Wasserman Scultz can't tell the Difference between being a Socialist and a Democrat!

[bripat9643]

Hey, dipshit:

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

No Sweden isn't socialist. It's a welfare state, just like the United States.

Then Democrats aren't socialist.

Wrong. What makes you think they want to stop at Sweden?

 

[bripat9643]

Sanders' presence and popularity obviously establishes the Democrats' ideological proximity to "socialism", and their denials are pretty silly. Whatever.

However, I think he's a democratic socialist, which is not the same thing. If the Republicans can't figure that out and deal with at that level, they're going to start giving "socialism" a better name in this country.

There's a distinction there, and I can't tell if the Republicans see it. Can they?

The issue is that the term "Socialist" has been perverted into an emotional hot button that has little to do with its actual essence (see also "communist", see also "liberal") and thus has to be defined before any such examination can ensue -- which cannot be done in the 0.4 seconds allotted, even with the digital compression they use in advertising. It's impossible.

I doubt if 20% of the wags on this board could define these terms even without a time limit. That's part of the dumbing-down of discourse, the superficial crapola that hacks like Matthews only accelerate with their hackneyed hackitude.

I do not disagree with anything you said, but I think Wasserman really was stumped by the question. She is not in that 20 percent you mentioned. I think it would take her a half hour to come up with an answer, and only after consulting her aides.

No doubt. But the point was that nobody could even begin to answer that question in the time allotted. If an entire program were dedicated to that question, and left answering space, then maybe. In the event it looks like DWS knew there was no way to address it in those conditions and deflected. It's basically a leading question with all the validity of "real quick, before we go, have you stopped beating your wife?" (music swells). It's a horseshit rhetorical device.

Wasserman could easily have answered the question by simply pointing out the policy differences between Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party. Easy peasey.

What are the policy differences? None that I'm aware of.

After all, did she not attempt to divert the question to policy differences between Democrats and Republicans? She sure was ready to list those!

I think she was completely stumped on what the differences are between Sanders and her party.[/QUOTE]

 

[bripat9643]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

You kicked Zell out of the Party. Sanders/Fidel

Zell Miller's still a Democrat to this day.

What office does he hold?

 

[bripat9643]

Sanders' presence and popularity obviously establishes the Democrats' ideological proximity to "socialism", and their denials are pretty silly. Whatever.

However, I think he's a democratic socialist, which is not the same thing. If the Republicans can't figure that out and deal with at that level, they're going to start giving "socialism" a better name in this country.

There's a distinction there, and I can't tell if the Republicans see it. Can they?

The issue is that the term "Socialist" has been perverted into an emotional hot button that has little to do with its actual essence (see also "communist", see also "liberal") and thus has to be defined before any such examination can ensue -- which cannot be done in the 0.4 seconds allotted, even with the digital compression they use in advertising. It's impossible.

I doubt if 20% of the wags on this board could define these terms even without a time limit. That's part of the dumbing-down of discourse, the superficial crapola that hacks like Matthews only accelerate with their hackneyed hackitude.

I do not disagree with anything you said, but I think Wasserman really was stumped by the question. She is not in that 20 percent you mentioned. I think it would take her a half hour to come up with an answer, and only after consulting her aides.

No doubt. But the point was that nobody could even begin to answer that question in the time allotted. If an entire program were dedicated to that question, and left answering space, then maybe. In the event it looks like DWS knew there was no way to address it in those conditions and deflected. It's basically a leading question with all the validity of "real quick, before we go, have you stopped beating your wife?" (music swells). It's a horseshit rhetorical device.

I can easily answer the question of what is the difference between socialism and the Republican party. I can answer it in one sentence. So why is it so difficult for Democrats?

 

[bripat9643]

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

Is public education socialist?

Absolutely, that's why 80% of NYC School student can't read at grade level

You think poor kids would read better if there was no affordable school system for them?

How would that work?

They could read better before they were forced to go to public schools.

 

[bripat9643]

Is public education socialist?

Socialistic, yes. As are public roads.

Yes they are. So?

 

[bripat9643]

Is public education socialist?

Socialistic, yes. As are public roads.

And public libraries. And public parks. And the Smithsonian and institutions like it. And Social Security and veterans' benefits and the NIH and the FAA and the FDA.
Etc etc etc...

Yep. Fuck all that. Flush it down the toilet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Social democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy.[1][2][3] Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes.[4] "Social democracy" is often used in this manner to refer to the social and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century.[5][6] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political movement that aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means

 

[bripat9643]

Social democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy.[1][2][3] Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes.[4] "Social democracy" is often used in this manner to refer to the social and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century.[5][6] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political movement that aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means

Propaganda.

 

[OKTexas]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

Is Zell Miller still in office?

lol, are you conceding that there is no resemblance between the erstwhile segregationist CONSERVATIVE Democratic faction of the Democratic party and modern day Democrats?

lol, tell that to all your retarded conservative pals who keep trying to pin racism on modern day Democrats.

Of course there is no evidence that dems are racist, well maybe except La Raza, Sharpton, Wright, Jackson, Holder, Lee, Waters, the dear leader, Cummings, ..........................................................

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is public education socialist?

Socialistic, yes. As are public roads.

And public libraries. And public parks. And the Smithsonian and institutions like it. And Social Security and veterans' benefits and the NIH and the FAA and the FDA.
Etc etc etc...

Yep. Fuck all that. Flush it down the toilet.

Yep, lets become like Haiti. Fuck you. People like you would have us being like some shit hole like Haiti or central America.

A large part of why we're a world power is because of our public sector. Why not flush the private sector down the toilet??? It does less.

 

[bripat9643]

Gee, I wonder why even Sanders doesn't want to talk about socialism- he now says he's a democratic socialist. But socialism itself has been defined as that since about 1935, when the true nature of the USSR, and for that matter National Socialism, was revealed to all. Of course hater dupes have been trapped in cold war propaganda by the Pub Propaganda machine.

You mean socialists get to change the definition of words when the original definitions aren't politically palatable?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Social democracy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Social democracy is a political ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving welfare state provisions, collective bargaining arrangements, regulation of the economy in the general interest, interventions to promote greater equality in the distribution of income and wealth, and a commitment to representative democracy.[1][2][3] Social democracy aims to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater egalitarian, democratic and solidaristic outcomes.[4] "Social democracy" is often used in this manner to refer to the social and economic policies prominent in Western and Northern Europe during the latter half of the 20th century.[5][6] Alternatively, social democracy is defined as a political movement that aims to achieve socialism through gradual and democratic means

Propaganda.

You're a idiot and a fool. Greece 2,000 years ago wasn't a fully capitlist society,,,Rome wasn't a fully capitlist society.

Capitlistm without regulations is nasty shit on the level of pure socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

Is public education socialist?

Socialistic, yes. As are public roads.

The public
And public libraries. And public parks. And the Smithsonian and institutions like it. And Social Security and veterans' benefits and the NIH and the FAA and the FDA.
Etc etc etc...

Yep. Fuck all that. Flush it down the toilet.

Yep, lets become like Haiti. Fuck you. People like you would have us being like some shit hole like Haiti or central America.

A large part of why we're a world power is because of our public sector. Why not flush the private sector down the toilet??? It does less.

Those things aren't what keep us from being the same as Haiti. The so-called "public sector" has done nothing but harm this country.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is public education socialist?

Socialistic, yes. As are public roads.

And public libraries. And public parks. And the Smithsonian and institutions like it. And Social Security and veterans' benefits and the NIH and the FAA and the FDA.
Etc etc etc...

Yep. Fuck all that. Flush it down the toilet.

Yep, lets become a third world country and destroy our entire ability to lead in science, etc. You're nuts.

 

[bripat9643]

No it wasn't.
Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 4, 1980.

All of our children had a better education including the poor before the Feds created the department.

A government run school system funded by taxpayer dollars that offers a basic education to children regardless of their ability to pay

is Socialism.

You either support that Socialism or you don't.

Yes or no.

All I said was we had better education before the Feds created that department.

Yeah well that's not the first retarded thing you've said.

But back to the point.

Is public education socialism or not?

No. Now can you answer Matthews question or are you as flummoxed as the DNC Chair?

Thanks

What is socialism then if not the government running of a school system?

Describe a socialistic school system and then point out the differences.

Public education is socialism. Some Republicans like to dispute that, but nevertheless it's true.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Is public education socialist?

Socialistic, yes. As are public roads.

The public
And public libraries. And public parks. And the Smithsonian and institutions like it. And Social Security and veterans' benefits and the NIH and the FAA and the FDA.
Etc etc etc...

Yep. Fuck all that. Flush it down the toilet.

Yep, lets become like Haiti. Fuck you. People like you would have us being like some shit hole like Haiti or central America.

A large part of why we're a world power is because of our public sector. Why not flush the private sector down the toilet??? It does less.

Those things aren't what keep us from being the same as Haiti. The so-called "public sector" has done nothing but harm this country.

lol,

So you don't like the nws that gives you the weather warning...It hurts the country.
You don't like research into cures for disease...It hurts this country.
You don't like a safety net so people don't strave= it hurts this country!
You don't like a educated population = it hurts this country
You don't like police
You don't like paying taxes for infrastructure


You do like corporations being able to fuck up the environment and treat their workers like dog shit.

 

[bripat9643]

Name the Republicans who would end public education.

By doing so, you will have shown us which Republicans are not socialists in their own right.

Whether politicians would end the public schools proves nothing other than the fact that politicians will do whatever they think will get them elected.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A government run school system funded by taxpayer dollars that offers a basic education to children regardless of their ability to pay

is Socialism.

You either support that Socialism or you don't.

Yes or no.

All I said was we had better education before the Feds created that department.

Yeah well that's not the first retarded thing you've said.

But back to the point.

Is public education socialism or not?

No. Now can you answer Matthews question or are you as flummoxed as the DNC Chair?

Thanks

What is socialism then if not the government running of a school system?

Describe a socialistic school system and then point out the differences.

Public education is socialism. Some Republicans like to dispute that, but nevertheless it's true.

Like I said, not all socialism is a bad thing! Name one country on earth that is within the top 20 education wise that doesn't have a public sector educational system. People like you feel that only the very riches should be able to get educated. You're a piece of crap.

 

[LoneLaugher]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

His own words

Now that Bernie Sanders has entered the contest for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Americans are going to be hearing a lot about socialism, because the 73-year old U.S. senator from Vermont describes himself as a "democratic socialist."

Bernie Sanders Socialism Is as American as Apple Pie Peter Dreier

Yes. And WHAT SOCIALIST PARTY does he belong to? What party's nomination is he seeking? Say it clearly, please.

I know he describes himself as a socialist. That's not a fucking secret.

Socialism is an economic system. It isn't a political system.

Finally....Bernie Sanders is not proposing government ownership of the means of production.....IS HE??????

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name the Republicans who would end public education.

By doing so, you will have shown us which Republicans are not socialists in their own right.

Whether politicians would end the public schools proves nothing other than the fact that politicians will do whatever they think will get them elected.

So you concede that the socialist institution of public education is popular in America. lol no shit.