Obama's offensive comment

[David]

Only they are not. 53% view socialism favorably. If you are democrat it is an even bet that you are a closet socialist.

And most of those 53% think socialism is liberalism. Libertarian, sure but it's hardly liberal. Ask them if they support a labor oligarchy with deadbeats left to starve in the streets, see how many of those 53% still approve.

And mind giving a link to back that claim up?

 

[clax]

Wanting crazy people to have guns is just idiotic.

Crazy is meaningless. mentally unstable, mentally ill, these words have meaning. who gets to decide what level of instability is to great? what mental illness presents a clear and present danger to the public or the peace.

if your argument is that people in mental institutions not have guns I don't think anybody is arguing for that.

I fail to see any logic whatsoever in this statement.

 

[clax]

And most of those 53% think socialism is liberalism. Libertarian, sure but it's hardly liberal. Ask them if they support a labor oligarchy with deadbeats left to starve in the streets, see how many of those 53% still approve.

And mind giving a link to back that claim up?

the American word liberalism is really improperly used. it is absolutely the goal not only to feed the deadbeats on the street but to elevate them to the point of better living conditions than those of the working poor. it is hard not to see the democrat party as anything but keeping people dependent on the government. by giving the laziest among the population the best benefits and the most hard working the highest burden it is impossible not to come to that conclusion.

the republican party is liberal, the democrat party is socialist, the libritarian party is conservative

 

[Nemo]

deleted post

 

[David]

the American word liberalism is really improperly used. it is absolutely the goal not only to feed the deadbeats on the street but to elevate them to the point of better living conditions than those of the working poor. it is hard not to see the democrat party as anything but keeping people dependent on the government. by giving the laziest among the population the best benefits and the most hard working the highest burden it is impossible not to come to that conclusion.

the republican party is liberal, the democrat party is socialist, the libritarian party is conservative

Except I was talking about socialism.

 

[clax]

Except I was talking about socialism.

socialism and the American usage of the word liberal are synonyms.

 

[tecoyah]

socialism and the American usage of the word liberal are synonyms.

I disagree, as does Wikipedia:

"
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]"


"

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the idea of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.[3][4][5][6][7]"


Even if we ignore the difference between a political belief and an economic model....they are very dissimilar.

 

[clax]

I disagree, as does Wikipedia:

"
Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]"


"

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is a political philosophy or worldview founded on the idea of liberty and equality.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and a right to life, liberty, and property.[3][4][5][6][7]"


Even if we ignore the difference between a political belief and an economic model....they are very dissimilar.

I agree with wikipedia which is why I said that the usage of the word "liberal" is improper, the qualifier I used was "American Usage".

The republican party is liberal, the democrat party is socialist.

 

[David]

socialism and the American usage of the word liberal are synonyms.

As a socialist, I was using the term in it's correct context. Indeed it's your point I was challenging, reread the 1st line in my post.

 

[clax]

As a socialist, I was using the term in it's correct context. Indeed it's your point I was challenging, reread the 1st line in my post.

Your first line is fallacy. First, disagree, I disagree with your disagreement. Secondly wikipedia cannot disagree, it has no consciousness with which to agree or disagree.

I can read that nonsense for decades but it will still only mean you disagree, and that you have attempted to anthropomorphized an electronic dictionary.

Find a point please

 

[myp]

This discussion again? The words are defined differently depending on who you talk to. It is useless to argue over this.

 

[clax]

This discussion again? The words are defined differently depending on who you talk to. It is useless to argue over this.

Agreed, notice my statement "I disagree with your disagreement" aimed at David.

 

[David]

Your first line is fallacy. First, disagree, I disagree with your disagreement. Secondly wikipedia cannot disagree, it has no consciousness with which to agree or disagree.

I can read that nonsense for decades but it will still only mean you disagree, and that you have attempted to anthropomorphized an electronic dictionary.

Find a point please

So I say Dems think liberal and socialist is the same thing and they're wrong.

You say Americans think liberal and socialist are the same thing despite it being totally different from what the rest of the world means.

I agree.

Suddenly you're disagreeing with my agreement to your post repeating my original point? I understand we're not the only people posting here but you might want to read a post and the larger thread more carefully before responding to it.

 

[clax]

So I say Dems think liberal and socialist is the same thing and they're wrong.

You say Americans think liberal and socialist are the same thing despite it being totally different from what the rest of the world means.

I agree.

Suddenly you're disagreeing with my agreement to your post repeating my original point? I understand we're not the only people posting here but you might want to read a post and the larger thread more carefully before responding to it.

o think dems think socially, repubs think liberally. The disagreement is here.

I never trust when anybody says "I am liberal" that means many things, for instance some people think I am liberal because of my domestic life. Some think I am conservative because of my gun collection. They are both right, I am not liberal or conservative, i am clax. So they are both wrong to.

A party is socialist, communist, democrat, constitutionalist, libertarian, or Republican. The democrats are not liberal, the most liberal party is libertarian. socialism strips liberty from people so I agree liberal and socialist are antonyms.

Liberal is wanting to liberate, all of the new penalties that democrats put on people and liberty are anti liberal. They are meant to socialize wealth, the leaders beat that drum constantly, with redistribution of wealth as they see fit, confiscating wealth from people to make it public property, basically mild socialism.

Taking away what people have earned and giving it to the collective is not liberty for all. It is enslavement of the most educated, it violates survival of the fittest. Want to be wealthy, go be wealthy, that is liberty, want to never worry about money because the government provides everything that is anti liberty.

 

[David]

o think dems think socially, repubs think liberally. The disagreement is here.

I never trust when anybody says "I am liberal" that means many things, for instance some people think I am liberal because of my domestic life. Some think I am conservative because of my gun collection. They are both right, I am not liberal or conservative, i am clax. So they are both wrong to.

A party is socialist, communist, democrat, constitutionalist, libertarian, or Republican. The democrats are not liberal, the most liberal party is libertarian. socialism strips liberty from people so I agree liberal and socialist are antonyms.

Liberal is wanting to liberate, all of the new penalties that democrats put on people and liberty are anti liberal. They are meant to socialize wealth, the leaders beat that drum constantly, with redistribution of wealth as they see fit, confiscating wealth from people to make it public property, basically mild socialism.

Taking away what people have earned and giving it to the collective is not liberty for all. It is enslavement of the most educated, it violates survival of the fittest. Want to be wealthy, go be wealthy, that is liberty, want to never worry about money because the government provides everything that is anti liberty.

Se, we agree. Socialism for me is helping the people who can't work (the sick, old and children) and letting workers have a major stake in how things are run. Deadbeats can starve as far as I'm concerned, nothing ruins my day like someone asking if they can buy lobster on food stamps (they can by the way).

 

[clax]

Se, we agree. Socialism for me is helping the people who can't work (the sick, old and children) and letting workers have a major stake in how things are run. Deadbeats can starve as far as I'm concerned, nothing ruins my day like someone asking if they can buy lobster on food stamps (they can by the way).

The "poor" in this country are very different than the poor in this country.

 

[misterveritis]

And most of those 53% think socialism is liberalism. Libertarian, sure but it's hardly liberal. Ask them if they support a labor oligarchy with deadbeats left to starve in the streets, see how many of those 53% still approve.

And mind giving a link to back that claim up?

Take it or leave it. In general if you are disposed to agree you will agree. And if you are disposed to disagree you will search long and hard to find an opposite view.

Socialism always looks best when it is fresh and unspoiled by real suffering.

That comes later. But not much later.

 

[tecoyah]

Only they are not. 53% view socialism favorably. If you are democrat it is an even bet that you are a closet socialist.

In other words...No, you do not care to provide a link. or any other data that backs up your claim.

Allow me to assist you:

"
Socialist Party of America reveals 70 Democrats as belonging to their caucus

Rick Moran
Two things of note in this revelation. The first is the astonishing number of Democratic House members who not only belong to the Socialist Party of America, but even more incredible, don't mind if people find out about it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010"/08/socialist_party_of_america_rev.html

Though I do not know where you found the 53% number...as of 2010, this would be accurate.

70 out of 255 does not match your claim...but there are most certainly Socialist Democrats.

 

[David]

In other words...No, you do not care to provide a link. or any other data that backs up your claim.

Allow me to assist you:

"
Socialist Party of America reveals 70 Democrats as belonging to their caucus

Rick Moran
Two things of note in this revelation. The first is the astonishing number of Democratic House members who not only belong to the Socialist Party of America, but even more incredible, don't mind if people find out about it."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010"/08/socialist_party_of_america_rev.html

Though I do not know where you found the 53% number...as of 2010, this would be accurate.

70 out of 255 does not match your claim...but there are most certainly Socialist Democrats.

Belonging to a caucus =/= belonging to a party or subscribing to an ideology. It just means you're willing to vote with them. At beast, those Dems support a coalition, they're not actually socialists.

 

[tecoyah]

Agreed...merely providing the Data ti refute his claim.