It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism is Not a 4 Letter Word

page: 31
37
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pyramid head

Stop what?

Loyalists existed during the revolutionary war.


Obviously they existed, just not the way your made up version of history says.




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: pyramid head
Obviously they existed, just not the way your made up version of history says.

How is that? I don't think I gave enough detail for it to even be considered history of any kind.

All I said was that the revolutionaries went after what they wanted and didn't take into account what the loyalists wanted.

Did you kneejerk because I said they were conservative?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

But here's the problem: How do "the people" uproot corruption in the public system? WE have very little to no control over it anymore.

So, we can complain and point out the failings day after day and many do, but if our betters, the elites who run things, don't take meaningful action, it doesn't matter, so the system becomes abusive and we have no recourse if we cannot remove ourselves from it.

And since it us involuntary, none of us really can remove ourselves from it.


But isn't that the root problem here? Isn't that the root problem with Socialism? With Capitalism, the people have the power to NOT buy from, pay into or support a failed entity such as a business. Lets take an example...if all schools were for profit and therefore, Capitalist. If a school sucked and the teachers suck...the people could simply stop sending their kids to that school and therefore, stop paying that school. Instead, they would send their kids elsewhere and pay the other school. The end result is the crappy school goes out of business and the good school grows.

But under Socialism, the government collect our money and gives it to a school. If the school is crappy, all they have to do is pass students and the government doesn't care. The people have no power to do anything about it and are forced to send their kids to a crappy school because there are no other choices. The government also has a corrupt power over the school to "convince" them to do certain things. Like...make the government (or even a certain party) look good to the students. And the whole time, the agencies that police the schools are getting salary raises yearly and will do anything to protect their own existence...their own jobs. They will lie, cheat and steal to stay in business because it is their livelihood.

Capitalism will always give the people the power to decide what is best for them. Socialism will allow the government to decide what is best for the people...assuming the government EVER knows what is best for the people. Personally...I don't want to be, nor need to be told what is best for me. So unless flawless computers run a Socialistic society...it will never be better for the people.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: pyramid head
Obviously they existed, just not the way your made up version of history says.

How is that? I don't think I gave enough detail for it to even be considered history of any kind.

All I said was that the revolutionaries went after what they wanted and didn't take into account what the loyalists wanted.

Did you kneejerk because I said they were conservative?


Wouldn't consider it "knee jerk", as a typical lib, you're making up your own history with labels. You labeled the people that conservatives of that time were against, as conservatives.

That's "all" you said. I was simply correcting you're misguided attempt to associate modern progressive authoritarians with the founding of this country.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TonyS

I'll fight it tooth and nail, prep for the coming shortages, prepare for the loss of capital and lower standard of living.




Does this comment about lower standards of living also apply to the thousands of people who live homeless on our capitalist streets.

Or in a typical ignorant right wing fashion were you just thinking about your own personal standard of living?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: jamespond

Commie! Screw them jake im doing fine!.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: jamespond

Commie! Screw them jake im doing fine!.


"Life is tough. It's tougher when you are stupid."

-John Wayne




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: pyramid head
Wouldn't consider it "knee jerk", as a typical lib, you're making up your own history with labels. You labeled the people that conservatives of that time were against, as conservatives.

I'm not a lib so that isn't going to stick.

Conservatives, in general terms, are those that are against change. That is why the phrase read " The part of the conservtives was played by the loyalists." Meaning that in that situation they were the ones opposing change.


That's "all" you said. I was simply correcting you're misguided attempt to associate modern progressive authoritarians with the founding of this country.

Well you read too much into it and reacted as such and that is called a kneejerk.
edit on 11-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: jamespond

Poverty and homelessness is collectively high in the Social Democracies.

How do they explain that away?






posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I actually agree with you that these terms are relative.

You certainly aren't a liberal (classical that is).

That makes you a conservative who refuses change from the socialist policies that have now begun to dissolve the fabric of our society.

Way to go dumb resister of change for the better.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



Really?... Mao was correct?... You are agreeing with a genociadal tyrant... A state of constant revolution means a state of always murdering and oppressing people just for the sake of "the constant revolution"...


This is indicative of the lazy average American that not cannot understand a simple analogy and how it applies to the US, but they also cannot understand that they have to get up off their asses and fight for what is theirs.

Mao said you have to be in a constant state of revolution, and Ben Franklin said "you have a republic, if you can keep it".

What does that mean? That means you have to be constantly on watch, constantly ready to protect you liberties.....just like Mao said.

I understand that may go over your head because you read the name Mao and knee-jerked like any uneducated person would. It's nice to know that the founding fathers knew this principle very well and gave us the tools to do so.

Learn a bit more about this country, how it was founded and why we need to be on our toes at all times.
edit on 11-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: daskakik

I actually agree with you that these terms are relative.

You certainly aren't a liberal (classical that is).

That makes you a conservative who refuses change from the socialist policies that have now begun to dissolve the fabric of our society.

Way to go dumb resister of change for the better.

I'm none of the above.

I don't advocate anything. All I do is spend my time on ATS pointing out facts.

I don't even care if things get "fixed" or not but I will point out why your "fixes" will probably not fix anything.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: daskakik

I actually agree with you that these terms are relative.

You certainly aren't a liberal (classical that is).

That makes you a conservative who refuses change from the socialist policies that have now begun to dissolve the fabric of our society.

Way to go dumb resister of change for the better.

I'm none of the above.

I don't advocate anything. All I do is spend my time on ATS pointing out facts.

I don't even care if things get "fixed" or not but I will point out why your "fixes" will probably not fix anything.


Perhaps your long term memory is compromised, please review your last 1000 posts.

Thank you for your consideration.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: pyramid head
Wouldn't consider it "knee jerk", as a typical lib, you're making up your own history with labels. You labeled the people that conservatives of that time were against, as conservatives.

I'm not a lib so that isn't going to stick.

Conservatives, in general terms, are those that are against change. That is why the phrase read " The part of the conservtives was played by the loyalists." Meaning that in that situation they were the ones opposing change.


That's "all" you said. I was simply correcting you're misguided attempt to associate modern progressive authoritarians with the founding of this country.

Well you read too much into it and reacted as such and that is called a kneejerk.


Your being disingenuous. You were comparing today's conservatives to people who wanted to stay as slaves. Conservatives today want to keep individual freedom, what the founders fought for.

You implied they were the same even though modern progressives are the party that most closely resembles the loyalists

Now your saying they are the same because both wanted to "conserve" something. I called you out because you were attempting to associate modern conservatives with with loyalists and progressives with the founders, don't backtrack.

Conservatives don't simply want "no change" they want to keep individual liberty. They are completely different from the loyalists.

Hitler wanted to "progress",are modern liberals similar to hitler because both want/wanted to progress?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Pointing out the flaws in one system doesn't mean you stand behind any other.

Simple. Think it over.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: pyramid head

Still over your head.

Saying someone in Ancient Greece was a democrat doesn't mean that he is comparable to a current member of the democratic party.

You are filling in those spaces and trying to attribute those words to me.


I called you out because you were attempting to associate modern conservatives with with loyalists and progressives with the founders, don't backtrack.

No batracking needed. What I pointed out is what happened and, it is what Beezer was complaining about. I do not claim any other similarity.



edit on 11-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: pyramid head

Still over your head.

Saying someone in Ancient Greece was a democrat doesn't mean that he is comparable to a current member of the democratic party.

You are filling in those spaces and trying to attribute those words to me.


I called you out because you were attempting to associate modern conservatives with with loyalists and progressives with the founders, don't backtrack.

No batracking needed. What I pointed out is what happened. I do not claim any other similarity.




If your not backtracking then what I said stands and your comparison is nonsense. The correct comparison is big gov slave loyalists and the modern progressive authoritarian.

If the loyalists had won, we'd be calling modern progressives conservatives. The truth is they are regressives.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: pyramid head
If your not backtracking then what I said stands and your comparison is nonsense. The correct comparison is big gov slave loyalists and the modern progressive authoritarian.

But then it wouldn't fit with what Beezer was describing.

Can't have it both ways.

I think you jumped before thinking about the context of the discussion that was in progress.

ETA: You seem to be really hung up on labels. I'll see if I can clear the point up a bit, the complaint that Beezer posted (which seems to be shared by people of conservative values) is the same complaint that the Loyalists could have made back during the Revolutionary war.

I don't care what either bunch is called but that is what they are known as so, I really had no other tags to hang on them.



edit on 11-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: pyramid head
If your not backtracking then what I said stands and your comparison is nonsense. The correct comparison is big gov slave loyalists and the modern progressive authoritarian.

But then it wouldn't fit with what Beezer was describing.

Can't have it both ways.

I think you jumped before thinking about the context of the discussion that was in progress.

ETA: You seem to be really hung up on labels. I'll see if I can clear the point up a bit, the complaint that Beezer posted (which seems to be shared by people of conservative values) is the same complaint that the Loyalists could have made back during the Revolutionary war.

I don't care what either bunch is called but, that is what they are known as, so I really had no other tags to hang on them.



I read his comment and yours. I know what he said and what you were attempting to say. I'm not having anything both ways. I "jumped in" just fine, I simply don't agree with your comparison and stated why I think it's invalid.

There is no same complaint, the conservative complaint is the lack of liberties, which he said. The loyalists were just fine with a lack of liberties.

I'm " hung" up on labels because you applied them, not me.

Either way I think well just have to agree to disagree, not much seems to be getting exchanged, I appreciate the conversation though
edit on 11-8-2015 by pyramid head because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: pyramid head
There is no same complaint, the conservative complaint is the lack of liberties, which he said. The loyalists were just fine with a lack of liberties.

If you had understood beezer's comments you would have noticed that he was saying that he had given up hope becuase socialism was going to happen despite his objection.

That is the complaint I was talking about.


Is there a part where the loyalists are against the king I'm unaware of?

It isn't about the details, it is about your fellow citizens rolling over you. Not about which side you are on.



edit on 11-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
37
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join