Wasserman Scultz can't tell the Difference between being a Socialist and a Democrat!

[NYcarbineer]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

Is he still a Democrat?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

lol, are you conceding that there is no resemblance between the erstwhile segregationist CONSERVATIVE Democratic faction of the Democratic party and modern day Democrats?

lol, tell that to all your retarded conservative pals who keep trying to pin racism on modern day Democrats.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats are closer to social democracy for their belief = mixed economy of private and public sector. Most of europe is like this and in fact most first world countries.

Socialist state = nationalized control economy that normally doesn't give its people much choice within it. Think of Cuba...

My problem with the democrats is their identity politics and social engineering they do to our social "mindset". They won't be truly "socialistic" until they start nationalizing everything and micromanaging the economy as socialism is a economic system.

If the Democrats had their way, Cuba is exactly what we would become.

Does cuba fund science, infrastructure and support a private sector?

You would actually prefer the Cuban system to ours?

I've studied political theory and you don't make any sense...Cuba and a social democracy are two very different things.

There is no such thing as "social democracy."

I think the field of political science would be shocked to here that...Most of Europe is exactly that...

A mixed economic system of private and public sectors!!!

 

[bripat9643]

The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net

"Fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net" is not socialism. Not even close. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism does not even believe in private property.

There is no such thing as "fairly regulated capitalism." "Fairness" is a triangle with four sides.

 

[bripat9643]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

lol, are you conceding that there is no resemblance between the erstwhile segregationist CONSERVATIVE Democratic faction of the Democratic party and modern day Democrats?

lol, tell that to all your retarded conservative pals who keep trying to pin racism on modern day Democrats.

I asked you if Zell Miller was still in office. If not, then where do you get off citing him as an example of modern Democrats?

 

[bripat9643]

If the Democrats had their way, Cuba is exactly what we would become.

Does cuba fund science, infrastructure and support a private sector?

You would actually prefer the Cuban system to ours?

I've studied political theory and you don't make any sense...Cuba and a social democracy are two very different things.

There is no such thing as "social democracy."

I think the field of political science would be shocked to here that...Most of Europe is exactly that...

A mixed economic system of private and public sectors!!!

That isn't socialism. That's the welfare state, which is exactly what the United States is.

 

[bripat9643]

Schultz-Wasserman isn't the only person who is clueless about the difference between a Democratic and a Socialist. I'd guess that almost all of our far right posters are as clueless. In their view anyone who isn't as far right as them, must be a Socialist. Their ignorance is truly amazing.

Democrat is a party. Socialism is a political philosophy.

So that's the only distinction?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

lol, are you conceding that there is no resemblance between the erstwhile segregationist CONSERVATIVE Democratic faction of the Democratic party and modern day Democrats?

lol, tell that to all your retarded conservative pals who keep trying to pin racism on modern day Democrats.

I asked you if Zell Miller was still in office. If not, then where do you get off citing him as an example of modern Democrats?

So you concede that there are really no conservative segregationists in the modern Democratic party?

lol

 

[bripat9643]

The abolition of all private property is where socialism and Democrats part ways.

Hmmm, . . . wrong. Democrats want to give the EPA total control over your property and decide how it can be used.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Schultz-Wasserman isn't the only person who is clueless about the difference between a Democratic and a Socialist. I'd guess that almost all of our far right posters are as clueless. In their view anyone who isn't as far right as them, must be a Socialist. Their ignorance is truly amazing.

Democrat is a party. Socialism is a political philosophy.

So that's the only distinction?

Is socialism 'all or nothing' by definition, or can socialism be measured in degrees?

 

[bripat9643]

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

lol, are you conceding that there is no resemblance between the erstwhile segregationist CONSERVATIVE Democratic faction of the Democratic party and modern day Democrats?

lol, tell that to all your retarded conservative pals who keep trying to pin racism on modern day Democrats.

I asked you if Zell Miller was still in office. If not, then where do you get off citing him as an example of modern Democrats?

So you concede that there are really no conservative segregationists in the modern Democratic party?

lol

Still trying to avoid answering the question, I see.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The abolition of all private property is where socialism and Democrats part ways.

Hmmm, . . . wrong. Democrats want to give the EPA total control over your property and decide how it can be used.

That is not socialism nor is it true.

 

[MaryL]

This is HILLARIOUS! Chris Matthews is obviously a shill for HILLARY!, but it is quite amusing to see him nail Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She will not answer his question to tell the difference between being a Socialist and a Democrat.

I don't blame her. Frankly, I can't tell them apart either. All that groupthink stuff reminds me of the soviet apparatchiks dictating popular thought to the small minds that need leadership because they have no minds of their own. Libs are just like THAT. They scare me.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Does cuba fund science, infrastructure and support a private sector?

You would actually prefer the Cuban system to ours?

I've studied political theory and you don't make any sense...Cuba and a social democracy are two very different things.

There is no such thing as "social democracy."

I think the field of political science would be shocked to here that...Most of Europe is exactly that...

A mixed economic system of private and public sectors!!!

That isn't socialism. That's the welfare state, which is exactly what the United States is.

Not all welfare is bad as seeing the entire world in the extreme isn't a very wise thing to do.

I believe America should have a safety net and our government should invest in areas that advance Americas interest. To say otherwise, is to say that you wish for a weaker country. Is there waste? Yes. I think we can do better but that is why I am a moderate!

 

[bripat9643]

"Fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net" is not socialism. Not even close. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism does not even believe in private property.

Wrong.
Socialism believes in private property. Communism does not.
You dont know what you're talking about, as usual.

Hey, dipshit:

Socialists generally view private property relations as limiting the potential of the productive forces in the economy. From this perspective, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

No Sweden isn't socialist. It's a welfare state, just like the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

Sanders' presence and popularity obviously establishes the Democrats' ideological proximity to "socialism", and their denials are pretty silly. Whatever.

However, I think he's a democratic socialist, which is not the same thing. If the Republicans can't figure that out and deal with at that level, they're going to start giving "socialism" a better name in this country.

There's a distinction there, and I can't tell if the Republicans see it. Can they?

.

While we continue to slowly lose our freedoms with continued elections of the socialists aka big government who are in both parties.

The Most and Least Free Countries in the World by Freedom House 2014
U.S. drops in state of free press ranking report - NY Daily News

People like you should lose their freedoms, based on what you think 'freedom' is.

What do you think it is, government healthcare?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

lol, are you conceding that there is no resemblance between the erstwhile segregationist CONSERVATIVE Democratic faction of the Democratic party and modern day Democrats?

lol, tell that to all your retarded conservative pals who keep trying to pin racism on modern day Democrats.

I asked you if Zell Miller was still in office. If not, then where do you get off citing him as an example of modern Democrats?

So you concede that there are really no conservative segregationists in the modern Democratic party?

lol

Still trying to avoid answering the question, I see.

Who do you think you're fooling?

lol, why are you going mental over a question you already know the answer to?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong.
Socialism believes in private property. Communism does not.
You dont know what you're talking about, as usual.

Hey, dipshit:

Socialists generally view private property relations as limiting the potential of the productive forces in the economy. From this perspective, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

No Sweden isn't socialist. It's a welfare state, just like the United States.

Then Democrats aren't socialist.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net

"Fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net" is not socialism. Not even close. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism does not even believe in private property.

There is no such thing as "fairly regulated capitalism." "Fairness" is a triangle with four sides.

Life isn't fair, but a balance of right & wrong. It is within our interest as a country to regulate capitalism as corporations during the past 250 years and today in countries like china don't seem to respect the rights of their workers or the environment.

Sorry,,,but your kind of fair is handing the rich ceo and board all the profit and turning this nation into a cess pool.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong.
Socialism believes in private property. Communism does not.
You dont know what you're talking about, as usual.

Hey, dipshit:

Socialists generally view private property relations as limiting the potential of the productive forces in the economy. From this perspective, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

Is public education socialist?

Yes, That's why it sucks.