So You Hate Socialism.......

[Boss]

The ignorance common to most on the right as to what 'socialism' actually is is consistent with the ignorance common to most conservatives with regard to everything else.

The ignorance on the left is not comprehending the difference between enumerated powers in the Constitution which allow our government to handle certain things for us collectively while affording us the inalienable rights to free enterprise, private property and a competitive free market. Further exacerbating the ignorance that we already have Socialism balanced into our system. We do not.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny you needed to added the k to new, as if I need a spelling lesson; being cavil is at best fatuous and childish. Stating my opinion is nothing more than an echo of "Socialist propaganda is asinine.

I have always posted the US has a mixed economy, a private sector and a public sector. Our government does not own the means of production, in fact the government is many times the best customer for private sector goods and services.

First of all, I hate to quote spelling errors. Sorry if someone correcting your errors offends you, Cam Newton, but you better get used to that around me... because I will do so in a heartbeat. It is not fatuous or childish, it's simply correcting incorrect spelling and it happens everywhere without people getting their feelings hurt. I did not mock you or call you names like "illiterate hick" or otherwise call any attention to your misspelling, I simply corrected it for you and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Stating your opinion is nothing more than an echo of Socialist propaganda is simply the truth... that's what it is. You can find your argument posted in thousands of threads all over this board... it's not an original thought or opinion.

What America has traditionally been or currently is, has nothing to do with what Socialists want to transform America into or what we will be in the future. We do not have a mixed economy, you cannot mix Socialism and free market Capitalism, it doesn't work... they don't play nice together. We have a free market Capitalist economy and Socialists want us to have a Socialist economy.

Therefore, they must first undermine and destroy free market Capitalism. When the pillars of Capitalism fall, Socialism can be ushered in... that's how it is done. Collapse the system from within and then replace it with the new system while the people are desperate for relief.

Now... Socialist propagandists will have you believe that we already have Socialist systems built in to our current economy. This is a myth perpetrated on the fact that our Constitutional system enumerates specific powers to the Federal government in order to act on our behalf as a collective. Like the military, for example... it's NOT a Socialist system, it's a Constitutional system. Outlined and enumerated in our Constitution. States also have constitutionally enumerated systems and they often work in conjunction with private enterprise. This is not Socialism.

The most unique and brilliant aspect of our system is that it establishes these enumerated powers to allow our central government to do the most fundamental things we need a central government to do, like providing for our national defense and security... while at the same time, allowing free market private enterprise to flourish.

Well goody for you. I once had an idiot for a manager, one who was arrogant and self absorbed like you. I adapted, I always misused the apostrophe or used a comma out of place. He was captious and cavil too, giving him something so trivial was sure to satisfy his need for self worth.

Free markets, huh? Define that!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Funny you needed to added the k to new, as if I need a spelling lesson; being cavil is at best fatuous and childish. Stating my opinion is nothing more than an echo of "Socialist propaganda is asinine.

I have always posted the US has a mixed economy, a private sector and a public sector. Our government does not own the means of production, in fact the government is many times the best customer for private sector goods and services.

First of all, I hate to quote spelling errors. Sorry if someone correcting your errors offends you, Cam Newton, but you better get used to that around me... because I will do so in a heartbeat. It is not fatuous or childish, it's simply correcting incorrect spelling and it happens everywhere without people getting their feelings hurt. I did not mock you or call you names like "illiterate hick" or otherwise call any attention to your misspelling, I simply corrected it for you and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Stating your opinion is nothing more than an echo of Socialist propaganda is simply the truth... that's what it is. You can find your argument posted in thousands of threads all over this board... it's not an original thought or opinion.

What America has traditionally been or currently is, has nothing to do with what Socialists want to transform America into or what we will be in the future. We do not have a mixed economy, you cannot mix Socialism and free market Capitalism, it doesn't work... they don't play nice together. We have a free market Capitalist economy and Socialists want us to have a Socialist economy.

Therefore, they must first undermine and destroy free market Capitalism. When the pillars of Capitalism fall, Socialism can be ushered in... that's how it is done. Collapse the system from within and then replace it with the new system while the people are desperate for relief.

Now... Socialist propagandists will have you believe that we already have Socialist systems built in to our current economy. This is a myth perpetrated on the fact that our Constitutional system enumerates specific powers to the Federal government in order to act on our behalf as a collective. Like the military, for example... it's NOT a Socialist system, it's a Constitutional system. Outlined and enumerated in our Constitution. States also have constitutionally enumerated systems and they often work in conjunction with private enterprise. This is not Socialism.

The most unique and brilliant aspect of our system is that it establishes these enumerated powers to allow our central government to do the most fundamental things we need a central government to do, like providing for our national defense and security... while at the same time, allowing free market private enterprise to flourish.

The sad truth about this theory ^^^ of ConLaw is that we no longer live in an agrarian society of a few million people along the East Coast of North America.

Those who do cherry pick Madison's idea of the meaning of the term general Welfare, as used in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 and ignore Hamilton's. The truth of the matter seems best left to The Congress, or the States.

 

[Boss]

Free markets, huh? Define that!

I don't have time to educate you on free market capitalism today. You are capable of finding all kinds of resources on the topic... go educate yourself. It's basically the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers operating on principles of supply and demand.

 

[Iceweasel]

Funny you needed to added the k to new, as if I need a spelling lesson; being cavil is at best fatuous and childish. Stating my opinion is nothing more than an echo of "Socialist propaganda is asinine.

I have always posted the US has a mixed economy, a private sector and a public sector. Our government does not own the means of production, in fact the government is many times the best customer for private sector goods and services.

First of all, I hate to quote spelling errors. Sorry if someone correcting your errors offends you, Cam Newton, but you better get used to that around me... because I will do so in a heartbeat. It is not fatuous or childish, it's simply correcting incorrect spelling and it happens everywhere without people getting their feelings hurt. I did not mock you or call you names like "illiterate hick" or otherwise call any attention to your misspelling, I simply corrected it for you and moved on. I suggest you do the same.

Stating your opinion is nothing more than an echo of Socialist propaganda is simply the truth... that's what it is. You can find your argument posted in thousands of threads all over this board... it's not an original thought or opinion.

What America has traditionally been or currently is, has nothing to do with what Socialists want to transform America into or what we will be in the future. We do not have a mixed economy, you cannot mix Socialism and free market Capitalism, it doesn't work... they don't play nice together. We have a free market Capitalist economy and Socialists want us to have a Socialist economy.

Therefore, they must first undermine and destroy free market Capitalism. When the pillars of Capitalism fall, Socialism can be ushered in... that's how it is done. Collapse the system from within and then replace it with the new system while the people are desperate for relief.

Now... Socialist propagandists will have you believe that we already have Socialist systems built in to our current economy. This is a myth perpetrated on the fact that our Constitutional system enumerates specific powers to the Federal government in order to act on our behalf as a collective. Like the military, for example... it's NOT a Socialist system, it's a Constitutional system. Outlined and enumerated in our Constitution. States also have constitutionally enumerated systems and they often work in conjunction with private enterprise. This is not Socialism.

The most unique and brilliant aspect of our system is that it establishes these enumerated powers to allow our central government to do the most fundamental things we need a central government to do, like providing for our national defense and security... while at the same time, allowing free market private enterprise to flourish.

The sad truth about this theory ^^^ of ConLaw is that we no longer live in an agrarian society of a few million people along the East Coast of North America.

Those who do cherry pick Madison's idea of the meaning of the term general Welfare, as used in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 and ignore Hamilton's. The truth of the matter seems best left to The Congress, or the States.

ConLaw? Are we all supposed to be versed in your hate lingo? I don't speak lib!

General welfare doesn't mean anything government dreams up. We wouldn't need the rest of the Constitution if government had that broad of power. The Constitution limits government, what rights they cannot infringe on. What does being more agrarian in the past have to do with it? You don't say, sounds like a smokescreen to me. Many of the founders were businessmen, if they wanted socialism we would have had it from day one and you idiots wouldn't be here pushing for it. Duh!

 

[Boss]

Those who do cherry pick Madison's idea of the meaning of the term general Welfare, as used in Art. I, sec 8, clause 1 and ignore Hamilton's.

Madison doesn't ignore Hamilton's idea. Madison explains why "general welfare" can only be intended to apply to things already enumerated in Art. I, Sec. 8. His explanation is not refuted by Hamilton or anyone else. The Anti-Federalists FEARED the very thing that liberals are claiming it means today. Hamilton was a Federalist.

 

[Boss]

The sad truth about this theory ^^^ of ConLaw is that we no longer live in an agrarian society of a few million people along the East Coast of North America.

If you and your Socialist friends believe that our society has changed and we need to redefine our Constitution to accommodate that change, we have a process to amend the Constitution and you're welcome to pursue that option. We can't ignore the Constitution because a political party thinks it's outdated and obsolete. If you continue trying to advocate that approach, you are going to end up with a Civil War on your hands and I strongly encourage you to review the massive loss of life in the last one we had before you take us there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Free markets, huh? Define that!

I don't have time to educate you on free market capitalism today. You are capable of finding all kinds of resources on the topic... go educate yourself. It's basically the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers operating on principles of supply and demand.

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter, so please continue to further define a free market sagaciously, that is, using critical thinking on a foundation of practical sense.

• Should all drugs be unregulated?
• Should the sale of guns be unregulated?
• Should abortion be unregulated?
• Should sewage disposed of in our rivers go unregulated?
• Should money and goods 'donated' to members of Congress go unregulated?

 

[Iceweasel]

Free markets, huh? Define that!

I don't have time to educate you on free market capitalism today. You are capable of finding all kinds of resources on the topic... go educate yourself. It's basically the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers operating on principles of supply and demand.

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter, so please continue to further define a free market sagaciously, that is, using critical thinking on a foundation of practical sense.

• Should all drugs be unregulated?
• Should the sale of guns be unregulated?
• Should abortion be unregulated?
• Should sewage disposed of in our rivers go unregulated?
• Should money and goods 'donated' to members of Congress go unregulated?

Regulations are not synonymous with socialism. We've always had laws. Our second president was a lawyer. You can't separate fact from fantasy. Once government starts regulating to the extent wages are dictated, vacation, hiring and firing, like Europe, then we are into socialism. That's where modern day Democrats want to go.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The sad truth about this theory ^^^ of ConLaw is that we no longer live in an agrarian society of a few million people along the East Coast of North America.

If you and your Socialist friends believe that our society has changed and we need to redefine our Constitution to accommodate that change, we have a process to amend the Constitution and you're welcome to pursue that option. We can't ignore the Constitution because a political party thinks it's outdated and obsolete. If you continue trying to advocate that approach, you are going to end up with a Civil War on your hands and I strongly encourage you to review the massive loss of life in the last one we had before you take us there.

LOL, a civil war? Coming from you I'm mindful of George Plimpton's efforts to play professional sport.

Does Marbury v. Madison ring a bell? Do you want to discuss wherein Art III that power is enumerated?

 

[Boss]

Free markets, huh? Define that!

I don't have time to educate you on free market capitalism today. You are capable of finding all kinds of resources on the topic... go educate yourself. It's basically the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers operating on principles of supply and demand.

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter, so please continue to further define a free market sagaciously, that is, using critical thinking on a foundation of practical sense.

• Should all drugs be unregulated?
• Should the sale of guns be unregulated?
• Should abortion be unregulated?
• Should sewage disposed of in our rivers go unregulated?
• Should money and goods 'donated' to members of Congress go unregulated?

None of those have anything to do with free market economy. However, over-regulation can often burden free market systems and cause more problems than they fix. We do need certain regulations and no one that I am aware of is advocating a total ban on all regulation. Undue and burdensome regulations on capitalists for the express purpose of "punishing" the capitalist or destroying the free market, is unacceptable.

 

[Boss]

The sad truth about this theory ^^^ of ConLaw is that we no longer live in an agrarian society of a few million people along the East Coast of North America.

If you and your Socialist friends believe that our society has changed and we need to redefine our Constitution to accommodate that change, we have a process to amend the Constitution and you're welcome to pursue that option. We can't ignore the Constitution because a political party thinks it's outdated and obsolete. If you continue trying to advocate that approach, you are going to end up with a Civil War on your hands and I strongly encourage you to review the massive loss of life in the last one we had before you take us there.

LOL, a civil war? Coming from you I'm mindful of George Plimpton's efforts to play professional sport.

Does Marbury v. Madison ring a bell? Do you want to discuss wherein Art III that power is enumerated?

I'm just telling you like it is. Americans are not going to stand for Socialists changing the Constitution by political fiat. That's not going to be allowed. You can THINK it will be... but you need to get your head on straight before you go and do something stupid. Marbury v. Madison isn't going to mean diddly-squat when revolution happens.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Boss]

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter..

No, I didn't educate you. I merely added the silent (k) to your posting of "new" because it looked ignorant and I was sure it was simply an honest oversight on your part. However, now that you have vented twice, I am thinking you are genuinely embarrassed by your own ignorance. You see, I have made the same mistake before... get in a hurry posting and sometimes the wrong word comes out of my fingers... no big deal... if someone were to correct it the way that I did, I would simply edit my post and correct it and never say a word about it. But I see, post #313 hasn't been edited and you're still whining because I corrected your incorrect spelling. It tells me two things about you... you can't be educated and you don't care.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Free markets, huh? Define that!

I don't have time to educate you on free market capitalism today. You are capable of finding all kinds of resources on the topic... go educate yourself. It's basically the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services between producers and consumers operating on principles of supply and demand.

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter, so please continue to further define a free market sagaciously, that is, using critical thinking on a foundation of practical sense.

• Should all drugs be unregulated?
• Should the sale of guns be unregulated?
• Should abortion be unregulated?
• Should sewage disposed of in our rivers go unregulated?
• Should money and goods 'donated' to members of Congress go unregulated?

Regulations are not synonymous with socialism. We've always had laws. Our second president was a lawyer. You can't separate fact from fantasy. Once government starts regulating to the extent wages are dictated, vacation, hiring and firing, like Europe, then we are into socialism. That's where modern day Democrats want to go.

A regulation is different than a law. Maybe not in effect, but by its conception. But I digress.

Define what you mean by "we are into socialism" and more importantly (if true) what consequences do you fear?

 

[Boss]

None of them are Socialism.

 

[Boss]

A regulation is different than a law.

Nope... A regulation IS a law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter..

No, I didn't educate you. I merely added the silent (k) to your posting of "new" because it looked ignorant and I was sure it was simply an honest oversight on your part. However, now that you have vented twice, I am thinking you are genuinely embarrassed by your own ignorance. You see, I have made the same mistake before... get in a hurry posting and sometimes the wrong word comes out of my fingers... no big deal... if someone were to correct it the way that I did, I would simply edit my post and correct it and never say a word about it. But I see, post #313 hasn't been edited and you're still whining because I corrected your incorrect spelling. It tells me two things about you... you can't be educated and you don't care.

The truth of the matter, notwithstanding your (or is it you're or you've?) uninformed opinion, is that I posted before I proofed by work. A poor habit and something I do on the internet too (is it to or two) often.

[help me here, which do I chose: "There are (to, too, or two) (tose?) in the English Language. So are their actually four tose , or would it be toose?]

In fact I'm ignorant on many issues, sometimes I have no idea when faced with a question on Jeopardy. Mostly I do well, but questions on the bible and popular culture are topics uninteresting to me. I'm also weak on the history of the early middle ages, so I'm reading The Age of Faith by Will Durant.

 

[Iceweasel]

A regulation is different than a law. Maybe not in effect, but by its conception. But I digress.

Define what you mean by "we are into socialism" and more importantly (if true) what consequences do you fear?

Regulations means rules enforced by government. They aren't suggestions.

Getting into socialism means more government. What I fear is future generations being wards of the state. We already see some of it where schools can punish students for shit they did off campus. That's off the charts wrong but it's where we are headed as a culture.

 

[Boss]

Yet you had time to educated me on a spelling matter..

No, I didn't educate you. I merely added the silent (k) to your posting of "new" because it looked ignorant and I was sure it was simply an honest oversight on your part. However, now that you have vented twice, I am thinking you are genuinely embarrassed by your own ignorance. You see, I have made the same mistake before... get in a hurry posting and sometimes the wrong word comes out of my fingers... no big deal... if someone were to correct it the way that I did, I would simply edit my post and correct it and never say a word about it. But I see, post #313 hasn't been edited and you're still whining because I corrected your incorrect spelling. It tells me two things about you... you can't be educated and you don't care.

The truth of the matter, notwithstanding your (or is it you're or you've?) uninformed opinion, is that I posted before I proofed by work. A poor habit and something I do on the internet too (is it to or two) often.

[help me here, which do I chose: "There are (to, too, or two) (tose?) in the English Language. So are their actually four tose , or would it be toose?]

In fact I'm ignorant on many issues, sometimes I have no idea when faced with a question on Jeopardy. Mostly I do well, but questions on the bible and popular culture are topics uninteresting to me. I'm also weak on the history of the early middle ages, so I'm reading The Age of Faith by Will Durant.

All I know is, with all the whining you've done over my simple correction of your spelling error, you could have read a lot about free market capitalism and free enterprise.

Here's a good place you can start... Williams is a pretty good writer and can explain things in a way most people can understand.
Walter Williams Home Page

What's really cool is, if you have some burning question and need some help, email him and he'll get back to you fairly promptly.