every war they fought. I think the arabs would cut their losses and stop attacking.

There is no such thing as a palestinian people. There is not now, and never has been a nation of palestine in the middle east. Israel, however, has over 4000 years existence on that land (minus 1878 or so years when they were scattered)

GSA(P)

[spqrzilla9]

Resources aren't scarce. There is enough food produced every year to feed everyone 54 times over--most of it is dumped in the ocean because it wouldn't get a profit on the market. That's our system's sick set of priorities.

Its so much easier to argue by making up "facts" out of whole cloth isn't it? Reality is so inconvenient to socialists.

[Dan Day]

Resources aren't scarce. There is enough food produced every year to feed everyone 54 times over--most of it is dumped in the ocean because it wouldn't get a profit on the market. That's our system's sick set of priorities.

I really must, like several other participants in this thread, insist that you provide support for this amazing assertion...

[Teacher317]

There is enough food produced every year to feed everyone 54 times over--most of it is dumped in the ocean because it wouldn't get a profit on the market.

Well, I doubt that "54 times" statistic, but I'll give it a pass for now... and I'll assume that you do not think that massive quantities of food are literally dumped off of a boat into the ocean (Greenpeace would have a conniption fit, LOL). I want to address the last line of the post.

That's our system's sick set of priorities.

Our systems single most important, significant, and historic priority is to give the individual the Freedom to produce as he sees fit. This was never tried in 6000 years of recorded history. The results are blazingly obvious. Those Western nations who have followed our example are miraculously short of famines, plagues, rampant inefficiency, etc. Those who have not are still floundering, and are somehow unable to feed themselves and unable to survive financially without Western aid, grants, and relief. Do you see this as a coinsidence?

Allow me to give you the clearest example of the inherent impossibility of success in the Socialist model. Oklahoma State University was working closely with Ethiopia in the 1950's, and the nations quickly became a net food exporter, overcoming famine, creating wealth, and even helping other African nations to feed their people. In the 1960's the Socialists took power, and the people of the region have never recovered. Millions are dead of starvation, billions of dollars of assets and wealth are consumed and never replaced, and they have never once produced the same tonnages that they did 50 years ago. This happens EVERY time Socialists enforce the "compassion" on populations. The ONLY reason some Socialism-leaning Western nations (like France) do not collapse is that they have enough of our "sick" priorities and allow the more motivated parts of the population to evade or circumvent national planning schemes and actually be productive... in SPITE of Socialism, and NEVER because of it.

It is sad that a college professor would so willfully ignore History and the plain lessons that it imparts.

With this in mind, which set of priorities is "sick"? The society that enforces a system that keeps people from producing enough to feed its people, or the system that is SO good at letting its people produce a surplus that they can voluntarily (aka, "freely") choose to waste food as they see fit?