Is America Ruled By A Socialist?

[Redfish]

Is America Ruled By A Socialist?

No.

do you mean that Soros is not a socialist?

 

[Redfish]

And how is any of that Marxist though.

We need to remember that term refers to how the means of production is owned.

Please, show ONE SINGLE ACT that has moved the means one inch to the ‘people.’

Essentially, he is NOT Marxist or Socialist. He moves the means of production to an ever decreasing pool of mega corporations that have special legal protections and ties/responsibilities to the government. That is not socialism, it is statist.

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" Marx

"I want to redistribute the wealth" "you didn't build that" Obama

so maybe marxist collectivist statist is more accurate.

Are you always this shallow or do you assume the role of a shallow character just to perform here?

Which socialist programs in this country would you eliminate altogether?

obamacare

 

[PoliticalChic]

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" Marx

"I want to redistribute the wealth" "you didn't build that" Obama

so maybe marxist collectivist statist is more accurate.

Are you always this shallow or do you assume the role of a shallow character just to perform here?

Which socialist programs in this country would you eliminate altogether?

obamacare

Who brought up the comparison of ObamaCare with "some Bolshevik plot"?



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcRWS45gPzo]Obama To Republicans: Stop Pretending Health Care Reform Is A 'Bolshevik Plot' - YouTube[/ame]

 

[NYcarbineer]

"from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" Marx

"I want to redistribute the wealth" "you didn't build that" Obama

so maybe marxist collectivist statist is more accurate.

Are you always this shallow or do you assume the role of a shallow character just to perform here?

Which socialist programs in this country would you eliminate altogether?

obamacare

Where's the socialism in the ACA, specifically?

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

The biggest weakness of the usage of relatively simplistic terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" is that they are vague and essentially impossible to prove on the margins. A society doesn't click one day from "not socialist" to "socialist", so its very existence is easy to deny for most countries.

Now, are we moving to a more centralized, authoritarian federal government? I think that answer is a pretty easy "yes". And are many people happy about that and promoting more of it? Another easy "yes".

.

"Conservatives don't want less government; they want less of the other guys' government."

you just don't get it. more freedom and less government is good for everyone----that is unless you feel that you need the government to act as your nanny and tell you when to wipe your ass and how many sheets to TP to use.

The danger to you libs with less government and more freedom is that real freedom includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, and you fools think that the govt exists to keep anyone from ever failing.

So, if, for example, we were to abolish public education, and leave all education as a free market get it if you can afford it, go without if you can't,

that would make America better how?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is America Ruled By A Socialist?

No.

Well, to be fair, if you water down the definition of a socialist to the point where every president in modern history can be defined as a socialist (which is what the inmates are attempting to do here)

then, yes, we are being 'ruled' by a socialist...

...a socialist who replaced the socialist GW Bush, who replaced the socialist Bill Clinton...etc...etc...

 

[Redfish]

Are you always this shallow or do you assume the role of a shallow character just to perform here?

Which socialist programs in this country would you eliminate altogether?

obamacare

Where's the socialism in the ACA, specifically?

The end result of obamacare will be single payer government run medicine. That was always the goal. In a very short time the insurance companies will be put out of business because people will realize that paying the penalty will be cheaper than buying insurance.

Then a fixed % of your income will be taken from you to fund another huge inefficient government beaurocracy, the quality of healthcare will decline and you idiots will have to live with what you asked for.

the other probable result will be that doctors will set up private health co-ops the you will pay a membership fee to belong to and will get better care than via the govt. Those who can afford the co-ops will get good care and the rest of you will be standing in line for obozocare.

welcome to the world of obama---------------idiots!

 

[Redfish]

Is America Ruled By A Socialist?

No.

Well, to be fair, if you water down the definition of a socialist to the point where every president in modern history can be defined as a socialist (which is what the inmates are attempting to do here)

then, yes, we are being 'ruled' by a socialist...

...a socialist who replaced the socialist GW Bush, who replaced the socialist Bill Clinton...etc...etc...

true, but Bush and Clinton did not hate the USA and want to punish it for imagined past sins. Bush and Clinton did not declare war on coal and oil in order to kill the economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

The biggest weakness of the usage of relatively simplistic terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" is that they are vague and essentially impossible to prove on the margins. A society doesn't click one day from "not socialist" to "socialist", so its very existence is easy to deny for most countries.

Now, are we moving to a more centralized, authoritarian federal government? I think that answer is a pretty easy "yes". And are many people happy about that and promoting more of it? Another easy "yes".

.

"Conservatives don't want less government; they want less of the other guys' government."

you just don't get it. more freedom and less government is good for everyone----that is unless you feel that you need the government to act as your nanny and tell you when to wipe your ass and how many sheets to TP to use.

The danger to you libs with less government and more freedom is that real freedom includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, and you fools think that the govt exists to keep anyone from ever failing.

The most worthwhile purpose of democratic government is to limit the political power of wealth. That's really all there is to it.

 

[FA_Q2]

PoliticalChic needs some help. She can't name any government programs/institutions in the US that fit the definition of socialism (despite her repeated rants about socialism).

Can any of you anti-socialism types name them?

Give us a list.

Social security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps blah blah blah. You get the idea.

Essentially, any program that is taking from people that it has no intention of servicing, at least in relation to the amount taken or if anything is taken at all. The convoluted tax code and much of the regulatory structure would fit in there as well.

You might even be able to fit many of the laws that dictate social behavior as socialist ideal as well. Those laws that we are discussing in other threads that are victimless use the same basis of ideology as socialist economic principals.

Things like police, fire protection, roads and military are NOT socialism. There is a marked difference in programs that fill a governmental responsibility and ones that purposefully exist to take from one to support others or dictate social interactions. I realize that you have not made that claim here, I am posting it because I want to avoid the inevitable reference to those services now as many threads have gone down that road.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No.

Well, to be fair, if you water down the definition of a socialist to the point where every president in modern history can be defined as a socialist (which is what the inmates are attempting to do here)

then, yes, we are being 'ruled' by a socialist...

...a socialist who replaced the socialist GW Bush, who replaced the socialist Bill Clinton...etc...etc...

true, but Bush and Clinton did not hate the USA and want to punish it for imagined past sins. Bush and Clinton did not declare war on coal and oil in order to kill the economy.

You don't know what you're talking about and thus should shut up until you do.

 

[Redfish]

"Conservatives don't want less government; they want less of the other guys' government."

you just don't get it. more freedom and less government is good for everyone----that is unless you feel that you need the government to act as your nanny and tell you when to wipe your ass and how many sheets to TP to use.

The danger to you libs with less government and more freedom is that real freedom includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, and you fools think that the govt exists to keep anyone from ever failing.

The most worthwhile purpose of democratic government is to limit the political power of wealth. That's really all there is to it.

AND, to limit the power of the government-------which is run by the wealthy. Its funny how you hate the rich but love the huge government that was created to serve the rich.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

The biggest weakness of the usage of relatively simplistic terms like "socialism" and "Marxism" is that they are vague and essentially impossible to prove on the margins. A society doesn't click one day from "not socialist" to "socialist", so its very existence is easy to deny for most countries.

Now, are we moving to a more centralized, authoritarian federal government? I think that answer is a pretty easy "yes". And are many people happy about that and promoting more of it? Another easy "yes".

.

"Conservatives don't want less government; they want less of the other guys' government."

Correction; conservatives want less government, republican partisans want less of the other guys government.

 

[Redfish]

Well, to be fair, if you water down the definition of a socialist to the point where every president in modern history can be defined as a socialist (which is what the inmates are attempting to do here)

then, yes, we are being 'ruled' by a socialist...

...a socialist who replaced the socialist GW Bush, who replaced the socialist Bill Clinton...etc...etc...

true, but Bush and Clinton did not hate the USA and want to punish it for imagined past sins. Bush and Clinton did not declare war on coal and oil in order to kill the economy.

You don't know what you're talking about and thus should shut up until you do.

are you claiming that obama has not declared war on coal and oil?

 

[NYcarbineer]

PoliticalChic needs some help. She can't name any government programs/institutions in the US that fit the definition of socialism (despite her repeated rants about socialism).

Can any of you anti-socialism types name them?

Give us a list.

Social security, Medicare, welfare, food stamps blah blah blah. You get the idea.

Essentially, any program that is taking from people that it has no intention of servicing, at least in relation to the amount taken or if anything is taken at all. The convoluted tax code and much of the regulatory structure would fit in there as well.

You might even be able to fit many of the laws that dictate social behavior as socialist ideal as well. Those laws that we are discussing in other threads that are victimless use the same basis of ideology as socialist economic principals.

Things like police, fire protection, roads and military are NOT socialism. There is a marked difference in programs that fill a governmental responsibility and ones that purposefully exist to take from one to support others or dictate social interactions. I realize that you have not made that claim here, I am posting it because I want to avoid the inevitable reference to those services now as many threads have gone down that road.

So you eliminate SS, Medicare, Medicaid (that you left out), welfare (I assume you mean cash assistance) food stamps...

...how does America get better when all of that is gone?

Oh, btw, the great anti-socialist author of this thread threw a fit elsewhere when I suggested she wanted to get rid of every one of those programs, one more example of her boundless confusion lolol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you just don't get it. more freedom and less government is good for everyone----that is unless you feel that you need the government to act as your nanny and tell you when to wipe your ass and how many sheets to TP to use.

The danger to you libs with less government and more freedom is that real freedom includes the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, and you fools think that the govt exists to keep anyone from ever failing.

The most worthwhile purpose of democratic government is to limit the political power of wealth. That's really all there is to it.

AND, to limit the power of the government-------which is run by the wealthy. Its funny how you hate the rich but love the huge government that was created to serve the rich.

A democratic government that attempts to give power and voice to the not-rich is the best we can do;

that doesn't mean that the rich won't generally dominate anyway.

Money, the root of evil, is also the root of power. That democratic government often fails to curtail the political power of wealth is not an indictment of democratic government.

 

[007]

If anyone is free to rewrite the definition of socialism, then anyone is capable of being defined as a socialist. The definition of socialism has always included government control over e means of production and distribution. When I see a president confiscate and nationalize the nation's farmland, I will think that the president is a socialist. Until then, calling Obama a socialist will continue to be the PC way of calling him a kenyan or an n-word... Just another valueless epithet.

Gee... why would anyone call him a kenyan? And where does he love to go on vacation again... OH... that's right... KENYA, in fact he's there right now, AGAIN, as his wife says, HIS HOMELAND!

 

[Seawytch]

true, but Bush and Clinton did not hate the USA and want to punish it for imagined past sins. Bush and Clinton did not declare war on coal and oil in order to kill the economy.

You don't know what you're talking about and thus should shut up until you do.

are you claiming that obama has not declared war on coal and oil?

No, he's "declared war" on pollution and energy dependence on foreign countries.

He's putting the conserve in conservative.

 

[NYcarbineer]

true, but Bush and Clinton did not hate the USA and want to punish it for imagined past sins. Bush and Clinton did not declare war on coal and oil in order to kill the economy.

You don't know what you're talking about and thus should shut up until you do.

are you claiming that obama has not declared war on coal and oil?

No I'm claiming you're fucking retarded for claiming that Obama wants to kill the economy.

 

[007]

You don't know what you're talking about and thus should shut up until you do.

are you claiming that obama has not declared war on coal and oil?

No I'm claiming you're fucking retarded for claiming that Obama wants to kill the economy.

Well that's like saying you're against gun violence and then shooting yourself in the face.

Because kill the economy is what odumbo is doing, to the best of his socialist, capitalist hating abilities. If that low life kenyan fucker was given enough time, he would completely ruin this nation, if he hasn't already.