The Benefits Of Socialism

[daveman]

The Trumpians are doing just as much to bring about socialism as the Dems. By calling everything that moves "socialism" they are making it commonplace and not something to be feared.

Yep. And Democrats are using that to avoid real discussion. Notice that democrats aren't (for the most part) denying that they're socialists. Instead, they're playing orwellian word games to confuse the issue.

BULLSHIT

The real discussion? Socialism is used by the Right to continue the RED SCARE.

Hint: Communism is bad, too. Did you learn that at college or in your travels?

 

[dblack]

Yep. And Democrats are using that to avoid real discussion. Notice that democrats aren't (for the most part) denying that they're socialists. Instead, they're playing orwellian word games to confuse the issue.

Are the Dems socialist? Do they want the central government to take over all the means of production and distribution?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Stay the course!

How about this, you tell me what you think socialism is and I will tell you if I see any benefit in it.

Deal?

Nope. I'm tired of all the Orwellian horseshit.

Lol. So, we are not allowed to use the dictionary definition and you will not tell us your definition yet we are supposed to state the benefits of something that has not been defined.

You might as well ask someone to state the benefits of covfefe.

"It's just a jump to the left ..."

 

[Mac1958]

This is the way the Regressive Left has long leveraged the term "racism".

Today, it just means whatever they want it to mean at any given time, for some perceived political advantage.

Peas in a pod.
.

Exactly. They're trying to do the same thing with socialism. They're creating this narrative that says anyone who opposes socialism just doesn't understand what it is. And when you ask them what it is, you get a bunch of word games. Fuck that shit.

Well, I provided a very clear definition, the long-accepted one.

No, you injected "all" in a key place that turned the normal definition into an unrealizable ideal. You did that on purpose, presumably to give you room to say that your preferred example of government ownership of the means of production isn't really socialism because it's not government ownership of "all" the means of production. Again, tedious word games. Not interested.

If you're going to ask someone what they think of an important thing, don't you think it's a good idea for both of you to be operating from the same definition of that thing?

I sure do.

Just give me your definition of "socialism", a clear definition, and I'll tell you what I think.

That's the way communication used to work, before we lost the skill.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The Trumpians are doing just as much to bring about socialism as the Dems. By calling everything that moves "socialism" they are making it commonplace and not something to be feared.

Yep. And Democrats are using that to avoid real discussion. Notice that democrats aren't (for the most part) denying that they're socialists. Instead, they're playing orwellian word games to confuse the issue.

Are the Dems socialist? Do they want the central government to take over all the means of production and distribution?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Haha...see, this is what you FSA members do.
What you describe is communism...you know the difference between socialism and communism...right?
What you twisted fucks always do is sell us on a first step, gateway version one of where you really want to end up. Your shit is played the fuck out bud.
“Mr Gates, we don’t want the government to take Microsoft from you and give it to us, we just want them to take some of your profits and give it to us.”

 

[Mac1958]

Why are these people afraid to provide a clear working definition of the term?

 

[dblack]

This is the way the Regressive Left has long leveraged the term "racism".

Today, it just means whatever they want it to mean at any given time, for some perceived political advantage.

Peas in a pod.
.

Exactly. They're trying to do the same thing with socialism. They're creating this narrative that says anyone who opposes socialism just doesn't understand what it is. And when you ask them what it is, you get a bunch of word games. Fuck that shit.

Well, I provided a very clear definition, the long-accepted one.

No, you injected "all" in a key place that turned the normal definition into an unrealizable ideal. You did that on purpose, presumably to give you room to say that your preferred example of government ownership of the means of production isn't really socialism because it's not government ownership of "all" the means of production. Again, tedious word games. Not interested.

If you're going to ask someone what they think of an important thing, don't you think it's a good idea for both of you to be operating from the same definition of that thing?

I sure do.

Just give me your definition of "socialism", a clear definition, and I'll tell you what I think.

That's the way communication used to work, before we lost the skill.
.

No, that's they way the derailment technique you're advancing works. I'm pretty sure it's on a leftists talking point memo somewhere: if anyone brings up socialism, grind things to a halt with bickering over the exact definition.

 

[dblack]

Why are these people afraid to provide a clear working definition of the term?

Why are you afraid to discuss why you want more socialism?

 

[Mac1958]

This is the way the Regressive Left has long leveraged the term "racism".

Today, it just means whatever they want it to mean at any given time, for some perceived political advantage.

Peas in a pod.
.

Exactly. They're trying to do the same thing with socialism. They're creating this narrative that says anyone who opposes socialism just doesn't understand what it is. And when you ask them what it is, you get a bunch of word games. Fuck that shit.

Well, I provided a very clear definition, the long-accepted one.

No, you injected "all" in a key place that turned the normal definition into an unrealizable ideal. You did that on purpose, presumably to give you room to say that your preferred example of government ownership of the means of production isn't really socialism because it's not government ownership of "all" the means of production. Again, tedious word games. Not interested.

If you're going to ask someone what they think of an important thing, don't you think it's a good idea for both of you to be operating from the same definition of that thing?

I sure do.

Just give me your definition of "socialism", a clear definition, and I'll tell you what I think.

That's the way communication used to work, before we lost the skill.
.

No, that's they way the derailment technique you're advancing works. I'm pretty sure it's on a leftists talking point memo somewhere: if anyone brings up socialism, grind things to a halt with bickering over the exact definition.

Okay, I tried.

So now, agreeing on definitions is longer a good thing. Got it.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Why are these people afraid to provide a clear working definition of the term?

Why are you afraid to discuss why you want more socialism?

What is your definition of the term?

Is it a secret?
.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. They're trying to do the same thing with socialism. They're creating this narrative that says anyone who opposes socialism just doesn't understand what it is. And when you ask them what it is, you get a bunch of word games. Fuck that shit.

Well, I provided a very clear definition, the long-accepted one.

No, you injected "all" in a key place that turned the normal definition into an unrealizable ideal. You did that on purpose, presumably to give you room to say that your preferred example of government ownership of the means of production isn't really socialism because it's not government ownership of "all" the means of production. Again, tedious word games. Not interested.

If you're going to ask someone what they think of an important thing, don't you think it's a good idea for both of you to be operating from the same definition of that thing?

I sure do.

Just give me your definition of "socialism", a clear definition, and I'll tell you what I think.

That's the way communication used to work, before we lost the skill.
.

No, that's they way the derailment technique you're advancing works. I'm pretty sure it's on a leftists talking point memo somewhere: if anyone brings up socialism, grind things to a halt with bickering over the exact definition.

Okay, I tried.

So now, agreeing on definitions is longer a good thing. Got it.
.

Can't talk about something if we can't agree on a definition, that's true. So - to avoid talking about something - just make sure there's no agreement on the definition. Mission accomplished.

 

[Edgetho]

Worth reading and, remember something -- The Heritage Foundation was created in order to take Nixon down.....

What Americans Must Know About Socialism

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Socialism is no longer a parlor game for academics but a political alternative taken seriously by millennials.

“They don’t recognize that much of what they enjoy in life is a result of capitalism and would disappear if socialism were to be implemented."

This is the reality of socialism — a pseudo-religion grounded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, I demand to know what right wingers think of kdkdlpwhqmvhfkks-ism.

Stop playing games. I want to know.
.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Let's defend socialism, shall we??

Exercise.

Under socialism, you can count on getting plenty of exercise.

The Kommissars will make sure of that...

13 Gut-Wrenching Facts About Being Held Prisoner In The Soviet Gulags

A drug-free America.

Your socialist masters will frown on drug dealing

How China Deals With Drug Dealers

Free Health Care. One thing you can count on under socialism is free Health Care. And it's worth every cent

Once Again: The Real Cuban Health Care System

Then there's the low cost of electricity and food in socialist Countries. In fact, in many cases it's free because -- There isn't any.

Think I'm kidding? Just ask any current resident of that Socialist Paradise in Venezuela. Go ahead, I dare you.

Of course, due to the brilliance of socialists, you won't have to work very much at all. Everybody knows that the only reason you have to work is so 'The Man' can enslave you anyway.

So that will give you lots of time to hang out with your friends......

Waiting in line.

For Food. And Water. And, in the Country with WORLD'S LARGEST KNOWN OIL RESERVES -- Gasoline.

Venezuela- the Socialism Hotspot- no Beer, no food (video) - Uncle Sam's Misguided Children

This pic is nearly 4 years old. It's gotten worse since then. Much worse. Much, much worse.

But that's okay. One thing we can count on from our socialist parasites is, once this system completely collapses, once it falls flat on its face, socialists will be back to once again inform us of our stupidity for not embracing The Benefits of Socialism.

Thought this thread would be empty.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, I provided a very clear definition, the long-accepted one.

No, you injected "all" in a key place that turned the normal definition into an unrealizable ideal. You did that on purpose, presumably to give you room to say that your preferred example of government ownership of the means of production isn't really socialism because it's not government ownership of "all" the means of production. Again, tedious word games. Not interested.

If you're going to ask someone what they think of an important thing, don't you think it's a good idea for both of you to be operating from the same definition of that thing?

I sure do.

Just give me your definition of "socialism", a clear definition, and I'll tell you what I think.

That's the way communication used to work, before we lost the skill.
.

No, that's they way the derailment technique you're advancing works. I'm pretty sure it's on a leftists talking point memo somewhere: if anyone brings up socialism, grind things to a halt with bickering over the exact definition.

Okay, I tried.

So now, agreeing on definitions is longer a good thing. Got it.
.

Can't talk about something if we can't agree on a definition, that's true. So - to avoid talking about something - just make sure there's no agreement on the definition. Mission accomplished.

I'm asking you for it. I'll go with yours.

Let the secret out of the bag.
.

 

[mudwhistle]

But capitalism runs on God's will and no humans are violated in it's creation or operation.

Nobody gets shot under Capitalism......and nobody forces people to make money.

 

[Edgetho]

Russia , China, North Korea , There is no free enterprise in these country's. All Commerce is controlled by the Govt.

China is no longer an economic socialist State. They have evolved into a Technocracy.

If you try to explain that to a dimocrap, put some cartoons on TV first

 

[dblack]

Why are these people afraid to provide a clear working definition of the term?

Why are you afraid to discuss why you want more socialism?

What is your definition of the term?

Is it a secret?
.

You're missing my point. Your question is a deliberate distraction. No matter what I say, you'll focus on nitpicking it instead of discussing the topic. That's why you're asking.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why are these people afraid to provide a clear working definition of the term?

Why are you afraid to discuss why you want more socialism?

Why are you afraid to discuss why you want more covfefe?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[BrokeLoser]

The Trumpians are doing just as much to bring about socialism as the Dems. By calling everything that moves "socialism" they are making it commonplace and not something to be feared.

Yep. And Democrats are using that to avoid real discussion. Notice that democrats aren't (for the most part) denying that they're socialists. Instead, they're playing orwellian word games to confuse the issue.

Are the Dems socialist? Do they want the central government to take over all the means of production and distribution?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You Lefties are smart enough to ease us into your filth..This opens the flood gates and allows for expansion of your filth.
“Oh come on Righties, move with the times....a man sucking another man off can’t hurt anyone and your acceptance of men blowing men won’t lead to men in dresses shitting next to your teen daughters or anything.”

“Oh come on Righties, move with the times...smoking a little weed never hurt anyone and your acceptance of a society full of stoners won’t lead to more staying on welfare or lowlifes wanting to legalize heroin.”

 

[captkaos]

But capitalism runs on God's will and no humans are violated in it's creation or operation.

What right did your god have to impregnate a young woman against her will? Was she awake or sleeping? Did he ask her parents for permission? LMAO. Did he touch her inappropriately, Obvious violation of her personal space don't you think. Joe I forgive you! It's okay because god did it first!