Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35
  1. #21  
    please i have said this in the past, and again i will repeat it, what you have down there in the good ol US of A, is not socialism, i grew up in a province that regularly voted in Socialist govts. hell we even for a short period had them federally. you have no idea what socialism is, outside of a dictionary's meaning.
    Try a govt that buys up and controls and i mean controls an entire forest industry. Chavez to the south of you anyone. pls.. do not compare what Obama is doing or trying to do as being Socialist. Buying stock in a company and firing an incompetant CEO is not socialist, its just damn smart. Now, buying up, forced i might add, an entire industry, and dictating who gets paid what, and the day to day running of said businesses is socialist. if Obama is a socialist that makes your average Tea Party member further right then H itler. So think about it for a change instead of hanging scare tactic labels on people. Thats all it is, the big red scare,, just now its the big pink scare.. not quite better dead then red slogan of old, now its better dead then pink.. hell people Canada is far and away more socialist at this very moment then what you accuse Obama of.. wow.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  2. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    please i have said this in the past, and again i will repeat it, what you have down there in the good ol US of A, is not socialism, i grew up in a province that regularly voted in Socialist govts. hell we even for a short period had them federally. you have no idea what socialism is, outside of a dictionary's meaning.
    Try a govt that buys up and controls and i mean controls an entire forest industry. Chavez to the south of you anyone. pls.. do not compare what Obama is doing or trying to do as being Socialist. Buying stock in a company and firing an incompetant CEO is not socialist, its just damn smart. Now, buying up, forced i might add, an entire industry, and dictating who gets paid what, and the day to day running of said businesses is socialist. if Obama is a socialist that makes your average Tea Party member further right then H itler. So think about it for a change instead of hanging scare tactic labels on people. Thats all it is, the big red scare,, just now its the big pink scare.. not quite better dead then red slogan of old, now its better dead then pink.. hell people Canada is far and away more socialist at this very moment then what you accuse Obama of.. wow.
    As an British ex-pat I wholeheartedly agree. B.M. (Before Maggie ) Britain had the same problem - entire industries owned and operated by the government for the "public good". I actually know and have lived Socialism. About the only thing left that's socialist in Britain now is the NHS - but that's a whole other thread

    President Obama is certainly quite a bit left of center and certainly has some socialist leanings personally, but his policies so far are nothing approaching socialism.
    Last edited by solarus; 07/14/2010 at 04:17 PM.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikea4 View Post
    I'm not going to agrue with you. But, statements that other people are using wrong definitions doesn't make you right. It is socialism. You look it up! Bills passed based on the spending of peoples money against peoples wishes, means that the government is dictating ones capital. To make things a little easier for you, since you speak from your heart and not of what you know...Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]

    In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a public association of producers to directly produce use-values (instead of exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the use of the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind.[4]

    Socialists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit or the amount of labour one contributes to society.[5] They generally share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through a system of exploitation. They argue that this creates an unequal society that fails to provide equal opportunities for everyone to maximise their potential,[6] and does not utilise technology and resources to their maximum potential in the interests of the public.[7] Socialists characterise full socialism as a society no longer based on coercive wage-labour, organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations and adhocracy rather than hierarchical, bureaucratic forms of organization in the productive sphere. Reformists and revolutionary socialists disagree on how a socialist economy should be established.

    Now where have we hear the distiribution of wealth speech before? Umm. These past puplicies all have to do with taking money to give it away!

    As the great saying goes.... "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - G. Santayana

    Later made it to the more common wording... "those who don't know their history, are doomed to repeat it" you need to learn your history. All these socialist, communist, dictator ran, countries. Started down the same road that we are. No one there ever thought they would turn out the way they did. And this country is no different. Everyone and their "oh, our government wouldn't do that". Sorry, that's sad and naive. Our government to suppose to govern the people (our puplicies), not run the people. Their are places in this country where you can't paint your house what ever color you want, I had a business 10 years ago ran into the ground by my "great" government. Because they didn't like wood burning stoves. 1/3 of my land was declared wet lands. I was told that if I touch one thing without their promision, I'd be fined $2,500. Yet, I still have to pay taxes on land that I can't use! This is " this is called "eminent domain" our 5th amendment right. "Unjust compensation, without just compensation". The government stole my landed. I called the Civil Liberties Union. The people who are suppose to fight for our rights, when the government infringes on them. You know what they said "Your right, they stole your land. But, we're not going to fight it for you. We like the Wetlands act" This is your government. You probably speak from a stand point of,someone who has little to no real dealings with the government! You my friend need to do your reach!
    No, it doesn't make me right, but I am right. And your comments have absolutely nothing to do with the post that I was responding to. Someone standing up before the country and telling them they don't know what they want is not an economic policy or philosophy, is it? Passing a "failed bill anyway" is not socialism, is it? Any bills that are passed are passed using the constitutionally approved method of legislation that this country has always used. Just because you don't like the politics doesn't mean you can call it something else.

    I need to learn my history? Please. Anytime you'd like to compare knowledge of history, just let me know. Even the American Socialist Party rejects the idea that there is anything socialist about our government...and that is what you are condemning, our system of government. Socialism is a socio-economic governmental system. We don't have it, we have never had it, and for the last 100 years we have had redistribution of wealth through taxation. Feel free to do a search on this forum to find some of the extensive discussions we have had about what socialism is and what it isn't. I think some education could benefit you, really.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    His objective was to show that MoveOn equated Bush to H!tler. He failed miserably as there is no such comparison in that ad, though there is a comparison of policies enacted by the German Nationalist government to the radical shifts to Nationalist policies enacted by the previous administration. And he knew that when he posted it.
    Davidra: "I stand corrected, Groovy....but I agree with natrixgli. While I disagree with MoveOn hyperbole in this case, Obama hasn't invaded anything except Wall Street and the psyche of the right. Neither president was a fascist or a fuhrer. One is just a better president...and that's the current one."

    If you are going to be an effective Robin to his Batman, and I think that is your goal here, read the entire thread.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Aren't you just quaint with your anecdotes.

    As opposed to those of your belief system, those on our side of the aisle don't prefer to assume the fetal position out of sheer terror of differing with each other.

    The distinction that I've pointed out stands undeterred.
    Uh, Robin, I'm not on either side of the aisle... But I would like to hear you describe my belief system. I tried last week, but I just can't seem to do it without you
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    If you are going to be an effective Robin to his Batman, and I think that is your goal here, read the entire thread.
    Appreciate the suggestion, but I don't do well as a Robin, and he doesn't need one either.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Appreciate the suggestion, but I don't do well as a Robin, and he doesn't need one either.
    No, you're Batman, you're the main guy. And I appreciated you saying you were mistaken -- rare on these boards.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #28  
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    This is the second time MoveOn compared Bush to the leader of the Reich. How anyone can reasonably deny the direct comparison is beyond me. I don't think even MoveOn operatives would deny it.
  10. spikea4's Avatar
    Posts
    455 Posts
    Global Posts
    458 Global Posts
    #30  
    Socialist countries do not happen overnight. Its through time, making the people more and more reliant and their government. All socialist countries start at times of economic need. Canada and England both have a national health care system. Hows that working out. If your government were socialists and adopted this thinking at what point do you think the US doing the same, would be a good idea? The USA didn't have a perfect health care system. But, we had the most people covered in the world. And no one can be turned away from care, even if they can't pay. Canadian's even come here for health care. Now this is how they became the way they are and how we soon will be. The government health care covers people who can't (or don't want to) pay for health care. To save money, government agencies also go to G Health care. Hundreds of thousands of people would be switch over to this plan. The private Ins. Companies will lose money and people. To make up and to continue to stay in business, they will have to raise costs. Now more peole will not be able to afford the private Ins. So they to will have to go to G health. Many Private Ins companies will go under. Only the very wealthy will have it and our government. (who wrote themselves out of the bill). Now what is the end resolute? People having to rely on its government for health care. This is how the ball got rolling else where and may happen here. This is only one example. Step by step. See right now the USA has one thing saving us from a fast move to a socialist state. We are armed through the teeth. The Japanese emperor at the end of WWII was asked after taking out the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor why didn't he invade? He said he wasn't affraid of our army. That he spent time in California as a young man. He know he didn't have the man power to fight the armed US people. Now lets think for a moment... If the US government just said "Hey, we're going to Socialism" what do you think the people would do? It takes approximatly 5% of armed population of this country to over throw its government. And they know that! Which brings up the next point. Why do they keep trying to out law guns? We know from England, Australia, etc.. Take the guns from the law abiding people and crime goes up. The bad guys aren't going to turn in their guns. They don't even legally own them anyway! And victims who can't fight back are easy targets! They say that's the reason. To stop crime. Cause people don't know the numbers. They listen to what every the news person says is fact! Take our guns....they take your freedom. So to the people who had to live in semi-socialist countries. How easy is it to get back your freedom from this bad government who runs your capital. When you're armed with a shovel and they have a gun? I guess you just go with the flow right? Live with it? If we didn't have guns, we would still be English too! When the government went after guns, the Supreme Court ruled it an 2nd Amendment right. They then went after the bullets. Said that they are a "incendiary device". Meaning in the same class as bombs! The Court shot them down again. You try to buy ammo? A box of 50 rounds use to cast $5.99. The same box now is $25.99. Mmm... Now there is to reasons for this. Price and demand is one. Gun sales went up 30% after President Obama got into Office. And two, the government began to tax the hell out of the ammo. Reason... Since their continuos attempts at banning guns hasn't worked. What good is a fun with no ammo. Even if you can buy it. How much could you really afford? Open your eyes. It is happening! Step by step.
    Last edited by Spikea4; 07/15/2010 at 02:02 AM.
  11. #31  
    that billboard got removed today
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Spikea4 View Post
    Socialist countries do not happen overnight. Its through time, making the people more and more reliant and their government. All socialist countries start at times of economic need. Canada and England both have a national health care system. Hows that working out. If your government were socialists and adopted this thinking at what point do you think the US doing the same, would be a good idea? The USA didn't have a perfect health care system. But, we had the most people covered in the world. And no one can be turned away from care, even if they can't pay. Canadian's even come here for health care. Now this is how they became the way they are and how we soon will be. The government health care covers people who can't (or don't want to) pay for health care. To save money, government agencies also go to G Health care. Hundreds of thousands of people would be switch over to this plan. The private Ins. Companies will lose money and people. To make up and to continue to stay in business, they will have to raise costs. Now more peole will not be able to afford the private Ins. So they to will have to go to G health. Many Private Ins companies will go under. Only the very wealthy will have it and our government. (who wrote themselves out of the bill). Now what is the end resolute? People having to rely on its government for health care. This is how the ball got rolling else where and may happen here. This is only one example. Step by step. See right now the USA has one thing saving us from a fast move to a socialist state. We are armed through the teeth. The Japanese emperor at the end of WWII was asked after taking out the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor why didn't he invade? He said he wasn't affraid of our army. That he spent time in California as a young man. He know he didn't have the man power to fight the armed US people. Now lets think for a moment... If the US government just said "Hey, we're going to Socialism" what do you think the people would do? It takes approximatly 5% of armed population of this country to over throw its government. And they know that! Which brings up the next point. Why do they keep trying to out law guns? We know from England, Australia, etc.. Take the guns from the law abiding people and crime goes up. The bad guys aren't going to turn in their guns. They don't even legally own them anyway! And victims who can't fight back are easy targets! They say that's the reason. To stop crime. Cause people don't know the numbers. They listen to what every the news person says is fact! Take our guns....they take your freedom. So to the people who had to live in semi-socialist countries. How easy is it to get back your freedom from this bad government who runs your capital. When you're armed with a shovel and they have a gun? I guess you just go with the flow right? Live with it? If we didn't have guns, we would still be English too! When the government went after guns, the Supreme Court ruled it an 2nd Amendment right. They then went after the bullets. Said that they are a "incendiary device". Meaning in the same class as bombs! The Court shot them down again. You try to buy ammo? A box of 50 rounds use to cast $5.99. The same box now is $25.99. Mmm... Now there is to reasons for this. Price and demand is one. Gun sales went up 30% after President Obama got into Office. And two, the government began to tax the hell out of the ammo. Reason... Since their continuos attempts at banning guns hasn't worked. What good is a fun with no ammo. Even if you can buy it. How much could you really afford? Open your eyes. It is happening! Step by step.
    I'm guessing you put a good amount of time into writing what you wrote, that you feel passionately about it, and that you'd like as many others to read and maybe respond to it as possible.

    Maybe its just me -- maybe because I'm just too aged and obtuse -- but I suspect that there are others besides me who would have an easier time understanding what you're saying if you broke your thoughts into paragraphs
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by jordan23945bulls View Post
    that billboard got removed today
    The article stated the billboard had already been covered up. What got removed?
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #34  
    From the OP article:

    After the billboard drew sharp criticism by other state and national tea party leaders, members of the local group sought the change.

    North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson said he and other leaders agreed with critics that the image of Obama between ****** and Lenin was offensive. He said the images overwhelmed the intended message of anti-socialism.
    Nuff said.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    As an British ex-pat I wholeheartedly agree. B.M. (Before Maggie ) Britain had the same problem - entire industries owned and operated by the government for the "public good". I actually know and have lived Socialism. About the only thing left that's socialist in Britain now is the NHS - but that's a whole other thread

    President Obama is certainly quite a bit left of center and certainly has some socialist leanings personally, but his policies so far are nothing approaching socialism.
    That's true. While certain things are definitely socialistic (such as owning major portions of things like car companies, or effectively controlling things like financial institutions, or having in "conservatorship" of government-created disasters like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), it isn't strictly socialism.

    As I've stated before--Socialism is at least based (theoretically) on some sort of idealistic goal. What we are heading deeper into has no such features--it is simple statism tinged with the many lies of progressivism, or more accurately a push towards as much statism as possible.

    KAM
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions