Hillary on difference between socialism and a democrat

[Norman]

Pure systems of either socialism or capitalism are bad.

Social democracy is the system used by nearly all of the first world. It has a public sector, regulations, anti-trust laws and at times a central ablity to invest within the society at the government level.Sorry, but your idea of capitalism is as scary as pure socialism.

Pure system of socialism is a murder-fest. Pure system of capitalism is a system that produces more wealth than any, as proven by all nations that have embraced it. No, I don't want "just a little bit of rape". Voluntarism works for everyone, authoritarianism works... well, for the author.

Libertarianism is as dangerous as state control.

I just pointed out the importance of being logical. One other important thing is to be empirical. Systems based on freedom are always successes, even Somalia is in better state than the neighboring area, despite being a warhole. I know that regressive of course prefer feels to logic, reason and empiricism, because feelz are the only thing that could justify the disaster that is socialism.

Yes, I agree that your regressive libertarianism and unfettered capitalism are systems of failure. Go live in Somalia and be a war lord. You are not using logic, reason or empiricism, merely venting your emotions instead.

= When regressive has no response. Which to be fair is pretty much always. Insults are the only thing these guys are a master at. No wonder that a system of failure arises from such.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

 

[jc456]

Pure systems of either socialism or capitalism are bad.

Social democracy is the system used by nearly all of the first world. It has a public sector, regulations, anti-trust laws and at times a central ablity to invest within the society at the government level.

Sorry, but your idea of capitalism is as scary as pure socialism.

Real freedom only exists in pure capitalism.

Your comment is foolish unless you mean the real freedom to oppress others and keep more than their fair share of labor.

fair share again. What is your definition of fair share? Please explain for me.

 

[jc456]

Pure systems of either socialism or capitalism are bad.

Social democracy is the system used by nearly all of the first world. It has a public sector, regulations, anti-trust laws and at times a central ablity to invest within the society at the government level.Sorry, but your idea of capitalism is as scary as pure socialism.

Pure system of socialism is a murder-fest. Pure system of capitalism is a system that produces more wealth than any, as proven by all nations that have embraced it. No, I don't want "just a little bit of rape". Voluntarism works for everyone, authoritarianism works... well, for the author.

Libertarianism is as dangerous as state control.

I just pointed out the importance of being logical. One other important thing is to be empirical. Systems based on freedom are always successes, even Somalia is in better state than the neighboring area, despite being a warhole. I know that regressive of course prefer feels to logic, reason and empiricism, because feelz are the only thing that could justify the disaster that is socialism.

Yes, I agree that your regressive libertarianism and unfettered capitalism are systems of failure. Go live in Somalia and be a war lord. You are not using logic, reason or empiricism, merely venting your emotions instead.

= When regressive has no response. Which to be fair is pretty much always. Insults are the only thing these guys are a master at. No wonder that a system of failure arises from such.

They are just used to being what insult they use.

 

[Norman]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

The system that if you would bother to look at actual statistics, works. "Oh what? I would have to be informed and use actual logic and statistics? I would have to know math? I rather use my feelz..."

 

[mudwhistle]

The moonbats keep getting worse every day. Hillary is asked what the difference is between a socialist moonbat and a Progressive Democrat moonbat.. She keeps rambling on about how she is not a socialist because "people need to work together to solve problems". So I take this to mean that socialists don't "work together to solve problems"

This is not even coherent for moonbats, or is it?

Tell us moonbats.

Not surprising. .....she can't tell the difference between an illegal and a Democrat.

 

[Norman]

The moonbats keep getting worse every day. Hillary is asked what the difference is between a socialist moonbat and a Progressive Democrat moonbat.. She keeps rambling on about how she is not a socialist because "people need to work together to solve problems". So I take this to mean that socialists don't "work together to solve problems"

This is not even coherent for moonbats, or is it?

Tell us moonbats.

Not surprising. .....she can't tell the difference between an illegal and a Democrat.

I am not so sure those are mutually exclusive though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

The system that if you would bother to look at actual statistics, works. "Oh what? I would have to be informed and use actual logic and statistics? I would have to know math? I rather use my feelz..."

You have not provided any stats or logic or evidence. You are merely spouting your opinion.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The moonbats keep getting worse every day. Hillary is asked what the difference is between a socialist moonbat and a Progressive Democrat moonbat.. She keeps rambling on about how she is not a socialist because "people need to work together to solve problems". So I take this to mean that socialists don't "work together to solve problems"

This is not even coherent for moonbats, or is it?

Tell us moonbats.

The only difference is bernie is honest about being a socialist and the rest of the dnc is to scared that they would alienate what's left of actual liberals if they were all honest.

 

[Norman]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

The system that if you would bother to look at actual statistics, works. "Oh what? I would have to be informed and use actual logic and statistics? I would have to know math? I rather use my feelz..."

You have not provided any stats or logic or evidence. You are merely spouting your opinion.

Oh, like it being an opinion that Blacks perpetuate about 9x more crime than whites? (This was taken from a other thread where the regressives - claimed this was merely my opinion and not a fact).

These regressives are so dumb, that they can't even understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. That is rather unsurprising given they don't use facts, ever. Only feelz and politically correct opinions allowed in the echo chambers of the regressive ideology.

 

[Rustic]

The moonbats keep getting worse every day. Hillary is asked what the difference is between a socialist moonbat and a Progressive Democrat moonbat.. She keeps rambling on about how she is not a socialist because "people need to work together to solve problems". So I take this to mean that socialists don't "work together to solve problems"

This is not even coherent for moonbats, or is it?

Tell us moonbats.

The bat shit crazy idea of socialism working?? Funny. Never in the history has it worked long term. Socialism is the product of the worthless and weak that appeals to the bleeding heart types.
Of course there the fact that socialism always evolves into a dictatorship... Survival of the fittest??

All the great dictators rose out ashes of socialism...

 

[Weatherman2020]

Note that no one has offered an explanation of any difference.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

The system that if you would bother to look at actual statistics, works. "Oh what? I would have to be informed and use actual logic and statistics? I would have to know math? I rather use my feelz..."

You have not provided any stats or logic or evidence. You are merely spouting your opinion.

Oh, like it being an opinion that Blacks perpetuate about 9x more crime than whites? (This was taken from a other thread where the regressives - claimed this was merely my opinion and not a fact).

These regressives are so dumb, that they can't even understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. That is rather unsurprising given they don't use facts, ever. Only feelz and politically correct opinions allowed in the echo chambers of the regressive ideology.

So now you opine and then whine when you are laughed at for spouting regressive libertarianism without evidence. Racialism is not libertarianism.

 

[jc456]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

The system that if you would bother to look at actual statistics, works. "Oh what? I would have to be informed and use actual logic and statistics? I would have to know math? I rather use my feelz..."

You have not provided any stats or logic or evidence. You are merely spouting your opinion.

Oh, like it being an opinion that Blacks perpetuate about 9x more crime than whites? (This was taken from a other thread where the regressives - claimed this was merely my opinion and not a fact).

These regressives are so dumb, that they can't even understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. That is rather unsurprising given they don't use facts, ever. Only feelz and politically correct opinions allowed in the echo chambers of the regressive ideology.

So now you opine and then whine when you are laughed at for spouting regressive libertarianism without evidence. Racialism is not libertarianism.

well why don't you address the OP instead of making political speeches that are boring and old. What's the difference?

 

[Norman]

Norman writes better than EdwardBaiamonte, but he is nothing more than a regressive proponent of libertarianism, the system of failure.

The system that if you would bother to look at actual statistics, works. "Oh what? I would have to be informed and use actual logic and statistics? I would have to know math? I rather use my feelz..."

You have not provided any stats or logic or evidence. You are merely spouting your opinion.

Oh, like it being an opinion that Blacks perpetuate about 9x more crime than whites? (This was taken from a other thread where the regressives - claimed this was merely my opinion and not a fact).

These regressives are so dumb, that they can't even understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. That is rather unsurprising given they don't use facts, ever. Only feelz and politically correct opinions allowed in the echo chambers of the regressive ideology.

So now you opine and then whine when you are laughed at for spouting regressive libertarianism without evidence. Racialism is not libertarianism.

well why don't you address the OP instead making political speeches that are boring and old. What's the difference?

The difference is that at least some democrats believe in limited, if expanded state. They might even fit the category of classical liberal, instead of the category of progressively regressive. As far as Hillary is concerned, she does whatever is popular, she is a politician not an ideologue. No one with any sort of principles could possibly flip flop as much as she does.

 

[Votto]

Pure systems of either socialism or capitalism are bad.

Social democracy is the system used by nearly all of the first world. It has a public sector, regulations, anti-trust laws and at times a central ablity to invest within the society at the government level.

Sorry, but your idea of capitalism is as scary as pure socialism.

The truth is, Hillary knows that a large segment of the population now identifies as "socialist". As a result, she does not want to bad mouth socialism but does not also want to embrace it as a large segment of the population hates the term socialism. So she pretends to have a brain fart.

As you point out, the term is meaningless. Hitler even self identified as a socialist as did the rest of the Nazi party. The real core issue is collectivism. Socialism is but one of many forms of socialism. Neither Hitler nor Hillary (it's not my fault they rhyme) care anything about socialism other than what it might be able to do for them. The key to both is their dedication to collectivism and power. Socialism has been shown a powerful way for those in government to restrict and control the freedom of it's citizens, so it will always be a part of governments around the world in some capacity.

Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the populace?" That is the model social democrats like Hitler use today around the world.