10 Traits Found In Socialists

[DiamondDave]

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.

No the healthcare does not support personal responsibility.. if your mom sits behind you and makes you do something, it is not you being responsible.... if you are getting a leg up at the expense of some else. it is not taking care of your personal responsibilities

The welfare addict reality is far from a myth... and it has nothing to do if they are white, black, yellow, green, Neptunian, or trans dimensional beings

Towards governmental control and subsidy is inherently not towards freedoms... whether you wish to hide your eyes from it or not

I am not 'learning' from anything from you.. I have not claimed he was some total socialist or whatever... I have insisted he has been left wing and that he is supportive of things that are on more of a leftist/socialist path than on a centrist path or on a righty/conservative path.. and i have always been like this... you have changed nothing as I have not changed what I have said all along

 

[DiamondDave]

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"?



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

[/QUOTE]

Jeez.. ever read the bills??? Subsidizing health care for others is indeed wealth redistribution and more in line with a socialist inspired path than a freedom or responsibility path... punishments and focing individuals to be in the health care insurance system (as shown in the bill) is in lines with governmental control and is indeed exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others which is on a totalitarian path and not a libertarian one

The aspects of his big government control and wealth redistribution agendas have been posted time after time after time again.. they should be pretty much accepted as fact at this point

 

[Coyote]

Jeez.. ever read the bills??? Subsidizing health care for others is indeed wealth redistribution and more in line with a socialist inspired path than a freedom or responsibility path...

Agree.

But socialist doesn't necessarily equal totalitarian.

punishments and focing individuals to be in the health care insurance system (as shown in the bill) is in lines with governmental control and is indeed exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others which is on a totalitarian path and not a libertarian one

Ok...I see where you are arguing from but I think your conclusions are false.

If I were to accept that there is only one political axis here - one end being the extreme of socialism (totalitarian) the other being the extreme of libertarian (anarchy) then your point would be valid - this Administration is more on the path towards totalitarian than anarchy. However there is a vast amount of room between where this administration stands and it's policies, and the extreme of totalitarianism and that area in between is not necessarily bad. Totalitarianism is bad. Anarchy is bad. But in the middle is a lot of area to work in.

The aspects of his big government control and wealth redistribution agendas have been posted time after time after time again.. they should be pretty much accepted as fact at this point

Wealth distribution being any form of public charity, subsidizing and progressive taxation?

 

[Vanquish]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

 

[DiamondDave]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

All governments have controls by laws... our system was set up on the personal freedoms, property rights, and smaller government influence that was wanted by the FFs... nowhere was it set up to grow into an entity controlling more and more aspects of the lives of citizenry... nor was it set up to be your mommy to pick you up personally and wipe the dust off your butt after you have fallen over your own 2 feet....

There have not been aspects of wealth redistribution from the beginning... please show that in our Constitution

As for the use of totalitarian... would you prefer authoritarian... statist control??? Because it is sure as hell not based in personal freedoms

 

[Coyote]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

I think that too is my biggest beef - when people start throwing around terms like totalitarian, dictator, Nazi, Socialist, Marxist, Fascist to label most modern day politicians - they haven't a clue what those words really mean.

 

[Coyote]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

All governments have controls by laws... our system was set up on the personal freedoms, property rights, and smaller government influence that was wanted by the FFs... nowhere was it set up to grow into an entity controlling more and more aspects of the lives of citizenry... nor was it set up to be your mommy to pick you up personally and wipe the dust off your butt after you have fallen over your own 2 feet....

There have not been aspects of wealth redistribution from the beginning... please show that in our Constitution

As for the use of totalitarian... would you prefer authoritarian... statist control??? Because it is sure as hell not based in personal freedoms

Statist might be more accurate because totalitarian, at the very least implies no dissent, one party system, no freedom, no rights.

 

[Coyote]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Vanquish again.

sigh...

 

[Charles Stucker]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what?

Try bigger than the optimum size to promote economic prosperity for its citizens. When the government consumes too much of the production, the people lose their freedom as surely as if the government makes mass arrests. Economic slavery is still enslavement.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

This cartoon should explain simply what we Americans are getting damn sick of....

 

[Vanquish]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

All governments have controls by laws... our system was set up on the personal freedoms, property rights, and smaller government influence that was wanted by the FFs... nowhere was it set up to grow into an entity controlling more and more aspects of the lives of citizenry... nor was it set up to be your mommy to pick you up personally and wipe the dust off your butt after you have fallen over your own 2 feet....

There have not been aspects of wealth redistribution from the beginning... please show that in our Constitution

As for the use of totalitarian... would you prefer authoritarian... statist control??? Because it is sure as hell not based in personal freedoms

Go do your history. Let's just start with the income tax. That's income redistribution right there. Started to pay for the Civil War. EVEN IN 1862 it was progressive - rich people paid more! Citizens making $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at 3%. If you made more than $10,000 you paid more. It's as clear and simple as that. OMG...this progressive thing is brand new...Glen Beck told me so!!

But let's stick to the Constitution. The ability to tax for the common good is right there: Section 8. Clause 1. And the collective idea of "General Welfare" is there too.

Now...before you go all crazy on me...I'm going to make a concession - it's possible to take those clauses and the ideas behind them too far. But for the sake of being intellectually honest, please, for God's sake...dont be a partisan hack and keep posting blindly that income redistribution isn't in the Constitution or our history.

Try bigger than the optimum size to promote economic prosperity for its citizens.

Charles, that's one of the most rational things I've seen you post. Not that you claimed it, but it doesn't prove that Obama's for wildly, radically big government though. (Stating this for other parties to the conversation).

"Optimum" and "prosperity" mean different things to different people of course. While you might be willing to do with less government for less benefits, other citizens might want to pay for more government to get back more benefits. I'll agree that bureaucracy can be inefficient - and the basic premise is that there's a "correct" ration of government to benefit. That's a simple concept. But as I've said...some people are willing to give more to get more. And that's why everyone's opinion counts.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Why Socialism is evil....read what a black man, Walter Williams, has to say about it...

According to Marxist doctrine, socialism is a stage of society between capitalism and communism where private ownership and control over property are eliminated. The essence of socialism is the attenuation and ultimate abolition of private property rights. Attacks on private property include, but are not limited to, confiscating the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it doesn't belong. When this is done privately, we call it theft. When it's done collectively, we use euphemisms: income transfers or redistribution.

...

The moral question stands out in starker relief when we acknowledge that those spending programs coming out of Congress do not represent lawmakers reaching into their own pockets and sending out the money. Moreover, there's no tooth fairy or Santa Claus giving them the money. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces us to acknowledge that the only way government can give one American a dollar is to first -- through intimidation, threats and coercion -- take that dollar from some other American.

Some might rejoin that all of this is a result of a democratic process and it's legal. Legality alone is no guide for a moral people. There are many things in this world that have been, or are, legal but clearly immoral. Slavery was legal. Did that make it moral? South Africa's apartheid, Nazi persecution of Jews, and Stalinist and Maoist purges were all legal, but did that make them moral?

Can a moral case be made for taking the rightful property of one American and giving it to another to whom it does not belong? I think not. That's why socialism is evil. It uses evil means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people). We might also note that an act that is inherently evil does not become moral simply because there's a majority consensus.

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft, legal or illegal, is despicable. Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Capitalism Magazine - Socialism is Evil

 

[DiamondDave]

All goverments control their citizens. Even the colonial government back in 1776.

"Big government" is a relative term. Bigger than what? The size of governments grow and wane over years, decades, and centuries. Bigger doesn't necessarily mean oppressive or unresponsive.

Income tax by it's nature is wealth redistribution. Using shared money for the good of all (streets, fire departments, post office) isn't socialist per se. It's definitely NOT totalitarian.

What really irks me the most is that you want to use terms like totalitarian when Obama has not tried even once to stifle voting rights, advocate a one-party system, or use the military to attack his political opponents. STOP misusing terms!!!

And as for being a Socialist...earlier in this thread we've debunked that myth. Hell, in lots of threads on USMB that's been debunked. But it's such an emotional touchstone and useful political tool that it keeps cropping up.

There have always been elements of wealth redistribution since the beginning of this country. You need to get over that hurdle already.

All governments have controls by laws... our system was set up on the personal freedoms, property rights, and smaller government influence that was wanted by the FFs... nowhere was it set up to grow into an entity controlling more and more aspects of the lives of citizenry... nor was it set up to be your mommy to pick you up personally and wipe the dust off your butt after you have fallen over your own 2 feet....

There have not been aspects of wealth redistribution from the beginning... please show that in our Constitution

As for the use of totalitarian... would you prefer authoritarian... statist control??? Because it is sure as hell not based in personal freedoms

Go do your history. Let's just start with the income tax. That's income redistribution right there. Started to pay for the Civil War. EVEN IN 1862 it was progressive - rich people paid more! Citizens making $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at 3%. If you made more than $10,000 you paid more. It's as clear and simple as that. OMG...this progressive thing is brand new...Glen Beck told me so!!

But let's stick to the Constitution. The ability to tax for the common good is right there: Section 8. Clause 1. And the collective idea of "General Welfare" is there too.

Now...before you go all crazy on me...I'm going to make a concession - it's possible to take those clauses and the ideas behind them too far. But for the sake of being intellectually honest, please, for God's sake...dont be a partisan hack and keep posting blindly that income redistribution isn't in the Constitution or our history.

Try bigger than the optimum size to promote economic prosperity for its citizens.

Charles, that's one of the most rational things I've seen you post. Not that you claimed it, but it doesn't prove that Obama's for wildly, radically big government though. (Stating this for other parties to the conversation).

"Optimum" and "prosperity" mean different things to different people of course. While you might be willing to do with less government for less benefits, other citizens might want to pay for more government to get back more benefits. I'll agree that bureaucracy can be inefficient - and the basic premise is that there's a "correct" ration of government to benefit. That's a simple concept. But as I've said...some people are willing to give more to get more. And that's why everyone's opinion counts.

because there has been progressive tax in the past does not mean that I agree with it then or now... Lord knows our power based tax system has been unfair and skewed to buy votes for a long time

and of course... the use of the general welfare clause... the most abused excuse around, whether it be by the government or in defense of wanting something at the expense of government and others.... there is a big difference between the 'General Welfare of the United States' and the individual welfare given to individuals at the expense of others...

Quite frankly, income redistribution to individuals or businesses is NOT in our constitution... the use of tax funds to run our government and the defense of this country of a whole, is

 

[Vanquish]

Of course it is...I've spelled it out for you plain and simple. Any progressive tax is income redistribution, but you want to put your head in the sand to fight Obama...instead of having an intellectually honest debate.

But let's be clear...since you've said that you dont care what's been done in the past...I dont EVER want to see you posting about what the Founding Fathers meant....or that what X,Y,Z group is doing doesnt fit what the Founders wanted...because that means you DO care what's happened in the past.

It's a shame that emotion overtakes reason.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

But let's stick to the Constitution. The ability to tax for the common good is right there: Section 8. Clause 1. And the collective idea of "General Welfare" is there too.

Just because the words are there does not mean we have to lay down for every damn tax and spend socialist "general welfare" program people dream up...

It has been a long ongoing argument historically as to what the "general welfare" clause really means....Madison said it meant nothing more than a reference to the other powers that were enumerated in the Constitution while Hamilton said it was meant as a power unto itself...that Congress has the power to tax as long as it is for the "general welfare"....

However I believe there comes a point where paying up for the "general welfare" becomes at odds with one's individual freedom....

Like I've asked you liberals before.....exactly what percentage of your paycheck do you wish to have confiscated......? How much freedom are you willing to give up? 20% 50% 75% 95% ...let me know....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Of course it is...I've spelled it out for you plain and simple. Any progressive tax is income redistribution, but you want to put your head in the sand to fight Obama...instead of having an intellectually honest debate.

But let's be clear...since you've said that you dont care what's been done in the past...I dont EVER want to see you posting about what the Founding Fathers meant....or that what X,Y,Z group is doing doesnt fit what the Founders wanted...because that means you DO care what's happened in the past.

It's a shame that emotion overtakes reason.

If progressive taxation is income redistribution.....does that fall under socialism or marxism...?

 

[Vanquish]

Better ask the Republican Abraham Lincoln...since the progressive national tax was implemented to help pay for the Civil War.

 

[DiamondDave]

Of course it is...I've spelled it out for you plain and simple. Any progressive tax is income redistribution, but you want to put your head in the sand to fight Obama...instead of having an intellectually honest debate.

But let's be clear...since you've said that you dont care what's been done in the past...I dont EVER want to see you posting about what the Founding Fathers meant....or that what X,Y,Z group is doing doesnt fit what the Founders wanted...because that means you DO care what's happened in the past.

It's a shame that emotion overtakes reason.

Nice attempt to try and change word, fake 'centrist'.... I never said I did not care what happened in the past... I stated that just because it happened in the past does not mean I supported it then or now... big difference, o disingenuous one

because there has been progressive tax in the past does not mean that I agree with it then or now

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Better ask the Republican Abraham Lincoln...since the progressive national tax was implemented to help pay for the Civil War.

Obviously Hamilton's followers were busily making mistakes even back then...because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that taxes can be levied unequally....

What we need in America today is for everybody to get, say, a $35,000 deduction, and then on top of that an equal, say, 20% tax on what they make above that figure...that would be a just and fair taxation system...

 

[Vanquish]

Dood. Stop insulting me. Can you make one argument without insults so that I can take you seriously?

I'm not a fake centrist...nor did I change THE MEANING of your words.

I know you don't like being caught in them, but you typed it...live up to them.

Seriously, if you insult me one more time, I'm going to have to put you on ignore. Not that you'd care, but I'm just honestly trying to get through to you - man to man - that you're being unreasonable.