Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The side that wants government to control everything sees the need arising from the unequal distribution of commodities. The failings of the capitalist system, I mean.Let's put it into broader terms then.Again, we go back to definitions.Your error is that there is no effort to create a "safety net". A safety net allows people to get back on their feet after a catastrophic event. What the left have going is designed to keep people under the thumb of Big Brother so Big Brother can control their lives.Okay, what is it? What is socialism? I thought it was government ownership & control of all means of production and distribution. Private property effectively doesn't exist. Examples would be Cuba and Venezuela.So based upon the responses, it is the Left who don’t understand socialism and what it is. Which is why they think they love it.Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.
As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.
How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.
Democratic socialism lies clearly and distinctly to the Right of socialism on the spectrum, with private ownership of most means of production and distribution, with the focus on a broader government safety net for the lower economic strata. Examples would be Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, Australia.
Two different things.
There's a couple of definitions for you. What's your definition?
.
The point remains the same: This exists on a continuum, and some countries are far "more socialist" than others, yet many don't see that.
.
One side wants a huge government controlling everything past the point of prison for handing out a straw, the other side wants small limited government that should build roads and protect our borders but stay out of our lives.
So a government saying we won't allow these restaurants in our city but these others are OK has what to do with a safety net?No, I'm talking real world. "Small, limited" is hypothetical. And that's sure as hell not what we have, even with the GOP in control.You're talking hypothetical, I'm talking real world. Fines and prison for straws and large sodas versus a small limited government. If I want to buy a 16 cylinder car, I should be allowed to. But the government controls their production so I can't.No, I think there's a huge, dynamic, varying territory in between those two "sides".One side wants a huge government controlling everything past the point of prison for handing out a straw, the other side wants small limited government that should build roads and protect our borders but stay out of our lives.
.
There are many Americans whose opinions aren't confined to a small, tight ideology. Life is complicated, many parts of it exist on a continuum, and most of us know that.
.
Millions were happy with their plans and doctors.What is welfare?There is no socialist policies in america and the number of voters who support it is .000001 percent. So all these threads are uselesz.
What is Medicaid?
I'm told the ACA is "socialist". Is that correct?
.
Other than it has never worked for the good long term... lolOur conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.
As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.
How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.
We all know you’re a control freakPol Pot was an engineering student in Paris when he was taught Marxist philosophy. The French did this stuff.
Are you claiming that Pol Pot killed those 1 million people himself.
You see, this is the problem with demonizing a dictator... dictators only kind of reflect the moods of their people. Dictators only work because lot of people are ready, willing and able to follow their orders.
In thecase of Cambodia, after we overthrew the monarchy of Noradom Sihanouk, put in a puppet government and proceeded to terrorize the country by illegally carpet bombing it trying to disrupt the Ho Chi Mihn Trail, we radicalized the people to the point of "Let's kill anyone who supported the Americans" kind of seemed like a good idea.
All socialist entitlement programs or waste fraud and abuseNonsense and misinformation.It's funny that whenever socialism is brought up, social security is also brought up as a glorious example.
Yet, this program is over 20 trillions in debt, because of the Ponzi scheme financing.
And pays much less than you would get in the free market. Glorious success indeed. In fact, it's one of the worst ideas I have ever seen. This just shows that the "socialists" here have no idea what they are talking about.
Every year more people are taking more out and less people are putting less in... Don’t be stupid it’s a fucking jokeI agree completely, but ss is socialist only to those that didn’t pay into it. We that worked, paid for it, and our payments are based on what we were forced to pay into it.Social security is not socialism. It is our own money we are forced to pay in, rather than invest and make more for ourselves.
It's a socialist program. Socialist programs are the only thing the left is trying to see implemented.
Right, well, either way it's a successful and popular socialist program. Same goes for medicaid/medicare. There are ideas and elements of socialism that can happily coexist with our capitalism and make things better for everybody.
If that were only true. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the prime drivers of our national debt, and will probably drive us into bankruptcy.
Actually social security only has money issues because every president borrows from it to finance government spending. In truth it's quite successful.
You can keep your socialism, but that’s where the problem is you want to force that world of piss and shit on everyone else that wants nothing to do with it, cannot afford it and will never use itI stand corrected. He is on par with most Europeans. By the way, my wife is American. We live in Belgium over America for a reason. My kid has opportunities here which would be pretty hard to accomplish if we'd decide to move to the US. Like guaranteed access to healthcare, an assured income, near free schooling etc. I've always found it odd to use socialism as a derogative term. Communism I'd get but Socialism seems relatively benign. The same goes for liberal by the way.As a European liberal I can say your full of it. Bernie is slightly more to the right of the general Western European citizen. Still waiting for him to say for instance that Election Campaigns should be funded by the government. A perfectly normal and non-controversial thing here. Not only that, look at the better life index. You will find that the US is behind a lot of, so called socialist countries, as they are referred to by the right. What does that tell you?OECD Better Life IndexIt makes it so much easier to distinguish between the two major political parties when the crazy democrat left finally quits the smoke and mirrors and comes out of the socialist political closet. Live with it and embrace it while you can lefties because the democrat party ain't likely to be around much longer at this rate.
If you think the Democrats are socialist you're fucking nuts. The Democrats would be right wing in most European countries.
Don't tell me, tell it to hyphen Cortez and Bernie Sanders and the angry crazy democrat leadership who are starting to make the European liberals look sane.
Bernie mentioned quite a lot that campaigns should be publicly funded. Thank you got backing up my point, though. Bernie is as far as the left goes in America and he'd still be questionable as a leftie in Europe.
And yet you look at every socialist nation and all they did was shift the middle class down into the lower class so now you have a greater economic disparity. Socialism never builds, it only lowers standards.The side that wants government to control everything sees the need arising from the unequal distribution of commodities. The failings of the capitalist system, I mean.Let's put it into broader terms then.Again, we go back to definitions.Your error is that there is no effort to create a "safety net". A safety net allows people to get back on their feet after a catastrophic event. What the left have going is designed to keep people under the thumb of Big Brother so Big Brother can control their lives.Okay, what is it? What is socialism? I thought it was government ownership & control of all means of production and distribution. Private property effectively doesn't exist. Examples would be Cuba and Venezuela.So based upon the responses, it is the Left who don’t understand socialism and what it is. Which is why they think they love it.
Democratic socialism lies clearly and distinctly to the Right of socialism on the spectrum, with private ownership of most means of production and distribution, with the focus on a broader government safety net for the lower economic strata. Examples would be Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, Australia.
Two different things.
There's a couple of definitions for you. What's your definition?
.
The point remains the same: This exists on a continuum, and some countries are far "more socialist" than others, yet many don't see that.
.
One side wants a huge government controlling everything past the point of prison for handing out a straw, the other side wants small limited government that should build roads and protect our borders but stay out of our lives.
Yet, they don't wish to change the capitalist (private) system of production to a socialist (common) system of production. They would rather reform the capitalist system thru government regulation. It's a misnomer to call that socialism.
Well keep it then, leave the rest of us out of it.I suggest you look up most single payer countries expenditure on for instance healthcare. Interestingly enough almost all those countries spend less on healthcare, most of those countries also have a higher average lifespan. So if it's so unsuccessful how do you explain that?List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - WikipediaI agree completely, but ss is socialist only to those that didn’t pay into it. We that worked, paid for it, and our payments are based on what we were forced to pay into it.Social security is not socialism. It is our own money we are forced to pay in, rather than invest and make more for ourselves.
It's a socialist program. Socialist programs are the only thing the left is trying to see implemented.
Right, well, either way it's a successful and popular socialist program. Same goes for medicaid/medicare. There are ideas and elements of socialism that can happily coexist with our capitalism and make things better for everybody.
If that were only true. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the prime drivers of our national debt, and will probably drive us into bankruptcy.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia
Socialism is worse than communism, it’s the incubator for dictatorships and fascismDo you realize that socialism is not the same as Communism? You can't just use the terms like they are interchangeable. As to taking away the incentive to improve. I live in a country that has a lot of social programs, programs that make it possible for me to not work if I'd so choose. The thing is, if I wouldn't, I would not own my own house, I would not drive a Mercedes and my kid wouldn't have a nice nest egg when I pass. The fact that I never have to fear that I won't have food or a roof over my head doesn't change my motivation to have the best possible live. The difference being that no matter what happens, the quality of my life won't fall below a certain level.When you take away the incentive for people to improve themselves, learn marketable skills, and want to work to attain things then the end is near. Socialism/Communism is against human nature, and always evolves in a Totalitarian Regime where only the few, elites benefit.
This might be the best summary of socialism I have ever read. When you get past the murder, corruption, and authoritarianism, you get the more subtle threat. I have never heard a democrat give a response to the outright destruction of a person's incentive to learn and improve themselves. Socialism is like a spiritual death that leaves you hollow. That scares the crap out of me.
There is no socialist policies in america and the number of voters who support it is .000001 percent. So all these threads are uselesz.
We want nothing to do with being socialist Europe, But then again I guess control freaks like yourself will never understand individualityOnly if you can find 1 example of a Democrat that claimed Venezuela is an example to aspire to. Otherwise you are using a straw man argument. When Bernie or Ocassio-Cortez speak they call themselves social Democrats and they aspire to the systems that are applied in other Social Democracies. Citing the disaster of Venezuela as an example of the failure of a system the Democrats aspire to is a straw man. And now if you are honest this reply to the thread should be over.Venezuela crisis: How did we get here?Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.
As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.
How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.
Thread over...
So you won't take a pension?You can keep your socialism, but that’s where the problem is you want to force that world of piss and shit on everyone else that wants nothing to do with it, cannot afford it and will never use itI stand corrected. He is on par with most Europeans. By the way, my wife is American. We live in Belgium over America for a reason. My kid has opportunities here which would be pretty hard to accomplish if we'd decide to move to the US. Like guaranteed access to healthcare, an assured income, near free schooling etc. I've always found it odd to use socialism as a derogative term. Communism I'd get but Socialism seems relatively benign. The same goes for liberal by the way.As a European liberal I can say your full of it. Bernie is slightly more to the right of the general Western European citizen. Still waiting for him to say for instance that Election Campaigns should be funded by the government. A perfectly normal and non-controversial thing here. Not only that, look at the better life index. You will find that the US is behind a lot of, so called socialist countries, as they are referred to by the right. What does that tell you?OECD Better Life IndexIf you think the Democrats are socialist you're fucking nuts. The Democrats would be right wing in most European countries.
Don't tell me, tell it to hyphen Cortez and Bernie Sanders and the angry crazy democrat leadership who are starting to make the European liberals look sane.
Bernie mentioned quite a lot that campaigns should be publicly funded. Thank you got backing up my point, though. Bernie is as far as the left goes in America and he'd still be questionable as a leftie in Europe.
That is why I disagree with that approach. For socialism to work, the hierarchy must be dismantled.And yet you look at every socialist nation and all they did was shift the middle class down into the lower class so now you have a greater economic disparity. Socialism never builds, it only lowers standards.The side that wants government to control everything sees the need arising from the unequal distribution of commodities. The failings of the capitalist system, I mean.Let's put it into broader terms then.Again, we go back to definitions.Your error is that there is no effort to create a "safety net". A safety net allows people to get back on their feet after a catastrophic event. What the left have going is designed to keep people under the thumb of Big Brother so Big Brother can control their lives.Okay, what is it? What is socialism? I thought it was government ownership & control of all means of production and distribution. Private property effectively doesn't exist. Examples would be Cuba and Venezuela.
Democratic socialism lies clearly and distinctly to the Right of socialism on the spectrum, with private ownership of most means of production and distribution, with the focus on a broader government safety net for the lower economic strata. Examples would be Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, Australia.
Two different things.
There's a couple of definitions for you. What's your definition?
.
The point remains the same: This exists on a continuum, and some countries are far "more socialist" than others, yet many don't see that.
.
One side wants a huge government controlling everything past the point of prison for handing out a straw, the other side wants small limited government that should build roads and protect our borders but stay out of our lives.
Yet, they don't wish to change the capitalist (private) system of production to a socialist (common) system of production. They would rather reform the capitalist system thru government regulation. It's a misnomer to call that socialism.
That's fake news.View attachment 208967There is no socialist policies in america and the number of voters who support it is .000001 percent. So all these threads are uselesz.
Socialism should scare people.Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.
As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.
How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.
Is that a "yes"? The ACA is socialism?Millions were happy with their plans and doctors.What is welfare?There is no socialist policies in america and the number of voters who support it is .000001 percent. So all these threads are uselesz.
What is Medicaid?
I'm told the ACA is "socialist". Is that correct?
.
The government said too bad, we order you to do these things
