Are people seriously ignorant of the consequences of communism/socialism?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Revealing that you used the 'quote' feature and deleted the evidence I posted. Why is that?

You are unable to engage in an intelligent debate, so you erase what you can't address.

Um…yeah, that’s SOP for a conservative.

Otherwise, conservatives have succeeded in this thread to either exhibit their ignorance of ‘communism/socialism’ or the disingenuous nature of their argument by using these pejorative terms as some sort of weapon against democrats.

Indeed, Obama’s no more a ‘socialist’ than GWB, or Reagan, for that matter.

 

[Dragon]

I went back to my posts suggesting that both the Republican Party and anti-Communism are more dangerous than Communism, because both of them actually have a significant presence in the U.S. while Communism does not. I scrolled forward to see if anyone had a coherent counterargument. No one did. Nothing but empty rhetoric and name-calling, which actually characterizes most of this thread. Hardly a thoughtful post to be found.

I will repeat. The danger of Communism in America has never been significant, and at this time it is zero. Not because it wouldn't be a bad thing if we ended up with a Soviet-style authoritarian regime, it would be dreadful. But it would also be impossible. There is simply no significant constituency for that, and it ain't gonna happen.

Anti-Communism, on the other hand, has given us actual (not hypothetical) affronts to our liberties, time and again, in blacklists and "contempt of Congress" citations, in wars fought by conscripts, in government secrecy for the sake of "national security."

Communism is no danger to our freedom. Anti-Communism is a danger to our freedom.

The Republican Party is more dangerous than Communism, for the same reason that the punk drug dealer with a gun down the block is more dangerous than Darth Vader: it exists.

 

[Unkotare]

Revealing that you used the 'quote' feature and deleted the evidence I posted. Why is that?

You are unable to engage in an intelligent debate, so you erase what you can't address.

You didn't post any "evidence" you idiot. If you are really determined to let everyone know how ignorant you are, take out an ad in the newspaper.

Yes, I did.

Your uneducated opinion is not evidence, dope.

 

[kiwiman127]

This is one of the dumber quotes I've seen lately. Street parades? Really? Look, the United States flourished as a capitalistic society. We became who we are because of the competitive drive that a free market economy encouraged. We were able to afford the best police, fire, and national defense in the world because of the monies that free market economy provided. We had clean streets...we had the best colleges on the planet and we had grocery stores that were the envy of the rest of the world. NONE of that was due to socialism.

Actually if one looks at historical facts, the US flourished as a capitalistic society when our financial industry was more regulated and we had a booming Middle Class whose income grew at a faster rate than inflation. The wealthy paid much, much higher taxes than they do today and business and the wealthy still flourished and at the same time, so did everyone else. And during those times, the US didn't have an over-whelming National Debt.
Since the deregulation of the financial sector, since the Middle Class started seeing flat wages, since the wealthy have seen their taxes drop like a rock, we have seen the US economy stagger and our National Debt has sky-rocketed.


Oh and by the way, you folks screaming about communism, socialism and Marxism have been sucked in by the extreme fear mongers. If you're this afraid of these ideologies as defined by your masters, I'd hate to see your reactions if you ever ran into a real communist, socialist or Marxist.

Half truths are not your friend

Half truths? Please point them out. Thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Taking care of the old and the sick is not "communism."

Spending government money on education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is what drives an economy.

It is not and has never been the responsibility for the Federal Government to do that. Infrastructure is limited to specific things as is research. The rest is State responsibility.

Read the ******* Constitution.

That's silly.

Do you drive on the interstate highway?

Umm. We pay a federal gasoline, truckers pay a highway use tax as well as taxes on diesel fuel to the federal government. We also pay federal excise taxes that are specifically targeted to funding roads and bridges. Now, the federal government offers ASSISTANCE to states which are responsible for the majority of road funding.
WE pay for the roads. Not government.
The Eisenhower Interstate System as the name suggest was originally the idea of Pres Eisenhower modeled after the German Autobahn. A system transportation and national defense highways.
Transport infrastructure is an essential function of government. It is NOT socialism, as you libs like to claim.
Your points have all the strengths of a wet paper bag. You let loose these idiotic drive by one liner posts with no facts to back them up.
Posting here is not your highest and best use. Stop it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Liberals and democrats have an intense need to throw reality out the window and embrace socialisim and/or communisim because of the glittery promises. Take from the rich, give to the poor, everyone gets a nice house, a nice new car, lots of money, never has to work again. Everything is free because the nice powerful government made the rich give it up. Easy street forever more. The juvenile mind laps this up. They think themselves not at all greedy by wanting others to fulfill their wishes. It's FAIR. Why should someone else have more than they do. It's not FAIR.

They are wrong in many respects. Not the least of which is trusting the government to keep being fair when the government has all that power and wealth. The next is, once the weath is taken from the rich and redistributed, where is more wealth going to come from? This is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she said that the trouble with socialisim is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Liberals look upon government as 100% trustworthy benevolent and fair.
They forget government is run by people. People with flaws and vices.
People with goals and ambitions. People who want very desperately to keep their jobs and pensions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How much death has to be caused by these systems before people understand they dont work?

Taking care of the old and the sick is not "communism."

Spending government money on education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is what drives an economy.

No...The economic health of the nation is derived from the private sector which is derived from the business and commerce activity of people.
Government produces nothing. It only consumes. From government employment there is no return on investment because government consumes.
Private sector work ALWAYS produces a return on investment because private sector workers produce valued products and services.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Liberals and democrats have an intense need to throw reality out the window and embrace socialisim and/or communisim because of the glittery promises. Take from the rich, give to the poor, everyone gets a nice house, a nice new car, lots of money, never has to work again. Everything is free because the nice powerful government made the rich give it up. Easy street forever more. The juvenile mind laps this up. They think themselves not at all greedy by wanting others to fulfill their wishes. It's FAIR. Why should someone else have more than they do. It's not FAIR.

They are wrong in many respects. Not the least of which is trusting the government to keep being fair when the government has all that power and wealth. The next is, once the weath is taken from the rich and redistributed, where is more wealth going to come from? This is what Margaret Thatcher meant when she said that the trouble with socialisim is that you eventually run out of other people's money.

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lower taxes for the rich. Go to ReaganBushDebt.org for the numbers.

The rich now pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

Spending money on education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is not "socialism."

Bailing out rich bankers is socialism.

Cut the bullshit with the theories.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lower taxes for the rich. Go to ReaganBushDebt.org for the numbers.

The rich now pay taxes at a lower rate than the rest of us.

Spending money on education, healthcare, research, and infrastructure is not "socialism."

Bailing out rich bankers is socialism.

How about bailing out Unions, democratic faithful and voter groups that commit federal crimes with US tax payer money?

Republican enemies are always the working poor.

Republican friends are always Wall Street, the oil companies, and the super rich.

Is this really who you want to be?

You post no facts. Democrats benefit just as much if not more from large businesses, the financial industry and the very wealthy.
This example is an easy one.
All those blue states in the northeast.....Well they are home to the largest concentration of wealthy people in the country.
So your post is total nonsense.
You were told to find another hobby. With this little exchange, you know why.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's really not that hard to figure out. We don't have very many Communists in this country, certainly none in government. We do have Republicans. Republicans are a clear and present danger. Communists are not.

You are a very hard headed single minded and judgemental person.
Your hatred toward all people not liberal is curious.
Why do you feel this way?

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's really not that hard to figure out. We don't have very many Communists in this country, certainly none in government. We do have Republicans. Republicans are a clear and present danger. Communists are not.

You sir are what is referred to as a "useful idiot".

This country has been shoved to the right by the corporate money for decades now.

To pretend we are on a socialistic bent is total propagandistic BULLSHIT!

how brain washed can you people get?

Yeah. As far as you are concerned there Cupcake, is we are not socialist enough.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh brother.

Makes perfect sense. I don't worry about Communists for the same reason I don't worry about the Justified Ancients of Muumuu. They hardly even exist in the U.S., and those that do exist have no power. They're no threat. Republicans, on the other hand, are numerous and powerful. They're a threat.

Maybe I would dislike what Communists would do if they did have power more than I dislike what Republicans do, but as there is zero chance of that happening, big deal.

In what way do non liberals pose a threat?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If the system remains Democratic it will remain as a choice.

Care to explain what it is your talking about?

 

[thereisnospoon]

consequences of socialism?

police force
fire fighters
shared cleaned streets
school systems
cheaper groceries
street parades
national defense

OK I give up. What are the consequences of these things? Safer neighborhoods and smarter people? What am I missing?

Umm none of the first three are socialist. Pubic works and safety are essential functions of government funded by directed tax dollars.
As we see many many examples of private schools, government education is not necessary. All schools should be run by the private sector.
Cheaper groceries? What the ****?
Street parades? These are not needed and for the most part are privately funded.
National defense is an essential function of government.
Throwing mud at a wall to see if anything sticks does not produce facts nor credibility.
Know what I mean?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Birchers had you convinced that Eisenhower was a Communist. Now it's the tea baggers delivering the same messages to you.

I think you are indulging in controlled substances or are teetering on a visit to an institution. No sane person would state these things.

 

[Old Rocks]

How is that relavent. Communism over the last 90 years has been a system defined by incompetence and mass murder. The question is, how many people have to die to show it won't work. Religion is not part of the question.


It can be a different question, but it is not relavent to this discussion.

Any system that claims absolute correctness, whether is calls itself communist, fascist, or a theocracy, will in the end turn into an oppressive state. These people know that they have to absolute truth, and when things don't turn out to be what they predicted, someone has to be punished.

Equating communism to socialism is the same as equating fascism to capitalism.

 

[francoHFW]

Foxbot Cold War Dinosaurs!! It's over we won!! Socialism has been democratic and admirable since WWII. WE're socialist- just an unfair STOOPID greedy Pub one...