Serious question for Socialist Americans

[M14 Shooter]

I will defer again to you on the "dicussion" here about the redistribution of "weath", but regarding our discussion of the redistribution of wealth.

Hm. -Two- bouts of Typo Nazi Syndrome.
I was willing to overlook one, but you clearly would rather concentrate on the irrelevant than discussing your dishonesty. Not a surprise, really.

You argue that they do the same thing, which they do not.

I am merely pointing out that both practices fall into a common category-- that of redistribution of wealth.

Only if you apply the term outside its usual meaning.

But please - continue to lie to yourself, for all to see.

I'd be happy to discuss my putative dishonesty, but I'm not sure how to do so.

Undoubtedly, just as you're not sure how to be honest.

You've claimed that my words are inaccurate and that they are dishonest

Clearly, for the reasons I've given:

You state that government and charity do the same thing - engage in the redistribution wealth. Your error in this statement has been made plain in that the former forcibly removes money from people while the latter accepts willfully donated money from people; your willful refusal to accept this difference and the error pursuant to same illustrates your dishonesty.

Not much else need be said.
You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

 

[ladyliberal]

You state that government and charity do the same thing - engage in the redistribution wealth. Your error in this statement has been made plain in that the former forcibly removes money from people while the latter accepts willfully donated money from people; your willful refusal to accept this difference and the error pursuant to same illustrates your dishonesty.

Not much else need be said.
You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

I certainly agree that government social programs are funded largely through taxation that is itself backed by the threat of coercive force. And I agree that much of the funds private charities use were not directly acquired through the threat of coercive force. I do not however concede that the phrase "redistribution of wealth" implies forcible redistribution of wealth (nor do any of my sources).

I agree with you that nothing more must be said.

 

[UpAndAbout]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

There is something totally wrong with you.
You are worried about socialism, which is not really happening, and right under your nose this country is becoming so plutocratic( just for you... government by the wealthy ),it is amazing. Also we are so much an oligarchy(just for you again...government by the few
), that between these two factions this country needs the groups looking out for the rest of the population.
So why not stop beating the drum for the two types in this country and see where the real downfall of America is coming from today.
Label me a socialist if you want it makes me no never mind.

You're damn right it's "government by the weathy" -- The Kennedys, Kerrys, Clintons, Pelosi's, Bidens, yep you got that right! In England- you think the royal family gives a crap whether anybody eats or not? In watching "House Hunters" -- the prices of home in England and Sweden, etc., are prohibitive. Dinky little 1200 sq feet condos for $400,000. What kind of salaries are those people paid? I sure couldn't afford that price. In Paris a 500 sq foot apartment $1500 a month! Yep, no rich people there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You state that government and charity do the same thing - engage in the redistribution wealth. Your error in this statement has been made plain in that the former forcibly removes money from people while the latter accepts willfully donated money from people; your willful refusal to accept this difference and the error pursuant to same illustrates your dishonesty.

Not much else need be said.
You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

I certainly agree that government social programs are funded largely through taxation that is itself backed by the threat of coercive force. And I agree that much of the funds private charities use were not directly acquired through the threat of coercive force.

And so, you admit that you were wrong when you argued that the government and charities do the same thing in regards to the redistribution of wealth.

 

[ladyliberal]

You state that government and charity do the same thing - engage in the redistribution wealth. Your error in this statement has been made plain in that the former forcibly removes money from people while the latter accepts willfully donated money from people; your willful refusal to accept this difference and the error pursuant to same illustrates your dishonesty.

Not much else need be said.
You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

I certainly agree that government social programs are funded largely through taxation that is itself backed by the threat of coercive force. And I agree that much of the funds private charities use were not directly acquired through the threat of coercive force.

And so, you admit that you were wrong when you argued that the government and charities do the same thing in regards to the redistribution of wealth.

No, of course not. Please provide textual support for your claim.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I certainly agree that government social programs are funded largely through taxation that is itself backed by the threat of coercive force. And I agree that much of the funds private charities use were not directly acquired through the threat of coercive force.

And so, you admit that you were wrong when you argued that the government and charities do the same thing in regards to the redistribution of wealth.

No, of course not.

And thus, you illustrate your dishonesty.

 

[Nosmo King]

The ultimate goal is to provide food and housing for everyone. When you offer everyone food and housing for nothing most people are not going to freely work. So how can you force someone to work and still maintain human rights?

Who says we want free food and housing? Oh, your straw man.

They don't offer free food and housing in European socialized countries do they?
No. They don't.

So, unless you can SHOW where some US LIBERAL called for free food and housing for everyone, you're kinda just making shit up, aren't you?
Yeah. You are.

You mean there are no socialist programs that offer free food and housing? You have said provide houses for everyone before on another thread.

Is there a difference between providing food and housing for EVERYONE and simply providing food and housing for those in need?