Wanna Try Out Socialism?

[Moonglow]

I was in the military that socialist organization was okay..

If you call the military socalist then clearly either you were never in it or you don't have a friggin clue what socalism is. Now which is it?

You tell me you have all the answers.

 

[Ringel05]

Relly, since you know nothing what was my experience in the military?

You're a ******* dishonest rube to call a voluntary military Socialism

Missing his point.... When was the last time you voted for your officers and NCOs? When was the last time you had to pay for your meals in the mess hall, pay for your bunk in the barracks, vote as to whether or not you wanted to work that day, chose not to follow orders without consequences? For all intent and purposes the Military is socialist.

I believe you've missed the point.

.There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

Clearly the military does not fall withing this rubric.

There are differing degrees of socialism just as there are differing degrees of capitalism but then again you clowns on both sides of the fence only see in black and white.

...both sides of the fence...???


Well, then, how about you put a little effort in and expound on the historic advances of socialism?


There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
Jim Hightower

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Socialism or Capitalism?

Does socialism work well in France? Based on what criteria? 23% of young people unemployed. 25% of all jobs in France are in the public sector.

Get this on socialism: “France has…an archaic socialism that fails to understand…that wealth needs to be created before it can be shared…[In France] there is a lingering culture of suspicion of profit, and a demonization of business leaders, encouraged by a mainstream left that still equates efficiency with injustice.”(The Economist, Frances Troubles: A tale of Two Frances, March 30, 2006)


Schools may be free, as the teachers are public employees, but it seems you get what you pay for with government schools: 40% drop out rate, and not even one French school is in the top 40 in worldwide ranking (University of Paris is number 42, and only three French schools are in the top 100). By comparison, the US places 17 in the top 20.

(http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm)

Academic Ranking of World Universities - Wikipedia






Maybe that’s the point of schooling in socialist precincts…..keep ‘em dumb or they may not be socialist.

"In a richly detailed new study for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Jay Schalin acknowledges that even 100 years ago, during ed-schools’ formative phase, “progressive educators set out to transform the nation into one that was based on social science theories, collectivism, and central planning.”

After investigating how politicized ed-schools now have become, Schalin’s main conclusion is “schools of education may very well be radicalized beyond anything imagined by the early progressives.”
Ed-Schools and Multiculturalists Exhibit Burnin’ Love for Leftist Indoctrination

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're a ******* dishonest rube to call a voluntary military Socialism

Missing his point.... When was the last time you voted for your officers and NCOs? When was the last time you had to pay for your meals in the mess hall, pay for your bunk in the barracks, vote as to whether or not you wanted to work that day, chose not to follow orders without consequences? For all intent and purposes the Military is socialist.

I believe you've missed the point.

.There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

Clearly the military does not fall withing this rubric.

There are differing degrees of socialism just as there are differing degrees of capitalism but then again you clowns on both sides of the fence only see in black and white.

...both sides of the fence...???


Well, then, how about you put a little effort in and expound on the historic advances of socialism?


There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
Jim Hightower

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

 

[Ringel05]

Missing his point.... When was the last time you voted for your officers and NCOs? When was the last time you had to pay for your meals in the mess hall, pay for your bunk in the barracks, vote as to whether or not you wanted to work that day, chose not to follow orders without consequences? For all intent and purposes the Military is socialist.

I believe you've missed the point.

.There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

Clearly the military does not fall withing this rubric.

There are differing degrees of socialism just as there are differing degrees of capitalism but then again you clowns on both sides of the fence only see in black and white.

...both sides of the fence...???


Well, then, how about you put a little effort in and expound on the historic advances of socialism?


There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
Jim Hightower

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe you've missed the point.

.There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

Clearly the military does not fall withing this rubric.

There are differing degrees of socialism just as there are differing degrees of capitalism but then again you clowns on both sides of the fence only see in black and white.

...both sides of the fence...???


Well, then, how about you put a little effort in and expound on the historic advances of socialism?


There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
Jim Hightower

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

 

[Ringel05]

There are differing degrees of socialism just as there are differing degrees of capitalism but then again you clowns on both sides of the fence only see in black and white.

...both sides of the fence...???


Well, then, how about you put a little effort in and expound on the historic advances of socialism?


There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
Jim Hightower

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

 

[Dick Foster]

I was in the military that socialist organization was okay..

If you call the military socalist then clearly either you were never in it or you don't have a friggin clue what socalism is. Now which is it?

You tell me you have all the answers.

Most probably all of the above.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...both sides of the fence...???


Well, then, how about you put a little effort in and expound on the historic advances of socialism?


There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.
Jim Hightower

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

 

[Ringel05]

Why? I'm not arguing the the pros and cons of socialism vs capitalism, I'm simply pointing out that the military structure is basically socialist. Obviously you can't see past your own black and white thinking to get that. Try looking past your own nose for once in your life rdean...... Uumm, what was your name again?

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. As I showed, you don't understand what socialism is.

2. It is less than vapid to criticize both sides, lazy at best, a pretense at worst.


Try again.

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

 

[Ringel05]

And as I showed you haven't a clue what you're talking about. You should stop now before you stuff both feet in your mouth and look even more like rdean.

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. Israel was originally founded based on communism/socialism. Not anymore.

The community farms in Israel’s origin, Kibbutzim, were all communist/socialist. Almost all of them have become capitalist.

Not long ago, I traveled in the Middle East, and stayed at a hotel that was originally a socialist farm, the hotel kibbutz, Hagoshrim.

Passover Vacation at Hagoshrim Kibbutz & Resort Hotel






Were given a lecture by Hannah Levi, who has worked at Hagoshim for over 60 years....from its communist beginnings to the current, capitalist principles.


“In 1967, when the kibbutz opened its first 10 guest rooms, Ms. Levi asked to work in that section. It was one of the first to focus on tourism. In the past 20 years, many kibbutzes have adopted a capitalistic approach. Now roughly 80 percent of them are for-profit. Ten percent have remained communal collectives using the old socialist model, and the remaining 10 percent are religious.

Today, HaGoshrim has 225 members and 100 children. Members are paid salaries, but there is no communal dining room or laundry for the workers.

"It's hard for older members to accept this change. I'm sorry capitalism didn't come along 40 years ago," Ms. Levi said.


"Israeli Kibbutz transformed from farm to resort"
Israeli Kibbutz transformed from farm to resort



One more 'vote' against socialism, and for capitalism.


Yet.....socialism is the agenda for the Democrat Party.
Go figure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Time to give you the spanking you deserve.

1. You can't make up your own definitions.
This one is accurate...
There is this definition of socialism:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.


2. Bet you've seen cable opinion shows where they encourage call-ins, and they have three categories: agree, disagree, don’t know.
What sort of moron calls in to say they have no opinion?????
Yet that is the sort of moron we find sitting on the fence, claiming what is clearly and evidently false.



3. That’s what Reagan was getting at, here: there are two sides to the issue.....not an insipid "both sides are wrong/the same," as you present.

In 1975, Ronald Reagan set out his intention: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”
Or, be a moron and post like this:
“Only a simpleton votes for either of the duopoly as they are fundamentally the same. “
State which view you ascribe to, and explain or defend it. If you can.
“…no pale pastels, but bold colors…”

No obfuscation, no pretense: make clear what one stands for, express it, explain it, defend it.
Be brave.
Grow a backbone.

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

Silence befits one of your......ability.

 

[Ringel05]

Typical black and white political hack thinking there rdean. Forget it, I'm dealing with a clueless moron.
Tell ya what rdean, show me a purely capitalist and purely socialist real world construct (not theoretical constructs) and I'll concede the argument...... I won't hold my breath.......

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

Silence befits one of your......ability.

If you say so rdean........

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typical lazy hack.

1. Where is your definition of socialism.
Here's mine:
“ any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state Definition of SOCIALISM

The military doesn't fall in there.



2.The thesis of the thread is that historically and effectively, socialism has been a failure wherever it has been tried.
That brought you here, posting nothing to the contrary but the mindless...."Oh, yeah?????"

You bring nothing to the table, essential an intellectual freeloader.


3. Equivocate: to use ambiguous or unclear expressions, usually to avoid commitment or in order to mislead; prevaricate or hedge Google

Or…’yellow bellied loser.’


Folks like you pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve?


As this thread proves....PROVES....capitalism and socialism are far from the same.
You're simply not equipped for the analysis.

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

Silence befits one of your......ability.

If you say so rdean........

I told you not to come back until you had a thought in your head.

Wanna try again?

The Democrats are running on socialism, a failed doctrine.

You still can't see that?

Stickin' with "Oh, yeah!!! Well.....duhhhhhhh....."?

 

[Ringel05]

I should know better than to try and point out reality to a political zealot....... Enjoy your ignorance.

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

Silence befits one of your......ability.

If you say so rdean........

I told you not to come back until you had a thought in your head.

Wanna try again?

The Democrats are running on socialism, a failed doctrine.

You still can't see that?

Stickin' with "Oh, yeah!!! Well.....duhhhhhhh....."?

Still think that's what I'm arguing....... Really? What a fuckin' moron......

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The Democrat Party does.

"Bernie Sanders Finds Himself in a New Role as Front-Runner
...surpassing his rivals in early fundraising and establishing himself as an indisputable front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination."
Bernie Sanders Finds Himself in a New Role as Front-Runner | RealClearPolitics


A Marxist as the Democrat standard-bearer???? Yup.
Here we see the culmination of the Liberal control of government schooling: indoctrination, certainly not education.Time for the Democrats to be called the ‘know-nothing party.’ And for a remedial course in the history of socialism.




1. I’ve always been a devotee of the Gates Test: when they open the gates, do people rush in, or rush out? It’s a pretty good test of socialism, in all of its forms: communism, fascism, Nazism, Progressivism, and Liberalism [check out the numbers of folks moving out of California and New York].


2. “During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina was one of the world's top-10 richest nations. It was ahead of Canada and Australia in total and per capita income. After Juan Peron's ideas, captured in his economic creed that he called "national socialism," became a part of Argentina's life, the country fell into economic chaos. Today it has fallen to 25th in terms of GDP.


3. Nicolas Maduro, an avowed socialist, has turned oil-rich Venezuela into a place where there are shortages of everything from toilet paper to beer, where electricity keeps shutting down, and where there are long lines of people hoping to get food. Some people are eating their pets and feeding their children from garbage bins. Socialism has crippled Venezuela's once-thriving economy. Today, Venezuela is among the world's most tragically poor countries.


4. After Germany's defeat in WWII, it was divided into socialist East Germany and capitalist West Germany. West Germans had far greater income, wealth and human rights protections. In large numbers, East Germans tried to flee to West Germany, so much so that the East German government set up deadly mines and other traps to prevent escape. Few, if any, West Germans tried to flee to East Germany, and the West German government spent no resources preventing its citizens from leaving.


5. …there's North Korea and South Korea. North Korea's nominal per capita GDP is only 3.6 percent of South Korea's nominal per capita GDP of $23,838. There are few human rights protections for North Koreans. North Korea, like East Germany, has set up deadly mines and other traps to prevent its citizens from escaping.


6. …socialist nations that have murdered tens of millions of their own citizens such as the case with the former USSR and China.

7. Sanders and other socialists hold Denmark as their dream, but Prime Minister Lars Lekke Rasmussen said: "I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." Scandinavian socialism is a myth.” Millennials for Socialism



So, since socialism has never worked, what better plan for the Democrat Party???

It is going to be very interesting in what happens to the political landscape in the next 5-10 years as Millenials begin attaining power. We see early results of this already.
Unlike any generation before it (in America) - this is the first generation that is looking to replace their parents as providers, protectors of their feelings...basically to shelter them from discomfort and provide financial support with no questions asked.
There have ALWAYS been a small percentage of the population like this in all generations, but this generation...it may actually be the majority. And this is critical.

Let's hope that this quote, attributed to many, is correct:

If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain


Just as SNL and the NYT warned months ago that Mueller was going to let the Democrat true-believers down, the NYTimes now makes the point that Democrat voters are, largely, NOT the dolts on social media, or posting here.....


"Democrats who do not post political content
to social media sites are more likely to …
Identify themselves as moderates or conservatives
29% of Democrats
on social media
53% of other Democrats"


Read it and weep, Democrats.

There is truth in that.
My now 31 year old nephew was a flaming liberal before, he was one of the #walkaway folks.
he is now conservative, and even somewhat approves of Trump..where a year ago he was one of the mouth foaming TDS sufferers.
Maybe you're right - there is hope.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe readers of our colloquy will know who is correct.

Next time, try to be informed before you attempt to join a conversation.

Silence befits one of your......ability.

If you say so rdean........

I told you not to come back until you had a thought in your head.

Wanna try again?

The Democrats are running on socialism, a failed doctrine.

You still can't see that?

Stickin' with "Oh, yeah!!! Well.....duhhhhhhh....."?

Still think that's what I'm arguing....... Really? What a fuckin' moron......

When I bring out the vulgarity in an adversary, I know I've hit a nerve.


Excellent.

 

[Ringel05]

Silence befits one of your......ability.

If you say so rdean........

I told you not to come back until you had a thought in your head.

Wanna try again?

The Democrats are running on socialism, a failed doctrine.

You still can't see that?

Stickin' with "Oh, yeah!!! Well.....duhhhhhhh....."?

Still think that's what I'm arguing....... Really? What a fuckin' moron......

When I bring out the vulgarity in an adversary, I know I've hit a nerve.


Excellent.

Delusional too boot.