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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.
Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.
That's why it's not an argument.
Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?
It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.
By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.
Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.
Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.
Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan
Welfare programs are not socialism either
How about subsides to farmers to help control what they grow and sell and the prices they receive?
Unless the government owns the farm no
Government interference in the economy is not socialism
That's capitalism you are talking about. Greedy CEO making millions gets richer by sitting in his office while the workers on the floor making the product get paid peanuts in comparison...that's greed right there.The root of socialism is greed and envy and that is why it always fails to some degree or another.
That's capitalism you are talking about. Greedy CEO making millions gets richer by sitting in his office while the workers on the floor making the product get paid peanuts in comparison...that's greed right there.The root of socialism is greed and envy and that is why it always fails to some degree or another.
I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.
Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?
It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.
By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.
Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.
Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.
Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan
Welfare programs are not socialism either
How about subsides to farmers to help control what they grow and sell and the prices they receive?
Unless the government owns the farm no
Government interference in the economy is not socialism
"Government interference in the economy is not socialism"
so you approve of welfare?
the government interferes with a poor woman by giving her a subsidy and she uses it to stimulate the economy by paying rent and buying food!
and THAT is NOT socialism!
I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?
Don't know don't care
But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition
Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.
Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.
That's why it's not an argument.
Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?
It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.
By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.
Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.
Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.
Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan
Welfare programs are not socialism either
I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.Don't know don't care
But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition
Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.
Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.
That's why it's not an argument.
Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?
It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.
By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.
Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.
Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.
Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan
Welfare programs are not socialism either
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to Cherrypicking.
"Who" (read: "what") runs the fire department? The PD? Social security? Medicare? Who runs the FAA? The FCC? The FDA? The FEC? Interstate highways? Public libraries? "Who" (What) made the building of highway/telephone/telegraph/internet infrastructure possible? Some guy in his bedroom who weighs 400 pounds?
I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.
Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.
That's why it's not an argument.
Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?
It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.
By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.
Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.
Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.
Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan
Welfare programs are not socialism either
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to Cherrypicking.
"Who" (read: "what") runs the fire department? The PD? Social security? Medicare? Who runs the FAA? The FCC? The FDA? The FEC? Interstate highways? Public libraries? "Who" (What) made the building of highway/telephone/telegraph/internet infrastructure possible? Some guy in his bedroom who weighs 400 pounds?
You do realize that libraries are not the only place you can read books right?
Here is the defintion of socialism
Definition of SOCIALISM
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Government services or amenities do not fit into the definition.
Now if government run libraries were the only place you could get books and all the books were written by government employees and printed on government owned presses you'd be correct but they aren't are they?
I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.
Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?
It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.
By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.
Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.
Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.
Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan
Welfare programs are not socialism either
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand right back to Cherrypicking.
"Who" (read: "what") runs the fire department? The PD? Social security? Medicare? Who runs the FAA? The FCC? The FDA? The FEC? Interstate highways? Public libraries? "Who" (What) made the building of highway/telephone/telegraph/internet infrastructure possible? Some guy in his bedroom who weighs 400 pounds?
You do realize that libraries are not the only place you can read books right?
Here is the defintion of socialism
Definition of SOCIALISM
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Government services or amenities do not fit into the definition.
Now if government run libraries were the only place you could get books and all the books were written by government employees and printed on government owned presses you'd be correct but they aren't are they?
Where the fuck did I say books were LIMITED to libraries?
This is another fallacy, called "Strawman".
The root of socialism is greed and envy and that is why it always fails to some degree or another.
The root of humanity is greed and envy and that is why socialism always fails
The root of socialism is greed and envy and that is why it always fails to some degree or another.
The root of humanity is greed and envy and that is why socialism always fails
Golfing,
Don't fall for the constant false narrative. Bernie is a democratic socialist not a Socialist....
The Right love telling everyone what they believe... Another way to describe democratic socialist is regulated capitalist...
So they want unregulated capitalism... Let's go from there...
The root of socialism is greed and envy and that is why it always fails to some degree or another.
The root of humanity is greed and envy and that is why socialism always fails
Golfing,
Don't fall for the constant false narrative. Bernie is a democratic socialist not a Socialist....
The Right love telling everyone what they believe... Another way to describe democratic socialist is regulated capitalist...
So they want unregulated capitalism... Let's go from there...
It is not a false narrative...just look back at the history of mankind. There is no getting around it.
Every system of government is going to have it faults because they are all designed and ran by humans...and we are filled with greed and envy as a race.
It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.
If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.
Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?
Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.
No, you just don't want to believe it.
There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.
Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.
People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.
But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.
Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.
Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.
The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.
"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."
so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?
The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?
at this point
YOU have proven you are deranged.
and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.
which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.
Social Security and Medicare are not socialism
The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan
And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary
...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
We don't now nor have we ever had unfettered capitalism
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Keeping people dependent is not looking out for themNo, you just don't want to believe it.
There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.
Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.
People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.
But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.
Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.
Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.
The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.
"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."
so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?
The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?
at this point
YOU have proven you are deranged.
and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.
which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.
Social Security and Medicare are not socialism
The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan
And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary
...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
True. There is a lot to be learned from the Nordic model. They seem to have far less corruption.We don't now nor have we ever had unfettered capitalism
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
the WHOLE FKN POINT of CAPITALISM is EXCESSIVE GREED and ENVY.....
That is impossible to knowTrue. There is a lot to be learned from the Nordic model. They seem to have far less corruption.We don't now nor have we ever had unfettered capitalism
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
