Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Mar 8, 2019.
I don't think all Democrats will go along.
I think most Democrats do what they are told.
“Socialism” predates sliced bread by 80 years. I’m told socialism is voluntary, advantageous to the masses, and secures liberty and justice for all.
Sliced bread is everywhere. Nobody has to advocate for it, defend it, or mandate it. People just buy it and eat it all on their own. Yet, with an 80 year head start, socialism must be hyped, advertised, and in many cases engineered or even mandated.
Why can’t socialists just voluntarily associate with likeminded people and leave the rest of us alone? It’s like someone in the grocery store grabbing my 3 loaves of sliced sandwich bread out of my cart and repeatedly whacking me upside the head with an 18 inch long whole baguette. Jeez.
I like the part of capitalism in which taxpayers are forced to support too big to fail corporations...
Wow. It's almost like no one ever taught gary about the Whiskey Rebellion in history class...
That’s capitalism? Hmmmm.
Wacky but it counts to the idiots that are afeared of socialism...
The ultimate goal of socialism is communism. Always.
Perhaps the tiny detail of all the corpses produced by socialism is a reason those who do not like it do not want it.
So Ghengis Khan was a socialist?
I don’t know anyone afraid of socialism. Only fools aren’t concerned about socialists who aren’t strictly voluntarism socialists.
I think a lot of people are bailing from the Party too. If I was this age 30 years ago I'd probably be a Democrat. But they're just too nutty.
I think people go with the Democrats because they think the Republicans are their worst enemy and I'm not a big fan of Republicans either. It's just currently I see them as the lesser of two evils.
Sorry nothing socialist about any of those once you understand the language of the day and the thinking behind it.
Yet, you were slamming the person that said that if you desire socialism/communism/marxism move to North Korea as invalid because they are dictatorially. Which has nothing to do with it.
No but he would have made a good one.
What are you talking about? They are ruled by dictators!
Yeah.... and Football is a game you play by hitting a ball with your head and trying to get it into a basket.
Political Science is obviously not your game....
Sure.... because in the language of the day "we the people" meant "I the individual", "general welfare" meant "corporate welfare", and "emoluments" didn't include doubling the membership fee at Mar-a-Lago when you become President right?
America wasn't built on communal rights, its built on individual rights. Your Marxist tripe simply cannot ever reconcile with the Constitution...
democracy is a dictatorship. The majority is a tyrant over the minority.
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
You do understand that both Hugo Chavez and Adolf Hitler were elected right.
No Promote the general welfare did not mean taking from A and giving to B. It meant doing things that promoted free and honest trade like road building. And emoluments had nothing to with green fees and membership fees but out and out bribes. Jefferson still ran Monticello all be it poorly, Washington still ran Mt. Vernon. Almost all our early Presidents were business men as well as politicians.
Huh? What are you talking about? I said it was invalid becaause they were Republics too. Only difference was how they're governed.
None of which has anything to do with their economic systems.
I see lots of collective rights on the Preamble. Everywhere, as a matter of fact... The Constitution contains both individual and collective rights. I know that if the world could be all black and white, it would take less mental effort to understand. But that's how it works.
1) Yes, which is why it's hilarious when under-employed blue haired pan-sexual non-binary SJWs with neck tattoos tell us they're Socialists.
2) No, the ultimate goal of 'individualism' is the freedom to do whatever the heck you want. Be rich, OR be poor. It's about that freedom to choose your poison, not about how much money you make.
3) Yes, the goal of Socialism is welfare and equality, but it's acquired only through EQUALITY of participation. Socialism has no interest in 'liberty' or 'justice', beyond that which members have volunteered for. You are attributing overarching emotional qualities to a pragmatic economic/living model.
And you would prefer the minority to be a tyrant over the majority?
This is a ridiculous argument.
There is so much ignorance in this one paragraph that it's.... mind-boggling.
First of all, Hitler wasn't elected anything.... He lost the elections and was appointed Chancellor.
Second, Democracy is not just about elections. It's also about balance of power. Checks and balances. If a leader has unchecked power, there is no Democracy. Chavez enacted a Constitution that gave power to his Assembly, basically giving himself unlimited power. Shut down opposition press and harassed voters from other parties pressuring them into joining his own party.
I could go on and on about Chavez but.... your knowledge about Democracy is obviously at a Rush and Hannity level, which doesn't even reach Kindergarten level..
It still doesn't That's why socialists oppose Tax breaks for the rich that are paid by cutting down on infrastructure, government obligations, cutting pay for government employees, ... etc.
Wrong! When they meant bribes, they wrote "bribes" When they meant emoluments, they wrote "emoluments" In Old English it meant "Payment to a miller for grinding corn" Emoluments has never meant bribery. It means "compensation", "wages", "fees",,, never has it ever meant "bribery".
You are talking nonsense.
No idea what people wear has to do with it.
Where did you see the word "money" in what you quote?
Not "equality'. Equality of opportunities. There is no equality of opportunities without liberty and justice.
Separate names with a comma.