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.

 

To all you arguing against Bernie Supporters

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I must say seeing all the negativity over the use of the word socialism is quite humorous. They will be wanting to ban social studies in schools next, some states might have already.

What a load of crap!

Brain washed masses of sheeple, hiding behind their R's and D's and expecting change, LOL's!!!!!!




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Medicator
As a Trump supporter I give Bernie major resect for being a good honest man. Bernie should have never self described himself as a democratic socialist to masses of people that don't know what that is.



Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system, involving a combination of political democracy with social ownership of the means of production.


Socialism is simply socialism. I'm not sure how anyone can confuse the term, even if the word "democratic" is in front of it.

Taken from Wiki of course...



Democratic socialism is distinguished from both the Soviet model of centralized socialism and from social democracy, where "social democracy" refers to support for political democracy, regulation of the capitalist economy, and a welfare state.[2] The distinction with the former is made on the basis of the authoritarian form of government and centralized economic system that emerged in the Soviet Union during the 20th century,[3] while the distinction with the latter is made on the basis that democratic socialism is committed to systemic transformation of the economy while social democracy is not.[4] That is, whereas social democrats only seek to "humanize" capitalism through state intervention, democratic socialists see capitalism as inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by superseding private ownership with some form of social ownership. Ultimately democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only cause more problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy, that capitalism can never be sufficiently "humanized", and that it must therefore ultimately be replaced with socialism.[5][6]

Democratic socialism is not specifically revolutionary or reformist, as many types of democratic socialism can fall into either category, with some forms overlapping with social democracy, supporting reforms within capitalism as a prelude to the establishment of socialism.[7] Some forms of democratic socialism accept social democratic reformism to gradually convert the capitalist economy to a socialist one using pre-existing democratic institutions, while other forms are revolutionary in their political orientation and advocate for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the transformation of the capitalist economy to a socialist economy.[8]


Wiki



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
I must say seeing all the negativity over the use of the word socialism is quite humorous. They will be wanting to ban social studies in schools next, some states might have already.

What a load of crap!

Brain washed masses of sheeple, hiding behind their R's and D's and expecting change, LOL's!!!!!!


See above.... Maybe you should also actually look it up and see what you come up with, yourself.

It's not "Social" Democracy. It's Democratic Socialism...



I will further add..

Websters:



Simple Definition of socialism

: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies


Full 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

2
a : 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






edit on 24-2-2016 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: butcherguy

All along, Bernie has said it will be up to all of us. That means we vote out the old and bring in the new.

I suppose you, on the other hand, are in favor of the old establishment Congress? You happy with status quo?



Change isn't always better and thanks to Obama we learned it can always be worse. Socialism and big Government are terrible ideas and it won't be better just because Bernie wants to try to fight some corruption.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

So you are perfectly happy with the way things are right now.

Good to know.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Metallicus

So you are perfectly happy with the way things are right now.

Good to know.


So you must love pedophiles?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Metallicus

So you are perfectly happy with the way things are right now.

Good to know.


So you must love pedophiles?


Ummm.... are you confused as to which thread you're on? What does that have to do with wanting to make changes to the way government is set up?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I'll start by saying, I understand why so many people support Bernie. I respect the fact that they see the problems in our government and are ready for something different. That doesn't mean I agree with them about what that 'something different' should be.

The OP reminds me of a conversation I had with a family member. I picked up the phone and called my aunt to see how she was doing. I NEVER EVER bring up the subject of politics with her. During our conversation, SHE brings up the subject, proceeds to tell me her opinion. I opened my mouth and said "Well, I think ..." She cuts me off and starts screaming at me (I'm not exaggerating. She was literally screaming at me.) "I'm not going to talk about politics!" So apparently it is perfectly fine for some people to give their opinions but no one is EVER supposed to have an opposing opinion.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

Hmm

We live in a country where ones tittle of deed to land and home is only good as long as taxes are paid. In other words your home is never your but is leased to you through terms of a lease from the government called property taxes.

Ownership, with locked technology is already in question.

Yet you play word definition games to support crony capitalism in an oligarchy!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: StallionDuck


Yet you play word definition games to support crony capitalism in an oligarchy!




I swear I feel like most people are just regurgitating words they hear in speeches and on the news without any idea what they mean. Bunch of mimicking pull-string dolls on both sides of this thing.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: butcherguy

Just because one is unhappy with the status quo is no reason to bring someone in to make things worse...Wouldn't you agree?


Yep. That's why I'm voting for Bernie. I want to make things better. Or at least try. Voting for anyone else, or not voting at all - is not even trying.

It is your opinion that Bernie will bring us something better than all the rest.
Other people have other opinions.
For you to say that your choice is the only one to make when you have absolutely no idea what Bernie will accomplish.... and say that anyone voting for anyone else is not even trying, well, that is discounting the opinion of every person that doesn't support Bernie.
I am very unhappy with this elections cycle's crop of candidates, but that doesn't mean that Bernie is a good choice.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

So, what are you doing to try to make things better?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Metallicus

So you are perfectly happy with the way things are right now.

Good to know.


So you must love pedophiles?


Ummm.... are you confused as to which thread you're on? What does that have to do with wanting to make changes to the way government is set up?


I was just making a jump in logic like you did and ascribing random things to your position so I could be more like you. If you don't like it when people put words in your mouth and jump to inane conclusions you probably should stop doing it to others.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: StallionDuck

Hmm

We live in a country where ones tittle of deed to land and home is only good as long as taxes are paid. In other words your home is never your but is leased to you through terms of a lease from the government called property taxes.

Ownership, with locked technology is already in question.

Yet you play word definition games to support crony capitalism in an oligarchy!





Nope... I only support the fact that you're wrong.

I see fairly well that the GOP is just as corrupt and capitalism in it's form today is largely corrupt as well. I do, however, believe capitalism is not wrong, only the corrupt taking advantage of it. I don't believe socialism is the answer by any means of the word. You can't make a right with a wrong.

You mentioned land ownership problems based on taxes. I abhor taxes, but that doesn't stop democrats from taxing the hell out of me. National Healthcare is a prime example of this "tax". You should consider that when you're also including land tax. Socialism may not tax you the same way.... You simply wont own that land. You wont own your company. You'll rely on what the government says and does and there wont be anything you can do to change it.

Besides... Do you honestly trust government to make choices for your own well being? We're talking about the same government, right? You're giving me the opinion that you believe government isn't as corrupt as big business... what's the difference?

....ohhhh... we vote for government elects... Riiiiiight! That works the way it was meant to. Sure




posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

How did I make a jump in logic? When talking about changing the status quo, you said that change isn't always better and Obama showed change can always be worse. That sounds an awful lot like you aren't too happy about changing the status quo.

So do you want to change the status quo or not?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: StallionDuck


Yet you play word definition games to support crony capitalism in an oligarchy!




I swear I feel like most people are just regurgitating words they hear in speeches and on the news without any idea what they mean. Bunch of mimicking pull-string dolls on both sides of this thing.



Really? What words are those? I used 2 factual sources for the definition. I didn't make up or recycle word play. I used actual definitions.

In the same sense of your response... I feel like people are just talking out of their arse without a clue just to see their post on the internet. There is a such thing as a dictionary. There are credible sources for what words mean. One doesn't HAVE to listen to someone else and spew out what they've heard. They can simply look it up for themselves.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck

I guess some people will be happy to have the government own all major industries.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: butcherguy

So, what are you doing to try to make things better?

For starters, I am trying to convince my niece that voting for Bernie Sanders would be a bad move for our country, especially the economy.
I thought that when I asked her for details of how he would pay for his planned spending without raising middle class taxes, and she responded with a 'DUHHHHH, I don't know.' would be enough to convince he that she is on the wrong track. Unfortunately she is still thinking with her heart and not her brain.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

That's not an answer. Are you with the Party of NO? What "yes" things are you doing?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBandit795

Wasnt it you that made the post that Sanders economics plans were fantasies?

Now you spread a lie abut Sanders wanting to takeover industry; I see that Business wants what little public services our government provides so they can turn those to their profit.

And as for those economic fantasies:


Alas, Krugman ran into Jamie Galbraith, who is not susceptible to Paul’s edicts of intimidation. Jamie’s piece is wonderfully concise and should be savored in its entirety. But here are the two key takeaways. Jamie destroyed the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Jamie made two simple points. First, Friedman is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, not Bernie. That means there is every reason to believe he did not engage in “voodoo” economics as Krugman charged in order to help Bernie. It also means that Paul’s demand: “Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now” is bizarre. Why would Sanders need to disassociate himself from a Hillary supporter?

Second, Friedman’s study is utterly conventional in terms of the macro models that Krugman has been praising for years in his column. The results he calculates, that Krugman dismisses as “fantasy” and “voodoo” are in fact the normal product of the normal models Krugman and the Gang of 4 rely on. Friedman, Jamie, and I all have many doubts about those models, but not Krugman and the Gang of 4. Why does the standard model generate such powerful results for employment and growth? It does so because Bernie’s plan to spur the economy is far larger than current policies or anything program to spur the economy supported by Hillary. As Jamie phrases it:

What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result. That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today’s political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


neweconomicperspectives.org...


If you want to spewl crap you could at least tag it with imho, rather than present it as fact.
edit on 24-2-2016 by AlaskanDad because: spacing




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join