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

[NYcarbineer]

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 stated to discriminate.

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

lol, so you support state by state racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc., too.

Goddam.

btw, I said:

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

And that is exactly what she said - give that power to the states. Leave it up to the states.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

So Wasserman Schultz is now a right wing poster on this site?
You're nuts.

 

[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.

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.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Democrat is a party. Socialism is a political philosophy.

 

[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.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are plenty of Republican socialists then too, if you people are going to broaden the definition of a socialist as someone who supports as much as one socialist institution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

I can't believe I'm sticking up for Jake Starkey...

No, socialism does not support private property. Total socialism is the ownership of all the means of production by the state.

Communism is the fairytale of a stateless society where everyone owns everything in common and shares unselfishly while singing the "My Little Pony" theme song.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, the RWnuts think Obama is a Marxist; they are hardly of the standing to be schooling people on what a socialist is.

 

[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.

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.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

 

[g5000]

The abolition of all private property is where socialism and Democrats part ways.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

.

While we continue to slowly lose our freedoms with continued elections of the socialists aka big government who are in both parties.

The Most and Least Free Countries in the World by Freedom House 2014
U.S. drops in state of free press ranking report - NY Daily News

People like you should lose their freedoms, based on what you think 'freedom' is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

Is public education socialist?

 

[The Rabbi]

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

I can't believe I'm sticking up for Jake Starkey...

No, socialism does not support private property. Total socialism is the ownership of all the means of production by the state.

Communism is the fairytale of a stateless society where everyone owns everything in common and shares unselfishly while singing the "My Little Pony" theme song.

You need some education. Desperately.
Communism is the communal ownership of the means of production. Israeli kibbutzin are communist. North Korea is communist.
Socialism is government control over means of production but not ownership. Nazism was socialist but they had private ownership of means of production.

 

[g5000]

"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.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

You seem to believe only communism believes in the abolition of private property.

What a simple minded dunce you are!

 

[Uncensored2008]

lol, so you support state by state racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc., too.

And this is why we point out that you're lying.

Because you are deliberately lying.

Hey, you're a Communist - it's what you do.

Goddam.

btw, I said:

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

And that is exactly what she said - give that power to the states. Leave it up to the states.

She didn't say that, nor did I.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That confirms what I wrote, rather than refutes it. You understand that, right?

You clearly have no comprehension.

Socialism is all about the abolition of private property. If you don't know this basic fact, you are a fool. Is there something in "becomes obsolete" you need explained to you? Apparently so.

Is Sweden socialist?
Did Sweden abolish private property?

Was the Soviet Union communist?
Did the SOviet Union abolish private property?

Is North Korea communist?
Did North Korea abolish private property?

You're distance from reality is enormous.

You seem to believe only communism believes in the abolition of private property.

What a simple minded dunce you are!

Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.

Did Nazi Germany abolish private property?
Did Sweden abolish private property?
Has any country which is not communist abolished private proeprty?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Democrat is a party. Socialism is a political philosophy.

Economic theory, sploogy.

Socialism is the economic theory promoted by the democratic party.

 

[peach174]

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 stated to discriminate.

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

lol, so you support state by state racial discrimination, gender discrimination, etc., too.

Goddam.

btw, I said:

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

And that is exactly what she said - give that power to the states. Leave it up to the states.

Put it back into perspective there, it was about religion and the 1st amendment not race.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Hope he has a Repuke on and asks what the difference is between a Republican and a Nazi.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The abolition of all private property is where socialism and Democrats part ways.

Nonsense.

The abolition of private property is the ultimate, long-term goal of the democrat.

It simply is not an immediate goal. They have just recently captured the single largest economic sector and moved it from private to public control. Building a totalitarian dictatorship doesn't happen overnight; democrats are building it one piece at a time.