Go back
Socialist?

Socialist?

Debates

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by shavixmir
You know when you go to the toilet and you have that sticky poo that costs half a toilet role to wipe away?

Well, what you deposit in the toilet is exactly the same as a conservative.

You shouldn't expect faeces to form educated opinions.
Make a move, you tit. I want to get your ass-kicking over and done with.

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

Lawrence O'Donnell made probably the most articulate defenses of socialism on prime time television since Michael Harrington died.




Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by bill718
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?

Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲
Liberals are NOT Socialists! I am NOT a Socialist. I believe in shared responsibilities not free lunches - everybody must contribute. Conservatives don't mind sharing if it means they get a slice of pie - they run from the table when the waiter brings the bill. They honestly do not believe in the very foundation of our country which is a Social Contract - they want no part of it. Eventually they will make it impossible to have a country. They are almost there now.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Lawrence O'Donnell made probably the most articulate defenses of socialism on prime time television since Michael Harrington died.


http://youtu.be/gsx_GMj4k08

http://youtu.be/dpvHVnr6y9U
Excellent link. Just imagine if Americans were not actually open to selling their votes to the confidence tricksters who use a magician's trick to divert their attention from the real policy issues. Imagine if elections could not be decided by the millions spent on lying tricky irrelevant slurs. Imagine an electorate that actually voted to protect its interests, instead of swooning before the babble of the rich as their pockets are picked again and again.

Nah. Can't. That'd be socialism.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Liberals are NOT Socialists! I am NOT a Socialist. I believe in shared responsibilities not free lunches - everybody must contribute. Conservatives don't mind sharing if it means they get a slice of pie - they run from the table when the waiter brings the bill. They honestly do not believe in the very foundation of our country which is a Social Contract ...[text shortened]... rt of it. Eventually they will make it impossible to have a country. They are almost there now.
Well, again, nearly everyone except maybe the most radical of Cahto Institute types is a socialist to a certain degree. Public schools and libraries are socialism. Public highways are socialism. Government financed military is socialism. Police. Fire Departments. Sidewalks. The Internet. All socialist projects.

Liberals are just a little more socialist than conservatives, and a little less socialist than social democrats.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
First,welcome back, Bill! 🙂

As for your questions, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are little more than meaningless tautologies built on strawmen.

However, to humor you:

1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??


If something that you or your family needs is free or cheap a ...[text shortened]... rwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?
...can you please clarify a circumstance when an otherwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?

You aren't asking me but: Some farm subsidy programs and price support programs may fit the bill. Sometimes called corporate welfare.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by JS357
[b]...can you please clarify a circumstance when an otherwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?

You aren't asking me but: Some farm subsidy programs and price support programs may fit the bill. Sometimes called corporate welfare.[/b]
As Michael Harrington said, we live in a country which socializes the risk, but privatizes the profit.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
We've covered this. Even for someone as wealthy as Buffett, one single person's taxes is a drop in the bucket relative to total tax revenues and the national debt.

I also confronted you with Republicans who are in the bottom 50% who say we should "expand the tax base" but don't volunteer to contribute. You say they're not being hypocrites. I ag ...[text shortened]... tax code is changed so that ALL top earners such as himself and Romney contribute more.
"He knows the ONLY thing that will generate a (meaningful) amount of revenue is if the tax code is changed so that ALL top earners such as himself and Romney contribute more."

He also knows that more revenue is not a solution to a system that is addicted to overspending. Recognizing his mortality, he sees that his heirs will squander his lifetime earnings, as will the government, and so does what he can to distribute it before his death. Gates is doing the same thing.

If someone where wealthy enough to pay off the national debt, and government raised taxes on the wealthy to eliminate the current deficit, it would not take long for politicians to create a new deficit, and then accumulate a debt equal to or worse than the current one.

It is time to recognize that regardless of the party of the President, for a long time our nation, both in government, and in our personal lives has been addicted to spending more than we produce. Reversing that course is the only path to survival.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Soothfast
...Except when they're not, during which time they're passing medieval laws dictating what everyone can and can't do with their own bodies.
That's been done by both conservatives and liberals.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
That's been done by both conservatives and liberals.
Mostly by conservatives.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Liberals are NOT Socialists! I am NOT a Socialist. I believe in shared responsibilities not free lunches - everybody must contribute. Conservatives don't mind sharing if it means they get a slice of pie - they run from the table when the waiter brings the bill. They honestly do not believe in the very foundation of our country which is a Social Contract ...[text shortened]... rt of it. Eventually they will make it impossible to have a country. They are almost there now.
Liberals are not liberals anymore.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Mostly by conservatives.
I don't think on balance there is a difference, nor do I see that socialism and its growth is the fault of a single party. The two largest socialistic moves came under one Republican president, and one Democrat.

I refer to Medicare Prescription Drug benefit, and Obama Care. The Medicare extension may in reality be more socialistic than the current application of Obamacare.

As to the host of statist regulations on our manner of living, dictating what we eat, drink, smoke and how we enjoy life, and throw in dictatorial changes in cultural norms, it is pretty clear that limiting liberty is neither conservative nor liberal in the contemporary sense.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Kunsoo
As Michael Harrington said, we live in a country which socializes the risk, but privatizes the profit.
Neat aphoristic sophism.

And were it true, and it may be in some cases, what is the solution? If risk is sometimes eliminated for those at the top, does that infer that risk ought to be eliminated altogether? Or is it likely destructive to eliminate risk at any level?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by normbenign
"He knows the ONLY thing that will generate a (meaningful) amount of revenue is if the tax code is changed so that ALL top earners such as himself and Romney contribute more."

He also knows that more revenue is not a solution to a system that is addicted to overspending. Recognizing his mortality, he sees that his heirs will squander his lifetime earn ...[text shortened]... ddicted to spending more than we produce. Reversing that course is the only path to survival.
Does he know this? Do you have any quotes from him to support this? Do you have any quotes from him claiming he donated the money to avoid taxes?

So Buffett has called to raise taxes on the rich because he thinks the government will squander it?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Does he know this? Do you have any quotes from him to support this? Do you have any quotes from him claiming he donated the money to avoid taxes?

So Buffett has called to raise taxes on the rich because he thinks the government will squander it?
"So Buffett has called to raise taxes on the rich because he thinks the government will squander it?"

I'm watching what he says and does. He's said he doesn't want to leave his money to his kids. He's not so different from other do gooders. Nobody ever says "tax me more". Nor do they just give their money willingly to the IRS.

Feel free to add any amount you wish to the tax you pay. No, you and everyone else wants someone else to pay more. How about the simple notion of the government spending less.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.