MotherJonses » 29 Jul 2014 6:59 pm » wrote: Let's not sugar coat this - Allende was shot, killed dead, he did not step aside and those who shot him did just what I said - they took leadership by force - Pinochet got that spot because the elected leader was gunned down. What I said was 100% accurate. The people elected a socialist leader as they did again and again. The people are voting for what they want and your corporate masters say otherwise. Then the mercs are sent out to whip the bad cows back into line.

No, you don't get it. Even the Chilean left has admitted that Allende committed suicide rather than be captured by the military.

Allende was elected with only 40% of the vote, and the overwhelming majority never wanted a Communist, let alone a dictatorship.

He violated Chile's Constitution in an attempt to consolidate power and brought in Cuban troops to fight against his own military. He was attempting to establish a Castro-like dictatorship.

No, the people never wanted that.

And what happened has nothing to do with corporations.

Whatever sources you have, dump them. They're bulls***.

MotherJonses » 29 Jul 2014 6:59 pm » wrote: Let's not sugar coat this - Allende was shot, killed dead, he did not step aside and those who shot him did just what I said - they took leadership by force - Pinochet got that spot because the elected leader was gunned down. What I said was 100% accurate. The people elected a socialist leader as they did again and again. The people are voting for what they want and your corporate masters say otherwise. Then the mercs are sent out to whip the bad cows back into line.

Most of the civilized world has jettisoned socialist economic principles with the fall of the Soviet Union. South Americans don't know anything but dictators, socialism and abject poverty. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Your economic socialism is DEAD for all intensive purposes.

There's still pockets of futile resistance from retards that don't know any better, Cuba and North Korea being notables. Their leaders who control them know if their citizens get a taste of the economic freedom and prosperity of market systems their power will dissipate. Don't attempt to make it the other way around.

Market systems AKA capitalism=freedom

Socialism=slavery to the state

MotherJonses » 29 Jul 2014 5:47 pm » wrote: So they never chose it? You yourself said they never voted for it. In fact everytime they vote they tend to elect socailists. Folks like Pinochet (whose salad you toss regularly) only get power when the elected leaders are gunned down and shock troops force the population into submission.

Pinochet didn't seize power to follow free market policies. He prevented a would-be Communist dictator from establishing a Cuba-like dictatorship.

As even the Chilean Left has finally admitted.

Voters in Latin America often vote for Socialists, but every country is so badly dominated by the alliance of the liberal-left with Big Governmentand Big Business that ordinary citizens become so cynical, they don't participate in the democratic process.

However, Honduras is about to follow China's Free Enterprise Zones that brought not only prosperity, but millions of citizens who moved into them.

Success is sometimes emulated.

Most often not, which is why most of Latin America is poverty stricken.

MotherJonses » 19 Jul 2014 12:49 am » wrote: Excellent definition but since it does not suit their meme they will ignore it. You can't fix stupid.

It's a GREAT definition. Basically, any country with private property rights is not socialist, *******.

MotherJonses » 19 Jul 2014 1:39 am » wrote: Again with sexual activity used as an insult..and you **** wonder why the right is accused of waging war on women.

MotherJonses » 19 Jul 2014 12:46 am » wrote: So you are saying that Cannon is so powerful that the Heritage website bends itself to his will and changes to say what he wants?
How does you wife feel about that man crush you have on him?

More airhead stupidity. You are dumber than a box of rocks.

And how does your husband feel about all that dick you suck for crack every nite?

MotherJonses » 18 Jul 2014 11:35 pm » wrote: Sorry, pathetic *******, but if you check the actual heritage site it does not say least socialist.

LMAO! Thanks for proving my point! ******* Smelly ****!

MotherJonses » 18 Jul 2014 11:35 pm » wrote: Sorry, pathetic *******, but if you check the actual heritage site it does not say least socialist.

Q.1. What is economic freedom?
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

That's the EXACT opposite of socialism you **** MORON.....

MotherJonses » 18 Jul 2014 7:20 pm » wrote: That is not the list that Heritage put on their site. Their list is only the freeist - it does not mention "least Socialist" that one is all you.
And you keep mentioning this snipe "Free Market" can you provide a single example of an actual free market?
Also - just because these nations used what you call a "free market reform" does not change the fact that they still have socialized medicine, retirement and secondary education. Those are not the things that they culled from the budget to make it work.
You are bleating about the wrong thing,

Free market is the opposite of socialism.

Free market----------------------------capitalism(some form of government regulation)-----------------------------------------------------socialism(government controls the economy)

Free market=consumers choose what is produced and have private property rights

Capitalism=government has some regulations in place that regulate the economy

Socialism=government controls what is produced and how with no private property rights AKA North Korea and Cuba

Just because a country has "socialized" medical services available doesn't make it socialist...... Now if ALL HOSPITALS, ALL PHYSICIANS AND ALL MEDICAL CARE IS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE HEALTHCARE IS MADE ILLEGAL, THEN THEIR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WOULD BE CONSIDERED SOCIALIST..... BUT OBVIOUSLY HEALTHCARE IS ONLY ONE PART OF THE ECONOMY......

There are only a handful of true socialist countries because socialism is such a HUGE FAILURE. All European countries have varying degrees of free market forces and private property rights AKA capitalist.

The world has recognized that the most effective and efficient method of driving economies is by giving consumers the freedom to choose WHAT they wish to consume and the private property rights in order to produce said consumables/services.

MotherJonses » 18 Jul 2014 7:20 pm » wrote: That is not the list that Heritage put on their site. Their list is only the freeist - it does not mention "least Socialist" that one is all you.
And you keep mentioning this snipe "Free Market" can you provide a single example of an actual free market?
Also - just because these nations used what you call a "free market reform" does not change the fact that they still have socialized medicine, retirement and secondary education. Those are not the things that they culled from the budget to make it work.
You are bleating about the wrong thing,

So Cannonhomo lied and made the list out to mean what he wants it to mean, not what it actually means. Thanks for clarifying this.