Do You Guy's Know The Difference Between:-

[Levant]

But intelligence is required to decide where the lines are drawn....blanket societal governing is what happens in China...we are suppose to be different.....but I fear the libs like the way they do things in China....Americans will always be free...it may take some blood from time to time but we will be free....and armed....

You nailed it. There will be bumps in the road but, just as the Founders pointed out, there are limits and there are times that the tree of liberty will have to be refreshed. But we will always be free and always be armed.

 

[Levant]

Read this, you might just learn something true. Mind you the US was slow to the party when it came the child labor laws. The first ones were put on the books in Europe as early as 1874 by... and here it is Socialist legislators.

Types of socialism - Wikipedia
This is what I hate the most about this argument. Dishonest people (I don't know a different way to describe it) often resort to broad brushing all types of Socialism into one convenient pot , the one of Communism. The basis of Socialism is equality the exact opposite of authoritarianism. It is the idea that society as a whole should share their wealth, not take but share. It doesn't say anywhere the share should even be equal.

Dishonest people also commonly seem to change their minds on what Socialism is. depending on the situation. If Bernie calls for universal healthcare he's a Communist. When it's pointed out to them that other countries have Universal Healthcare they are Communist. When it's pointed out to them that those societies are stable and successful, all of a sudden they are Capitalist.

Socialism didn't have anything to do with reducing child labor. Cambodia? Vietnam? China? North Korea? No child labor in those countries is there?

Western, Judeo-Christian, values has been the biggest reducer of child labor. Where real Christianity does not exist, child labor does.

 

[Levant]

What you posted is leftwing propaganda. The origin of the term from the French revolution is irrelevant. All that matters is how they are used today. the only definition that makes any sense is that the left supports socialism and the right supports the free market. When you claim that bigotry and genocide are "rightwing" you only show that you're just another leftwing douchebag intent on smearing anyone who supports market economics.

You talk about defining a spectrum when you can't even define your own spectrum. You have no definition that doesn't consist solely of smears against the right.

You're a leftwing piece of shit.

And I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't around during the French Revolution to be on the "classic" chart.

 

[Levant]

I completely agree. NATIONAL socialism. They are Nationalists before they are Socialists, a particularly nasty form of Nationalism to boot.

Nice deflection. What they were, really, was a particular nasty form of Socialism to boot.

 

[Levant]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

And hands up if any of you have ever actually read Das Capital?

Socialism and communism are totalitarian.
Thats all that matters

Really? I live in a social Democracy, pretty sure I vote for my elected officials. In fact, since my choices of parties who have a realistic chance of getting power isn't restricted to 2, I would argue my form of government is less authoritarian than yours.

As far as I know, no American politician has ever claimed the US should turn to Communism. Quite a few would like a social Democracy.

Well the duopoly is private. And the voters keep it alive. Not the government.
I thought social democracies were different from socialism?
You statists need to keep your stuff strait, bro.

I would keep it straight if you guys had any interest in sticking to an actual definition. Tell me Harley, how many times have you claimed Bernie is a Communist? Or the entire Democratic party without EVER not EVER acknowledging that not a single one has ever claimed they want to emulate Communism? In fact, I've noticed that every single person on the right on this board routinely interchanges, Communist, Socialist, and Democrat. While they all are certainly not the same. So if you don't feel the need to differentiate between those terms why should I not simply lump Social Democracy in there too and see how well the US compares to that?

You were being technical. In the next post to me, you claim there is no need to be.
Ay caramba

I didn't realize correcting the assertion that all forms of Socialism are authoritarian was "technical". The fact of the matter simply is that the right has deliberately muddled the meaning of Socialism so they could start to equate it to Communism. Socialism, actual Socialism has been the driving force for stuff like the abolishing of child labor, Universal Suffrage, affordable healthcare, a 5 day work week etc. etc. You can, as I do condemn Communism because that DOES seem to invariably turn to authoritarianism. But that's a condemnation of authoritarianism, not the idea that the community should share its resources. But do me a favor don't try to come to me and say I'm inconsistent in my definition of Socialism.

I live in a Social Democracy, meaning that my country recognizes as does yours by the way just to a lesser extent than society as a whole does have a responsibility to help its weaker members. That IS Socialism. I don't know what your position is on that, how far you are willing to state that people have to be able to take care of themselves but chances are, you recognize that you have at least some responsibility to society at large.

Utter horseshit. Socialist propaganda. Socialism didn't eliminate child labor. Capitalism did. Child labor ended when the productivity of labor increased to the point where parents didn't have to put their children to work to keep the family from starving. By the time legislation was adopted, child labor had already pretty much ended. We don't have affordable healthcare, and all government meddling has done is make it more expensive. Henry Ford pretty much created the 40 hour work week. Other companies had to follow suit to compete with Ford.

Communism is just socialism that its adherents are serious about enforcing. Socialism is inherently authoritarian. Socialism is about government control of your means of earning a living. How could that be anything but authoritarian?

Your country is probably almost as capitalist as the USA. Whenever you ask a so-called socialist to point out a successful example of their program, they always point at a largely capitalist country with welfare programs.

Child Labor read this, you might just learn something true. Mind you the US was slow to the party when it came the child labor laws. The first ones were put on the books in Europe as early as 1874 by... and here it is Socialist legislators.

Leftwing propaganda that doesn't contradict what I posted.

Types of socialism - Wikipedia

This is what I hate the most about this argument. Dishonest people (I don't know a different way to describe it) often resort to broad brushing all types of Socialism into one convenient pot , the one of Communism. The basis of Socialism is equality the exact opposite of authoritarianism. It is the idea that society as a whole should share their wealth, not take but share. It doesn't say anywhere the share should even be equal.

That's all bullshit propaganda. Socialism is government control of the economy. The variations on it simply aren't important. Either you support a market economy or a government run economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Social_democracy

Dishonest people also commonly seem to change their minds on what Socialism is. depending on the situation. If Bernie calls for universal healthcare he's a Communist. When it's pointed out to them that other countries have Universal Healthcare they are Communist. When it's pointed out to them that those societies are stable and successful, all of a sudden they are Capitalist.

Twaddle.

In Communism, the elite run the means of production and take their wealth off the top. In socialism, the elite run the means of production and take their wealth on the side. Other than that, they're EXACTLY the same thing.

 

[DustyInfinity]

View attachment 343867

Your graph is well screwed, You put National Socialism as extreme left, when everybody else has it as extreme right.

Marxism is international - anybody can be a Marxist.
National Socialism is as its name suggests nationalist and inverted - only very select people can be NS.
If you put Communist - you have to put Capitalist opposite.
Liberal and Libertarian are pretty much the same thing.

I didn't create the graph. I didn't "put National Socialism as extreme left."
And "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.
You need to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I took notes on the fine book which eludes you and Leftists and "progressives" (sick) everywhere.

Liberals are fascists and libertarians describes our Founding Fathers, who cherished liberty and feared oppressive government, which liberals adore and promote, like they promote the butchery of innocent unborn babies.

I love that little switch you pulled here.

put National Socialism as extreme left."

nd "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.

If you don't think there's a difference between Socialism and National Socialism the internet is your friend. Definition of SOCIALISM

Nazism | Definition, Leaders, Ideology, & History

Nazism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany, characterized by intense nationalism, mass appeal, dictatorial rule, and a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

www.britannica.com

In short, Socialism is at its core a collection of political theories that deal with the role of government and economics. National Socialism is a VERY specific political ideology that had its heyday in Germany during the thirties and forties of the last century. It gained notoriety because it wasn't just authoritarian but also EXTREMELY nationalistic and bigoted in its policies to the point of committing genocide. Them being Socialists wasn't a factor of their notoriety.

I'll prove it. Which of these policies is the one you have a problem with? Nazis created a system where ordinary workers could go on the world's very first cruises. Nazi's slaughtered millions of Jews.

Tell me which of these is the problematic one?

You failed to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist and therefore leftwing. Whether that made them "notorious" is beside the point.

Since I didn't attempt to prove that the Nazis weren't Socialist you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. As for that fact placing them on the left I'm sorry to disappoint you but that's utter nonsense. I explained the origins of the left-right spectrum in this OP already and the parameters it uses to place ideologies. I will say what I said to another poster who disagreed with the placement of Nazism. Create your own spectrum and somehow manage to make it more popular than the classic left-right one. Until you do arbitrarily changing positions of an ideology because you happen to disagree is silly.

What you posted is leftwing propaganda. The origin of the term from the French revolution is irrelevant. All that matters is how they are used today. the only definition that makes any sense is that the left supports socialism and the right supports the free market. When you claim that bigotry and genocide are "rightwing" you only show that you're just another leftwing douchebag intent on smearing anyone who supports market economics.

You talk about defining a spectrum when you can't even define your own spectrum. You have no definition that doesn't consist solely of smears against the right.

You're a leftwing piece of shit.

excuse me,,,but the republican party doesnt support free market,,they support government controlled capitalism,,which puts them firmly to the left of the constitution not the right,,,

Then why did Trump just pass deregulation a few years back?

We've been pushing for deregulation for years.

I think you are confusing 'goals' with 'results'. The reality is, there are competing forces within our government, that oppose each other on nearly every level, and that means we don't always get what we want.

But not getting what we want, doesn't mean we didn't want it, or that we were not in support of the goal.

sorry but trying to deregulate a few things doesnt make a difference

the GOP is in favor of government controlled
HEALTHCARE
EDUCATION
GUN CONTROL
AGRICULTURE
WAGES
EMPLOYMENT LAWS


AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER THINGS THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS AT THE FED LEVEL MAKES THEM LEFT WING,,
just not as far as dems,,,but give them time,,,

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of Republican voters. I think large pockets of them are truly conservative. My own opinion is that neither of the Bush's nor McCain were conservative. I guess that brings us to the classic lesser of two evil scenarios. I think any reduction in regulations is significant. Consider how rarely it happens. If conservatives said hey, those republicans are worthless, the dems would be uncontested on any level for the list you provided. Many conservatives think both parties are the same, the uniparty. While 90% of the sobs line their own pockets, at least they aren't attacking opposing voting groups or opponents with all branches of the government. I liked Reagan, I thing he got duped on the immigration nightmare, and I like Trump because he is the only one to go after the lifers in the last 20 years. Who do you vote for? Has their been a decent third party candidate in the last couple of decades? I was a big Perot fan, but he blew his VP pick.

 

[progressive hunter]

View attachment 343867

Your graph is well screwed, You put National Socialism as extreme left, when everybody else has it as extreme right.

Marxism is international - anybody can be a Marxist.
National Socialism is as its name suggests nationalist and inverted - only very select people can be NS.
If you put Communist - you have to put Capitalist opposite.
Liberal and Libertarian are pretty much the same thing.

I didn't create the graph. I didn't "put National Socialism as extreme left."
And "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.
You need to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I took notes on the fine book which eludes you and Leftists and "progressives" (sick) everywhere.

Liberals are fascists and libertarians describes our Founding Fathers, who cherished liberty and feared oppressive government, which liberals adore and promote, like they promote the butchery of innocent unborn babies.

I love that little switch you pulled here.

put National Socialism as extreme left."

nd "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.

If you don't think there's a difference between Socialism and National Socialism the internet is your friend. Definition of SOCIALISM

Nazism | Definition, Leaders, Ideology, & History

Nazism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany, characterized by intense nationalism, mass appeal, dictatorial rule, and a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

www.britannica.com

In short, Socialism is at its core a collection of political theories that deal with the role of government and economics. National Socialism is a VERY specific political ideology that had its heyday in Germany during the thirties and forties of the last century. It gained notoriety because it wasn't just authoritarian but also EXTREMELY nationalistic and bigoted in its policies to the point of committing genocide. Them being Socialists wasn't a factor of their notoriety.

I'll prove it. Which of these policies is the one you have a problem with? Nazis created a system where ordinary workers could go on the world's very first cruises. Nazi's slaughtered millions of Jews.

Tell me which of these is the problematic one?

You failed to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist and therefore leftwing. Whether that made them "notorious" is beside the point.

Since I didn't attempt to prove that the Nazis weren't Socialist you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. As for that fact placing them on the left I'm sorry to disappoint you but that's utter nonsense. I explained the origins of the left-right spectrum in this OP already and the parameters it uses to place ideologies. I will say what I said to another poster who disagreed with the placement of Nazism. Create your own spectrum and somehow manage to make it more popular than the classic left-right one. Until you do arbitrarily changing positions of an ideology because you happen to disagree is silly.

What you posted is leftwing propaganda. The origin of the term from the French revolution is irrelevant. All that matters is how they are used today. the only definition that makes any sense is that the left supports socialism and the right supports the free market. When you claim that bigotry and genocide are "rightwing" you only show that you're just another leftwing douchebag intent on smearing anyone who supports market economics.

You talk about defining a spectrum when you can't even define your own spectrum. You have no definition that doesn't consist solely of smears against the right.

You're a leftwing piece of shit.

excuse me,,,but the republican party doesnt support free market,,they support government controlled capitalism,,which puts them firmly to the left of the constitution not the right,,,

Then why did Trump just pass deregulation a few years back?

We've been pushing for deregulation for years.

I think you are confusing 'goals' with 'results'. The reality is, there are competing forces within our government, that oppose each other on nearly every level, and that means we don't always get what we want.

But not getting what we want, doesn't mean we didn't want it, or that we were not in support of the goal.

sorry but trying to deregulate a few things doesnt make a difference

the GOP is in favor of government controlled
HEALTHCARE
EDUCATION
GUN CONTROL
AGRICULTURE
WAGES
EMPLOYMENT LAWS


AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER THINGS THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS AT THE FED LEVEL MAKES THEM LEFT WING,,
just not as far as dems,,,but give them time,,,

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of Republican voters. I think large pockets of them are truly conservative. My own opinion is that neither of the Bush's nor McCain were conservative. I guess that brings us to the classic lesser of two evil scenarios. I think any reduction in regulations is significant. Consider how rarely it happens. If conservatives said hey, those republicans are worthless, the dems would be uncontested on any level for the list you provided. Many conservatives think both parties are the same, the uniparty. While 90% of the sobs line their own pockets, at least they aren't attacking opposing voting groups or opponents with all branches of the government. I liked Reagan, I thing he got duped on the immigration nightmare, and I like Trump because he is the only one to go after the lifers in the last 20 years. Who do you vote for? Has their been a decent third party candidate in the last couple of decades? I was a big Perot fan, but he blew his VP pick.

sadly all the good intentions in the world mean nothing,,

the fact remains the same that the republican platform as a whole is left of the constitution

 

[Levant]

Then why did Trump just pass deregulation a few years back?

We've been pushing for deregulation for years.

I think you are confusing 'goals' with 'results'. The reality is, there are competing forces within our government, that oppose each other on nearly every level, and that means we don't always get what we want.

But not getting what we want, doesn't mean we didn't want it, or that we were not in support of the goal.

Trump ran as a Republican but he is not a Republican. If he were then why are so many Republicans still never-Trumpers and doing all they can to undermine and harm him? Trump's deregulation does not imply that it was 12 years of the Bushes and 16 years of the Obintons that created the regulatory nightmare and refused to do anything to reduce regulation.

The Republican platform is centric to right-of-center in order to harvest votes. The Republican party is nothing other than the Republican Branch of the Democratic Party. Republican voters, at least most, tend to conservatism but that didn't prevent Kasich from manipulating the primaries to keep Cruz out and putting Trump in. The Republican leaders actually decided to toss the election to Hillary by nominating Trump over Cruz because Cruz was a hard-core constitutionalist. They seriously never expected Trump to beat Hillary.

 

[Levant]

Well that's not true. We opposed gun control laws. We opposed "no child left behind". We opposed minimum wage hikes. We opposed agriculture subsidies. We opposed Obama Care.

So you are wrong on nearly all of that.

Again you seem to be confusing results with goals.

And if you think that the GOP is in favor of all those things.... Then... we have no one to vote, the Democrats win by a land slide, and we end up like Venezuela.

Is that really what you want to argue for?

Which Republican president opposed gun laws? You can't name one in your lifetime.

The Republicans in the Senate had the chance to kill Obamacare in committee but Orin Hatch stood aside and let it come to pass. The Senate bill was not an amendment to the House bill; it was a literal select-all-delete of the House bill and put in Obamacare and the Republicans intentionally let it get out of committee and then hid behind the lie of all voting against it as the minority.

When the Republicans took the House, the Republican Speaker, Paul Ryan, hurried the Democratic budget through the house - saying it was just being fair and getting it off the table before starting on his agenda - surrendering his agenda for theirs and calling it cleaning the table to start his own. Because their agenda WAS his agenda.

The Republican Branch of the Democratic Party. Nothing more; nothing less.

 

[forkup]

You seem to be very unwilling to pin yourself on any testable parameters for your statements. Could it be that you know they are untrue and rather be considered a liar than simply wrong in your beliefs? My guess is yes. As for me moving. If you read trough this OP you would see I'm European.

Seriously? You actually ARE going to argue that Hong Kong is more free than the US? Amazing.

Not half as amazing as someone who claims that one country has more freedom than another on the basis of his own opinion, regardless of the fact that it's measured and refuted by those measurements. I'll tell you what. Find me one source that's based on actual research and can show it's sources that refutes the study. Just one. Until then. WHAT PARAMETERS ARE YOU USING TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE US IS THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?

 

[Preacher]

No, they don't. There isn't just a left and right there is also 3rd position which is where MANY ideologies lay at. The right here thinks anyone to the left of Trump is a communist and the left things anyone to the right of Stalin is a fascist. Its idiotic. I am a mixture of many things I take from the demoncrat and republicrap parties but I am NEITHER one of those ideologies.

 

[Levant]

The Constitution is the solid, unbreakable, wall at the far end of the right. People who make up shit like alt-right, right-wing extremist instead of authoritarian, right-wing white supremacist, etcetera are lying. Racism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism are all tools of the left. There is, in reality, the Constitution and left of the Constitution. In America, that's all there is.

sorry thats not true and backed up by history,,,

Then prove it wrong with history.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution is the solid, unbreakable, wall at the far end of the right. People who make up shit like alt-right, right-wing extremist instead of authoritarian, right-wing white supremacist, etcetera are lying. Racism, white supremacy, and authoritarianism are all tools of the left. There is, in reality, the Constitution and left of the Constitution. In America, that's all there is.

sorry thats not true and backed up by history,,,

Then prove it wrong with history.

I already did,,,

 

[Levant]

history doesnt support that,,,

republicans are to the left of the constitution because their platform and actions call for more government than the constitution allows,,,,

why conservatives vote for them can only be explained by the kool ade they drink,,,

Conservatives vote for Republicans to get Gorsuch, Alioto, etc., instead of Ginsberg, Sotomayor, etc. When the Dutch boy stuck his finger in the dyke, does that mean that he thought it would fix the hole? Did those who thought it was brilliant think it was the best, longterm, solution? Of course not. But it slowed down the leak until something else could be done.

 

[Levant]

I already did,,,

Link?

 

[forkup]

What you posted is leftwing propaganda. The origin of the term from the French revolution is irrelevant. All that matters is how they are used today. the only definition that makes any sense is that the left supports socialism and the right supports the free market. When you claim that bigotry and genocide are "rightwing" you only show that you're just another leftwing douchebag intent on smearing anyone who supports market economics.

You talk about defining a spectrum when you can't even define your own spectrum. You have no definition that doesn't consist solely of smears against the right.

You're a leftwing piece of shit.

And I'm pretty sure that the Nazis weren't around during the French Revolution to be on the "classic" chart.

No, they weren't but since the"Classic" chart had parameters to judge political ideologies they were able to be placed on it anyway.

 

[progressive hunter]

I already did,,,

Link?

Research Guides: Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History: Full Text of The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay under the pen name "Publius." This guide compiles Library of Congress digital materials, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

 

[forkup]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

And hands up if any of you have ever actually read Das Capital?

Socialism and communism are totalitarian.
Thats all that matters

Really? I live in a social Democracy, pretty sure I vote for my elected officials. In fact, since my choices of parties who have a realistic chance of getting power isn't restricted to 2, I would argue my form of government is less authoritarian than yours.

As far as I know, no American politician has ever claimed the US should turn to Communism. Quite a few would like a social Democracy.

Well the duopoly is private. And the voters keep it alive. Not the government.
I thought social democracies were different from socialism?
You statists need to keep your stuff strait, bro.

I would keep it straight if you guys had any interest in sticking to an actual definition. Tell me Harley, how many times have you claimed Bernie is a Communist? Or the entire Democratic party without EVER not EVER acknowledging that not a single one has ever claimed they want to emulate Communism? In fact, I've noticed that every single person on the right on this board routinely interchanges, Communist, Socialist, and Democrat. While they all are certainly not the same. So if you don't feel the need to differentiate between those terms why should I not simply lump Social Democracy in there too and see how well the US compares to that?

You were being technical. In the next post to me, you claim there is no need to be.
Ay caramba

I didn't realize correcting the assertion that all forms of Socialism are authoritarian was "technical". The fact of the matter simply is that the right has deliberately muddled the meaning of Socialism so they could start to equate it to Communism. Socialism, actual Socialism has been the driving force for stuff like the abolishing of child labor, Universal Suffrage, affordable healthcare, a 5 day work week etc. etc. You can, as I do condemn Communism because that DOES seem to invariably turn to authoritarianism. But that's a condemnation of authoritarianism, not the idea that the community should share its resources. But do me a favor don't try to come to me and say I'm inconsistent in my definition of Socialism.

I live in a Social Democracy, meaning that my country recognizes as does yours by the way just to a lesser extent than society as a whole does have a responsibility to help its weaker members. That IS Socialism. I don't know what your position is on that, how far you are willing to state that people have to be able to take care of themselves but chances are, you recognize that you have at least some responsibility to society at large.

Utter horseshit. Socialist propaganda. Socialism didn't eliminate child labor. Capitalism did. Child labor ended when the productivity of labor increased to the point where parents didn't have to put their children to work to keep the family from starving. By the time legislation was adopted, child labor had already pretty much ended. We don't have affordable healthcare, and all government meddling has done is make it more expensive. Henry Ford pretty much created the 40 hour work week. Other companies had to follow suit to compete with Ford.

Communism is just socialism that its adherents are serious about enforcing. Socialism is inherently authoritarian. Socialism is about government control of your means of earning a living. How could that be anything but authoritarian?

Your country is probably almost as capitalist as the USA. Whenever you ask a so-called socialist to point out a successful example of their program, they always point at a largely capitalist country with welfare programs.

Child Labor read this, you might just learn something true. Mind you the US was slow to the party when it came the child labor laws. The first ones were put on the books in Europe as early as 1874 by... and here it is Socialist legislators.

Leftwing propaganda that doesn't contradict what I posted.

Types of socialism - Wikipedia

This is what I hate the most about this argument. Dishonest people (I don't know a different way to describe it) often resort to broad brushing all types of Socialism into one convenient pot , the one of Communism. The basis of Socialism is equality the exact opposite of authoritarianism. It is the idea that society as a whole should share their wealth, not take but share. It doesn't say anywhere the share should even be equal.

That's all bullshit propaganda. Socialism is government control of the economy. The variations on it simply aren't important. Either you support a market economy or a government run economy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism#Social_democracy

Dishonest people also commonly seem to change their minds on what Socialism is. depending on the situation. If Bernie calls for universal healthcare he's a Communist. When it's pointed out to them that other countries have Universal Healthcare they are Communist. When it's pointed out to them that those societies are stable and successful, all of a sudden they are Capitalist.

Twaddle.

In Communism, the elite run the means of production and take their wealth off the top. In socialism, the elite run the means of production and take their wealth on the side. Other than that, they're EXACTLY the same thing.

What does that even mean, what elite and how are they taking their wealth on the side?

 

[progressive hunter]

history doesnt support that,,,

republicans are to the left of the constitution because their platform and actions call for more government than the constitution allows,,,,

why conservatives vote for them can only be explained by the kool ade they drink,,,

Conservatives vote for Republicans to get Gorsuch, Alioto, etc., instead of Ginsberg, Sotomayor, etc. When the Dutch boy stuck his finger in the dyke, does that mean that he thought it would fix the hole? Did those who thought it was brilliant think it was the best, longterm, solution? Of course not. But it slowed down the leak until something else could be done.

I've been hearing that exact same thing for more than 35 yrs,,,all you did was change a few names,,,

 

[forkup]

You seem to be very unwilling to pin yourself on any testable parameters for your statements. Could it be that you know they are untrue and rather be considered a liar than simply wrong in your beliefs? My guess is yes. As for me moving. If you read trough this OP you would see I'm European.

Seriously? You actually ARE going to argue that Hong Kong is more free than the US? Amazing.

Not half as amazing as someone who claims that one country has more freedom than another on the basis of his own opinion, regardless of the fact that it's measured and refuted by those measurements. I'll tell you what. Find me one source that's based on actual research and can show it's sources that refutes the study. Just one. Until then. WHAT PARAMETERS ARE YOU USING TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE US IS THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?

Come to think about what do you personally consider the parameters for freedom?