The Stupid It Hurts: Socialism in Practice

This is Socialism:

In Venezuela, they were teachers and doctors. To buy food, they became prostitutes.

By Jim Wyss
jwyss@miamiherald.com
September 22, 2017 12:08 PM
ARAUCA, Colombia

At a squat, concrete brothel on the muddy banks of the Arauca River, Gabriel Sánchez rattled off the previous jobs of the women who now sell their bodies at his establishment for $25 an hour.

“We’ve got lots of teachers, some doctors, many professional women and one petroleum engineer,” he yelled over the din of vallenato music. “All of them showed up with their degrees in hand.”

And all of them came from Venezuela.

As Venezuela’s economy continues to collapse amid food shortages, hyperinflation and U.S. sanctions, waves of economic refugees have fled the country. Those with the means have gone to places like Miami, Santiago and Panama.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article174808061.html#storylink=cpy

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Stupid It Hurts: Socialism in Practice

  1. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    With mueler closing in, kushner using private email, russians hacking, the un fiasco, healthcare going down for the umpteenth time, constitution in shreds, tax cuts with no hope, and now the nfl blowing up in his face, and shrinking coat tails, the troll pivots quickly to Venezuela, grades himself an a, and ducks under his bridge

  2. ” … the troll pivots quickly to Venezuela, grades himself an a, and ducks under his bridge”

    Of course, Liberal, of course.

    But…now where’s that employee contract agreement template we asked for earlier?

    http://www.thestupidithurts.org/2017/09/26/the-trumpster-trumps-the-national-failures-league/#comment-140

    Hmm?

    You are an employer.

  3. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    It must be waiting on you to define race.

    However you define it, this president is a p***y grabbing racist pig. Rofl.

    (language please – MOD)

  4. But according to you, isn’t everyone a racist, even you?

    “Everyone is guilty of racism and far worse, intolerance and prejudice. So, sure you can find a racist remark made somewhere sometime by a liberal or two.”

    Well you certainly are one of the two:

    “It’s pretty obvious 50000 permanent jobs won’t actually be created by pipeline construction that only hires illegals anyway. More like 500 temp jobs for a few wetbacks for 6 mos.”

    “Wetbacks”?! Whoopsie?!

    We have no employment contract from the Progressive.

    We’re having racist comments from the Progressive.

    But that’s OKAY, because Progressives can do it when everyone else can’t isn’t that right?

  5. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    And that defines race how?

    • You should pay better attention. Modern Progressivism defines “Race” by skin color. You’ve personally defined it, i.e., by skin color.

      We’re using your definition to show your hypocrisy.

      • I Hate Conservativiots says:

        “Modern Progressivism defines “Race” by skin color. “

        Does it? No. Progressives define race as the human race.

        “You’ve personally defined it, i.e., by skin color.”

        No, I’ve said that’s the way some racists define it.

        However, if the court had defined it that way they obviously wouldn’t have redundantly listed both race and color separately in the 14th amendment. Asians, jews are white, etc.

        Thus, we still await the troll definition.

        • “Does it? No. Progressives define race as the human race.”

          But you contradict yourself.

          You’ve already admitted that “everyone is racist”. Certainly you belong in the set of all individuals who are “everyone” given this quote from you below:

          “Everyone is guilty of racism and far worse, intolerance and prejudice. So, sure you can find a racist remark made somewhere sometime by a liberal or two.”

          Therefore by your own admission you have to define race by skin color, or else you’re a racist against your own race. In which case, yet again you contradict yourself. What a mess of contradiction and irrationality…

          But you wriggle and writhe under the weight of your lies. Your mouth proves your heart by this quote:

          “It’s pretty obvious 50000 permanent jobs won’t actually be created by pipeline construction that only hires illegals anyway. More like 500 temp jobs for a few wetbacks for 6 mos.”

          Wetbacks?

          “No, I’ve said that’s the way some racists define it.”

          Right. Those racists like you. See above.

          “However, if the court had defined it that way they obviously wouldn’t have redundantly listed both race and color separately in the 14th amendment.
          Asians, jews are white, etc.

          Thus, we still await the troll definition.”

          “Thus”? What “Thus”? Did you make an argument?

  6. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    How the troll does like to play his games with words he can’t define. We have already established race is not racism, and racists have their own mental definition of their misguided myth, whatever it may be.

    Further, we both know any racial epilogs i have ever used were merely familiar dog whistles to conservativiot bigots. Likewise everyone being racist sometime somewhere, is not the same as being racist always.

    “you have to define race by skin color, or else you’re a racist against your own race.”

    How is that exactly, incoherent troll?

    How many temp jobs were created, anyway? Oh yeah, not anything close to 50,000. Keystone still hasn’t even started yet.

    The point was non citizens got most pipeline jobs, by whatever terminology you like. The language of the pipeline crew is Spanish. And you present no evidence otherwise.

    if the court had defined it that way they obviously wouldn’t have redundantly listed both race and color separately in the 14th amendment.
    Asians, jews are white, etc.

    Thus, we still await the troll definition.

    “Thus”? What “Thus”? Did you make an argument?

    Yes, the 14th amendment makes the argument race is not the same as color, otherwise why list both race and color if they are the same thing? Second, asians are white, therefore no asian race can exist by this definition alone.

    Thus, we still await the troll definition.

    Until the ratf****g troll defines it, he says nothing.

    (language – MOD)

    • “How the troll does like to play his games with words he can’t define.”

      I don’t need to define it. We’ve already established how you define it. I’m using your definition of race, i.e., skin color.

      “We have already established race is not racism, and racists have their own mental definition of their misguided myth, whatever it may be.”

      Eh? We’ve established “race is not racism”?? Why would anyone’s race be considered “racism”?? Except of course from the Left, e.g., “White Privilege”.

      Do you have any idea what you’re saying here?

      “Further, we both know any racial epilogs i have ever used were merely familiar dog whistles to conservativiot bigots.”

      No we don’t anything of the sort. There was no reason to describe any illegal immigrants (if there are any) working on the Keystone Pipeline as “wetbacks”. You did it because you are the epitome of hypocrisy and deceit, i.e., you are the Progressive Racist, a disciple of Progressive Racism.

      All you’re looking to do is try to find a way out for your ilk, who are no better than the White Nationalist or the KKK. The NAACP, La Raza, etc., are all modern Progressive organizations with the same fundamental philosophical foundation, i.e., Race, Separatism, Identity, etc.

      “Likewise everyone being racist sometime somewhere, is not the same as being racist always.”

      Well since your comment concerning the “wetbacks” was somewhere around 2 years old, tell us when you first became a racist and then when you stopped being one?

      Why should we believe you’re not a racist now?

      Why should we believe you when you accuse others of racism, since they can stop being racist at any time?

      “you have to define race by skin color, or else you’re a racist against your own race.

      How is that exactly, incoherent troll?”

      Oh come now. It’s a simple matter of logic isn’t it? Why must I explain every tiny detail?

      You admit that you’re a racist. In your attempt to justify your “wetback” label of immigrant workers you claimed that “everyone is racist sometimes”, hence since you are in the set of all individuals who are “everyone”, then by definition you must also be a racist.

      But at the same time you’ve admitted (and proved) your racism, you deny that Race exists (and therefore contradict yourself, but that is another matter) by claiming that “Race” as a biological construct is a myth and that rather “everyone is part of the human race”.

      Therefore, by simple logic if it is true that “race is a myth” and rather, “everyone is part of the human race” and it is also true that you’re a racist (which you have admitted to being) then you must be racist against your own race since “Race” equals the “human race”, of which you are a part I assume?

      “How many temp jobs were created, anyway? Oh yeah, not anything close to 50,000. Keystone still hasn’t even started yet.”

      Oh my…must we suffer you to include off-topic tautologies in your feeble excuses for your ugly bigotry?? Boring.

      “The point was non citizens got most pipeline jobs, by whatever terminology you like. The language of the pipeline crew is Spanish. And you present no evidence otherwise.”

      No Liberal. If “Keystone still hasn’t even started yet” as you claim above, how can “non citizens” have gotten “most pipeline jobs”???

      Don’t you ever tire of embarrassing yourself?

      “Yes, the 14th amendment makes the argument race is not the same as color, otherwise why list both race and color if they are the same thing? Second, asians are white, therefore no asian race can exist by this definition alone.
      Thus, we still await the troll definition.
      Until the ratfucking troll defines it, he says nothing.”

      Which part of the 14th amendment “makes the argument that race is not the same as color”?

      Section One perhaps?

      “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      Hmmm…not there. Perhaps Section Two?

      “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

      No…seems not. Section Three then?

      “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

      No again. Ok maybe Section Four???

      “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

      I’m not finding any statements on Race. Which part of the 14th amendment deals with Race?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *