Democratic Socialism

[MiskatonicGrad]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Apparently I have to explain elementary level civics to you that's as readily available as that of a simple Google search...

This is literally common knowledge that's not in the least bit debatable. Did they call themselves socialists? Yes. Was their political ideology in the least bit left-wing? Hell no.

Dude, you are a socialist when it comes to certain things, whether you want to admit that or not. I seriously doubt you're against having a military, or police force, or public school systems, or public parks, roads, bridges, infrastructure in general, etc. I mean for God sakes, this is not a black and white thing. It is a wide ass spectrum of various ideologies. Hitler employed socialist ideologies in certain aspects, just as republicans adore socialism when it applies to the military for example, but republicans today don't call it 'socialism' because of the negative connotation of the term that they placed on it. The Nazi party Germany had no problem calling the specific social programs that they implemented as socialist because they didn't have the same mentality that most republicans have today of SOCIALISM = BAD. Conservatives now just see anything as the least bit socialist as absolute evil incarnate. They're apparently too dumb or blind to realize that half the s**t they actually support is socialism to some extent.

You are literally missing the entire point of the statement you quoted me on. You can't even admit that Hitler and the Nazis were far right-wing. You just want to call anything that was ever bad in the history of the world EVER as 'socialist' or 'democratic' or 'left-wing', etc. MY TRIBE = GOOD, YOUR TRIBE = BAD. God you people are so childish...

Actually I am against the government doing the things you mention. Except the military which is the only thing the government was constitutionally obligated to do. Every other thing you mention could be and has been at one time in our short history been taken care of by private individuals. Toll roads were originally private corporations set up to build a road that was needed and was played for with the tools collected. For God's sake man you twisted view of history and human nature makes impossible for you to see the truth. Research free market society a little then come back and make some valid points.

[Space Commander Travis]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Dude, Hitler employed the German people with government jobs that's how he ended the depression in Germany, through government mandate.  He had them build roads, a city to hold the Olympics in, bunkers, machines of war, drugs/chemicals, he confiscated production facilities from private owners and put them to work for the benefit of the German citizenry.  All of these are social programs.  Socialism.  The nazis were democratically elected socialist's. 

Actually I think the private corporations, Daimler Benz, Junkers, Heinkel at el were very happy to bid for government contracts, I don't think they needed much coercion, since there was, obviously, a lot of money in it. No different from how American companies fiercely compete for Government contracts, and probably there was a similar level of lining of pockets from both the Ministries and the senior management. The Nazis never confiscated from private business (unless they were Jewish owned, of course). There was no state ownership of the means of production, on one hand that was an advantage, as it meant that there was strong competition for Government projects, but it also meant that there was an awful lot of wasted time and effort with big projects that cost a bomb but never produced anything like the numbers needed, particularly with tank and aircraft projects as the war went on.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

Actually I think the private corporations, Daimler Benz, Junkers, Heinkel at el were very happy to bid for government contracts, I don't think they needed much coercion, since there was, obviously, a lot of money in it. No different from how American companies fiercely compete for Government contracts, and probably there was a similar level of lining of pockets from both the Ministries and the senior management. The Nazis never confiscated from private business (unless they were Jewish owned, of course). There was no state ownership of the means of production, on one hand that was an advantage, as it meant that there was strong competition for Government projects, but it also meant that there was an awful lot of wasted time and effort with big projects that cost a bomb but never produced anything like the numbers needed, particularly with tank and aircraft projects as the war went on.

Yes, there was no state ownership of production, that would have made them communist, but the state did direct it.  Remember this little gem?  Who's idea was that?

 

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Not in certain aspects.  They were social democrats, just like what you are posting as superior in post one of this thread. 

That's just factually incorrect. Plain and simple.

I won't bother linking the source since I already did so.

I'm getting real sick and tired of 'debating' people on here over basic facts.

Might as well be arguing with someone over whether 2+2 truly does equal 4.

[+OverSword]

Just what aspect of the german nazi party wasn't socialistic?  Heathcare?  Nope, the nazi's had cradle to grave nationalized healthcare healthcare.  How about infrastructure?  We all know who built the autobahn.  how about welfare?  Welfare programs almost doubled under hitler.  You need to do some research.  The nazi party of germany ran a socialist government.  They also did some horrible evil things which makes it hard for you to admit that you're wrong.

 

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That is incorrect.  We can utilize socialist constructs but that doesn’t make us socialist. 

That's like arguing whether or not someone should be considered a 'liar'. Literally everyone has told a lie at some point or another. But does one lie make them a 'liar'? Most would probably say no, but no one (hopefully) would deny that a lie is still a lie. Whether or not someone should be considered a 'liar' normally depends on some sort of arbitrary parameters of measuring how many lies someone either has told, or tells regularly. Overall, there are undeniably 'liars' and 'truth-tellers', but ultimately every one of us tells lies sometimes and truths at others. It's just a measurement as to how much of each we do that determines whether we should be considered a 'liar', as far as the label is concerned. Though again, the label itself is somewhat arbitrary, as there's no agreed upon number of lies one must tell in order to be officially labeled as one.

It's the same thing here with the term 'socialist'. If you want to argue that you aren't officially a 'socialist', then by all means. I really don't care. You can call yourself whatever you want. However regardless of what you call yourself, socialism is still socialism in the same way a lie is still a lie. If you support social programs like the military or public schools, etc. then you at least in some sense support socialism.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

In the same way that we use the democratic construct of voting but that doesn’t make us a democracy. Was the election in Russia or even Iran really democratic?

Again, labels. It's an argument for semantics really.

We utilize democratic methods, as well as the ideas of a republic. We are both a Republic and a Democracy, as well as neither all at the same time. I hear this argument all the time from republicans, who claim "This isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic!" Might as well be looking at a salad and saying "This isn't made of lettuce, it's made of carrots!" even though the salad has both lettuce and carrots in it. Call it whatever the F you want to call it, I truly do not care.

The only thing that truly matters is simply that whatever words you do use to describe it is as accurate of a description as humanly possible. Saying "we aren't a Democracy, we're a Republic" is just a pathetic partisan strategy to make it seem like the US was founded on the current Republican party platform, which isn't at all the case.

As for the Russian 'election', that's a totally separate topic since the 'election process' is deliberately founded on a falsehood. It's one thing for a political system to actually implement a certain policy, it's another to literally pretend to implement a certain policy just as a means of appeasing the populace while in reality enacting a totally different policy from behind the scenes. So your comparison here is completely irrelevant.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You mix many things together here.  Common defense, Tranquility, and General Welfare (some roads, bridges, and infrastructure) are charges of the government.  Public schools and the rest are not.  Some government is needed or there is no freedom.  Socialism is never satisfied with just some.

You're just arbitrarily deciding what is and is not considered socialism. You don't get to make that decision.

The fact is, socialism is typically in it's most basic definition, defined as wealth redistribution into various social programs. Who pays for the military? You do. Who pays for public schools? You do. Who pays for infrastructure? You do. Who pays for government employees? You do. All through tax dollars are all of these things funded. That's wealth redistribution. It's taking a certain portion of people's paycheck, and redistributing it into various different programs.

I'm not the one mixing things up here. You just keep wanting to distance yourself from the term socialism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where there are none.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Actually, it is B&W.  This is not rocket science.

You're right, this isn't rocket science. And I've already explained as to why the term 'Socialist' is a spectrum. But just to make sure you don't get any more confused, I'll explain it a little more here.

The 'wealth' redistribution' definition for socialism I just gave is a sort of black and white definition. Rather clear cut and simple.

However, harkening back to the 'labeling someone a liar' example above, things get a bit more complicated. Defining who and who isn't a 'liar' is not a black and white kind of definition. It's difficult to determine at exactly one point someone ceases to be a truth-teller and they suddenly become a liar. How many lies does one need to tell to officially become a liar? It's arbitrary. That doesn't mean that no one can ever be accurately called a 'liar', it just means that the exact number of lies one needs to tell in order to officially become a liar is not an exact science.

Same is true with the term Socialist. At what point does one suddenly become a socialist? How many social programs does one need to support and to what degree in order for them to officially be a Socialist? This isn't a black and white issue, it's a spectrum.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

There is a wide range of flavors of socialism, but only one Charter of Freedom.

Now you're contradicting your previous statement. Is socialism black and white, or is it 'a wide range of flavors'? Pick one.

Also, Freedom is another term with no absolute definition. Does freedom mean to do literally whatever you want, even if that includes rape and murder? Or does one person's freedom end where another's begins? To what extent should people be free in regards to (insert any political issue ever here)? This too is a spectrum, and is no black and white issue.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You mean Rinos.  Not all Republicans are Conservative or Libertarian.

You keep fluctuating between arguing politics as being a spectrum, versus politics being black and white.

I really don't care what your position is, just try and be consistent with whatever it is. Makes things easier, even if you happen to be wrong.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The military is intrinsically socialist but most people in the military are not socialists.

I never said they were.

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

This is another construct that is used to benefit society, not take it over.

You're just asserting this idea that socialism in general means 'to take over.' That isn't always the case.

This sort of depends on what you mean by the words 'take over', but for this exercise, I'll use the words 'take over' to essentially mean 'to assert dominance without one's consent. If you disagree with this definition, then by all means correct me.

Sometimes socialism is implemented by force, so in that since it would undoubtedly be a 'take over.' But if it's democratically agreed upon, then it isn't a 'take over' of anything. If we, say for instance, democratically voted for a Medicare for all program to be put in place, then this isn't the government 'taking over' since it was agreed upon by the American people democratically. The only people who would be 'forced into it without their consent' would be those who voted against it, but such is the case with literally every piece of legislation in a democratic society. There will always be those who disagree.

Now, if you want to use the words 'take over' to mean any government or socialistic control, then we have a different ballgame altogether here. In this sense, to 'take over' means pretty much in the same way you would hire someone to 'take over' doing a job for you. You could still hire or fire whomever you like if the job they do doesn't suit you, but instead of you doing all the work yourself, you hire someone to 'take over' for you. This is how a democratic process would work, and does work. If the people want the government to help pay their medical expenses for instance in a Medicare for all system, but they don't like the way the current system works, then they can 'fire' the current system by electing politicians (hiring them) to do the right job for you, and fix what's broken about it.

If by 'take over', you mean the paragraph above, then I honestly don't see what the big deal is with having it 'taken over' by somebody else. That's just how life works in a variety of functions. A person can't expect to just fend for themselves in every single avenue of life. Society crumbles the more we divide ourselves up from each other, and expect each other to fend for themselves. 'Every man for himself' is a primitive concept that dates back to the Stone Age. We always do best as a species when we work together for a common goal.

(also, I find it laughably ironic that you call the military in general as being used to benefit society, while socialism in general is used to destroy it. Wondering how many military conquests there have been that have utterly decimated society and other civilizations throughout human history exactly, lol.)

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The military has one function and that is to destroy the enemy and the hive mind of socialism is ideal.

I don't know what you mean by 'the hive mind of socialism is ideal.' Care to explain that?

Anyway, in regards to 'destroying the enemy', I once again find your outlook on life utterly detestable. The military is used for self-defense, nothing more. It should never be used for personal conquest. That's something only evil tyrannical empires do.

The military is for solely for defending the homeland, not 'destroying the enemy'.

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And most Muslims don’t see what is bad about Islam.  German's were coerced into supporting the state.  It was not patriotism.

Once again, you can't just arbitrarily decide what is and is not 'patriotic.'

Patriotism is simply a relative term meaning vigorous support for one's country. That could be interpreted a number of ways. Some might say that supporting their country no matter what they do (evil or not) is patriotic, while others would say that opposing their government when they do something wrong is patriotic since it's done with the best interests of the country at heart.

You can't say that they weren't patriotic about this or that anymore than I or anyone else can. It's a relative term that could be interpreted in almost any way you so choose.

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s not “anything”, it is the driving force behind it trying to impose it on the people that is evil incarnate.

I've already explained how if socialism is enacted via the democratic process, it is not 'forcing' it upon anyone. Like it or not, that's just how democracy works.

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You are missing the point.  It doesn’t matter if it is right-wing or left-wing.  It is all the same, just a different flavor.  Socialism is but a generic term.

Again, you're contradicting yourself all over the map, so I can't tell which kind of ideology you're saying you believe in. Is socialism black and white? Or is it a generic term that's just a different flavor?

This constantly flip-flopping between positions is rather convenient for you, since it means you can never be proven wrong. All you have to do is say: "That's not what I meant, what it actually means is this..."

I'd call this strategy clever if not for the fact that I don't think it's intentional on your part. Just an accidental convenience for you...

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

All forms of government are Power granting Liberty.

Power from whom? In a government that is of, by, and for the people, that power lies in the hands of the people. Do you not understand how a democracy works? If the government is corrupt and abusing it's power, it is the duty of everyday citizens to stand up and elect uncorrupt politicians to take their place. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power, not the government. Our liberty is granted upon ourselves by ourselves. That is what it means to be a Democracy.

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That ultimately leads to absolute Authoritarian or Totalitarian control.  Only Liberty granting Power is safe and free.  But it must constantly remain on guard, forever vigilant.

Absolutely, WE THE PEOPLE must remain forever vigilant, because WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power. That is the inherent genius of a democracy. Rather than having the government control the people, the people control the government! That's how things are supposed to work. Under this kind of system, the government acts within the best interests of the people, because it is the people who ultimately control the government.

You and so many other government-hating conservatives don't seem to get that fact.  You want to rant all day about the evils of the government, yet your solution is to get rid of the government period, rather than to just keep it in check. You keep acting like this is some form of Monarchy or something when it isn't. You're the ones with the power, therefore you should use that power to end all the government corruption yourselves.

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

This is just a socialist ploy to distract.  This ploy is childish but it is still pretty effective.  It is the basis of how the Left shuts down opposing views.

It was an acurrate portrayal of what you and many others are doing. You're defending your party and your preconceived notions no matter what the cost, and opposing any alternatives simply because they're the alternatives.

I could cite all of the childishly snarky comments you gave in your response from the Gun Control thread, but I won't waste any more of my time. I have never 'shut down' any opposing views, nor will I ever. Do not confuse refuting your arguments with silencing your free speech rights. You're free to voice whatever crazy argument you want, just as I'm free to refute them as much as I want.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Just what aspect of the german nazi party wasn't socialistic?  Heathcare?  Nope, the nazi's had cradle to grave nationalized healthcare healthcare.  How about infrastructure?  We all know who built the autobahn.  how about welfare?  Welfare programs almost doubled under hitler.  You need to do some research.  The nazi party of germany ran a socialist government.  They also did some horrible evil things which makes it hard for you to admit that you're wrong.

Do my research? Why 'research' such a basic ass fact?

Quote

Historians regard the equation of National Socialism as 'Hitlerism' as too simplistic since the term was used prior to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis and the different ideologies incorporated into Nazism were already well established in certain parts of German society before World War I.^[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Even though Hitler and the Nazis incorporated elements from both sides of the political spectrum, overall, the Nazis were a far-right political party:

Quote

The majority of scholars identify Nazism in both theory and practice as a form of far-right politics.^[13] Far-right themes in Nazism include the argument that superior people have a right to dominate other people and purge society of supposed inferior elements.^[14] Adolf Hitler and other proponents denied that Nazism was either left-wing or right-wing, instead they officially portrayed Nazism as a syncretic movement.^[15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Seriously, I'm simply arguing that we ALL need to acknowledge the evils on ALL sides of the political spectrum. That's all I'm saying. Yet you continue to insist that the 'opposing side' is evil because the Nazis were Socialists.

You are literally doing the exact thing I keep complaining about people doing: Associating ALL universally accepted political wrong-doers with their political opponents in order to prove some stupid point.

And you wonder why I keep calling you childish...

[acidhead]

4 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That's like arguing whether or not someone should be considered a 'liar'. Literally everyone has told a lie at some point or another. But does one lie make them a 'liar'? Most would probably say no, but no one (hopefully) would deny that a lie is still a lie. Whether or not someone should be considered a 'liar' normally depends on some sort of arbitrary parameters of measuring how many lies someone either has told, or tells regularly. Overall, there are undeniably 'liars' and 'truth-tellers', but ultimately every one of us tells lies sometimes and truths at others. It's just a measurement as to how much of each we do that determines whether we should be considered a 'liar', as far as the label is concerned. Though again, the label itself is somewhat arbitrary, as there's no agreed upon number of lies one must tell in order to be officially labeled as one.

It's the same thing here with the term 'socialist'. If you want to argue that you aren't officially a 'socialist', then by all means. I really don't care. You can call yourself whatever you want. However regardless of what you call yourself, socialism is still socialism in the same way a lie is still a lie. If you support social programs like the military or public schools, etc. then you at least in some sense support socialism.

Again, labels. It's an argument for semantics really.

We utilize democratic methods, as well as the ideas of a republic. We are both a Republic and a Democracy, as well as neither all at the same time. I hear this argument all the time from republicans, who claim "This isn't a Democracy, it's a Republic!" Might as well be looking at a salad and saying "This isn't made of lettuce, it's made of carrots!" even though the salad has both lettuce and carrots in it. Call it whatever the F you want to call it, I truly do not care.

The only thing that truly matters is simply that whatever words you do use to describe it is as accurate of a description as humanly possible. Saying "we aren't a Democracy, we're a Republic" is just a pathetic partisan strategy to make it seem like the US was founded on the current Republican party platform, which isn't at all the case.

As for the Russian 'election', that's a totally separate topic since the 'election process' is deliberately founded on a falsehood. It's one thing for a political system to actually implement a certain policy, it's another to literally pretend to implement a certain policy just as a means of appeasing the populace while in reality enacting a totally different policy from behind the scenes. So your comparison here is completely irrelevant.

You're just arbitrarily deciding what is and is not considered socialism. You don't get to make that decision.

The fact is, socialism is typically in it's most basic definition, defined as wealth redistribution into various social programs. Who pays for the military? You do. Who pays for public schools? You do. Who pays for infrastructure? You do. Who pays for government employees? You do. All through tax dollars are all of these things funded. That's wealth redistribution. It's taking a certain portion of people's paycheck, and redistributing it into various different programs.

I'm not the one mixing things up here. You just keep wanting to distance yourself from the term socialism by drawing arbitrary lines in the sand where there are none.

You're right, this isn't rocket science. And I've already explained as to why the term 'Socialist' is a spectrum. But just to make sure you don't get any more confused, I'll explain it a little more here.

The 'wealth' redistribution' definition for socialism I just gave is a sort of black and white definition. Rather clear cut and simple.

However, harkening back to the 'labeling someone a liar' example above, things get a bit more complicated. Defining who and who isn't a 'liar' is not a black and white kind of definition. It's difficult to determine at exactly one point someone ceases to be a truth-teller and they suddenly become a liar. How many lies does one need to tell to officially become a liar? It's arbitrary. That doesn't mean that no one can ever be accurately called a 'liar', it just means that the exact number of lies one needs to tell in order to officially become a liar is not an exact science.

Same is true with the term Socialist. At what point does one suddenly become a socialist? How many social programs does one need to support and to what degree in order for them to officially be a Socialist? This isn't a black and white issue, it's a spectrum.

Now you're contradicting your previous statement. Is socialism black and white, or is it 'a wide range of flavors'? Pick one.

Also, Freedom is another term with no absolute definition. Does freedom mean to do literally whatever you want, even if that includes rape and murder? Or does one person's freedom end where another's begins? To what extent should people be free in regards to (insert any political issue ever here)? This too is a spectrum, and is no black and white issue.

You keep fluctuating between arguing politics as being a spectrum, versus politics being black and white.

I really don't care what your position is, just try and be consistent with whatever it is. Makes things easier, even if you happen to be wrong.

I never said they were.

You're just asserting this idea that socialism in general means 'to take over.' That isn't always the case.

This sort of depends on what you mean by the words 'take over', but for this exercise, I'll use the words 'take over' to essentially mean 'to assert dominance without one's consent. If you disagree with this definition, then by all means correct me.

Sometimes socialism is implemented by force, so in that since it would undoubtedly be a 'take over.' But if it's democratically agreed upon, then it isn't a 'take over' of anything. If we, say for instance, democratically voted for a Medicare for all program to be put in place, then this isn't the government 'taking over' since it was agreed upon by the American people democratically. The only people who would be 'forced into it without their consent' would be those who voted against it, but such is the case with literally every piece of legislation in a democratic society. There will always be those who disagree.

Now, if you want to use the words 'take over' to mean any government or socialistic control, then we have a different ballgame altogether here. In this sense, to 'take over' means pretty much in the same way you would hire someone to 'take over' doing a job for you. You could still hire or fire whomever you like if the job they do doesn't suit you, but instead of you doing all the work yourself, you hire someone to 'take over' for you. This is how a democratic process would work, and does work. If the people want the government to help pay their medical expenses for instance in a Medicare for all system, but they don't like the way the current system works, then they can 'fire' the current system by electing politicians (hiring them) to do the right job for you, and fix what's broken about it.

If by 'take over', you mean the paragraph above, then I honestly don't see what the big deal is with having it 'taken over' by somebody else. That's just how life works in a variety of functions. A person can't expect to just fend for themselves in every single avenue of life. Society crumbles the more we divide ourselves up from each other, and expect each other to fend for themselves. 'Every man for himself' is a primitive concept that dates back to the Stone Age. We always do best as a species when we work together for a common goal.

(also, I find it laughably ironic that you call the military in general as being used to benefit society, while socialism in general is used to destroy it. Wondering how many military conquests there have been that have utterly decimated society and other civilizations throughout human history exactly, lol.)

I don't know what you mean by 'the hive mind of socialism is ideal.' Care to explain that?

Anyway, in regards to 'destroying the enemy', I once again find your outlook on life utterly detestable. The military is used for self-defense, nothing more. It should never be used for personal conquest. That's something only evil tyrannical empires do.

The military is for solely for defending the homeland, not 'destroying the enemy'.

Once again, you can't just arbitrarily decide what is and is not 'patriotic.'

Patriotism is simply a relative term meaning vigorous support for one's country. That could be interpreted a number of ways. Some might say that supporting their country no matter what they do (evil or not) is patriotic, while others would say that opposing their government when they do something wrong is patriotic since it's done with the best interests of the country at heart.

You can't say that they weren't patriotic about this or that anymore than I or anyone else can. It's a relative term that could be interpreted in almost any way you so choose.

I've already explained how if socialism is enacted via the democratic process, it is not 'forcing' it upon anyone. Like it or not, that's just how democracy works.

Again, you're contradicting yourself all over the map, so I can't tell which kind of ideology you're saying you believe in. Is socialism black and white? Or is it a generic term that's just a different flavor?

This constantly flip-flopping between positions is rather convenient for you, since it means you can never be proven wrong. All you have to do is say: "That's not what I meant, what it actually means is this..."

I'd call this strategy clever if not for the fact that I don't think it's intentional on your part. Just an accidental convenience for you...

Power from whom? In a government that is of, by, and for the people, that power lies in the hands of the people. Do you not understand how a democracy works? If the government is corrupt and abusing it's power, it is the duty of everyday citizens to stand up and elect uncorrupt politicians to take their place. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power, not the government. Our liberty is granted upon ourselves by ourselves. That is what it means to be a Democracy.

Absolutely, WE THE PEOPLE must remain forever vigilant, because WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power. That is the inherent genius of a democracy. Rather than having the government control the people, the people control the government! That's how things are supposed to work. Under this kind of system, the government acts within the best interests of the people, because it is the people who ultimately control the government.

You and so many other government-hating conservatives don't seem to get that fact.  You want to rant all day about the evils of the government, yet your solution is to get rid of the government period, rather than to just keep it in check. You keep acting like this is some form of Monarchy or something when it isn't. You're the ones with the power, therefore you should use that power to end all the government corruption yourselves.

It was an acurrate portrayal of what you and many others are doing. You're defending your party and your preconceived notions no matter what the cost, and opposing any alternatives simply because they're the alternatives.

I could cite all of the childishly snarky comments you gave in your response from the Gun Control thread, but I won't waste any more of my time. I have never 'shut down' any opposing views, nor will I ever. Do not confuse refuting your arguments with silencing your free speech rights. You're free to voice whatever crazy argument you want, just as I'm free to refute them as much as I want.

And with that, I bid you adieu.

 

[Likely Guy]

Where does one word's begin and another's start?

[Farmer77]

12 hours ago, simplybill said:

That scripture needs to be balanced with these scriptures that address the weaknesses of socialism:

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. And as for you, brothers and sisters, never tire of doing what is good. Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer."   2 Thes. 10-15

And:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." James 1:27

The weakest members of society (widows and orphans) were looked after by the early Church, and the able-bodied were expected to work.

So you think that some people not working justifies not helping other people? 

 

[simplybill]

8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

So you think that some people not working justifies not helping other people? 

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I'm glad you asked. The Church has expanded its outreach considerably, both domestically and internationally. Besides stocking area food pantries, the church I attend here in Iowa has packaged and delivered millions of food packages to war-torn areas of the world to feed refugees. Durable tent-shelters are sent to refugee camps to house single mothers who can't go outdoors because they'll be raped. The shelters hold 20 people, providing 'safety in numbers' for the mothers and children, as well as a roof over their heads. Proper water wells are dug in remote villages, which allows children to attend school instead of walking for hours each day to bring home water from distant wells.

One church I attended had a job-training class that coached job-seekers on how to have a successful job interview. I think most churches today have addiction-recovery support groups and grief-recovery support groups. The homeless outreach at my church provides a weekly meal, but the main purpose is to provide a 'listening ear' for specific people, and establishing a friendship. It's a human approach, rather than merely a sterile 'money' approach. We have a home for pregnant single women, and will soon have a home for single mothers. The emphasis is on promoting social skills that help the moms live successfully in society.

8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress..."  (Oops, I used the quote option incorrectly) 

That's not only good religion, it's good politics. It's one of the reasons we Christians are grateful to have a knowledgeable Businessman as President. Yes, the economic recovery may have begun in previous administrations, but those non-business-savvy politicians had no clue how to harness the recovery to make it thrive for ordinary citizens: the unemployment rate for Blacks and Hispanics is the lowest it's been since before those statistics were collected. In my opinion, that is the greatest political news I've ever heard. Employment is a tonic for the soul, much more so than Government handouts.  

Edited March 22, 2018 by simplybill

[RavenHawk]

5 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I'm glad you asked. The Church has expanded its outreach considerably, both domestically and internationally. Besides stocking area food pantries, the church I attend here in Iowa has packaged and delivered millions of food packages to war-torn areas of the world to feed refugees. Durable tent-shelters are sent to refugee camps to house single mothers who can't be go outdoors because they'll be raped. The shelters hold 20 people, providing safety of numbers for the mothers and children, as well as a roof over their heads. Proper water wells are dug in remote villages, which allows children to attend school instead of walking for hours each day to bring home water from distant wells.

One church I attended had a job-training class that coached job-seekers on how to have a successful job interview. I think most churches today have addiction-recovery support groups and grief-recovery support groups. The homeless outreach at my church provides a weekly meal, but the main purpose is to provide a 'listening ear' for specific people, and establishing a friendship. It's a human approach, rather than merely a sterile 'money' approach. We have a home for pregnant single women, and will soon have a home for single mothers. The emphasis is on promoting social skills that help the moms live successfully in society.

That's not only good religion, it's good politics. It's one of the reasons we Christians are grateful to have a knowledgeable Businessman as President. Yes, the economic recovery may have begun in previous administrations, but those non-business-savvy politicians had no clue how to harness the recovery to make it thrive for ordinary citizens: the unemployment rate for Blacks and Hispanics is the lowest it's been since before those statistics were collected. In my opinion, that is the greatest political news I've ever heard. Employment is a tonic for the soul, much more so than Government handouts.  

You go Iowa!

[+OverSword]

14 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Do my research? Why 'research' such a basic ass fact?

Even though Hitler and the Nazis incorporated elements from both sides of the political spectrum, overall, the Nazis were a far-right political party:

Seriously, I'm simply arguing that we ALL need to acknowledge the evils on ALL sides of the political spectrum. That's all I'm saying. Yet you continue to insist that the 'opposing side' is evil because the Nazis were Socialists.

You are literally doing the exact thing I keep complaining about people doing: Associating ALL universally accepted political wrong-doers with their political opponents in order to prove some stupid point.

And you wonder why I keep calling you childish...

When did I say the opposing side (socialism) is evil simply because the nazis were socialists (took you a while but you finally had to admit nazis are socialists)?  Socialism is evil because it assumes that "society" is entitled to your time, energy and income.  Estimates vary but currently our government spends annually anywhere from 36% to over 50% of the nations GDP.  That's how we are in so much debt.   Switching from our supposed capitalistic system to an even more government spending intense system that you suggest is pure madness.  Do you feel the government is doing a good job spending the 40% of your money that they are indebting you with compounded annually?  Why in the **** would you want to give them even more money?  Socialism is counter to liberty, free will, and innovation, the supposed pillars of our nation and the dream and goal of every freedom loving person in the universe.  If you so want to live under a socialistic thumb perhaps you can move to one and get a feel for it.

[preacherman76]

9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

So you think that some people not working justifies not helping other people? 

 

If you want to join folks like us in helping people, we could certainly use it. If you are going to provide help by going door to door with a gun and robbing everyone, then not so much.

[aztek]

Just now, OverSword said:

  Socialism is evil because it assumes that "society" is entitled to your time, energy and income.

that is exactly what they want, the millennial sjw types,  they see your wealth as something they are entitled to, 

Edited March 22, 2018 by aztek

[Space Commander Travis]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Socialism is counter to liberty, free will, and innovation, the supposed pillars of our nation and the dream and goal of every freedom loving person in the universe.  If you so want to live under a socialistic thumb perhaps you can move to one and get a feel for it.

From the Internet, I'm not putting it forward because it necessarily agrees with my point of view, and I expect you could argue until the cows come in for milking how many of these are really Socilaist and so on and so on probably forever, but

According to peerform.com

Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:

• China.
• Denmark.
• Finland.
• Netherlands.
• Canada.
• Sweden.
• Norway.
• Ireland.

 

(in terms of social welfare, healthcare and so on, not State control of the means of production.)

 

•  

I expect China would fit your view of what socialism is about, but how many of the others are, what was it, counter to liberty, free will, and innovation?

(and China seems to have quite a go-ahead economy currently, as well.)

Edited March 22, 2018 by Vlad the Mighty

[aztek]

none of those are really socialist countries, they may have some socialist policies, but socialism assumes no private enterprise,every business is owned by gvmnt, the way it was in real socialist countries ussr and Warsaw pakt countries. owning a business was illegal.  reselling something was illegal as well,  in ussr there was a criminal charge for that, "unearned income'

[Space Commander Travis]

That's where this whole argument is so old fashioned. What Americans consider as "Socialism" is really old school Communism, which exists hardly anywhere now (except perhaps Cuba). Even still technically Communist countrysides like China and Vietnam are pretty much capitalist economically now. Socialism, in the terms that are being talked about here, is about social welfare and particularly healthcare now. The American way of denigrating socialist ideas because "= Communism" is so outdated.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

(took you a while but you finally had to admit nazis are socialists)

I never in the least bit denied that they weren't 'socialists'. What I was arguing was that to label them as such without placing them within the context of their other political ideologies (which were overwhelmingly right-wing) is incredibly disingenuous. It make is appear as though the Nazis were left-wing when they weren't.

You are intentionally cherry-picking their socialist ideologies out of an ocean of right-wing policy positions that they supported, which makes it appear as though left-wing ideologies were the fuel that lead to Nazi extremism, which it inherently wasn't. The majority of their socialists ideologies were carry-over policies that existed in Germany before the Nazi party ever even existed. I've already proven this, yet you ignore it so as to push your BS narrative.

You know this, you're just doing this intentionally so as to incorrectly smear socialist policies by associating socialism with Nazis. You're trying to make it appear that it was socialism that caused their evils, when in reality for the most part it was their extremist right-wing policy positions that lead them to support and commit the various heinous acts that they did.

I've already linked the sources that prove this over and over, so there's no sense in further re-hashing it. You're not making an argument, you're basically just propagandizing a known outright lie.

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Socialism is evil because it assumes that "society" is entitled to your time, energy and income.  Estimates vary but currently our government spends annually anywhere from 36% to over 50% of the nations GDP.  That's how we are in so much debt.   Switching from our supposed capitalistic system to an even more government spending intense system that you suggest is pure madness.  Do you feel the government is doing a good job spending the 40% of your money that they are indebting you with compounded annually?  Why in the **** would you want to give them even more money?  Socialism is counter to liberty, free will, and innovation, the supposed pillars of our nation and the dream and goal of every freedom loving person in the universe.  If you so want to live under a socialistic thumb perhaps you can move to one and get a feel for it.

I don't understand why conservatives don't get this, but we live in a democracy, where we the people control the government. This isn't like a monarchial system where the government forces it's people to adopt socialist policies against their will. If the people vote for politicians to enact socialist policies, then there is no breach of free-will.

I've already explained this thoroughly to another member here, but in case you didn't read it (since it is undoubtedly long) I'll quote it for you:

17 hours ago, Aquila King said:

You're just asserting this idea that socialism in general means 'to take over.' That isn't always the case.

This sort of depends on what you mean by the words 'take over', but for this exercise, I'll use the words 'take over' to essentially mean 'to assert dominance without one's consent. If you disagree with this definition, then by all means correct me.

Sometimes socialism is implemented by force, so in that since it would undoubtedly be a 'take over.' But if it's democratically agreed upon, then it isn't a 'take over' of anything. If we, say for instance, democratically voted for a Medicare for all program to be put in place, then this isn't the government 'taking over' since it was agreed upon by the American people democratically. The only people who would be 'forced into it without their consent' would be those who voted against it, but such is the case with literally every piece of legislation in a democratic society. There will always be those who disagree.

Now, if you want to use the words 'take over' to mean any government or socialistic control, then we have a different ballgame altogether here. In this sense, to 'take over' means pretty much in the same way you would hire someone to 'take over' doing a job for you. You could still hire or fire whomever you like if the job they do doesn't suit you, but instead of you doing all the work yourself, you hire someone to 'take over' for you. This is how a democratic process would work, and does work. If the people want the government to help pay their medical expenses for instance in a Medicare for all system, but they don't like the way the current system works, then they can 'fire' the current system by electing politicians (hiring them) to do the right job for you, and fix what's broken about it.

If by 'take over', you mean the paragraph above, then I honestly don't see what the big deal is with having it 'taken over' by somebody else. That's just how life works in a variety of functions. A person can't expect to just fend for themselves in every single avenue of life. Society crumbles the more we divide ourselves up from each other, and expect each other to fend for themselves. 'Every man for himself' is a primitive concept that dates back to the Stone Age. We always do best as a species when we work together for a common goal.

...

Power from whom? In a government that is of, by, and for the people, that power lies in the hands of the people. Do you not understand how a democracy works? If the government is corrupt and abusing it's power, it is the duty of everyday citizens to stand up and elect uncorrupt politicians to take their place. WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power, not the government. Our liberty is granted upon ourselves by ourselves. That is what it means to be a Democracy.

...

Absolutely, WE THE PEOPLE must remain forever vigilant, because WE THE PEOPLE are the ones in power. That is the inherent genius of a democracy. Rather than having the government control the people, the people control the government! That's how things are supposed to work. Under this kind of system, the government acts within the best interests of the people, because it is the people who ultimately control the government.

You and so many other government-hating conservatives don't seem to get that fact.  You want to rant all day about the evils of the government, yet your solution is to get rid of the government period, rather than to just keep it in check. You keep acting like this is some form of Monarchy or something when it isn't. You're the ones with the power, therefore you should use that power to end all the government corruption yourselves.

Honestly, I genuinely fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this ^

[Aquila King]

32 minutes ago, aztek said:

none of those are really socialist countries, they may have some socialist policies, but socialism assumes no private enterprise,every business is owned by gvmnt, the way it was in real socialist countries ussr and Warsaw pakt countries. owning a business was illegal.  reselling something was illegal as well,  in ussr there was a criminal charge for that, "unearned income'

No, what you're describing here is communism. That's a different thing altogether.

Most Democratic Socialists are not 100% anti-Capitalism, we simply believe in strong regulations that keep Capitalism in check:

Quote

Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.

Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.

Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.

Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods.

http://www.dsausa.org/govt_run_everything

Creating proper government regulations that keep multi-billion dollar corporations from going off the deep end is hardly state-ownership.

It's like looking at all the current US government regulations in regards to alcohol and concluding that the US 'owns' the entire alcohol industry. That just simply isn't the case.

[aztek]

Just now, Aquila King said:

No, what you're describing here is communism.

no, i describe real world  socialism as it was in real socialist countries governed by people,  what you think is theoretic illusion.  

i get my 411 from people that actually lived in real socialism, and seen it all with their eyes,  that is half of my family, where do you get yours from

Edited March 22, 2018 by aztek

[Setton]

1 hour ago, aztek said:

none of those are really socialist countries, they may have some socialist policies, but socialism assumes no private enterprise,every business is owned by gvmnt, the way it was in real socialist countries ussr and Warsaw pakt countries. owning a business was illegal.  reselling something was illegal as well,  in ussr there was a criminal charge for that, "unearned income'

That's communism. 

Please, for the love of God, can we have a whip round and buy aztek a dictionary? 

This is getting old. 

[+OverSword]

God I'm bored. 

[AnchorSteam]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

God I'm bored. 

Told ya so.

 

Okay, some new points-

 

 

There came a time in the 1950s when salesmen had more success calling house trailers "mobile homes". It's known in advertising as "warming the product". SJWs seized on this. Former "squatters" of all causes and descriptions became "the homeless", suggesting wandering orphans and abandoned kittens. 

Such reflexive compassion doesn't extend to, say, "the garageless" of course, although one would be hard put to justify its exclusion on methodological grounds. Nor are they technically "homeless" once they've erected a shelter with sleeping and living accommodations. They are "houseless", as is an apartment dweller or a retired couple living in an RV.

The homeless are not, by and large, evicted families fallen on hard times or other legitimate candidates for a helping hand. They are the nearly subterranean level of the populace, the level from which one can fall no further: vagrants, the hopelessly incompetent and determinedly criminal, the destitute by preference, the drunks and addicts and so forth. 

Their corrosive effect on normalcy is worse than their numbers would suggest. Erielle Davidson at The Federalist tells us about San Francisco:

 

 

Quote

 

I recall the first time I rode BART, San Francisco’s subway system, and was nearly knocked over by the sheer stench of the station. I was surprised to learn that exiting the station supplied little to no relief — the urine smell hangs heavy in the more populated areas of the city and is nearly inescapable...

It’s not uncommon to see frequented streets downtown blocked by what people dismally have coined “tent cities,” large enclaves of tents that homeless people have set up with little to no pushback from local authorities.

 

 

 

Media accounts suggest cities in California are being overrun with 'em. It's not just California however, they're occupying public spaces elsewhere, including New York City, and as is usual, by invitation of the authorities. This is from Emmett Hare at City Journal:

 

Quote

New York has experienced such a visible increase in homelessness that the de Blasio administration finally had to acknowledge last summer what everyone knew to be true, after years of denial: permanent encampments exist across the city, with clusters of carts and lean-tos in various lots and around off-ramps in the outer boroughs and people camped out in discarded office chairs with piles of blankets and boxes in the blocks around Penn Station.

 

 

Seattle has a new employee tax to end "the crisis of homelessness and housing insecurity in our city". Notice how their crisis is everyone else's crisis, somehow. And notice the mission creep: "housing insecurity", although consistency commends "homeful insecurity".

 

Quote

 

“Tax burdens should not be increased slightly," Lisa Daugaard  , a member of Seattle’s Progressive Revenue Task Force on Housing and Homelessness told a council finance committee Wednesday.

“We have to go big or go home,” she said. “We must make a discernible impact on the situation and the number of people living in public and experiencing homelessness. Proposals that fumble around and don’t achieve that mark should not be supported.”

 

 

So, on authority of a "Progressive Revenue Task Force", the solution to homelessness turns out to be other people's money. Who coulda guessed? Yes, Seattle will "grant" said money in the form of "initiatives", meaning handouts. Grip-and-grin photos will announce the Task Forces's selfless heroism and certainty of success. Businesses and constructive citizens will enthusiastically agree. "We applaud Seattle for bravely supporting the homeless," they'll say, as they leave the city at the posted speed limit. 

More vagrants, oops, homeless will move to Seattle. Because free stuff. The funds—they always say "funds"—will quickly be insufficient for the wave of new, um, clients. Gripe-and-groan photos of camps bigger and more squalid than before will announce a new "crisis". Another Progressive Revenue Task Force will be formed.

Meanwhile, unintended but foreseeable consequences are making themselves known, to wit:

 

Quote

Infectious-disease outbreaks in Seattle homeless people concern health officials ... hepatitis A, a potentially fatal disease

 

No city in the western world should be like this. If we take our major cities as evidence, a consensus emerges favoring these third world standards, perhaps as a companion to their third world arrogance and studied incivility. Hillary Clinton lost a rigged election in just this way. 

Cities produce little that is useful and consume most of what is. They're reservations for the mildly but progressively insane, each day a little more freakish, a little more perverted. They measure success not by who has the most but by who wastes the most. They're wholly dependent on the despised normals outside their precincts for everything that sustains life, and certain of delivery by way of imagined entitlement. The jungles of Mexico are full of such places. 

Cities are fragile, populated with hostages debilitated by fear, without useful resiliance or independent resourcefulness. Cities would be uninhabitable within days of a power failure . As it is, they're paralyzed by persistent but otherwise insignificant attacks  . Such cities are beyond fixing, yet by weight of numbers they force the Deplorables to comply with their bizarre delusions. It becomes clearer by the day what this means.

[aztek]

Just now, Setton said:

That's communism. 

 

 

SMH, another one who reads articles, so that must be true.

no that is real world socialism as it happened in USSR and other 15 or so countries, they all called themselves socialist countries, not communist. get some real world facts for a change, not what is written in some book