Explaining Socialism to a Republican

[M14 Shooter]

No - you simply do not want to answer the question I asked

So you want to know who I am to have my morality enforced on others? I'm a moral human being.

OK...so, because you are moral.you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
How does this make you different from right-wingers that would have their state impose their morality on you?

As for right-wing morality, it seems to be centered around gay issues which I don't believe affect me at all. Well, that and anti-science, pro-corporation crap.

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask in in a different way.
You are moral.and so you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
What then is your argument against other moral people using the state to impose their morality on you?

I insist there is no appeal to ignorance of our own laws and that Any fallacy is that form of appeal to it.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you said here.

 

[g5000]

DEM1: We have 10 million high school dropouts who have no health insurance.

DEM2: We must find a way to get other people to carry these high school dropouts on their backs for the rest of their lives.

DEM1: I know! There are people out there who can afford insurance but choose not to. Let's force them to buy insurance and pay too much for it. We can take their money and use that to pay for health insurance for these high school dropouts.

DEM2: How in the hell are we going to get the American people to go along with this outrageous scheme where we take money from a bunch of people and give it to high school dropouts?

DEM1: We will call the people we are stealing from "freeloaders".

DEM2: BWA-HA-HA-HA! Perfect.


That's socialism.

 

[g5000]

Who are the Uninsured?

For example, roughly one-third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts, compared to approximately 7 percent of the privately insured population.

Dems: Individual Mandate Is About Punishing 'Freeloaders'

"The massive so-called tax increase they're talking about is the freeloader penalty," Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) said on CBS' "Face The Nation

 

[g5000]

So, thanks, lefties. You don't need to 'splain Socialism to me. I get it. I totally get it.

 

[JoeNormal]

I've tried to lead you to a perspective outside of your narrow confines....

No - you simply do not want to answer the question I asked

So you want to know who I am to have my morality enforced on others? I'm a moral human being.

OK...so, because you are moral.you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
How does this make you different from right-wingers that would have their state impose their morality on you?

As for right-wing morality, it seems to be centered around gay issues which I don't believe affect me at all. Well, that and anti-science, pro-corporation crap.

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask in in a different way.
You are moral.and so you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
What then is your argument against other moral people using the state to impose their morality on you?

The difference is in the harm to others. If they could show that gay behavior harmed others, I'd probably join with them to control it. They haven't done that. OTOH, there is all kinds of damage inflicted by the powerful on the less powerful so I'm in favor of controlling it.

 

[daws101]

One thing they don't realize is a family that works together,does things for each other is socialism...

a perfect example of how stupid a liberal will be. Where is this considered a definition of socialism?

Also, the Chinese just all worked together in a capitalist fashion and instantly eliminated 40% of world poverty.

See why we say liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

really what's clear is odious in not a liberal but a neo Nazi. The vast majority of Conservatives are not involved with white nationalism, but all white nationalists vote Conservative.
so who's more ignorant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No - you simply do not want to answer the question I asked

So you want to know who I am to have my morality enforced on others? I'm a moral human being.

OK...so, because you are moral.you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
How does this make you different from right-wingers that would have their state impose their morality on you?

As for right-wing morality, it seems to be centered around gay issues which I don't believe affect me at all. Well, that and anti-science, pro-corporation crap.

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask in in a different way.
You are moral.and so you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
What then is your argument against other moral people using the state to impose their morality on you?

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Your version of morality has the state force people to provide goods and services to others, placing them in a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude, thereby harming those so encumbered.

How then do you justify the imposition of your version of morality, when it does indeed cause harm?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So you want to know who I am to have my morality enforced on others? I'm a moral human being.

OK...so, because you are moral.you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
How does this make you different from right-wingers that would have their state impose their morality on you?

As for right-wing morality, it seems to be centered around gay issues which I don't believe affect me at all. Well, that and anti-science, pro-corporation crap.

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask in in a different way.
You are moral.and so you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
What then is your argument against other moral people using the state to impose their morality on you?

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Your version of morality has the state force people to provide goods and services to others, placing them in a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude, thereby harming those so encumbered.

How then do you justify the imposition of your version of morality, when it does indeed cause harm?

Your argument died at the Supreme Court, decades ago.
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Nice place eh? The owner didn't think so once the darkies could stay there.

 

[JoeNormal]

So you want to know who I am to have my morality enforced on others? I'm a moral human being.

OK...so, because you are moral.you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
How does this make you different from right-wingers that would have their state impose their morality on you?

As for right-wing morality, it seems to be centered around gay issues which I don't believe affect me at all. Well, that and anti-science, pro-corporation crap.

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask in in a different way.
You are moral.and so you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
What then is your argument against other moral people using the state to impose their morality on you?

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Your version of morality has the state force people to provide goods and services to others, placing them in a condition of state-enforced involuntary servitude, thereby harming those so encumbered.

How then do you justify the imposition of your version of morality, when it does indeed cause harm?

So you want to know who I am to have my morality enforced on others? I'm a moral human being.

OK...so, because you are moral.you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
How does this make you different from right-wingers that would have their state impose their morality on you?

As for right-wing morality, it seems to be centered around gay issues which I don't believe affect me at all. Well, that and anti-science, pro-corporation crap.

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask in in a different way.
You are moral.and so you have standing to have the state force your morality on others.
What then is your argument against other moral people using the state to impose their morality on you?

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Where the fuck did you get that? Just the opposite.

 

[daws101]

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

It's not a matter of anyone being bright enough to understand your 'answer', it's a matter of you deliberately failing to address the question.

Perhaps, however, you do not understand the question - giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll ask differently.

You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality.
Who are you to force your morality on others?

Your statement was
"You wish for the state to force people to give up their freedoms so that said state can enforce your version of morality."
That sounds like the right wing goal concerning same sex marriage. How is that not the same as your claim?

Liberal freaks would turn our great country into Saddam and Gomorrah if they had their way.

too late! it has and always will be that...Christian faux moralists would have it no other way.
why?
they would be redundant in a moral society..

 

[M14 Shooter]

The difference is in the harm to others.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it doesn't harm anyone. Hmm.

Where the fuck did you get that? Just the opposite.

So... in your book, it is OK to impose morality on others so long as you think it harms someone?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm sorry -- didnt see an answer to my question:
Who are you to dictate that others give up their freedom so that the state can enforce your version of morality?
Surely you aren't running away already...?

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you? I'll bet if you were caught burglering a house you would whine that the police were taking away your "freedom" to make a living.

 

[daws101]

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you? I'll bet if you were caught burglering a house you would whine that the police were taking away your "freedom" to make a living.

in a way that's true...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently, you aren't bright enough to comprehend what I'm saying. Sorry, I tried to put it in terms you might understand.

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you?

Apparently it is immoral to let people keep their wealth, especially when that wealth can be used to buy votes for Democrats.

 

[daws101]

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you?

Apparently it is immoral to let people keep their wealth, especially when that wealth can be used to buy votes for Democrats.

like it has been for republicans
does the name Koch ring any bells?

 

[nat4900]

Just for education sake.....please entertain this term and tell us if this applies to our current political system.


plutocracy

A government by the richest people
A country that is ruled by the richest people
A group of very rich people who have a lot of power and employ that power to corrupt politicans to do their bidding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just for education sake.....please entertain this term and tell us if this applies to our current political system.
plutocracy
A government by the richest people
A country that is ruled by the richest people
A group of very rich people who have a lot of power and employ that power to corrupt politicans to do their bidding.

Under this, every democracy in the world is a plutocracy.

 

[Flash]

All forms of government pretty much suck.

If you think you have good government now just wait because it will change into bad government.

If you have bad government now (like we do in the US) then just wait because it will get worse.

Democracies may start out not sucking but always ends up where the greedy majority uses government to steal from the minority. That is why socialism always fails.

A Republic has the same problems as a Democracy but usually creates a ruling elite of professional politicians that protects their power.

Having a Bill of Rights is theoretically a good thing but eventually it will be ignored or reinterpreted for nefarious reasons. We have seen that big time with Obama.

Courts can't protect people from the abuses of government when the judges are just as stupid and corrupt as the politicians.

All government will eventually fail the people.

All a revolution does is start the clock all over again. It may be better for awhile but will eventually evolve into bad government.

Screw government.

 

[nat4900]

I accept your surrender. It came sooner than I thought it would but that just means I waste less time on you.

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you?

Apparently it is immoral to let people keep their wealth, especially when that wealth can be used to buy votes for Democrats.

You mean, like accepting money from AIPAC by right wing senator Cotton?

Those members of Congress don’t arrive at their positions on issues related to Iran through discussion and debate among themselves. They are given their marching orders by AIPAC lobbyists, and time after time, they sign the letters and vote for legislation or resolution that they are given, as former AIPAC lobbyist MJ Rosenberg has recalled. This Israeli exercise of control over Congress on Iran and issues of concern to Israel resembles the Soviet direction of its satellite regimes and loyal Communist parties more than any democratic process, but with campaign contributions replacing the inducements that kept its bloc allies in line.
Cotton’s Loyalty to Israel
Rosenberg has reasoned that AIPAC must have drafted the letter and handed it to Senator Cotton. “Nothing happens on Capitol Hill related to Israel,” he tweets, “unless and until Howard Kohr (AIPAC chief) wants it to happen. Nothing.” AIPAC apparently supported the letter, but there may be more to the story. Senator Cotton just happens to be a protégé of neoconservative political kingpin Bill Kristol, whose Emergency Committee on Israel gave him nearly a million dollars late in his 2014 Senate campaign and guaranteed that Cotton would have the support of the four biggest funders of major anti-Iran organizations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another self proclaimed victor. You cons just can't lose!

Says he who knows he cannot answer my question.

I guess I'll have to reiterate since you weren't bright enough to get it the first time.

1) Freedom means different things to different people.
2) Cons are simplemindedly forcing their version of freedom for the upper class on to the rest of us.

And now a recap of your way of 'winning':

1) Misunderstand the opposing point of view.
2) Declare yourself the victor.

So declining to loot the wealthy is "forcing our version of freedom" on you?

Apparently it is immoral to let people keep their wealth, especially when that wealth can be used to buy votes for Democrats.

You mean, like accepting money from AIPAC by right wing senator Cotton?

Non sequitur.
Red herring.
Try harder.