Socialism Gets Tested

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism and economics, ...oil and water.

CON$ervatism and the WHOLE truth, ...oil and water.

Like all professional liars, you left out the part that immediately after Dan Price changed the pay scale, his brother Lucas sued him, which is what caused the financial problems in the company.

Let's pretend you are actually capable of thinking.

Here is the basis for conservatism: it is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Now....where's your beef, bud?




"Like all professional liars, you left out the part that immediately after Dan Price changed the pay scale, his brother Lucas sued him,..."
BTW....I left out nothing...

I posted this earlier in the thread:

7. Then potentially the worst blow of all... Mr.Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder, Lucas Price, citing longstanding differences,filed a lawsuitthat potentially threatened the company’s very existence.With legal bills quickly mounting and most of his own paycheck and last year’s $2.2 million in profits plowed into the salary increases, Dan Price said, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.”http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0

Waiting for your apology.

 

[bedowin62]

Speed limits prohibit what is considered dangerous or anti-social behavior.

To be equivalent to Obamacare, the vehicle code would have to mandate that all drivers travel 31 miles at 26.3 MPH at least once per week or face penalties from the secret police (IRS)

Blithering nonsense. Obamcare mandates nothing more or less than everyone have health insurance. What you wish to buy, if its through work or the private marketplace, what level of care you wish to buy, is all up to you.

Obliterating your made up analogies yet again.

Regulation is not ownership. No matter how badly your failed argument needs it to be.

obvious nonsense; obamacare mandates ALOT MORE than "everyone have health insurance"

you dont need almost 3000 pages for that self-impressed left-wing idiot

 

[PoliticalChic]

"From each according to his ability.....to each according to his need" .....seemed like a good idea at the time....

That's what Jesus thought and is why he put it in the Bible!

But you didn't show any such quote.

You mean your god, Karl Marx.

 

[bedowin62]

literally hundreds of items in the ACA affect the doctor-patient relationship; and that affects care.

cause and effect

 

[bedowin62]

wait until the employer mandate; delayed by obama/dems not republicans, takes effect next year

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obvious nonsense. Virtually every aspect of patient care is determined by the private healthcare provider.

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

Simply destroying your 'direct control of the health care industry' nonsense. Obamacare barely regulates the actual care provided. Instead, it regulates the insurance that customers use to pay for said care. And provides subsidized private market place.

Total horseshit.

What makes you think you can get away with such absurd lies?

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

ObamaCare Essential Health Benefits

You've hysterically overstated the 'control' that Obamacare has on patient care decisions. Which is is virtually none. You've ignored the fact that all healthcare providers under Obamacare are private. And you've reimagined the meaning of 'socialism' to match your beliefs, rather than its actual meaning.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

If your claims had actual merit, you wouldn't have had to do any of these things.

Since I've already demonstrated and cited that you are lying, there is little to say.

Your definition is more made up nonsense. Regulation includes mandatory engagement of acts as well. As reporting requirements or speed limits demonstrate. You don't know what you're talking about, and are literally making your claims up as you go along.

Don't be an idiot.

If you lack the grasp of basic terms, just say so and we will try to help you catch up.

Control of the economy goes beyond regulation of crime and torts, generally including "5 year plans" that are so popular for you of the left.

Essentially, the centrally planned and controlled economy that your master promotes is the perfect definition of socialism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A wise wonk once posted this:

Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. There should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


And, here it is in action:




10." Maisey McMaster was also one of the believers. Now 26, she joined the company five years ago and worked her way up to financial manager....and was initially swept up in the excitement. But the more she thought about it, the more the details gnawed at her.


“He gave raises to people who have the least skills and are the least equipped to do the job, and the ones who were taking on the most didn’t get much of a bump,” she said. To her, a fairer proposal would have been to give smaller increases with the opportunity to earn a future raise with more experience.


A couple of days after the announcement, she decided to talk to Mr. Price. “He treated me as if I was being selfish and only thinking about myself,” she said. “That really hurt me. I was talking about not only me, but abouteveryone in my position.” Already approaching burnout from the relentless pace, she decided to quit.




11. The new pay scale also helped push Grant Moran, 29, Gravity’s web developer, to leave. “I had a lot of mixed emotions,” he said. His own salary was bumped up to $50,000 from $41,000 (the first stage of the raise), but the policy was nevertheless disconcerting. “Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he complained. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0




“Now the people who were just clocking in and out were making the same as me,” he complained. “It shackles high performers to less motivated team members."

A capitalist!

 

[Skylar]

Save that it doesn't. There are still private homes, private personal affects, private cars, private clothes, private gardens, etc under socialism. Private property isn't abolished. The means of production are merely owned collectively.

Remember, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're merely cutting and pasting arguments you don't understand. As you always do.

And still, the fact that private property exists under socialism utterly confounds you. Still, the fact that most democrats don't call for the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production confounds you.

As you can't reconcile your silly fallacies with these even simpler facts.

Your link doesn't connect to anything. Try again.

No, you try again....it worked on my computer.

The Encyclop dia Britannica A Dictionary of Arts Sciences Literature and ... - Google Books

And where is this statement on the link you just offered us?

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Given that all you're good for is cutting and pasting....I'd assumed you were better at it than you're revealing yourself to be. As your link doesn't include your quote.

As I said, you're just repeating what you were told to think. And you don't even know why.

Is this your apology for suggesting the link didn't exist?

I suggested you couldn't show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying what you claimed it did. As you had no source.

And you still haven't.

Is this your apology for saying the link didn't work?

The link didn't work. You posted gibberish. You fixed your link in later post. And shocker, it didn't match your supposed quote.

Now how was I able to predict that?

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Um, 'Angel', that's a URL for your own computer's download folder.

Sigh.....you're not very good at this, are you?

"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

And for the 5th time, show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying this.

And of course, your argument still fails on Socialism's acceptance of all sorts of private property. While communism abolishes it. And the fact that most democrats aren't calling for abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production.

Yet laughably, you equate the three. Sorry 'Angel', but you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Encyclopedia no longer put the entire project on line.

So you can't back up your claim. Shocker.

And given that you *knew* that the Encyclopedia Britannica links you were giving us didn't say what you claimed, wouldn't your links be profoundly dishonest?

Either that or you never read what you linked to. In which case you were merely spamming.

Pick which.

The Cole article on Socialism wasn't there....only the Capitalism was....

But I provided another link showing the exact quote.

The 'other link' was to the download folder of your own computer, 'Angel'. Not to anything we can access. You've provided nothing.

Exactly as I told you would be the case.

Now, with your failure still bitter in your mouth, lets turn to the rest of your education. How do you reconcile the fact that socialism allows for private property, while communism doesn't....if they are the same?

How do you reconcile that most democrats neither call for the abolishment of all private property nor the collective ownership of all means of production..... if they are all the same?

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you try again....it worked on my computer.

The Encyclop dia Britannica A Dictionary of Arts Sciences Literature and ... - Google Books

And where is this statement on the link you just offered us?

The distinction between socialism as distinguished by various Labor and Socialist parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and minority parties in other countries is one of tactics-and-strategy rather than one of objective.

Given that all you're good for is cutting and pasting....I'd assumed you were better at it than you're revealing yourself to be. As your link doesn't include your quote.

As I said, you're just repeating what you were told to think. And you don't even know why.

Is this your apology for suggesting the link didn't exist?

I suggested you couldn't show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying what you claimed it did. As you had no source.

And you still haven't.

Is this your apology for saying the link didn't work?

The link didn't work. You posted gibberish. You fixed your link in later post. And shocker, it didn't match your supposed quote.

Now how was I able to predict that?

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Um, 'Angel', that's a URL for your own computer's download folder.

Sigh.....you're not very good at this, are you?

"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

And for the 5th time, show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying this.

And of course, your argument still fails on Socialism's acceptance of all sorts of private property. While communism abolishes it. And the fact that most democrats aren't calling for abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production.

Yet laughably, you equate the three. Sorry 'Angel', but you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Encyclopedia no longer put the entire project on line.

So you can't back up your claim. Shocker.

And given that you *knew* that the Encyclopedia Britannica links you were giving us didn't say what you claimed, wouldn't your links be profoundly dishonest?

Either that or you never read what you linked to. In which case you were merely spamming.

Pick which.

The Cole article on Socialism wasn't there....only the Capitalism was....

But I provided another link showing the exact quote.

The 'other link' was to the download folder of your own computer, 'Angel'. Not to anything we can access. You've provided nothing.

Exactly as I told you would be the case.

Now, with your failure still bitter in your mouth, lets turn to the rest of your education. How do you reconcile the fact that socialism allows for private property, while communism doesn't....if they are the same?

How do you reconcile that most democrats neither call for the abolishment of all private property nor the collective ownership of all means of production..... if they are all the same?

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

You've been exposed, lying about socialism/communism, and about ObamaCare.

You have all the requirements for a Reliable Democrat Voter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberalism and economics, ...oil and water.

CON$ervatism and the WHOLE truth, ...oil and water.

Like all professional liars, you left out the part that immediately after Dan Price changed the pay scale, his brother Lucas sued him, which is what caused the financial problems in the company.

So....you preparing that apology?

I accept nothing less than penitential prostration.

 

[Skylar]

Obvious nonsense. Virtually every aspect of patient care is determined by the private healthcare provider.

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.

Show me.

You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

And exactly as I've described that's insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.

Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.

None of which is 'facts'. But pure imagination.

 

[Skylar]

Liberalism and economics, ...oil and water.

CON$ervatism and the WHOLE truth, ...oil and water.

Like all professional liars, you left out the part that immediately after Dan Price changed the pay scale, his brother Lucas sued him, which is what caused the financial problems in the company.

So....you preparing that apology?

Can you show me Encylopedia Britiannica saying what you claimed it did?

Of course not. You're still stuck at square one.

And still can't explain how Socialism and Communist are the same when socialism allows for private property while communism doesn't. And of course, you can't explain how democrats are socialists and communists when almost none call for the abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production.

Sigh.......cut and paste something for us. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, or understand the terms you're using.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obvious nonsense. Virtually every aspect of patient care is determined by the private healthcare provider.

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.

Show me.

You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

And exactly as I've described that's insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.

Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.

None of that is 'facts'. But pure imagination.

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in the WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.


4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com



Now. as an incipient fascist.....you agree with this government attempt, don't you.

 

[Skylar]

And where is this statement on the link you just offered us?

Given that all you're good for is cutting and pasting....I'd assumed you were better at it than you're revealing yourself to be. As your link doesn't include your quote.

As I said, you're just repeating what you were told to think. And you don't even know why.

Is this your apology for suggesting the link didn't exist?

I suggested you couldn't show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying what you claimed it did. As you had no source.

And you still haven't.

Is this your apology for saying the link didn't work?

The link didn't work. You posted gibberish. You fixed your link in later post. And shocker, it didn't match your supposed quote.

Now how was I able to predict that?

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Um, 'Angel', that's a URL for your own computer's download folder.

Sigh.....you're not very good at this, are you?

"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

And for the 5th time, show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying this.

And of course, your argument still fails on Socialism's acceptance of all sorts of private property. While communism abolishes it. And the fact that most democrats aren't calling for abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production.

Yet laughably, you equate the three. Sorry 'Angel', but you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Encyclopedia no longer put the entire project on line.

So you can't back up your claim. Shocker.

And given that you *knew* that the Encyclopedia Britannica links you were giving us didn't say what you claimed, wouldn't your links be profoundly dishonest?

Either that or you never read what you linked to. In which case you were merely spamming.

Pick which.

The Cole article on Socialism wasn't there....only the Capitalism was....

But I provided another link showing the exact quote.

The 'other link' was to the download folder of your own computer, 'Angel'. Not to anything we can access. You've provided nothing.

Exactly as I told you would be the case.

Now, with your failure still bitter in your mouth, lets turn to the rest of your education. How do you reconcile the fact that socialism allows for private property, while communism doesn't....if they are the same?

How do you reconcile that most democrats neither call for the abolishment of all private property nor the collective ownership of all means of production..... if they are all the same?

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

You've been exposed, lying about socialism/communism, and about ObamaCare.

You have all the requirements for a Reliable Democrat Voter.

Laughing.....says the gal that still can't back her own quotes. And of course, can't tell us a communism and soecialism are the same when communism abolishes private property while socialism allows for private property.

And don't get me started on your epic failure on how democrats are 'socialists and communists' when almost none call for either the abolishment of private property nor the collective ownership of all means of production.

Sigh.....I feel like a grown man kicking a puppy. As you are so utterly unprepared for the debate.

 

[Skylar]

Obvious nonsense. Virtually every aspect of patient care is determined by the private healthcare provider.

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.

Show me.

You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

And exactly as I've described that's insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.

Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.

None of that is 'facts'. But pure imagination.

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in the WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.


4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com

And once again, your spam doesn't even address my point that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private.

You never read your article before spamming it, did you 'Angel'? Irrelevant spam is your tell.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this your apology for suggesting the link didn't exist?

I suggested you couldn't show us Encyclopedia Britannica saying what you claimed it did. As you had no source.

And you still haven't.

Is this your apology for saying the link didn't work?

The link didn't work. You posted gibberish. You fixed your link in later post. And shocker, it didn't match your supposed quote.

Now how was I able to predict that?

Try this: file:///C:/Users/Angel/Downloads/The%20Twenty-Year%20Revolution%20from%20Roosevelt%20to%20Eisenhower_3.pdf

Um, 'Angel', that's a URL for your own computer's download folder.

Sigh.....you're not very good at this, are you?

"....to socialist movements. In an article on socialism in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Prof. G. D. H. Cole, a leading theoretician and historian of the British Labor Party, declares: "The distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and Labor parties of Europe and the New World, and communism, as represented by the Russians and the minority groups in other countries, is one of tactics.-and·-strategy rather than of;..-()bjective. Communism is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its revolutionary method a canon of faith...."

And for the 5th time, show us the Encyclopedia Britannica saying this.

And of course, your argument still fails on Socialism's acceptance of all sorts of private property. While communism abolishes it. And the fact that most democrats aren't calling for abolishment of private property or the collective ownership of all means of production.

Yet laughably, you equate the three. Sorry 'Angel', but you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Encyclopedia no longer put the entire project on line.

So you can't back up your claim. Shocker.

And given that you *knew* that the Encyclopedia Britannica links you were giving us didn't say what you claimed, wouldn't your links be profoundly dishonest?

Either that or you never read what you linked to. In which case you were merely spamming.

Pick which.

The Cole article on Socialism wasn't there....only the Capitalism was....

But I provided another link showing the exact quote.

The 'other link' was to the download folder of your own computer, 'Angel'. Not to anything we can access. You've provided nothing.

Exactly as I told you would be the case.

Now, with your failure still bitter in your mouth, lets turn to the rest of your education. How do you reconcile the fact that socialism allows for private property, while communism doesn't....if they are the same?

How do you reconcile that most democrats neither call for the abolishment of all private property nor the collective ownership of all means of production..... if they are all the same?

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

You've been exposed, lying about socialism/communism, and about ObamaCare.

You have all the requirements for a Reliable Democrat Voter.

Laughing.....says the gal that still can't back her own quotes. And of course, can't tell us a communism and soecialism are the same when communism abolishes private property while socialism allows for private property.

And don't get me started on your epic failure on how democrats are 'socialists and communists' when almost none call for either the abolishment of private property nor the collective ownership of all means of production.

Sigh.....I feel like a grown man kicking a puppy. As you are so utterly unprepared for the debate.

I keep putting you in your place....and you're defense is to keep pretending not to notice it happening.

Seems others notice.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obvious nonsense. Virtually every aspect of patient care is determined by the private healthcare provider.

Now that is a rather outrageous lie. Did you pull it off of one of the hate sites, or just make it up out of thin air?

If you believe that Obamacare controls virtually every aspect of patient care, make your case. You're the one arguing that Obamacare took control of the entire heatlhcare industry.

Show me.

You'll find that it has almost nothing to do with any of those decisions. Instead regulating the insurance that customers use to pay for the healthcare. And only among those who don't have insurance through their work or medicare.

{Ten Essential Health Benefits must be offered at no dollar limits on every plan under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). Essential Health Benefits consist of ten categories of items and services required on all individual and small group plans starting in 2014. Large Group Plans are not required to offer a essential benefits package, but most already do, as these benefits were defined from the coverage typically provided by large employers.}

And exactly as I've described that's insurance coverage.. What is covered in a healthcare plan. Not patient care decisions. Those are determined almost exclusively by private healthcare providers. Over which Obamacare has almost no regulation.

Obamacare is and remains a subsidized private marketplace. Destroying your claim yet again.

I've stated the facts, you are absurdly lying for reasons that it's hard to guess.

Nope. You've reimagined the word 'socialism', replacing 'ownership' with 'control'. And then made up your own definitions of both 'control' and 'regulation'. Citing just yourself.

None of that is 'facts'. But pure imagination.

As the view of the proper role of government is a regular topic on the board, I wonder if any who read this article in the WSJ find this campaign by the Obama adminstration appropriate...

...and how it applies to the question of where, on the political spectrum, this government fits.

1."Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius ...latest attack, on the CEO of Forest Laboratories,...HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS.

2. ... allegations were among a rash of government suits claiming that marketing to doctors common among drug companies amounted to fraud against Medicare and Medicaid. The charges were odd given their implication that major companies would be dumb enough to try to hoodwink their biggest customer. The charges also had a political flavor as an attempt to blame drug companies, rather than the fee-for-service design of the federal programs, for runaway costs.

3. The feds have rarely invoked this awesome power, given the potential for coercive abuse. But Mrs. Sebelius seems bent on making it more common policy and says she can employ it even against executives who had no knowledge of an employee's misconduct. A year ago Mrs. Sebelius used it to dismiss the CEO of a small drugmaker in St. Louis.


4. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.
HHS says its action is about holding corporate CEOs accountable, but it looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be "misinformation" about the President's health bill.

5. The hammer on Forest Labs "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people," says Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest. "
Review & Outlook: Kathleen Spitzer - WSJ.com

And once again, your spam doesn't even address my point that all providers of healthcare under Obamacare are private.

You never read your article before spamming it, did you 'Angel'? Irrelevant spam is your tell.

So...now your defense is that you don't understand how the article specifically destroys your attempt to deny that this administration controls every aspect of healthcare?

Another lie, huh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

tsk tsk tsk

left-wing nutjobs seem so angry these days!!!!

Hillary doing the whole Hindenburg thing creates stress for our Marxist friends...

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. ".... Price chose $70,000 as the eventual salary floor, he was influenced by research showing that this annual incomecould make an enormous difference in someone’s emotional well-being by easing nagging financial stress.

[Never imagining that if everyone followed suit, it would have zero effect.]


He might have also considered the parable of the workers in the vineyard from the Gospel of St. Matthew, where the laborers hired at sunup were upset that their pay was the same as those who showed up right before quitting time. Early adopters and latecomers may be equally welcomed in the Kingdom of Heaven, but not necessarily in the earthly realm, where rewards are generally bestowed in paycheck form.

[Another factor our socialist didn't foresee.]


When other entrepreneurs suggested that stock options or profit-sharing would have been a better approach, he said that’s the way capitalism works: Everyone tries to invent the best mousetrap.

[Actually, no....that's not how capitalism works.]


With profits... shifted to salaries, there is little left over to buy out his brother, let alone pay the legal bills or make longer-term capital improvements in the company...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/b...klash-against-the-raise-that-roared.html?_r=0




Isn't it interesting how the mind of a Liberal works?
No research.....they just know what is right!
".... Price chose $70,000 as the eventual salary floor.."



I was struck by how similar it was to FDR's picking the price for gold out of his hat.

‘Roosevelt imagined he could fix the world gold price from his bedroom. Morgenthau reported that when he visited Roosevelt on Friday, November 3, he suggested a 10- or 15-cent rise from the previous day, and Roosevelt decided on a 21-cent rise. Morgenthau asked the rationale for 21 cents, and Roosevelt is reported to have replied that “three times seven” is a lucky number. Raymond Moley, who became an opponent of the New Deal after being a part of it, remarked, “Roosevelt gravely marred his image as a responsible statesman, by the early-morning bedside guesses with Morgenthau about what the price of gold was to be ‘that day.’”’
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0906e.asp


Gee....they're just soooooo brilliant!

 

[Skylar]

tsk tsk tsk

left-wing nutjobs seem so angry these days!!!!

Hillary doing the whole Hindenburg thing creates stress for our Marxist friends...

Laughing.....as you seem to be playing every side of this conversation, do I even need to be here? After all, two conservatives agree with *each other*. The echo chamber has spoken.