Let's unpack some of the right wing's delusion and dishonesty. Is universal healthcare socialism?

[Claudette]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

 

[dudmuck]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

 

[Claudette]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

No but everyone does pay. How many laws has Congress passed that aren't in the Constitution?? Loads. This is one of them along with Social Security. And we also had a bunch of liberal SC judges who didn't follow the Constitution. You won't find health care in the Constitution just as you won't find charity there either.

Its not constitutional. Its a law Congress passed when the Dems ran Congress for 40 years right along with welfare and Medicaid. WE all pay for the freeloaders on Welfare and you won't find that in the Constitution either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

Nope, sorry, thanks for playing. Supreme Court decisions do not make anything Constitutional. The Constitution does, or it doesn't. As usual, your leftist pseudo-brain has gotten the cause and effect completely backward, because you're in such a rush to be ruled and subjugated by anyone who will tell you you're a good person for groveling to them.

 

[dblack]

Supreme Court decisions do not make anything Constitutional.

Yep. All they mean is that, at that point in time, those specific Justices thought that the law in question was Constitutional. Another Court, at a later time, can always diverge from the previous interpretation.

 

[dudmuck]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

No but everyone does pay. How many laws has Congress passed that aren't in the Constitution?? Loads. This is one of them along with Social Security. And we also had a bunch of liberal SC judges who didn't follow the Constitution. You won't find health care in the Constitution just as you won't find charity there either.

Its not constitutional. Its a law Congress passed when the Dems ran Congress for 40 years right along with welfare and Medicaid. WE all pay for the freeloaders on Welfare and you won't find that in the Constitution either.

look again at helvering v davis:

The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935 by requiring only welfare spending to be for the common benefit, as distinguished from some mere local purpose.

also, its the job of supreme court to interpret constitution; they are final authority.
Its congress' job to pass only laws which comply with constitution, but if there is dispute, then supreme court decides.
just the fact that i have to point this out, indicates you people are clueless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

No but everyone does pay. How many laws has Congress passed that aren't in the Constitution?? Loads. This is one of them along with Social Security. And we also had a bunch of liberal SC judges who didn't follow the Constitution. You won't find health care in the Constitution just as you won't find charity there either.

Its not constitutional. Its a law Congress passed when the Dems ran Congress for 40 years right along with welfare and Medicaid. WE all pay for the freeloaders on Welfare and you won't find that in the Constitution either.

look again at helvering v davis:

The Court's 7–2 decision defended the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935 by requiring only welfare spending to be for the common benefit, as distinguished from some mere local purpose.

also, its the job of supreme court to interpret constitution; they are final authority.
Its congress' job to pass only laws which comply with constitution, but if there is dispute, then supreme court decides.
just the fact that i have to point this out, indicates you people are clueless.

Look again at my previous post. Your post just proved everything I said correct.

Run along, leftist lickspittle. I'm not interested in hearing how wonderful you find your serfdom.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

I USED to be a conservative. Never was a liberal. Will not associate myself with the two party system.

As to your question:

Simple. What is true socialism? If you know what true socialism is, then you will know if any social program initiated by government is in fact "socialist."

 

[dblack]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

I USED to be a conservative. Never was a liberal. Will not associate myself with the two party system.

As to your question:

Simple. What is true socialism? If you know what true socialism is, then you will know if any social program initiated by government is in fact "socialist."

But the game of the OP is to equivocate on terminology and divert the discussion away from whether we want more socialism or not, and instead bog everything down with a semantic argument - an irrelevant debate over whether countries with some socialist policies should be considered "socialist" governments. It's shitty, but it's how they roll.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For any of you knee jerkers, I am playing devil's advocate, because unlike you, I try to be objective. Even if another viewpoint horrifies me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government-funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

I USED to be a conservative. Never was a liberal. I will not associate myself with the two-party system.

As to your question:

Simple. What is true socialism? If you know what true socialism is, then you will know if any social program initiated by the government is in fact "socialist."

But the game of the OP is to equivocate on terminology and to divert the argument away from whether we want more socialism or not, and instead bog everything down with a semantic argument. It's shitty, but it's how they roll.

Not trying to pick a fight with this guy. Seems quite intelligent for that age bracket.

 

[dblack]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government-funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

I USED to be a conservative. Never was a liberal. I will not associate myself with the two-party system.

As to your question:

Simple. What is true socialism? If you know what true socialism is, then you will know if any social program initiated by the government is in fact "socialist."

But the game of the OP is to equivocate on terminology and to divert the argument away from whether we want more socialism or not, and instead bog everything down with a semantic argument. It's shitty, but it's how they roll.

Not trying to pick a fight with this guy. Seems quite intelligent for that age bracket.

Sure, I'm not attacking the OP - just the tactic, which is apparently been deemed a go-to talking point among democratic socialists. I see it everywhere lately. The sad thing is, conservatives usually fall for it, and genuine discussions about policy are derailed into fights over terminology.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government-funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

I USED to be a conservative. Never was a liberal. I will not associate myself with the two-party system.

As to your question:

Simple. What is true socialism? If you know what true socialism is, then you will know if any social program initiated by the government is in fact "socialist."

But the game of the OP is to equivocate on terminology and to divert the argument away from whether we want more socialism or not, and instead bog everything down with a semantic argument. It's shitty, but it's how they roll.

Not trying to pick a fight with this guy. Seems quite intelligent for that age bracket.

Sure, I'm not attacking the OP - just the tactic, which is apparently been deemed a go-to talking point among democratic socialists. I see it everywhere lately. The sad thing is, conservatives usually fall for it, and genuine discussions about policy are derailed into fights over terminology.

When or if you sense you're falling for it, take a step back. Study the history and try to read the patterns. Some people can fit a round peg in a square hole if the square hole is big enough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll often see conservatives argue that any social program is socialism and then in the next breath they'll say the Scandinavian countries are capitalist and not socialist when people point to how well they do over there. Well they have universal healthcare and very expansive social safety nets. Are those things socialism or not in your world view? You hypocrites can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the Scandinavian countries are socialist in your view or things like universal healthcare are not actually socialism. There are no Democrats arguing for the government to completely take over the private sector. They want universal healthcare and government funded universities like in the Scandinavian nations. At least get your shit straight and make a consistent argument.

If it isn't in the Constitution it shouldn't be in the US. See any sign of health care in the Constitution?? I think not.

Last time i checked, i pay for medical care for those 65 & over. (i.e. medicare)

see Helvering v. Davis

And your point is supposed to be what?

That's easy. He's a dumbass. Everyone pays for Medicare every day of their working lives. He's an imbecile.

its constitutional because "everyone pays" ?
no, its constitutional because supreme court decided in helvering v davis.

Oh? So, did the Supreme Court use an Ouija board to summon the spirits of our founders to ask them to advise their interpretation of the Constitutionality of Medicare? The supreme court is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not dictate the course it takes with existing law. Interpretation is very different from dictation.

 

[Anomalism]

For any of you knee jerkers, I am playing devil's advocate, because unlike you, I try to be objective. Even if another viewpoint horrifies me.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 

[TemplarKormac]

For any of you knee jerkers, I am playing devil's advocate, because unlike you, I try to be objective. Even if another viewpoint horrifies me.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Perfection.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1 1094a24-1095a

“It is right that we ask [people] to accept each of the things which are said in the same way: for it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it. For it is similar to expect a mathematician to speak persuasively or for an orator to furnish clear proofs!

Each person judges well what they know and is thus a good critic of those things. For each thing in specific, someone must be educated [to be a critic]; to [be a critic in general] one must be educated about everything.”

 

[Anomalism]

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1 1094a24-1095a

“It is right that we ask [people] to accept each of the things which are said in the same way: for it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it. For it is similar to expect a mathematician to speak persuasively or for an orator to furnish clear proofs!

Each person judges well what they know and is thus a good critic of those things. For each thing in specific, someone must be educated [to be a critic]; to [be a critic in general] one must be educated about everything.”

People that don't advocate for the devil are limiting the nuance of their views.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1 1094a24-1095a

“It is right that we ask [people] to accept each of the things which are said in the same way: for it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it. For it is similar to expect a mathematician to speak persuasively or for an orator to furnish clear proofs!

Each person judges well what they know and is thus a good critic of those things. For each thing in specific, someone must be educated [to be a critic]; to [be a critic in general] one must be educated about everything.”

People that don't advocate for the devil are limiting the nuance of their views.

Agreed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1 1094a24-1095a

“It is right that we ask [people] to accept each of the things which are said in the same way: for it is the mark of an educated person to search for the same kind of clarity in each topic to the extent that the nature of the matter accepts it. For it is similar to expect a mathematician to speak persuasively or for an orator to furnish clear proofs!

Each person judges well what they know and is thus a good critic of those things. For each thing in specific, someone must be educated [to be a critic]; to [be a critic in general] one must be educated about everything.”

People that don't advocate for the devil are limiting the nuance of their views.

I can already tell we are going to get along nicely on this board.