Democrats, can you give me a critique on socialism? Whats wrong with it?

[Mr.Nick]

Last time I checked-the majority of Americans voted him into office.

So we can vote tyrants into office now? The president is bound by nothing??

We do have a constitution you know, as well as a Congress.

The president isn't a dictator.

How has Obama overstepped his constitutional limits?

Other than Libya/Yemen-I agree he overstepped there (but Republicans have overstepped that same exact thing too).

How about taking over a ******* business and telling share holders to go **** themselves??

But even you admitted he did and even once is too much even if you don't agree with my blatant assertion.

Obama violated the Fourth Amendment in my assertion.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"America has always had social programs. That doesn't mean we're a socialist country."

Oh yes it does...

 

[shintao]

Last time I checked-the majority of Americans voted him into office.

So we can vote tyrants into office now? The president is bound by nothing??

We do have a constitution you know, as well as a Congress.

The president isn't a dictator.

How has Obama overstepped his constitutional limits?

Other than Libya/Yemen-I agree he overstepped there (but Republicans have overstepped that same exact thing too).

When you give one president all the power he wants, you have just given all the future presidents the same powers.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb5G2Wx46OI&feature=related]‪GEORGE BUSH A DICTATOR????‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Mr.Nick]

Democrats, can you give me a critique on socialism? Whats wrong with it?

Democrats continually assert they're against socialism and they're really capitalists and they're just not moonbat crazy like the free market guys.

So I'm wondering what democrats find so unappealing about socialism, which social or socioeconomic byproducts of the theory do you find oppressive..

I see this sort of thing from the extreme Right often and for the record, it's a big turn off to Independents. It's like when Liberals say that all Conservatives are Nazis.
Guess what? There is a LOT that Conservatives and The American Nazi / American Socialist (another Nazi party) agree on 100%. As a matter of of fact, the Nazis and Conservatives in this country agree almost exactly on the majority of issues.

I know lots of Liberals and I irritate the sh1t out of them my anti-union attitudes and such. But not one of them is a socialist. That phrase is so over-used it's unreal. Not one of them wants to take away the right to own property, to own a business, to make a profit.
Do they want the government to do things that aren't necessarily supposed to make a profit? Therein lies one difference. Liberals don't think that every single thing done, should be done for a profit. Some things are done to promote the general welfare.

I think we have a great country and for all our problems, I'm still proud of it. I've lived in other countries - including some with VERY LITTLE GOVERNMENT. No thanks. I like this one best.

America has always had social programs. That doesn't mean we're a socialist country.

It's that polar thinking, that identifies the extremes. "If you don't share my philosophy, you must be the other extreme."
"If you don't embrace Conservative values, you're a Socialist."
"If you don't embrace Liberal values, you're a Nazi."
Whatever.

I'm not "far right" I'm a libertarian.

You didn't answer the ******* question either.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

"Other than Libya/Yemen-I agree he overstepped there (but Republicans have overstepped that same exact thing too). "

Then you are duped too. He had sixty days to end USA direct involvementm in hostilities- and DID.

Where in the constitution does it say that? Please point it out to me. I do know where it says only congress has the right to declare war is though.

And that whole argument over the word "declare" is ridiculous-everybody knows damn well what it means. It wasn't added just to be a formality.

 

[EriktheRed]

Too much emphasis on equality can stifle innovation. It can also stifle self-motivation. Both of these things have helped western civilization become what it is today.

It can also be kinda boring, too, if too much is centralized. I saw in East Germany how so many shops had the same products because they all came from the same factories...or maybe they were jsut planned the same. Either way, it was pretty drab.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Too much emphasis on equality can stifle innovation. It can also stifle self-motivation. Both of these things have helped western civilization become what it is today.

It can also be kinda boring, too, if too much is centralized. I saw in East Germany how so many shops had the same products because they all came from the same factories...or maybe they were jsut planned the same. Either way, it was pretty drab.

Thank you...

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Democrats, can you give me a critique on socialism? Whats wrong with it?

Democrats continually assert they're against socialism and they're really capitalists and they're just not moonbat crazy like the free market guys.

So I'm wondering what democrats find so unappealing about socialism, which social or socioeconomic byproducts of the theory do you find oppressive..

I see this sort of thing from the extreme Right often and for the record, it's a big turn off to Independents. It's like when Liberals say that all Conservatives are Nazis.
Guess what? There is a LOT that Conservatives and The American Nazi / American Socialist (another Nazi party) agree on 100%. As a matter of of fact, the Nazis and Conservatives in this country agree almost exactly on the majority of issues.

I know lots of Liberals and I irritate the sh1t out of them my anti-union attitudes and such. But not one of them is a socialist. That phrase is so over-used it's unreal. Not one of them wants to take away the right to own property, to own a business, to make a profit.
Do they want the government to do things that aren't necessarily supposed to make a profit? Therein lies one difference. Liberals don't think that every single thing done, should be done for a profit. Some things are done to promote the general welfare.

I think we have a great country and for all our problems, I'm still proud of it. I've lived in other countries - including some with VERY LITTLE GOVERNMENT. No thanks. I like this one best.

America has always had social programs. That doesn't mean we're a socialist country.

It's that polar thinking, that identifies the extremes. "If you don't share my philosophy, you must be the other extreme."
"If you don't embrace Conservative values, you're a Socialist."
"If you don't embrace Liberal values, you're a Nazi."
Whatever.

I'm not "far right" I'm a libertarian.

You didn't answer the ******* question either.

Being on the right isn't exclusive to Republicans. A libertarian can be "far right", just like they can be "far left". Not all libertarians share the same basic core beliefs. Believe it or not I vote Libertarian for example. I don't consider myself to actually be one-but their beliefs match mine the closet.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Socialism is your pal, and we're ALREADY socialist, just a crappe, screw the workers, let the rich and corporations run wild Pub one.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

So we can vote tyrants into office now? The president is bound by nothing??

We do have a constitution you know, as well as a Congress.

The president isn't a dictator.

How has Obama overstepped his constitutional limits?

Other than Libya/Yemen-I agree he overstepped there (but Republicans have overstepped that same exact thing too).

How about taking over a ******* business and telling share holders to go **** themselves??

But even you admitted he did and even once is too much even if you don't agree with my blatant assertion.

Obama violated the Fourth Amendment in my assertion.

What business did he just take over-that didn't ask for it, or accept it? Any organization that didn't want to receive the bailouts-didn't have to.

edit: and yes I agree once was too much. As I said earlier in the thread-I don't support Obama. And I have no problems calling him out if he oversteps the constitution, if I think he has. But I think we can both obviously agree that many presidents post-WW2 have violated this portion of the constitution. Not saying that it makes it right to do-but saying if you hold one to that standard, you have to hold them all to it.

 

[shintao]

So we can vote tyrants into office now? The president is bound by nothing??

We do have a constitution you know, as well as a Congress.

The president isn't a dictator.

How has Obama overstepped his constitutional limits?

Other than Libya/Yemen-I agree he overstepped there (but Republicans have overstepped that same exact thing too).

How about taking over a ******* business and telling share holders to go **** themselves??

But even you admitted he did and even once is too much even if you don't agree with my blatant assertion.

Obama violated the Fourth Amendment in my assertion.

He was acting in a national emergency, so I see no harm. He also controlled the banks we loaned to as well, didn't he? It is no different than Bush sending Black Water into the streets of New Orleans, or seizing assets of anyone he thinks is a "terrorist," or invading a sovereign country in a preemptive strike, or torturing, murdering and raping innocent chained & detained women and children.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"not one of them is a socialist. That phrase is so over-used it's unreal. Not one of them wants to take away the right to own property, to own a business, to make a profit."

Neither do socialists. That's COMMUNISTS fcs...

 

[Mr.Nick]

I see this sort of thing from the extreme Right often and for the record, it's a big turn off to Independents. It's like when Liberals say that all Conservatives are Nazis.
Guess what? There is a LOT that Conservatives and The American Nazi / American Socialist (another Nazi party) agree on 100%. As a matter of of fact, the Nazis and Conservatives in this country agree almost exactly on the majority of issues.

I know lots of Liberals and I irritate the sh1t out of them my anti-union attitudes and such. But not one of them is a socialist. That phrase is so over-used it's unreal. Not one of them wants to take away the right to own property, to own a business, to make a profit.
Do they want the government to do things that aren't necessarily supposed to make a profit? Therein lies one difference. Liberals don't think that every single thing done, should be done for a profit. Some things are done to promote the general welfare.

I think we have a great country and for all our problems, I'm still proud of it. I've lived in other countries - including some with VERY LITTLE GOVERNMENT. No thanks. I like this one best.

America has always had social programs. That doesn't mean we're a socialist country.

It's that polar thinking, that identifies the extremes. "If you don't share my philosophy, you must be the other extreme."
"If you don't embrace Conservative values, you're a Socialist."
"If you don't embrace Liberal values, you're a Nazi."
Whatever.

I'm not "far right" I'm a libertarian.

You didn't answer the ******* question either.

Being on the right isn't exclusive to Republicans. A libertarian can be "far right", just like they can be "far left". Not all libertarians share the same basic core beliefs. Believe it or not I vote Libertarian for example. I don't consider myself to actually be one-but their beliefs match mine the closet.

You're right... There are many forms of "libertarians" but in the United States is generally applied to classical liberals.

I'm a classical liberal.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I'm not "far right" I'm a libertarian.

You didn't answer the ******* question either.

Being on the right isn't exclusive to Republicans. A libertarian can be "far right", just like they can be "far left". Not all libertarians share the same basic core beliefs. Believe it or not I vote Libertarian for example. I don't consider myself to actually be one-but their beliefs match mine the closet.

You're right... There are many forms of "libertarians" but in the United States is generally applied to classical liberals.

I'm a classical liberal.

Fair enough, no disputes from me.

 

[Mr.Nick]

How has Obama overstepped his constitutional limits?

Other than Libya/Yemen-I agree he overstepped there (but Republicans have overstepped that same exact thing too).

How about taking over a ******* business and telling share holders to go **** themselves??

But even you admitted he did and even once is too much even if you don't agree with my blatant assertion.

Obama violated the Fourth Amendment in my assertion.

He was acting in a national emergency, so I see no harm. He also controlled the banks we loaned to as well, didn't he? It is no different than Bush sending Black Water into the streets of New Orleans, or seizing assets of anyone he thinks is a "terrorist," or invading a sovereign country in a preemptive strike, or torturing, murdering and raping innocent chained & detained women and children.

Letting an auto company fail is not a "national emergency." Companies fail all the time.

He took over the goddamn company because 99.9% of UAW workers voted for him and he was paying them back by saving their jobs..

Then he created cash for clunkers to stimulate their cushy jobs.

Of course the result was millions of perfectly good used autos were destroyed - leaving those on a budget who needed a vehicle to supply and demand capitalism...

In short Obama stole money from the taxpayers and put it into the union pockets, smashed cars and the result of that smashing was the raising of value for used cars. So now poor people cant afford to buy cars...

I hope his non-union poor voting base remembers that..

Obama is a little ***** that panders to anyone who will vote for him or anyone that will listen to his bullshit and not pay attention to the end results to his actions.

 

[Flopper]

The Republicans seem to considers anything government does for the people to be an evil socialist plot, consumer protection, environmental protection, subsidies for the poor, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights protection, protection of workers, etc… I think it interesting that Lincoln, our first Republican president, did not feel that government for the people was wrong when he said, “and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

 

[shintao]

Too much emphasis on equality can stifle innovation. It can also stifle self-motivation. Both of these things have helped western civilization become what it is today.

It can also be kinda boring, too, if too much is centralized. I saw in East Germany how so many shops had the same products because they all came from the same factories...or maybe they were jsut planned the same. Either way, it was pretty drab.

And yet innovation led to computerized 200+ Autobons and bullet trains, with cars running on computers and preventing traffic gridlock. People are very self-motivated to better their positions in life, and their system is designed to let them do so, as they work from the bottom to the top of businesses, learning each aspect. With less competiveness, they are free to concentrate on quality, not quanity as occurs in America, and give consumers better services than we get. With their retirements and medical covered they work worry free. They even get free televison, like we get free radio.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

The USSR, Cuba under Castros, and Red China are/were COMMUNIST, installed violently as always. Europe and Canada, and Oz and NZ, and us when we finally get universal health care, are socialist, without debate.. Learn something. We've actually been socialist (social democrat) for a long time. We've been anti-communist brainwashed more than anyone else though. Breaking news: The Cold War is over- capitalism won.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

"And yet innovation led to computerized 200+ Autobons and bullet trains, with cars running on computers and preventing traffic gridlock."

???Autobahns were Hitler's, Bullet trains japanese... and NOT...

 

[shintao]

How about taking over a ******* business and telling share holders to go **** themselves??

But even you admitted he did and even once is too much even if you don't agree with my blatant assertion.

Obama violated the Fourth Amendment in my assertion.

He was acting in a national emergency, so I see no harm. He also controlled the banks we loaned to as well, didn't he? It is no different than Bush sending Black Water into the streets of New Orleans, or seizing assets of anyone he thinks is a "terrorist," or invading a sovereign country in a preemptive strike, or torturing, murdering and raping innocent chained & detained women and children.

Letting an auto company fail is not a "national emergency." Companies fail all the time.

He took over the goddamn company because 99.9% of UAW workers voted for him and he was paying them back by saving their jobs..

Then he created cash for clunkers to stimulate their cushy jobs.

Of course the result was millions of perfectly good used autos were destroyed - leaving those on a budget who needed a vehicle to supply and demand capitalism...

In short Obama stole money from the taxpayers and put it into the union pockets, smashed cars and the result of that smashing was the raising of value for used cars. So now poor people cant afford to buy cars...

I hope his non-union poor voting base remembers that..

Obama is a little ***** that panders to anyone who will vote for him or anyone that will listen to his bullshit and not pay attention to the end results to his actions.

GM was just one small part in the overall scheme of things, and delt with a failing corporation, not union workers. Cash for clunkers removed smog machines from the highways.

And Bush stole money and put it into corporate pockets with massive bailouts, granted no-bid contracts to his friends, invaded country's to put the war machine to work. I guess that makes Bush a little ***** and anyone who supported him.