Understanding Socialism

Onceler said:
Pretty hypocritical of you to say I'm whining. The post I was responding to was a total whinefest about my "debate skills." And it is your m.o. Just a fact.

The fact that the gov't offered one of our last major manufacturing bases a life preserver doesn't bother me in the slightest. You throw around terms like "takeover" and "socialism" with ignorant abandon; they are complete mischaracterizations of what took place.

You just don't want to give up on your "point." You've been proven wrong, and can't admit it (like usual).

:pke:
Click to expand...

lol...you haven't proven anything except you're one the board's biggest whiners....when you can no longer debate you simply cry minutia and hair splitting....

the government's take over of GM is in fact a socialist policy....they own the means and production of the company, have so much power they can force the CEO to resign....your ONLY counter to this is that it is "temporary".....

sorry bud, temporary is not a factor in determining whether something is socialist now....you're one the one running from this fact, not me

i notice you failed to address the other points....(yawn)....looks like onceler is on the ropes again
 
Dixie said:
You miss the point as usual. There are two groups of people who continue to support the socialist nanny state, those who are receiving the benefits and those (like you) who think they are 'helping the needy' by advocating socialism. I didn't say this was because of greed, I said it was rooted in greed, and then explained what I meant by that, but apparently you didn't read it.

You look out your window, and you see people who have more than you, and people who have less. So you think it is your moral obligation to take from those with more and give to those with less. You justify this by assuming those who have more, have more than they need or deserve. This benevolence with other people's money, allows you to keep more of your own money with a clear conscious... after all, you did your part!
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Greed has nothing to do with it. The people who need help are not greedy. They are trying to survive. Wanting a basic roof over ones head and a meal is not being greedy. Wanting medical attention when ill is not being greedy.

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions. (Dictionary.com)

Wanting basic food and shelter is neither excessive nor having a rapacious desire for wealth or possessions.
 
Yurt said:
lol...you haven't proven anything except you're one the board's biggest whiners....when you can no longer debate you simply cry minutia and hair splitting....

the government's take over of GM is in fact a socialist policy....they own the means and production of the company, have so much power they can force the CEO to resign....your ONLY counter to this is that it is "temporary".....

sorry bud, temporary is not a factor in determining whether something is socialist now....you're one the one running from this fact, not me

i notice you failed to address the other points....(yawn)....looks like onceler is on the ropes again
Click to expand...

your beloved military is 1,000 times more socialist. Spurtage:pke:
 
Dixie said:
Onzies... The Government owns 60% of GM! They control the fucking company! GM is America's largest manufacturing industry employer. How can you possibly claim that our government doesn't control means of production?
Click to expand...

he is too stubborn to admit he is wrong
 
Topspin said:
your beloved military is 1,000 times more socialist. Spurtage:pke:
Click to expand...

lmao....you're in the top 3 for the board's biggest idiots

its so funny that you make fun of others education when you're easily one of the dumbest blokes on this board

military is not socialism, tell me.....who produces the equipment for the military? :pke:
 
Dixie said:
Less government intervention is always better for freedom and liberty. Marxist Socialism is precisely what liberals practice today, it's not dead at all, it has simply been given another name... repackaged and presented differently, but still Marxist Socialism all the same. It ultimately fails for the same reason any Communist/Socialist system fails. It doesn't reward individual accomplishment, it discourages it.
Click to expand...

Sure, just like ol' Joe said he was discouraged from buying a business because of an additional 1/4 of one percent tax increase. Poor, discouraged Joe.
 
Yurt said:
lmao....you're in the top 3 for the board's biggest idiots

its so funny that you make fun of others education when you're easily one of the dumbest blokes on this board

military is not socialism, tell me.....who produces the equipment for the military? :pke:
Click to expand...

the boyfriends of the republicans in office, you know that:good4u:
 
Dixie said:
Less government intervention is always better for freedom and liberty. Marxist Socialism is precisely what liberals practice today, it's not dead at all, it has simply been given another name... repackaged and presented differently, but still Marxist Socialism all the same. It ultimately fails for the same reason any Communist/Socialist system fails. It doesn't reward individual accomplishment, it discourages it.
Click to expand...
Even Marx acknowledged that socialism couldn't exist without capitalism, yet these flakes want to socialize everything.
 
apple0154 said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Greed has nothing to do with it. The people who need help are not greedy. They are trying to survive. Wanting a basic roof over ones head and a meal is not being greedy. Wanting medical attention when ill is not being greedy.

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions. (Dictionary.com)

Wanting basic food and shelter is neither excessive nor having a rapacious desire for wealth or possessions.
Click to expand...

The greed comes from those who encourage totalitarianism as a solution to these needs. Can you comprehend my statement?
 
Dixie said:
"means" and "ability" are synonymous! Are you trying to distract and divert, or just being typically stupid here?

If Democrats believe in free enterprise and capitalism, why have they done NOTHING to promote or encourage either one? Why have they, instead, moved in the OPPOSITE direction, restricting and punishing free enterprise and capitalism?
Click to expand...

Here we go again. Yep, 1/4 of one percent tax increase is cruel and unusual punishment. Compatible, I suppose, to being flogged with a wet noodle. :)
 
apple0154 said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Greed has nothing to do with it. The people who need help are not greedy. They are trying to survive. Wanting a basic roof over ones head and a meal is not being greedy. Wanting medical attention when ill is not being greedy.

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions. (Dictionary.com)

Wanting basic food and shelter is neither excessive nor having a rapacious desire for wealth or possessions.
Click to expand...

You continue to miss the point. I have $100 to give you, do you want it? Of course you would, right? Why wouldn't you? Those who are getting government assistance naturally want to continue getting it, that is a no-brainer. We are not talking about their greed! We are talking about liberal socialist nitwits like yourself, who want to give MY money to them, because you are greedy and don't want to help them with your own resources! You play on our guilt... you make us think that it's all about "helping those in need" when it's actually your way of excusing yourself from moral obligation.
 
Yurt said:
lol...you haven't proven anything except you're one the board's biggest whiners....when you can no longer debate you simply cry minutia and hair splitting....

the government's take over of GM is in fact a socialist policy....they own the means and production of the company, have so much power they can force the CEO to resign....your ONLY counter to this is that it is "temporary".....

sorry bud, temporary is not a factor in determining whether something is socialist now....you're one the one running from this fact, not me

i notice you failed to address the other points....(yawn)....looks like onceler is on the ropes again
Click to expand...

When a governor or President declares a state of a emergency in a disaster area & calls in the national guard, no one makes the argument that they're promoting a military state.

If it's a temporary measure, any argument that goes beyond that is absolutely meaningless. I really have no idea what you're trying to prove, if you agree that it's temporary. It's weird.

You're the human projector, btw...

:clink:
 
theres plenty to critisize Obama for, liberalism unchecked, uncheck union nutsucking, Acorn funding. The witchhunters are flat pissing in the wind with the socialism though.
 
Onceler said:
It was actually just small businesses.

Do you agree with the characterization that the economy is still in a "freefall"?
Click to expand...

No, but nor do I think we are in a recovery. There are several big shoes teetering on the edge. It will only take one dropping to send this market back down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top