Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
TripItUp

Socialism and How it Can Destroy America

Recommended Posts

fear·mon·ger·ing

/ˈfirˌməNGəriNG/

noun

noun: fear-mongering

the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

"his campaign for re-election was based on fearmongering and deception"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

fear·mon·ger·ing

/ˈfirˌməNGəriNG/

noun

noun: fear-mongering

the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue.

"his campaign for re-election was based on fearmongering and deception"

de·cep·tion | \ di-ˈsep-shən  \

Definition of deception

1a: the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid : the act of deceivingresorting to falsehood and deceptionused deception to leak the classified information

b: the fact or condition of being deceivedthe deception of his audience

2: something that deceives : TRICKfooled by a scam artist's clever deception

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

What’s deplorable is Jim Jones comparisons. 

Jim Jones comparison? Is that how you read that? I used Jim Jones in an analogous manner, such as, Jim Jones is a cult leader that had followers that would abide by every word of his. He would be in awe of the following that Trump has and the amount of people that blindly follow Trump's words. To compare Jim Jones to Trump would be to list examples of their similarities and differences. I did no such thing nor did I attempt to compare either. So, try again.

 

47 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, the problem with you Socialists is you want people to think that "Democratic Socialism" is not Socialism.  It is.  Not only is "Socialism" in the word itself, the fact that the word "Democratic" is in front of it is only a smoke screen to try and trick people into thinking it's something other than, y'know, Socialism.  The Jim Jones analogy is great - because it really applies to you guys trying to sell this.  All you need is for it to get a foothold here and then you can remove the word "Democratic" and drop all pretenses.  We know the game.

We've seen the devastation Socialism brings to countries, including the insanely high body counts.  No thanks.  You can try to throw up distractions and pooh-pooh all you like, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck - it's a duck.  I'd rather you move to your favorite "Democratic" Socialist country of your choice (good luck finding one) instead of trying import that crap here.  NOTE:  California is NOT a country.  :)

You got an appropriate heckler's veto on your post.  ;)

The last few years FOX news and others have attempted to paint the word "Socialist" to also mean "Democrat". Those two words do not mean the same thing so to imply that I am a Socialist, well, your implication is incorrect. To then elicit what you do with the whole Democratic Socialist mantra is, well, what Republicans have been painting for awhile now. You, and others, may be to far gone to realize how bad changing the meaning of words has been done by the people you listen to.

People like AOC see the policies of America for the reality that she and others see it. The recent/current policies tax the working class more than the rich. Those tax dollars are then given to the rich and not used for the working class. Progressives like AOC simply want tax dollars to be used for services that will allow the working class to live healthy, well educated, free, lives, and not witness the disparity between the working class and rich grow wider. Who would have ever thought that using tax dollars, not on the rich, but to provide for the people who pay the tax dollars would be a bad thing? Who would have thought thinking of the future, instead of only today, would be a bad thing? That is how Republicans have and will continue to govern, it seems.

Like about 100 years ago, there needs to be a new Progressive movement where the taxes paid are used for the tax payers. Get on board because actions/statements by individuals like yourself seem to be okay with disparities in our country, homelessness in our country, illness in our country, and bailouts of rich people who would rather see you die young then live a healthy life. Jim Jones would be in awe at your, and others, blind loyalty to your desire to live a shorter, unhealthier life than what should be available to us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Does this include calling other posters "Jim Jones" like cultists?  I would love to see you admonish those posters as well in another post.

Can we count on your even-handedness?

Reread please. No one called anyone a "Jim Jones like cultist." Jim Jones would be in awe though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Jim Jones comparison? Is that how you read that? I used Jim Jones in an analogous manner, such as, Jim Jones is a cult leader that had followers that would abide by every word of his. He would be in awe of the following that Trump has and the amount of people that blindly follow Trump's words. To compare Jim Jones to Trump would be to list examples of their similarities and differences. I did no such thing nor did I attempt to compare either. So, try again.

 

The last few years FOX news and others have attempted to paint the word "Socialist" to also mean "Democrat". Those two words do not mean the same thing so to imply that I am a Socialist, well, your implication is incorrect. To then elicit what you do with the whole Democratic Socialist mantra is, well, what Republicans have been painting for awhile now. You, and others, may be to far gone to realize how bad changing the meaning of words has been done by the people you listen to.

People like AOC see the policies of America for the reality that she and others see it. The recent/current policies tax the working class more than the rich. Those tax dollars are then given to the rich and not used for the working class. Progressives like AOC simply want tax dollars to be used for services that will allow the working class to live healthy, well educated, free, lives, and not witness the disparity between the working class and rich grow wider. Who would have ever thought that using tax dollars, not on the rich, but to provide for the people who pay the tax dollars would be a bad thing? Who would have thought thinking of the future, instead of only today, would be a bad thing? That is how Republicans have and will continue to govern, it seems.

Like about 100 years ago, there needs to be a new Progressive movement where the taxes paid are used for the tax payers. Get on board because actions/statements by individuals like yourself seem to be okay with disparities in our country, homelessness in our country, illness in our country, and bailouts of rich people who would rather see you die young then live a healthy life. Jim Jones would be in awe at your, and others, blind loyalty to your desire to live a shorter, unhealthier life than what should be available to us.

Yeah, sorry, but that sounds exactly what Socialism "talks" about, but the reality is very much poverty, imprisonment and death on a monumental scale.  If you aren't in the top 1% of the Party, then you're on the outside looking in.  You keep trying make these arguments that somehow your version is different, but it's not.  You sound exactly like the same guys who tried to sell this 100 years ago.

I don't need to listen to anyone about Socialism.  All I have to do is look at history and see the results.  History isn't on your side.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Jim Jones comparison? Is that how you read that? I used Jim Jones in an analogous manner, such as, Jim Jones is a cult leader that had followers that would abide by every word of his. He would be in awe of the following that Trump has and the amount of people that blindly follow Trump's words. To compare Jim Jones to Trump would be to list examples of their similarities and differences. I did no such thing nor did I attempt to compare either. So, try again.

 

The last few years FOX news and others have attempted to paint the word "Socialist" to also mean "Democrat". Those two words do not mean the same thing so to imply that I am a Socialist, well, your implication is incorrect. To then elicit what you do with the whole Democratic Socialist mantra is, well, what Republicans have been painting for awhile now. You, and others, may be to far gone to realize how bad changing the meaning of words has been done by the people you listen to.

People like AOC see the policies of America for the reality that she and others see it. The recent/current policies tax the working class more than the rich. Those tax dollars are then given to the rich and not used for the working class. Progressives like AOC simply want tax dollars to be used for services that will allow the working class to live healthy, well educated, free, lives, and not witness the disparity between the working class and rich grow wider. Who would have ever thought that using tax dollars, not on the rich, but to provide for the people who pay the tax dollars would be a bad thing? Who would have thought thinking of the future, instead of only today, would be a bad thing? That is how Republicans have and will continue to govern, it seems.

Like about 100 years ago, there needs to be a new Progressive movement where the taxes paid are used for the tax payers. Get on board because actions/statements by individuals like yourself seem to be okay with disparities in our country, homelessness in our country, illness in our country, and bailouts of rich people who would rather see you die young then live a healthy life. Jim Jones would be in awe at your, and others, blind loyalty to your desire to live a shorter, unhealthier life than what should be available to us.

There is no need to even bring Jones up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

de·cep·tion | \ di-ˈsep-shən  \

Definition of deception

1a: the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid : the act of deceivingresorting to falsehood and deceptionused deception to leak the classified information

b: the fact or condition of being deceivedthe deception of his audience

2: something that deceives : TRICKfooled by a scam artist's clever deception

We could do this all day but I fear it would lead to suspensions.....   Regardless, the very fact that people are truly fearful that the US would ever actually be come a Socialist country shows how effective propaganda really is.  The way the use of executive powers are escalating since 9/11 we have an infinitely higher chance of becoming an Authoritarian State than anything else.  

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

We could do this all day but I fear it would Lead to suspensions.....   Regardless, the very fact that people are truly fearful that the US would ever actually be come a Socialist country show how effective propaganda really is.  The way the use of executive powers are escalating since 9/11 we have an infinitely higher chance of becoming an authoritarian state than anything else.  

I disagree.  You can't bring it up enough because those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.  You may call it "fear mongering", but I call it vigilance.  People who want to implement Socialism are banking on the fact that people will forget so they can try to sell them the same slick Socialist snake oil.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, sorry, but that sounds exactly what Socialism "talks" about, but in reality it's nothing but poverty, imprisonment and death on a monumental scale.  If you aren't in the top 1% of the Party, then you're on the outside looking in.  You keep trying make these arguments that somehow your version is different, but it's not.

I don't need to listen to anyone about Socialism, all I have to do is look at history and the results.  History isn't on your side.

Care to elaborate. Your statements are blanket statements with little to no meat behind them. I am not talking about Socialism at all. I'm attempting to describe what a Republic is.

"Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

I have not discussed changing the means of production in America, distribution of goods, or exchanges. Nor have I discussed how the community should regulate these things as a whole. That is what Socialism is and I have not heard Bernie or AOC discuss these things in a manner that they want to change these in America. Can we use the words and meanings of those words equally as we have agreed to what those words mean? Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I disagree.  You can't bring it up enough because those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.  You may call it "fear mongering", but I call it vigilance.  People who want to implement Socialism are banking on the fact that people will forget so they can try to sell them the same slick Socialist snake oil.

That is the thing here. No one is talking about implementing Socialist policies so the distortion of the meanings of words is happening and has been happening... from FOX news and many Republicans. Use the words with their meanings correctly, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, John Blutarsky said:

There is no need to even bring Jones up.

You are distorting the meaning of why Jim Jones was used. Again, a cult leader, Jim Jones, would be in awe of the following that Trump has. The, apparent, fact you are bothered by the use of the word/name Jim Jones is confusing to me but whatever. Why does his name bother you? Sit on the couch and tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I disagree.  You can't bring it up enough because those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it.  You may call it "fear mongering", but I call it vigilance.  People who want to implement Socialism are banking on the fact that people will forget so they can try to sell them the same slick Socialist snake oil.

Imo your post does nothing but prove my point about fear and propaganda.....

But how about we just agree to disagree and enjoy this great weekend of football?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

That is the thing here. No one is talking about implementing Socialist policies so the distortion of the meanings of words is happening and has been happening... from FOX news and many Republicans. Use the words with their meanings correctly, thank you.

Yet you all are supporting Socialist candidates.  What in god's name do you think their goal is?  Capitalism? 

You may think you have the meaning down, but you don't. If you think Socialism is owned by the "community" you're sadly mistaken, IMO.  Even if that were the case, you really think Socialist candidates would stop there?   C'mon, man.  You know better than that.

There is propaganda happening here, but it's not those who view Socialism as bad.  It's those who have bought into the propaganda hook, line and sinker that Socialism is something other than the Socialism tried (and failed) every where in the world and throughout history.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dkp993 said:

Imo your post does nothing but prove my point about fear and propaganda.....

But how about we just agree to disagree and enjoy this great weekend of football?   

And your post proves mine about deception.  I will agree with that we should just agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

Care to elaborate. Your statements are blanket statements with little to no meat behind them. I am not talking about Socialism at all. I'm attempting to describe what a Republic is.

"Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

I have not discussed changing the means of production in America, distribution of goods, or exchanges. Nor have I discussed how the community should regulate these things as a whole. That is what Socialism is and I have not heard Bernie or AOC discuss these things in a manner that they want to change these in America. Can we use the words and meanings of those words equally as we have agreed to what those words mean? Thank you.

This is absolutely an incorrect view of Socialism. My case:  Russia, China, ,Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea - all Socialist or Socialist-like countries currently or at one point in history.  If you think Socialism isn't a stepping stone to communism, then you haven't heard of Karl Marx or Lenin.

The fact that you're glossing over all of this into some Utopian version of Socialism that only you, Bernie or AOC could implement is scary.  To be frank, it's the height of arrogance to think your version is better and that you could do it better than the aforementioned socialists.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Russia, China, ,Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea - all Socialist or Socialist-like countries currently or at one point in history.  If you think Socialism isn't a stepping stone to communism, then you haven't heard of Karl Marx or Lenin.

I'm interested in this subject, I just thought I'd consider your examples, these were the prior systems in place before communism:

  • Russia - prior system, authoritarian monarchy.
  • China - authoritarian military-capitalist.
  • Cuba - democracy, arguably a kleptocracy.
  • Venezuela - democracy.
  • Cambodia - authoritarian monarchy (Prince Sihabouk).
  • North Korea - authoritarian monarchy (pre-WW1, the monarchy, maybe the oldest in the world, was overrun by the Japanese invasion, post war was invaded by the Soviets, there was no intervening system).
Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

This is absolutely an incorrect view of Socialism. My case:  Russia, China, ,Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea - all Socialist or Socialist-like countries currently or at one point in history.  If you think Socialism isn't a stepping stone to communism, then you haven't heard of Karl Marx or Lenin.

The fact that you're glossing over all of this into some Utopian version of Socialism that only you, Bernie or AOC could implement is scary.  To be frank, it's the height of arrogance to think your version is better and that you could do it better than the aforementioned socialists.

I quoted you the definition of Socialism. It's Wikipedia but a Socialist State is maybe the definition you are looking for.

AOC and Bernie use the Nordic countries model, I guess. Those countries are Capitalist with Social programs that they'd like to adopt here. Again, like my previous posts, let us use the language and correct comparisons to have a valid discussion. The only people shouting on tv/radio about Socialism and Venezuela are, like previously posted, fear-mongering people that do not want to have a genuine discussion. Please, stop listening to these people as they are not your friends nor are they looking out for the country they say they are looking out for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

This is absolutely an incorrect view of Socialism. My case:  Russia, China, ,Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea - all Socialist or Socialist-like countries currently or at one point in history.  If you think Socialism isn't a stepping stone to communism, then you haven't heard of Karl Marx or Lenin.

The fact that you're glossing over all of this into some Utopian version of Socialism that only you, Bernie or AOC could implement is scary.  To be frank, it's the height of arrogance to think your version is better and that you could do it better than the aforementioned socialists.

Would you like to address first world nations with strong economies, or just cherry pick dictatorships and pretend it's socialism?  Plenty of success stories of countries having great success with socialist countries.  Plenty of horror stories from countries whose leaders steal from their people.  Care to address both groups, or are you always going to talk about Venezuela?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zigg said:

Would you like to address first world nations with strong economies, or just cherry pick dictatorships and pretend it's socialism?  Plenty of success stories of countries having great success with socialist countries.  Plenty of horror stories from countries whose leaders steal from their people.  Care to address both groups, or are you always going to talk about Venezuela?  

Well, I brought up more than just Venezuela.  I cited at least SIX. Maybe you didn't finish reading my post?  Perhaps you could point out which "first world nations with strong economies" that are currently Socialist?  You brought it up but failed to mention ANY countries.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TripItUp said:

what?  Pocahontas?  Is that a known no no?  

Yes. Please don't use that here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mario Kart said:

I quoted you the definition of Socialism. It's Wikipedia but a Socialist State is maybe the definition you are looking for.

AOC and Bernie use the Nordic countries model, I guess. Those countries are Capitalist with Social programs that they'd like to adopt here. Again, like my previous posts, let us use the language and correct comparisons to have a valid discussion. The only people shouting on tv/radio about Socialism and Venezuela are, like previously posted, fear-mongering people that do not want to have a genuine discussion. Please, stop listening to these people as they are not your friends nor are they looking out for the country they say they are looking out for.

The problem is you support AOC, a self-described Socialist who gave her endorsement to another self-described Socialist.  :shrug:

Yet you're saying they don't want Socialism.  I don't get it.  Neither of those two want Capitalism in the least.  Bernie is on countless videos from his past visiting Socialist countries describing their glories, yet you're trying to fool us into thinking that now, suddenly, he doesn't want it but only Socialist programs.  Do you think you'll be able to fool people into this?  Your views on Socialism Socialist Programs are wrong, IMO, or at the least extremely misled.

Besides, Bernie is 175 years old - he's ain't changing his views for anyone.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

Yes. Please don't use that here. 

sure thing...didn't know it was a rule, but makes sense and understand the reasoning.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Well, I brought up more than just Venezuela.  I cited at least SIX. Maybe you didn't finish reading my post?  Perhaps you could point out which "first world nations with strong economies" that are currently Socialist?  You brought it up but failed to mention ANY countries.

Quick Google search, top listing.

Some of the highlighted countries in the picture are pretty damn good. Oddly enough, one of those countries is one that someone wants to buy. Also, oddly enough, of the SIX you listed, only ONE of them is considered to fall under the guise of "Democratic Socialist." So, either you have the definition of what you are talking about incorrect, or the people you are listening to are misinforming you of the information they are presenting. You choose.

Capitalist countries from the same webpage.

Oddly enough, most of the countries in the first map overlap in the second map. So, again, the two can co-exist in one country to the benefit of all within that country. On the flip side, the Capitalist map further does show, if one knows of the other countries, that inequality also exists within Capitalist countries. So, again, either you are being misinformed by the people you listen to, or you are choosing to not use the proper definitions of the words of which we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TripItUp said:

Pocahontas

Let's leave Warren out of this and keep it straight.

This is what I don't understand, here is your thread title:

Quote

Socialism and How it Can Destroy America

Pocahontas - for anyone who cares about American history and its heritage - is an American heroine. She is credited with being a key ally and savior for the first settlers. Her story is a key foundation for the colonial story. And yet Trump specifically, and some who support him, so easily denigrate this early, important American hero. I cannot think of anything more damaging to America as a democratic nation than this kind of gradual breakdown of our key principles and heroes. From McCain to Khan to grabbing the flag like Jerry Lewis I find it complete anathema to preserving our great nation and everything it stands for. It's hard to imagine any socialist, of the sort you describe in this thread, being any more disrespectful to our history. - Just saying my piece. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

The problem is you support AOC, a self-described Socialist who gave her endorsement to another self-described Socialist.  :shrug:

Yet you're saying they don't want Socialism.  I don't get it.  Neither of those two want Capitalism in the least.  Bernie is on countless videos from his past visiting Socialist countries describing their glories, yet you're trying to fool us into thinking that now, suddenly, he doesn't want it but only Socialist programs.  Do you think you'll be able to fool people into this?  Your views on Socialism Socialist Programs are wrong, IMO, or at the least extremely misled.

Besides, Bernie is 175 years old - he's ain't changing his views for anyone.

You realize we are not an Authoritarian State yet right?  We have these little things called Congress, the Supreme Court, POTUS term limits and oh yeah this thing called the Constitution.  Even if Bernie or the like get elected (won’t happen) we wouldn’t become what you fear.  That’s why it’s just propaganda.  The worst case for the socialist fearing crew is a few expensive programs you don’t agree with.  

For clarity sake I’m not a Bernie, Sanders or AOC supporter, I’m pretty center to right leaning in my economic beliefs.  The fear mongering from both sides needs to stop, level heads must prevail. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Let's leave Warren out of this and keep it straight.

This is what I don't understand, here is your thread title:

Pocahontas - for anyone who cares about American history and its heritage - is an American heroine. She is credited with being a key ally and savior for the first settlers. Her story is a key foundation for the colonial story. And yet Trump specifically, and some who support him, so easily denigrate this early, important American hero. I cannot think of anything more damaging to America as a democratic nation than this kind of gradual breakdown of our key principles and heroes. From McCain to Khan to grabbing the flag like Jerry Lewis I find it complete anathema to preserving our great nation and everything it stands for. It's hard to imagine any socialist, of the sort you describe in this thread, being any less disrespectful to our history. - Just saying my piece. 

You obviously meant more here.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

You realize we are not an Authoritarian State yet right?  We have these little things called Congress, the Supreme Court, POTUS term limits and oh yeah this thing called the Constitution.  Even if Bernie or the like get elected (won’t happen) we wouldn’t become what you fear.  That’s why it’s just propaganda.  The worst case for the socialist fearing crew is a few expensive programs you don’t agree with.  

For clarity sake I’m not a Bernie, Sanders or AOC supporter, I’m pretty center to right leaning in my economic beliefs.  The fear mongering from both sides needs to stop, level heads must prevail. 

Sure, fair enough.  I'm of the mindset that we shouldn't even give them the opportunity or chance to get in the door.  :thumbup:

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Sure, fair enough.  I'm of the mindset that we shouldn't even give them the opportunity or chance to get in the door.  :thumbup:

👍.  They’re not my choice either, but we’ve all got to stop with the rhetoric.  And yes that includes us in the Anti-Trump crowd. We all need to be working back toward the middle.  That’s where things get done and the parties start working together again.  

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, the problem with you Socialists is you want people to think that "Democratic Socialism" is not Socialism.  It is.  Not only is "Socialism" in the word itself, the fact that the word "Democratic" is in front of it is only a smoke screen to try and trick people into thinking it's something other than, y'know, Socialism.  The Jim Jones analogy is great - because it really applies to you guys trying to sell this.  All you need is for it to get a foothold here and then you can remove the word "Democratic" and drop all pretenses.  We know the game.

We've seen the devastation Socialism brings to countries, including the insanely high body counts.  No thanks.  You can try to throw up distractions and pooh-pooh all you like, but if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck - it's a duck.  I'd rather you move to your favorite "Democratic" Socialist country of your choice (good luck finding one) instead of trying import that crap here.  NOTE:  California is NOT a country.  :)

You got an appropriate heckler's veto on your post.  ;)

You don't see a significant difference between federally run schools and state/city/county run schools?  Or a difference in having a federal police force vs a city/county police force?  I do...a rather large one.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dkp993 said:

👍.  They’re not my choice either, but we’ve all got to stop with the rhetoric.  And yes that includes us in the Anti-Trump crowd. We all need to be working back toward the middle.  That’s where things get done and the parties start working together again.  

I'm not even sure you can consider this "rhetoric".  It's trying to completely change the definition of words.  It happens in a lot of these threads, but this one seems to have some flat out dishonest premises being thrown about.  I'm willing to discuss with anyone at any time the socialistic programs we already have in this country and those that are being proposed, but a lot of the last page has been flat out dishonest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm not even sure you can consider this "rhetoric".  It's trying to completely change the definition of words.  It happens in a lot of these threads, but this one seems to have some flat out dishonest premises being thrown about.  I'm willing to discuss with anyone at any time the socialistic programs we already have in this country and those that are being proposed, but a lot of the last page has been flat out dishonest.

I disagree, respectfully.  I think everything has been spot on.

The dishonesty is not coming from people who are pointing out that, hey, this is socialism. The dishonesty is coming from people who are trying to pretend that it's not.

Socialism by any other name is still Socialism.

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I disagree, respectfully.  I think everything has been spot on.

The dishonesty is not coming from people who are pointing out that, hey, this is socialism. The dishonesty is coming from people who are trying to pretend that it's not.

Socialism by any other name is still Socialism.

"Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Please discuss honestly with the proper meanings of words and not some made up definition that you appear to have in your mind. @The Commish and others have attempted to have a genuine discussion tonight but have been met with flat out refusal to acknowledge simple facts of the matter. Please bring honest discussion to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mario Kart said:

"Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Please discuss honestly with the proper meanings of words and not some made up definition that you appear to have in your mind. @The Commish and others have attempted to have a genuine discussion tonight but have been met with flat out refusal to acknowledge simple facts of the matter. Please bring honest discussion to the table.

I am having an honest discussion. There is no such thing as something owned by "the community".  "The Community" IS the government. 

So you can stop gas lighting me about me not acknowledging facts and definition of words.  Thank you for your cooperation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

I am having an honest discussion. There is no such thing as something owned by "the community".  "The Community" IS the government.

So... if "The Community" is the government... and Socialism abides by The Community (which is The Government), and The Community owns and regulates things... wouldn't America be considered a Socialist Government then?

Otherwise, your post makes zero sense but good luck feeling gaslighted, I guess. I had to look that up, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, sorry, but that sounds exactly what Socialism "talks" about, but the reality is very much poverty, imprisonment and death on a monumental scale.  If you aren't in the top 1% of the Party, then you're on the outside looking in.  You keep trying make these arguments that somehow your version is different, but it's not.  You sound exactly like the same guys who tried to sell this 100 years ago.

I don't need to listen to anyone about Socialism.  All I have to do is look at history and see the results.  History isn't on your side.

Newsflash, this is where we are currently at.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mario Kart said:

So... if "The Community" is the government... and Socialism abides by The Community (which is The Government), and The Community owns and regulates things... wouldn't America be considered a Socialist Government then?

Uhm...no, it wouldn't because that is not where we are in America at all.  Huh?

How on Earth did you come to that conclusion?  Good grief!

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

Newsflash, this is where we are currently at.

No, it's not.  Not based on what we're talking about compared to Socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

No, it's not.  Not based on what we're talking about compared to Socialism.

It’s silly to think that we would all live under a murderous regime and stand in bread lines if we use our tax money to provide for people rather than give tax exemptions to corporations and an endless supply of funds for the military. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

It’s silly to think that we would all live under a murderous regime and stand in bread lines if we use our tax money to provide for people rather than give tax exemptions to corporations and an endless supply of funds for the military. 

I can think of another road that's paved with good intentions, too.  You think that's silly?  I previously listed a bunch of countries that all spouted the same rhetoric.

I mean, if the left already believes were fascist, why on earth could we not be the opposite?

Edited by BladeRunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I can think of another road that's paved with good intentions, too.  You think that's silly?  I previously listed a bunch of countries that all spouted the same rhetoric.

I mean, if the left already believes were fascist, why on earth could we not be the opposite?

Yes I think it’s silly to compare the US and those countries. No one is in favor of communism. No one will come tell you that you have to be a carpenter or a rocket scientist. We won’t start arbitrarily manufacturing goods, markets will still drive production, and there will still be private business, even if Bernie Sanders gets elected. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These days more often than not we end up discussing what "is" is. It seems the entire dictionary is getting new, vague meanings that conveniently fit into some narrative, but is diiferentt from the existing meaning and usually not internally consistent

Edited by msommer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

I disagree, respectfully.  I think everything has been spot on.

The dishonesty is not coming from people who are pointing out that, hey, this is socialism. The dishonesty is coming from people who are trying to pretend that it's not.

Socialism by any other name is still Socialism.

I'll ask the below of you once again then as those are real differences between actual Socialism and the versions you see in this country.  Our schools, police, fire stations, military etc are all things you oppose?

9 hours ago, The Commish said:

You don't see a significant difference between federally run schools and state/city/county run schools?  Or a difference in having a federal police force vs a city/county police force?  I do...a rather large one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

I previously listed a bunch of countries that all spouted the same rhetoric.

I love that you posted this because, as I pointed out before, only one of the six countries you believe to be Socialist is Socialist. You are either misinterpreting what a Socialist country is or are passing along the misinformation that you have been told previously. Please, again, refrain from the misinformation rhetoric. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

This is absolutely an incorrect view of Socialism. My case:  Russia, China, ,Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, North Korea - all Socialist or Socialist-like countries currently or at one point in history.  If you think Socialism isn't a stepping stone to communism, then you haven't heard of Karl Marx or Lenin.

 

I didn’t get around to reading this until just now but it’s 100% wrong, and is completely opposite of history. 

Not a single one of the countries you mentioned were socialist first and Communist later. There was no stepping stone- all of those countries, with the exception of Venezuela which really doesn’t quite fit with the others, became Communist instantly following bloody revolutions. Communism is not a political system that eventually creeps up on you: in the history of the world it has never been established without a violent takeover of the existing government. 

I’m no fan of socialism, or Democratic socialism, because I don’t believe these type of systems are inefficient and tend to stifle human ingenuity, creativity, individualism. I believe in capitalism. But your critique that it causes “dead bodies to flow” is just confused. Most of Western Europe is socialist or has been, particularly in Scandinavia. None of these countries ever “evolved” into Communism. It doesn’t happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BladeRunner‘s arguments are severely flawed, nonetheless they are a good example of the problems Democrats will face if we nominate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. The public is not educated on the differences between progressivism and Democratic socialism, or Democratic socialism and socialism, or socialism and communism. Republicans are sure to spend the months before the election conflating all of these, either with deliberate dishonesty or, as I believe in the case of BladeRunner, earnest but misguided conviction based on ideological historical revisionism. But the result will be the same: moving the discussion away from the ineptitude and embarrassment that is Donald Trump and towards a discussion of what socialism actually means. 

We simply don’t have time, in a few months, to educate the public about this. Too many of them will simply decide “better the Devil I know” and vote to re-elect Trump. That’s why for the Democrats to win, I think they need two avoid either Sanders or Warren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, timschochet said:

 

We simply don’t have time, in a few months, to educate the public about this. 

Too bad, try harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Too bad, try harder.

It can be done over time. But I don’t want to risk a second Trump term trying to squeeze it in before November. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It can be done over time. But I don’t want to risk a second Trump term trying to squeeze it in before November. 

Should have been doing it over the past three years slacker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TripItUp said:

what?  Pocahontas?  Is that a known no no?  Honest question.  Trump actually used the exact same reference in his global press conference on Thursday.

Is Trump your benchmark and role model on how to talk to/treat people?

Honest question.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.