Understanding Socialism

Yurt said:
funny how you chose a name that begins with G

you're a lying stalker maineman
Click to expand...

funny how you chose a name that begins with M

you're a lying stalker ohioman....

having said that, can we get beyond this obsession with my identity and move on to the topics instead of the personalities?
 
old retired fella said:
funny how you chose a name that begins with M

you're a lying stalker ohioman....

having said that, can we get beyond this obsession with my identity and move on to the topics instead of the personalities?
Click to expand...

nah....you're the one who has snuck back to jpp but doesn't have the intelligence to change his posts from maineman....either that, or its another fuck you to the admins like you did a DP

there is no obsession, there is only truth, you're the one obsessed and that is what got your username maineman perm banned and its so funny how you use the same initial letter of what you think is my first name

psycho stalker :)
 
bravo said:
But in the end, Pa, meet Kettle

the New Oxford American Dictionary defended Palin's use of the word. "From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used 'refudiate,' we have concluded that neither 'refute' nor 'repudiate' seems consistently precise, and that 'refudiate' more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of 'reject,' " the New Oxford American Dictionary said in a press release.

the jokes on you, pinhead....haha...:)

The EXPERTS have spoken.
Click to expand...

Well good, then maybe President Obama can appoint 'empty vessel' ambassador to the country of Africa...

Oh, Africa is a continent........................never mind...
 
Yurt said:
? she said refutation and that to you is a gaffe? you're weird
Click to expand...

Sarah Palin's struggle with English language

Sarah Palin's ongoing struggle with the English language entered a new phase this week, when she called on her Twitter followers to "refudiate" the proposal to build a mosque on the site of the World Trade Center. Mockery followed, and a tweet in which she corrected herself and asked people to "refute" it. Not correct, either. Finally, she put an end to it by saying: "Refudiate, misunderestimate, wee-wee'd up. English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin words, too."

Her three examples are all interesting. "Refudiate" is a portmanteau word – one that blends syllables and meanings to novel effect – invented by Mrs Palin from "refute" and "repudiate".

"Misunderestimate" is a portmanteau word with a touch of the malapropism, named after the Sheridan character who says "she might reprehend the true meaning of what she is saying". It is one of George W Bush's most memorable additions to the language, and an incidentally expressive one: it may be that we rather needed a word for "to underestimate by mistake".

"They misunderestimated me." George W. Bush - Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush - Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
 
Dixie said:
I can remember when I was a young boy in elementary school, studying about the rest of the world in World History class. I guess, up until then, I assumed everyone lived basically the same kind of life as me, and we all had the same kind of democratic government, with liberty and justice for all. The thing that puzzled me, when we began to study about Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism, etc., was how did the people ever come to adopt such governments? It was always easy to see that American government was superior to, say... Nazi Germany, or the Ottoman Empire... but American government seemed to be such a simple concept, and I couldn't imagine how people managed to adopt other philosophies of government. Later, I would learn that many people simply never had a choice in the matter, these other forms of government had existed for centuries, and the people had very little power to control it or effect a change. Some were ruled by Kings, others by Dictators, and these rulers governed what laws the people lived by. Still, I couldn't understand, why would they not prefer freedom and liberty? I finally decided it must be, because they had never known freedom and liberty, so they had no idea of what they were missing. If you lived your entire life serving a master, do you know freedom? And isn't it much easier to lack desire for something you don't know and never have? I also realized there were places where the people never were allowed to see how Americans lived in freedom, they were kept isolated from this by their rulers. But I never could understand how places which had known some kind of freedom, could fall to Communism, Socialism, and Fascist Dictatorships... how did that happen? How could humans who had tasted freedom and liberty in some form, ever succumb to these barbaric forms of oppressive government? It never made any sense to me, and I have struggled with an answer my whole life.

Thanks to the past 40 years of watching the liberal progressive movement in America, I am suddenly starting to realize some answers to these questions. It occurs to me, some people are not comfortable being free, and actually have a desire to be taken care of by someone else in exchange for their freedom. It's easier that way, there are no decisions or tough choices to make, someone else will do that for them, they just want to follow and have the security of knowing they are being cared for. This is how Socialist movements always begin. It is sold as a means to provide for the people, things they are unwilling to do for themselves individually. The premise being, the society as a whole, will be a much better place. People actually cede their freedom and liberty, for the promise of something better. It is rooted in greed, because they are giving up one of the most precious human rights for the hope of greater things.

I could run down the long list of Socialist regimes which have failed, the history book is full of them. In fact, most of them fail within a few decades or generations, because they all seem to follow the same pattern of demise. They start off sounding lovely, but result in dividing society into two classes, without a middle class. You have the State, the elites... living in lavish luxury... and you have the Peasants. This happens every time, because Socialism doesn't reward individual accomplishment and effort, it stifles it. Any time you destroy human creativity and imagination, you also destroy motivation to achieve and accomplish. The people become mired in hopeless despair, and never bother trying to succeed... because, what is the point? If the State is going to take it from you and you are destined to remain in poverty, why would you want to do anything more than what the State required you to do?

With Obama's Socialist transformation of America, we can see the makings of what will become the Elitist State. We already had the Labor Unions and Teachers, as well as Congress and Government workers, and now we have added the Financial sector, the Automotive sector, and soon to be, the Health Care sector and Insurance sector. Later, they will add the Energy sector, the Media, and a few other key components, and there will be no turning back. For the next 40-60 years, we will see those who control State power, get much wealthier, live much more luxuriously than ever before, while those of us not fortunate enough to be part of the Elite, struggle for our very survival. And the problem will be, there is no America to come save us from this.
Click to expand...

Some people have different definitions of free.

Yours might be the freedom to sit on top of your trailer shooting raccoons with your automatic weapon whilst cursing the Gubment.

Others might be to be free to enjoy life without disease.

Some Americans just don't have the mental capacity to understand the complex nuances of freedom. Usually the ones who don't understand basic maths.....
 
bravo said:
Interesting...
So is French Socialism the same as Russian Socialism?
Is the Socialism practiced in Europe the same as that in Venezuela ?
How about Nicaraga, Bolivia and Ecuado? Do they all meet you rigid criteria..

How about Democracy?
Is that the same throughout the world...?
The US?....the UK?....Germany?.....
Click to expand...

Any system of government where the legitimate government owns and controls the means of production is socialist. Any where that is not the case are something else.

You are, of course, free to mislabel anything you want for political purposes, but that mislabelling does not change the actual definition of the word.
 
Lowaicue said:
And does the same dictionary insist that 'ALUMINUM' is a correctly spelled word?
I wouldnt give too much credence to an American dictionary I were you, sailor. Mwah, mwah.
Click to expand...
Of course ALUMINUM is a correctly spelled word you moron...
Just ALUMINIUM is a correctly spelled word
As is AIRPLANE
and AEROPLANE:palm:

WTF is your pinheaded point....???
 
old retired fella said:
Any system of government where the legitimate government owns and controls the means of production is socialist. Any where that is not the case are something else.

You are, of course, free to mislabel anything you want for political purposes, but that mislabelling does not change the actual definition of the word.
Click to expand...

I get it....exactly like the definition of "marriage" as understood worldwide for centuries.....

So there is no such thing as Socialism in France or Venezuela
or Nicaraga, or Bolivia...

The thousands of internet sites are all wrong where it uses those terms like French Socialism and European Socialism...they are all wrong and only you are right....

Thanks for the help....
 
Bfgrn said:
Sarah Palin's struggle with English language

Sarah Palin's ongoing struggle with the English language entered a new phase this week, when she called on her Twitter followers to "refudiate" the proposal to build a mosque on the site of the World Trade Center. Mockery followed, and a tweet in which she corrected herself and asked people to "refute" it. Not correct, either. Finally, she put an end to it by saying: "Refudiate, misunderestimate, wee-wee'd up. English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin words, too."

Her three examples are all interesting. "Refudiate" is a portmanteau word – one that blends syllables and meanings to novel effect – invented by Mrs Palin from "refute" and "repudiate".

"Misunderestimate" is a portmanteau word with a touch of the malapropism, named after the Sheridan character who says "she might reprehend the true meaning of what she is saying". It is one of George W Bush's most memorable additions to the language, and an incidentally expressive one: it may be that we rather needed a word for "to underestimate by mistake".

"They misunderestimated me." George W. Bush - Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush - Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
Click to expand...

you said refutation, not refudiate

and btw...oxford university validated her word:

But in a release today, the New Oxford American Dictionary defended Palin's use of the word. "From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used 'refudiate,' we have concluded that neither 'refute' nor 'repudiate' seems consistently precise, and that 'refudiate' more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of 'reject,' " the New Oxford American Dictionary said in a press release.
Click to expand...

at this point it just makes you look dumb to keep bringing it up
 
Bfgrn said:
Well good, then maybe President Obama can appoint 'empty vessel' ambassador to the country of Africa...

Oh, Africa is a continent........................never mind...
Click to expand...
I think she's gonna be busy campaigning in all 57 states like Obama said he did.....
And then Obama said he had ONE to go....ALASKA AND HAWAII

Obama thinks their are 57 states and Alaska and Hawaii are ONE state?:palm:


OH....never mind....
 
bravo said:
Now there you go....
Capitalists(read Republicans)gave us poverty....
Just look around you....poverty, poverty everywhere....in the US, the people in poverty have only one cellphone...imagine that...and they're all obese from starvation....
Only one flat screen Sat. TV.....Oh, the humanity.....

and inequality....imagine that .... we're not all equal...some of us are intelligent and some of us are Democrats....its just not right

and TAXES....those Capitalists(read Republicans) are always raising our taxes....its unbelievable....just look at whats going on in Washington as we speak....someone is demanding the tax cuts be abolished.....but who???

After more of this "bat-shit crazy" crap from this guy, I almost feel like I owe Crashk an apology............................I'll get over it.:palm:
Click to expand...
It's okay Archie, everythings gonna be alright!
 
onceler claimed i fear mongered in this thread....

oddly, no one, onceler ran away from backing his claim up, can show any fear mongering....

another win for yurt :)
 
Yurt said:
onceler claimed i fear mongered in this thread....

oddly, no one, onceler ran away from backing his claim up, can show any fear mongering....

another win for yurt :)
Click to expand...

Still too much of a wuss to agree to some simple terms, eh?

LOL; couldn't be more predictable....

:good4u:
 
Onceler said:
Still too much of a wuss to agree to some simple terms, eh?

LOL; couldn't be more predictable....

:good4u:
Click to expand...

there were no terms, you said if i wanted, i said so, then you ran and ran and then HOURS later came up with these dishonest terms...because you know you lied

lmao...you're too much of a lying pussy and that is thre real reason you won't even try to prove i fear mongered....
 
Mirriam Webster sez:

Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

end of discussion. :)
 
old retired fella said:
Mirriam Webster sez:

Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.

end of discussion. :)
Click to expand...

lmao....what a dishonest post...how cute you fail to include ALL the definitions and the example

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Examples of SOCIALISM
She is quite right, for example, to stress that Thatcher's crusade against socialism was not merely about economic efficiency and prosperity but that above all, “it was that socialism itself—in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied—was morally corrupting.” —Stephen Pollard, New York Times Book Review, 18 Jan. 2009
Click to expand...

whoever thinks that is the end of the discussion on socialism is a lunatic
 
Yurt said:
lmao....what a dishonest post...how cute you fail to include ALL the definitions and the example



whoever thinks that is the end of the discussion on socialism is a lunatic
Click to expand...

the third definition had to do with the Marxist dialectic and clearly did not apply to this present discussion. The point being: morons can redefine "socialism" to mean anything that a democrat proposes, but that does not make their redefinition accurate. The word has a definition. That definition does not apply to social security or health care reform. You can call Obama a socialist all you want.... it is no more accurate, or relevant, even, than calling him a muslim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top