Most Americans like Socialism

[Socialist]

My dad was 26 years in the military. Though he leans right of center he admits he lived in a socialist system (the US military) for a quarter century and loved it.

We have close friends in much more socialist countries and they wonder why Americans put up with being screwed over by the govt - in the name of anti-socialism.

Its dumb and its self-defeating.

Everyone who screams socialism as if it is a terrible thing and has never worked have never been to Europe or even Canada. Sure, not everything works and adjustments must be made. Hell, even conservatives win election in those countries at times, but they are not like conservatives here. Their goal is not to dismantle the government and everyone's healthcare or government backed Social Security. If you ask the average person in those countries if they are happy with their system and how it helps provide services for everyone, you don't find many stating they would rather have the US system.

a gallon of gas in Denmark is like $8.22 forget that

You don't have to drive in many cases. Public transportation is used by everyone; cars are secondary. They also do not pay for health insurance or college. Sure there are trade-offs but many are actually for the better.

Cars are "secondary" because they can't afford a car. If they could, then would drive. How do you carry groceries on public transportation?

Public transportation is the transportation that gets you from where you aren't to where you don't want to be.

They don't pay for healthcare or college directly, but they pay sky high taxes, and their healthcare sucks. Their free college doesn't do them any good because they are unemployed for years after they graduate. Furthermore, many countries like Germany have a system where they siphon off the weak performers into trade schools.

Go here and post this, watch what they say: Shit Americans Say

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Who started Socialism in the US? Was it the states, giving free room and board to the poor and disabled. Was it Washington getting a pension for his Revolutionary War officers? Certainly "socialistic" type programs have been around for some time in the US, but what was the first?

Isn't that precious? First the comrades tell us that socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

 

[Socialist]

Who started Socialism in the US? Was it the states, giving free room and board to the poor and disabled. Was it Washington getting a pension for his Revolutionary War officers? Certainly "socialistic" type programs have been around for some time in the US, but what was the first?

Isn't that precious? First socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Go here and post this, watch what they say: Shit Americans Say

ROFLMNAO...

So you're here to promote another messageboard?

Really?

Huh...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

The only way the collective can own production, is when the individual is free to own it's own production, which then provides the sum of individuals that comprise the collective ... Owning production.

Ya collective can not own production by limiting the means of the individual to exercise the inalienable God-given rights.

 

[Socialist]

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

The only way the collective can own production, is when the individual is free to own it's own production, which then provides the sum of individuals that comprise the collective ... Owning production.

Ya collective can not own production by limiting the means of the individual to exercise the inalienable God-given rights.

What the fuck did I just read?

 

[Ame®icano]

Fascinating
It s Official Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans - The Atlantic

The U.S. is ranked 25th in world by number of passenger cars per person, just above Ireland and just below Bahrain. There are 439 cars here for every thousand Americans, meaning a little more than two people for every car. Thatnumber is higher in nearly all of Western Europe -- the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, etc. -- as well as in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. It's higher in crisis-wracked Iceland and Greece. Italians and New Zealanders have nearly 50 percent more cars per capita than does the U.S. The highest rate in the world is casino-riddled Mediterranean city-state Monaco, with 771 cars per thousand citizens.

You're right. Statistics shows passenger cars.

There were about 130 million passenger cars in the United States in 2010. 130/300 = 43%, which lines up with the number you show above. Also, there were 110 million light trucks that are also commonly used as day to day transportation in the US. It seems your number, or whoever came up with that number, doesn't include any of those.

 

[idb]

Fascinating
It s Official Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans - The Atlantic

The U.S. is ranked 25th in world by number of passenger cars per person, just above Ireland and just below Bahrain. There are 439 cars here for every thousand Americans, meaning a little more than two people for every car. Thatnumber is higher in nearly all of Western Europe -- the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, etc. -- as well as in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. It's higher in crisis-wracked Iceland and Greece. Italians and New Zealanders have nearly 50 percent more cars per capita than does the U.S. The highest rate in the world is casino-riddled Mediterranean city-state Monaco, with 771 cars per thousand citizens.

You're right. Statistics shows passenger cars.

There were about 130 million passenger cars in the United States in 2010. 130/300 = 43%, which lines up with the number you show above. Also, there were 110 million light trucks that are also commonly used as day to day transportation in the US. It seems your number, or whoever came up with that number, doesn't include any of those.

True, the US has more vehicles per population if commercial vehicles are included.
But it seems to me that your earlier points were referring to private ownership - which is higher in Western Europe than the US.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who started Socialism in the US? Was it the states, giving free room and board to the poor and disabled. Was it Washington getting a pension for his Revolutionary War officers? Certainly "socialistic" type programs have been around for some time in the US, but what was the first?

Isn't that precious? First socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

I have rarely talked with a socialist who isnt using 100 year old definitions that dont apply today. I have no interest in owning a ppiece of twitter collectively with morons who couldnt describe its "means of production"

And if I did ..... I would buy a few shares. WHO is running these ventures today is far more important than their means of production, and the collective couldnt manage to assemble a ham sandwich. Never mind INVENT one. So until there is a new framework for Socialism, its just an excuse to commandeer select industrial ventures and have "the collective" abuse them and mismanage them and make them dependent on stripping money from the collective to operate them very inefficiently......

 

[Socialist]

Who started Socialism in the US? Was it the states, giving free room and board to the poor and disabled. Was it Washington getting a pension for his Revolutionary War officers? Certainly "socialistic" type programs have been around for some time in the US, but what was the first?

Isn't that precious? First socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

I have rarely talked with a socialist who isnt using 100 year old definitions that dont apply today. I have no interest in owning a ppiece of twitter collectively with morons who couldnt describe its "means of production"

And if I did ..... I would buy a few shares. WHO is running these ventures today is far more important than their means of production, and the collective couldnt manage to assemble a ham sandwich. Never mind INVENT one. So until there is a new framework for Socialism, its just an excuse to commandeer select industrial ventures and have "the collective" abuse them and mismanage them and make them dependent on stripping money from the collective to operate them very inefficiently......

Collective ownership of production, first of all, you have to realize what production is. Factories, farms, not twitter, I don't think twitter would be considered a means of production, nor would any socialist take you seriously if you tried to push that line. Most socialists can describe the means of production adequately, not sure who you're talking to.. Catalonia, the free ukraine, you can ignore them like most people who shut up when they're mentioned, but I won't. Communal democracies with collective ownership? Yes, times change, as does socialist thought, much like capitalist thought, then again, say what you want, not interested in going deeper into the circlejerk.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who started Socialism in the US? Was it the states, giving free room and board to the poor and disabled. Was it Washington getting a pension for his Revolutionary War officers? Certainly "socialistic" type programs have been around for some time in the US, but what was the first?

Isn't that precious? First socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

I have rarely talked with a socialist who isnt using 100 year old definitions that dont apply today. I have no interest in owning a ppiece of twitter collectively with morons who couldnt describe its "means of production"

And if I did ..... I would buy a few shares. WHO is running these ventures today is far more important than their means of production, and the collective couldnt manage to assemble a ham sandwich. Never mind INVENT one. So until there is a new framework for Socialism, its just an excuse to commandeer select industrial ventures and have "the collective" abuse them and mismanage them and make them dependent on stripping money from the collective to operate them very inefficiently......

Collective ownership of production, first of all, you have to realize what production is. Factories, farms, not twitter, I don't think twitter would be considered a means of production, nor would any socialist take you seriously if you tried to push that line. Most socialists can describe the means of production adequately, not sure who you're talking to.. Catalonia, the free ukraine, you can ignore them like most people who shut up when they're mentioned, but I won't. Communal democracies with collective ownership? Yes, times change, as does socialist thought, much like capitalist thought, then again, say what you want, not interested in going deeper into the circlejerk.

Just as I said.. Definitions dont apply in the POST industrial world. Soon factories will be laborless except for the ffew robot minders. Anyone with a server today has "means of production" to have a newspaper or magazine equivalent or become a music mogul.. Twitter just has more servers. Wake up Socialist. We are entering an era where the means of production is your own ingenuity and skills in serving others. YOU need some new geniuses to update this flaky century old idea before its bastardized into something that even YOU dont recognize. No more lever pullers and the Union movement is similiarly hopelessly outdated. The very definition of a job is RADICALLY different than in 1914

 

[Socialist]

Who started Socialism in the US? Was it the states, giving free room and board to the poor and disabled. Was it Washington getting a pension for his Revolutionary War officers? Certainly "socialistic" type programs have been around for some time in the US, but what was the first?

Isn't that precious? First socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

I have rarely talked with a socialist who isnt using 100 year old definitions that dont apply today. I have no interest in owning a ppiece of twitter collectively with morons who couldnt describe its "means of production"

And if I did ..... I would buy a few shares. WHO is running these ventures today is far more important than their means of production, and the collective couldnt manage to assemble a ham sandwich. Never mind INVENT one. So until there is a new framework for Socialism, its just an excuse to commandeer select industrial ventures and have "the collective" abuse them and mismanage them and make them dependent on stripping money from the collective to operate them very inefficiently......

Collective ownership of production, first of all, you have to realize what production is. Factories, farms, not twitter, I don't think twitter would be considered a means of production, nor would any socialist take you seriously if you tried to push that line. Most socialists can describe the means of production adequately, not sure who you're talking to.. Catalonia, the free ukraine, you can ignore them like most people who shut up when they're mentioned, but I won't. Communal democracies with collective ownership? Yes, times change, as does socialist thought, much like capitalist thought, then again, say what you want, not interested in going deeper into the circlejerk.

Just as I said.. Definitions dont apply in the POST industrial world. Soon factories will be laborless except for the ffew robot minders. Anyone with a server today has "means of production" to have a newspaper or magazine equivalent or become a music mogul.. Twitter just has more servers. Wake up Socialist. We are entering an era where the means of production is your own ingenuity and skills in serving others. YOU need some new geniuses to update this flaky century old idea before its bastardized into something that even YOU dont recognize. No more lever pullers and the Union movement is similiarly hopelessly outdated. The very definition of a job is RADICALLY different than in 1914

I literally explained to you how socialist thought has adapted to this, oh, and if robots do all production jobs, etc, etc, might aswell go to technocratic utopianism? Amirite?

 

[Ame®icano]

Fascinating
It s Official Western Europeans Have More Cars Per Person Than Americans - The Atlantic

The U.S. is ranked 25th in world by number of passenger cars per person, just above Ireland and just below Bahrain. There are 439 cars here for every thousand Americans, meaning a little more than two people for every car. Thatnumber is higher in nearly all of Western Europe -- the U.K., Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, etc. -- as well as in Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. It's higher in crisis-wracked Iceland and Greece. Italians and New Zealanders have nearly 50 percent more cars per capita than does the U.S. The highest rate in the world is casino-riddled Mediterranean city-state Monaco, with 771 cars per thousand citizens.

You're right. Statistics shows passenger cars.

There were about 130 million passenger cars in the United States in 2010. 130/300 = 43%, which lines up with the number you show above. Also, there were 110 million light trucks that are also commonly used as day to day transportation in the US. It seems your number, or whoever came up with that number, doesn't include any of those.

True, the US has more vehicles per population if commercial vehicles are included.
But it seems to me that your earlier points were referring to private ownership - which is higher in Western Europe than the US.

I just break it up for you. If you look 130 million passenger cars (that number doesn't include light trucks, SUV's and minivans) that runs in US, that already covers your number of 439 per 1000. There are 110 million of light trucks, SUV's and minivans that runs in US. Your number doesn't seems to covers any of those, since cars are already covering your whole number. Lot of Americans use light trucks as their main transportation, and your number, for whatever purposes, seems to be misleading.

You can check it yourself at World Bank Indicators
Or how about you use US Office of Highway Policy data.

Now, if you insist on using numbers from your source, then we have no reason to complain how we are burning too much gas comparing to other nations. We're doing pretty good. According to your source, even freaking Greece has 100 more cars per 1000 people then we do. I guess Greece and other European socialized countries are doing better then us, we better follow their lead.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only way that your collective survives to mismanage and turn vibrant industries into welfare cases and fall behind in invention and innovation is to jail anyone that might want to compete with them.

 

[flacaltenn]

Isn't that precious? First socialism is impossible to define... This being expressed in the customary... 'Clearly you don't know what socialism means' rant.

Then... Socialism is responsible for roads, bridges, Popsicles, bread ... Government itself.

LOL!

Most people don't understand socialism, as it's been made to mean anything the government does, or any kind of "hand out." Real socialism is collective ownership of production, period.

I have rarely talked with a socialist who isnt using 100 year old definitions that dont apply today. I have no interest in owning a ppiece of twitter collectively with morons who couldnt describe its "means of production"

And if I did ..... I would buy a few shares. WHO is running these ventures today is far more important than their means of production, and the collective couldnt manage to assemble a ham sandwich. Never mind INVENT one. So until there is a new framework for Socialism, its just an excuse to commandeer select industrial ventures and have "the collective" abuse them and mismanage them and make them dependent on stripping money from the collective to operate them very inefficiently......

Collective ownership of production, first of all, you have to realize what production is. Factories, farms, not twitter, I don't think twitter would be considered a means of production, nor would any socialist take you seriously if you tried to push that line. Most socialists can describe the means of production adequately, not sure who you're talking to.. Catalonia, the free ukraine, you can ignore them like most people who shut up when they're mentioned, but I won't. Communal democracies with collective ownership? Yes, times change, as does socialist thought, much like capitalist thought, then again, say what you want, not interested in going deeper into the circlejerk.

Just as I said.. Definitions dont apply in the POST industrial world. Soon factories will be laborless except for the ffew robot minders. Anyone with a server today has "means of production" to have a newspaper or magazine equivalent or become a music mogul.. Twitter just has more servers. Wake up Socialist. We are entering an era where the means of production is your own ingenuity and skills in serving others. YOU need some new geniuses to update this flaky century old idea before its bastardized into something that even YOU dont recognize. No more lever pullers and the Union movement is similiarly hopelessly outdated. The very definition of a job is RADICALLY different than in 1914

I literally explained to you how socialist thought has adapted to this, oh, and if robots do all production jobs, etc, etc, might aswell go to technocratic utopianism? Amirite?

I saw no explanation of adaptation in your response. Other than to confirm that about 70% of the capitalized value of the NYSE doesnt apply to your ancient theory...

 

[flacaltenn]

Did you know Socialist that in this day and age, you can go to Kickstarter or GoFundMe and members of the collective will GIVE YOU the means of producction IF you appear to be competent? How cool is that really?

 

[auditor0007]

My dad was 26 years in the military. Though he leans right of center he admits he lived in a socialist system (the US military) for a quarter century and loved it.

We have close friends in much more socialist countries and they wonder why Americans put up with being screwed over by the govt - in the name of anti-socialism.

Its dumb and its self-defeating.

Everyone who screams socialism as if it is a terrible thing and has never worked have never been to Europe or even Canada. Sure, not everything works and adjustments must be made. Hell, even conservatives win election in those countries at times, but they are not like conservatives here. Their goal is not to dismantle the government and everyone's healthcare or government backed Social Security. If you ask the average person in those countries if they are happy with their system and how it helps provide services for everyone, you don't find many stating they would rather have the US system.

a gallon of gas in Denmark is like $8.22 forget that

You don't have to drive in many cases. Public transportation is used by everyone; cars are secondary. They also do not pay for health insurance or college. Sure there are trade-offs but many are actually for the better.

Cars are "secondary" because they can't afford a car. If they could, then would drive. How do you carry groceries on public transportation?

Public transportation is the transportation that gets you from where you aren't to where you don't want to be.

They don't pay for healthcare or college directly, but they pay sky high taxes, and their healthcare sucks. Their free college doesn't do them any good because they are unemployed for years after they graduate. Furthermore, many countries like Germany have a system where they siphon off the weak performers into trade schools.

Like I have said before, those who have never been outside of this country are just clueless as you are. Their healthcare is as good as ours and is much cheaper. Their unemployment rate is similar to our own. Their free college does them an incredible amount of good; you are just too stupid to realize that our way isn't the only way. Sure they pay more in taxes, but they get a tremendous amount of services for what they pay. And fyi, they can and do afford cars. Maybe you should go visit one of these countries and actually get to know some people who live in those countries. It might open your mind a bit, but somehow I doubt it.