10 Traits Found In Socialists

[DiamondDave]

Dood. Stop insulting me. Can you make one argument without insults so that I can take you seriously?

I'm not a fake centrist...nor did I change THE MEANING of your words.

I know you don't like being caught in them, but you typed it...live up to them.

Seriously, if you insult me one more time, I'm going to have to put you on ignore. Not that you'd care, but I'm just honestly trying to get through to you - man to man - that you're being unreasonable.

yes.. you did

I typed them and SHOWED you exactly what I typed... nowhere was it stated that I have no caring of what is done in the past... that is your fabrication, you disingenuous piece of shit... if someone goes against the intent in the past or now is irrelevant, I am against it either way.. there is nothing in the constitution empowering the government for unequal taxation... I do not care if you whacked off on a homeless person and got away with it in the past, I would be against your action then or now... it's no different with the government or your personal action

Fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you you ignorant twatbag fartknocker..... you can threaten to ignore when you are exposed for trying to falsely state the writings of others

 

[DiamondDave]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Simple enough to understand.. even for the unreasonable Robin Hood system supporters wish to place their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la la la"

 

[Vanquish]

Great job showing your maturity level.

You said:

because there has been progressive tax in the past does not mean that I agree with it then or now

What I said:

But let's be clear...since you've said that you dont care what's been done in the past...I dont EVER want to see you posting about what the Founding Fathers meant....or that what X,Y,Z group is doing doesnt fit what the Founders wanted...because that means you DO care what's happened in the past.

you said just because it's been done, doesnt mean you agree. I pointed out that founder's intent was "something done in the past".

so either you care about what's been done in the past or you dont. I simply said don't appeal to what's been done in the past (by the founders) if you dont care about what's been done in the past.

I honestly was not trying to change your meaning. Before you go all ballistic on someone, you might try realize that internet communication isn't always what you think it is. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes. I know that's hard on USMB where there are constant partisan hacks posting...but I'm not one of them.

As I've said before...but people like you seem to keep over looking before you characterize me... I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-term limits just to name a few issues. So no, I'm NOT a fake centrist.

If you want your posts to actually be considered as more than partisan hackery...don't be so abusive.

 

[DiamondDave]

Better ask the Republican Abraham Lincoln...since the progressive national tax was implemented to help pay for the Civil War.

Obviously Hamilton's followers were busily making mistakes even back then...because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that taxes can be levied unequally....

What we need in America today is for everybody to get, say, a $35,000 deduction, and then on top of that an equal, say, 20% tax on what they make above that figure...that would be a just and fair taxation system...

Unfortunately that salary basement opens up the door for more buying of votes because of taxation.. and having even more with no stake in the system drawing benefits and entitlements from the system

I'm not for selective equality, graduated or staged equality, or for plain out false equality.... each person, equal treatment in taxation, on every dollar that is reported to be earned...

Much like I am not against a flat sales tax because it is not discriminatory and the tax itself is uniform for all persons across the board...

 

[Vanquish]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Simple enough to understand.. even for the unreasonable Robin Hood system supporters wish to place their fingers in their ears going "la la la la la la la"

Yes Dave, that was the original language used to try and say that income tax was unconstitutional. We all know now that you can read a Wikipedia entry. Use it as part of an argument and someone might listen.

 

[DiamondDave]

Great job showing your maturity level.

You said:

because there has been progressive tax in the past does not mean that I agree with it then or now

What I said:

But let's be clear...since you've said that you dont care what's been done in the past...I dont EVER want to see you posting about what the Founding Fathers meant....or that what X,Y,Z group is doing doesnt fit what the Founders wanted...because that means you DO care what's happened in the past.

you said just because it's been done, doesnt mean you agree. I pointed out that founder's intent was "something done in the past".

so either you care about what's been done in the past or you dont. I simply said don't appeal to what's been done in the past (by the founders) if you dont care about what's been done in the past.

I honestly was not trying to change your meaning. Before you go all ballistic on someone, you might try realize that internet communication isn't always what you think it is. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes. I know that's hard on USMB where there are constant partisan hacks posting...but I'm not one of them.

As I've said before...but people like you seem to keep over looking before you characterize me... I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-term limits just to name a few issues. So no, I'm NOT a fake centrist.

If you want your posts to actually be considered as more than partisan hackery...don't be so abusive.

No... I think you have reading comprehension problems...

Stating that I am against something when committed in the past or now is not saying that you have no care for things said in the past... disagreeing with one past decision by someone does not mean I inherently do not care about the decision of another in the past...

You can twist and squirm all you want... I will not let you try and paint a different picture to fit YOUR argument

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I guess for my answer, I would just list Obama's Cabinet and Czars.

psst... the communists and socialists were mortal enemies of the scars...

Russian Revolution (1917) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Educating them about the reality of socialism is futile...but thanks for the effort.
Many of us, in this very thread, have outlined, illustrated, educated, and explained how Obama's not a socialist, but they dont want to listen.

Here's some "educating" for you....why Obama IS a socialist.....read it and weep....

Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.

For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama's words here.)

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.

The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez's Education Forum where he railed against "the failings of capitalist education," and praised the "Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez."

The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Listen to Obama's promises to La Raza in 2007.

The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."

The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.

continued: Is Obama a socialist?

 

[Coyote]

Here's some "educating" for you....why Obama IS a socialist.....read it and weep....

Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.
..................

Here's some "educating".....Is Obama a Socialist? Not if you ask one!

 

[Diuretic]

Socialism creates slavery. When millions of people are completely dependant upon a government for most of their everyday needs, they become slaves to the system. Many liberal democrat programs that have been put in place in this country are very similar. When someone cannot eat or pay their bills until a federal check comes in the mail, they are not free. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. Liberalsim and Socialsim give men fish. Conservatism allows them to fish.

Nice sentiments but sentiments nonetheless. I think you miss the point of command economies (the pure model anyway). "Government" isn't running things, we run things, that's us, society, just like we do now, except that we don't have capitalist corporations.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not sure what you're saying here...maybe it's the inherent contradiction of pure capitalism in theory and capitalism in practice? Theory vs human nature? Pure socialism sounds great in theory...but in practice doesn't work.

Capitalism has been - generally speaking - a brilliant event for humanity. I don't want to sound too lofty here but it has definitely improved the world far more than if it had not existed. Yes there have been problems with it, yes it's built on exploitation and yes it depends on class hierarchy to work, but on balance we are all better off for it. Have a look at the political/economic/social systems that preceded it. Feudalism - how's that for exploitation? Mercantilism great if you're a stockholder of the East India Company, not so good if you're watching your country being colonised! At least capitalism works on some sort of exchange basis and respects - theoretically - individual and state's rights.

I to agree - in terms of a national economy, capitalism has by far worked the best - we would not be where we are were it not for that. But, I don't see how capitalism respects individual rights exactly - not in terms of worker exploitation (in less I'm misunderstanding you). Things like unions and labor laws for example, are the workers and the government attempting to regulate capitalism and would be a socialist influence.



Not "we've all" - some countries, predominately the western world which industrialized early under capitalism - have strongly benefited at the cost to other countries who've been exploited for their raw resources.

We know natural resources are dwindling. When that really begins to bite then capitalism will have to cede to socialism, to a planned approach to exploiting natural resources and their distribution.

And I agree it has to be practical, not theoretical and therefore it will - I think - have a good mixed approach.

You make an interesting point....I see the balance of capitalism-socialism as the balance between individual rights/responsibilities vs societal rights/responsibilities - individual good vs greater good. Too far in the direction of capitalism leads to great suffering for too many people to be acceptable in a modern society while too far in the socialistic direction leads to economic ruin.

Command economies in the past have failed because of an inability of the planners to predict consumer needs and demands. The benefit of a market system is that consumer needs and demands are expressed very quickly and picked up very aptly by companies willing to meet those needs and demands. However, capitalism has given us greater knowledge and technology and it is entirely possible that the mistakes of the past in command economies can be overcome by looking at the mistakes and using technology and knowledge as it exists now and into the future, to rectify those mistakes.

I'll have to take some of those points and discuss them separately if I may.


I to agree - in terms of a national economy, capitalism has by far worked the best - we would not be where we are were it not for that. But, I don't see how capitalism respects individual rights exactly - not in terms of worker exploitation (in less I'm misunderstanding you). Things like unions and labor laws for example, are the workers and the government attempting to regulate capitalism and would be a socialist influence.

I think I'm arguing that capitalism emerged as an economic system in England when there was a major emphasis on individual liberty and to free markets rather than the mercantilist economy that existed from about Elizabethan times to the beginning of the Hanoverian Succession. The old stock companies and the ideas of royal charters which created near-monopolies in certain areas of trade were overtaken by the ideas promulgated by Adam Smith and others. J.S. Mill was a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism and basically it was a let 'er rip approach at that time. It was beneficial in that it removed the old system and replaced it with a much more dynamic process. The Industrial Revolution helped as well and perhaps the two were a symbiosis, not really sure of that. So in that sense the respect of individual rights facilitated capitalism, perhaps that's what I should have written before. The regulation of capitalism by law and by collective action is necessary, a bit like a speed governor on a truck.

Not "we've all" - some countries, predominately the western world which industrialized early under capitalism - have strongly benefited at the cost to other countries who've been exploited for their raw resources.

True. The exploitation has been historical, when powerful countries/Empires colonised other parts of the world for their resources and to create markets for their goods it was under mercantilism and it continued under early capitalism and later capitalism, just that the model changed a bit under later capitalism, the colonisation and exploitation wasn't as explicit as it had been under mercantilism.

You make an interesting point....I see the balance of capitalism-socialism as the balance between individual rights/responsibilities vs societal rights/responsibilities - individual good vs greater good. Too far in the direction of capitalism leads to great suffering for too many people to be acceptable in a modern society while too far in the socialistic direction leads to economic ruin.

I think getting that balance is the trick. The first thing to bear in mind is that capitalism is simply a human invention. Defenders and proponents like to align it to human nature and suggest that the concept is deeply embedded in humans, but it isn't. Given that then it isn't immutable and I argue it must change as the ability to exploit natural resources lessens. But that's also true for socialism. It is after all a 19th century economic theory and while its basic principles are laudable it really does need to be revised with a healthy dose of market theory in it. I know I argued that command economies could work with new technology but frankly I do believe the consumer must be given far more ability to choose and demand than in the previous models of command economy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Most people believe the sick and wounded are entitled to a caring hand when needed. I question to soul of any man who would do away with emergency rooms that treat the wounded based on their need and not their finances and the sanity of any who would do away with preventative care to prevent epidemics and greater costs in terms of both human suffering and finances.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama's words here.)

Should people not be allowed to organize?

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone

I question the soul on any who desire to see those who would better their condition exist in abject poverty. Such takes a cruel soul, indeed.

The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism

They are different stages of socioeconomic development.

The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Listen to Obama's promises to La Raza in 2007.

One of the reasons this Leftist opposed Obama

The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."

So only socialists abhor war?

The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.

He's also taking possession of much of the world's nuclear material.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

As opposed to sweatshops?

 

[Flopper]

Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think your definition would better fit J.P. Morgan than Karl Marx.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Here's some "educating" for you....why Obama IS a socialist.....read it and weep....

Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.
..................

Here's some "educating".....Is Obama a Socialist? Not if you ask one!

Socialists are kinda like muslims.....it's OK if you lie to the non-believers....

 

[Coyote]

Here's some "educating" for you....why Obama IS a socialist.....read it and weep....

Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.
..................

Here's some "educating".....Is Obama a Socialist? Not if you ask one!

Socialists are kinda like muslims.....it's OK if you lie to the non-believers....

Sounds like a capitalist to me: checks in the mail.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Charles, that's one of the most rational things I've seen you post. Not that you claimed it, but it doesn't prove that Obama's for wildly, radically big government though.

I would argue that most politicians favor big government, and Obama is no exception. I would also argue that if we define prosperity as sustainable long term economic growth then it does become possible to find a proper percentage of government expenditure, as a ratio of GDP, to maximize that growth. The US currently has ~10% 'official' unemployment, perhaps as much as another 10% who, having exhausted their unemployment benefits, no longer count and a far larger portion of 'underemployed' individuals (those who cannot get a job equal to their abilities) and I find this disturbing. Small businesses face a hostile environment from ever changing government regulations and Tax codes, as well as the threat of spurious lawsuits; further they are only a realistic option for those with the ability to make a business profitable, which excludes many people. While business owners profit from a glut in labor, the workers, who make the majority of the populace, do not. Those workers are the ones who would most benefit from increased economic growth as competition for workers would drive wages up more surely than any government regulation. This is why it is imperative, for the 'average worker' to have government spending sharply curbed.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Socialism creates slavery. When millions of people are completely dependant upon a government for most of their everyday needs, they become slaves to the system. Many liberal democrat programs that have been put in place in this country are very similar. When someone cannot eat or pay their bills until a federal check comes in the mail, they are not free. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. Liberalsim and Socialsim give men fish. Conservatism allows them to fish.

Nice sentiments but sentiments nonetheless. I think you miss the point of command economies (the pure model anyway). "Government" isn't running things, we run things, that's us, society, just like we do now, except that we don't have capitalist corporations.

You just....inadvertently i'm sure.... pointed out the main difference then between Australia and the U.S....

If "You" as a society run things such as corporations....that means you run them as a group or as a collective ....whereas Amercians run things as individuals...

That's the basic difference between socialism and capitalism...

 

[Vanquish]

Great job showing your maturity level.

You said:

because there has been progressive tax in the past does not mean that I agree with it then or now

What I said:

But let's be clear...since you've said that you dont care what's been done in the past...I dont EVER want to see you posting about what the Founding Fathers meant....or that what X,Y,Z group is doing doesnt fit what the Founders wanted...because that means you DO care what's happened in the past.

you said just because it's been done, doesnt mean you agree. I pointed out that founder's intent was "something done in the past".

so either you care about what's been done in the past or you dont. I simply said don't appeal to what's been done in the past (by the founders) if you dont care about what's been done in the past.

I honestly was not trying to change your meaning. Before you go all ballistic on someone, you might try realize that internet communication isn't always what you think it is. Try putting yourself in someone else's shoes. I know that's hard on USMB where there are constant partisan hacks posting...but I'm not one of them.

As I've said before...but people like you seem to keep over looking before you characterize me... I'm pro-life, pro-gun, pro-term limits just to name a few issues. So no, I'm NOT a fake centrist.

If you want your posts to actually be considered as more than partisan hackery...don't be so abusive.

No... I think you have reading comprehension problems...

Stating that I am against something when committed in the past or now is not saying that you have no care for things said in the past... disagreeing with one past decision by someone does not mean I inherently do not care about the decision of another in the past...

You can twist and squirm all you want... I will not let you try and paint a different picture to fit YOUR argument

This is why the internet fails. I'm honestly not trying to be insulting or twist your words or misunderstand you or lie...but your hatred because our MUTUAL misunderstanding of each other has turned your posts into hate-filled assaults.

If this is how you treat someone with a different view point who is honestly trying to understand and dialog with you...don't ever expect to really make progress with your philosophies.

 

[Diuretic]

Socialism creates slavery. When millions of people are completely dependant upon a government for most of their everyday needs, they become slaves to the system. Many liberal democrat programs that have been put in place in this country are very similar. When someone cannot eat or pay their bills until a federal check comes in the mail, they are not free. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. Liberalsim and Socialsim give men fish. Conservatism allows them to fish.

Nice sentiments but sentiments nonetheless. I think you miss the point of command economies (the pure model anyway). "Government" isn't running things, we run things, that's us, society, just like we do now, except that we don't have capitalist corporations.

You just....inadvertently i'm sure.... pointed out the main difference then between Australia and the U.S....

If "You" as a society run things such as corporations....that means you run them as a group or as a collective ....whereas Amercians run things as individuals...

That's the basic difference between socialism and capitalism...

Main difference? How about you're in the northern hemisphere and we're in the south?

That's not a difference, that's just a misunderstanding. “We” in my post was a reference to society itself, not here in my country. In this country we have an economy that is mixed, like the US economy, but it's more regulated than in the US in many aspects.

Your point about running things as a group or collective and running things as individuals....what's a corporation? The “corporation” can be composed of shareholders and managers or it can be composed of stakeholders and managers. The difference between the capitalist model and the socialist model in corporate body activity is that profit is socialised and not privatised, that's all. Essentially an organisation runs the same way under capitalism as it does under socialism.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Most people believe the sick and wounded are entitled to a caring hand when needed. I question to soul of any man who would do away with emergency rooms that treat the wounded based on their need and not their finances and the sanity of any who would do away with preventative care to prevent epidemics and greater costs in terms of both human suffering and finances.

Christian ethics would abhor leaving a man unattended when he is truly in need of emergency care...

...however our emergency rooms are jammed with people who want everyday care....thus causing the truly needy to get shortchanged....is that fair?

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama's words here.)

Should people not be allowed to organize?

What does that have to do with not allowing for a secret ballot? We all know that when a man cannot vote in secret he is open to the vagaries of thuggery to make him conform to the borg...

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

As opposed to sweatshops?
What do you think regulations are for....? Such regulations against inhumane treatment, btw, are not opposed by decent Christians...that is why Christian ethics combined with Capitalism works so well... We don't need to change over to Socialism in order to have a decent capitalistic economic system...

.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Main difference? How about you're in the northern hemisphere and we're in the south?

I thought it was US = Alligators and
Australia = Crocodiles.