• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2012 Presidential Election -Who are you voting for?

Who are you voting for?

  • Democratic- President Barack Obama, IL

    Votes: 76 32.1%
  • Republican- Governor Mitt Romney, MA

    Votes: 107 45.1%
  • Libertarian- Governor Gary Johnson, NM

    Votes: 32 13.5%
  • Green- Jill Stein, MA

    Votes: 6 2.5%
  • Constitution- Congressman Virgil Goode, VA

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Peace & Freedom- Rosanne Barr, HI

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Justice- Mayor Rocky Anderson, UT

    Votes: 1 0.4%
  • Write in- Congressman Ron Paul, TX

    Votes: 5 2.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 1.7%
  • Refusing to Vote

    Votes: 5 2.1%

  • Total voters
    237
Status
Not open for further replies.

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Just poorly made propaganda to demonstrate who I actually support. :shrug:
So, let me get this straight. You have the Democratic mascot as your experience avatar, your lean as Libertarian-Left (whatever that is), and you are voting for a socialist?
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, let me get this straight. You have the Democratic mascot as your experience avatar, your lean as Libertarian-Left (whatever that is), and you are voting for a socialist?
I'm a Libertarian Socialist(Left Libertarian, Anarchist, and so on) from the United States. It only makes sense that I'd support the liberals.
 

Amigo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
1,945
Reaction score
326
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm a Libertarian Socialist(Left Libertarian, Anarchist, and so on) from the United States. It only makes sense that I'd support the liberals.
Thanks for letting us know that the democracts are socialists! Btw, there is no such thing as a socialist libertarian. It's called an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Thanks for letting us know that the democracts are socialists!
I get the humor in that, but I want to point out how wrong and bigoted that outlook is. Socialism is an odd term and, due to our dear friend William McCarthy, one Americans have turned in to some kind of cuss. I am not a capitalist, and unlike Democrats I don't advocate for a system that promotes the creation of inequality as opposed to otherwise. Obama is not a socialist, far from it, and those who accuse him of being one are wholly incorrect on the matter. It's nonsense, pure and simple.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I get the humor in that, but I want to point out how wrong and bigoted that outlook is. Socialism is an odd term and, due to our dear friend William McCarthy, one Americans have turned in to some kind of cuss. I am not a capitalist, and unlike Democrats I don't advocate for a system that promotes the creation of inequality as opposed to otherwise. Obama is not a socialist, far from it, and those who accuse him of being one are wholly incorrect on the matter. It's nonsense, pure and simple.
President Obama may not be a card carrying socialist (I disagree with that), but he definitely advocates many socialist tenants. The redistribution of wealth, pitting "classes" against each other, gov't funding and take over of businesses, and socialized healthcare are just a few examples of socialist programs he has introduced or ramped up since taking office. Socialist values have been infiltrating the American way of life since Woodrow Wilson was POTUS and they continue to do so.
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
President Obama may not be a card carrying socialist (I disagree with that), but he definitely advocates many socialist tenants. The redistribution of wealth, pitting "classes" against each other, gov't funding and take over of businesses, and socialized healthcare are just a few examples of socialist programs he has introduced or ramped up since taking office. Socialist values have been infiltrating the American way of life since Woodrow Wilson was POTUS and they continue to do so.
Well, that's about 20% true, give or take. To some(Including a notable proponent of the ideology, Bill Mather.), socialism is when the government merely takes over some of the necessary social services in it's given country. So by that definition, yes Barack Obama is a socialist. But that's a very weak, only newly applicable interpretation of socialism. To equate the president with any historically relevant socialist is sod. If you look at someone like Hitler, he was a socialist but not in the way you think. He was a National Socialist, a Fascist, A Right - Winger and a Communist, so to compare him to someone like the president is absurd. To say that the class warfare makes him socialist is even more baseless, as in many(if not most) forms of socialism, social classes don't exist nearly to the extent they do in the US. Building on that, the class warfare has as much, if not more, to do with the partisan divide than it has to do with the Obama Administration.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, that's about 20% true, give or take. To some(Including a notable proponent of the ideology, Bill Mather.), socialism is when the government merely takes over some of the necessary social services in it's given country. So by that definition, yes Barack Obama is a socialist. But that's a very weak, only newly applicable interpretation of socialism. To equate the president with any historically relevant socialist is sod. If you look at someone like Hitler, he was a socialist but not in the way you think. He was a National Socialist, a Fascist, A Right - Winger and a Communist, so to compare him to someone like the president is absurd. To say that the class warfare makes him socialist is even more baseless, as in many(if not most) forms of socialism, social classes don't exist nearly to the extent they do in the US. Building on that, the class warfare has as much, if not more, to do with the partisan divide than it has to do with the Obama Administration.
To compare one practitioner with another practitioner of an ideology is not as accurate than to compare them with the ideology itself. When President Obama's statements, beliefs, and actions are held against the original tenants of modern socialism, it is much more clear where he stands in contrast to American core beliefs. Socialism is not an endstate. Rather, it as a way to communism. Some would argue against that, however, human nature is to want more and more. Communism is merely socialism permeated into society along with the already socialized economy. Before any of this can happen, a sort of revolution must happen. This revolution begins by pitting citizens against citizens and creating wealth/class envy. If the majority "have nots" see the minority "haves" as evil simply because they "have", then you have begun the steps towards socialism. Further, when the very gov't that is supposed to preserve the individual liberty required for "haves" and "have nots" to exist is also demonizing the "haves", you have the ingredients of socialism. This leaves out the other things I mentioned that have driven us towards a quasi-socialist nation. Things such as socialized medicine, social security, massive land ownership by gov't, progressive taxation, and gov't take over of private businesses are all things that lead to socialism. President Obama is a champion of all of these things and believe some of them are not extreme enough. Finally (this is just speculation on my part), judging by how quickly President Obama moved to get socialized healthcare when much more important issues needed to be addressed, I believe he would have been even more extreme had the Congress not been flipped to Republicans. The GOP isn't the answer to our trend towards socilaism by any means. However, at least they are so preoccupied with military spending that proponents of individual liberty, small gov't, and fiscal conservatism can stave off the socialist tide until a better party presents itself.
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To compare one practitioner with another practitioner of an ideology is not as accurate than to compare them with the ideology itself. When President Obama's statements, beliefs, and actions are held against the original tenants of modern socialism, it is much more clear where he stands in contrast to American core beliefs. Socialism is not an endstate. Rather, it as a way to communism. Some would argue against that, however, human nature is to want more and more. Communism is merely socialism permeated into society along with the already socialized economy. Before any of this can happen, a sort of revolution must happen. This revolution begins by pitting citizens against citizens and creating wealth/class envy. If the majority "have nots" see the minority "haves" as evil simply because they "have", then you have begun the steps towards socialism. Further, when the very gov't that is supposed to preserve the individual liberty required for "haves" and "have nots" to exist is also demonizing the "haves", you have the ingredients of socialism. This leaves out the other things I mentioned that have driven us towards a quasi-socialist nation. Things such as socialized medicine, social security, massive land ownership by gov't, progressive taxation, and gov't take over of private businesses are all things that lead to socialism. President Obama is a champion of all of these things and believe some of them are not extreme enough. Finally (this is just speculation on my part), judging by how quickly President Obama moved to get socialized healthcare when much more important issues needed to be addressed, I believe he would have been even more extreme had the Congress not been flipped to Republicans. The GOP isn't the answer to our trend towards socilaism by any means. However, at least they are so preoccupied with military spending that proponents of individual liberty, small gov't, and fiscal conservatism can stave off the socialist tide until a better party presents itself.
It's interesting that you'd think that way. You were right when you hypothesis that I'd argue that socialism was not merely a way to communism. Though, I'll concede that some call it a middle ground between communism and capitalism, and that sometimes socialism can transform in to authoritarian communism. The problem here is that you don't fully understand the definitions. Socialism isn't centralized ownership, but centralized ownership is socialism - socialism is merely a common term for various ideologies. When talking about human nature you are not wrong, but also not nearly right either. According to Noam Chomsky in his 1995 interview with Brian Doyle and the RBR,
"We know a fair amount about certain aspects of it - not those of major human significance. Beyond that, we are left with our hopes and wishes, intuitions and speculations."
Many forms of socialism aren't about creating class divide, but eliminating it. For instance, Anarchists like myself believe in common ownership and the abolition of social classes. You see? The problem here is less that you're accusing the incumbent of being a socialist, but that you don't in any way understand socialism itself. Is it not inane to label me as something you can't define?
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's interesting that you'd think that way. You were right when you hypothesis that I'd argue that socialism was not merely a way to communism. Though, I'll concede that some call it a middle ground between communism and capitalism, and that sometimes socialism can transform in to authoritarian communism. The problem here is that you don't fully understand the definitions. Socialism isn't centralized ownership, but centralized ownership is socialism - socialism is merely a common term for various ideologies. When talking about human nature you are not wrong, but also not nearly right either. According to Noam Chomsky in his 1995 interview with Brian Doyle and the RBR,
Socialism is the idea that everyone owns everything and had a hand in it's building ("you didn't build that" "pay your fair share") while one central gov't controls it all. There's a difference between owning something and controlling something. The reason socialism doesn't work is what you see happening in our country. When the gov't becomes the provider, individual motivation and responsibility are taken away. That's not to say that we should allow people to die in the street. However, those same people should not be cared for cradle to grave. The safety net should be low hanging and perilous. As it is, many citizens look forward to the day that they can enjoy social security and medicare instead of having to fend for themselves. And the vicious circle is that all of those people have the mindset that they paid into the program, they should get their money back. The next generation has to worry about not getting a return on their tax dollars.
Many forms of socialism aren't about creating class divide, but eliminating it. For instance, Anarchists like myself believe in common ownership and the abolition of social classes. You see? The problem here is less that you're accusing the incumbent of being a socialist, but that you don't in any way understand socialism itself. Is it not inane to label me as something you can't define?
I totally understand socialism. I also understand that we are not a socialist nation yet. That's the point. The customs, traditions, and very intellect of a society must be changed before socialism is accepted. That is what we are currently undergoing. The turning of the majority lower and middle class or "working class" are turned against the minority upper class or "bourgeoisie". I'm not saying there is some socialist agenda where a mastermind controls everything, however, it is a continuous flow of like minded people who believe that they know better than the masses and know what is best for those masses. People such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Barack Obama have this mindset. Americans are probably the slowest society that would succumb to this way of life. That is why it is taking over 100 years to do it. However, it is slowly but surely permeating into the American lexicon that the gov't is there for you and you should put all of your trust in it. What people don't seem to understand is that without the capitalist society we have, the very funding they crave for their gov't projects and entitlements would not exist. We would not have lasted nearly the length of time we have if we were a purely socialist country. There's a reason no socialist country has ever lasted longer than 80 years. The concept can't work. It will never work. Because men have brains and this irritating tendency to want to use them and reap the fruits of their efforts.
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Socialism is the idea that everyone owns everything and had a hand in it's building ("you didn't build that" "pay your fair share") while one central gov't controls it all. There's a difference between owning something and controlling something. The reason socialism doesn't work is what you see happening in our country. When the gov't becomes the provider, individual motivation and responsibility are taken away. That's not to say that we should allow people to die in the street. However, those same people should not be cared for cradle to grave. The safety net should be low hanging and perilous. As it is, many citizens look forward to the day that they can enjoy social security and medicare instead of having to fend for themselves. And the vicious circle is that all of those people have the mindset that they paid into the program, they should get their money back. The next generation has to worry about not getting a return on their tax dollars.

I totally understand socialism. I also understand that we are not a socialist nation yet. That's the point. The customs, traditions, and very intellect of a society must be changed before socialism is accepted. That is what we are currently undergoing. The turning of the majority lower and middle class or "working class" are turned against the minority upper class or "bourgeoisie". I'm not saying there is some socialist agenda where a mastermind controls everything, however, it is a continuous flow of like minded people who believe that they know better than the masses and know what is best for those masses. People such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Barack Obama have this mindset. Americans are probably the slowest society that would succumb to this way of life. That is why it is taking over 100 years to do it. However, it is slowly but surely permeating into the American lexicon that the gov't is there for you and you should put all of your trust in it. What people don't seem to understand is that without the capitalist society we have, the very funding they crave for their gov't projects and entitlements would not exist. We would not have lasted nearly the length of time we have if we were a purely socialist country. There's a reason no socialist country has ever lasted longer than 80 years. The concept can't work. It will never work. Because men have brains and this irritating tendency to want to use them and reap the fruits of their efforts.
Look, Barack Obama is not a socialist, he is a proponent of Keynesian Economics. I know for a fact that you do not understand socialism, as what you describe above nonsense. You merely describe a centralized economy, with an authoritarian government where the middle class and government oppress the upper class. First, that's not socialism. Second, a progressive tax system does not oppress the upper class. Marx never believed in government and he preached a classless society. Nothing close to what Obama advocates for.

Look at it this way:
I'm a socialist, our president is not. I'm a Marxist, our president is not. I'm a collectivist, our president is not. I believe in the radical shrinking of government, our president does not. I believe in the abolition of social classes, our president does not.

This is just pitiful. :(
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Btw, there is no such thing as a socialist libertarian. It's called an oxymoron.
100% wrong. Libertarian Socialism is synonymous for things like Anarchism, Anarchist Communism, Left Libertarianism, and so forth. Politically, it basically consists of three things: Collectivization, the abolition of social classes, and the shrinking of government. :)
 

TheGirlNextDoor


DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
20,033
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Romney and Ryan.

Don't ask.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,717
Reaction score
17,136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Romney and Ryan. I'm completing my Judas status, but will be voting for the Democratic challenger for Senate in my State.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Look, Barack Obama is not a socialist, he is a proponent of Keynesian Economics. I know for a fact that you do not understand socialism, as what you describe above nonsense. You merely describe a centralized economy, with an authoritarian government where the middle class and government oppress the upper class. First, that's not socialism. Second, a progressive tax system does not oppress the upper class. Marx never believed in government and he preached a classless society. Nothing close to what Obama advocates for.
Lets hear what you think socialism is then. Instead of attacking my views, explain your own. Dispute my claims. Show me where it hasn't been practiced like this. What I describe is exactly the way it has been practiced in virtually all socialist nations and the way Karl Marx described it. In fact, Karl Marx believed socialism was merely a stop on the way to communism. Seeing as how Marx is the father of modern socialism, that would fit my description to a T. Socialism is the deception of the many for the benefit of the few. At least, that's what it ends up being. The entire premise of socialism is based upon the fact that men give up their individualism for the benefit of the whole. The few at the top enforce and manage this utopian way of life. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with most men.
Look at it this way:
I'm a socialist, our president is not. I'm a Marxist, our president is not. I'm a collectivist, our president is not. I believe in the radical shrinking of government, our president does not. I believe in the abolition of social classes, our president does not.

This is just pitiful. :(
It is pitiful. You act as though you know what you're talking about yet offer no rebuttal. You assume I will just say "Oh, so you're a socialist and he's not. Good enough for me." You are going down the path of many new users on this website. You believe in something but don't know why. Then, when someone who doesn't share your views knows your position and understands why they don't like it, you turn to statements like "This is just pitiful". The President isn't a socialist in practice, I will agree with that. If he came out and said he was, it would be President Mitt Romney in November. Instead, he attempts to slowly put socialist tenants into practice on the assumption that citizens don't know what socialism is anyway, Democrats won't oppose him, Republicans will be called extremist by the biased media when they call him on it. And to say that socialism doesn't require a big government is laughable. A large government is essential to the socialist state. Who else will control all things economy? The free market? If citizens are allowed to control the market and not government, that's what you have, a free market.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I'll be most likely voting Romney/Ryan in the general, Jay Nixon for governor, and skipping the senate race.

Romney and Ryan. I'm completing my Judas status, but will be voting for the Democratic challenger for Senate in my State.
Which way is that election trending now do you think? That North Dakota race is the only senate election I can't really get a read on.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,717
Reaction score
17,136
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'll be most likely voting Romney/Ryan in the general, Jay Nixon for governor, and skipping the senate race.



Which way is that election trending now do you think? That North Dakota race is the only senate election I can't really get a read on.
Despite a couple polls a while ago to the contrary, I think Berg is going to win. For one thing, the sheer amount of advertisements being aired on behalf of the campaign and his supporters is significant in comparison to Heitkamp's. Berg has already successfully ridden the Tea Party agenda in a state without Tea Party problems to the House, his (what I view shameless and silly) promotion of North Dakota's growth and attaching it to his name has probably worked well, and folks are simply in an amped up mood to repudiate anything Democrat/Obama-ish. Now, again, our Democrats are not Obamaites (we're the Blue Dog folk), but her one comment about Obama being "awesome" has hurt, her initial support for Obamacare is a definite sting, and she's been out of the game for a while (due to being a cancer survivor). Obamacare pretty much took out our Democratic representatives, despite long standing and differences with the bill. So Heidi's problem is that she has to walk the fine line of wanting to reform the Act to address an obvious number of problems with it, but at the same time chide Berg for wanting it repealed. Is that really going to sell well here, considering the Presidential race? I doubt that. Heidi and her family have been big in North Dakota politics, but the time away has allowed even more message building by the Republican Party in the state. The political atmosphere has changed since the Tea Party, probably because for the most part, we just want the rest of you guys to be like us, rather than North Dakota having any serious problems as a result of government overstepping its bounds. Actually, the argument has recently been the opposite-state government isn't doing enough to help the growing pains from the boom, but our state budget technically can't do anything serious to alter that.
 
Last edited:

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lets hear what you think socialism is then. Instead of attacking my views, explain your own. Dispute my claims. Show me where it hasn't been practiced like this. What I describe is exactly the way it has been practiced in virtually all socialist nations and the way Karl Marx described it. In fact, Karl Marx believed socialism was merely a stop on the way to communism. Seeing as how Marx is the father of modern socialism, that would fit my description to a T. Socialism is the deception of the many for the benefit of the few. At least, that's what it ends up being. The entire premise of socialism is based upon the fact that men give up their individualism for the benefit of the whole. The few at the top enforce and manage this utopian way of life. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with most men.


It is pitiful. You act as though you know what you're talking about yet offer no rebuttal. You assume I will just say "Oh, so you're a socialist and he's not. Good enough for me." You are going down the path of many new users on this website. You believe in something but don't know why. Then, when someone who doesn't share your views knows your position and understands why they don't like it, you turn to statements like "This is just pitiful". The President isn't a socialist in practice, I will agree with that. If he came out and said he was, it would be President Mitt Romney in November. Instead, he attempts to slowly put socialist tenants into practice on the assumption that citizens don't know what socialism is anyway, Democrats won't oppose him, Republicans will be called extremist by the biased media when they call him on it. And to say that socialism doesn't require a big government is laughable. A large government is essential to the socialist state. Who else will control all things economy? The free market? If citizens are allowed to control the market and not government, that's what you have, a free market.
There's no one definition for socialism, it's merely a common term for various ideologies. Go do some research if you want to find out about them all - there are quite a few. ;) Also, go and read the posts I've made in our discussion. They'd be helpful to you.

You believe in something but don't know why.
If you've been following this thread, you would know that your statement is absolutely baseless.

I'm a Libertarian Socialist(Left Libertarian, Anarchist, and so on) from the United States.

Libertarian Socialism is synonymous for things like Anarchism, Anarchist Communism, Left Libertarianism, and so forth. Politically, it basically consists of three things: Collectivization, the abolition of social classes, and the shrinking of government.
It also consists of the abolition of nonessential power dynamics. Look at Anarchist Catalonia, Argentina after the bankruptcy, the Spanish cooperative called Mondragon, and mining collectives. They're all examples of collectivism and/or anarchism at work. And that it does, socialism works wither the McCarthyite America wants to recognize it or not

Happy? :2razz:

Have another Chomsky quote.
I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom. That includes political power, ownership and management, relations among men and women, parents and children, our control over the fate of future generations (the basic moral imperative behind the environmental movement, in my view), and much else.
So no, I'm not following down the path of these forumers you speak of. If you want to try to dismantle my beliefs, go ahead, just don't misrepresent them.
 

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Despite a couple polls a while ago to the contrary, I think Berg is going to win. For one thing, the sheer amount of advertisements being aired on behalf of the campaign and his supporters is significant in comparison to Heitkamp's. Berg has already successfully ridden the Tea Party agenda in a state without Tea Party problems to the House, his (what I view shameless and silly) promotion of North Dakota's growth and attaching it to his name has probably worked well, and folks are simply in an amped up mood to repudiate anything Democrat/Obama-ish. Now, again, our Democrats are not Obamaites (we're the Blue Dog folk), but her one comment about Obama being "awesome" has hurt, her initial support for Obamacare is a definite sting, and she's been out of the game for a while (due to being a cancer survivor). Obamacare pretty much took out our Democratic representatives, despite long standing and differences with the bill. So Heidi's problem is that she has to walk the fine line of wanting to reform the Act to address an obvious number of problems with it, but at the same time chide Berg for wanting it repealed. Is that really going to sell well here, considering the Presidential race? I doubt that. Heidi and her family have been big in North Dakota politics, but the time away has allowed even more message building by the Republican Party in the state. The political atmosphere has changed since the Tea Party, probably because for the most part, we just want the rest of you guys to be like us, rather than North Dakota having any serious problems as a result of government overstepping its bounds. Actually, the argument has recently been the opposite-state government isn't doing enough to help the growing pains from the boom, but our state budget technically can't do anything serious to alter that.
Thanks for the info. It's always interesting to get perspectives on these races from the people who actually live there.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There's no one definition for socialism, it's merely a common term for various ideologies. Go do some research if you want to find out about them all - there are quite a few. ;) Also, go and read the posts I've made in our discussion. They'd be helpful to you.
I know there are quite a few. I am describing modern socialism as defined by Karl Marx, who is the father of modern socialism. All socialists have basic beliefs that are contrary to the core beliefs of the Founding Fathers and in line with people such as Thomas Hobbes ie the whole is more important that the individual, the greater good is worth the sacrifice of the individual goals and dreams, and suppression of individualism is a must to accomplish all of these things. It doesn't matter what "kind" of socialist you run in to, they believe these things.


If you've been following this thread, you would know that your statement is absolutely baseless.
Again, you have given no evidence or counter points to defend your position. Other than to refer to Chomsky and redirect me to other posts.

It also consists of the abolition of nonessential power dynamics. Look at Anarchist Catalonia, Argentina after the bankruptcy, the Spanish cooperative called Mondragon, and mining collectives. They're all examples of collectivism and/or anarchism at work. And that it does, socialism works wither the McCarthyite America wants to recognize it or not

Happy? :2razz:

Have another Chomsky quote.


So no, I'm not following down the path of these forumers you speak of. If you want to try to dismantle my beliefs, go ahead, just don't misrepresent them.
You have continued to move the goal posts with your last few thoughts. Anarchism is vastly different from socialism. Anarchism is vastly different from collectivism. Yet you speak of all of them as if they are one and the same. In addition, I would love to see some evidence that socialism works. No socialist government has ever lasted 80 years. America is at 236 years and counting. Yet, despite that long run, we continue to float more and more towards a socialist type gov't. And the bad part is, the more we float towards it, the dimmer our future looks.
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I know there are quite a few. I am describing modern socialism as defined by Karl Marx, who is the father of modern socialism. All socialists have basic beliefs that are contrary to the core beliefs of the Founding Fathers and in line with people such as Thomas Hobbes ie the whole is more important that the individual, the greater good is worth the sacrifice of the individual goals and dreams, and suppression of individualism is a must to accomplish all of these things. It doesn't matter what "kind" of socialist you run in to, they believe these things.



Again, you have given no evidence or counter points to defend your position. Other than to refer to Chomsky and redirect me to other posts.



You have continued to move the goal posts with your last few thoughts. Anarchism is vastly different from socialism. Anarchism is vastly different from collectivism. Yet you speak of all of them as if they are one and the same. In addition, I would love to see some evidence that socialism works. No socialist government has ever lasted 80 years. America is at 236 years and counting. Yet, despite that long run, we continue to float more and more towards a socialist type gov't. And the bad part is, the more we float towards it, the dimmer our future looks.
I went and got a list and we can use that, if you want. ;) I'll have you know that I'm not a socialist in the sense you describe it, I'm an anarchist, anarchocommunist, LL, etc - hence my political leaning. While an anarchist is a socialist, socialists are not necessarily anarchists.

1) The abolition of the property/ownership of land.

Not Obama

2) Income tax to be graded to income – the more an individual earned, the more they paid. The less you earned, the less you paid.

Obama does believe this, but so do other countries - see Spain and France. It's really not that unusual, not that it matters.

3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Not Obama

4) The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels.

Not Obama. In fact, he's not nearly as anti immigration as his Republican counterparts, not that either party believes in the aforementioned.

5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy.

While you've been arguing the the incumbent is believes in centralization, I did some looking and found little if anything to say he was. Even if you're right, that's nothing close to what Marx was. Also, bailouts/stimulus money don't equate to government control.

6) Centralisation of all means of communication and transport into the hands of the state.

Same as above.

7) The extension of factories and the instrument of production owned by the state. Bringing into cultivation all land not being used that could be and an improvement in the fertility of the soil.

Same as above, minus the bailouts/stimulus. ;)

8) The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies.

Not Obama. Being that you call him both a Marxist and the Welfare President, this one is troublesome for you, no?

9) The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country.

Not Obama, bummer.

10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated.

Yeah, that's Obama. ;)
Karl Marx

Let me also remind you that Marx believed in the abolition of government:
Marx never believed in government and he preached a classless society. Nothing close to what Obama advocates for.
Quite troublesome for you, no?

See? Even when I find a list of Marx's beliefs, you still fall short. That's when things go down hill for you: We can throw rhetoric back and forth all we want, trying to convince each other what socialism is and isn't, but when you say he's a Marxist, I have something to compare him with and then... well let's not go back and reminisce. ;)

Also keep in mind that Socialism is a broad term, so try to use more specific ones, like Marxist, Leninist, etc.
 

Sidestreamer

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Location
Brooklyn's ambassador to West Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The time spent running to the polling place and submitting a vote in the state of Texas, where the conclusion has long been determined, is better spent shacking up with a prostitute and getting laid. Because, if I'm going to get screwed, I would rather enjoy it.
 

gtmt

New member
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
2016 movie is a must see....how anyone can vote for Obama is a mystery, of course Demos will claim its all bs, logic will prevail...see the movie first, then comment.
 

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I went and got a list and we can use that, if you want. ;) I'll have you know that I'm not a socialist in the sense you describe it, I'm an anarchist, anarchocommunist, LL, etc - hence my political leaning. While an anarchist is a socialist, socialists are not necessarily anarchists.



Karl Marx

Let me also remind you that Marx believed in the abolition of government:

Quite troublesome for you, no?

See? Even when I find a list of Marx's beliefs, you still fall short. That's when things go down hill for you: We can throw rhetoric back and forth all we want, trying to convince each other what socialism is and isn't, but when you say he's a Marxist, I have something to compare him with and then... well let's not go back and reminisce. ;)

Also keep in mind that Socialism is a broad term, so try to use more specific ones, like Marxist, Leninist, etc.
I have said numerous times I am speaking of Marxism. Please try to keep up.
Moving on, while Marx may have said he didn't believe in a gov't or classes, he also recognized the need for them. Of course, as long as it was his party in power. From the Communist Manifesto: “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariatinto a class, overthrow of the bourgeoisie society, conquest of political power”. Distrust of gov't doesn't equate to no gov't. John Locke distrusted gov't, yet he knew that it could exist with the properly instituted and properly observedchecks and balances. Karl Marx distrusts gov't, yet knows that he would be fine with it if his party is it.
Now, let's look at the 10 planks you listed.
1) The abolition of the property/ownership of land.
While this could never fully be put in practice, it is being perpetrated by the Obama administration in a few ways that are creative and deceptive. First, by "bailing" out businesses they are essentially taking ownership of previously private property. Second, by advocating to "relieve" some mortgage holders by purchasing their property or allowing them to default on their mortgage. Third, allowing student loan recipients to default on their debt. This debt is the property of the school.
2) Income tax to be graded to income – the more an individual earned, the more they paid. The less you earned, the less you paid.
Uh, yeah, he advocates for this at every campaign stop. By using European countries as the example of it not being unusual further proves my point as the Eurpeans are about 10 years ahead of us on the downward spiral to socialism.
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
In keeping with the theme that this country is the hardest of all to institute socialist ideals, Pres Obama begins the slow roll of this much like FDR did with a larger gov't.
Obama Estate Tax Budget Proposal Keeps Wealthy Jumpy - Bloomberg
4) The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels.
Agree on this. Neither side has any clue how to tackle immigration so they just spit rhetoric.
5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy.
We do this more everyday with Pres Obama advocating for more control by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve IS this plank. And Pres Obama loves him some Federal Reserve interference with the economy.
6) Centralisation of all means of communication and transport into the hands of the state.
Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America — RT
Just because the Federal gov't doesn't actively control it, doesn't mean they don't have the ability.
7) The extension of factories and the instrument of production owned by the state. Bringing into cultivation all land not being used that could be and an improvement in the fertility of the soil.
The Federal gov't owns over 650 million acres of land, over 30% of the country, easily making it the largest land holder in the US. In addition, each time the Federal gov't bails someone out, provides "stimulus" money, etc they own that business. Also, see Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
8) The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies.
Who called him the Welfare President? Oh, you are just quoting Fox News and thought I would just agree with that huh? Like I said earlier, President Obama doesn't hit all of the planks. Hitting this plank would be troublesome for him seeing as how he needs the votes of those people he needs to work.
9) The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country.
See above. I guess no one can be a perfect Marxist (what an oxymoron that is)
10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated.
No need to debate this. I think this is one thing that all people in the world can agree with. However, it shouldn't be totally free unless a child's family proves they can't afford it.
 

waas

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
2,432
Reaction score
451
Location
Riding a tapir
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have said numerous times I am speaking of Marxism. Please try to keep up.
Moving on, while Marx may have said he didn't believe in a gov't or classes, he also recognized the need for them. Of course, as long as it was his party in power. From the Communist Manifesto: “The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariatinto a class, overthrow of the bourgeoisie society, conquest of political power”. Distrust of gov't doesn't equate to no gov't. John Locke distrusted gov't, yet he knew that it could exist with the properly instituted and properly observedchecks and balances. Karl Marx distrusts gov't, yet knows that he would be fine with it if his party is it.
Now, let's look at the 10 planks you listed.
1) The abolition of the property/ownership of land.
While this could never fully be put in practice, it is being perpetrated by the Obama administration in a few ways that are creative and deceptive. First, by "bailing" out businesses they are essentially taking ownership of previously private property. Second, by advocating to "relieve" some mortgage holders by purchasing their property or allowing them to default on their mortgage. Third, allowing student loan recipients to default on their debt. This debt is the property of the school.
2) Income tax to be graded to income – the more an individual earned, the more they paid. The less you earned, the less you paid.
Uh, yeah, he advocates for this at every campaign stop. By using European countries as the example of it not being unusual further proves my point as the Eurpeans are about 10 years ahead of us on the downward spiral to socialism.
3) Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
In keeping with the theme that this country is the hardest of all to institute socialist ideals, Pres Obama begins the slow roll of this much like FDR did with a larger gov't.
Obama Estate Tax Budget Proposal Keeps Wealthy Jumpy - Bloomberg
4) The confiscation of all property of immigrants and rebels.
Agree on this. Neither side has any clue how to tackle immigration so they just spit rhetoric.
5) The centralisation of all credit into the hands of the state by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive economy.
We do this more everyday with Pres Obama advocating for more control by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve IS this plank. And Pres Obama loves him some Federal Reserve interference with the economy.
6) Centralisation of all means of communication and transport into the hands of the state.
Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America — RT
Just because the Federal gov't doesn't actively control it, doesn't mean they don't have the ability.
7) The extension of factories and the instrument of production owned by the state. Bringing into cultivation all land not being used that could be and an improvement in the fertility of the soil.
The Federal gov't owns over 650 million acres of land, over 30% of the country, easily making it the largest land holder in the US. In addition, each time the Federal gov't bails someone out, provides "stimulus" money, etc they own that business. Also, see Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
8) The equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of an industrial and agricultural armies.
Who called him the Welfare President? Oh, you are just quoting Fox News and thought I would just agree with that huh? Like I said earlier, President Obama doesn't hit all of the planks. Hitting this plank would be troublesome for him seeing as how he needs the votes of those people he needs to work.
9) The combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries with the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by the more equable distribution of the population over the country.
See above. I guess no one can be a perfect Marxist (what an oxymoron that is)
10) Free education for all children in public schools. The abolition of child labour in factories; an educated child would be better for society in the long term, than a child not educated.
No need to debate this. I think this is one thing that all people in the world can agree with. However, it shouldn't be totally free unless a child's family proves they can't afford it.
I'll concede that there exist parallels between modern liberalism and Marxism and while I wholly disagree with some of the points you made above, it's inconsequential. To me,(in the words of Milton Friedman) "you're seeing the hole in the barn door, but not the barn door itself". The parallels you see between Marxism and modern liberalism are merely because they're both left wing ideologies - It's like equating modern conservationism to Fascism or Tory Anarchism. I doubt this debate will go any further, as neither of us seem likely to concede our positions. I just want you to remember that just because two ideologies are slightly similar, doesn't make them congruent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom