POLL: The GOP and "Socialism"

[kaz]

Stop acting like a chick.

Stop acting like a trained seal. Maybe back away from the radio for a while, if you think you can.

Life isn't binary, you are.
..

No shit socialism and capitalism aren't absolutes. Here's a gold star, master of the obvious

 

[dblack]

Socialists want state control over the economy in the same way that theocrats want state control over religion.

 

[JoeB131]

Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).

Dude, isn't that the kind of binary thinking you accuse others of engaging in?

I'm not sticking up for Stormy Mac here, but the reality is that you are never going to get an economy that is 100% socialist or capitalist. Our problem is that we socialize risk and capitalize rewards. (I.E. the Fat Cats enjoy big payouts when things are good, but we all end up paying for the bailouts when things go south.)

 

[kaz]

there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners)

Dude, isn't that the kind of binary thinking you accuse others of engaging in?

Binary? ******* moron.

Who could make your choices for you, Joe? You? Or government with guns? Give me an example of someone else who can make your choices

 

[dblack]

Socialism is central economic planning. It's not a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, guys. Sure, there are a lot of variations of it. Full socialist ownership of industry, fascism (token private ownership but companies must follow government economic plan and get major decisions approved), crony capitalism (companies pay off politicians to pick market winners). But in the end, either government controls the economy (socialism) or we make our own choices (capitalism).

Dude, isn't that the kind of binary thinking you accuse others of engaging in?

I'm not sticking up for Stormy Mac here, but the reality is that you are never going to get an economy that is 100% socialist or capitalist.

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

Our problem is that we socialize risk and capitalize rewards. (I.E. the Fat Cats enjoy big payouts when things are good, but we all end up paying for the bailouts when things go south.)

Yep. Government will always reward its accomplices first.

 

[Mac1958]

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

But that's a complicated conversation that can't fit on a bumper sticker or a tweet, so we apparently aren't capable of having it.
.

 

[dblack]

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

 

[Mac1958]

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

Here: Search Results for Query: venezuela | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You know that's true.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Binary? ******* moron.
Who could make your choices for you, Joe? You? Or government with guns?

Holy crap. You mock the use of "binary" in your first line, then provide a perfect example of it in your second line.

Good gawd, wingers are blind.
.

 

[dblack]

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

 

[Mac1958]

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

Oy. Okay.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.

 

[dblack]

So what? Do we want more socialism, or less?

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

Oy. Okay.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.

No, I didn't. You're playing a game. Whenever anyone isn't on board with more socialism, you accuse them of binary thinking rather than address their argument. It's a cop out. Instead of just recognizing that there are good reasons to be wary of socializing more of our society under government, you simply reject them outright and label their objections "binary" or whatever.

Honestly, this tactic must be distributed somewhere in the progressive talking points. I see it in several forms. Usually, it's employed when someone is arguing for liberty in the face of more government control. They're accused of being anarchists simply because they don't like the latest plan to inject more socialism into the mix. Who's really engaging in binary thinking, Mac?

 

[Mac1958]

And THAT should be the discussion, not this goofy, binary "we're either socialist or we're not" argument that I keep seeing.

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

Oy. Okay.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.

No, I didn't. You're playing a game. Whenever anyone isn't on board with more socialism, you accuse them of binary thinking rather than address their argument. It's a cop out. Instead of just recognizing that there are good reasons to be wary of socializing more of our society under government, you simply reject them outright and label their objections "binary" or whatever.

Honestly, this tactic must be distributed somewhere in the progressive talking points. I see it in several forms. Usually, it's when someone is arguing for liberty in the face of more government control. They're accused of being anarchists simply because they don't like the latest plan to inject more socialism into the mix. Who's really engaging in binary thinking, Mac?

I'm not exactly sure of what has you so upset.

I find it frustrating when the term "socialism" is thrown around (and I don't care which side does it), because the way it's presented is so vague and squishy. Vague and squishy isn't helpful in a complicated conversation. I constantly argue here, to little or no avail, that government size, depth, influence and cost usually run along a continuum. Some people want MORE of it, some people want LESS.

So, it was nice to see your "more socialism or less socialism" post. It was refreshing, and it was nice to to see that someone (seemingly) agrees with me that this stuff is a matter of degree. Nowhere on this thread have I argued for more or less, I was just making a general comment.

So again, thanks for what I thought was a reasonable and thoughtful comment, and I'll be sure not to thank you for such comments in the future.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.

As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.

How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.

For the ideological conservatives anything involving the government providing welfare for individuals who are in need is socialism.

Corporate welfare in most of their opinions, from what I have read, does not count, as that is just 'private contracts' with the government, lol.

 

[dblack]

And where do you keep seeing this argument? Honestly, it's brought up most by advocates for socialism. Seems like a strawman to me.

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

Oy. Okay.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.

No, I didn't. You're playing a game. Whenever anyone isn't on board with more socialism, you accuse them of binary thinking rather than address their argument. It's a cop out. Instead of just recognizing that there are good reasons to be wary of socializing more of our society under government, you simply reject them outright and label their objections "binary" or whatever.

Honestly, this tactic must be distributed somewhere in the progressive talking points. I see it in several forms. Usually, it's when someone is arguing for liberty in the face of more government control. They're accused of being anarchists simply because they don't like the latest plan to inject more socialism into the mix. Who's really engaging in binary thinking, Mac?

I'm not exactly sure of what has you so upset.

I don't like rhetorical techniques that are just distractions. It's perfectly valid for someone to say (in a thread discussing some new policy proposal, for example): "That's socialism. If we keep pushing for more of that, we'll end up like Venezuela". But instead of addressing their concerns, instead of explaining why socialism is justified in this case, instead of expressing some respect for the concept of limited government, you accuse them of binary thinking. Suddenly no one is discussing the topic, we're quibbling about whether 100% liberty is possible. No one was demanding 100% liberty in the first place, but the strawman has entered the room and the argument dissolves.

I find it frustrating when the term "socialism" is thrown around (and I don't care which side does it), because the way it's presented is so vague and squishy. Vague and squishy isn't helpful in a complicated conversation. I constantly argue here, to little or no avail, that government size, depth, influence and cost usually run along a continuum. Some people want MORE of it, some people want LESS.

So, it was nice to see your "more socialism or less socialism" post. It was refreshing, and it was nice to to see that someone (seemingly) agrees with me that this stuff is a matter of degree. Nowhere have I argued for more or less, I was just making a general comment.

So again, thanks for what I thought was a reasonable and thoughtful comment, and I'll be sure not to thank you for such comments in the future.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you. But I don't agree with your central premise. I don't think people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared. I think they understand it well enough, and they reject it because they don't want government lording over them at every turn.

I don't even really think of things in terms of socialism vs capitalism. The continuum I see is more state control over society or less. Socialism is more state control over society and, in my view, we need a damned good reason if we're going to grant government that control.

 

[Mac1958]

I see it everywhere, constantly, particularly from the Right. "The Democrats want to turn us into Venezuela". Run the search feature for that one and see how many hundreds of times it has been said here, and specifically how many times Venezuela is mentioned.

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

I get shit from the Right for using the word "continuum", which is exactly what you're saying. More socialism or less socialism. Not all or nothing.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

Oy. Okay.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.

No, I didn't. You're playing a game. Whenever anyone isn't on board with more socialism, you accuse them of binary thinking rather than address their argument. It's a cop out. Instead of just recognizing that there are good reasons to be wary of socializing more of our society under government, you simply reject them outright and label their objections "binary" or whatever.

Honestly, this tactic must be distributed somewhere in the progressive talking points. I see it in several forms. Usually, it's when someone is arguing for liberty in the face of more government control. They're accused of being anarchists simply because they don't like the latest plan to inject more socialism into the mix. Who's really engaging in binary thinking, Mac?

I'm not exactly sure of what has you so upset.

I don't like rhetorical techniques that are just distractions. It's perfectly valid for someone to say (in a thread discussing some new policy proposal, for example): "That's socialism. If we keep pushing for more of that, we'll end up like Venezuela". But instead of addressing their concerns, instead of explaining why socialism is justified in this case, instead of expressing some respect for the concept of limited government, you accuse them of binary thinking. Suddenly no one is discussing the topic, we're quibbling about whether 100% liberty is possible. No one was demanding 100% liberty in the first place, but the strawman has entered the room and the argument dissolves.

I find it frustrating when the term "socialism" is thrown around (and I don't care which side does it), because the way it's presented is so vague and squishy. Vague and squishy isn't helpful in a complicated conversation. I constantly argue here, to little or no avail, that government size, depth, influence and cost usually run along a continuum. Some people want MORE of it, some people want LESS.

So, it was nice to see your "more socialism or less socialism" post. It was refreshing, and it was nice to to see that someone (seemingly) agrees with me that this stuff is a matter of degree. Nowhere have I argued for more or less, I was just making a general comment.

So again, thanks for what I thought was a reasonable and thoughtful comment, and I'll be sure not to thank you for such comments in the future.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you. But I don't agree with your central premise. I don't think people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared. I think they understand it well enough, and they reject it because they don't want government lording over them at every turn.

I don't even really think of things in terms of socialism vs capitalism. The continuum I see is more state control over society or less. Socialism is more state control over society and, in my view, we need a damned good reason if we're going to grant government that control.

My central premise is that "people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared"?

Okay. News to me. But that does happen a lot here.

Thanks.
.

 

[kaz]

Binary? ******* moron.
Who could make your choices for you, Joe? You? Or government with guns?

Holy crap. You mock the use of "binary" in your first line, then provide a perfect example of it in your second line.

Good gawd, wingers are blind.
.

Binary means two extreme choices, moron. My reply was there aren't two extreme choices, which is what you keep arguing. Only someone with a stick up their ass could be as stupid as you are.

Answer the basic question though. Either you make your own choices or government does in some form. Name another option

 

[dblack]

That's not your strawman. That's arguing against more socialism, and for less. It's saying, "if we keep socializing more and more of society we're going to end up like Venezuela". You may not agree, but they're not claiming, nor demanding, all or nothing. That's all in your head.

Nah, you get shit because you want to push more socialism into that "continuum".

Oy. Okay.

Whether you want to admit it or not, you illustrated my point for me. So, thanks for that.
.

No, I didn't. You're playing a game. Whenever anyone isn't on board with more socialism, you accuse them of binary thinking rather than address their argument. It's a cop out. Instead of just recognizing that there are good reasons to be wary of socializing more of our society under government, you simply reject them outright and label their objections "binary" or whatever.

Honestly, this tactic must be distributed somewhere in the progressive talking points. I see it in several forms. Usually, it's when someone is arguing for liberty in the face of more government control. They're accused of being anarchists simply because they don't like the latest plan to inject more socialism into the mix. Who's really engaging in binary thinking, Mac?

I'm not exactly sure of what has you so upset.

I don't like rhetorical techniques that are just distractions. It's perfectly valid for someone to say (in a thread discussing some new policy proposal, for example): "That's socialism. If we keep pushing for more of that, we'll end up like Venezuela". But instead of addressing their concerns, instead of explaining why socialism is justified in this case, instead of expressing some respect for the concept of limited government, you accuse them of binary thinking. Suddenly no one is discussing the topic, we're quibbling about whether 100% liberty is possible. No one was demanding 100% liberty in the first place, but the strawman has entered the room and the argument dissolves.

I find it frustrating when the term "socialism" is thrown around (and I don't care which side does it), because the way it's presented is so vague and squishy. Vague and squishy isn't helpful in a complicated conversation. I constantly argue here, to little or no avail, that government size, depth, influence and cost usually run along a continuum. Some people want MORE of it, some people want LESS.

So, it was nice to see your "more socialism or less socialism" post. It was refreshing, and it was nice to to see that someone (seemingly) agrees with me that this stuff is a matter of degree. Nowhere have I argued for more or less, I was just making a general comment.

So again, thanks for what I thought was a reasonable and thoughtful comment, and I'll be sure not to thank you for such comments in the future.

I'm sorry to have disappointed you. But I don't agree with your central premise. I don't think people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared. I think they understand it well enough, and they reject it because they don't want government lording over them at every turn.

I don't even really think of things in terms of socialism vs capitalism. The continuum I see is more state control over society or less. Socialism is more state control over society and, in my view, we need a damned good reason if we're going to grant government that control.

My central premise is that "people reject socialism because they're stupid and scared"?

Okay. News to me. But that does happen a lot here.

Thanks.
.

It's implied, yes. You're free to deny it, of course. It's the refrain of progressives and Democrats whenever people don't cheer for their plans - "They just don't get it!"

 

[Mac1958]

Binary? ******* moron.
Who could make your choices for you, Joe? You? Or government with guns?

Holy crap. You mock the use of "binary" in your first line, then provide a perfect example of it in your second line.

Good gawd, wingers are blind.
.

Binary means two extreme choices, moron. My reply was there aren't two extreme choices, which is what you keep arguing. Only someone with a stick up their ass could be as stupid as you are.

Answer the basic question though. Either you make your own choices or government does in some form. Name another option

Sometimes it's one, sometimes it's the other. Sometimes it's a bit of both.

It depends. We don't go through life with everything being just one or the other.

Gosh, that was tough. I'm all worn out. I'm going to lay down now.
.

 

[initforme]

If there we any signs of socialism in this country there might be something to actually think about on the topic. As for now no socialism to be found.