Socialists in Congress

I'm aware of how they pay for it.

We have public subsidies for Amtrak too. The difference is that they actually get a good service nationwide in many countries.

You can't compare Amtrak to TGV in France. Not even the Eastern Seaboard has the same level of service, and that's Amtrak central.
 
A congressional progressive who works with the Democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not make those progressives "socialists" and then
Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with.
Joe Lieberman....enough said...

no.... not quite enough said. Joe Lieberman was on the wrong side of THE most important issue for trhe democreatic party. Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? It doesn't make Joe a REPUBLICAN...just like working with democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not turn a democrat into a SOCIALIST.... it DOES, however, make him at odds with his party in his state on their single biggest issue...which is why he lost the primary.

In one breath..."if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region"...thats good?

But the Chrysler bailout is "welfare" even though 10's of thousands of high paying jobs were at risk.... thats bad?

show me where I EVER said that the Chrysler bailout was BAD. I'll wait

From the convoluted reasoning of a partisan bubble head

look little boy...you're a fucking lightweight. Come back and play when you grow up and learn some shit.... you're a fucking little nerd. I got lumps in my shit bigger than you
 
I've never said I was opposed to public transit.

What I am opposed to is creating public transit schemes when the public has no intention of broadly supporting the system, or when the system isn't going to be designed to support the community it claims to serve.

I've taken the Washington D.C. Metro and I will in the future. It's a good service and worth the price. I've taken the Toronto Transit Commission Street Car and I'm less so impressed. I can get anywhere faster on a bike. Still, it wasn't bad, and it makes sense for hydroelectric Toronto to have a street car.

There are lots of places, though, where public transport makes very little sense and is just sought after by people in government as a badge of honor.

My city has a large fleet of gas-guzzling buses that pretty much go to a few of the shopping areas in town and into downtown...and that's about it. They even have a free bus dressed up like a trolley that drives around downtown hoping to take people to lunch time locations.

Fact is that most of the units remain empty because people don't want the service and don't use it. Public transit here is instead simply transit for low-income people who have no other way of getting around, which is moreso an economic and infrastructural problem. Sidewalks, bike lanes, fewer regulations on cabs and their fares or a streamlined public transit service could handle all of those same issues at less cost to the general public.

After all, the people who pay for the services should be the people who benefit from them and the people who benefit from the services should be the people paying for it.

Now some yahoos want to make a rail system downtown. That's a real winner. For one, with the exception of a few luxury apartments, nobody lives downtown. For two, my downtown is so small, anybody with a decent pair of legs can cross it in five minutes.

You have to call people out on it when they're milking the public coffers for the sake of prestige and recognition and not practical gains. It's okay to provide a service with no expectation of profit if it is a valuable service.

But if you're just going to throw the money down the drain and say: "It's not about the money.", then you know your reps in government have lost touch with their "revenue stream".
 
Avoid the RTD system in the Denver Area then there, Adam... It is absolutely the worst bus system I have ever had the displeasure of using.
 
the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.

I love how you get pissed off when you get your ass handed to you...
Of course now you'll agrue that you didn't use the word bad and think you have something....

Or that "the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare "
doesn't means you think the bail out was welfare....and we know you think corp. welfare is 'bad'.....

You're just a tapdancin' asshole....don't even come up to lightweight...
But you do a talent for dancin'....gotta say that..
 
Disagreeing with one tenet of the socialist agenda doesn't mean you are not a SOCIALIST......the first step to recovery is fucking admitting it to yourself......same as an alcoholic....Liberals may not be socialists...but Democrats are 90% of the way there....
 
bravo said:
the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.

I love how you get pissed off when you get your ass handed to you...
Of course now you'll agrue that you didn't use the word bad and think you have something....

Or that "the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare "
doesn't means you think the bail out was welfare....and we know you think corp. welfare is 'bad'.....

You're just a tapdancin' asshole....don't even come up to lightweight...
But you do a talent for dancin'....gotta say that..
Click to expand...

no...I am not tapdancing at all. dano was crying about PBS.... you won't hear ME crying about it.... but dano did NOT cry about Chrysler. Do you understand the point here? I said to cry about PBS, because it is government welfare of a "bleeding heart liberal" program, but not say BOO about welfare for the auto industry is disingenuous....now take a logic class and shut the fuck up in the meantime.

and I disagree with a whole bunch of stuff about socialism. First and foremost: I disagree with government owning the means of production, which is, in case you didn't know, the very definition of socialism.

Now go piss on somebody else's leg.... you really are annoying with little substance other than a sort of silly schoolboy "gotcha" mentality which always blows up in your pimply face.
 
Don't go away mad featherweight....just go away.....dance your way stage left.......and make a graceful exit....
 
I ain't going anywhere. The point is....you got your faulty assumption rammed up your ass....and given the significant number of those I have placed there, it must be pretty fucking crowded.
 
Thats it ? Thats all you got..?

You're a socialist and too stupid to realize it....

Like a Democrat that wants lower taxes.....one disagreement with the party doesn't mean you are not a Democrat....

For a intents and purposes, you ARE a socialist, except for one point....
and with advocating gov. controlled healthcare, welfare, tax law to advance your social agenda, etc. you're not really very far from that one point...

Just admit it to yourself....be what you are, a socialist, and be proud....
 
stop it.... you jump on here to "catch" me in a misstatement...and get it shoved back up your ass.

I am a free market capitalist.... I have absolutely no desire to see the government control the means of production. I am not a socialist by any stretch - except yours where you stretch the meaning of words past the breaking point.

I have NEVER said I was against the bailout of Chrysler, I only pointed out the hypocrisy of dano... and you share it... but add a level of stupidity that even dano cannot touch.

now go to bed
 
Maineman, socialism is not what you decree it is. A means of production? Socialism is the redistribution of money, not the means that creates it. Redistributing wealth, or money, is socialistic in nature.

It is a means to the end, and the END is Communism. You could describe medicare, Social Security, TANF, all as socialist programs. The means of production is not applicable. Its the means of redistribution of resources that is.
 
Brent said:
He was rated 100% by NARAL and 93% by the ACLU.

He might be conservative on a couple of issues, but that doesn't make him conservative. Most people are conservative on at least a few issues. He might be somewhat pro-family, but his 100% pro-abortion stance cancels that out, in my opinon. (However I was under the impression he was pro- gay marriage... I stand corrected)
Click to expand...

LOL, I love your word "pro-family". If you believe that people shouldn't have a gun pointed to their head and forced to do things your way, then apparently you're against the family. People shouldn't be free to make their own decisions. That's not what this country was founded on.

He's black, man. Abortion is a big thing in the black community. The fact that he is black also tips him towards ACLU and other groups that put a lot of weight on any legislation that involves black people. But on most issues he's socially conservative, like most blacks.
 
Damocles said:
The Brits need more Liberal Democrats in office... to even it all out with the Socialists...

;)
Click to expand...

The libdems are actually left of labour economically... but if you take a look at the political compass their just about the only halfway major party in the world that fits into the libertarian square, if but just barely. Well, there are the libera (and liberal means classical liberal over in Europe)l parties in the scandanavian countries that actually hold power, but in most other countries libertarian leaning groups rarely get 20% of the vote (although they have half that amount of seats).
 
klaatu said:
So we have people in Congress who have Socialist leanings.. so what! Thats always been the case ..and as long as we have a Republic ...there will always be a cornucopia of political beliefs in Congress representing the People of the United States.
Click to expand...

Yeah right. There's whatever beliefs the state legislatures decide to include whenever they draw the maps.
 
Watermark said:
LOL, I love your word "pro-family". If you believe that people shouldn't have a gun pointed to their head and forced to do things your way, then apparently you're against the family. People shouldn't be free to make their own decisions. That's not what this country was founded on.

He's black, man. Abortion is a big thing in the black community. The fact that he is black also tips him towards ACLU and other groups that put a lot of weight on any legislation that involves black people. But on most issues he's socially conservative, like most blacks.
Click to expand...

Liebarman is black?!! I'm returning my glasses.
 
Beefy said:
Maineman, socialism is not what you decree it is. A means of production? Socialism is the redistribution of money, not the means that creates it. Redistributing wealth, or money, is socialistic in nature.

It is a means to the end, and the END is Communism. You could describe medicare, Social Security, TANF, all as socialist programs. The means of production is not applicable. Its the means of redistribution of resources that is.
Click to expand...

I never attempted to "decree" what socialism is.... here...let's go to the dictionary..and then tell ME who's "decreeing" anything.... OK?

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

now...go decree something else
 
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

This is a very broad definition and very weak, but then dictionaries are attempting to encapsulate complex and abstract concepts, something notoriously difficult to do.

Socialism is essentially an economic discipline only, and is better described as any mixed economy. It is the centre area between the poles of planned economy (Communism) and market economies (Capitalism).

The notion that socialism inevitably leads to communism is false, like stating a mild religious belief automatically leads to fanaticism.

Socialism doesn't have to have collective ownership of resources, as demonstrated by Socialist nations in Europe. The primary onus of socialism is that the economy should work for all. Socialism is pragmatic rather than the dogmatism of capitalism or Communism. If an area is better served planned (ie Healthcare) it is so, if better served with markets (luxury items) it is so.
 
when chosing which words to use in various situations, I almost always prefer to let the dictionary guide my choice rather than the opinions of stuffy englishmen ;)
 
when chosing which words to use in various situations, I almost always prefer to let the dictionary guide my choice rather than the opinions of stuffy englishmen

You realise that dictionaries are written by people, often stuffy (?me?) Englishmen?

You realise the difficulty in dictionaries creating soundbite definitions of abstract notions?

What about my definition do you not agree with?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top