10 Traits Found In Socialists

[☭proletarian☭]

all powerful state control needed to ensure compliance to the forced 'equality'

Still crying about forced desegregation?

The same old bullshit hackneyed straw man argument that people who want less government interference in their lives are some how racist.

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

 

[DiamondDave]

Still crying about forced desegregation?

The same old bullshit hackneyed straw man argument that people who want less government interference in their lives are some how racist.

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

Equal TREATMENT is a charge of government... equalized outcome is indeed wrong

 

[Meister]

Still crying about forced desegregation?

The same old bullshit hackneyed straw man argument that people who want less government interference in their lives are some how racist.

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

How did you get that? Equality isn't evil, what is evil is the way government is enforcing equality.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Still crying about forced desegregation?

The same old bullshit hackneyed straw man argument that people who want less government interference in their lives are some how racist.

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

You're too fucking thick to realize that forced equality of outcomes is not the same as equality of rights and liberties.

If you truly want to protect individual rights and liberties, you cannot mandate the equality of outcomes based on an individuals personal decisions. All you can and should do is defend the right of one to make his own decisions.

 

[DiamondDave]

The US is based on a constitutional republic with the protection of individual freedoms over state forced equality...

The states have always used force to protect those rights and enforce equal rights and protection. If they didn't, no law demanding equal rights would have any weight.

Socialism and governments that go more and more towards the socialist mantra cannot exist with 'democracy'

People no longer vote for their representatives in America?

Though you wish we were indeed a socialist government or country, we are not... even though the far left tries to get us closer and closer.... so whether we vote in this country or not has nothing to do with the fact that states or countries subscribing to the socialist mantra must become more and more controlling and less and less about anything 'democratic' or dealing in freedoms

Equal treatment is one thing.... and that is what government is charged to help ensure... so that we may enjoy our individual freedoms.... the state is not there to force you to take care of the personal responsibilities of others in a free society... and when more and more things go towards this equalized outcome and redistribution, more and more freedoms disappear and more and more state control takes the place of those freedoms

 

[Vanquish]

Here's what's amazing to me...

1. Obama nor Democrats are advocating a single-party system.

2. While the government did, for a short time, control certain auto-makers, they're not advocating government ownership of the means of private production (while they may be market actors, they're not trying to take over any and all business types.) Government, aside from normal investment methods, doesn't just take the profits as owners.

3. Obama and Dems aren't trying to take over all private property. While there are styles of socialism that don't require this as an element, OB's detractors seem to push that he's a hard-line socialist so show me where he's pushing for this?

4. Obama and Dems aren't looking for the common management of all production. This is different from mere ownership of course. He's not trying to take over the day-to-day of HomeDepot, WalMart, Columbia Pictures, ConAgra foods...or any other corporation and I defy you to show me that he is.

5. While distribution of income to aid the less fortunate by means of government didn't start with FDR and was implemented much earlier in our government. The mere idea of municipal charity goes towards the betterment of the entire country. General welfare, and good of the country are in the fricking Constitution.

The really crazy thing is...that there are a whole host of "socialist" uses of taxes...if you define socialist as using money for the collective good. Merely being "collective" ISNT SOCIALIST!!!

That's where the conservatives have really pulled a fast one. They've convinced every Tom, Dick and Hairy that money used for all citizens = socialist. Any collective good = socialist.

You do realize that one of the MAIN differences between socialism (in its hybrid style) and communism is that communists espouse that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be gotten rid of with as soon as possible in order to create a classless society is formed. Socialists, on theother hand, can integrate capitalism as a possible part of the ideal political situation.

But no, people hear "socialist" and they get scared...so they group together...and that gives their wacky idea more power (group delusion) and fiction becomes truth...in their minds.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The same old bullshit hackneyed straw man argument that people who want less government interference in their lives are some how racist.

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

Equal TREATMENT is a charge of government... equalized outcome is indeed wrong

Equal opportunity, not outcome, is what's being enforced. Yours is the rallying cry of the 'separate but equal' segregationists who were more than happy to let people starve because they had no money for an education to get a better job and blame their failings on their themselves with no thought of the conditions placed upon them.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Though you wish we were indeed a socialist government or country, we are not...

Right...

do you know the definition of 'socialism'? It's a point of socioeconomic development.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

Equal TREATMENT is a charge of government... equalized outcome is indeed wrong

Equal opportunity, not outcome, is what's being enforced. Yours is the rallying cry of the 'separate but equal' segregationists who were more than happy to let people starve because they had no money for an education to get a better job and blame their failings on their themselves with no thought of the conditions placed upon them.

Really?

How does me paying a larger share of my income in taxes so it can be given to another protect equal opportunity?

Seems to me that my opportunities are being lessened as more and more of my money and therefore my ability and opportunity to secure a financially secure future is jeopardized not protected by the libby progressive platform.

Face it, what you call equal opportunity is nothing but government forcing those who choose to succeed to subsidize those who choose not to.

And notice in not one of my posts have I used the word socialist.

 

[DiamondDave]

It's not a straw man, you idiot. He's literally complaining about the government enforcing equality because equality is evil.

Equal TREATMENT is a charge of government... equalized outcome is indeed wrong

Equal opportunity, not outcome, is what's being enforced. Yours is the rallying cry of the 'separate but equal' segregationists who were more than happy to let people starve because they had no money for an education to get a better job and blame their failings on their themselves with no thought of the conditions placed upon them.

Entitlements are not equal treatment.. they are indeed in the line of equalized outcome... same with progressive tax codes and the selective equality championed by the far left

Mine is the cry of freedom... not of segregation... mine is the cry of voluntary charity... not of redistribution at the hands of the state

epic fail

 

[NYcarbineer]

soon as one of you socialist libtards tells me what this socialist "equality" is.. you afraid to go there???

I have no idea what it means. Why are you afraid to tell me whether or not you support having a public school system?

I can't answer til you answer,, I wanna know what socialist equality means..

Yeah, none of the wingnuts here will answer it, because they know their answer will make them and the OP look like morons.

But, anyhow, again, how many of you conservatives want to abolish public school systems,

which the OP identifies a socialist...

 

[WillowTree]

Here's what's amazing to me...

1. Obama nor Democrats are advocating a single-party system. The hell you say.. they're running a single party system.. you haven't noticed that?

2. While the government did, for a short time, control certain auto-makers, they're not advocating government ownership of the means of private production (while they may be market actors, they're not trying to take over any and all business types.) Government, aside from normal investment methods, doesn't just take the profits as owners.they own it and gave it to their union buddies. hello

3. Obama and Dems aren't trying to take over all private property. While there are styles of socialism that don't require this as an element, OB's detractors seem to push that he's a hard-line socialist so show me where he's pushing for this?

4. Obama and Dems aren't looking for the common management of all production. This is different from mere ownership of course. He's not trying to take over the day-to-day of HomeDepot, WalMart, Columbia Pictures, ConAgra foods...or any other corporation and I defy you to show me that he is.

5. While distribution of income to aid the less fortunate by means of government didn't start with FDR and was implemented much earlier in our government. The mere idea of municipal charity goes towards the betterment of the entire country. General welfare, and good of the country are in the fricking Constitution.

The really crazy thing is...that there are a whole host of "socialist" uses of taxes...if you define socialist as using money for the collective good. Merely being "collective" ISNT SOCIALIST!!!

That's where the conservatives have really pulled a fast one. They've convinced every Tom, Dick and Hairy that money used for all citizens = socialist. Any collective good = socialist.

You do realize that one of the MAIN differences between socialism (in its hybrid style) and communism is that communists espouse that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be gotten rid of with as soon as possible in order to create a classless society is formed. Socialists, on theother hand, can integrate capitalism as a possible part of the ideal political situation.

But no, people hear "socialist" and they get scared...so they group together...and that gives their wacky idea more power (group delusion) and fiction becomes truth...in their minds.

I couldn't read all of it, you are so beyond rediculous

 

[WillowTree]

I have no idea what it means. Why are you afraid to tell me whether or not you support having a public school system?

I can't answer til you answer,, I wanna know what socialist equality means..

Yeah, none of the wingnuts here will answer it, because they know their answer will make them and the OP look like morons.

But, anyhow, again, how many of you conservatives want to abolish public school systems,

which the OP identifies a socialist...

what is equality,,?

 

[NYcarbineer]

2.Socialists believe in slavery. Their concept is not the slavery of an individual owning another individual, but of a state owning the output of the individual. We are now forced to work four months out of the year for the federal government before we see a dime of our own income....

Okay, so let's abolish the military. That'll move that date back a LOT, won't it?? Hmmm, let me guess, all you cons here LOVE that kind of socialism...

 

[WillowTree]

The OP says it's a sign you're a socialist if you support having a public school system. Do you or do you not support having a public school system,

or are you afraid to answer the question?

soon as one of you socialist libtards tells me what this socialist "equality" is.. you afraid to go there???

You don't know what 'equality' is?

Let me google that for you

ok,, well let me know when you dimwits are for equality.. til then I'm against the public school system.. when we all pay for it "equally" then I'll vote for it..same with your socialized medicine, we we all pay equally then I'll be for it. no freebies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I can't answer til you answer,, I wanna know what socialist equality means..

Yeah, none of the wingnuts here will answer it, because they know their answer will make them and the OP look like morons.

But, anyhow, again, how many of you conservatives want to abolish public school systems,

which the OP identifies a socialist...

what is equality,,?

This is not Jeopardy. You don't have to put your answer in the form of a question.

 

[DiamondDave]

I have no idea what it means. Why are you afraid to tell me whether or not you support having a public school system?

I can't answer til you answer,, I wanna know what socialist equality means..

Yeah, none of the wingnuts here will answer it, because they know their answer will make them and the OP look like morons.

But, anyhow, again, how many of you conservatives want to abolish public school systems,

which the OP identifies a socialist...

I want to abolish the fed agencies dealing with public schools.... have the states/localities deal with schooling of the minors/children.... but I also believe in private and home schooling for those that choose... I want to abolish any and all government activities of subsidizing or providing schooling to adults who should be taking care of their own responsibilities... I fully believe in more VOLUNTARY taxation means for the funding of schools, such as lotteries...

 

[Vanquish]

Here's what's amazing to me...

1. Obama nor Democrats are advocating a single-party system. The hell you say.. they're running a single party system.. you haven't noticed that?

2. While the government did, for a short time, control certain auto-makers, they're not advocating government ownership of the means of private production (while they may be market actors, they're not trying to take over any and all business types.) Government, aside from normal investment methods, doesn't just take the profits as owners.they own it and gave it to their union buddies. hello

3. Obama and Dems aren't trying to take over all private property. While there are styles of socialism that don't require this as an element, OB's detractors seem to push that he's a hard-line socialist so show me where he's pushing for this?

4. Obama and Dems aren't looking for the common management of all production. This is different from mere ownership of course. He's not trying to take over the day-to-day of HomeDepot, WalMart, Columbia Pictures, ConAgra foods...or any other corporation and I defy you to show me that he is.

5. While distribution of income to aid the less fortunate by means of government didn't start with FDR and was implemented much earlier in our government. The mere idea of municipal charity goes towards the betterment of the entire country. General welfare, and good of the country are in the fricking Constitution.

The really crazy thing is...that there are a whole host of "socialist" uses of taxes...if you define socialist as using money for the collective good. Merely being "collective" ISNT SOCIALIST!!!

That's where the conservatives have really pulled a fast one. They've convinced every Tom, Dick and Hairy that money used for all citizens = socialist. Any collective good = socialist.

You do realize that one of the MAIN differences between socialism (in its hybrid style) and communism is that communists espouse that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be gotten rid of with as soon as possible in order to create a classless society is formed. Socialists, on theother hand, can integrate capitalism as a possible part of the ideal political situation.

But no, people hear "socialist" and they get scared...so they group together...and that gives their wacky idea more power (group delusion) and fiction becomes truth...in their minds.

I couldn't read all of it, you are so beyond rediculous

First, spell ridiculous correctly and I might care.
Second, actually respond to my points with ACTUAL ARGUMENTS and I might care.
Third, stop being such an obvious troll and I might care.

Oh wait...your response is unnecessary - because I dont care.

 

[Coyote]

Disagree. And here's just one reason.

2.Socialists believe in slavery. Their concept is not the slavery of an individual owning another individual, but of a state owning the output of the individual. We are now forced to work four months out of the year for the federal government before we see a dime of our own income, and it's getting worse. Our new administrtion has just indebted every family an additional $11,000 without our permission or approval. This is economic slavery. (If you don't believe me, watch what happens if you don't pay your taxes. See No. 1 above.)

Slavery? No, if you want slavery think about this. How much time do you spend at work? How much vacation time do you get in a year? You should work enough to meet your needs, not to line the pockets of those who own your labour.

Add to that, writer of that piece hasn't a clue about slavery if he thinks his whiney little rant is any kind of slavery. Economic slavery? Try the Marianas Islands.

 

[beowolfe]

Totally lame

Do you really have any idea of what socialism is? We could easily substitute the word "Republican" for "Socialist" and be just as accurate

1. Republicans believe in use of force to gain their personal ends

2. Republicans believe in slavery

3. Republicans are racist

need more??

Nice but decidedly not true.
Republicans fought a war to eliminate slavery.
Republicans do not believe in the use of force for personal ends. In fact, they want limits on government power, period.

So thanks, but your silly talking points are flat.

Those Republicans would wage war against today's republicans in a heart beat; and for the very same reason.........attempting to split the union.