Now that we have quite a few people on record saying that NOBODY is pushing Socialism...

[Biff_Poindexter]

More idiotic libertarian porn........yawns

 

[dblack]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

The Constitution of the United States is written on SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES! "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" is the expression of a people uniting as a SOCIETY, which is what socialism actually is. Doing things for the good of society.

That's ridiculous. If you're defining socialism as "doing things for the good of society", then please put that at the top of every one of your posts about the issue. Because you're simply equivocating.

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

Right. That's what she's saying. And it's ridiculous. Socialism has a specific meaning. All the obfuscation is tiresome - but it's worse. It's a deliberate campaign to mislead.

 

[danielpalos]

More idiotic libertarian porn........yawns

women are getting me used to their modern ways.

 

[Dragonlady]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

The Constitution of the United States is written on SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES! "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" is the expression of a people uniting as a SOCIETY, which is what socialism actually is. Doing things for the good of society.

That's ridiculous. If you're defining socialism as "doing things for the good of society", then please put that at the top of every one of your posts about the issue. Because you're simply equivocating.

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Government programs for the good of the people certainly aren’t capitalistic either because private industry doesn’t provide the services and receives no direct financial benefit from them.

Government controls them, funds them, and in most cases, directly provides the service. How is an army which fights on behalf of the people of the United States, controlled by the President, and paid for by taxpayers, not socialist in nature?

The government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. How is that nota socialist concept?

 

[dblack]

Government programs for the good of the people certainly aren’t capitalistic either because private industry doesn’t provide the services and receives no direct financial benefit from them.[
Government controls them, funds them, and in most cases, directly provides the service. How is an army which fights on behalf of the people of the United States, controlled by the President, and paid for by taxpayers, not socialist in nature?

Because it's not a means of production. It's a responsibility of government assigned specifically in the constitution. Socialism isn't the same thing as government, despite the current campaign to confuse the issue.

The government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. How is that nota socialist concept?

How IS it a socialist concept? What does it have to do with government controlling the means of production?

Listen, I know you people want to blow smoke and confuse the issue as much as possible. We can't let that happen.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Constitution of the United States is written on SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES! "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" is the expression of a people uniting as a SOCIETY, which is what socialism actually is. Doing things for the good of society.

That's ridiculous. If you're defining socialism as "doing things for the good of society", then please put that at the top of every one of your posts about the issue. Because you're simply equivocating.

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

Right. That's what she's saying. And it's ridiculous. Socialism has a specific meaning. All the obfuscation is tiresome - but it's worse. It's a deliberate campaign to mislead.

So does conservatism, and yet Republicans have bent, twisted and distorted that meaning all to hell. Conservatives are supposed to be in favour of:

• personal freedom - like women's reproductive decisions which Republicans oppose;
• small government - every Republican administration since Reagan has increased the size of government while every Democratic administration including Obama's has shrunk it;
• balanced budgets - while running the largest deficits in history

And yet Republicans consider themselves to be "conservatives". They're not.

 

[dblack]

That's ridiculous. If you're defining socialism as "doing things for the good of society", then please put that at the top of every one of your posts about the issue. Because you're simply equivocating.

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

Right. That's what she's saying. And it's ridiculous. Socialism has a specific meaning. All the obfuscation is tiresome - but it's worse. It's a deliberate campaign to mislead.

So does conservatism, and yet Republicans have bent, twisted and distorted that meaning all to hell. Conservatives are supposed to be in favour of:

• personal freedom - like women's reproductive decisions which Republicans oppose;
• small government - every Republican administration since Reagan has increased the size of government while every Democratic administration including Obama's has shrunk it;
• balanced budgets - while running the largest deficits in history

And yet Republicans consider themselves to be "conservatives". They're not.

I don't care about Republicans or 'conservatives'. But I don't want more socialism. We have too much as it is.

 

[Dragonlady]

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

Right. That's what she's saying. And it's ridiculous. Socialism has a specific meaning. All the obfuscation is tiresome - but it's worse. It's a deliberate campaign to mislead.

So does conservatism, and yet Republicans have bent, twisted and distorted that meaning all to hell. Conservatives are supposed to be in favour of:

• personal freedom - like women's reproductive decisions which Republicans oppose;
• small government - every Republican administration since Reagan has increased the size of government while every Democratic administration including Obama's has shrunk it;
• balanced budgets - while running the largest deficits in history

And yet Republicans consider themselves to be "conservatives". They're not.

I don't care about Republicans or 'conservatives'. But I don't want more socialism. We have too much as it is.

Libertarians are fools of the first order. Totally lacking in the most basic of common sense, thinking that the world will balance out and people will always do the right thing.

 

[dblack]

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

Right. That's what she's saying. And it's ridiculous. Socialism has a specific meaning. All the obfuscation is tiresome - but it's worse. It's a deliberate campaign to mislead.

So does conservatism, and yet Republicans have bent, twisted and distorted that meaning all to hell. Conservatives are supposed to be in favour of:

• personal freedom - like women's reproductive decisions which Republicans oppose;
• small government - every Republican administration since Reagan has increased the size of government while every Democratic administration including Obama's has shrunk it;
• balanced budgets - while running the largest deficits in history

And yet Republicans consider themselves to be "conservatives". They're not.

I don't care about Republicans or 'conservatives'. But I don't want more socialism. We have too much as it is.

Libertarians are fools of the first order. Totally lacking in the most basic of common sense, thinking that the world will balance out and people will always do the right thing.

Well, we're not the ones flinging all the bullshit about socialism.

 

[Richard-H]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

The truly bogus part is that Conservatives pretend not to be able to distinguish the two - and they repeatedly use arguments against the conservative definition as justification to stop the liberal definition.

"Democratic socialism"....As though saying "chocolate covered" before "dog turd" transforms a chunk of shit into a Snickers bar.

Oh Wow - You've REALLY convinced me with that argument!

 

[Richard-H]

The existence of Government is socialist.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The existence of Government is socialist.

It only seems that way if he are stupid and abysmally ignorant.

 

[dblack]

The existence of Government is socialist.

What does that even mean??

Seriously. What's your definition of socialist?

 

[Oddball]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

The truly bogus part is that Conservatives pretend not to be able to distinguish the two - and they repeatedly use arguments against the conservative definition as justification to stop the liberal definition.

"Democratic socialism"....As though saying "chocolate covered" before "dog turd" transforms a chunk of shit into a Snickers bar.

Oh Wow - You've REALLY convinced me with that argument!

Nobody is going to talk a committed commie out of being one, until he starves to death.

 

[Oddball]

The existence of Government is socialist.

 

[Tehon]

Government programs for the good of the people certainly aren’t capitalistic either because private industry doesn’t provide the services and receives no direct financial benefit from them.[
Government controls them, funds them, and in most cases, directly provides the service. How is an army which fights on behalf of the people of the United States, controlled by the President, and paid for by taxpayers, not socialist in nature?

Because it's not a means of production. It's a responsibility of government assigned specifically in the constitution. Socialism isn't the same thing as government, despite the current campaign to confuse the issue.

The government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. How is that nota socialist concept?

How IS it a socialist concept? What does it have to do with government controlling the means of production?

Listen, I know you people want to blow smoke and confuse the issue as much as possible. We can't let that happen.

You honestly believe these folks are part of a conspiracy to misguide right wingers and independents?

 

[Richard-H]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

The truly bogus part is that Conservatives pretend not to be able to distinguish the two - and they repeatedly use arguments against the conservative definition as justification to stop the liberal definition.

"Democratic socialism"....As though saying "chocolate covered" before "dog turd" transforms a chunk of shit into a Snickers bar.

Oh Wow - You've REALLY convinced me with that argument!

Nobody is going to talk a committed commie out of being one, until he starves to death.

By your definition almost every one of the 50 countries that have the highest standard of living are communist. So your whole argument is pure BULLSHIT.

But I can't talk an idiot out of being an idiot...so enjoy your stupidity while you can.

 

[danielpalos]

The existence of Government is socialist.

It only seems that way if he are stupid and abysmally ignorant.

degrees of socialism? it is like Palmolive.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution of the United States is written on SOCIALIST PRINCIPLES! "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union" is the expression of a people uniting as a SOCIETY, which is what socialism actually is. Doing things for the good of society.

That's ridiculous. If you're defining socialism as "doing things for the good of society", then please put that at the top of every one of your posts about the issue. Because you're simply equivocating.

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

EXACTLY!!!

Americans keep claiming that the free market dies everything better and cheaper than government. That’s a total fallacy. There are some things that should never be governed by free market economics. Education being one of them, health care another.

Healthcare was just fine until...... wait for it..





















The govt got involved!

 

[danielpalos]

That's ridiculous. If you're defining socialism as "doing things for the good of society", then please put that at the top of every one of your posts about the issue. Because you're simply equivocating.

No we're not. Universal health care is for the "good of the people". In the original NAFTA negotiations, the USA tried to have Canada's universal health care system declared an "government subsidy to employers", because Canadian employers paid 1% of wages as a health care tax. This was deemed an unfair competitive advantage since they didn't have to pay $10,000 a year to private insurance companies for each employee to provide them with health care coverage.

Public education, which is a socialist program, is for the "good of the people" since it gives people the education and skills to allow them to find gainful employment, become a useful, taxpaying member of society, and provides corporations with a highly skilled work force to enable them to prosper.

Providing courts and a legal system to adjudicate business disputes and provide fair trials for criminals, which is paid for by the general public, is supposed to be affordable and accessible to all citizens. The American legal system is a socialist program which is for the good of the people.

Providing an army for the common defence, is for the good of the people.

Yep. Equivocating. You're basically saying that because (in your view) socialist policies are for the "good of the people", that any policy enacted for the good of the people is socialist. That's a simple, and fairly stupid, logic error.

Anything that is not free market...is socialist

EXACTLY!!!

Americans keep claiming that the free market dies everything better and cheaper than government. That’s a total fallacy. There are some things that should never be governed by free market economics. Education being one of them, health care another.

Healthcare was just fine until...... wait for it..





















The govt got involved!

according to what measures?