We’ve tried nationalism on for size, why not socialism?

Because my money and my property are none of your business, and I will expect you to stay the F away from both and mind your own business.

Next!

 

^^Thread win.^^

LOL.

 

The only difference is the countries they were prevalent in.
Motherland vs fatherland.

 

Did you really just use a study from an organization with an agenda to equalize wealth? Come dude. That's just stupid. You want unbiased facts, try to use unbiased sources so you don't look ignorant.

Forbes top 400 wealthiest says that nearly 70% are self made. Or like I said "most"

Yet Forbes said that wealth in America has become far more meritocratic over time. It said that in 1984, "less than half of those on The Forbes 400 were self-made; today, 69 percent of the 400 created their own fortunes."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...hirds-of-billionaires-made-it-themselves.html

Something tells me, you don't care about facts... you care about your radical and extreme agenda.

 

Politics is eternally, and was at the onset a clash of ideologies. But it was more than a mere theoretical exercise, but rather it was a clash on "how to live." In this sense, the clash between Democrats and Republicans was inevitable. And the clash that the Third Position made with Conservatism/Liberalism was also inevitable.

There may soon yet be a Fourth/Fifth way of thinking on the social organization of human life(that which we dub politics). And those too will clash with ours. I find the greatest misfortune however, is the idea that ideas of living were defeated along with the warring parties. There is admittedly a lack of consistency here since democracies were defeated before(Greece). The Republic experienced its first defeat really in Vietnam(or some may say the defeat at the hands of Britain in 1812.)

And yet, despite these warring defeats, these political ideas of living, Republic or pure democracy are not held with the same disdain. It is perhaps then less about the militaristic defeats, than it is about the war crimes committed during WW2. But if that's the case, can the crimes be said to be part of a political ideology, or apart of the war effort? To me, while one can undoubtedly link the crimes to the racial aspect of Hitler's Germany, by and large the atrocities committed across the board were in the span of war.(See: Stalin's Russia.)

A government's configuration, for the most part had nothing to do with the war or with the participants of the war. A centralized form of government will not automatically by itself lead to the loss of human lives and civil rights. There's no evidence that preordains such an 'inevitable' conclusion.

 

Socialism is at lie wherein everyone lives at the expense of everyone else.
In theory, socialists act in the interests of the state to their own benefit. In practice, socialists act in the interest of the state to the benefit of those who administer the state.

In theory, capitalists act in their own self interests to the benefit of others. In practice, capitalists are often wrong about what is actually in their self interest and/or what benefit others derive from their products and/or services.

Indeed, capitalists are as likely to be wrong as socialist State administrators are likely to be wrong; however, when a capitalist is wrong, the error is constrained to the fate of the capitalist. When a socialist state administrator is wrong, the error spreads like a plague.

 

I have always been anti-war. I registered as a conscientious objector when I was a teenager. Democrats spend as much as Republicans on warfare. Neither of the two sides of the One Party would get my vote on that basis alone. What's your excuse for voting for more war, more military, and more pollution?

 

BHK is such a statist warmonger.

 

Here is the truth in your ramblings, as you yourself are stating here the United States is running according the laws dictated by the Constitution. Therefor we are still a Constitutional Republic. A is A. Thank you for playing, next time don't waste so much time with emjois and your bad 19th century purple prose.

 

No, it doesn't. The restrictions now placed upon any other parties entering the election process is unbalanced. Because these two parties hold power, no other parties have a resonable chance to present options.

Oh, and no where in the Constitution does it mandate that we are to be a two party system.

It has nothing to do with amendments.

The ACA, The original Patriot Act, The Abuse of the War Powers resolution, The FBI, The CIA, Marbury v. Madison (where the court over reached their Constitutional Authority) , Korematsu v. United States, Dartmouth College v. Woodward....and actually the whole modern process of judicial review.

Educate yourself.

 

@BleedingHeadKen @Longshot @Ethereal ...all statist war mongers. SHAME!

 

Seriously

 

The is no promise to parties in the Constitution, how people choose to push for policy positions is a choice of the citizenry whether they be parties, clubs, or other actions. The people can change the laws as they wish, just because you do not have enough support to do that does not change the facts, it means you haven't changed enough of your fellow citizens minds to change the law. One day people may turn enough against the Democrats and Republicans to empower over parties to change different state laws in order to make easier access, but it hasn't happened yet. That isn't a Constitutional question, it's a political will question.

Right, because that developed within the Constitutional order. The Constitution dictates what options the citizenry has, and how governmental power is to be divided in order to keep each branch in check. It does not dictate how to act, or what policies and laws can or can not be based, only which laws can not be made in objection to the reason for the Republic's existence as outlined in the Declaration, which is natural rights.

Everything you've mentioned has passed constitutional muster according to the people and time, and has not altered any of the Articles or Amendments to the Constitution. All those issues/laws/court cases could be changed though is the people desired it to. It is the Constitution that still runs supreme, not your personal view of certain policy issues. Learn the difference.

Even Marbury v Madison could be changed with a Constitutional amendment, because all law bends to the Constitution. Because we are a Constitutional Republic.

Educate yourself son.

 

*Sigh*. Look, believe whatever you'll believe and I'll believe what I believe. I don't have time to waste on this anymore.

 

Ok I'll believe in the practical or actual experience of reality, and you can follow your fantasies. Glad to know I don't have to debate your terrible illusions anymore if you wish to live in them in peace.

 

Only the gullible believe the originator of the myth rather than an independent analysis.

 

Asinine strawman duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

We have tried aspirin, why not try arsenic?

 

There's more to pollution than just burning coal. Government sewer systems routinely dumped mass amounts of raw sewage into waterways.

 

I see, so can accuse me of something, which is ad hominem and a strawman, in your own asinine way, and then get all huffy when the response isn't what was expected. Your asinine hypocrisy is noted and will not be ignored but pointed out to you at every occasion. Only a weak minded fool engages in ad hominem and strawman attacks and then gets huffy when it's returned to him.

 

I think most people do not define socialism as you do

Amish Societies are pretty Socialist

 

We've tried socialism on for size for 8 years, why not nationalism?

 

No, but the DSA does. She is a member.