Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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...
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...
So socialism is okay if it's at the state level? State governments are governments too. Maybe we should just all consider the possibility that if public schools are socialism, maybe socialism isn't ALL bad. Maybe it's not the DEVIL, so maybe it shouldn't be demonized.
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.
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.
I want to ask the question: are any of you guys really unaware the public schools buildings and teacher's salaries are paid for by local/state property taxes? That any money from the feds which comes from the US Dept of Ed pays for none of those things? The DofE budget is used entirely to shape local schooling through grants to promote federal policies, some of which are fine, yes, but it all still amounts to interference in local public schools.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...
See that's how arguments get muddied...RIGHT THERE. You take a term or an idea and you go off on a tangent...you see how it barely touches...and somehow you have two things equating that aren't the same.
Look at every single one of the points I made again. These are CLEAR distinctions from socialism that you either can't or dont want to admit. I can't make it any clearer for you. He's not a socialist. Stop repeating what others are telling you and THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Don't trust me? How about this. Take a week and spend an hour a day learning about what socialism is. Vary your sources. Don't just settle for the internet...go to the actual library. Read, absorb, digest.
Don't post about socialism until that week is up. Until you really know what the hell you're talking about.
See that's how arguments get muddied...RIGHT THERE. You take a term or an idea and you go off on a tangent...you see how it barely touches...and somehow you have two things equating that aren't the same.
Look at every single one of the points I made again. These are CLEAR distinctions from socialism that you either can't or dont want to admit. I can't make it any clearer for you. He's not a socialist. Stop repeating what others are telling you and THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Don't trust me? How about this. Take a week and spend an hour a day learning about what socialism is. Vary your sources. Don't just settle for the internet...go to the actual library. Read, absorb, digest.
Don't post about socialism until that week is up. Until you really know what the hell you're talking about.
So....60% government ownership of GM is not socialism...?
See that's how arguments get muddied...RIGHT THERE. You take a term or an idea and you go off on a tangent...you see how it barely touches...and somehow you have two things equating that aren't the same.
Look at every single one of the points I made again. These are CLEAR distinctions from socialism that you either can't or dont want to admit. I can't make it any clearer for you. He's not a socialist. Stop repeating what others are telling you and THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Don't trust me? How about this. Take a week and spend an hour a day learning about what socialism is. Vary your sources. Don't just settle for the internet...go to the actual library. Read, absorb, digest.
Don't post about socialism until that week is up. Until you really know what the hell you're talking about.
So....60% government ownership of GM is not socialism...?
No.
Agree or disagree...?
1.Socialists believe in the use of force to gain their personal ends. Whether it's light bulbs or alternative energy or public schools or national health care, in the end there's always a gun at your head to get you to conform. If a man holds you up in the street, does it matter if he wants the money for drugs or to bail out someone's mortgage? It's still a gun, and it's still armed robbery.
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.)
3.Socialists are racists. The content of the character doesn't matter; it's all about the color of the skin. Read the e-mail I received in response to last week's column, in which the writer somehow made the extraordinary leap in logic from my premise of government fiscal irresponsibility to William Byrd whipping slaves three centuries ago. Yes, Byrd was a nasty man. But what on earth did that have to do with the topic of my column? This illustrates that socialists will always bring up the subject of race, regardless of the prevailing drift of the conversation.
Most people tend to look at the content of peoples' character rather than the color of their skin. If someone is honest, hardworking and decent, then who cares what he looks like? But if they're angry, abusive and violent then sorry, the content of their character is demonstrating that they're not people to associate with, regardless of skin color. Conservatives true conservatives really don't give a diddly darn about someone's melanin content. As columnist Burt Prelutsky put it, " most white Americans don't spend a lot of time dwelling on anyone's race. They're much too busy trying to make a living and raise their kids."
4.Socialists believe the worst in everyone. They believe that we are all racists, therefore racism must be shoved in our faces constantly. They believe we are stingy, so we must have our money forcibly removed and redistributed to others. They believe we are heartless and that the only source of compassion is the government, so compassion becomes government-mandated.
5.Socialists think religion, especially Christianity, is stupid and nothing but a prop for the unwashed masses. Why else would they forbid expressions of faith anywhere except (grudgingly) within the walls of a church? Religious people are seen as uneducated, primitive, bitterly-clinging troglodytes.
6.Socialists believe in an ignorant society. How else can we explain their slavish devotion to a public school system that is so dumbed down that students can't read their own diplomas? Socialists know an ignorant society is good. Useful idiots are more amenable to dominance than citizens who have read and understood the documents of the Founding Fathers.
7.Socialists believe you have no right of self-defense. They don't even want you to talk about it in a school assignment. They pretend to have utter faith that government agents can protect you from any and all harm. In reality, it's the government agents that are among our biggest threats. What socialists are really concerned about is your ability to defend yourself against them.
8.Socialists are intolerant. If you have a dissenting opinion, you are mocked and ridiculed for having the temerity to disagree. Socialists do not believe in freedom of speech or they wouldn't be concerned about Rush Limbaugh or what ministers say from the pulpit.
9.Socialists are hypocrites. They expect the unwashed masses to conform to their ideals while they, the lofty and elite, are exempt. How else can you explain Al Gore's energy-sucking mansion? How else can they claim conservative talk radio or Internet news is too powerful when socialists dominate the newspaper and television media?
10.Above all, socialists are in denial. No matter how much you point out the obvious that the government is fulfilling the dictionary definition of socialism they flat deny it. If you point out the horrors of socialized medicine, for example, a socialist will say "But this time it will be different." Socialists are unconcerned that the government holds 40 percent of Citibank and over 80 percent of AIG. Nancy Pelosi assures us that government takeovers of banks should be "transitional" but not permanent, and Steny Hoyer hesitates "to use the word nationalization." You'll notice they don't deny it's a government takeover. They merely refuse to call a duck a duck. Quack quack.
Sibby Online: Socialist traits
Partial ownership...
through stock not day-to-day management...
of one company...
when the country has a history of being a market participant in other sectors already...
That's not socialism. Sorry to burst your bubble.
So....60% government ownership of GM is not socialism...?
No.
....only just a step in the right direction.....?
That would a step in the left direction......
....only just a step in the right direction.....?
That would a step in the left direction......
Quite true....
btw....how's that "non-socialized" 60% government-owned business of GM doing these days anyhoo....?
WSJ: GM Lost $4.3 Billion In 2nd Half 2009 - WSJ.com
GM Sued by UAW for $450 Million Over Delphi Fund (Update1) - BusinessWeek
GM Probed By U.S. for Brake Flaws in 6 Million Trucks (Update1) - BusinessWeek
Partial ownership...
through stock not day-to-day management...
of one company...
when the country has a history of being a market participant in other sectors already...
That's not socialism. Sorry to burst your bubble.
So you would rather call it an expansion of government control that is closer to being on a socialist path than a path of freedoms and free market.... but not socialist in nature??
That would a step in the left direction......
Quite true....
btw....how's that "non-socialized" 60% government-owned business of GM doing these days anyhoo....?
WSJ: GM Lost $4.3 Billion In 2nd Half 2009 - WSJ.com
GM Sued by UAW for $450 Million Over Delphi Fund (Update1) - BusinessWeek
GM Probed By U.S. for Brake Flaws in 6 Million Trucks (Update1) - BusinessWeek
Vanquish pretty much summarized it - not socialism and the government isn't running the company.
Means just another example of poor governmental control.....wow i can hardly wait till health care government control....17% of our economy.... kicks in....That it's still in trouble means what? It has been in trouble a long time.
Let's go even further....
Here's a great chart on the amount of assets in the US held by the government (and remember this isn't even day-to-day control...GM is stock ownership)
What Socialism Looks Like - Politics - The Atlantic
This person obviously doesn't know what socialism really is.
Please enlighten us, Luissa.
Let's see, it is hard to slavery in socialism, since it is based on equality.
Also socialism is closer to true democracy, then our current government is.
You people the mistake of looking at Russia and China, and believing that is what communism and socialism is. When in reality, they do not represent the true form of either.
