The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[Shogun]

Members of the fire company pledged to help one another should fire break out or threaten one of their homes or businesses. Not only would they attempt to put out the flames, members would also help save goods within the building and protect the building from looters. Members were not required to help protect properties of non-members.
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_firefighter.html


indeed.. talk about those socialist firefighters these days!

if a founding father can let non-club members houses burn why should we pay taxes on a service that private business can do better? (for those in the club, that is)

 

[maineman]

Members of the fire company pledged to help one another should fire break out or threaten one of their homes or businesses. Not only would they attempt to put out the flames, members would also help save goods within the building and protect the building from looters. Members were not required to help protect properties of non-members.
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_firefighter.html


indeed.. talk about those socialist firefighters these days!

if a founding father can let non-club members houses burn why should we pay taxes on a service that private business can do better? (for those in the club, that is)

clearly. the mere existence of public fire departments is proof positive that America is a socialist state!

 

[hjmick]

hyperbole.

meant to make a point.

He knows I do not think any of those things about him - hell...he knows I know that he isn't even a republican....

but he also knows that I am sick and tired of being labeled a socialist.

Fair enough.

It caught me off guard. As I said, I am relatively new here, not yet familiar with all the nuances between some of the members. I probably should have left it for Bern to deal with and kept my nose out of it.

 

[Superlative]

Whoa whoa whoa.

I haven't been here that long, but I have come to expect more from you, maineman, than calling someone a "child molester." That is a very nasty path to travel, and not something to be done lightly, if at all. Damn.

I understand your whoa.


If Bern is going to hold MaineMan to Hilary's Socialist standards, why cant Maine hold Bern to the same standards?

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003456308_corrigan01m.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/

http://www.topix.net/forum/city/stroudsburg-pa/T0FMEO67VS81ML0FN

http://recoveringliberal.com/?p=593


Im not getting into this any further.

Over and Out.

 

[Bern80]

if you continue to willfully misuse the word, I guess we are done talking about it.... and you will forever be a racist, child molesting, fascist republican to me. deal?

I asked you previously where i even came close to calling you a socialist.

I am not calling you a socialist. I am asking you to examine this group of people you claim to be a part of. I have asked you to directly answer several questions about policies proposed by a liberal that are socialistic in nature. Yet you are hung up on me calling you something that i never did.

 

[Shogun]

clearly. the mere existence of public fire departments is proof positive that America is a socialist state!

indeed..

Every tax payer funded firetruck is a victory for Marx and Stalin!

hehehehe...

 

[Bern80]

I understand your whoa.


If Bern is going to hold MaineMan to Hilary's Socialist standards, why cant Maine hold Bern to the same standards?

http://www.armchairsubversive.org/

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003456308_corrigan01m.html

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/

http://www.topix.net/forum/city/stroudsburg-pa/T0FMEO67VS81ML0FN

http://recoveringliberal.com/?p=593


Im not getting into this any further.

Over and Out.

What exactley is the point of this post? I'm not holding MM to any standard. I'm asking a very simple question. We have two people, MM and Hillary Clinton who both say they are proud to be liberals. Because they both call themslves liberal I am looking for some reconciliation b/t what MM says he is for and what Hillary says she is for. Because the proposals that have been put forth by Hillary (government run medicine, taking oil company profits and using them to fund government programs for energy development) are clearly not capitilistic solutions to problem, yet MM says he beleives in capitilism.

What that says to me is that someone is not who they say they are.

Your post, Shogun, is a perfect example why what is at the crux of this debate is a long way from being cleared up. Insttead of attacking and/or pointing out the flaws of the actual ideology(conservativism) you point out the personal flaws of individuals. As if some how that proves that conservatism is bad. That's they equivalent of saying Christianity is bad because teh crusades happened.

 

[Shogun]

I assure you that this wont be "cleared up" as long as you want to divide everyone into two groups according to your opinion of a standard without admitting that people tend to not simp0ly fall into one camp.... My rebuttal was directed at the person who both cried about the treatment of christians while ignoring the reality of the story of jesus itself - specifically how he fed 5000 with some bread and fish without, get this, marking up the price.. I posted the FACT of Ben Franklins fire service to point out that some things, like fire protection, are not better served by private companies using the Capitolism rally cry. Do you think that publically funded fire departments indicate socialism? if not, why?

 

[maineman]

I asked you previously where i even came close to calling you a socialist.

I am not calling you a socialist. I am asking you to examine this group of people you claim to be a part of. I have asked you to directly answer several questions about policies proposed by a liberal that are socialistic in nature. Yet you are hung up on me calling you something that i never did.

so·cial·is·tic /ˌsoʊʃəˈlɪstɪk/[soh-shuh-lis-tik] –adjective
1. of or pertaining to socialists or socialism. Nope....not that one!
2. in accordance with socialism. Nope...not that one either!
3. advocating or supporting socialism STEEEE-RIKE THREE.

and to review:

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. nothing any mainstream democrats or serious democratic presidential candidates believe in, and certainly nothing I believe in!
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.ditto
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. ditto


I am a democrat. I am all for a progressive tax system. I am all for a public "hand up" to some level above abject poverty for people who are down on their luck or who do not have the God-given gifts to succeed to any degree in society. I am for a government subsidized minimum level of healthcare. I am all for government regulation of the practices of corporate industry for the public good. I am all for providing aid for education. I am all for protecting the environment. I am all for a moral foreign policy. I am all for civil unions for everyone and keeping government out of the business of holy matrimony and keeping the church out of the private affairs of adults who chose to join their fortunes and estates together. All of that makes me a DEMOCRAT. IT DOES NOT MAKE ME "SOCIALISTIC" AND IT DOES NOT MAKE ME A "SOCIALIST". I DO NOT ADVOCATE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Can I be any clearer?

 

[Larkinn]

if a founding father can let non-club members houses burn why should we pay taxes on a service that private business can do better? (for those in the club, that is)

If a founding father can have slaves, why can't we?

I'm asking a very simple question. We have two people, MM and Hillary Clinton who both say they are proud to be liberals. Because they both call themslves liberal I am looking for some reconciliation b/t what MM says he is for and what Hillary says she is for. Because the proposals that have been put forth by Hillary (government run medicine, taking oil company profits and using them to fund government programs for energy development) are clearly not capitilistic solutions to problem, yet MM says he beleives in capitilism.

You seem to be assuming that Hillary is a socialist as well. I consider myself a capitalist, but I have socialist leanings in the sense that I am not for unbridled capitalism. Why do you feel the need to be one extreme or the other? Where is the room for moderation? There are very few people in the US who are socialist who really value socialist values. 99% of the time when that term is used to describe an American it is used incorrectly.

 

[Alpha1]

If the shoe fits.....to a degree...wear it.

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Socialists have also disagreed as to the best way of running the good society. Some envisage direction by the government. Others advocate as much dispersion and decentralization as possible through the delegation of decision-making authority to public boards, quasi-public trusts, municipalities, or self-governing communities of producers. Some advocate workers' control; others would rely on governmental planning boards. Although all socialists want to bring about a more equal distribution of national income, some hope for an absolute equality of income, whereas others aim only at ensuring an adequate income for all, while allowing different occupations to be paid at different rates.

“To each according to his need” has been a frequent battle cry of socialists, but many of them would in fact settle for a society in which each would be paid in accordance with his contribution to the commonwealth, provided that society would first assure all citizens minimum levels of housing, clothing, and nourishment as well as free access to essential services such as education, health, transportation, and recreation.

Socialists also proclaim the need for more equal political rights for all citizens, and for a levelling of status differences. They disagree, however, on whether difference of status ought to be eradicated entirely, or whether, in practice, some inequality in decision-making powers might not be permitted to persist in a socialist commonwealth.

 

[Bern80]

so·cial·is·tic /ˌsoʊʃəˈlɪstɪk/[soh-shuh-lis-tik] –adjective
1. of or pertaining to socialists or socialism. Nope....not that one!
2. in accordance with socialism. Nope...not that one either!
3. advocating or supporting socialism STEEEE-RIKE THREE.

and to review:

so·cial·ism /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] –noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. nothing any mainstream democrats or serious democratic presidential candidates believe in, and certainly nothing I believe in!
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.ditto
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. ditto


I am a democrat. I am all for a progressive tax system. I am all for a public "hand up" to some level above abject poverty for people who are down on their luck or who do not have the God-given gifts to succeed to any degree in society. I am for a government subsidized minimum level of healthcare. I am all for government regulation of the practices of corporate industry for the public good. I am all for providing aid for education. I am all for protecting the environment. I am all for a moral foreign policy. I am all for civil unions for everyone and keeping government out of the business of holy matrimony and keeping the church out of the private affairs of adults who chose to join their fortunes and estates together. All of that makes me a DEMOCRAT. IT DOES NOT MAKE ME "SOCIALISTIC" AND IT DOES NOT MAKE ME A "SOCIALIST". I DO NOT ADVOCATE GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Can I be any clearer?

You will have to be. CAN I BE ANY CLEARER? I NEVER CALLED YOU A SOCIALIST OR ANYTHING CLOSE TO IT.

You want to play semantic games about something not being socialistic because it isn't all encompassing, fine.

How many threads have I interjected between you and RSR where you are demanding each and every post for him to answer simple questions? yet here we are and you will not do me that very courtesy. All three of your definitions for socialistic fit with what Hillary plans for Health care. It pertains to socialisim because it is government control of something that is private. It is in accordance with socialism for the same reason and it supports socialism because it is certainly a more social way of handling the industry than what is currently practiced.

You did exactley what I said you would. You quoted me yet repsonse was not a response to it at all:

I asked you point out where I called you a socialist - you didn't, strike one

You don't acknowledge that I'm not calling you a socialist - strike two

I asked you how can be a liberal when the head liberal (Hillary) is clearly advocating policies that go beyond liberal - you refused, strike three

Can you simply not bring yourself to be critical of a fellow leftist?

Here would be a good starting point:

What exactley is the point of this post? I'm not holding MM to any standard. I'm asking a very simple question. We have two people, MM and Hillary Clinton who both say they are proud to be liberals. Because they both call themslves liberal I am looking for some reconciliation b/t what MM says he is for and what Hillary says she is for. Because the proposals that have been put forth by Hillary (government run medicine, taking oil company profits and using them to fund government programs for energy development) are clearly not capitilistic solutions to problem, yet MM says he beleives in capitilism.

What that says to me is that someone is not who they say they are.

 

[maineman]

I spent some time working as the Chief of Staff to the Maine Senate Assistant Majority leader in the mid 90's. One day, I was complaining to her that some of the caucus members were all over the ideological spectrum and difficult to corral. She basically said to me that if I wanted my elected representatives to vote the way I wanted them to every single time, I needed to run for the seat myself.

She had a great point.

As I said above: I am a democrat. I listed a whole bunch of things that I believe in and that the vast majority of democrats believe in. I know what the republicans stand for and I know what the democrats stand for.

If ever there comes a time that the democratic party moves to a place where it does NOT advocate a platform that is in line with my basic philosophy, I will stop being a democrat. If ever the republican party moves to a place where it DOES advocate a platform that IS more in line with my basic philosophy, I will start being a republican. Until then, I will work to get my favorite candidate nominated (Hillary is NOT my favorite candidate...in fact, she is my least favorite) and then, I will vote for whomever my party nominates in the general election....EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH THEM ON ONE OR MORE KEY PROPOSALS - because it is a foregone conclusion that the nominee from MY party will be closer to my political philosophy than the nominee of the republican party.

And I know that politics is a team sport. Democrats have control of both houses of congress but they can't get diddly done because they do not have a veto proof majority and Bush's vetoes, therefore will always stand up. If democrats control the white house, they will not need a veto proof majority except in those rare instances where the democratic president disagrees with the democratic congress...and I am fairly certain that such a thing will happen so infrequently as to make the alternative of a republican president continue to be unpalatable to me.

I said that I am for a government subsidized minimum level of health care. I may disagree with the scope of Hillary's plan, but I support some level of government involvement in providing a floor for basic health care. I do not think that oil company profits should be taxed, I think they should, instead, get enormous tax incentives to aggressively pursue alternative energy sources.

and when you say that a democrat is "socialistic", I disagree with that characterization and I take personal umbrage at it.

And "capitalism" is not some sort of all or nothing sort of economic system (unlike socialism). Let me ask you: do you support child labor laws? Do you support workplace safety legislation? Do you support the rights of workers to organize? All of those initiatives - and many many more - got in the way of unbridled capitalism.... but yet, capitalism still thrives in America.

Finally: I do not think that any democrat in the race for the white house goes beyond liberalism and on to socialism and if we disagree about that, so be it.

Does that address your question?

 

[Bern80]

I spent some time working as the Chief of Staff to the Maine Senate Assistant Majority leader in the mid 90's. One day, I was complaining to her that some of the caucus members were all over the ideological spectrum and difficult to corral. She basically said to me that if I wanted my elected representatives to vote the way I wanted them to every single time, I needed to run for the seat myself.

She had a great point.

As I said above: I am a democrat. I listed a whole bunch of things that I believe in and that the vast majority of democrats believe in. I know what the republicans stand for and I know what the democrats stand for.

If ever there comes a time that the democratic party moves to a place where it does NOT advocate a platform that is in line with my basic philosophy, I will stop being a democrat. If ever the republican party moves to a place where it DOES advocate a platform that IS more in line with my basic philosophy, I will start being a republican. Until then, I will work to get my favorite candidate nominated (Hillary is NOT my favorite candidate...in fact, she is my least favorite) and then, I will vote for whomever my party nominates in the general election....EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH THEM ON ONE OR MORE KEY PROPOSALS - because it is a foregone conclusion that the nominee from MY party will be closer to my political philosophy than the nominee of the republican party.

I would disagree with this. I used to take this stance as well. But it has not borne out accurately. Plus what you end up doing is basically crossing your fingers and hoping your right. This shouldn't be a team sport. the team sport mentality is why our government sucks so much right now. No one will grow any balls or doing anythign great because they must go along with the team.

I said that I am for a government subsidized minimum level of health care. I may disagree with the scope of Hillary's plan, but I support some level of government involvement in providing a floor for basic health care. I do not think that oil company profits should be taxed, I think they should, instead, get enormous tax incentives to aggressively pursue alternative energy sources.

On the health care issue I would refer you back to the earlier op ed piece. and simply ask the question why you think government is capable of efficiently running such a program when it has shown time and time again there is nothing that it can efficiently run?

and when you say that a democrat is "socialistic", I disagree with that characterization and I take personal umbrage at it.

I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe it. Hillary proposes to move health care from it's current capitalistic state to a state closer to a social one. It's that simple.

And "capitalism" is not some sort of all or nothing sort of economic system (unlike socialism). Let me ask you: do you support child labor laws? Do you support workplace safety legislation? Do you support the rights of workers to organize? All of those initiatives - and many many more - got in the way of unbridled capitalism.... but yet, capitalism still thrives in America.

Finally: I do not think that any democrat in the race for the white house goes beyond liberalism and on to socialism and if we disagree about that, so be it.

Then I have a simple question. You truly do not believe there is any demccratic presidential hopeful that is trying redistribute wealth and and ahve gov't play a larger role in areas that were once private?

 

[maineman]

]I would disagree with this. I used to take this stance as well. But it has not borne out accurately. Plus what you end up doing is basically crossing your fingers and hoping your right. This shouldn't be a team sport. the team sport mentality is why our government sucks so much right now. No one will grow any balls or doing anythign great because they must go along with the team.

we must, therefore, agree to disagree

On the health care issue I would refer you back to the earlier op ed piece. and simply ask the question why you think government is capable of efficiently running such a program when it has shown time and time again there is nothing that it can efficiently run?

I do not think that government should RUN health care, but subsidize it to some minimum floor level....just as I said that I am perfectly supportive of government providing a "hand up" to some level above abject poverty for people who are down on their luck or who do not have the God-given gifts to succeed to any degree in society. Those programs can both be run by the government of a country whose economic system is capitalism. {I notice you dodged the question about child labor laws, by the way)

I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe it. Hillary proposes to move health care from it's current capitalistic state to a state closer to a social one. It's that simple.

yes...there is another way to describe it: liberal. If you are suggesting that anyone who wants to move the country to the left in any incremental way is a "socialist", why not just call us "communists"? both are equally inaccurate.

Then I have a simple question. You truly do not believe there is any demccratic presidential hopeful that is trying redistribute wealth and and ahve gov't play a larger role in areas that were once private?

I think that all democratic presidential nominees are supportive of marginal redistribution of wealth. It is not just democrats. Every president or presidential candidates that did NOT run on a flat tax platform since the advent of our progressive income tax at least tacitly supported redistribution of wealth. That ain't socialism. And I do not have a problem with government playing a larger role in areas that once were private if the private sector's handling of that area has created a situation that is detrimental to society. I have no problem, for example, with the government stepping in and stopping cigarette ads on television... or passing laws that punish tavern owners for selling too much booze to guys who try to then drive home and kill someone.

 

[Bern80]

]I do not think that government should RUN health care, but subsidize it to some minimum floor level....just as I said that I am perfectly supportive of government providing a "hand up" to some level above abject poverty for people who are down on their luck or who do not have the God-given gifts to succeed to any degree in society. Those programs can both be run by the government of a country whose economic system is capitalism. {I notice you dodged the question about child labor laws, by the way)

That would be the pot calling the kettle black I believe. Of course I am for child labor laws. But to suggest that that is what would happen under full blown capitalism is not entirely accurate either

yes...there is another way to describe it: liberal. If you are suggesting that anyone who wants to move the country to the left in any incremental way is a "socialist", why not just call us "communists"? both are equally inaccurate.

In Hillary's partuicular case I will stand by that. But more acfuratley I am calling there proposals socialist in nature or moving to a more of socialistic state.

I think that all democratic presidential nominees are supportive of marginal redistribution of wealth. It is not just democrats. Every president or presidential candidates that did NOT run on a flat tax platform since the advent of our progressive income tax at least tacitly supported redistribution of wealth. That ain't socialism. And I do not have a problem with government playing a larger role in areas that once were private if the private sector's handling of that area has created a situation that is detrimental to society. I have no problem, for example, with the government stepping in and stopping cigarette ads on television... or passing laws that punish tavern owners for selling too much booze to guys who try to then drive home and kill someone.

The laws you site at the end are nanny state laws. It isn't government's job to make choices for you. Society and individuals can not improve themselves if they aren't allowed to makes mistakes or make choices. If you support freedom which the ability to choose what you want then you must support allowing poor choices as well.

 

[red states rule]

That would be the pot calling the kettle black I believe. Of course I am for child labor laws. But to suggest that that is what would happen under full blown capitalism is not entirely accurate either





In Hillary's partuicular case I will stand by that. But more acfuratley I am calling there proposals socialist in nature or moving to a more of socialistic state.



The laws you site at the end are nanny state laws. It isn't government's job to make choices for you. Society and individuals can not improve themselves if they aren't allowed to makes mistakes or make choices. If you support freedom which the ability to choose what you want then you must support allowing poor choices as well.

You have to remember the left believes the people are to stupid to know what is best for them, so it is up to liberals to make those calls

 

[Larkinn]

On the health care issue I would refer you back to the earlier op ed piece. and simply ask the question why you think government is capable of efficiently running such a program when it has shown time and time again there is nothing that it can efficiently run?

It can't run it efficiently. The problem is that it can run it more efficiently than the private sector can. For one main reason. The private sector has created a system that is built around curing people as opposed to prevention. We have the best doctors to cure diseases in the world. But once you are at the cure stages, you are much more likely to die and it is vastly more expensive.

I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe it. Hillary proposes to move health care from it's current capitalistic state to a state closer to a social one. It's that simple.

There is a very large, if subtle, difference between something becoming MORE socialistic and something BEING socialistic.

The laws you site at the end are nanny state laws. It isn't government's job to make choices for you. Society and individuals can not improve themselves if they aren't allowed to makes mistakes or make choices. If you support freedom which the ability to choose what you want then you must support allowing poor choices as well.

I don't think that people should have the freedom to die from their poor choices.

You have to remember the left believes the people are to stupid to know what is best for them, so it is up to liberals to make those calls

They don't. But if they did, you would provide ample evidence for those claims.

 

[red states rule]

It can't run it efficiently. The problem is that it can run it more efficiently than the private sector can. For one main reason. The private sector has created a system that is built around curing people as opposed to prevention. We have the best doctors to cure diseases in the world. But once you are at the cure stages, you are much more likely to die and it is vastly more expensive.



There is a very large, if subtle, difference between something becoming MORE socialistic and something BEING socialistic.



I don't think that people should have the freedom to die from their poor choices.



They don't. But if they did, you would provide ample evidence for those claims.

One thing is certain about a liberal - when they want your opinion they will tell it to

 

[maineman]

That would be the pot calling the kettle black I believe. Of course I am for child labor laws. But to suggest that that is what would happen under full blown capitalism is not entirely accurate either

the point wasL there can be regulation that restricts unbridled capitalism. that is NOT socialism

In Hillary's partuicular case I will stand by that. But more acfuratley I am calling there proposals socialist in nature or moving to a more of socialistic state.

blah blah blah.... more continued inflammatory verbage from the fascist racist

The laws you site at the end are nanny state laws. It isn't government's job to make choices for you.

I don't think it is governments job to make choices for you...I think it can be within the purview of government to restict the sort of choices you can make. Are you suggesting, for example, that we legalize the sale of heroin?