|
|
On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread.
Your argument is "everyones a socialist" what exactly is there to counter? Your 'argument' is stupid.
|
|
|
On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve.
...
...
I read that a few times and I'm still in awe of how you could possibly think any sentence you posted is true.
|
If I swim in a lake I am not a duck. We utilize programs called social security but that does not make us socialists.
|
He doesn't literally mean "socialist". That's a term he's using to refer to big government. As time goes in, more and more people are becoming dependent upon the government in some fashion, and government regulations increase. That is the path to socialism. It's also the mainstream political will of the people in the United States. They happen to like their handouts.
|
On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air.
Socialism doesn't really have a universally agreed upon and clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more.
|
On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more.
I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense.
Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically!
|
Does anybody know whether there will be a live-stream broadcasting the upcoming debate on the internet?
|
On October 23 2012 02:05 DownOnMyNiece wrote:
Does anybody know whether there will be a live-stream broadcasting the upcoming debate on the internet?
Probably multiple ones, if the previous debates are any indication. One Youtube one for sure.
|
On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically!
I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism.
|
On October 23 2012 01:16 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:10 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 00:02 Swazi Spring wrote:
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve. Do you live in reality? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SocialismIf the USA is socialist then I am a unicorn. Which would be fucking awesome. America is socialist, in fact, just about every country is socialist to some extent these days. Unfortunately America is becoming more and more socialist; and by extension, less and less free (capitalist). Even I support some socialist policies, but it's by no means my overarching ideology, nor is it something I think we should strive towards.
You might consider reading the link provided. America (as in the United states of America) is in some small aspects becoming closer to socialism. The general theme of your politicians is still quite far off compared to what any reasonable person would call socialism.
Yes the so called pure capitalism you seem to want is also a thing of the past, but frankly there IS a medium between those two extremes. For the record, I'd consider myself a conservative, but i'll freely acknowledge that almost all of my positions are far removed from capitalism. Both of your current candidates are far closer to the capitalist side of the scale than almost any European politician (with the exception of the UK goverment, they are closer to your own values).
So forgive us, but your initial post screams ignorance most of all. You think you are heading in the wrong direction? That is your right and maybe both candidates do not represent a direction you want to go, but that doesn't mean you should call them something they clearly are not - esp. if you mean it as an insult.
edit: to expand on the point I want to make clear:
if you strip the definition of socialism down to the bare bones you can (or should) arrive at two possible positions: One is that the state owns everything (the way the communists defined socialism) the other (far more current) position would be that the state should be responsible for the care of their people. Most modern "socialist" states feel they are obliged to give their population a number of things, while spreading the burden for those to everyone via taxes. Infrastructure, healthcare, education are usually the classic 3 areas many people believe should be controlled by the state.
Now lets look at the candidates and what they wish to do, does that represent such a definition? The only area where socialist policies are common is healthcare, and correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember Gov. Romney saying he would abolish Obamacare as soon as he was elected. Even Obamacare as it is does not go nearly enough to be truly socialist, it still relies heavily on private healthcare suppliers and private hospitals.
I feel comfortable saying Austria is a social state to a certain extend. Our goverment spends quite a bit of our taxes paying for our railways, freeways, healthcare and education. But I'd defend my goverment to the death if you tried to compare it seriously to a socialist state as defined by the Sowjet Union.
|
While pure socialism and pure freedom are both unrealistic, that doesn't mean the terms completely disappear for those who support a middle-ground. In my opinion, if someone leans more towards freedom/capitalism, they should be called such (libertarian or American conservative); whereas someone who leans more towards government/socialism, should also be called such (socialist).
|
On October 23 2012 02:10 Swazi Spring wrote:
While pure socialism and pure freedom are both unrealistic, that doesn't mean the terms completely disappear for those who support a middle-ground. In my opinion, if someone leans more towards freedom/capitalism, they should be called such (libertarian or American conservative); whereas someone who leans more towards government/socialism, should also be called such (socialist).
That is a nice idea in theory, in practice it means something else though. You cannot use a defined term for something else (even if it is only a matter of shades of grey). If something means black you cannot use it to refer to a light shade of grey and hope to make sense.
It is ironic btw that you consider freedom and capitalism to be synonyms, that is also an area where some research might help enlighten you, but I won't derail this thread further.
|
On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 21:24 DoubleReed wrote:
No, Roe v Wade is not the end-all be-all of the abortion debate and any conservativewho argues differently is being intellectually dishonest. This is big government mandating ridiculous financial regulations on abortion clinics to get them shut down, mandating unnecessary medical procedures (which I have no idea how so-called conservatives could ever defend) and weird, creepy shaming tactics trying to misinform women about their bodies.
It actually pisses me off that people try to sweep this under the rug. I suppose it's because as conservatives this is the government being so incredibly invasive in your personal life that it would be impossible for them to condone, so they just pretend it's not happening.
It's really quite sickening. Put yourself in a woman's shoes for once. We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary...
let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really?
I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit.
or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 23 2012 02:20 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:10 Swazi Spring wrote:
While pure socialism and pure freedom are both unrealistic, that doesn't mean the terms completely disappear for those who support a middle-ground. In my opinion, if someone leans more towards freedom/capitalism, they should be called such (libertarian or American conservative); whereas someone who leans more towards government/socialism, should also be called such (socialist). That is a nice idea in theory, in practice it means something else though. You cannot use a defined term for something else (even if it is only a matter of shades of grey). If something means black you cannot use it to refer to a light shade of grey and hope to make sense. It is ironic btw that you consider freedom and capitalism to be synonyms, that is also an area where some research might help enlighten you, but I won't derail this thread further.
I'm sure most socialists and social democrats out there are okay with some kind of personal property rights, otherwise there wouldn't be any kind of capitalism in Europe right now whatsoever. I think that describing someone as not being something, just because they aren't 100% partisan in that fashion is wrong, though looking at the direct definition, you're right. Libertarianism is about as well-defined as socialism is, yet does that mean someone who disagrees with mainstream libertarian orthodoxy is not a libertarian? For instance, I consider myself to be a libertarian, yet I support strict regulations on banking and I support American exceptionalism, both of which very much go against the definition of libertarianism.
Freedom was a poor choice of words, I was using "freedom" as a synonym for "liberty."
|
On October 23 2012 01:15 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:07 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 22 2012 22:20 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
We've been over this before. It's a perspective thing. If you're not willing to put yourself in their shoes, then of course it makes no sense to you. Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing??? Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure? I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... The republican party doesn't want to stop abortions, they just want to make them illegal. Because abortion is bad, and you should feel bad. That's the gist of it anyway. Personally I like Roe. It establishes a balance between the rights of life, liberty, and happiness of the mother and the potential life of the fetus. It also has a very conservative leaning. Anti-abortion viewpoint: Abortion should be outlawed, the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother entirely Pro-abortion viewpoint: The state should not have the authority to force women to remain pregnant. The mother outweighs the child as she is a member of society and a person. Roe: For the first third of pregnancy, the mother's will supersedes that of the fetus. For the last two thirds, the fetus supersedes the will of the mother except for cases of incest and rape. I don't get how people are so against legal abortion. Roe is already an enormous compromise between two conflicting ideals. Repealing it is saying that you fail to understand that a large group of people either do not believe that the right to life applies at conception, or believe that the state has no right to force people to remain pregnant. Instead a more pro-life campaign would be to increase the quality of sex education and make contraceptives more accessible. You know, since these things have proven to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Actually, in hindsight sex is bad and has consequences that must be enforced by law so our teenage daughters don't become sluts. America! Although rather extreme, I do see the logic in the dichotomy that silynxer draws. If you truly believe abortion is murder, then murder is occurring every day and somehow you're ok to let it pass until... something happens. That seems to suggest either you don't mind murder (that much), or the issue isn't quite as important to you as you profess. There's some degree of moral or cognitive dissonance there. While Roe vs. Wade is a good compromise, well, I find myself on the right side of it, I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or other danger to the mother, but that would be in an ideal world where people were educated about it and didn't do stupid things.
there is absolutely no logic in his post. for one, he suggests that we go out and do.... what? blow up abortion clinics? how does that 1) help solve the problem and 2) stop the killing? if our problem is bloodshed than how can you "logically" expect us to go shed even more blood?
if I truly believe abortion is murder, that doesn't somehow make me Superman. it doesn't give me some kind of magical powers so that I can just magically stop the murder from happening. I can protest against it, I can vote against it, I can even try to push it out using societal pressure (shaming), but I can't go and become a murderer and try to hold some high-ground over murderers. only a child could think of things so simplistically as you and silynxer are.
Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise.
|
On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a universally agreed upon and clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more.
You do realize you just defined socialism in a way that makes it so every country on this whole planet is socialist.
|
On October 23 2012 02:30 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a universally agreed upon and clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. You do realize you just defined socialism in a way that makes it so every country on this whole planet is socialist.
To some degree, yes, it's a matter of just how socialist they are.
|
On October 23 2012 02:06 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:56 radiatoren wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. I think you are painting with far too broad stroke in these definitions. Without "socialism" in your definition, we are in a very extreme libertarian dream! I don't think that socialist works in that context, when you are talking about politics. You could just as well call xDaunt and DeepElemBlues for socialists, which doesn't make much sense. Ideologically you might be right about the overall definitions, but in terms of reality you need to flesh it out more specifically! I see what you're saying and you made a few great points. By definition though, something is either socialist (statist) or capitalist (stateless), neither ideal would work by itself in reality; we should strive for a middle-ground somewhere. Where we (as a society) disagree is just what the middle-ground should be. I doubt you'll find many conservatives who want to completely abolish the state, just as there are probably not many socialists who want to completely do away with individualism.
Capitalism isn't statelessness. lol
Consider the source of the term. When Marx wrote of the "capitalist mode of production" he wasn't writing about some hypothetical system. He was writing about a system of government privilege and plutarchy that actually existed. The East India Company was a perfect example of capitalism in action. So too are all other state-created private monopolies and government bailouts of privately owned industries.
|
On October 23 2012 02:33 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:30 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a universally agreed upon and clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. You do realize you just defined socialism in a way that makes it so every country on this whole planet is socialist. To some degree, yes, it's a matter of just how socialist they are.
Well obviously, and for good reasons.
Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve.
This post howevver, is completely batshit insane. You start off by being prejudiced towards mormons and slightly racist towards a black president. There was no reason whatsoever to point both of those things out, and then you describe the USA far-left. Which is rediculous on a global scale. I might argue that because the USA isn't socialistic enough you have to problems that you do. When the average pay of a CEO increases 700+ percent and that of a regular worker only 5 percent or so, you have a problem. The discrepancy between wealth is an issue. Many otherwise intelligent, hard working people aren't getting chances they otherwise would have in a more socialistic country with things like college being as expensive as it is. I am not saying the EU is a good example of a welfare state because I belief most European Country's to be too far left, but the USA being too socialist is not the problem, especially when the reason of the recent crisis was because of too little regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
