Your point that nobody has success on their own is absolutely true, and as obvious as saying no one lives without air. But the reality is that many small business' are successful because the owner had a great idea, was smart enough to hire the right people, found a healthy customer base, etc. For Obama to say "If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen." is total BS. Sure, without a road to drive on or water to drink, it can't happen. But business were/are successful without paved roads and indoor plumbing. In Ethiopia of all places. I'd bet there are hundreds of them. Sorry but whatever point he was TRYING to make, Obama placed his foot firmly in his mouth and chewed on it. This will cost him.

Hindsight is 20/20 as they say. Judging yesterdays situations and decisions based on today's knowledge and understanding is a waste of brain cells. No, it was not militarily necessary, but was that the only factor in the decision? Also a loud no.

The death penalty is not supposed to deter anyone, except for the one being executed. And it works, every time, guaranteed. There is only one purpose for the DP and that is to make sure that this murderer does not murder again.

We do not need more government oversight, but it would be best for those kids if the pageants stopped.

First, there has never truly been a communistic society, by the definition of communism. But if you are comparing any of the self proclaimed communist societies with capitalism the differences are many. No 'communist' country allows its citizens the personal freedom allowed in a capitalistic one. And the personal wealth of even the poorest citizen in a capitalist society is far above the level of wealth in communist countries.

Is this creating false points for your side of the argument?

I'm curious about this discussion. If this is purely an academic question that you are answering, I have to agree with what are saying; that communism would be better than capitalism. But if you are suggesting that pure communism can work in this world of ours on other than a small scale, I think history shows that human nature will not let it happen.

For instance, you say that "people see that you worked so you will get what the collective good produced according to how much you worked." Experience tells me that this is not what happens. Favoritism, cronyism, and trying to 'score points' (for a thousand reasons) will inevitable enter the equation.

A side question. How do you insert the bold quotes you used in earlier discussion?

I totally agree with you that all of history tells us that then system that you describe would be ideal. But history also tells us that i can and will not happen. Native Indian societies were highly competitive between the tribes and often between themselves. Chimpanzees share, and also kill each other over the food they share.

Your suggestion that those who do not contribute will not get the fruits of labor.... How does that work? And how about those who work, but are slouches?

Final question. Did Marx call for a "Stateless Society", or is that your idea? I've never heard that suggested.

As a purely academic question, the answer is Heck yes! As a practicality the idea is a huge FAIL. It would be nice to expect some personal responsibility in those who are living off of those in society who are working and paying the bills, but there is no constitutional or fair way to do that.

Sorry, but that is a resounding NO. Zero life experience gives youth nothing but hearsay to base a vote on. Most people don't get a clue until 25 or older.