waas
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2012
- Messages
- 2,432
- Reaction score
- 451
- Location
- Riding a tapir
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Now that Rice is out of the picture, do you support Kerry for Secretary of State?
Yes. He also would have been a 100x better president than Dumbya.
Still wouldnt be able to fly a fighter jet though.
You're high. He would've been every bit the spender George Bush was.Yes. He also would have been a 100x better president than Dumbya.
Now that Rice is out of the picture, do you support Kerry for Secretary of State?
Ummm, why do you think we swiftboated Kerry in the first place?
I sincerely hope you ride that horse this time because I believe that you are going to see just how far that dead horse will take you. :beatdeadhorseUmmm, why do you think we swiftboated Kerry in the first place?
He's a war veteran... :doh
NO! I don't support any Neo-Socialist for the post. But with a Neo-Commie bastard as president, that is all we are likely to see nominated.
Right! Make an honest warrior look bad to make a AWOL, dope using, "No, I refuse to go to Vietnam after the USA spends one milion dollars to teach me to fly fighter planes," your hero. I got the message.
Okay, two things:
1. You're 'talking' to a self described socialist, so those terms don't offend me in any way.
2. Kerry's a partisan, but hardly a neo-socialist. The same could be said about Obama.
You're a poe, right? :shock:
We all have different ways of using terminology, so I won't criticize you too much. Here we go:Liberalism is a neo-socialist socio-economic philosophy, therefore all liberals are neo-socialist. Instead of government ownership to take control of the economy, they instead try to use the methodology of "regulated capitalism",
Not at all. Government regulation doesn't equate to government ownership.which in the end does everything that government ownership would, just without the ownership.
Also, they use government control to try to change and reeducate society to their ideals, instead of just using an Iron hand like Lennin, Stalin, Mao, etc. They are trying a velvet glove and brainwashing in the schools to attempt what those previous did through direct control. The road may be different, but both socialism and liberalism end up at the same place.
What is a poe?
I don't use the term to be offensive, I use it to be descriptive.
If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. However, it could be a Mallard or some other species of duck, but still a duck.
Right! Make an honest warrior look bad to make a AWOL, dope using, "No, I refuse to go to Vietnam after the USA spends one milion dollars to teach me to fly fighter planes," your hero. I got the message.
We all have different ways of using terminology, so I won't criticize you too much. Here we go:
1. Liberal is an inaccurate term to describe political philosophy.
2. Regulated capitalism is still capitalism.
Not at all. Government regulation doesn't equate to government ownership.
Now sweetie, provide evidence if you want me to believe that nonsense.
A troll who fakes extreme views, basically.
But you don't seem to know what it means.
Bush was not AWOL, and didnt refuse to go to Vietnam. However, I realize you may beleive this, regardless of the lack of evidence. Not that Bush has anything to do with this topic.
I don't know about him refusing to go to Vietnam, however, he definitely appeared to be AWOL, or something similar, during his second term.
I agree that Liberal is the wrong term and is a misuse of the actual definition of Liberal, however, I don't know what the real term should be, nor has our society given me another term to use for those who follow that socio-economic philosophy. The real term should probably be something or another socialist.
I disagree. When government regulation exceeds reasonable levels, it is directly controlling the economy and economic factors. There is no real difference between direct ownership and total government control under "Regulated Capitalism". It is not Capitalism in any form, it's use of Capitalism is simply to cover the real economy and to build a desirable facade to show people, a fake front if you will. It leaves the appearance of Capitalism where it does not actually exists.
Recently, provisions of the law commonly called Obama-care, instituted government control of how much profit an industry can make, specifically the healthcare insurance industry.
Wallstreet Reform has taken on the mantra of CEO's getting overpaid while workers are underpaid and attempts to place some regulation on it.That's just raising the minimum wage... Not exactly socialism.
Further, the Left in America has been calling for direct government control of healthcare and also calling for higher taxes on the "rich" and corporate profits.
Okay, a few things:
1. The left in this country is a disorganized, marginalized group of minor political groups. They're calling for anything, or at least they're not getting it.
2. Government run health care is a key part of democratic socialism, but it's a capitalist idea as well. Canada and various capitalist European countries do it.
3. Progressive taxation is not an exclusively socialist idea.
Minimum wage is a strictly capitalist policy - a large number of right wingers advocate for it. Socialists advocate for direct worker or government control of production.Couple this with the existing regulations such as minimum wage and the government attempting to control how much each person gets paid.
Add in EPA and other regulations and they attempt to control what markets a company may enter and what technologies may be pursued.
That's not exactly true. The EPA is an organization that sets regulations to prevent the over-expenditure and damage of natural resources. If anything, it's a largely beneficial force to corporations.
If the government controls pay, profits, allowable markets and through taxes claims any profits, how is that different really from the government just out right claiming ownership of the Market? The only difference is that they leave a false front to appear not to be exercising the control they really exert.
See above
Please don't call me sweetie, while I appreciate the offer, I just don't swing that way.
If your views are those of a child, you'll be spoken to as a child.
Lets see,
Mandatory teaching of muti-culturalism.
Teaching of "minority sensitive" history.
Teaching children "homosexual tolerance" that is targeted not at accepting homosexuals as deserving human rights, but to glorify homosexuality.
In public schools, the government has the right to set a curriculum, provided it falls within basic moral guidelines. Bear in mind that republicans regulate public schools as well.
Teaching hatred of religion and suppressing religious expression.
That's incorrect and contrived.
Lack of teaching of government and different governmental approaches and theory.
That varies based on school, but, last time I checked, public schools didn't teach any comprehensive government theory.
Controlling, through Affirmative action, who can even receive certain levels of education. A few years back, the Law School at the University of Texas, adopted an acceptance policy that used only academic performance as a measure. The best performers amongst the applicants received the slots. However, because the make up of the accepted did not meet standards (quotas) for Affirmative Action, the school was sued and forced to accept black applicants over other applicants that were more qualified. This is good example of control of who receives educations. Not to mention a plethora of other laws designed to open opportunities for minorities but do not offer the same opportunities the the so-called majority. Anytime race is used as a selection criteria, that law is racist, whether it benefits or oppresses a particular race. Same with sex and other factors.
That not "brainwashing", nor is it socialism. Stay on topic.
Redistricting of Political districts based, not upon geographical boundaries, but upon guaranteeing an increase in "minority" representation.
Bear in mind that Republicans redistrict as well. It's up to the discretion of state officials.
Well, since I am no more a troll than most people here, that alone makes the term not apply. Also, I don't fake my views, extreme or otherwise. I do sometimes exaggerate my views to demonstrate that such extremes can exist, but the core is still my view. Also, I intentionally post views in a confrontational in order to spur further discussion.
Cool beans, kiddo.
BTW, who gets to decide if someone is a Troll, you? What standard do you use to come to that determination? That they express views contrary to your own?
It's just my opinion. Don't read in to it so much. :shrug:
Socialism is a term used by Marx to explain the transition from Capitalism, different societies and governments into an unified form called Communism. Marx, or perhaps it was Engels, that codified the socio-economic philosophies and methodologies gained from various sources into a cohesive form of Socialism and Communism. Later the term was altered in meaning to mean Marxist who did not believe in the full transition to Communism but believed that Socialism was not a means of transition, but an actual philosophy of it's own. The term was later adopted and attempted to be redefined as different non-Marxist, but socially focused theories of government and economics, however, all forms of socialism incorporate some or all of Marx's teachings.
Good for you. :clap:
Since Marx, under his theory of Socialism, called for government seizure/control of means of production and distribution, economy, it has become popular to use the term Socialism for any government ownership of a market or part of the economy.
Not exactly true. Socialism commonly refers to any political philosophy that advocates for government, or collective ownership of production.
Also, government control to educate and bring about changes in the behavior of a society were also called for, government programs that appear or actually change societies behavior are called socialist, referring to one who practices socialism.
Completely false.
Redistribution of wealth, actually resources, since his theory does away with money, upon an equal basis, once again, government programs that are or appear to be focused upon achieving this goal, whether through Marx's methodologies or other means, are referred to as socialist or socialism.
True enough, but redistribution is almost solely an authoritarian idea.
What is called Liberalism in America, through their actions, appear to attempt to achieve these same goals that Marx had, then I believe it is indeed a form of socialism. However, not communism, as I have never actually heard a so-called Liberal call for the reduction of government.
1. American liberalism is actually pretty right wing, compared to the capitalist countries in Europe.
2. The Republicans aren't exactly anti-government, either.
What is called Liberalism, in America today, is far left-authoritarian instead of far left-libertarian.
In relative terms, American liberalism would be considered right wing.
The only real difference between so-called Fascist and current Liberal Doctrine is that it has not yet progressed to militarism to oppress opposing views and the fact that Fascist didn't oppress religion to the extent that Liberalism does.
1. Liberals don't oppress religion. They just don't advocate for religious control of society.
2. By definition, fascism is right wing authoritarianism.
However, it does appear that Liberalism in America today does have a strong Nationalistic streak. Apparently there is a difference in Nationalism expressed by the Liberals today, since some call for strong Nationalism while others have negotiated and gotten approval for Free-Trade agreements. Clinton, NAFTA and Obama, Free-Trade agreement with S. Korea.
See above.
Look, if you want to debate this, I'm more than willing to. But let's do so in a private debate so you can stop derailing my thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?