POLL: The GOP and "Socialism"

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?
.

Dumb fucks who don't understand the complete and utter failure that will result from socialism are "comfortable" with it.

 

[basquebromance]

the GOP says "how are you gonna pay for it"?

what i wanna know, is how are you gonna pay for defense spending

the wealthiest nation in the history of the world is scarce when it comes to helping people who suffer? that's a moral failing!

 

[basquebromance]

if you're a Republican and you belong in a union, you're basically a socialist

 

[initforme]

We don't have to worry about socialism....it doesn't exist here and while I agree it is an abject failure it is of no threat to this nation. It has no support. It has very few supporters and it has no foothold in America. It is like Bigfoot. It's name is mentioned but there is no proof.

 

[dblack]

No, they're not, which is why I left the Republican party in 1990.

I know you have libertarian thoughts, I believe that. But you always chicken out and back socialism in the end. Like here where you're arguing for tax and spend fiscal policy, the worst of all possible worlds

Again, your tortured conception of libertarianism doesn't really interest me. I go by the horseshit you advocate for on these threads, and in that, you're pretty much always carrying water for authoritarians.

 

[regent]

There are a number of types of socialism. At one time I counted over 100. and America has had some form of socialism even before and after it became a nation. Many Western economies are mixtures of economic systems, as is the United States.
The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word. When Marx created his communism. he said that to prepare a people for communism they would go through a period called "Scientific Socialism". and with that useage of socialism the Republicans were off and running. Russia tried Scientific Socialism and dropped it soon after the revolution.

 

[basquebromance]

i'm a conservative socialist. we exist, believe it or not.

 

[Mac1958]

We don't have to worry about socialism....it doesn't exist here and while I agree it is an abject failure it is of no threat to this nation. It has no support. It has very few supporters and it has no foothold in America. It is like Bigfoot. It's name is mentioned but there is no proof.

You didn't see the wild support of Bernie Sanders (who should have won the Dem nomination and who was leading Trump in popular vote polling) as any kind of signal?
.

 

[kaz]

No, they're not, which is why I left the Republican party in 1990.

I know you have libertarian thoughts, I believe that. But you always chicken out and back socialism in the end. Like here where you're arguing for tax and spend fiscal policy, the worst of all possible worlds

Again, your tortured conception of libertarianism doesn't really interest me. I go by the horseshit you advocate for on these threads, and in that, you're pretty much always carrying water for authoritarians.

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

You think libertarians dream of liberty but chicken out and back socialism like you do because it's safer. No, we don't. Liberty works, it's socialism that doesn't

 

[dblack]

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

 

[kaz]

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

 

[dblack]

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

If you support tax cuts without spending cuts, you're advocating for more deficit spending. How do you rationalize your way out of that one?

 

[kaz]

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

If you support tax cuts without spending cuts, you're advocating for more deficit spending. How do you rationalize your way out of that one?

Strawman.

I'd cut spending by 50% immediately

 

[regent]

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

If you support tax cuts without spending cuts, you're advocating for more deficit spending. How do you rationalize your way out of that one?

Strawman.

I'd cut spending by 50% immediately

Would there even be a USA if the founders had not used deficit spending?

 

[kaz]

So you think being against high taxes and high spending is a "tortured conception of libertarian." Of course you do.

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

If you support tax cuts without spending cuts, you're advocating for more deficit spending. How do you rationalize your way out of that one?

Strawman.

I'd cut spending by 50% immediately

Would there even be a USA if the founders had not used deficit spending?

The typical idiotic leftist approach that you only think in absolutes. What does that have to do with deficit spending in the US today?

 

[regent]

No, silly. It's your support of deficit spending. You're not really following the conversation, are you?

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

If you support tax cuts without spending cuts, you're advocating for more deficit spending. How do you rationalize your way out of that one?

Strawman.

I'd cut spending by 50% immediately

Would there even be a USA if the founders had not used deficit spending?

The typical idiotic leftist approach that you only think in absolutes. What does that have to do with deficit spending in the US today?

For some governmental purposes money must be borrowed as it was borrowed to establish the United States, and to fight wars and depressions. At least a president did pay off the debt once in our history and the president was a Democrat.

 

[JoeB131]

You didn't see the wild support of Bernie Sanders (who should have won the Dem nomination and who was leading Trump in popular vote polling) as any kind of signal?

Commie Bernie got 3 million less votes than Hillary did, no he shouldn't have won.

Hillary lead Trump in popular vote polling, too... and she actually won the popular vote. .

But Stormy, you are arguing against your wonderful argument that Gosh, gee, whiz, the real problem with american politics is that people aren't all moderate like you are. But here you are admitting that if the Democrats nominated someone more radical, they would have beaten the radical Fascist the GOP elected.

Oh, wait. You can't call him a fascist, that might hurt his feelings.

 

[kaz]

I never advocated defecit spending, liar

If you support tax cuts without spending cuts, you're advocating for more deficit spending. How do you rationalize your way out of that one?

Strawman.

I'd cut spending by 50% immediately

Would there even be a USA if the founders had not used deficit spending?

The typical idiotic leftist approach that you only think in absolutes. What does that have to do with deficit spending in the US today?

For some governmental purposes money must be borrowed as it was borrowed to establish the United States, and to fight wars and depressions. At least a president did pay off the debt once in our history and the president was a Democrat.

So I can't be against deficit government spending unless I oppose all deficit spending not only for every reason but through all of time and history.

kaz: I oppose deficit spending
regent: O ... M ... G ... the American revolution ...

The absolutist thinking of an idiot.

OK, just for you. In extreme circumstances, like the American Revolution and WWII you have to do what you have to do. But I would quickly repay the money and go back to no deficit spending. I would limit the Federal government in all other times to a max of 10% of the economy. And I would limit taxes to a max of 10%.

Happy?

 

[Mac1958]

The primary use of the word "socialism" has been to use it as a fear word.

Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".

But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. The people who fling it around clearly don't have a specific definition for it. Most often, their definition appears to be "anything to the Left of me".

But, as with myriad other examples, we've devolved into blurting intellectually lazy, simplistic hyperbole at every opportunity.

Says the King of Simplistic Hyperbole..

"Oh, My Gosh, we are all doomed because college kids don't want to listen to that guy Fox News fired!!!"