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.
Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
Are you fearful that you will be sold Marxism?Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.
To Votto it seems these terms are simply interchangeable.Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.
To Votto it seems these terms are simply interchangeable.Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
I do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.Not all political science courses cover all the political topics. There was a certain amount of McCarthy fear in some classes I took. I remember one of our instructors asking us to please put covers on our Karl Marx books or he, and the school, might be accused of teaching communism. It made one wonder if ignorance of a subject made the subject a useful political tool for some.
That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.
It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.
It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.
So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?
That's a hard question to answer on a message board but I'll attempt it. It's going to take a bit so don't think I'm dodging.For the same reason that you are trying to make the point that Bernie, or that person in New York, or by extension the entire Democratic Party wants to be Socialists, by which you want to imply Communist. By keeping the terms confused you hope to be able to stir up that same McCarthy fear regent was referring to. I'm not sure you're even aware that that's what you're doing.Lol, as a reply of somehow who was telling an anecdote about how in some of his classes people were afraid that talking about Marxism would be construed as teaching Communism. You immediately, as a kind of Pavlov reflex imply the same? And then you wonder why Americans having problems defining Socialism. You don't seem to have the slightest clue yourself.That is because colleges don't want to be accused of selling Marxism, which they have and are dong.
Everything the Left does is with a bit of deception and cloak and dagger.
After all, if they were out in the open and truthful they would be immediately shot down.
I just don't understand why a professor would tell their students to put a cover on their Karl Marx book like an drunk on the streets with a paper bag over his bottle.
It is true that Communism was demonized for a great number of years because of Stalin and the Cold war.
It is also arguable that socialists were also demonized because the Nazi Party claimed to be socialists.
So do you think that fear of either ideology is warranted considering their historical records?
Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
First this question because it's shorter. I can't speak for all socialized medicine just for my country so keep that in mind. My health care system is 50 percent cheaper as a percentage of GDP. In actual money the difference would be even more extreme.Current health expenditure (% of GDP) | DataI do however kind of take umbrage to you saying it's confined to conservatives. My wife who is American and most definitely NOT a conservative had an almost visceral reaction when I said that we have socialized healthcare in Belgium. A lot of Americans simply have an extreme reaction to the word socialism regardless of political preference.Votto, the OP of this thread appears to have only an elementary knowledge of rhe barest concept of socialism and cannot intelligently articulate his concept of the meaning. Most conservatives and Trump followers in America have been propagandized about socialism to rhe point that they just see socialism as a foul and disparaging word to include Nazi's and Communists.I'll answer you that riddle on the condition that you are capable of defining it. Seems to me that Americans in general have problems with the difference between Social Democracies, Socialism and Communism and tend to just lump them together in one big heap as they see fit.
I've already given the definition to socialism.
If you have more to add feel free.So that person is advocating government own industry?New York elect a socialis
I'm Belgian Votto and some industries are government owned. Health insurance industry for one. Although not directly. Public Transportation industry to name another. What's more in 2008 even the US placed Fannie May and Freddy Mac under effective government control. As we had to do because of America's lacks credit policy that caused our banks, not to mention the world, to suffer the consequences of unbridled Capatilism. Bernie doesn't advocate the government to take over industries, you can correct me if you want but provide evidence. That's kind of the point. In your zeal to rail against Socialism you lump together Bernie, someone in New York, Europe, N-Korea, and an aspect that you believe defines socialism without decent information a clear definition of socialism.If you don't want people to be confused about socialism it would serve you to be able to have it clear in your own head.Trouble is, in none of these countries does government own industry, which is the true definition of socialism.
So is such fear regarding socialized medicine warranted or is it all due to taking in propaganda in your opinion?
Transgender Democratic nominee for governor in Vermont admits she can’t define socialism
How can a Democrat nominee for governor not know what socialism is?
Can anyone answer me that riddle?
A fascinating tidbit for forum consumption:
Lenin, and later Stalin and subsequent USSR communist party leaders, based the social and governmental structure of the Soviet Union's flavor of State Socialism become communism directly on the fictional society in Thomas Moore's novel Utopia first published in 1516. That's right friends, tens of millions of people were slaughtered, imprisoned and otherwise oppressed into the dust of history because a few mad men tried to recreate with the only lives these masses of victims would ever have, a paradisiacal fairy tale civilization. See, Marx and Engels and others provided homicidally angry young men such as Lenin with the idea and the philosophy, however, their derived real world implementation had to be looked for elsewhere. And what better place to find means of implementing heaven on Earth than in the pages of a novel?
In Moore's Utopia all women were communalized for use by all the men. Entire masses of Utopian citizens were relocated and rotated (sound familiar Mr. Pot?) from the fields to the cities on a regular cycle. Agricultural work or working in the fields was mandatory. Private property did not exist--was forbidden-- and even the Utopian's house was not his own, as he traded it up with the neighbor's every ten years. Movement outside of neighborhoods and between cities was restricted and doing so required a writ of passage issued from a high "Prince". And last but not least, guess who performed the bulk of the labor--you know the menial work--of society . . . wait for it . . . slaves. But they were not chattel slaves, no sir. In Moore's Utopia, and later in every socio-communist nation since, the slaves were state owned workers. Please do allow that to sink in.
Here we go again.
The current use of the term is meant to describe Euro-social Democracies. I think that's a bad idea, because it allows the Right to dishonestly (or naively) conflate social democracy with actual socialism, but it is what it is.
.
