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

[g5000]

Hey, dipshit:

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?

These are idiotic questions which only demonstrate the depths of your ignorance. It's like saying regulation of private businesses in the US means we are not a capitalist nation.

The goal of socialism is the obsolescence of private property. That socialist leaning countries have not successfully achieved these goals does not change what the goal is. This is a simple fact you can try to deny all you like, but your denials cannot change the truth.

 

[g5000]

http://detroitdsa.com/socialdemocracy.pdf

We simply do not know the outer limits of what a social democratic society can achieve in terms of equality, social justice, and human freedom within the constraints of continuing private ownership.

A clear statement that says private property places limitations on the success of socialist programs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You need some education. Desperately.

I'll write that into my doctoral thesis, on supply chain management (an economics discipline.)

Communism is the communal ownership of the means of production. Israeli kibbutzin are communist. North Korea is communist.

As opposed to the fairytale of a stateless society where everyone owns everything in common and shares unselfishly?

And North Korea is at best socialist.

Socialism is government control over means of production but not ownership. Nazism was socialist but they had private ownership of means of production.

Nonsense. Marx advocated control of the economy by trade unions as a path to direct ownership, but always advocated for direct ownership of as much of the productive mechanism as possible, to establish the state as the absolute arbiters of goods and services. Lenin backed down from direct ownership with the NEP only because his economy had utterly failed. The NEP was desperate move to salvage the Soviet economy.

Fascism is absolutely a form of socialism with the state holding absolute control of the means of production.No argument there.

 

[Pogo]

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.

No doubt. But the point was that nobody could even begin to answer that question in the time allotted. If an entire program were dedicated to that question, and left answering space, then maybe. In the event it looks like DWS knew there was no way to address it in those conditions and deflected. It's basically a leading question with all the validity of "real quick, before we go, have you stopped beating your wife?" (music swells). It's a horseshit rhetorical device.

 

[g5000]

Sweden...
http://www.markblyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/blythworldpols.pdf

The problem with this new strategy was of course that it constituted a frontal assault on the sanctity of private ownership, one of the foundational ideas underpinning the Swedish model.

While the codetermination proposals did not initially invoke the wrath of business, the centerpiece of these legislative challenges to the existing order, the wage earner funds, certainly did.23 As Steinmo notes: “The wage earner funds were conceived . . . as a mechanism to socialize the economy and reverse the trend toward the concentration of economic power in private hands.”

 

[Pogo]

I don't think you do Matthews to "handle the questions". Even Superman couldn't do that using his Kryptonic powers of Super-Speech. You do it for the same reason you do any other TV show -- face time. You prolly put one good sound bite together, practice saying it real fast before the red light (symbolic, that) goes on, and then hope to blurt it out real quick when a fly lands in his eye. That's about all you can hope for.

I dunno Boe, if you're looking for intelligent life on a TV screen.....

Pop quiz: what's the difference between liberalism and conservatism? You have 0.4 seconds... GO. Time's up.

Which definition of Liberalism? If you mean Classical Liberalism, it's similar to Burkian (real) Conservatism - as in a sea of individual rights with islands of limited government power.

Nope, can't do that. The point was you have 0.4secondstoanswer.Time'sup.

I answered upon reading the post. So, too bad.

No you didn't. All you could do was to ask for a definition of the question, and even that exceeds the allotted Chris Matthews spittle time. That's the point. It can't be answered in that context.

It's like saying, "we've only got ten seconds before commercial but before we go, what's the meaning of life?"

Trouble with reading comprehension? I provided a comparison of Classical Liberalism and Burkian Conservatism. As you neglected to define what versions of Liberalism and Conservatism you intended, I used what the terms mean to me.

Doesn't matter -- Chris Matthews would have cut you off at "Which defi..." and that would have been it. That's the point.

 

[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.

No doubt. But the point was that nobody could even begin to answer that question in the time allotted. If an entire program were dedicated to that question, and left answering space, then maybe. In the event it looks like DWS knew there was no way to address it in those conditions and deflected. It's basically a leading question with all the validity of "real quick, before we go, have you stopped beating your wife?" (music swells). It's a horseshit rhetorical device.

Wasserman could easily have answered the question by simply pointing out the policy differences between Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party. Easy peasey.

After all, did she not attempt to divert the question to policy differences between Democrats and Republicans? She sure was ready to list those!

I think she was completely stumped on what the differences are between Sanders and her party.

 

[Pogo]

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

Zell Miller's still a Democrat to this day.

 

[peach174]

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?

These are idiotic questions which only demonstrate the depths of your ignorance. It's like saying regulation of private businesses in the US means we are not a capitalist nation.

The goal of socialism is the obsolescence of private property. That socialist leaning countries have not successfully achieved these goals does not change what the goal is. This is a simple fact you can try to deny all you like, but your denials cannot change the truth.

Our Federal Government is the biggest property owner.

 

[boedicca]

Which definition of Liberalism? If you mean Classical Liberalism, it's similar to Burkian (real) Conservatism - as in a sea of individual rights with islands of limited government power.

Nope, can't do that. The point was you have 0.4secondstoanswer.Time'sup.

I answered upon reading the post. So, too bad.

No you didn't. All you could do was to ask for a definition of the question, and even that exceeds the allotted Chris Matthews spittle time. That's the point. It can't be answered in that context.

It's like saying, "we've only got ten seconds before commercial but before we go, what's the meaning of life?"

Trouble with reading comprehension? I provided a comparison of Classical Liberalism and Burkian Conservatism. As you neglected to define what versions of Liberalism and Conservatism you intended, I used what the terms mean to me.

Doesn't matter -- Chris Matthews would have cut you off at "Which defi..." and that would have been it. That's the point.

Sorry, that doesn't work. Debbie tried to spin to the difference between Dems and the GOP - and that is why she kept getting cut off.

 

[boedicca]

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?

These are idiotic questions which only demonstrate the depths of your ignorance. It's like saying regulation of private businesses in the US means we are not a capitalist nation.

The goal of socialism is the obsolescence of private property. That socialist leaning countries have not successfully achieved these goals does not change what the goal is. This is a simple fact you can try to deny all you like, but your denials cannot change the truth.

Our Federal Government is the biggest property owner.

Much to the detriment of the economy and the environment....

 

[Pogo]

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.

No doubt. But the point was that nobody could even begin to answer that question in the time allotted. If an entire program were dedicated to that question, and left answering space, then maybe. In the event it looks like DWS knew there was no way to address it in those conditions and deflected. It's basically a leading question with all the validity of "real quick, before we go, have you stopped beating your wife?" (music swells). It's a horseshit rhetorical device.

Wasserman could easily have answered the question by simply pointing out the policy differences between Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party. Easy peasey.

But that wasn't the question, so that would have been the same deflection.
And I'm not suggesting deflecting there is a bad thing -- it's a bad question and deserves it. But let's not pretend she's "unable to answer" when it's clearly a loaded question. Just for a start, one is a political philosophy and the other a political party. So it's already apples vs. oranges. Having to essplain why it's apples/oranges is already beyond the time constraints.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Absolutely, that's why 80% of NYC School student can't read at grade level

 

[Pogo]

Nope, can't do that. The point was you have 0.4secondstoanswer.Time'sup.

I answered upon reading the post. So, too bad.

No you didn't. All you could do was to ask for a definition of the question, and even that exceeds the allotted Chris Matthews spittle time. That's the point. It can't be answered in that context.

It's like saying, "we've only got ten seconds before commercial but before we go, what's the meaning of life?"

Trouble with reading comprehension? I provided a comparison of Classical Liberalism and Burkian Conservatism. As you neglected to define what versions of Liberalism and Conservatism you intended, I used what the terms mean to me.

Doesn't matter -- Chris Matthews would have cut you off at "Which defi..." and that would have been it. That's the point.

Sorry, that doesn't work. Debbie tried to spin to the difference between Dems and the GOP - and that is why she kept getting cut off.

You must not have ever watched Chris Matthews. NOBODY gets to finish a sentence. About anything.

 

[g5000]

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?

These are idiotic questions which only demonstrate the depths of your ignorance. It's like saying regulation of private businesses in the US means we are not a capitalist nation.

The goal of socialism is the obsolescence of private property. That socialist leaning countries have not successfully achieved these goals does not change what the goal is. This is a simple fact you can try to deny all you like, but your denials cannot change the truth.

Our Federal Government is the biggest property owner.

And it has its hands on the biggest levers of our economy. Grossly unsatisfactory.

 

[peach174]

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.

Now that I can agree with.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

If you Khmer Rouge democrats ever gain sufficient power, we will. You dream of the gulag and the whip on the back of the enemies of the party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is public education socialist?

Yes.

Duh!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, dipshit:

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?

Absolutely, that's why 80% of NYC School student can't read at grade level

You think poor kids would read better if there was no affordable school system for them?

How would that work?

 

[peach174]

I answered upon reading the post. So, too bad.

No you didn't. All you could do was to ask for a definition of the question, and even that exceeds the allotted Chris Matthews spittle time. That's the point. It can't be answered in that context.

It's like saying, "we've only got ten seconds before commercial but before we go, what's the meaning of life?"

Trouble with reading comprehension? I provided a comparison of Classical Liberalism and Burkian Conservatism. As you neglected to define what versions of Liberalism and Conservatism you intended, I used what the terms mean to me.

Doesn't matter -- Chris Matthews would have cut you off at "Which defi..." and that would have been it. That's the point.

Sorry, that doesn't work. Debbie tried to spin to the difference between Dems and the GOP - and that is why she kept getting cut off.

You must not have ever watched Chris Matthews. NOBODY gets to finish a sentence. About anything.

He does when they deflect on the subject.