10 Traits Found In Socialists

[Vanquish]

I guess for my answer, I would just list Obama's Cabinet and Czars.

psst... the communists and socialists were mortal enemies of the scars...

Russian Revolution (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educating them about the reality of socialism is futile...but thanks for the effort.
Many of us, in this very thread, have outlined, illustrated, educated, and explained how Obama's not a socialist, but they dont want to listen.

 

[DiamondDave]

I guess for my answer, I would just list Obama's Cabinet and Czars.

psst... the communists and socialists were mortal enemies of the scars...

Russian Revolution (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educating them about the reality of socialism is futile...but thanks for the effort.
Many of us, in this very thread, have outlined, illustrated, educated, and explained how Obama's not a socialist, but they dont want to listen.

You have merely outlined that he is not a purist socialist... but many of your opponents have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control in a system much closer on the socialist path than a path based on freedom and individual rights

 

[Coyote]

psst... the communists and socialists were mortal enemies of the scars...

Russian Revolution (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educating them about the reality of socialism is futile...but thanks for the effort.
Many of us, in this very thread, have outlined, illustrated, educated, and explained how Obama's not a socialist, but they dont want to listen.

You have merely outlined that he is not a purist socialist... but many of your opponents have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control in a system much closer on the socialist path than a path based on freedom and individual rights

Hardly.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote has argued my point for me. If capitalism is amoral, his assertions that


are false, since its ays nothing about protecting any rights and is based on the principle that the capitalist takes the profits/product of another man's labour.

I'm not sure what you're saying here...maybe it's the inherent contradiction of pure capitalism in theory and capitalism in practice? Theory vs human nature? Pure socialism sounds great in theory...but in practice doesn't work.

Capitalism has been - generally speaking - a brilliant event for humanity. I don't want to sound too lofty here but it has definitely improved the world far more than if it had not existed. Yes there have been problems with it, yes it's built on exploitation and yes it depends on class hierarchy to work, but on balance we are all better off for it. Have a look at the political/economic/social systems that preceded it. Feudalism - how's that for exploitation? Mercantilism great if you're a stockholder of the East India Company, not so good if you're watching your country being colonised! At least capitalism works on some sort of exchange basis and respects - theoretically - individual and state's rights.

I to agree - in terms of a national economy, capitalism has by far worked the best - we would not be where we are were it not for that. But, I don't see how capitalism respects individual rights exactly - not in terms of worker exploitation (in less I'm misunderstanding you). Things like unions and labor laws for example, are the workers and the government attempting to regulate capitalism and would be a socialist influence.

Problem is that capitalism requires resources, and lots of them, to work. In times of scarcity of resources it will fall over. We've all benefited from the exploitation of resources over the past hundred years or so of capitalism, to the point where humanity in general is able to exist as never before in history. Before someone brings up Darfur please let me note that I am having to use generalities.

Not "we've all" - some countries, predominately the western world which industrialized early under capitalism - have strongly benefited at the cost to other countries who've been exploited for their raw resources.

We know natural resources are dwindling. When that really begins to bite then capitalism will have to cede to socialism, to a planned approach to exploiting natural resources and their distribution.

And I agree it has to be practical, not theoretical and therefore it will - I think - have a good mixed approach.

You make an interesting point....I see the balance of capitalism-socialism as the balance between individual rights/responsibilities vs societal rights/responsibilities - individual good vs greater good. Too far in the direction of capitalism leads to great suffering for too many people to be acceptable in a modern society while too far in the socialistic direction leads to economic ruin.

Command economies in the past have failed because of an inability of the planners to predict consumer needs and demands. The benefit of a market system is that consumer needs and demands are expressed very quickly and picked up very aptly by companies willing to meet those needs and demands. However, capitalism has given us greater knowledge and technology and it is entirely possible that the mistakes of the past in command economies can be overcome by looking at the mistakes and using technology and knowledge as it exists now and into the future, to rectify those mistakes.

 

[DiamondDave]

Educating them about the reality of socialism is futile...but thanks for the effort.
Many of us, in this very thread, have outlined, illustrated, educated, and explained how Obama's not a socialist, but they dont want to listen.

You have merely outlined that he is not a purist socialist... but many of your opponents have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control in a system much closer on the socialist path than a path based on freedom and individual rights

Hardly.

Hardly???

Hogwash

It has been shown that he is indeed farther from free enterprise, personal responsibility, expanded government control than he is from the path towards socialism.... to believe otherwise is simply living life with the blinders on that Obama and the other exalted lefties have issued you

 

[Coyote]

Socialism creates slavery. When millions of people are completely dependant upon a government for most of their everyday needs, they become slaves to the system. Many liberal democrat programs that have been put in place in this country are very similar. When someone cannot eat or pay their bills until a federal check comes in the mail, they are not free. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. Liberalsim and Socialsim give men fish. Conservatism allows them to fish.

At their extremes both capitalism and socialism create a form of slavery. It's human nature.

 

[Coyote]

You have merely outlined that he is not a purist socialist... but many of your opponents have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control in a system much closer on the socialist path than a path based on freedom and individual rights

Hardly.

Hardly???

Hogwash

It has been shown that he is indeed farther from free enterprise, personal responsibility, expanded government control than he is from the path towards socialism.... to believe otherwise is simply living life with the blinders on that Obama and the other exalted lefties have issued you

That isn't what you said. You said: have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control

 

[DiamondDave]

Hardly.

Hardly???

Hogwash

It has been shown that he is indeed farther from free enterprise, personal responsibility, expanded government control than he is from the path towards socialism.... to believe otherwise is simply living life with the blinders on that Obama and the other exalted lefties have issued you

That isn't what you said. You said: have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control

And he is.. he may not be a complete socialist (mainly because he would fear taking a dirt nap because of it)... but he has REPEATEDLY shown the propensity for statist control, expansion of government power and grasp, which is well on the side towards socialist control,..... sorry if you cannot accept it because of your issued blinders

 

[Coyote]

Hardly???

Hogwash

It has been shown that he is indeed farther from free enterprise, personal responsibility, expanded government control than he is from the path towards socialism.... to believe otherwise is simply living life with the blinders on that Obama and the other exalted lefties have issued you

That isn't what you said. You said: have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control

And he is.. he may not be a complete socialist (mainly because he would fear taking a dirt nap because of it)... but he has REPEATEDLY shown the propensity for statist control, expansion of government power and grasp, which is well on the side towards socialist control,..... sorry if you cannot accept it because of your issued blinders

It has nothing to do with blinders or "accepting". It has everything to do with a dirth of facts. Present some facts that indicate have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control . If you can.

 

[DiamondDave]

That isn't what you said. You said: have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control

And he is.. he may not be a complete socialist (mainly because he would fear taking a dirt nap because of it)... but he has REPEATEDLY shown the propensity for statist control, expansion of government power and grasp, which is well on the side towards socialist control,..... sorry if you cannot accept it because of your issued blinders

It has nothing to do with blinders or "accepting". It has everything to do with a dirth of facts. Present some facts that indicate have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control . If you can.

Government intervention of private enterprise
Adding governmental control (in front of or behind the scenes) with the business interventions
Government intervention in personal responsibilities such as health care
Expansion of government in the reach for health care
Government intervention into production (see cap and trade goals)
Wealth redistribution as shown by the support for unequal punishment and taxation for earnings as evidenced in which groups will be targeted for taxation for entitlement programs

If you simply cannot or will not see that this person is well to the left of center, and that socialism and increased governmental power is much of the motivation behind it.... then you are too far gone

 

[Vanquish]

Arguing with DiamondDave is pointless. He's wrong..and he's going to keep squirreling around. He can't prove Obama's a socialist or a fascist or any other "-ist" for that matter.

Capitalism is indeed a great system in that it mimics the free-for-all of nature. That is to say, there is no naturally-correct economic system, so the random nature of human psychology and action fits with Capitalism very well.

That being said, as rational, sentient beings, we've learned over the last 10,000 years to plan for the future. We've also constrained ourselves with laws and morality. So pure cut-throat capitalism based on a disparity of power and resources isn't optimum for the well-being of all (insert the word collective if you're a paranoid conservative). So people band together and institute rules for constraining Capitalism.

Just remember, history shows us that people with money and power use that advantage and influence to keep other people down...and attempt to attain more money and power. There's got to be a balance between cut-throat "anyone can do anything to anyone else" and "the government tells you exactly how to act".

Them's just the facts.

 

[Coyote]

And he is.. he may not be a complete socialist (mainly because he would fear taking a dirt nap because of it)... but he has REPEATEDLY shown the propensity for statist control, expansion of government power and grasp, which is well on the side towards socialist control,..... sorry if you cannot accept it because of your issued blinders

It has nothing to do with blinders or "accepting". It has everything to do with a dirth of facts. Present some facts that indicate have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control . If you can.

Government intervention of private enterprise
Adding governmental control (in front of or behind the scenes) with the business interventions
Government intervention in personal responsibilities such as health care
Expansion of government in the reach for health care
Government intervention into production (see cap and trade goals)
Wealth redistribution as shown by the support for unequal punishment and taxation for earnings as evidenced in which groups will be targeted for taxation for entitlement programs

If you simply cannot or will not see that this person is well to the left of center, and that socialism and increased governmental power is much of the motivation behind it.... then you are too far gone

You are speaking in generalizations - not facts.

Let me help you:

Definition of Totalitarianism 1. A system of highly centralized government in which one political party or group takes control and grants neither recognition nor tolerance to other political groups. 2. Autocracy in one of its several varieties. 3. The character or traits of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, party, government, or state

None of your generalizations meet that definition. In fact, all of your examples have been going on for years through a variety of conservative and liberal administrations. Something as simple as child labor laws would be totalitarian according to your generalizations.

 

[DiamondDave]

It has nothing to do with blinders or "accepting". It has everything to do with a dirth of facts. Present some facts that indicate have clearly shown you that he is well on the side of totalitarian centralized state control . If you can.

Government intervention of private enterprise
Adding governmental control (in front of or behind the scenes) with the business interventions
Government intervention in personal responsibilities such as health care
Expansion of government in the reach for health care
Government intervention into production (see cap and trade goals)
Wealth redistribution as shown by the support for unequal punishment and taxation for earnings as evidenced in which groups will be targeted for taxation for entitlement programs

If you simply cannot or will not see that this person is well to the left of center, and that socialism and increased governmental power is much of the motivation behind it.... then you are too far gone

You are speaking in generalizations - not facts.

Let me help you:

Definition of Totalitarianism 1. A system of highly centralized government in which one political party or group takes control and grants neither recognition nor tolerance to other political groups. 2. Autocracy in one of its several varieties. 3. The character or traits of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, party, government, or state

None of your generalizations meet that definition. In fact, all of your examples have been going on for years through a variety of conservative and liberal administrations. Something as simple as child labor laws would be totalitarian according to your generalizations.

1) It is generalizing the events and actions of Obama and this administration so far... because I am not going to post every detail about bailouts, or government expansion of health care, etc... it is fact and it is there

And perhaps you should read further into totalitarianism


to·tal·i·tar·i·an
   /toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

2) Protection of individual rights such as child labor laws (considering legally children are minors) is not totalitarian... but forcing adults in ways such as the health care proposals is

I will stick with the fact that Obama is more in line with socialist behavior and government control than he is with liberty and personal freedoms..... it is quite simple to see.. except for a winger such as yourself....

 

[Vanquish]

Dude...when you use such sweeping terms...they can be applied to anyone. I could use the definitions you post on any president in the history of...well...ever.

Socialism is narrowly defined (although there are hybrid systems) and Obama doesnt meet that definition. It's a Republican scare-tactic that's apparently worked on you. Congrats.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dude...when you use such sweeping terms...they can be applied to anyone. I could use the definitions you post on any president in the history of...well...ever.

Socialism is narrowly defined (although there are hybrid systems) and Obama doesnt meet that definition. It's a Republican scare-tactic that's apparently worked on you. Congrats.

As stated, you absolute buffoon... I did not state that Obama was some total socialist... however.. that the far left is indeed inspired by socialist behavior and practices and Obama is more in line with that then he is with the concepts of freedom, personal responsibilities and individual rights

To state he is more in line with 1 ideology and not the opposing ideology is not out of line.. and it is evidenced by his actions and words....

Just because you have drank the kool-aid, does not mean others have

 

[Vanquish]

Keep the insults down. Words like buffoon are unnecessary if your arguments are valid.

You're making him out to be against mom, america and apple pie...pardon..."freedom, personal responsibilities and individual rights" ...which you still haven't proven at all.

The healthcare plan supports personal responsibility...by giving people a leg up until they can pay for themselves. You make operate from the assumption that people who need help will be lazy and always keep asking for help...I operate from the assumption that people who need help eventually want to be self-sufficient. The "welfare myth" is exactly that ...a myth. Conservatives have this fear of the urban black who keeps having babies and doesnt want to work...a fear that's entirely outside of reality.

To say someone is against freedom is a baseless insult that's pandering to the weak. You can't prove that assertion because it's so generic.

So keep being partisan...instead of trying to truly look at the issues with no bias. It makes your posts less and less worth reading.

I will give you credit for admitting that he's not socialist though. You're learning.

 

[Charles Stucker]

This person obviously doesn't know what socialism really is.

And yet pegged the indisputable fact that socialists live in Egypt (Denial)

 

[Coyote]

Government intervention of private enterprise
Adding governmental control (in front of or behind the scenes) with the business interventions
Government intervention in personal responsibilities such as health care
Expansion of government in the reach for health care
Government intervention into production (see cap and trade goals)
Wealth redistribution as shown by the support for unequal punishment and taxation for earnings as evidenced in which groups will be targeted for taxation for entitlement programs

If you simply cannot or will not see that this person is well to the left of center, and that socialism and increased governmental power is much of the motivation behind it.... then you are too far gone

You are speaking in generalizations - not facts.

Let me help you:

Definition of Totalitarianism 1. A system of highly centralized government in which one political party or group takes control and grants neither recognition nor tolerance to other political groups. 2. Autocracy in one of its several varieties. 3. The character or traits of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, party, government, or state

None of your generalizations meet that definition. In fact, all of your examples have been going on for years through a variety of conservative and liberal administrations. Something as simple as child labor laws would be totalitarian according to your generalizations.

1) It is generalizing the events and actions of Obama and this administration so far... because I am not going to post every detail about bailouts, or government expansion of health care, etc... it is fact and it is there

Generalizing is *not* facts, it's opinion. No one is asking you to post "every detail" but a few facts are necessary to have a debate.

And perhaps you should read further into totalitarianism


to·tal·i·tar·i·an
   /toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriən/ Show Spelled[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uhn] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2.
exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.

Interesting but, it's essentially little different from what I posted and still not even remotely accurate in terms of what this administration is doing.

2) Protection of individual rights such as child labor laws (considering legally children are minors) is not totalitarian... but forcing adults in ways such as the health care proposals is

Looking at your definition above, how is that "totalitarian"?

I will stick with the fact that Obama is more in line with socialist behavior and government control than he is with liberty and personal freedoms..... it is quite simple to see.. except for a winger such as yourself....

You can stick to what ever you want, but it's not a "fact".

 

[DiamondDave]

You are speaking in generalizations - not facts.

Let me help you:

Definition of Totalitarianism 1. A system of highly centralized government in which one political party or group takes control and grants neither recognition nor tolerance to other political groups. 2. Autocracy in one of its several varieties. 3. The character or traits of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, party, government, or state

None of your generalizations meet that definition. In fact, all of your examples have been going on for years through a variety of conservative and liberal administrations. Something as simple as child labor laws would be totalitarian according to your generalizations.

1) It is generalizing the events and actions of Obama and this administration so far... because I am not going to post every detail about bailouts, or government expansion of health care, etc... it is fact and it is there

Generalizing is *not* facts, it's opinion. No one is asking you to post "every detail" but a few facts are necessary to have a debate.



Interesting but, it's essentially little different from what I posted and still not even remotely accurate in terms of what this administration is doing.

2) Protection of individual rights such as child labor laws (considering legally children are minors) is not totalitarian... but forcing adults in ways such as the health care proposals is

Looking at your definition above, how is that "totalitarian"?

I will stick with the fact that Obama is more in line with socialist behavior and government control than he is with liberty and personal freedoms..... it is quite simple to see.. except for a winger such as yourself....

You can stick to what ever you want, but it's not a "fact".

You fucking idiot... just because I am not retyping EVERY last detail behind the governmental forced health care or the bailouts, etc does not make it opinion... it happened and is indeed fact

It is ENTIRELY accurate in terms of what this administration is doing with it's agenda.... threats of government force and expanded control (as well as out and out expansion over individual freedoms and personal responsibility) is along the path to totalitarianism or authoritarianism rather than liberty

No.. Obama is not a totalitarian leftist along the lines of Stalin or a national socialist like Hitler... but it does not mean he is not on that pathway instead of being on the pathway towards stances based on less government power, no governmental redistribution, etc

 

[Coyote]

1) It is generalizing the events and actions of Obama and this administration so far... because I am not going to post every detail about bailouts, or government expansion of health care, etc... it is fact and it is there

Generalizing is *not* facts, it's opinion. No one is asking you to post "every detail" but a few facts are necessary to have a debate.



Interesting but, it's essentially little different from what I posted and still not even remotely accurate in terms of what this administration is doing.



Looking at your definition above, how is that "totalitarian"?

I will stick with the fact that Obama is more in line with socialist behavior and government control than he is with liberty and personal freedoms..... it is quite simple to see.. except for a winger such as yourself....

You can stick to what ever you want, but it's not a "fact".

You fucking idiot... just because I am not retyping EVERY last detail behind the governmental forced health care or the bailouts, etc does not make it opinion... it happened and is indeed fact

What part of "No one is asking you to post "every detail" " is so difficult to understand? A few actual facts would be helpful.

It is ENTIRELY accurate in terms of what this administration is doing with it's agenda.... threats of government force and expanded control (as well as out and out expansion over individual freedoms and personal responsibility) is along the path to totalitarianism or authoritarianism rather than liberty

Got any actual examples?

No.. Obama is not a totalitarian leftist along the lines of Stalin or a national socialist like Hitler... but it does not mean he is not on that pathway instead of being on the pathway towards stances based on less government power, no governmental redistribution, etc

He is not a "totalitarian" in any sense of the word. More government power does not equal "totalitarian" nor does it mean being on a pathway - that's the slippery slope fallacy.