Wasserman Scultz can't tell the Difference between being a Socialist and a Democrat!

[LoneLaugher]

Nope.

 

[g5000]

Sanders' presence and popularity obviously establishes the Democrats' ideological proximity to "socialism", and their denials are pretty silly. Whatever.

However, I think he's a democratic socialist, which is not the same thing. If the Republicans can't figure that out and deal with at that level, they're going to start giving "socialism" a better name in this country.

There's a distinction there, and I can't tell if the Republicans see it. Can they?

The issue is that the term "Socialist" has been perverted into an emotional hot button that has little to do with its actual essence (see also "communist", see also "liberal") and thus has to be defined before any such examination can ensue -- which cannot be done in the 0.4 seconds allotted, even with the digital compression they use in advertising. It's impossible.

I doubt if 20% of the wags on this board could define these terms even without a time limit. That's part of the dumbing-down of discourse, the superficial crapola that hacks like Matthews only accelerate with their hackneyed hackitude.

I do not disagree with anything you said, but I think Wasserman really was stumped by the question. She is not in that 20 percent you mentioned. I think it would take her a half hour to come up with an answer, and only after consulting her aides.

 

[Oldstyle]

This is HILLARIOUS! Chris Matthews is obviously a shill for HILLARY!, but it is quite amusing to see him nail Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She will not answer his question to tell the difference between being a Socialist and a Democrat.

It's obvious from the look on her face that she either suddenly developed a severe case of gas...or she didn't have a CLUE what the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat was and was about to say something REALLY stupid! Watching her try to come up with a canned response that said nothing was priceless...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

 

[LoneLaugher]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

Der de der der der!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Der de der der der!

As an assclown with an IQ hovering at about 35, what do you think the distinction between an Obama worshiping democrat praising 1/6 of the economy being moved under the direct control of the central authority and a socialist is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The above poster said earlier today that the power to discriminate and deny rights should be returned to the states;

that's a perfect example of what a perverse definition of 'freedom' the RWnuts have come up with.

Ah lying!

What WOULD you Communists do if you couldn't lie through your fucking teeth?

The poster I referred to said this earlier today:

"Discrimination laws should be up to the States to make them not the Feds."

NOW, you tell me how I was lying.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Der de der der der!

As an assclown with an IQ hovering at about 35, what do you think the distinction between an Obama worshiping democrat praising 1/6 of the economy being moved under the direct control of the central authority and a socialist?

Obama is a moderate republican. A capitalist. The model compassionate conservative.

The term 'worship' is reserved for those who believe in fairy tales. You know...like all yoiu nutbags who worship the most liberal, socialist deity imaginable. WWJD, bitch.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

She is awful. But..it is a weird question. It's like asking "What's the difference between a ladder and a pineapple."

Bernie doesn't belong to the Socialist party. Does he?

There's no difference between being a Democrat and a Socalist

So there's no difference between Zell Miller and Bernie Sanders?

lol, Frankenberry strikes again.

You kicked Zell out of the Party. Sanders/Fidel

 

[The Rabbi]

Der de der der der!

As an assclown with an IQ hovering at about 35, what do you think the distinction between an Obama worshiping democrat praising 1/6 of the economy being moved under the direct control of the central authority and a socialist?

Obama is a moderate republican. A capitalist. The model compassionate conservative.

The term 'worship' is reserved for those who believe in fairy tales. You know...like all yoiu nutbags who worship the most liberal, socialist deity imaginable. WWJD, bitch.

Liz Warren is a libertarian. Bernie Sanders is a centrist Democrat!
Whee! Making up shit is fun!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The poster I referred to said this earlier today:

"Discrimination laws should be up to the States to make them not the Feds."

NOW, you tell me how I was lying.

In claiming that she wanted the states to discriminate.

Discrimination laws SHOULD be up to the state - as all criminal law should be.

 

[francoHFW]

The difference is that when you mention the word socialist half the country goes nuts and thinks you said communist. The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net, just the Pub version panders to the rich). If Matthews is so smart, why doesn't HE answer the question, or any of you RW brainiacs lol?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama is a moderate republican. A capitalist. The model compassionate conservative.

The term 'worship' is reserved for those who believe in fairy tales. You know...like all yoiu nutbags who worship the most liberal, socialist deity imaginable. WWJD, bitch.

You're not even in the same zip code as "sane," are you?

 

[g5000]

The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net

"Fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net" is not socialism. Not even close. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism does not even believe in private property.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The difference is that when you mention the word socialist half the country goes nuts and thinks you said communist. The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net, just the Pub version panders to the rich). If Matthews is so smart, why doesn't HE answer the question, or any of you RW brainiacs lol?

That isn't the definition of socialism, Franco hater dupe.

Socialism: The ownership or control of the means of production by the state.

When Dear Leader took 1/6th of the economy and placed it under federal control (in service to Blue Cross majority share holder George Soros, owner of the democratic party) - that was socialism.

SNAP is not socialism - it is welfare. Most leftists are far too stupid to grasp the difference.

Welfare can only distribute, it is not a means of production.

 

[peach174]

The above poster said earlier today that the power to discriminate and deny rights should be returned to the states;

that's a perfect example of what a perverse definition of 'freedom' the RWnuts have come up with.

Ah lying!

What WOULD you Communists do if you couldn't lie through your fucking teeth?

The poster I referred to said this earlier today:

"Discrimination laws should be up to the States to make them not the Feds."

NOW, you tell me how I was lying.

We were talking about the 1st amendment and freedom of religion.
You made it about race.

 

[The Rabbi]

The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net

"Fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net" is not socialism. Not even close. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism does not even believe in private property.

Wrong.
Socialism believes in private property. Communism does not.
You dont know what you're talking about, as usual.

 

[kiwiman127]

Schultz-Wasserman isn't the only person who is clueless about the difference between a Democratic and a Socialist. I'd guess that almost all of our far right posters are as clueless. In their view anyone who isn't as far right as them, must be a Socialist. Their ignorance is truly amazing.

 

[g5000]

The truth is we're all socialists ( fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net

"Fairly regulated capitalism with a safety net" is not socialism. Not even close. Socialism is antithetical to capitalism. Socialism does not even believe in private property.

Wrong.
Socialism believes in private property. Communism does not.
You dont know what you're talking about, as usual.

Hey, dipshit:

Socialists generally view private property relations as limiting the potential of the productive forces in the economy. From this perspective, private property becomes obsolete when it concentrates into centralized, socialized institutions based on private appropriation of revenue until the role of the capitalist becomes redundant.