PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Is Socialism OK?


Pages : [1] 2 3

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 01:00 PM
When looking at America do you see socialism as being OK?

Bearcat2005
02-13-2010, 01:02 PM
Its okay if you want to lose global economic competitiveness.

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 01:03 PM
It should be opposed, fought, and stopped. There is no place for it in this country if we are to survive and prosper.

BigChiefFan
02-13-2010, 01:08 PM
No. People would better served if they could save their own money and make their own decisions on what to do with that money than being taxed to death.

Law of supply and demand would could take care of most social issues.

Some things are nice having in the current system, but aren't necessary to use tax dollars to perform their function.

A few groups groups, would be hard to replace if they weren't functioning off of tax dollars...schools, fire departments, and the poilce department.

Schools could definitely find a solution, but fire and the police, would be hard to find a solution for, other than tax dollars.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 01:17 PM
The Dems are not responding, interesting.

Reaper16
02-13-2010, 01:19 PM
How are we using Socialism here? Are you referring to balls-out-total-socialism or socialist aspects integrated into a capitalist framework (what we have now)?

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 01:25 PM
clearly worded questions bother left wing people.

Reaper16
02-13-2010, 01:29 PM
clearly worded questions bother left wing people.
Yes. Nuance and clarification is such a bother. In lieu of such things, I'm going to vote OK.

Baby Lee
02-13-2010, 01:29 PM
Seems like there are [at least] three arenas where this idea should be scrutinized separately.

Defense - soldiers, police, firefighters, immigration, FBI, CIA, etc.
Commercial Safety and settled markets - FDA, Product safety, tax and tariff enforcement, piracy deterrence.
Arenas where progress can still be made through innovation, or results can be optimized through striving for excellence, motivated by base instincts. - medicine, prescriptions, auto industry.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 01:31 PM
How are we using Socialism here? Are you referring to balls-out-total-socialism or socialist aspects integrated into a capitalist framework (what we have now)?

You are very socialist. Everything you post supports socialism. The health care thread was the most recent example. Let's not pretend otherwise you are just being silly.

I heard that 53% of all Demorats support socialism. That's why I posted this.

Bearcat2005
02-13-2010, 01:33 PM
How are we using Socialism here? Are you referring to balls-out-total-socialism or socialist aspects integrated into a capitalist framework (what we have now)?

Yes, we do need some confins to this question. Does he mean socialism as the complete means of production being administered by the state or is he referring to a more statist version of capitalism in which there is much government intervention within the market?

Bearcat2005
02-13-2010, 01:35 PM
You are very socialist. Everything you post supports socialism. The health care thread was the most recent example. Let's not pretend otherwise you are just being silly.

I heard that 53% of all Demorats support socialism. That's why I posted this.

Where did you hear that?

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Liberals must get weak in the knees having to order from a menu.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 01:39 PM
Seems like there are [at least] three arenas where this idea should be scrutinized separately.

Defense - soldiers, police, firefighters, immigration, FBI, CIA, etc.
Commercial Safety and settled markets - FDA, Product safety, tax and tariff enforcement, piracy deterrence.
Arenas where progress can still be made through innovation, or results can be optimized through striving for excellence, motivated by base instincts. - medicine, prescriptions, auto industry.

I just worded it as I saw it presented. I think it goes without saying that we have to have defense, police and fire. If I were to take a guess on the original poll and certainly how I intended on this being taken here was the dramatic move we are taking towards socialism lately. Bigger government, more taxes, health care, regulation, stimulation, bailouts ect.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 01:58 PM
If I could answer in my own words I would have said

I don't belong to a party and I think we have too much socialism already

so I chose what looks to me like the closest of the options

I belong to a 3rd party and do not think it is OK

although, since I typically vote Republican and almost never vote democrat I suppose I could have selected the Republican option instead.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 02:12 PM
I'm a registered Republican, though I hardly ever vote for people who the party puts up as "Republicans" in major elections (though I definitely do in minor elections where there are no libertarians to vote for).

Chiefspants
02-13-2010, 02:16 PM
I'm a Democrat and I'm against it, I feel that it would deplete the competitive spirit which propels the American Society.

Baby Lee
02-13-2010, 02:17 PM
I'm a Democrat and I'm against it, I feel that it would deplete the competitive spirit which propels the American Society.

Got mine fuck you!! ;)

Reaper16
02-13-2010, 02:23 PM
You are very socialist. Everything you post supports socialism. The health care thread was the most recent example. Let's not pretend otherwise you are just being silly.

I heard that 53% of all Demorats support socialism. That's why I posted this.
Well, guilty as charged, pretty much. I'm def. not a believer in laissez faire markets always behaving in the best interest of society. I'm not a complete socialist though, I'm not for complete public ownership of the means of production and such.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 03:01 PM
I see banyon and orange have not checked in.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 03:06 PM
Well, guilty as charged, pretty much. I'm def. not a believer in laissez faire markets always behaving in the best interest of society. I'm not a complete socialist though, I'm not for complete public ownership of the means of production and such.

At least you have the balls to come in this thread and admit it. I certainly don't agree with you but I respect the fact that you're not hiding in any closets.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 03:06 PM
I see banyon and orange have not checked in.

banyon checked in. He just didn't vote the way you expected him to.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 03:09 PM
banyon checked in. He just didn't vote the way you expected him to.

I guess socialism is to the right of him.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:17 PM
You are very socialist. Everything you post supports socialism. The health care thread was the most recent example. Let's not pretend otherwise you are just being silly.

I heard that 53% of all Demorats support socialism. That's why I posted this.

LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

I cannot put enough smilies to laugh at that statement. First, that you'd think it was remotely credible. Second, that "supporting socialism" could mean anything - as Reaper points out. Third, that a chain email like line is the basis for this abomination of a thread.

And before this post the only funnier thing in the thread was pat claiming not to be in a party. :p

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:18 PM
At least you have the balls to come in this thread and admit it. I certainly don't agree with you but I respect the fact that you're not hiding in any closets.

So, essentially, he's in favor of the status quo which isn't socialism. Yet, he's got balls for admitting he's in favor of the status quo?

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 03:19 PM
Many wont admit it. As much as they want it, they are afraid to admit to something so foul.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:21 PM
Many wont admit it. As much as they want it, they are afraid to admit to something so foul.

If I knew precisely what the definition of socialism is for the purposes of this poll I could admit to something.

orange
02-13-2010, 03:25 PM
The Dems are not responding, interesting.

How about this response - I think you're a nutcase.

Considering that on another thread you have claimed that licensing doctors and testing pharmaceuticals is "SOCIALISM",
I'll take "SOCIALISM" every day.



Doctors without licenses, uncertified hospitals, no oversight of pharmaceuticals. I mean what could go wrong there? Right?

The stuff you guys will latch onto to follow the cult is amazing.

I think they already have this no oversight uncertified health system in some third world countries. Maybe we could return to using witch doctors while we are at it!

Check yourself in at the BIG government socialist thread.



What do you think about public schools? Child-labor laws?

Yep, "SOCIALISM" - count me in!

Can I get an Obama/Joker pic, here, please?

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 03:30 PM
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

I cannot put enough smilies to laugh at that statement. First, that you'd think it was remotely credible. Second, that "supporting socialism" could mean anything - as Reaper points out. Third, that a chain email like line is the basis for this abomination of a thread.

And before this post the only funnier thing in the thread was pat claiming not to be in a party. :p

1. I didn't know if it was credible that's why I posted this. I thought that was obvious.

2. I pointed out what I meant.

3. It wasn't a chain email it was a poll they quoted on the Fox News so I thought it would be interesting to post it here and see how we came out. We are batting 50% right now.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:31 PM
1. I didn't know if it was credible that's why I posted this. I thought that was obvious.

The fact you thought it was borderline credible is hilarious.


2. I pointed out what I meant.

Where?


3. It wasn't a chain email it was a poll they quoted on the Fox News so I thought it would be interesting to post it here and see how we came out. We are batting 50% right now.

I should have figured.

irishjayhawk
02-13-2010, 03:33 PM
How about this response - I think you're a nutcase.

Considering that on another thread you have claimed that licensing doctors and testing pharmaceuticals is "SOCIALISM",
I'll take "SOCIALISM" every day.







What do you think about public schools? Child-labor laws?

Yep, "SOCIALISM" - count me in!

Can I get an Obama/Joker pic, here, please?

http://web.me.com/tcriptide/ANGRY_TOWN_HALL/Mission_Statement_files/spraytruck%20j%20yes.jpg

And if someone argues that local socialism is different than national socialism, please tell me how one is then against all socialism. Or tell me how it's different from people saying they can buy microevolution but not macro.

BIG_DADDY
02-13-2010, 03:36 PM
How about this response - I think you're a nutcase.

Considering that on another thread you have claimed that licensing doctors and testing pharmaceuticals is "SOCIALISM",
I'll take "SOCIALISM" every day.







What do you think about public schools? Child-labor laws?

Yep, "SOCIALISM" - count me in!

Can I get an Obama/Joker pic, here, please?

Your socialism GOD Obama has now spent more money in 20 months than GW did in 8 years and he hasn't even passed his socialistic health care bill yet. A joker picture probably isn't an accurate representation of our commander and thief.

patteeu
02-13-2010, 03:50 PM
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

I cannot put enough smilies to laugh at that statement. First, that you'd think it was remotely credible. Second, that "supporting socialism" could mean anything - as Reaper points out. Third, that a chain email like line is the basis for this abomination of a thread.

And before this post the only funnier thing in the thread was pat claiming not to be in a party. :p

What can I say? In the last 6 POTUS elections, I've only voted for the Republican twice and the last time I was a registered party member it was the democrat party. :shrug:

Taco John
02-13-2010, 03:53 PM
http://web.me.com/tcriptide/ANGRY_TOWN_HALL/Mission_Statement_files/spraytruck%20j%20yes.jpg

And if someone argues that local socialism is different than national socialism, please tell me how one is then against all socialism. Or tell me how it's different from people saying they can buy microevolution but not macro.

The smaller the socialism, the less dangerous it is to society.

orange
02-13-2010, 04:03 PM
Your socialism GOD Obama has now spent more money in 20 months than GW did in 8 years and he hasn't even passed his socialistic health care bill yet. A joker picture probably isn't an accurate representation of our commander and thief.

More of the complete and utter bullshit that passes as "fact" on the far bizarre right. Where do you even find such idiocy?


Here's a nice, clear picture for you.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=2001_2009&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=F0-fed&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&title=Federal Spending&state=US&color=c&local=s

orange
02-13-2010, 04:10 PM
The smaller the socialism, the less dangerous it is to society.

Who licenses doctors? Uncle Sam?

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 04:17 PM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Federal Spending&year=2001_2009&sname=US&units=b&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=1863.19_2011.15_2160.12_2293.01_2472.20_2655.44_2728.94_2982.55_3997.84&legend=

orange
02-13-2010, 04:32 PM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Federal....

LINK FAIL leading to LIE FAIL!

Try linking to the actual page. You know, like I did.

So people can see it for themselves. And see what you added to 2009 but not the other years.

p.s. Even your b.s. graph doesn't come ANYWHERE CLOSE to supporting BIG_DADDY'S nonsensical claim. Why don't you post the FreeRepublic link where that claim is posted so we can all get a good laugh?

p.p.s Move the "[/url]" after "Federal" to just inside the "[/QUOTE]"

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 04:36 PM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP&year=1990_2010&sname=US&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=3233.31_3665.30_4064.62_4411.49_4692.75_4973.98_5224.81_5413.15_5526.19_5656.27_5674.18_58 07.46_6228.24_6783.23_7379.05_7932.71_8506.97_9007.65_9986.08_11875.90_13786.60&legend=

BWillie
02-13-2010, 04:46 PM
If we cut our military by 50-75% we could afford to do anything we wanted, and taxes would actually go down.

orange
02-13-2010, 04:50 PM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US Federal Debt As Percent Of GDP&year=1990_2010&sname=US&units=b&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=3233.31_3665.30_4064.62_4411.49_4692.75_4973.98_5224.81_5413.15_5526.19_5656.27_5674.18_58 07.46_6228.24_6783.23_7379.05_7932.71_8506.97_9007.65_9986.08_11875.90_13786.60&legend=


Actually, that's Gross Public (Federal) Debt, whatever lie you want to type in the Title box.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

But it's nice to look back and see how great the Clinton years were. Ahhhh!

Isn't that what you wanted to show here?

stevieray
02-13-2010, 04:50 PM
...it's the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

it can be achieved by changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people.

sound familiar?

"to my progressive friends..."

Mr. Flopnuts
02-13-2010, 04:58 PM
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Am I allowed to do that now that I've admitted what a terrible, terrible mistake I made in voting for the guy?

HonestChieffan
02-13-2010, 04:58 PM
Actually, that's Gross Public (Federal) Debt, whatever lie you want to type in the Title box.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=fy11&chart=H0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

But it's nice to look back and see how great the Clinton years were. Ahhhh!

Isn't that what you wanted to show here?

As a result of Reagan policies. True.

Baby Lee
02-13-2010, 06:12 PM
Seems like there are [at least] three arenas where this idea should be scrutinized separately.

Defense - soldiers, police, firefighters, immigration, FBI, CIA, etc.
Commercial Safety and settled markets - FDA, Product safety, tax and tariff enforcement, piracy deterrence.
Arenas where progress can still be made through innovation, or results can be optimized through striving for excellence, motivated by base instincts. - medicine, prescriptions, auto industry.
And here's why

How about this response - I think you're a nutcase.

Considering that on another thread you have claimed that licensing doctors and testing pharmaceuticals is "SOCIALISM",
I'll take "SOCIALISM" every day.







What do you think about public schools? Child-labor laws?

Yep, "SOCIALISM" - count me in!

Can I get an Obama/Joker pic, here, please?

Baby Lee
02-13-2010, 06:16 PM
Who licenses doctors? Uncle Sam?
I think the proper question is Uncle Sam's response to people knowingly receiving care from unlicensed doctors.

Direckshun
02-13-2010, 06:33 PM
Depends where.

Medicare is socialism. I like it.

I don't like government control over the music industry, though.

Etc. etc. Depends on what we're talking about.

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-13-2010, 06:39 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IpZm1TstpjQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IpZm1TstpjQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Direckshun
02-13-2010, 06:42 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Na7sAxDDjMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Na7sAxDDjMk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BigRedChief
02-13-2010, 07:32 PM
I guess it depends on how you define "socialism". Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire, FBI, Public education and many other areas of our society could be called "Socialist". I don' think the majority of the American public want to stop community/state/federal involvment in those areas.

As one of the few on this board who has actually lived in a "real" socialist enviornment I saw the benefits of that approach to better ourselfs collectively. I saw the down side of that approach too.

Basically it boils down to....if you voluntarily choose to live in that enviornment it works great. The problem you have is that as the number of people involved gets larger the level of committment diminishes. And without total committment from all the members the whole thing is a deck of cards that collapses when the passion is diminished.

Thats why Socialism will never work on a large scale. And doesn't work and will never work in America. It's just not sustainable. We humans are just too damn selfish and greedy. Thats why America has been so successful economically and socially. We are a bunch of indiividualistic selfish greedy bastages. A by product of that trait is risk taking and inovation which is the core reason we became a super power and created the largest middle class to ever exsisted in history.

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2010, 10:19 PM
FTR...perhaps others have already mentioned this, the poll fails to make a distinction between 'socialism' and a 'welfare state.' It's a significant distinction....and over-sight.

While I do NOT support U.S. as a "socialist" nation, I DO support the U.S. as the "welfare state" we became during the 20th Century. While some will poo-poo the distinction, there is a world of difference between socialism and a welfare state with limited socialistic characteristics (that may even ebb-and-flow.)

Of course, such a nuanced view of American life would require critical analysis that too many of us are too lazy, or incapable, to indulge in--when we've become so accustomed to sound bites, partisan demagoguery, and talking points from our favorite talk radio hosts.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 11:17 PM
I guess it depends on how you define "socialism". Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire, FBI, Public education and many other areas of our society could be called "Socialist". I don' think the majority of the American public want to stop community/state/federal involvment in those areas.

As one of the few on this board who has actually lived in a "real" socialist enviornment I saw the benefits of that approach to better ourselfs collectively. I saw the down side of that approach too.

Basically it boils down to....if you voluntarily choose to live in that enviornment it works great. The problem you have is that as the number of people involved gets larger the level of committment diminishes. And without total committment from all the members the whole thing is a deck of cards that collapses when the passion is diminished.

Thats why Socialism will never work on a large scale. And doesn't work and will never work in America. It's just not sustainable. We humans are just too damn selfish and greedy. Thats why America has been so successful economically and socially. We are a bunch of indiividualistic selfish greedy bastages. A by product of that trait is risk taking and inovation which is the core reason we became a super power and created the largest middle class to ever exsisted in history.


I never thought you'd ever make a political post that made any amount of sense to me. I stand corrected.

Taco John
02-13-2010, 11:18 PM
FTR...perhaps others have already mentioned this, the poll fails to make a distinction between 'socialism' and a 'welfare state.' It's a significant distinction....and over-sight.




Kotter on the other hand is clearly still a fucking moron.

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2010, 11:27 PM
Kotter on the other hand is clearly still a ****ing moron.

Hey, Isaac. Take your sorry butt to a discussion board that doesn't consider you the internet equivalent of....the classroom retard. You'd be hilarious, if you were not so pathetic. Your inability to engage in an adult discussion on the topic, doesn't make me or anyone else who disagrees with you a moron. It only makes you even more pathetic. You have lost ANY burst, that you may have at one time "had." Later, donko-boy.

go bowe
02-14-2010, 12:13 AM
FTR...perhaps others have already mentioned this, the poll fails to make a distinction between 'socialism' and a 'welfare state.' It's a significant distinction....and over-sight.

While I do NOT support U.S. as a "socialist" nation, I DO support the U.S. as the "welfare state" we became during the 20th Century. While some will poo-poo the distinction, there is a world of difference between socialism and a welfare state with limited socialistic characteristics (that may even ebb-and-flow.)

Of course, such a nuanced view of American life would require critical analysis that too many of us are too lazy, or incapable, to indulge in--when we've become so accustomed to sound bites, partisan demagoguery, and talking points from our favorite talk radio hosts.hey, what about those of us who are too lazy AND incapable?

go bowe
02-14-2010, 12:16 AM
Hey, Isaac. Take your sorry butt to a discussion board that doesn't consider you the internet equivalent of....the classroom retard. You'd be hilarious, if you were not so pathetic. Your inability to engage in an adult discussion on the topic, doesn't make me or anyone else who disagrees with you a moron. It only makes you even more pathetic. You have lost ANY burst, that you may have at one time "had." Later, donko-boy.hey now, classroom retards have their uses...

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 01:49 AM
Of course, such a nuanced view of American life would require critical analysis that too many of us are too lazy, or incapable, to indulge in--when we've become so accustomed to sound bites, partisan demagoguery, and talking points from our favorite talk radio hosts.

I thank God himself that we have a deep thinker and condescending asshole such as Kotter to help us through those nasty nuances that give everyone else around him so much trouble.

Kotter, that post is exactly the kind of shit I expect from a man of limited options who has had to settle for teaching in a government school.

I join Taco in applauding BRC's contribution above. Personally, I'd like to remove federal involvement in most, if not all, of the areas mentioned in his first paragraph.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 01:58 AM
Hey, Isaac. Take your sorry butt to a discussion board that doesn't consider you the internet equivalent of....the classroom retard. You'd be hilarious, if you were not so pathetic. Your inability to engage in an adult discussion on the topic, doesn't make me or anyone else who disagrees with you a moron. It only makes you even more pathetic. You have lost ANY burst, that you may have at one time "had." Later, donko-boy.


Heh. I'm not confused about where you and I respectively fit in the pecking order in this forum Kotter. When I'm alongside the democrats on a position against the republicans - or vice versa - everyone on this forum with any credibility knows where I'm coming from and respects it. When you do it, though, it's a circus side-show act in clown school political science.

I have no problems engaging in adult conversations. The problems that I have are respecting horrible takes given authoritatively that were born in the lukewarm, wishy-washy pragmatic middle ground that has turned this society into politically cowed slobs. There's an old song that goes, "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." Well. You were a Bush supporter. And now you're an Obama supporter. You ought to think about planting some philisophical roots that run deeper than the surface dwelling roots of your pragmatic philosophy.

bowener
02-14-2010, 01:58 AM
The Dems are not responding, interesting.

Well, democrats aren't socialist, so perhaps that is why. Socialists are socialists. Democrats are liberal. Liberals are not socialists. Same as republicans are not fascists.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:06 AM
Well, democrats aren't socialist, so perhaps that is why. Socialists are socialists. Democrats are liberal. Liberals are not socialists. Same as republicans are not fascists.

I wish people understood what the word Liberal means, in contrast to how the word has been warped over the last 100 years.

Every American should be Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). It's a real shame that we've allowed the progressive socialists to steal this beautiful concept from us.

HonestChieffan
02-14-2010, 06:38 AM
FTR...perhaps others have already mentioned this, the poll fails to make a distinction between 'socialism' and a 'welfare state.' It's a significant distinction....and over-sight.

While I do NOT support U.S. as a "socialist" nation, I DO support the U.S. as the "welfare state" we became during the 20th Century. While some will poo-poo the distinction, there is a world of difference between socialism and a welfare state with limited socialistic characteristics (that may even ebb-and-flow.)

Of course, such a nuanced view of American life would require critical analysis that too many of us are too lazy, or incapable, to indulge in--when we've become so accustomed to sound bites, partisan demagoguery, and talking points from our favorite talk radio hosts.

You favor a welfare state? Probing here for clarity.

redsurfer11
02-14-2010, 08:54 AM
I wish people understood what the word Liberal means, in contrast to how the word has been warped over the last 100 years.

Every American should be Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). It's a real shame that we've allowed the progressive socialists to steal this beautiful concept from us.



What percentage of the Democrat party is progressive socialist?

HonestChieffan
02-14-2010, 09:03 AM
What percentage of the Democrat party is progressive socialist?

Thats a good question. As the old line traditional dems leave the party, the remaining ones will make the new democrat party even more leftist/progressive.

Chief Henry
02-14-2010, 10:50 AM
Good thread BD. We learn more and more about the idiots in la la land as they post.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 11:20 AM
Here's the rub on this poll. I knew when I saw it on TV that it was incomplete. I thought by posting it like this though it would looked at as an opportunity to clarify your stance on socialistic issues/tendancies. I thought it went without saying we need very basic government agencies from defense to police and fire. Many have mentioned schools here and I would agree that it too should be a part if we are going with a voucher system. That's a whole subject on it's own though.

I gotta say I am disappointed that we have not seen clarity from many who have posted here. It's seems to me that the opportunity to clarify is beng completely ignored. Not even once in the posts that I have read even one position on socialized medicine as an example. It must be a lot easier to talk about the sizzle than the meat.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 11:22 AM
I wish people understood what the word Liberal means, in contrast to how the word has been warped over the last 100 years.

Every American should be Liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism). It's a real shame that we've allowed the progressive socialists to steal this beautiful concept from us.

Totally agree.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 11:37 AM
I guess it depends on how you define "socialism". Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire, FBI, Public education and many other areas of our society could be called "Socialist". I don' think the majority of the American public want to stop community/state/federal involvment in those areas.

As one of the few on this board who has actually lived in a "real" socialist enviornment I saw the benefits of that approach to better ourselfs collectively. I saw the down side of that approach too.

Basically it boils down to....if you voluntarily choose to live in that enviornment it works great. The problem you have is that as the number of people involved gets larger the level of committment diminishes. And without total committment from all the members the whole thing is a deck of cards that collapses when the passion is diminished.

Thats why Socialism will never work on a large scale. And doesn't work and will never work in America. It's just not sustainable. We humans are just too damn selfish and greedy. Thats why America has been so successful economically and socially. We are a bunch of indiividualistic selfish greedy bastages. A by product of that trait is risk taking and inovation which is the core reason we became a super power and created the largest middle class to ever exsisted in history.

We can paint this with any color brush you want. You chose the selfish/greedy brush. I am going to go with what I think is the logical brush and say I think the bottom line is in order for a country to excell is it's people need to be rewarded for performance not penalized. This is why we can't let Obama shoot the golden goose. This is one of many areas our current commander and thief just doesn't get it. If most people don't have to work they simply won't. We would all like to just be taken care of so we can do whatever we want to. My concern is this utopian pipedream is being bought by WAY too many people and they look at government as being something it was not designed to be or should be. Intense motivation and the by product is not our enemy. Our enemy is leaches wanting to live by sucking the life blood out of the golden goose.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 11:40 AM
There's an old song that goes, "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." Well. You were a Bush supporter. And now you're an Obama supporter. You ought to think about planting some philisophical roots that run deeper than the surface dwelling roots of your pragmatic philosophy.

He has a very valid point here Kotter.

What percentage of the Democrat party is progressive socialist?

Great question. I think that number is rather high and climbing. I would guess we are probably in the 50%+ neighborhood. I think this is further complicated by a couple elements.

1. There has been cake on the table for generations now and there is an entitlement issue going on here.

2. Many people do not consider themself socialistic but if they looked at their core values honestly or with any clarity they would see that they are deeply rooted in socialistic ideology.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 01:26 PM
What percentage of the Democrat party is progressive socialist?

IMO, approximately 100%.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 01:39 PM
Here's the rub on this poll. I knew when I saw it on TV that it was incomplete. I thought by posting it like this though it would looked at as an opportunity to clarify your stance on socialistic issues/tendancies. I thought it went without saying we need very basic government agencies from defense to police and fire. Many have mentioned schools here and I would agree that it too should be a part if we are going with a voucher system. That's a whole subject on it's own though.

And keeping some socialism and not other kinds is hypocritical and it begs the question: where do you draw the line and if I draw the line differently, whose to say I'm wrong?


I gotta say I am disappointed that we have not seen clarity from many who have posted here. It's seems to me that the opportunity to clarify is beng completely ignored. Not even once in the posts that I have read even one position on socialized medicine as an example. It must be a lot easier to talk about the sizzle than the meat.

IIRC, many people asked YOU to clarify, which you chose not to.

Mr. Flopnuts
02-14-2010, 01:40 PM
I guess it depends on how you define "socialism". Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Police, Fire, FBI, Public education and many other areas of our society could be called "Socialist". I don' think the majority of the American public want to stop community/state/federal involvment in those areas.

As one of the few on this board who has actually lived in a "real" socialist enviornment I saw the benefits of that approach to better ourselfs collectively. I saw the down side of that approach too.

Basically it boils down to....if you voluntarily choose to live in that enviornment it works great. The problem you have is that as the number of people involved gets larger the level of committment diminishes. And without total committment from all the members the whole thing is a deck of cards that collapses when the passion is diminished.

Thats why Socialism will never work on a large scale. And doesn't work and will never work in America. It's just not sustainable. We humans are just too damn selfish and greedy. Thats why America has been so successful economically and socially. We are a bunch of indiividualistic selfish greedy bastages. A by product of that trait is risk taking and inovation which is the core reason we became a super power and created the largest middle class to ever exsisted in history.

What a great post. Anyone who has ever been born into shit and made something of themselves should thank God they were born American. Everyone else should too obviously, I'm just sayin'..................

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 01:55 PM
And keeping some socialism and not other kinds is hypocritical and it begs the question: where do you draw the line and if I draw the line differently, whose to say I'm wrong?



IIRC, many people asked YOU to clarify, which you chose not to.

1. You obviously need to force things into ideological boxes in order to wrap your arms something even if it doesn't fit in that box.
2.I clearly pointed out that this provides you with the opportunity to give everyone a global perspective of where you are coming from when it comes to socialistic ideology. Obviously you are much more comfortable in microfloormats. For all practical purposes though I don't think anyone is confused about where you stand on the socialism scale so it really doesn't matter.

Maybe a better question for you would be out of the 10k posters here at the planet, how many can you name that you think are to the left of you?

Bwana
02-14-2010, 02:03 PM
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Am I allowed to do that now that I've admitted what a terrible, terrible mistake I made in voting for the guy?

Why yes, yes you are.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:07 PM
I clearly pointed out that this provides you with the opportunity to give everyone a global perspective of where you are coming from when it comes to socialistic ideology. Obviously you are much more comfortable in microfloormats. For all practical purposes though I don't think anyone is confused about where you stand on the socialism scale so it really doesn't matter.

Since you know, please tell me where I stand with respect to socialism.

Thanks.


Maybe a better question for you would be out of the 10k posters here at the planet, how many can you name that you think are to the left of you?

I don't get why everything you don't agree with is automatically left.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 02:17 PM
Since you know, please tell me where I stand with respect to socialism.

Thanks.



I don't get why everything you don't agree with is automatically left.

You don't have the right to ask questions as you never answer any.

It's really quite simple, clarify your position and we can discuss the steak. I am not interested in bantering about sizzle with you.

NewChief
02-14-2010, 02:17 PM
Like others, I would need you to define socialism first. I don't think that a truly socialist society works for America, though. I don't think we're really moving in that direction either, though. We obviously have some socialized programs (Medicare/Medicaid) in our country, and I don't really have a huge problem with them.

I mean, to me, the majority of conservatives on here would consider any program run by the federal government to be a "socialist" one. So, under that definition, education, military, postal service, fire/police force, etc.. are all socialist.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:21 PM
You don't have the right to ask questions as you never answer any.

It's really quite simple, clarify your position and we can discuss the steak. I am not interested in bantering about sizzle with you.

How can I clarify my position with respect to the poll if you can't provide me a definition?

We have to be on the same page. This case, it's a definition of socialism.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:21 PM
Like others, I would need you to define socialism first. I don't think that a truly socialist society works for America, though. I don't think we're really moving in that direction either, though. We obviously have some socialized programs (Medicare/Medicaid) in our country, and I don't really have a huge problem with them.

I mean, to me, the majority of conservatives on here would consider any program run by the federal government to be a "socialist" one. So, under that definition, education, military, postal service, fire/police force, etc.. are all socialist.

Precisely.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 02:28 PM
Like others, I would need you to define socialism first. I don't think that a truly socialist society works for America, though. I don't think we're really moving in that direction either, though. We obviously have some socialized programs (Medicare/Medicaid) in our country, and I don't really have a huge problem with them.

I mean, to me, the majority of conservatives on here would consider any program run by the federal government to be a "socialist" one. So, under that definition, education, military, postal service, fire/police force, etc.. are all socialist.

:facepalm: I thought I had covered this in several posts.

Based upon what you posted I what I know about you I think we would have to agree to disagree on this. I believe government run = socialistic and I have very few conservative social opinions. What deeply bothers me right now is we are not even considering how to fix issues instead of socializing them. Medical is a great example. I also don't see how you can say this administration is not deeply rooted in socialist ideology, therefore we are moving in that direction. I think America sees that and the backlash is only beginning. Watch what happens when the media is no longer able to sugar coat everything.

NewChief
02-14-2010, 02:31 PM
:facepalm: I thought I had covered this in several posts.

Based upon what you posted I what I know about you I think we would have to agree to disagree on this. I believe government run = socialistic and I have very few conservative social opinions. What deeply bothers me right now is we are not even considering how to fix issues instead of socializing them. Medical is a great example. I also don't see how you can say this administration is not deeply rooted in socialist ideology, therefore we are moving in that direction. I think America sees that and the backlash is only beginning. Watch what happens when the media is no longer able to sugar coat everything.

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry. As for socialism... I think if you classify anything government run as socialist... then we've been socialist for a long, long time. I think it's politically expedient for certain groups to be throwing out the socialist label right now... and I think that's the source of the rise in awareness of socialism (that and Glen Beck).

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:35 PM
So fire departments should be privatized?

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 02:39 PM
How can I clarify my position with respect to the poll if you can't provide me a definition?

We have to be on the same page. This case, it's a definition of socialism.

Please don't take this the wrong way but this is why I think engaging you is a waste of time. IMO you don't debate something in order to understand others perspectives and let yours be known. You debate for pure joy of just arguing and if you actually pay attention you will realize that most of that time you are usually engaged in the symantics of sizzle. IMO It's quite easy to tell people what socialism means to you and clarify where your position, you just elect not to.

Direckshun
02-14-2010, 02:41 PM
IMO you don't debate something in order to understand others perspectives and let yours be known.

Weren't you the guy with a picture of Obama smoking a cigarrette?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 02:44 PM
So fire departments should be privatized?

I don't understand this straw man. Fire departments aren't even state issues. They're local county issues. There is no Department of Fire Services in the federal government.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:46 PM
I don't understand this straw man. Fire departments aren't even state issues. They're local county issues. There is no Department of Fire Services in the federal government.

So socialism is alright as long as it's not federal? That's your line?

NewChief
02-14-2010, 02:47 PM
I don't understand this straw man. Fire departments aren't even state issues. They're local county issues. There is no Department of Fire Services in the federal government.

There is the Forest Service Dept. of Fire Services, which is federal.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 02:47 PM
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."—NORMAN THOMAS, six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America


Source 1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign,
[Ed. note: Norman Thomas and Gus Hall, the U.S. Communist Party Candidate, both quit American politics, agreeing that the Republican and Democratic parties had adopted every plank on the Communist/Socialist and they no longer had an alternate party platform on which to run.]


http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/norman_thomas_quote_ffb1

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:49 PM
Please don't take this the wrong way but this is why I think engaging you is a waste of time. IMO you don't debate something in order to understand others perspectives and let yours be known. You debate for pure joy of just arguing and if you actually pay attention you will realize that most of that time you are usually engaged in the symantics of sizzle. IMO It's quite easy to tell people what socialism means to you and clarify where your position, you just elect not to.

Pot kettle.

Actually, I am definitely interested in understanding others perspectives and letting mine be known. However, there are topics where this is definitely not my objective. Scientific "debates" is one. As evidenced by GW & Evolution threads.

As for this thread, I don't think it appropriate to post a poll so vague that it that it prompts questions as to the definition of the word on which the poll hinges and then run away from defining it yourself. You'd much rather have everyone else define what socialism is. But that doesn't answer your poll.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 02:50 PM
I didn't read the whole thread, sorry. As for socialism... I think if you classify anything government run as socialist... then we've been socialist for a long, long time. I think it's politically expedient for certain groups to be throwing out the socialist label right now... and I think that's the source of the rise in awareness of socialism (that and Glen Beck).

I have said many times throughout this thread that I understand that some very basic functions are necessary, police, defense ect. IMO when we start becoming socialistic as a country is when we begin to see more and more functions that can easily be handled in the private sector moved under government control. I believe we are becoming much more socialistic in our outlook. We no longer even consider moving things into the private sector, the exact opposite is happening.

Although we have some functionality rooted in socialism I don't believe most of the world looks at us as being very rooted in socialistic ideology. If this trend continues though I believe we will be looked at much the same way we perceive much of Europe.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:52 PM
I have said many times throughout this thread that I understand that some very basic functions are necessary, police, defense ect. IMO when we start becoming socialistic as a country is when we begin to see more and more functions that can easily be handled in the private sector moved under government control. I believe we are becoming much more socialistic in our outlook. We no longer even consider moving things into the private sector, the exact opposite is happening.

For HCR, the private sector's performance is exactly what's prompting the transition. If the private sector was to self induce reform, there wouldn't be as big a discussion...

So, just to clarify, some socialism is alright. Just as long as it's the "right" things.


Although we have some functionality rooted in socialism I don't believe most of the world looks at us as being very rooted in socialistic ideology. If this trend continues though I believe we will be looked at much the same way we perceive much of Europe.

How exactly do we perceive Europe? And Al Quaeda wants to attack our socialistic regime? Here I thought it was our staunch capitalism and such.

NewChief
02-14-2010, 02:53 PM
I have said many times throughout this thread that I understand that some very basic functions are necessary, police, defense ect. IMO when we start becoming socialistic as a country is when we begin to see more and more functions that can easily be handled in the private sector moved under government control. I believe we are becoming much more socialistic in our outlook. We no longer even consider moving things into the private sector, the exact opposite is happening.

Although we have some functionality rooted in socialism I don't believe most of the world looks at us as being very rooted in socialistic ideology. If this trend continues though I believe we will be looked at much the same way we perceive much of Europe.

I think we're much further from socialism now than we were under Roosevelt where he implemented widespread "socialist" programs in order to bring us out of our economic problems. Also, at that time, socialism seemed like a very attractive proposition because we weren't looking at other countries where communism had failed.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 02:55 PM
Pot kettle.

Actually, I am definitely interested in understanding others perspectives and letting mine be known. However, there are topics where this is definitely not my objective. Scientific "debates" is one. As evidenced by GW & Evolution threads.

As for this thread, I don't think it appropriate to post a poll so vague that it that it prompts questions as to the definition of the word on which the poll hinges and then run away from defining it yourself. You'd much rather have everyone else define what socialism is. But that doesn't answer your poll.

The poll was simply a reproduction of what I saw on TV and thought it would be interesting to test it's accuracy here which I simply cannot do by changing it for your convenience. I have explained this over and over and even tried to lead you to a path that would let you accurately define your answer but you are obviously much more interesed in debating the symantics of sizzle.

Don't go away mad dude, just go away. This is a complete waste of time.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:58 PM
The poll was simply a reproduction of what I saw on TV and thought it would be interesting to test it's accuracy here which I simply cannot do by changing it for your convenience. I have explained this over and over and even tried to lead you to a path that would let you accurately define your answer but you are obviously much more interesed in debating the symantics of sizzle.

Don't go away mad dude, just go away. This is a complete waste of time.

All I asked for was your definition of socialism. You have yet to oblige. Reaper even asked. He eventually gave in and gave pretty much the same answer NewPhin and I gave and you gave him props for his balls in admitting he's a proponent of socialism.

All the while, you maintain that other socialistic aspects are okay (fire, police, defense, etc). So, it's really you who hasn't defined anything.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:59 PM
I think we're much further from socialism now than we were under Roosevelt where he implemented widespread "socialist" programs in order to bring us out of our economic problems. Also, at that time, socialism seemed like a very attractive proposition because we weren't looking at other countries where communism had failed.

I'm still not entirely sure why it's still considered a dirty word. Just because their implementation went awry doesn't mean it CAN'T work. That said, I think the balance between capitalism and socialism is a nice niche.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 02:59 PM
I haven't read the entire thread and don't have the time. I did see Kotter's post on being a welfare-state as acceptable and not being socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. A welfare-state, is a form of socialism. It's just indirect being done through wealth transfers particularly when it's from cradle to grave for security. Afterall, that's what Sweden system is and she has been called a socialist state by many for awhile including by Swedes.

This also fits with the basic definition of "control of the major means of production" (used in dictionary definitions of both communism and socialism). The "means of production" is also you and I or the people. It's not just industry and machines because those are things created by the people to produce more efficiently.

In an indirect socialism the people are controlled, in the main, through the tax code. That is being told what you can keep, what is yours what is the people's and what you get permission to spend it on. That's control and it's over property as if it's not fully yours. It is slavery. It is not freedom.

The other area is excessive regulation particularly for the egalitarian purposes while the definition of the word "public" is expanded so as to reduce the idea of personal control over one's property. Afterall ownership means the right to control something. Its only when there is a conflict of rights the govt has to step in. However, our welfare statists seem to thing more things are rights that are not rights. Some of them are either goods, benefits or privileges but not fundamental rights.

A social democracy just means socialism is being implemented bit by bit using the vote, using the schools to educate children to vote for more of it.
A socialist dictatorship is just socialism being implemented by a dictator and often using violent revolution but it need not be through violent revolution.


These things are obvious to non socialists. They are not obvious to socialists particularly ones in denial.

Did you ever reply to pat's thread?

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 03:00 PM
I haven't read the entire thread and don't have the time. I did see Kotter's post on being a welfare-state as acceptable and not being socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. A welfare-state, is a form of socialism. It's just indirect being done through wealth transfers particularly when it's from cradle to grave for security. Afterall, that's what Sweden's system is and she has been called a socialist state by many for awhile including by Swedes.

This also fits with the basic definition of "control of the major means of production" (used in dictionary definitions of both communism and socialism). The "means of production" is you and I or the people. It's not just industry and machines because those are things created by the people to produce more efficiently. It's still the people producing ultimately.

In an indirect socialism the people are controlled, in the main, through the tax code. That is being told what you can keep, what is yours what is the people's and what you get permission to spend it on. That's control and it's over property as if it's not fully yours. It is slavery. It is not freedom.

The other area is excessive regulation particularly for egalitarian purposes while the definition of the word "public" is expanded so as to reduce the idea of personal control over one's property. Afterall ownership means the right to control something. Its only when there is a conflict of rights the govt has to step in. However, our welfare statists seem to think more things are rights that are not rights. Some of them are either goods, services, benefits or privileges but not fundamental rights.

A social democracy just means socialism is being implemented bit by bit using the vote, using the schools to educate children to vote for more of it.
A socialist dictatorship is just socialism being implemented by a dictator and often using violent revolution but it need not be through violent revolution.


These things are obvious to non socialists. They are not obvious to socialists particularly ones in denial.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 03:01 PM
I think we're much further from socialism now than we were under Roosevelt where he implemented widespread "socialist" programs in order to bring us out of our economic problems. Also, at that time, socialism seemed like a very attractive proposition because we weren't looking at other countries where communism had failed.

We can agree on that for sure. I don't think people really understand what an asshole that guy was or some of the radical shit he did like the gold and silver confiscation. IMO that mentality is our future if we stay on this path. Our biggest enemy at this point IMO is the mentality of entitlement. That has to change or we will go right down that road.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 03:02 PM
We can agree on that for sure. I don't think people really understand what an asshole that guy was or some of the radical shit he did like the gold and silver confiscation. IMO that mentality is our future if we stay on this path. Our biggest enemy at this point IMO is the mentality of entitlement. That has to change or we will go right down that road.

No worse than the effects of Reagan policies, though.

FTR, I very much support an opt-out of social security - if not an outright abolishment.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 03:04 PM
I'm still not entirely sure why it's still considered a dirty word. Just because their implementation went awry doesn't mean it CAN'T work. That said, I think the balance between capitalism and socialism is a nice niche.

Never mind the fact that everyone is to the right of you. You're a moderate, yea that's the ticket.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 03:04 PM
Never mind the fact that everyone is to the right of you. You're a moderate, yea that's the ticket.

I never said I was a moderate. I've constantly referred to myself as an everywhereist. I believe Cleveland Bronco coined that term for me.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 03:07 PM
I usually match the ten points in Marx's Manifesto. That and having the central govt involved more and more. We've had 3/5ths socialism for awhile. It's being expanded now to perhaps 3/4ths—way too much in my opinion. We're not really halfway between capitalism and socialism and haven't been for a long while.

What we're witnessing is incremental socialism Fabian-style. We won the Cold War militarily but not at the level of ideas. Socialism persists.

Lastly, what Marx observed was British Mercantilism when he coined the word "capitalism"—a word he failed to define. What the left continues to call capitalism is often mercantilism which is really the corporatism they whine about. Mussolini was implementing corporatism too but he's also called a fascist.

BIG_DADDY
02-14-2010, 03:12 PM
I usually match the ten points in Marx's Manifesto. That and having the central govt involved more and more. We've had 3/5ths socialism for awhile. It's being expanded now to perhaps 3/4ths—way too much in my opinion. We're not really halfway between capitalism and socialism and haven't been for a long while.

What we're witnessing is incremental socialism Fabian-style. We won the Cold War militarily but not at the level of ideas. Socialism persists.

Lastly, what Marx observed was British Mercantilism when he coined the word "capitalism"—a word he failed to define. What the left continues to call capitalism is often mercantilism which is really the corporatism they whine about. Mussolini was implementing corporatism too but he's also called a fascist.

This is a by product of our school system and media in the age of entitlement. Like we needed another reason to privatize schools.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 03:13 PM
I usually match the ten points in Marx's Manifesto. That and having the central govt involved more and more. We've had 3/5ths socialism for awhile. It's being expanded now to perhaps 3/4ths—way too much in my opinion. We're not really halfway between capitalism and socialism and haven't been for a long while.

What we're witnessing is incremental socialism Fabian-style. We won the Cold War militarily but not at the level of ideas. Socialism persists.

Lastly, what Marx observed was British Mercantilism when he coined the word "capitalism"—a word he failed to define. What the left continues to call capitalism is often mercantilism which is really the corporatism they whine about. Mussolini was implementing corporatism too but he's also called a fascist.

This is a by product of our school system and media in the age of entitlement.


How does this explain FDR's system, then? The thinking has always been there. It's only after the Cold War that the thinking began to be construed as bad. And lately it's been drummed up again.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:32 PM
I never said I was a moderate. I've constantly referred to myself as an everywhereist. I believe Cleveland Bronco coined that term for me.

No not constantly maybe twice perhaps. You've also claimed to be a moderate.

Here's where you said it:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4924955&highlight=moderate#post4924955


I don't find Stewart to be slanted. He dishes it out to both sides.

And I'm a moderate.

Being everywhere would mean you'd hold some right wing views. It can imply being moderate since that's someone of mixed views from right and left. I've yet to see you with any conservative views. Anyone who supports Obama is NOT a moderate.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:40 PM
No not constantly maybe twice perhaps. You've also claimed to be a moderate.

Here's where you said it:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=4924955&highlight=moderate#post4924955




Being everywhere would mean you'd hold some right wing views. It can imply being moderate since that's someone of mixed views from right and left. I've yet to see you with any conservative views. Anyone who supports Obama is NOT a moderate.

You got me. I said I was moderate once. :thumb:

Technically speaking, according to all the political charts and plots, I am almost always pegged as a little right or left of center depending on my current thinking of things. I'm hardly ever way out on one side.

As for right views, I'm definitely all for eliminating some of what the government attempts to do. Social security for one. Some of the branches of the government need either an overhaul or be taken to the shed. I also deeply understand the importance of a spend less than you take in mindset, which apparently neither side has at the moment.

Having said that, there are things that trump that mindset. Health care reform is one.

Oh and you just shot any credibility you had when you say that anyone who supports Obama is not a moderate. That's seriously LOL material.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:43 PM
How does this explain FDR's system, then? The thinking has always been there. It's only after the Cold War that the thinking began to be construed as bad. And lately it's been drummed up again.

How many times has this been discussed? You still have this question? Or are you playing dumb to waste people's time? I put a quote up of one of FDR's own appointees challenging him on really implementing socialism....because that did come up under FDR.

Here's something a Democrat during FDR's reign said:

North Carolinian Josiah William Bailey admonished his colleagues: "Do not do nothing while America drifts down the inevitable gulf of collectivization . . . . Give enterprise a chance, and I will give you the guarantees of a happy and prosperous America." The month and day were December 16, and the year, 1937 (Congressional Record, 75th Congress, 2nd Session, 1940).

He observes correctly, the drift toward collectivization.

Bailey also said this:
"I am a great liberal when it comes to the fundamental meaning of the word, but I am not a liberal when they interpret liberalism in terms of a return to the old reactionary system of centralized power and control of the individual with a view to limiting his activities."

In an October 19, 1937 letter to Democratic Senator Peter Gerry (RI), Bailey lamented that the national government had become "a gift enterprise and the gifts are at the expense of those who work and earn and save." He further denounced the unprincipled FDR – who once said the only thing Americans had to fear was fear itself – for ironically instilling economic worries among Americans so that they might reelect him to the presidency.
Such a redefinition of terms and abuse of power prompted Bailey to take action (Josiah Bailey to O. Max Gardner, 2 Aug. 1937, Josiah Bailey Papers; Moore, Josiah Bailey, 149–50).


Taking on FDR: Senator Josiah Bailey and the 1937 Conservative Manifesto (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/kickler1.html)

You've been brainwashed by academia.

orange
02-14-2010, 05:45 PM
How about this response - I think you're a nutcase.

Considering that on another thread you have claimed that licensing doctors and testing pharmaceuticals is "SOCIALISM",
I'll take "SOCIALISM" every day.

What do you think about public schools? Child-labor laws?


This is a by product of our school system and media in the age of entitlement. Like we needed another reason to privatize schools.


Finally got my answer! :LOL:

Now, about Child-labor laws? :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:47 PM
Now, about Child-labor laws? :hmmm:

Not passed until the practice had well died out. We went through this before. Not until 1938. Yeah, let's give the progressives credit from something the market did away with as families became wealthier due to the industrial revolution.

Didn't you also post data from the 1900's showing public education being implemented....which I showed was done in a spotty manner? I think so. The Catholics were education their young via donations and the protestants did not want to be left behind.....that's who pushed universal education.

orange
02-14-2010, 05:48 PM
Not passed until the practice had well died out. We went through this before. Not until 1938. Yeah, let's give the progressives credit from something the market did away with as families became wealthier due to the industrial revolution.

We went through this before and I proved you wrong.


Gee, Mises. How did I know that before you ever posted?

Here's a beautiful little graph showing the prevalence of child labor in America.

You'll notice two peak periods - just before the enactment of the FLSA and a recent one (migrant labor).

http://www.google.com/search?q=child+labor+in+us+history&hl=en&rlz=1T4GPTB_enUS288US288&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=dESgSs_4EZDssQPi0KmNDw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11

Legal efforts to ban child labor began in the U.S. in the 1830's and went on continuously since. The claim that it was "supply and demand" fails in the face of reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, this part of your quotation is sinfully rich and delicious:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

In wealthier, urban, industrialized areas, child labor was largely gone, as more and more kids were being schooled... In those days, there was rising confidence that education was the key to saving the youth of America. Stay in school, get a degree or two, and you would be fixed up for life.


Yes - due to compulsory education!

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:51 PM
How many times has this been discussed? You still have this question? Or are you playing dumb to waste people's time? I put a quote up of one of FDR's own appointees challenging him on really implementing socialism....because that did come up under FDR.

Here's something a Democrat during FDR's reign said:



He observes correctly, the drift toward collectivization.

Bailey also said this:



Taking on FDR: Senator Josiah Bailey and the 1937 Conservative Manifesto (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/kickler1.html)

Of course there would be a counter-point to FDR's proposal. What Presidential decisions ever have NO counter-point?

The point is that it took the Cold War for it to become so dirty. Advocating a counter-point in the 30s hardly indicates that people knew socialism was the dirty word it became today. Note, he doesn't even say socialism...


You've been brainwashed by academia.

How, exactly, does academia brainwash people? How does one avoid it?

And I'd much rather be brainwashed by academia than have virtually every post contain a Lew Rockwell link.

Oh, and why should I trust the quote you posted? You believe anything....

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:53 PM
We went through this before and I proved you wrong.
No you didn't. Put the whole thread up. I had posted that more parents before ed was made compulsory were putting kids in schools already due to increased wealth too.
Later compulsory ed entered the scene. You left much out.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 05:54 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but it's pointless to ask a question like this without defining what you mean by socialism.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:56 PM
Of course there would be a counter-point to FDR's proposal. What Presidential decisions ever have NO counter-point?

The point is that it took the Cold War for it to become so dirty. Advocating a counter-point in the 30s hardly indicates that people knew socialism was the dirty word it became today. Note, he doesn't even say socialism...



How, exactly, does academia brainwash people? How does one avoid it?

And I'd much rather be brainwashed by academia than have virtually every post contain a Lew Rockwell link.

Oh, and why should I trust the quote you posted? You believe anything....

Uh...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:56 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but it's pointless to ask a question like this without defining what you mean by socialism.

You're supposed to define it, idiot. But since you ask, it's clear where you stand. We can all see it. So, don't go away mad that we know where you stand even though I won't say where you stand. /BigDaddy

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 05:56 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but it's pointless to ask a question like this without defining what you mean by socialism.

If that's needed then there is much political illiteracy here.
People should know what it is if they're commenting here.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 05:56 PM
Uh...hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What ever does this mean?

Is this the clue that I'm going on iggy?

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 05:57 PM
You're supposed to define it, idiot. But since you ask, it's clear where you stand. We can all see it. So, don't go away mad that we know where you stand even though I won't say where you stand. /BigDaddy
This is why I don't venture in here often. I hate "debating" politics.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 05:59 PM
If that's needed then there is much political illiteracy here.

Of course it's fucking needed. You can't ask people questions without clarifying what they actually mean.


People should know what it is if they're commenting here.
Different people have different definitions of socialism.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 06:00 PM
This is why I don't venture in here often. I hate "debating" politics.

Don't worry. No one will bite. :p

It's just funny because I considered simply posting an LOL smilie and leaving it at that since you'd be like the 10th person to ask for a definition that he refuses to give because Fox News didn't give one (surprise there).

orange
02-14-2010, 06:00 PM
No you didn't. Put the whole thread up. I had posted that more parents before ed was made compulsory were putting kids in schools already due to increased wealth too.
Later compulsory ed entered the scene. You left much out.

Sorry, I intended to put up the link since it does nothing but buttress my argument.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=213128&highlight=child+labor&page=5


And here's that graph for those too lazy to click the link. Notice the HUGE NUMBER of child workers just before the practice was banned - by Federal Law.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:00 PM
Of course it's ****ing needed. You can't ask people questions without clarifying what they actually mean.
Ever hear of a dictionary? That's what one is for.


Different people have different definitions of socialism.

No it has a definition. It can be paraphrased but says the same. That different people have a different definition, shows illiteracy on the topic.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:03 PM
Sorry, I intended to put up the link since it does nothing but buttress my argument.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=213128&highlight=child+labor&page=5

In your opinion.

Still, FDR did not end the practice of child labor even if it was outlawed nationally in 1938. Afterall, kids on farms were still allowed to work.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 06:04 PM
No it has a definition. It can be paraphrased but says the same. That different people have a different definition, shows illiteracy on the topic.
What is this definition? If it's easy to define, give me your definition. That would solve my problem.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 06:06 PM
By some people's definitions, of course, the U.S. is already a socialist country. I'm sure that definition would upset many of you, though.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:08 PM
What is this definition? If it's easy to define, give me your definition. That would solve my problem.

Do your own homework and quit being intellectually lazy.
It wouldn't be "my" definition as if it's that individual, like you prefer peas and I prefer carrots. Although, I have put up a definition, in my own words, as a paraphrase from already clearing it up in 1) a dictionary 2) reading about it in economics.

Those who try to play everyone has their own definition is obfuscating.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:10 PM
By some people's definitions, of course, the U.S. is already a socialist country. I'm sure that definition would upset many of you, though.

I already said before as have others on this BB that America is socialist-lite.
What do you think ss, medicare, medicaid, the War on Poverty, prescription drug benefits etc. etc. are? Not to mention universal education, a central bank, a progressive income tax for income redistribution, arguing that the rich are getting richer etc. More is simply being added first under Bush which even Fox news has claimed to been socialist and much more under Obama.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:11 PM
BIG DADDY,

You'd help your cause a lot by explaining WTH you mean by "socialism."

If you honestly think America, today, has become a socialist nation....you are using a strange definition, IMHO. So, what, precisely, do you mean? Because, while we've embraced socialistic directions in some areas....we are, presently, far from a "socialist" government despite what those from the Libertarian chicken Little's from the Mises Institute blogs and those regurgitating Lew Rockwell attempt to say.

I see NO ONE, including you BD have ever really given us a real definition for socialism, as you see it (setting aside BEP's lame attempt.)

He has a very valid point here Kotter....

The only point TJ has is....from the perspective of dogmatic and rigid ideologues who refuse to understand the nature of compromise in a republic (indirect democracy, that we are,) and goes on to characterize anyone who accepts pragmatic consensus...is considered as wishy-washy, or mush-middle, or some other lame pejorative. I've got another name for it: reality. Some of us prefer to live there.

For the dogmatic and rigid ideologues who are blinded by their myopic philosophical sophistry, consensus and compromise are anathema. In the country we live in, it is how government operates--no matter how much we each, individually, may wish it were otherwise. An inability to accept that basic tenet of our Constitutional indirect democracy....is, clearly, frustrating. Understood.

Good luck with that.

I thank God himself that we have a deep thinker and condescending asshole such as Kotter to help us through those nasty nuances that give everyone else around him so much trouble.

Kotter, that post is exactly the kind of shit I expect from a man of limited options who has had to settle for teaching in a government school.

I join Taco in applauding BRC's contribution above. Personally, I'd like to remove federal involvement in most, if not all, of the areas mentioned in his first paragraph.

Ya know, CB if you'd bother to remove your cranium from Isaac's rectum, I think you could at least see the distinction I'm making. Since you seem to prefer it there, coupled with your presumptious opinion of me and your seething contempt for the teaching profession...we simply have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Good luck, man.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 06:11 PM
Do your own homework and quit being intellectually lazy.

What gives you the right to call me intellectually lazy? Do you know anything about me, or even anything about where I stand politically? You have quite the high opinion of yourself, I suppose.


It wouldn't be "my" definition as if it's that individual, like you prefer peas and I prefer carrots. Although, I have put up a definition, in my own words, as a paraphrase from already clearing it up in 1) a dictionary 2) reading about it in economics.
Which dictionary and which economics textbook? Each one would give a different definition. That's why I want your personal definition.


Those who try to play everyone has their own definition is obfuscating.
Wrong, I merely want clarification of what's been asked of me. That shouldn't be too hard, no?

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:14 PM
What gives you the right to call me intellectually lazy?
Where did I claim it was a "right"? It's rather obvious since you won't look up the word yourself. Actions speak louder than words.

Which dictionary and which economics textbook? Each one would give a different definition. That's why I want your personal definition.
LOL

I said use a dictionary not an economics textbook. And there isn't a myriad of definitions if you bothered to study it.

Wrong, I merely want clarification of what's been asked of me. That shouldn't be too hard, no?
You could to some work yourself and look up the word too. That shouldn't be too hard either, no?

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:15 PM
BigDaddy,

You'd help your cause a lot by explaining WTH you mean by "socialism."



LOL This from a teacher?

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 06:15 PM
I already said before as have others on this BB that America is socialist-lite.
What do you think ss, medicare, medicaid, the War on Poverty, prescription drug benefits etc. etc. are? Not to mention universal education, a central bank, a progressive income tax for income redistribution, arguing that the rich are getting richer etc. More is simply being added first under Bush which even Fox news has claimed to been socialist and much more under Obama.
Yes....as I said, by some people's definitions, America is already quite socialist.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:17 PM
Yes....as I said, by some people's definitions, America is already quite socialist.

Those things match the items Marx espoused in his writings. I was just applying that to things. It still has a definition, which is not subjective, and those are examples of socialism but not the definition.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:18 PM
Those things match the items Marx espoused in his writings. I was just applying that to things. It still has a definition, which is not subjective, and those are examples of socialism but not the definition.

Marx is not the be all, or end all, of what political scientists refer to as socialism.

LOL This from a teacher?

I KNOW what it means; it seems far too many here do not. Clearly, you for example.

orange
02-14-2010, 06:21 PM
Those things match the items Marx espoused in his writings. I was just applying that to things. It still has a definition, which is not subjective, and those are examples of socialism but not the definition.

How about this definition:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

This is by a fairly smart guy - I doubt he got it too wrong.


Now, where in America do we have "the means of production ... owned by society itself and ... utilized in a planned fashion?"

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 06:21 PM
Where did I claim it was a "right"? It's rather obvious since you won't look up the word yourself. Actions speak louder than words.

You are quite the insufferable ****, aren't you? Calling somebody intellectually lazy because they want clarification of a question....sigh...this is what political "debate" is in our polarized political climate, I guess.


LOL

I said use a dictionary not an economics textbook. And there isn't a myriad of definitions if you bothered to study it.

You told me to go study economics. Which textbook or online site should I go to? Every single source would have a different definition.


You could to some work yourself and look up the word too. That shouldn't be too hard either, no?
Once again, I'm asking for your personal definition (or the person who asked the question). Without that, I can't answer the question.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:23 PM
One simple...trying to keep it simple....definition:

Socialism
A form or system of government which champions the equal sharing of land and equal return of the product of the land and industry to all citizens.

THAT does NOT describe the United States, even though you may cringe that we are "headed that direction."

:rolleyes:

NewChief
02-14-2010, 06:23 PM
You are quite the insufferable ****, aren't you? Calling somebody intellectually lazy because they want clarification of a question....sigh...this is what political "debate" is in our polarized political climate, I guess.


You told me to go study economics. Which textbook or online site should I go to? Every single source would have a different definition.


Once again, I'm asking for your personal definition (or the person who asked the question). Without that, I can't answer the question.

Her personal definition is anything she doesn't agree with is socialism.

It's irony at its best that she wants people to go to the dictionary to define something, because she has some of the most arbitrary, contrived definitions on the site, to the point of it being a running joke.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:24 PM
How about this definition:

"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society."

This is by a fairly smart guy - I doubt he got it too wrong.


Now, where in America do we have "the means of production ... owned by society itself and ... utilized in a planned fashion?"

The Mises Institute simpletons and Lew Rockwell groupies among us will NOT be deterred....

;)

LOL This from a teacher?

Your definition is bunk; TJ's and CB's are too. BD...I'm unsure of at this point. THAT is what a teacher does....finds out what students/others are THINKING in their OWN mind. Duh.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:28 PM
One simple...trying to keep it simple....definition:

Socialism
A form or system of government which champions the equal sharing of land and equal return of the product of the land and industry to all citizens.

THAT does NOT describe the United States, even though you may cringe that we are "headed that direction."

:rolleyes:
That fits the US to some degree except that yours is agrarian only.
I put the definition up earlier and showed how it does fit the United States—just not in the full sense.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 06:30 PM
Well...I'm done. I've wasted 20 minutes trying to get clarification that won't be coming. It's been "fun."

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:34 PM
The Mises Institute simpletons and Lew Rockwell groupies among us will NOT be deterred....

;)



Your definition is bunk; TJ's and CB's are too. BD...I'm unsure of at this point. THAT is what a teacher does....finds out what students/others are THINKING in their OWN mind. Duh.

Mine is from a regular dictionary where I originally sorted it out—long before I heard of Lew Rockwell. Not surprisingly communism is defined similarly.
You have to know what the words in the definition mean too. Such as ownership and means of production.

When one wishes to complicate an issue that is not complicated they try use accusations like "simpletons." It's just a non confront. This by a man who used to call his fellow Ds commies.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:42 PM
That fits the US to some degree except that yours is agrarian only.
I put the definition up earlier and showed how it does fit the United States—just not in the full sense.

What part of "industry" do you not understand?

Mine is from a regular dictionary where I originally sorted it out—long before I heard of Lew Rockwell. Not surprisingly communism is defined similarly.
You have to know what the words in the definition mean too. Such as ownership and means of production.

When one wishes to complicate an issue that is not complicated they try use accusations like "simpletons." It's just a non confront.

I rest my case. Only a true simpleton would say governing America in the 2010 is not "complicated."

Jeesh. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:46 PM
What part of "industry" do you not understand?
Who creates industries? Who works in them? People.

The major means of production boils down to people...individuals. Without them machinery and buildings don't exist. Logic.

I rest my case. Only a true simpleton would say governing America in the 2010 is not "complicated."

Jeesh. :rolleyes:
Yeah, except I wasn't talking about governing America. I was talking about a definition and a school of economics. America was governed just fine prior to Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, Bush Jr. and Obama.

Now stop arguing with a straw man or moving the goal posts.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:49 PM
Who creates industries? Who works in them? People.

The major means of production boils down to people...individuals. Without them machinery and buildings don't exist. Logic.


Yeah, except I wasn't talking about governing America. I was talking about a definition and a school of economics.

Now stop arguing with a straw man or moving the goal posts.

It's the same conversation; though I'm not surprised by your inability to follow. This is why I've given up wasting too much time here, generally; but with you and your ilk, in particular.

The internet and political circle-jerks like this can be entertaining....but they provide real meaning and a real life to folks like you, I guess. Kinda sad. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:50 PM
It's the same conversation; though I'm not surprised by your inability to follow. This is why I've given up wasting too much time here, generally; but with you and your ilk, in particular.

The internet and political circle-jerks like this can be entertaining....but they provide real meaning and a real life to folks like you, I guess. Kinda sad. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

So you got nothing then?

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Wiki? Nice. Heh.

Try some more intellectual and scholarly sources, and dare to broaden your horizons.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:52 PM
Main Entry: in·dus·try
Pronunciation: \ˈin-(ˌ)dəs-trē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·dus·tries
Etymology: Middle English (Scots) industrie, from Middle French, from Latin industria, from industrius diligent, from Old Latin indostruus, perhaps from indu in + -struus (akin to Latin struere to build) — more at end-, strew
Date: 15th century

1 : diligence in an employment or pursuit; especially : steady or habitual effort
2 a : systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value b : a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture; especially : one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing c : a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises <the banking industry> d : manufacturing activity as a whole <the nation's industry>
3 : work devoted to the study of a particular subject or author <the Shakespeare industry>

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 06:53 PM
Personal attacks are what you specialize in. So you got nothing then?

Your ignorance is too much of a temptation. Especially the way you just egg it on. Heh.

Call it a weakness. I'm trying, but it's not working so well with clowns like you around. Sorry.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:54 PM
Wiki? Nice. Heh.

Try some more intellectual and scholarly sources, and dare to broaden your horizons.

I would but you just smeared Mises. He'd be over your head anyway and his book is a tome. Wiki isn't always right, mostly on controversial topics, but it's essentially correct here. The dictionary boils it down to a pure simplicity though but it seems to be over some heads here. It really is essentially a simple concept. Just the myiard examples can get into long lists making it appear complicated. You can take any version of socialism: the Utopians, Syndicalists, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, the fascisms: Naziism, Mussolini, parts of America, Stalinism, Trotskyism, German Socialism, social democracy, mixed economies: such as Third Way Socialism including America and see that simple dictionary definition fitting just fine.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 06:59 PM
Your ignorance is too much of a temptation. Especially the way you just egg it on. Heh.

Call it a weakness. I'm trying, but it's not working so well with clowns like you around. Sorry.

So you admit again, that you've got nothing. Or that you believe in some socialism yourself despite calling your fellow Ds commies.
I think I'm missing something on you: you do hold to some socialist views such as taking some income from others for drug or health benefits because you need a bailout yourself. I think it touches a nerve with you. Hence, your need to misdefine socialism to remove yourself from that category.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 07:12 PM
So you admit again, that you've got nothing. Or that you believe in some socialism yourself despite calling your fellow Ds commies.
I think I'm missing something on you: you do hold to some socialist views such as taking some income from others for drug or health benefits because you need a bailout yourself. I think it touches a nerve with you. Hence, your need to misdefine socialism to remove yourself from that category.

You're not a very good pop psychologist either; you kinda remind me of Aunt Emma from my visits to the farm as a kid. Nice but batty ditz who was pleasant at times, and nice enough to hang around for a while--as long as you didn't try to dissuade her from the convenient little world she had created for herself, in her own mind that bore no resemblance to reality.

Night, Aunt Emma. ;)

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 07:14 PM
Hmmm, I just noticed pat lied in the poll.

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 07:15 PM
You're not a very good pop psychologist either; you kinda remind me of Aunt Emma from my visits to the farm as a kid. Nice but batty ditz who was pleasant at times, and nice enough to hang around for a while--as long as you didn't try to dissuade her from the convenient little world she had created for herself, in her own mind that bore no resemblance to reality.

Night, Aunt Emma. ;)

Correct me if I am wrong. But did you not post that you said those who could afford it should be willing to have some of their income taken for prescription drug benefits for others? I'm certain you did post something of that sort. You hold to some socialist ideas. You may not go all the way but you do have some. That was one.

Other than that, sticks and stones.......

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 07:27 PM
You favor a welfare state? Probing here for clarity.

FTR, HCF: socialism is sharing of the production (everything) of society coerced through government, equally. That is not America--nor would I have it that way. You know, the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to need" crap. It ain't here; it ain't close.

A welfare state, takes care of its poor, the elderly, and the destitute by affording them a meager respectable life...so they don't die in our streets, amidst the ostentatious wealth and prosperity that our society otherwise so abundantly affords so many others. IMO, the good book demands it insofar as we are "judged by how we treat the least among us."

BucEyedPea
02-14-2010, 07:40 PM
FTR, HCF: socialism is sharing of the production (everything) of society coerced through government, equally. That is not America--nor would I have it that way. You know, the whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to need" crap. It ain't here; it ain't close.
A welfare state, takes care of its poor, the elderly, and the destitute by affording them a meager respectable life...so they don't die in our streets, amidst the ostentatious wealth and prosperity that our society otherwise so abundantly affords so many others. IMO, the good book demands it insofar as we are "judged by how we treat the least among us."

That's what Sweden does and it is called a socialist country.

If you use a progressive income tax and witholding to do those things it's socialism because you're redistributing wealth. If you use govt planning by a central you're using the central planning of socialism.

You can do some humanitarian things at the state level to assist the poor without a progressive income tax or redistributing wealth or witholding income too. I wouldn't call that socialism.
It does not centralize more power at the national level.

The reason socialism is anti-social is because it penalizes production and rewards non-production. When engaged in too much it leads to equal poverty for all because at some point it's no longer worth being procuctive. This is why it doesn't work despite labels on those who say this as ideologues.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 07:53 PM
That's what Sweden does and it is called a socialist country.

If you use a progressive income tax and witholding to do those things it's socialism because you're redistributing wealth. If you use govt planning by a central you're using the central planning of socialism.

You can do some humanitarian things at the state level to assist the poor without a progressive income tax or redistributing wealth or witholding income too. I wouldn't call that socialism.
It does not centralize more power at the national level.

The reason socialism is anti-social is because it penalizes production and rewards non-production. When engaged in too much it leads to equal poverty for all because at some point it's no longer worth being procuctive. This is why it doesn't work despite labels on those who say this as ideologues.

Sweden does that, but much, MUCH more. (BEP logic: A + B = C, B + D = C, so....B + E = C)

Socialism is about EQUALITY (radical egalitarianism--not social welfare to ameliorate poverty; ) a welfare state is about restoring respectability to the least of those among us (yes, through taxation of prosperity.)

Can't say I'm surprised you can't see the distinction.

That you can look around America, and say "it ain't worth it, to be productive" says all that needs said.

Nighty-night, Emma.

Jenson71
02-14-2010, 07:59 PM
This thread shows why it's important to define your terms right away in some of these topics.

banyon
02-14-2010, 08:03 PM
You can do some humanitarian things at the state level to assist the poor without a progressive income tax or redistributing wealth or witholding income too. I wouldn't call that socialism.
It does not centralize more power at the national level.



How? Be specific.

banyon
02-14-2010, 08:22 PM
I guess socialism is to the right of him.

For someone who ducks any serious theoretical discussions, you've sure had a hard-on for some reason to try to brand me as a socialist or whatever lately.

Will it bring you peace of mind or something to mislabel me like that and ignore the serious policy differences I have with socialists?

Here, for a review, here's the Socialist Party platform and my specific disagreements with it. Feel free to address it or just keep whistling Dixie.

I have the following policy disagreements [for starters, the more platforms I check, the more disagreements I have, I could probably expand this list to 300 or so]:

1) Against withdrawal from Afghanistan
2) Against compelling Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem
3) I am not for Abolishing the CIA
4) I am not for unconditionally disarming the US
5) I am not for disbanding NATO
6) I am not for ending US Arms sales throughout the world
7) I am not for ending the veto power on the Security Council
8) I am not for a constitutional amendment requiring a binding vote of the people on all issues of war or military intervention.
9) I don't support "militant, united labor action including hot cargo agreements, and boycotts, factory committees, secondary and sympathy strikes, sit-down strikes, general strikes, and ultimately the expropriation of workplaces."
10)I am not for the full blown "repeal of the Hatch Act and the Taft-Hartley Act, the "hot cargo" provision of the Landrum-Griffin Act, and all so-called "right-to-work" laws."
11) I am not "for the same benefits for part-time workers as for full-time workers"
12) I am not for "a 30 hour work week at no loss of pay, with six weeks annual paid vacation."
13) I am not for "a call for unions to stop using union funds for electing candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties."
14) I am not for a minimum wage "of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living."
15) I am not for "all financial and insurance institutions to be socially owned and operated by a democratically-controlled national banking authority, which should include credit unions, mutual insurance cooperatives, and cooperative state banks"
16) I am not for "a maximum income of no more than ten times the minimum." and I do not "oppose regressive taxes such as payroll tax, sales tax, and property taxes."
17) I am not for "increased and expanded unemployment compensation at 100% of a worker's previous income or the minimum wage, whichever is higher, for the full period of unemployment or re-training, whichever is longer.
18) I am not for "tax benefits for renters equal to those for homeowners."
19) I am not for "the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare."
20) I am not for "the end of all anti-gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBTQ) restrictions in law and the work place, the repeal of all sodomy laws, and the legalization of same-sex marriage."
21) I am not for "call[ing] on all schools to adopt policies and procedures to address and prevent student violence and to ban discrimination against GLBTQ people throughout the educational system."
22) I am not "for a federal ban on all forms of job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity."
23) I am not "committed to confronting the heterosexism that provides the fertile ground for homophobic violence, and support all efforts toward fostering understanding and cooperation among persons and groups of differing sexual orientations."
24) I am not "reparations from the federal government for its role in the slave trade and the genocide of Native American nations, with the reparations programs administered by the oppressed communities themselves."
25) I do not "oppose all efforts to declare English an official language, and call for an end to all language discrimination. We demand that all public and private institutions provide services and materials in the languages of their communities."
26) I do not "call for strict legal penalties for the police practice of racial profiling, and we particularly condemn the targeting of Arabs and Muslims since September 11."
27) I am not "for full enforcement of all sections of the Americans with Disabilities Act so that all public and private buildings, facilities, and modes of transportation are accessible to disabled people, and every effort is made to employ persons with disabilities." (If that means tearing down all existing structures).
28) I do not "oppose any effort to limit the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act by restricting the definition of who is considered a person with a disability, and we call for an amendment to the act that would permit punitive damages for the complainants in ADA cases."
29) I do not "oppose any efforts of the federal government to further limit access to SSDI (Supplemental Security Disability Income Insurance) by restricting their definitions of who is considered a person with a disability."
30) I do not "call for a right of retirement at age 55 a minimum annual retirement income of $25,000, tax free, and protected from inflation by cost of living increase."
31) I do not "demand full support for every woman's right to choose when, if, and how to have children, including the right to free abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, without interference or coercion. Clinics providing abortion services must have the full protection of the law."
32) I do not "call for the decriminalization of prostitution and demand that sex workers, just like all women workers, are guaranteed a full range of health, social, and legal services"
33) I do not support affirmative action for women.
34) I do not "call for children's allowances that will help ensure that every child's basic rights and needs are satisfied in a stimulating, empowering, and caring environment."
35) I do not "call for an end to military draft registration, and an end to military recruiting in educational institutions."
36) I do not "call for the lowering of the voting age to 15"
37) I do not "oppose age-based curfew laws"
38) I do not "support guaranteed incomes and grants for artists and performers. "
39) I do not "oppose merit pay for teachers, standardized testing, competition between schools within the same district, the sale of on-campus advertising in order to raise funds, and the increasing dependence of post-secondary institutions on corporate funding."
40) I do not "call a maximum of 15 students per teacher for grades K-12, and a maximum of 50 students per teacher at the post-secondary level."
41) I do not " call for vigorous affirmative action programs so that the faculty and student-body of all schools reflect the community at large in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and economic background. We support multicultural, multilingual, experimental education at all levels."
42) I do not "call for rent control for all rental units"
43) I do not "call for an end to home foreclosures"
44) I do not "support federally funded auto insurance."
45) I do not "call for public ownership and worker control of the airline industry."
46) I do not "call for the elimination of the Dept.of Homeland Security "
47) I do not "call for the abolition of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
48) I do not "oppose the militarization of the United States/Mexican border, and an increase in the service budget instead of the "military" budget of the INS."
49) I do not "defend the rights of all immigrants to education, health care, and full civil and legal rights and call for an unconditional amnesty program for all undocumented people." Nor do I "oppose the imposition of any fees on those receiving amnesty."
50) I do not want a " a ban on all immigration detentions "
51) I do not "demand an end to police raids in areas where immigrants congregate."
52) I do not "call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months."
53) I do not "oppose representation based on anything other than population."
54) I do not " call for the restoration of the right to vote for all citizens incarcerated in jails and prisons"
55) I do not "call for the immediate closure of all “Supermax” prisons "
56) I do not "call for the right of prisoners to organize unions and cooperative groups to negotiate for better living conditions"
57) I do not "call for the ultimate replacement of the police with community residents trained in conflict resolution who live in and serve the community under community control."
58) I do not "call for the decriminalization of drug use and the regulation of narcotics by doctors through the use of prescriptions rather than by the criminal justice system."
59) I do not "support public funding of newspapers and magazines. Any non-profit organization that publishes a journal would receive public funding in proportion to its paid subscriber list."
60) I did not "call for the repeal of all existing copyright extension laws."
61) I do not "call for public ownership and democratic control of all our natural resources in order to conserve resources, preserve our wilderness areas, and restore environmental quality."
62) I do not "call for public ownership and worker control of existing corporate farms, support exiting state bans on corporate farms, and support a federal ban on the establishment of new corporate farms."
63) I do not "call for a parity system that guarantees farmers a full return on the cost of production"
64) I do not "call for the repudiation of all current farm debts for working farmers. "
65) I do not "call for family farmers whose land was taken in foreclosures to be given their land and equipment back, or be given comparable land and equipment or monetary compensation"
66) I do not "oppose industrial meat production in all its environmentally destructive forms, including hog confinements, cattle feedlots, and industrial poultry production."
67) I do not "call for a ban on irradiation of food. We particularly condemn the 2002 Farm Bill which allows irradiated food to be mislabeled "pasteurized."
68) I do not "call for the elimination of the use of pesticides".
69) I do not " call for the banning of the fur trade."
70) i do not "call for a ban on animal experimentation for product development, and for an oversight board to examine and limit the use of animals in scientific and medical research."

Here's a link to the real socialist party of America's platform.

http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/
(http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/)


You guys wouldn't know a real socialist if he walked up and punched you in the mouth. It's not just shorthand for "people I disagree with".

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=181854&page=13

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:34 PM
Pot kettle.

Actually, I am definitely interested in understanding others perspectives and letting mine be known. However, there are topics where this is definitely not my objective. Scientific "debates" is one. As evidenced by GW & Evolution threads.

As for this thread, I don't think it appropriate to post a poll so vague that it that it prompts questions as to the definition of the word on which the poll hinges and then run away from defining it yourself. You'd much rather have everyone else define what socialism is. But that doesn't answer your poll.

It's very common for people to be polled in a way that they have to provide their own definitions for the words in the poll questions. If Gallup conducted a poll and it's pollsters answered the question "what do you mean by 'approval'", their poll would be tainted by the answers that were given.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:39 PM
It's very common for people to be polled in a way that they have to provide their own definitions for the words in the poll questions. If Gallop conducted a poll and it's pollsters answered the question "what do you mean by 'approval'", their poll would be tainted by the answers that were given.

If you don't have a standard definition from the outset, the poll is tainted anyway.

NewChief
02-14-2010, 08:40 PM
If you don't have a standard definition from the outset, the poll is tainted anyway.

If you're just trying to kick around some political football and paint your opponent with some broad brush strokes, it's a grand poll.

NewChief
02-14-2010, 08:41 PM
This is the game being played:

Glenn Beck showed socialism leads to genocide and evil.
Democrats/liberals are socialist.
Democrats/liberals will lead us to genocide and evil.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:45 PM
This is the game being played:

Glenn Beck showed socialism leads to genocide and evil.
Democrats/liberals are socialist.
Democrats/liberals will lead us to genocide and evil.

Eggzactly.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:47 PM
Well...I'm done. I've wasted 20 minutes trying to get clarification that won't be coming. It's been "fun."

Seriously? With all the resources of the internet at your fingertips, you spent 20 minutes here waiting for a definition when you could have googled it in about 5 seconds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism)?

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:48 PM
If you don't have a standard definition from the outset, the poll is tainted anyway.

No it's not, it's just testing something different than if you'd provided a specific definition.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 08:50 PM
No it's not, it's just testing something different than if you'd provided a specific definition.

You're saying that BD's poll fits into the type you've described?

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:06 PM
You're saying that BD's poll fits into the type you've described?

I'm saying that if BD wanted to test this question without tainting the results with his own definition of socialism, who are we to say he's wrong?

It's a simple matter to explain your vote if you think it might be misunderstood based on what you perceive to be an ambiguity in the question. I took advantage of that opportunity to explain that while I usually side with the Republicans, I'm not a registered member of either major party.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:08 PM
No it's not, it's just testing something different than if you'd provided a specific definition.

Testing what, exactly? If everyone's definition matches up?

Further, specific to his poll, how would you answer it if you thought our current system was fine yet considered it partially socialist. Would that be socialism is wrong or socialism is right?

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Testing what, exactly? If everyone's definition matches up?

Further, specific to his poll, how would you answer it if you thought our current system was fine yet considered it partially socialist. Would that be socialism is wrong or socialism is right?

Testing what people think of what they understand socialism to be.

I'd vote "I think it is OK" and then post an explanation of why I voted that way.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 09:11 PM
And keeping some socialism and not other kinds is hypocritical and it begs the question: where do you draw the line and if I draw the line differently, whose to say I'm wrong?

That's simple. The person whose property your stealing in order to achieve your vision is who to say you are wrong.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:11 PM
Testing what people think of what they understand socialism to be.

I'd vote "I think it is OK" and then post an explanation of why I voted that way.

Most of us don't have the time that you seem to have these days. Sorry. :shrug:

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:12 PM
Testing what people think of what they understand socialism to be.

I'd vote "I think it is OK" and then post an explanation of why I voted that way.

So would "I think it is not okay", and explain why my definition is full blown socialism, is okay?


That's precisely it. It doesn't really test anything meaningful unless you count the fact that people don't know anything about what they think they know.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:13 PM
That's simple. The person whose property your stealing in order to achieve your vision is who to say you are wrong.

So, again, fire departments should be privatized. They're stealing your money to provide you fire service.

banyon
02-14-2010, 09:13 PM
This is the game being played:

Glenn Beck showed socialism leads to genocide and evil.
Democrats/liberals are socialist.
Democrats/liberals will lead us to genocide and evil.

This is it, and it's exactly why only the vaguest attempts at definition will do. Otherwise, the conflation is too obvious.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:13 PM
That's simple. The person whose property your stealing in order to achieve your vision is who to say you are wrong.

And that, my friend, is anarchy; precisely what Lew Rockwell droids seem to desire. Good luck with that, Isaac.

:rolleyes:

Taco John
02-14-2010, 09:15 PM
So socialism is alright as long as it's not federal? That's your line?

The more local the socialism gets, the less I have problems with it. The more national it gets, the more dangerous it gets.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 09:15 PM
And that, my friend, is anarchy; precisely what Lew Rockwell droids seem to desire. Good luck with that, Isaac.

:rolleyes:

No its not you ignorant slut.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:19 PM
Most of us don't have the time that you seem to have these days. Sorry. :shrug:

I don't know what you're talking about. I just read about a guy who spent 20 minutes here waiting for someone to define socialism for him. I've seen several others, including yourself, waiting for the same when it would take just a few seconds to find the answer yourself.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:19 PM
The more local the socialism gets, the less I have problems with it. The more national it gets, the more dangerous it gets.

So, to be clear, you aren't against socialism.


Also, I don't see how Kotter's analysis fails. If the only person to tell me I'm wrong is one who disagrees with me (thinks their being stolen from), it most certainly is anarchy. Or damn near close.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:20 PM
So would "I think it is not okay", and explain why my definition is full blown socialism, is okay?


That's precisely it. It doesn't really test anything meaningful unless you count the fact that people don't know anything about what they think they know.

Yes, that would be OK.

Whether or not it succeeds as a test is for Big Daddy to decide.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:21 PM
Yes, that would be OK.

Whether or not it succeeds as a test is for Big Daddy to decide.

What a worthless exercise then.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 09:21 PM
Now, where in America do we have "the means of production ... owned by society itself and ... utilized in a planned fashion?"


Look where the subsidies go. That fits the definition. Look at the Federal Reserve. There's another fit. Look at General Motors. Look at social security where an entire industry has been taken over by the feds. There's any number of rocks to look under to fit your definition. Any federal organization with a "Department" prefixed to it fits.

irishjayhawk
02-14-2010, 09:23 PM
Yes, that would be OK.

Whether or not it succeeds as a test is for Big Daddy to decide.

It's like Fox News asking the question and then they also get to decide whether the results are correct/valid.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 09:26 PM
So, again, fire departments should be privatized. They're stealing your money to provide you fire service.

No they're not. I don't pay an income tax in Washington, and our fire departments are funded through property taxes. I knew this when I purchased a house in this area and voluntarily chose to purchase a house anyway. Nobody stole anything from me to provide me with fire services.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:28 PM
It's like Fox News asking the question and then they also get to decide whether the results are correct/valid.

It's like most polls. Wake up.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 09:37 PM
Ya know, CB if you'd bother to remove your cranium from Isaac's rectum, I think you could at least see the distinction I'm making. Since you seem to prefer it there, coupled with your presumptious opinion of me and your seething contempt for the teaching profession...we simply have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that. Good luck, man.

I am compelled to correct you.

My cranium was up BRC's rectum at the time of my post, a decidedly uncharacteristic predicament for me.

You're spot on with the rest of it, though.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 09:37 PM
So, to be clear, you aren't against socialism.


Also, I don't see how Kotter's analysis fails. If the only person to tell me I'm wrong is one who disagrees with me (thinks their being stolen from), it most certainly is anarchy. Or damn near close.

I don't even want to bother with the brain dead analysis that honoring property rights is tantamount to anarchy. Ignorant sluts is about all I have to say about that.

With regards to my views on government and politics, this is what I'll say:


I am a libertarian born of the American tradition that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property. As a libertarian, I believe in the principle of non-aggression. Nobody has the right to infringe on the life, liberty, and property of anyone else. As a libertarian, I believe that government's job is to seek to rebalance any infringements on the liberties of others, and through that constant process of rebalaning, protect a progressing society. This is the proper role of government. Further, as a libertarian, I believe that ANYONE who infringes on the life, liberty, and/or property of others is wrong. That includes government. The infringement of any individual's life, liberty, or property is wrong.

The Founders' pragmatic approach was "the Republic, if we can keep it." I, too, support the Founder's pragmatic approach, and seek to restore The Republic, with the first step being cutting off the machine that is funding The Empire and abolish the Federal Reserve.

I am against a government that has to steal from its people in order to make its living. This is what a socialist government does, and its immoral. When a government acts morally, society tends to be more moral. When a government acts immorally, society tends to be more immoral. It's the classic "broken window theory." We've got a lot of broken windows that need fixed.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 09:43 PM
I don't even want to bother with the brain dead analysis that honoring property rights is tantamount to anarchy. Ignorant sluts is about all I have to say about that.

With regards to my views on government and politics, this is what I'll say:


I am a libertarian born of the American tradition that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property. As a libertarian, I believe in the principle of non-aggression. Nobody has the right to infringe on the life, liberty, and property of anyone else. As a libertarian, I believe that government's job is to seek to rebalance any infringements on the liberties of others, and through that constant process of rebalaning, protect a progressing society. This is the proper role of government. Further, as a libertarian, I believe that ANYONE who infringes on the life, liberty, and/or property of others is wrong. That includes government. The infringement of any individual's life, liberty, or property is wrong.

The Founders' pragmatic approach was "the Republic, if we can keep it." I, too, support the Founder's pragmatic approach, and seek to restore The Republic, with the first step being cutting off the machine that is funding The Empire and abolish the Federal Reserve.

I am against a government that has to steal from its people in order to make its living. This is what a socialist government does, and its immoral. When a government acts morally, society tends to be more moral. When a government acts immorally, society tends to be more immoral. It's the classic "broken window theory." We've got a lot of broken windows that need fixed.

And with that post, I will now remove my cranium from BRC's rectum and insert it in Taco's.

Damned fine post, sir, and please forgive any discomfort my brain pan may be causing you.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:47 PM
And with that post, I will now remove my cranium from BRC's rectum and insert it in Taco's.

Damned fine post, sir, and please forgive any discomfort my brain pan may be causing you.

LOL, me too.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:48 PM
I don't know what you're talking about. I just read about a guy who spent 20 minutes here waiting for someone to define socialism for him. I've seen several others, including yourself, waiting for the same when it would take just a few seconds to find the answer yourself.

Haven't discovered multi-tasking, have you? So sad, that you'd be glued to this joint. Seriously. Expand your horizons, bro.

Reaper16
02-14-2010, 09:49 PM
All this talk of cranial-anal penetration is stealing away from my penis its liberty to have a boner.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:50 PM
And with that post, I will now remove my cranium from BRC's rectum and insert it in Taco's.

Damned fine post, sir, and please forgive any discomfort my brain pan may be causing you.

TJ and your lamenting the passing of our "republic" is premature, at best.

Of course, you'd have to understand the intricacies of that republic, rather than the Mises or Rockwell caricature...to really understand the republic, so it's understandable, I guess. Good luck with that, fella.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:50 PM
Haven't discovered multi-tasking, have you? So sad, that you'd be glued to this joint. Seriously. Expand your horizons, bro.

OK :thumb:

redsurfer11
02-14-2010, 09:55 PM
So, again, fire departments should be privatized. They're stealing your money to provide you fire service.


Where I come from. All the fire departments were volunteer. The equipment supplied by the taxpayers. The people involved were dedicated and gave their time freely.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 09:56 PM
And with that post, I will now remove my cranium from BRC's rectum and insert it in Taco's.

Damned fine post, sir, and please forgive any discomfort my brain pan may be causing you.Thanks. I feel much better know.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 09:58 PM
Thanks. I feel much better know.

Umm. I hesitate to ask, but...

Have you seen my hat?

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 10:07 PM
I don't even want to bother with the brain dead analysis that honoring property rights is tantamount to anarchy. Ignorant sluts is about all I have to say about that.

With regards to my views on government and politics, this is what I'll say:


I am a libertarian born of the American tradition that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property. As a libertarian, I believe in the principle of non-aggression. Nobody has the right to infringe on the life, liberty, and property of anyone else. As a libertarian, I believe that government's job is to seek to rebalance any infringements on the liberties of others, and through that constant process of rebalaning, protect a progressing society. This is the proper role of government. Further, as a libertarian, I believe that ANYONE who infringes on the life, liberty, and/or property of others is wrong. That includes government. The infringement of any individual's life, liberty, or property is wrong.

The Founders' pragmatic approach was "the Republic, if we can keep it." I, too, support the Founder's pragmatic approach, and seek to restore The Republic, with the first step being cutting off the machine that is funding The Empire and abolish the Federal Reserve.

I am against a government that has to steal from its people in order to make its living. This is what a socialist government does, and its immoral. When a government acts morally, society tends to be more moral. When a government acts immorally, society tends to be more immoral. It's the classic "broken window theory." We've got a lot of broken windows that need fixed.This sounds like something you would find in a textbook and not real life. Some of the same elistist BS I heard about utopia on the Kibbutz. Its all pie in the sky BS. When the rubber meets the road it gets real ugly.

The consequense of applying some of these principles without regard to the human lifes having these principles applied on top of their heads would cause untold needless suffering. Selfishness is ugly. I got mine, get your own. Thats an ugly exsistenance. I will choose to help my fellow man achieve their own dreams, not go hungry, and have shelter from the elements.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:11 PM
The Dems are not responding, interesting.

Probably because your question is a bit silly. There's a long spectrum between pure capitalism and true socialism. We're nowhere near either end of the spectrum.

banyon
02-14-2010, 10:11 PM
Look where the subsidies go. That fits the definition. Look at the Federal Reserve. There's another fit. Look at General Motors. Look at social security where an entire industry has been taken over by the feds. There's any number of rocks to look under to fit your definition. Any federal organization with a "Department" prefixed to it fits.

Pretending that there's some kind of definition in this thread. Trying to slip it by that there isn't one and pretend afterwards. Rhetorically priceless.

banyon
02-14-2010, 10:12 PM
I don't even want to bother with the brain dead analysis that honoring property rights is tantamount to anarchy. Ignorant sluts is about all I have to say about that.

With regards to my views on government and politics, this is what I'll say:


I am a libertarian born of the American tradition that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property. As a libertarian, I believe in the principle of non-aggression. Nobody has the right to infringe on the life, liberty, and property of anyone else. As a libertarian, I believe that government's job is to seek to rebalance any infringements on the liberties of others, and through that constant process of rebalaning, protect a progressing society. This is the proper role of government. Further, as a libertarian, I believe that ANYONE who infringes on the life, liberty, and/or property of others is wrong. That includes government. The infringement of any individual's life, liberty, or property is wrong.

The Founders' pragmatic approach was "the Republic, if we can keep it." I, too, support the Founder's pragmatic approach, and seek to restore The Republic, with the first step being cutting off the machine that is funding The Empire and abolish the Federal Reserve.

I am against a government that has to steal from its people in order to make its living. This is what a socialist government does, and its immoral. When a government acts morally, society tends to be more moral. When a government acts immorally, society tends to be more immoral. It's the classic "broken window theory." We've got a lot of broken windows that need fixed.

These are great platitudes to slap on bumper stickers. When applied sweepingly and absolutely, however, they are not principles that someone can govern a lemonade stand with. Like I don't believe that people have the rights to life liberty and property, like that's some special patented ideological property of libertarians. This whole ideology is needlessly and ridiculously arrogant and dim-witted of other people's views. Somehow it manages to do all that simultaneously, while offering no guidance on how to govern anything.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 10:14 PM
This sounds like something you would find in a textbook and not real life. Some of the same elistist BS I heard about utopia on the Kibbutz. Its all pie in the sky BS. When the rubber meets the road it gets real ugly.

The consequense of applying some of these principles without regard to the human lifes having these principles applied on top of their heads would cause untold needless suffering. Selfishness is ugly. I got mine, get your own. Thats an ugly exsistenance. I will choose to help my fellow man achieve their own dreams, not go hungry, and have shelter from the elements.

TJ's and BEP's entire economic theory, the Miserable, errr, Misean theory, is just that -- a bunch of utopian concepts built (supposedly) on pure logic and rejecting utterly human experience and real world applicability.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 10:14 PM
This sounds like something you would find in a textbook and not real life. Some of the same elistist BS I heard about utopia on the Kibbutz. Its all pie in the sky BS. When the rubber meets the road it gets real ugly.

The consequense of applying some of these principles without regard to the human lifes having these principles applied on top of their heads would cause untold needless suffering. Selfishness is ugly. I got mine, get your own. Thats an ugly exsistenance. I will choose to help my fellow man achieve their own dreams, not go hungry, and have shelter from the elements.

No. At this point in time you will choose nothing of the sort. You will be compelled by government to do those things. Choice is no longer an issue.

BigRedChief
02-14-2010, 10:22 PM
No. At this point in time you will choose nothing of the sort. You will be compelled by government to do those things. Choice is no longer an issue.The government has no business compelling our moral choices in life. It seems to be that Republicans want as little of government as possible but when it comes to our personal free will, our personal moral choices it wants to dictate and decide those moral choices to everyone.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 10:26 PM
Probably because your question is a bit silly. There's a long spectrum between pure capitalism and true socialism. We're nowhere near either end of the spectrum.

DUH. Some don't seem to get that though....


:toast:

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 10:27 PM
The government has no business compelling our moral choices in life. It seems to be that Republicans want as little of government as possible but when it comes to our personal free will, our personal moral choices it wants to dictate and decide those moral choices to everyone.

I can argue only for my own Republican views.

I would assume that you and I agree for the most part except on one of the issues that may be coming to your mind, and our problem there would be based on our own unalterable premises.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 10:36 PM
Pretending that there's some kind of definition in this thread. Trying to slip it by that there isn't one and pretend afterwards. Rhetorically priceless.

What are you talking about? He provided a definition that I was responding to.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 10:36 PM
Like I don't believe that people have the rights to life liberty and property, like that's some special patented ideological property of libertarians.

As far as I can tell, you dont.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 10:37 PM
The government has no business compelling our moral choices in life.


This.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 10:41 PM
I think that its absolutely terrifying that I get called a utopian by the folks who advocate theivery to solve societies' illnesses.

banyon
02-14-2010, 10:48 PM
I think that its absolutely terrifying that I get called a utopian by the folks who advocate theivery to solve societies' illnesses.

What's terrifying is that there's people who proclaim loudly how much they believe in a republic and then when people vote on social programs in the republic, they confuse it with thievery.

When people take your property without giving you a vote in it, that's thievery.

When people enact social programs through their elected officials, that's a republic.

It really should be pretty simple.

banyon
02-14-2010, 10:49 PM
What are you talking about? He provided a definition that I was responding to.

You agree with it?

banyon
02-14-2010, 10:50 PM
As far as I can tell, you dont.

I know what I believe. You can take your baseless comment and put it where it belongs.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 10:55 PM
I know what I believe. You can take your baseless comment and put it where it belongs.

Baseless?

Do I have claim to all the income that I generate or not, Banyon? Is this income not my property?

banyon
02-14-2010, 10:58 PM
Baseless?

Do I have claim to all the income that I generate or not, Banyon? Is this income not my property?

Claim? Yes.

But as with most of your ideas, this is too simplistic and naive.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 10:59 PM
What's terrifying is that there's people who proclaim loudly how much they believe in a republic and then when people vote on social programs in the republic, they confuse it with thievery.

You're confusing the republic with what we have today. The republic died long ago and was replaced with a socialist democracy. Of course the bandits are going to vote for their banditry.


When people take your property without giving you a vote in it, that's thievery.

When it's my property, my vote counts for 100% of the electorate with regards to how my property is used.


When people enact social programs through their elected officials, that's a republic.

When power is distributed across a body of soverign nations, that's a republic. What you are describing isn't anything close to Republicanism.



It really should be pretty simple.

Indeed, it should be.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:00 PM
Claim? Yes.

But as with most of your ideas, this is too simplistic and naive.



There's nothing complicated about property ownership. If I earn income, it's my property. I have a right to it. If you vote to steal my property, you infringe on my property rights. You become a thief. What's complicated about this?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:01 PM
If I steal your tires because the folks down the block cant afford new tires and need them to get to work so they can feed their family, my good intentions dont erase the fact that I'm a thief who has stolen from you.

KC_Connection
02-14-2010, 11:02 PM
I don't know what you're talking about. I just read about a guy who spent 20 minutes here waiting for someone to define socialism for him.
Uhh...not exactly. For me to properly answer the poll question, I needed more information. I waited for it. I didn't get it.

But carry on with this nonsense, though...it would be a waste of time for me to get involved.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:03 PM
Here's a fair definition of socialism:

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/socialism.jpg

Jenson71
02-14-2010, 11:06 PM
You're confusing the republic with what we have today. The republic died long ago and was replaced with a socialist democracy. Of course the bandits are going to vote for their banditry.

When did it die, again? Was it 1787?

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:07 PM
Here's a fair definition of socialism:

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/socialism.jpg

The depth of that cartoon pretty well parallels the depth of your analysis in this thread.

Jenson71
02-14-2010, 11:08 PM
If I steal your tires because the folks down the block cant afford new tires and need them to get to work so they can feed their family, my good intentions dont erase the fact that I'm a thief who has stolen from you.

Apparently the states were okay with this form of thieving.

Tango&Cash
02-14-2010, 11:08 PM
It's ok if your not self reliant, poor, lazy and depend on others.

ClevelandBronco
02-14-2010, 11:10 PM
It's ok if your not self reliant, poor, lazy and depend on others.

Welcome to the party, but we're already well into the brawling phase of it.

Stake out your territory and insult someone.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:13 PM
When did it die, again? Was it 1787?

The last bullet to the brain was when Senators were no longer elected by the states, but by a democratic majority of the people. The soveriegn states lost their powerful voice, and a tyrannical democracy that trampled the liberty of its citizens replaced it.

Al Franken would have never been elected by any legislature to protect the best interests of the states. A professional politician - the cream of that state's crop would have earned that honor. Now it's just about popularity and who can spend the most money to attract the most voters. This is not founding fathers' Republicanism.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:13 PM
You're confusing the republic with what we have today. The republic died long ago and was replaced with a socialist democracy. Of course the bandits are going to vote for their banditry.

This is all your wild-eyed exaggerated view from out on a limb, of course.




When it's my property, my vote counts for 100% of the electorate with regards to how my property is used.[/quote]

That's great, until someone comes and takes it from you by force.



When power is distributed across a body of soverign nations, that's a republic. What you are describing isn't anything close to Republicanism.

Where did you get this conflation of federalism with republicanism? Maybe that's why you're so all over the place on this topic. Being a republic doesn't have anything to do with being "across sovereign nations". San Marino is the longest lasting modern republic, and it's no bigger than many large towns. Is the EU a republic? You could have republican government in some of the several states and communist dictatorships in the others and it wouldn't make any sense at all to call the aggregation of them "republican" simply because they were spread across regions and had some measure of independence. That's federalism and confederation. Republican refers to the governing decision making apparatus, not the relationship between entities.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 11:14 PM
There's nothing complicated about property ownership. If I earn income, it's my property. I have a right to it. If you vote to steal my property, you infringe on my property rights. You become a thief. What's complicated about this?

You know, cats like you...that don't understand the unique opportunities that this country affords folks like you and me; even ones ungrateful enough to not feel any moral obligation or compunction to live their faith, and common sense, which would have us give back to the society which has given so abundantly.....you should really move to someplace like, say, Russia; or maybe China. Where the local "mafia" would put people like you in their, ironic, deserved place. Heh.

The last bullet to the brain was when Senators were no longer elected by the states, but by a democratic majority of the people. The soveriegn states lost their powerful voice, and a tyrannical democracy that trampled the liberty of its citizens replaced it.

Al Franken would have never been elected by any legislature to protect the best interests of the states. A professional politician - the cream of that state's crop would have earned that honor. Now it's just about popularity and who can spend the most money to attract the most voters. This is not founding fathers' Republicanism.

Ah...the ole tyranny of the masses "cry!" Anarchists ARE persistent.

Move the fugg to the nearest deserted Pacific Island of your choice, freak-a-zoid.

:rolleyes:

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:17 PM
The depth of that cartoon pretty well parallels the depth of your analysis in this thread.

And still manages to hit the nail on the head.

Let's not forget that nobody has even touched a word that I've said with regards to the superior morality of libertarianism. Hurled insults about how it's utopian to believe that government should operate without infringing the liberty of its citizens is hardly compelling.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:17 PM
There's nothing complicated about property ownership. If I earn income, it's my property. I have a right to it. If you vote to steal my property, you infringe on my property rights. You become a thief. What's complicated about this?

It basically assumes that people earn income in a hermetically sealed vacuum. It's stupid. Your ability to earn that income depends on many factors, many of which rely on a support system to enable you to keep that property safe and which allow a reasonable chance for you to prosper without worrying abot more fundamental problems of nature, or commercial inconvenience which would threaten or greatly impair your ability to make that income.

Real people who earn income need a place to do that, and throughout history, we've found that the ideology that's no more complicated than "I gots mine so everyone else f*ck off" doesn't work as well as "hey let's pool an agreed upon amount of our resources and everyone can actually be more prosperous than any of us were before".

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:17 PM
That's great, until someone comes and takes it from you by force.





...and I rest my case.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:18 PM
The last bullet to the brain was when Senators were no longer elected by the states, but by a democratic majority of the people. The soveriegn states lost their powerful voice, and a tyrannical democracy that trampled the liberty of its citizens replaced it.

Al Franken would have never been elected by any legislature to protect the best interests of the states. A professional politician - the cream of that state's crop would have earned that honor. Now it's just about popularity and who can spend the most money to attract the most voters. This is not founding fathers' Republicanism.

What an odd event to fixate on.

Were you aware that change was decided by a supermajority of the "SOVEREIGN11!11!" States?

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:20 PM
...and I rest my case.

Rest your case on what? Your incoherent idea that wasn't even flexible enough to allow for that basic shortcoming?

Jenson71
02-14-2010, 11:21 PM
The last bullet to the brain was when Senators were no longer elected by the states, but by a democratic majority of the people. The soveriegn states lost their powerful voice, and a tyrannical democracy that trampled the liberty of its citizens replaced it.

Al Franken would have never been elected by any legislature to protect the best interests of the states. A professional politician - the cream of that state's crop would have earned that honor. Now it's just about popularity and who can spend the most money to attract the most voters. This is not founding fathers' Republicanism.

I have mixed feelings on the 17th. Overall, I think DiLorenzo is closest to having a point on this than anything else he has written.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:23 PM
Rest your case on what? Your incoherent idea that wasn't even flexible enough to allow for that basic shortcoming?

The use of force to steal property is a "shortcoming?"

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:24 PM
And still manages to hit the nail on the head.

Let's not forget that nobody has even touched a word that I've said with regards to the superior morality of libertarianism. Hurled insults about how it's utopian to believe that government should operate without infringing the liberty of its citizens is hardly compelling.

No, I touched a word on the "superior morality of libertarianism". I said it was needlessly arrogant and overly simplistic. Your version of libertarianism (which isn't the real one that is a legitimate point of view) has to pretend that other people's ideas are cartoonish distortions and somehow it does it while pretending superiority. I guess now you're at least explicit about your arrogant pretensions, which could not be more wholly unmerited.

This whole exchange reminds me not a little of Sarah Palin last week lecturing Obama on using a teleprompter while reading off notes from her hand.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:26 PM
The use of force to steal property is a "shortcoming?"

No, your ideology believing that you should be able to keep every bit of your precious property in your vacuum is a shortcoming because it doesn't allow for the basic fact that sacrificing a piece of it to keep other people from taking whatever they wanted makes infinitely more sense to every governed group of people n history.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:27 PM
Yeah. I'm arrogant while you tell me that defending life, liberty, and property isn't a legitimate point of view - or even libertarian.

It's no wonder you are so confused about what socialism is. You couldn't find your own ass with two hands.

Jenson71
02-14-2010, 11:27 PM
Let's not forget that nobody has even touched a word that I've said with regards to the superior morality of libertarianism.

This superiority rests on the idea that taxes on income are immoral, correct?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:27 PM
No, your ideology believing that you should be able to keep every bit of your precious property in your vacuum doesn't allow for the fact that sacrificing a piece of it to keep other people from taking whatever they wanted makes infinitely more sense to every governed group of people n history.


Which section of the founders constitution can I find this precious gem?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:29 PM
This superiority rests on the idea that taxes on income are immoral, correct?

No. In the idea that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property - and that infringement on these rights by any entity is immoral.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:29 PM
Which section of the founders constitution can I find this precious gem?

I thought you rested your case?

Perhaps you should read John Locke, or Hobbes, or anyone outside of the Mises-only diet. The Founders did and that's why they had that basic understanding.

The rights to life liberty, and property aren't of much value when they aren't secure.

If you missed it in the Constitution, then perhaps I should quote you a piece:

(It's at the very beginning, so it was difficult to locate)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:31 PM
I thought you rested your case?

Perhaps you should read John Locke, or Hobbes, or anyone outside of the Mises-only diet. The Founders did and that's why they had that basic understanding.

The rights to life liberty, and property aren't of much value when they aren't secure.


And they're not secure when you have a government who comes in and takes it by force.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:32 PM
No. In the idea that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property - and that infringement on these rights by any entity is immoral.

Great, now what are you going to do about it when someone does?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:32 PM
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I don't see anything in there about stealing property in order to do it.

Amnorix
02-14-2010, 11:32 PM
I think that its absolutely terrifying that I get called a utopian by the folks who advocate theivery to solve societies' illnesses.

I think it's highly amusing that you think any form of tax (presumably other than property taxes) is thievery.

banyon
02-14-2010, 11:33 PM
And they're not secure when you have a government who comes in and takes it by force.

Were you anally raped recently by federal agents who seized your property?

Oh, you're exaggerating again, like the cartoon. You forgot again that there were votes, elected representatives, years of legislation, etc.

Jenson71
02-14-2010, 11:33 PM
No. In the idea that individuals have rights to their life, liberty, and property - and that infringement on these rights by any entity is immoral.

But there are obvious exceptions. So why can't an income tax be just one of the exceptions?

Taco John
02-14-2010, 11:33 PM
Great, now what are you going to do about it when someone does?

Your sad idea that we can't have a functioning government unless it steals from its citizens isn't a compelling one.