Why Do Democrats Want the Poor to Starve Just to Make It Easy for Illegals to Enter?

[danielpalos]

Socialism just means good democratic government at this point. Faire capitalism with good benefits and a good safety net. Most countries in Europe have parties called socialist that are like that. Social Democrats are the same.zzzzzzzz. Except in GOP dupe world.

Communist, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, and as practiced in the past, AND as advocated by Communists TODAY is a stateless society in which there is no currency and no government, NONE of the things which you claim are Communist are actually communist, they are the PROPERLY applied Socialism, by definition, and by the actual components of the word. Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, which all or most of the Nations you're pointing to LACK. You also failed to provide an argument against statements regarding the Economic Calculation Problem which proves that Government programs do not work, so it's nice to know that you're actually aware of that colossal problem and just don't care.

Straight-up misusing the word Socialist doesn't change it's meaning, it only means that you're ignorant or dishonest. It's a failed attempt to normalize Socialism and pretend it works, while also distancing the Socialist movement from their clear frequent failures by conflating and changing different terms. The problem you're facing here is that none of the terms you're trying to conflate actually work.

I also find it hilarious you're calling me brainwashed considering the government and the state-controlled MSM are the ones advocating for Socialism, while I've taken a position separate from the GOP and Democrat platform. The amount of self-awareness you lack is incredible, you even failed to open your argument with anything but an adhom attack.

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University.

First, as I already detailed, definitions do not change in accordance with your preference on their usage, or the preference of the ruling class. Definitions are consistent, otherwise meanings are completely arbitrary and wouldn't matter. As I have already stated, the meaning of the word by its components are as I've already explained to you, and regardless of your feelings on the matter, it's the factual way to use it.

So, how many definitions, in how many dictionaries, do I have to go through before coming to your completely arbitrary, erroneous, and outright dishonest usage of the word? Is it backed by anything other than your politicians? Should we let all of the dictionaries know that your feelings actually dictate the meanings of words and that they should get with the program, since it's better to be wrong now, so that things suit your personal false narrative, or that of the authoritarians in the ruling class? Are the dictionaries not considered "everywhere", or are you just SAYING everywhere because only the opinions and narratives of the ruling class matter, and you actually have nothing to back up your claim other than "Non-socialist Finland's ruler said so"?

Secondly, capitalism is already "fair" because nobody is favored, anyone can succeed based on their own merits, decisions, and actions, government force is only used to make things 'un-fair', because regulations, regardless of intent, always hurt smaller, less-established business more, due to increasing the cost of production and distribution. The only "fair" capitalism is that which is entirely independent of government.

Thirdly, a "safety net" can be created by any individual using their own money, one isn't required to be created by the government, and even if it was, the economic calculation problem would prevent it from being effective or efficient, because the government has no method of measuring supply or demand curves, causing it to misallocate resources, creating artificial scarcity and rationing. I noticed that I've mentioned it several times, and you refuse to provide a counter-argument, so you either know I'm right and are being completely dishonest, or you're not reading my post because your only intent here is to spew your propaganda and adhom attacks.

Fourthly, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia article, because:

It says exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. I see you don't even read your own sources, otherwise you'd have some amount of self-awareness.

You keep calling me a "GOP dupe", yet GOP practices are completely consistent with your own wishes, since regardless of who the ruler is, they simply increase regulations in accordance with the government's desire for power. I'm an Anarchist, the GOP, Democrats, and government as a whole are far from being in agreement with me.

A representative Republic must be a form of socialism.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Communist, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, and as practiced in the past, AND as advocated by Communists TODAY is a stateless society in which there is no currency and no government, NONE of the things which you claim are Communist are actually communist, they are the PROPERLY applied Socialism, by definition, and by the actual components of the word. Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, which all or most of the Nations you're pointing to LACK. You also failed to provide an argument against statements regarding the Economic Calculation Problem which proves that Government programs do not work, so it's nice to know that you're actually aware of that colossal problem and just don't care.

Straight-up misusing the word Socialist doesn't change it's meaning, it only means that you're ignorant or dishonest. It's a failed attempt to normalize Socialism and pretend it works, while also distancing the Socialist movement from their clear frequent failures by conflating and changing different terms. The problem you're facing here is that none of the terms you're trying to conflate actually work.

I also find it hilarious you're calling me brainwashed considering the government and the state-controlled MSM are the ones advocating for Socialism, while I've taken a position separate from the GOP and Democrat platform. The amount of self-awareness you lack is incredible, you even failed to open your argument with anything but an adhom attack.

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University.

First, as I already detailed, definitions do not change in accordance with your preference on their usage, or the preference of the ruling class. Definitions are consistent, otherwise meanings are completely arbitrary and wouldn't matter. As I have already stated, the meaning of the word by its components are as I've already explained to you, and regardless of your feelings on the matter, it's the factual way to use it.

So, how many definitions, in how many dictionaries, do I have to go through before coming to your completely arbitrary, erroneous, and outright dishonest usage of the word? Is it backed by anything other than your politicians? Should we let all of the dictionaries know that your feelings actually dictate the meanings of words and that they should get with the program, since it's better to be wrong now, so that things suit your personal false narrative, or that of the authoritarians in the ruling class? Are the dictionaries not considered "everywhere", or are you just SAYING everywhere because only the opinions and narratives of the ruling class matter, and you actually have nothing to back up your claim other than "Non-socialist Finland's ruler said so"?

Secondly, capitalism is already "fair" because nobody is favored, anyone can succeed based on their own merits, decisions, and actions, government force is only used to make things 'un-fair', because regulations, regardless of intent, always hurt smaller, less-established business more, due to increasing the cost of production and distribution. The only "fair" capitalism is that which is entirely independent of government.

Thirdly, a "safety net" can be created by any individual using their own money, one isn't required to be created by the government, and even if it was, the economic calculation problem would prevent it from being effective or efficient, because the government has no method of measuring supply or demand curves, causing it to misallocate resources, creating artificial scarcity and rationing. I noticed that I've mentioned it several times, and you refuse to provide a counter-argument, so you either know I'm right and are being completely dishonest, or you're not reading my post because your only intent here is to spew your propaganda and adhom attacks.

Fourthly, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia article, because:

It says exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. I see you don't even read your own sources, otherwise you'd have some amount of self-awareness.

You keep calling me a "GOP dupe", yet GOP practices are completely consistent with your own wishes, since regardless of who the ruler is, they simply increase regulations in accordance with the government's desire for power. I'm an Anarchist, the GOP, Democrats, and government as a whole are far from being in agreement with me.

Yep, owned OR regulated by the community. Used to be owned, now regulated. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So, you're agreeing with me, then. Good, that makes it easier to once again point out that nearly all of the places you pointed to as citations for Socialism being practical were more economically free than the United states, and you've also just admitted that every single location I've cited as a failure fall under the definition, making them Socialist failures. I'd say good game, but you're so willfully ignorant that this is a hollow victory at best.

I also see that you didn't bother providing a counter argument to the vast majority of my points that I made through the entirety of this discussion that can be referred to as a debate when using the term incredibly loosely. Good to know that you're aware of how thoroughly beaten you are.

 

[Jitss617]

Those countries are communist, you brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur

Socialism just means good democratic government at this point. Faire capitalism with good benefits and a good safety net. Most countries in Europe have parties called socialist that are like that. Social Democrats are the same.zzzzzzzz. Except in GOP dupe world.

Communist, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, and as practiced in the past, AND as advocated by Communists TODAY is a stateless society in which there is no currency and no government, NONE of the things which you claim are Communist are actually communist, they are the PROPERLY applied Socialism, by definition, and by the actual components of the word. Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, which all or most of the Nations you're pointing to LACK. You also failed to provide an argument against statements regarding the Economic Calculation Problem which proves that Government programs do not work, so it's nice to know that you're actually aware of that colossal problem and just don't care.

Straight-up misusing the word Socialist doesn't change it's meaning, it only means that you're ignorant or dishonest. It's a failed attempt to normalize Socialism and pretend it works, while also distancing the Socialist movement from their clear frequent failures by conflating and changing different terms. The problem you're facing here is that none of the terms you're trying to conflate actually work.

I also find it hilarious you're calling me brainwashed considering the government and the state-controlled MSM are the ones advocating for Socialism, while I've taken a position separate from the GOP and Democrat platform. The amount of self-awareness you lack is incredible, you even failed to open your argument with anything but an adhom attack.

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

 

[Hossfly]

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University.

First, as I already detailed, definitions do not change in accordance with your preference on their usage, or the preference of the ruling class. Definitions are consistent, otherwise meanings are completely arbitrary and wouldn't matter. As I have already stated, the meaning of the word by its components are as I've already explained to you, and regardless of your feelings on the matter, it's the factual way to use it.

So, how many definitions, in how many dictionaries, do I have to go through before coming to your completely arbitrary, erroneous, and outright dishonest usage of the word? Is it backed by anything other than your politicians? Should we let all of the dictionaries know that your feelings actually dictate the meanings of words and that they should get with the program, since it's better to be wrong now, so that things suit your personal false narrative, or that of the authoritarians in the ruling class? Are the dictionaries not considered "everywhere", or are you just SAYING everywhere because only the opinions and narratives of the ruling class matter, and you actually have nothing to back up your claim other than "Non-socialist Finland's ruler said so"?

Secondly, capitalism is already "fair" because nobody is favored, anyone can succeed based on their own merits, decisions, and actions, government force is only used to make things 'un-fair', because regulations, regardless of intent, always hurt smaller, less-established business more, due to increasing the cost of production and distribution. The only "fair" capitalism is that which is entirely independent of government.

Thirdly, a "safety net" can be created by any individual using their own money, one isn't required to be created by the government, and even if it was, the economic calculation problem would prevent it from being effective or efficient, because the government has no method of measuring supply or demand curves, causing it to misallocate resources, creating artificial scarcity and rationing. I noticed that I've mentioned it several times, and you refuse to provide a counter-argument, so you either know I'm right and are being completely dishonest, or you're not reading my post because your only intent here is to spew your propaganda and adhom attacks.

Fourthly, you clearly didn't read the Wikipedia article, because:

It says exactly what I've been trying to explain to you. I see you don't even read your own sources, otherwise you'd have some amount of self-awareness.

You keep calling me a "GOP dupe", yet GOP practices are completely consistent with your own wishes, since regardless of who the ruler is, they simply increase regulations in accordance with the government's desire for power. I'm an Anarchist, the GOP, Democrats, and government as a whole are far from being in agreement with me.

Yep, owned OR regulated by the community. Used to be owned, now regulated. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So, you're agreeing with me, then. Good, that makes it easier to once again point out that nearly all of the places you pointed to as citations for Socialism being practical were more economically free than the United states, and you've also just admitted that every single location I've cited as a failure fall under the definition, making them Socialist failures. I'd say good game, but you're so willfully ignorant that this is a hollow victory at best.

I also see that you didn't bother providing a counter argument to the vast majority of my points that I made through the entirety of this discussion that can be referred to as a debate when using the term incredibly loosely. Good to know that you're aware of how thoroughly beaten you are.

Try not to rub salt into Franco's wounds. Use turpentine instead.

 

[skye]

these two should be in jail

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism just means good democratic government at this point. Faire capitalism with good benefits and a good safety net. Most countries in Europe have parties called socialist that are like that. Social Democrats are the same.zzzzzzzz. Except in GOP dupe world.

Communist, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, and as practiced in the past, AND as advocated by Communists TODAY is a stateless society in which there is no currency and no government, NONE of the things which you claim are Communist are actually communist, they are the PROPERLY applied Socialism, by definition, and by the actual components of the word. Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, which all or most of the Nations you're pointing to LACK. You also failed to provide an argument against statements regarding the Economic Calculation Problem which proves that Government programs do not work, so it's nice to know that you're actually aware of that colossal problem and just don't care.

Straight-up misusing the word Socialist doesn't change it's meaning, it only means that you're ignorant or dishonest. It's a failed attempt to normalize Socialism and pretend it works, while also distancing the Socialist movement from their clear frequent failures by conflating and changing different terms. The problem you're facing here is that none of the terms you're trying to conflate actually work.

I also find it hilarious you're calling me brainwashed considering the government and the state-controlled MSM are the ones advocating for Socialism, while I've taken a position separate from the GOP and Democrat platform. The amount of self-awareness you lack is incredible, you even failed to open your argument with anything but an adhom attack.

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

 

[francoHFW]

these two should be in jail

Yep, who needs evidence or courtrooms when you have total BS propaganda and Hate?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Communist, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, and as practiced in the past, AND as advocated by Communists TODAY is a stateless society in which there is no currency and no government, NONE of the things which you claim are Communist are actually communist, they are the PROPERLY applied Socialism, by definition, and by the actual components of the word. Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, which all or most of the Nations you're pointing to LACK. You also failed to provide an argument against statements regarding the Economic Calculation Problem which proves that Government programs do not work, so it's nice to know that you're actually aware of that colossal problem and just don't care.

Straight-up misusing the word Socialist doesn't change it's meaning, it only means that you're ignorant or dishonest. It's a failed attempt to normalize Socialism and pretend it works, while also distancing the Socialist movement from their clear frequent failures by conflating and changing different terms. The problem you're facing here is that none of the terms you're trying to conflate actually work.

I also find it hilarious you're calling me brainwashed considering the government and the state-controlled MSM are the ones advocating for Socialism, while I've taken a position separate from the GOP and Democrat platform. The amount of self-awareness you lack is incredible, you even failed to open your argument with anything but an adhom attack.

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.

You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.

You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.

"Progressives" can't help but change definitions as they work to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA.

They've even flipped the meaning of conservative vs liberal.

In the days of this country's founding, the Statists were called "conservative" and those who opposed the God-king concept were liberals. The Founders were TRUE LIBERALS - the opposite of those who call themselves "liberal" today.

Throwing up PROOF will help the reader, but never expect a "liberal" to ever stop repeating the lie over and over. It is enough that those with open minds witnessed the beating he took.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Those countries are communist, you brainwashed functional moron Cold War dinosaur

Socialism just means good democratic government at this point. Faire capitalism with good benefits and a good safety net. Most countries in Europe have parties called socialist that are like that. Social Democrats are the same.zzzzzzzz. Except in GOP dupe world.

So how come ordinary poor people used to live in Boston in private housing, but today in mostly left wing democrat Boston the poor can’t afford the rent? And they are so uneducated they aren’t even protesting?

National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass. 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

So your just spout off with noting pertaining to what I asked ... the reason why they poor can’t afford rent is because of building codes Democrats have implemented in poor Democrat towns.. they have destroyed education to the extent they the voters are to stupid to protest the Jim crows laws they have implemented...

beside Obamacare, Democrats have basically passed nothing since LBJ, dunce. Only time they've had 60 votes.National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass.

All our problems come from 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism just means good democratic government at this point. Faire capitalism with good benefits and a good safety net. Most countries in Europe have parties called socialist that are like that. Social Democrats are the same.zzzzzzzz. Except in GOP dupe world.

So how come ordinary poor people used to live in Boston in private housing, but today in mostly left wing democrat Boston the poor can’t afford the rent? And they are so uneducated they aren’t even protesting?

National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass. 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

So your just spout off with noting pertaining to what I asked ... the reason why they poor can’t afford rent is because of building codes Democrats have implemented in poor Democrat towns.. they have destroyed education to the extent they the voters are to stupid to protest the Jim crows laws they have implemented...

beside Obamacare, Democrats have basically passed nothing since LBJ, dunce. Only time they've had 60 votes.National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass.

All our problems come from 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

 

[Damaged Eagle]

So how come ordinary poor people used to live in Boston in private housing, but today in mostly left wing democrat Boston the poor can’t afford the rent? And they are so uneducated they aren’t even protesting?

National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass. 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

So your just spout off with noting pertaining to what I asked ... the reason why they poor can’t afford rent is because of building codes Democrats have implemented in poor Democrat towns.. they have destroyed education to the extent they the voters are to stupid to protest the Jim crows laws they have implemented...

beside Obamacare, Democrats have basically passed nothing since LBJ, dunce. Only time they've had 60 votes.National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass.

All our problems come from 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

A 3.8% tax on profits that went up by at least 300% for those invested in the industry while those not invested, namely the middle class, are paying the toll. Wow!!! That really hurt the rich.

*****SMILE*****

 

[francoHFW]

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.

You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.

Maybe you should catch up to reality in the world these days. Socialism is defined as a government that owns or regulates business and industry. That used to be own but now means regulated. Ask any socialist and... I never said you were right and I was wrong d******. I have a masters in history and you read an article once lol...

 

[francoHFW]

National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass. 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

So your just spout off with noting pertaining to what I asked ... the reason why they poor can’t afford rent is because of building codes Democrats have implemented in poor Democrat towns.. they have destroyed education to the extent they the voters are to stupid to protest the Jim crows laws they have implemented...

beside Obamacare, Democrats have basically passed nothing since LBJ, dunce. Only time they've had 60 votes.National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass.

All our problems come from 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

A 3.8% tax on profits that went up by at least 300% for those invested in the industry while those not invested, namely the middle class, are paying the toll. Wow!!! That really hurt the rich.

*****SMILE*****

Well it is the GOP very capitalist plan, so it's not surprising. Those people invested in big health and big Pharma are now getting used to being regulated and having their profits limited, and there will be more regulation as time goes on. It will be tinkered with forever. Until single-payer...

 

[francoHFW]

National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass. 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

So your just spout off with noting pertaining to what I asked ... the reason why they poor can’t afford rent is because of building codes Democrats have implemented in poor Democrat towns.. they have destroyed education to the extent they the voters are to stupid to protest the Jim crows laws they have implemented...

beside Obamacare, Democrats have basically passed nothing since LBJ, dunce. Only time they've had 60 votes.National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass.

All our problems come from 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

A 3.8% tax on profits that went up by at least 300% for those invested in the industry while those not invested, namely the middle class, are paying the toll. Wow!!! That really hurt the rich.

*****SMILE*****

and you're wrong of course.
Obamacare imposed two taxes on the well-to-do to help pay for the expansion of health coverage to millions of low- and moderate-income Americans. It levied a 3.8% tax on investment income and a 0.9% Medicare payroll tax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples who file jointly.Jul 13, 2017
Senate GOP keeps Obamacare taxes on the rich - Business - CNN.com

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.

You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.

Maybe you should catch up to reality in the world these days. Socialism is defined as a government that owns or regulates business and industry. That used to be own but now means regulated.

As I said before, it's always the same, otherwise it's arbitrary and therefor has no meaning, and by extension language would have no meaning, which keeps it consistent. Your 'argument' is that because one or two of the screenshots I took had that tacked on, and you picked it out of the group, you therefor agree with it. Different websites choosing to keep it or remove it doesn't change the definition of the word, otherwise, again, it's arbitrary.

Ask any socialist

Yes, ask anyone whose narrative it suits, and they'll tell me that definitions change according to who you ask, how consistent.

You see, everything has to be consistent and non-contradictory, otherwise it's meaningless to argue about any of it. For example, anyone could conclude right now that everything you say is meaningless because in your last post, you just went from "It's now just fair capitalism" to "Yeah, now it's REGULATED" because you couldn't find anything to fit your erroneous claim. Similarly, ethics can't change from location to location based on the will of some ruler because that would make ethics arbitrary, and ethics would become meaningless, and that would allow someone to justify the holocaust.

Politicians tend to use words incorrectly because parrots like you will repeat it. For example, Dark Angel earlier mentioned that Liberal used to be those who opposed the State while Conservative was the statists. Then, in the 1930s, it was used to describe those who were Socialists, and therefor wanted the government to own the means of production. The misuse and conflation of words is just another method for people to make discourse into a confusing and meaningless mess.

All of that said, no, the definition did not change simply because a guy in Finland, and yes he is just a guy, misused the word, and one or two websites said "Or regulated". regardless of which you used, your usage was incorrect, because as I explained, definitions do not change, otherwise they are entirely meaningless.

and... I never said you were right and I was wrong d******. I have a masters in history and you read an article once lol...

You don't have to say I was right, the fact that you agreed with me and ignored the vast majority of my arguments while making no counterpoints whatsoever, and using no citations, shows that I'm right.

Given your exhibited comprehension level, I highly doubt you have a Masters in anything, however whether you do or not doesn't matter, because claiming some level of education is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if, hypothetically, you had the credentials that you claim, simply having those credentials isn't an argument and doesn't automatically make you right.

 

[francoHFW]

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.

You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.

Maybe you should catch up to reality in the world these days. Socialism is defined as a government that owns or regulates business and industry. That used to be own but now means regulated.

As I said before, it's always the same, otherwise it's arbitrary and therefor has no meaning, and by extension language would have no meaning, which keeps it consistent. Your 'argument' is that because one or two of the screenshots I took had that tacked on, and you picked it out of the group, you therefor agree with it. Different websites choosing to keep it or remove it doesn't change the definition of the word, otherwise, again, it's arbitrary.

Ask any socialist

Yes, ask anyone whose narrative it suits, and they'll tell me that definitions change according to who you ask, how consistent.

You see, everything has to be consistent and non-contradictory, otherwise it's meaningless to argue about any of it. For example, anyone could conclude right now that everything you say is meaningless because in your last post, you just went from "It's now just fair capitalism" to "Yeah, now it's REGULATED" because you couldn't find anything to fit your erroneous claim. Similarly, ethics can't change from location to location based on the will of some ruler because that would make ethics arbitrary, and ethics would become meaningless, and that would allow someone to justify the holocaust.

Politicians tend to use words incorrectly because parrots like you will repeat it. For example, Dark Angel earlier mentioned that Liberal used to be those who opposed the State while Conservative was the statists. Then, in the 1930s, it was used to describe those who were Socialists, and therefor wanted the government to own the means of production. The misuse and conflation of words is just another method for people to make discourse into a confusing and meaningless mess.

All of that said, no, the definition did not change simply because a guy in Finland, and yes he is just a guy, misused the word, and one or two websites said "Or regulated". regardless of which you used, your usage was incorrect, because as I explained, definitions do not change, otherwise they are entirely meaningless.

and... I never said you were right and I was wrong d******. I have a masters in history and you read an article once lol...

You don't have to say I was right, the fact that you agreed with me and ignored the vast majority of my arguments while making no counterpoints whatsoever, and using no citations, shows that I'm right.

Given your exhibited comprehension level, I highly doubt you have a Masters in anything, however whether you do or not doesn't matter, because claiming some level of education is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if, hypothetically, you had the credentials that you claim, simply having those credentials isn't an argument and doesn't automatically make you right.

You are a great typing but you are absolutely idiotic. Of course definitions change idiot.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

You conceded that I'm correct, then proceeded to repeat the same rehashed dishonest garbage to someone else. So, you're not just ignorant, you're a dishonest, lowdown, lying snake. Nobody should bother having discourse with you, since you're intentionally repeating things that you know to be false.

You ignore what you don't want to acknowledge, make no arguments to support your points, and simply repeat yourself to others when you've lost. You don't care about honesty, you don't care about discussion, and you don't care about facts. Definitions don't change according to your feelings or they would be arbitrary, and apparently neither does your disgusting dishonesty and disposition as a propaganda-spreading parrot of the ruling class. Go back to polishing your master's jack-boots, you filthy animal.

Maybe you should catch up to reality in the world these days. Socialism is defined as a government that owns or regulates business and industry. That used to be own but now means regulated.

As I said before, it's always the same, otherwise it's arbitrary and therefor has no meaning, and by extension language would have no meaning, which keeps it consistent. Your 'argument' is that because one or two of the screenshots I took had that tacked on, and you picked it out of the group, you therefor agree with it. Different websites choosing to keep it or remove it doesn't change the definition of the word, otherwise, again, it's arbitrary.

Ask any socialist

Yes, ask anyone whose narrative it suits, and they'll tell me that definitions change according to who you ask, how consistent.

You see, everything has to be consistent and non-contradictory, otherwise it's meaningless to argue about any of it. For example, anyone could conclude right now that everything you say is meaningless because in your last post, you just went from "It's now just fair capitalism" to "Yeah, now it's REGULATED" because you couldn't find anything to fit your erroneous claim. Similarly, ethics can't change from location to location based on the will of some ruler because that would make ethics arbitrary, and ethics would become meaningless, and that would allow someone to justify the holocaust.

Politicians tend to use words incorrectly because parrots like you will repeat it. For example, Dark Angel earlier mentioned that Liberal used to be those who opposed the State while Conservative was the statists. Then, in the 1930s, it was used to describe those who were Socialists, and therefor wanted the government to own the means of production. The misuse and conflation of words is just another method for people to make discourse into a confusing and meaningless mess.

All of that said, no, the definition did not change simply because a guy in Finland, and yes he is just a guy, misused the word, and one or two websites said "Or regulated". regardless of which you used, your usage was incorrect, because as I explained, definitions do not change, otherwise they are entirely meaningless.

and... I never said you were right and I was wrong d******. I have a masters in history and you read an article once lol...

You don't have to say I was right, the fact that you agreed with me and ignored the vast majority of my arguments while making no counterpoints whatsoever, and using no citations, shows that I'm right.

Given your exhibited comprehension level, I highly doubt you have a Masters in anything, however whether you do or not doesn't matter, because claiming some level of education is just an appeal to authority fallacy. Even if, hypothetically, you had the credentials that you claim, simply having those credentials isn't an argument and doesn't automatically make you right.

You are a great typing but you are absolutely idiotic. Of course definitions change idiot.

That's not an argument, that's a statement and an adhom. In order to refute my argument, you need to make an argument that definitions do change, however, I already explained how that makes the meanings arbitrary and therefor meaningless, so you'd have to refute that as well. If you can't debate, you have no reason to be here.

 

[Jitss617]

Communist, as defined in the Communist Manifesto, and as practiced in the past, AND as advocated by Communists TODAY is a stateless society in which there is no currency and no government, NONE of the things which you claim are Communist are actually communist, they are the PROPERLY applied Socialism, by definition, and by the actual components of the word. Socialism is Social Control of the means of production, which all or most of the Nations you're pointing to LACK. You also failed to provide an argument against statements regarding the Economic Calculation Problem which proves that Government programs do not work, so it's nice to know that you're actually aware of that colossal problem and just don't care.

Straight-up misusing the word Socialist doesn't change it's meaning, it only means that you're ignorant or dishonest. It's a failed attempt to normalize Socialism and pretend it works, while also distancing the Socialist movement from their clear frequent failures by conflating and changing different terms. The problem you're facing here is that none of the terms you're trying to conflate actually work.

I also find it hilarious you're calling me brainwashed considering the government and the state-controlled MSM are the ones advocating for Socialism, while I've taken a position separate from the GOP and Democrat platform. The amount of self-awareness you lack is incredible, you even failed to open your argument with anything but an adhom attack.

I will go with the definition known by all the other rich countries in the world, not brainwashed provincial GOP dupe world, dupe. "Now we are all socialists!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

It doesn’t work veterans are begging to leave the VA for private care. All progressive towns are failing

 

[Jitss617]

So your just spout off with noting pertaining to what I asked ... the reason why they poor can’t afford rent is because of building codes Democrats have implemented in poor Democrat towns.. they have destroyed education to the extent they the voters are to stupid to protest the Jim crows laws they have implemented...

beside Obamacare, Democrats have basically passed nothing since LBJ, dunce. Only time they've had 60 votes.National GOP giveaway to the rich policy, dumbass.

All our problems come from 35 years of ruining the non-rich and the country, all to save the rich from paying their fair share. Democrat cities and states are not immune of course...

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

A 3.8% tax on profits that went up by at least 300% for those invested in the industry while those not invested, namely the middle class, are paying the toll. Wow!!! That really hurt the rich.

*****SMILE*****

Well it is the GOP very capitalist plan, so it's not surprising. Those people invested in big health and big Pharma are now getting used to being regulated and having their profits limited, and there will be more regulation as time goes on. It will be tinkered with forever. Until single-payer...

Why can’t everyone pay for health care