Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[JoeNormal]

Argue away.

Ok...I said:

You have every right to give up as much of your freedom as you want.
Don't presume to make that choice for the rest of us

Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?

Those of you who are willing to continue the race to the bottom for the benefit of the upper class are the ones who are making the choice for us. You're giving up as much freedom as you want and at the same time, taking the rest of the country along with you.

I'm sorry -- didnt see an answer to my question:
Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?
Surely you aren't running away already...?

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Addicting Info Explaining Socialism To A Republican


There you go republicans...Learn something

dear, we can all post 1000's of links on anything we want , but do you have the IQ to say anything at all intelligent in support of socialism? IF so please do so or admit with your silence you lack the IQ for it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

One thing they don't realize is a family that works together,does things for each other is socialism...

a perfect example of how stupid a liberal will be. Where is this considered a definition of socialism?

Also, the Chinese just all worked together in a capitalist fashion and instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok...I said:

You have every right to give up as much of your freedom as you want.
Don't presume to make that choice for the rest of us

Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?

Those of you who are willing to continue the race to the bottom for the benefit of the upper class are the ones who are making the choice for us. You're giving up as much freedom as you want and at the same time, taking the rest of the country along with you.

I'm sorry -- didnt see an answer to my question:
Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?
Surely you aren't running away already...?

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really why is that because you know its true.A family is a collective

A family may be, I have no interest in taking care of the masses. You like it so much you do it.

Right, because in your faith people don't matter. What are you called again? Oh right, a Catholic.

All Americans are generous with helping people. This includes everyone and especially faith based people.
You are showing what happens with Socialist thinking, which is Dem's good, Repubs bad. In other words labeling. In this case Catholic's bad.
World Giving Index US Ranked Most Charitable Country On Earth SLIDESHOW
The United States climbed from fifth place to the rank of most generous country in the world, according to a recent global study.

In its second annual study of 153 countries, the Charity Aid Foundation concluded that the U.S. has demonstrated "strong" behavior across all three criteria measured -- volunteering, helping strangers and donating money. The U.S. has increased its charity by 3 percentage points this year, up to $212 billion.

What you are refusing to hear, is that Conservatives want to help people that really needs it and have it set up to get people out of poverty, not keep them comfortable in their poverty.

Really? Is that why we spend 59 Billion on social programs, but 92 Billion on corporate subsidies? Who exactly are we trying to help?

the right only has a problem with socialism when least wealthy may benefit.

Clearly, you do not understand the reasoned opposition to socialism.

 

[BULLDOG]

A family may be, I have no interest in taking care of the masses. You like it so much you do it.

Right, because in your faith people don't matter. What are you called again? Oh right, a Catholic.

All Americans are generous with helping people. This includes everyone and especially faith based people.
You are showing what happens with Socialist thinking, which is Dem's good, Repubs bad. In other words labeling. In this case Catholic's bad.
World Giving Index US Ranked Most Charitable Country On Earth SLIDESHOW
The United States climbed from fifth place to the rank of most generous country in the world, according to a recent global study.

In its second annual study of 153 countries, the Charity Aid Foundation concluded that the U.S. has demonstrated "strong" behavior across all three criteria measured -- volunteering, helping strangers and donating money. The U.S. has increased its charity by 3 percentage points this year, up to $212 billion.

What you are refusing to hear, is that Conservatives want to help people that really needs it and have it set up to get people out of poverty, not keep them comfortable in their poverty.

Really? Is that why we spend 59 Billion on social programs, but 92 Billion on corporate subsidies? Who exactly are we trying to help?

the right only has a problem with socialism when least wealthy may benefit.

Clearly, you do not understand the reasoned opposition to socialism.

Please educate me as to why your reasoned opposition to socialism is only applied when it helps the poor, but it's not a problem when it helps the rich. If you believe socialism is bad, is it be bad in all cases?

 

[JoeNormal]

Those of you who are willing to continue the race to the bottom for the benefit of the upper class are the ones who are making the choice for us. You're giving up as much freedom as you want and at the same time, taking the rest of the country along with you.

I'm sorry -- didnt see an answer to my question:
Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?
Surely you aren't running away already...?

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry -- didnt see an answer to my question:
Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?
Surely you aren't running away already...?

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

It's not a matter of anyone being bright enough to understand your 'answer', it's a matter of you deliberately failing to address the question.

Perhaps, however, you do not understand the question - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask differently.

You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please educate me as to why your reasoned opposition to socialism is only applied when it helps the poor, but it's not a problem when it helps the rich. If you believe socialism is bad, is it be bad in all cases?

Huh. The admitted liar asks a loaded question. Funny.
Can you show that I do not have a problem with socialism when it help the rich?

 

[nat4900]

As a wise man once stated:

Socialism without capitalism equals communism
Capitalism without socialism equals fascism

 

[M14 Shooter]

As a wise man once stated:
Capitalism without socialism equals fascism

How so?
Fascism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[BULLDOG]

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

It's not a matter of anyone being bright enough to understand your 'answer', it's a matter of you deliberately failing to address the question.

Perhaps, however, you do not understand the question - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask differently.

You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

Your statement was
"You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality."
That sounds like the right wing goal concerning same sex marriage. How is that not the same as your claim?

 

[BULLDOG]

Please educate me as to why your reasoned opposition to socialism is only applied when it helps the poor, but it's not a problem when it helps the rich. If you believe socialism is bad, is it be bad in all cases?

Huh. The admitted liar asks a loaded question. Funny.
Can you show that I do not have a problem with socialism when it help the rich?

You specifically? No. The right wing? You know that is a silly question.

 

[danielpalos]

A family may be, I have no interest in taking care of the masses. You like it so much you do it.

Right, because in your faith people don't matter. What are you called again? Oh right, a Catholic.

All Americans are generous with helping people. This includes everyone and especially faith based people.
You are showing what happens with Socialist thinking, which is Dem's good, Repubs bad. In other words labeling. In this case Catholic's bad.
World Giving Index US Ranked Most Charitable Country On Earth SLIDESHOW
The United States climbed from fifth place to the rank of most generous country in the world, according to a recent global study.

In its second annual study of 153 countries, the Charity Aid Foundation concluded that the U.S. has demonstrated "strong" behavior across all three criteria measured -- volunteering, helping strangers and donating money. The U.S. has increased its charity by 3 percentage points this year, up to $212 billion.

What you are refusing to hear, is that Conservatives want to help people that really needs it and have it set up to get people out of poverty, not keep them comfortable in their poverty.

Really? Is that why we spend 59 Billion on social programs, but 92 Billion on corporate subsidies? Who exactly are we trying to help?

the right only has a problem with socialism when least wealthy may benefit.

Clearly, you do not understand the reasoned opposition to socialism.

That IS there alleged reasoned opposition. Trickle down for the right simply means, bailout the wealthiest with the (other) Peoples' monies, and let the rest trickle down.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please educate me as to why your reasoned opposition to socialism is only applied when it helps the poor, but it's not a problem when it helps the rich. If you believe socialism is bad, is it be bad in all cases?

Huh. The admitted liar asks a loaded question. Funny.
Can you show that I do not have a problem with socialism when it help the rich?

You specifically? No. The right wing? You know that is a silly question.

Sorry - I cannot speak for the group. You'll have to ask someone else.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

It's not a matter of anyone being bright enough to understand your 'answer', it's a matter of you deliberately failing to address the question.

Perhaps, however, you do not understand the question - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask differently.

You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

Your statement was
"You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality."
That sounds like the right wing goal concerning same sex marriage. How is that not the same as your claim?

Red herring -- an attempt to avoid the issue by changing the subject.
:yawn:

 

[JoeNormal]

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

It's not a matter of anyone being bright enough to understand your 'answer', it's a matter of you deliberately failing to address the question.

Perhaps, however, you do not understand the question - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask differently.

You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

My version of morality... Hmm, I'd have thought this was a no brainer to anyone with human values but let's examine that. I would like the state to keep the powerful from ruining the lives of the less powerful. That means ensuring something like a level playing field and keeping those in power from exploiting the people who just want to live honest, productive lives. You seem to be bothered by the 'freedom' that the powerful will lose with this form of protection.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right, because in your faith people don't matter. What are you called again? Oh right, a Catholic.

All Americans are generous with helping people. This includes everyone and especially faith based people.
You are showing what happens with Socialist thinking, which is Dem's good, Repubs bad. In other words labeling. In this case Catholic's bad.
World Giving Index US Ranked Most Charitable Country On Earth SLIDESHOW
The United States climbed from fifth place to the rank of most generous country in the world, according to a recent global study.

In its second annual study of 153 countries, the Charity Aid Foundation concluded that the U.S. has demonstrated "strong" behavior across all three criteria measured -- volunteering, helping strangers and donating money. The U.S. has increased its charity by 3 percentage points this year, up to $212 billion.

What you are refusing to hear, is that Conservatives want to help people that really needs it and have it set up to get people out of poverty, not keep them comfortable in their poverty.

Really? Is that why we spend 59 Billion on social programs, but 92 Billion on corporate subsidies? Who exactly are we trying to help?

the right only has a problem with socialism when least wealthy may benefit.

Clearly, you do not understand the reasoned opposition to socialism.

That IS there alleged reasoned opposition. Trickle down for the right simply means, bailout the wealthiest with the (other) Peoples' monies, and let the rest trickle down.

As I said -- clearly, you do not understand.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not a matter of anyone being bright enough to understand your 'answer', it's a matter of you deliberately failing to address the question.

Perhaps, however, you do not understand the question - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask differently.

You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

My version of morality...

Yes.
Who are YOU to have the state enforce it on others?

 

[BULLDOG]

Please educate me as to why your reasoned opposition to socialism is only applied when it helps the poor, but it's not a problem when it helps the rich. If you believe socialism is bad, is it be bad in all cases?

Huh. The admitted liar asks a loaded question. Funny.
Can you show that I do not have a problem with socialism when it help the rich?

You specifically? No. The right wing? You know that is a silly question.

Sorry - I cannot speak for the group. You'll have to ask someone else.

Bullshit....You claim to speak for teabaggers all the time.