OKAY. I'm going with Jill Stein if I can't go with Bernie

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Look, its a common suggestion that the common welfare means welfare state.....

No, it's not.

Refer to the constitution. Don't see anything about a welfare state.

You made that up.

ok well I thought you might like to know the name of this thread.... "OKAY. I'm going with Jill Stein if I can't go with Bernie"

So that gives you a reason to assume I agree with her?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Look, its a common suggestion that the common welfare means welfare state.....

No, it's not.

Refer to the constitution. Don't see anything about a welfare state.

You made that up.

ok well I thought you might like to know the nam.0e of this thread.... "OKAY. I'm going with Jill Stein if I can't go with Bernie"

So that gives you a reason to assume I agree with her?

Nothing like spinning stuff to make a point Intro..... I have heard that tired old argument about the common welfare of the people in that clause to mean that our Founding Fathers fully intended to have a socialist welfare state. That was not their intention at all but people keep trying to make that argument nevertheless. You seemed to indicate that is what you believed when you posted that it was socialist to raise taxes to pay for roads and that it was also in the Constitution. Did you not insinuate so? I mean isn't that what you meant when you said this....

I've done nothing of the sort. By definition, those things are socialist in nature. To deny that, according to the definition, is delusional...or biased.

So you don't agree with her?

I will give you an example of utter fail of captilsim verses socialism, private corporate prisons verses public funded (socialized) prisons. But who pays the corporate prisons ? Government taxes from the people... and they get to make a profit on it.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I have heard that tired old argument about the common welfare of the people in that clause to mean that our Founding Fathers fully intended to have a socialist welfare state.

That is not what I said.

You seemed to indicate that is what you believed when you posted that it was socialist to raise taxes to pay for roads and that it was also in the Constitution.

By definition, roads and military are socialist in nature. The constitution states that it is within the federal governments right to lay taxes to provide for the defense and general welfare. It serves the general welfare if citizens are able to travel freely and be protected by the military.

That was not their intention at all but people keep trying to make that argument nevertheless.

What was their intention? According to their own words, it's quite obvious that they wanted the federal government to be able to tax the people for those specific purposes.

You seemed to indicate that is what you believed when you posted that it was socialist to raise taxes to pay for roads and that it was also in the Constitution. Did you not insinuate so? I mean isn't that what you meant when you said this....

Yes. By definition, it is socialist.

So you don't agree with her?

Don't know much about her ideas. Couldn't really tell you.

Honestly, I couldn't care less.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

For-profit prisons are a disgrace to the entire species.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you honestly think that socialism or democratic socialism will only affect 5 people, then you are misguided.

True. Socialism is the basic principle behind the military, police, fire fighters, public roadways, etc. We all benefit from it.

I fail to see how that is wrong. Well, unless you hate all those things.

You don't hate those things, do you?

I seem to recall, how liberals scream and cry about how evil the police are in killing minorities. I seem to recall, how liberals scream and cry about how the military murders with impunity innocent men, women, and children all around the globe. If these are the examples of socialism, and liberals are vehemently opposed to socialist organizations such as police and military; wouldn't it be logical to also oppose socialism in all other aspects?

As for the military, why is it the military spending is out of control? $200 for a hammer, that's socialism.

Oh right, I forgot to add:

On the military - Nations are moving to PRIVATE military contractors, because socialism is SO GREAT!!!

Hahaha! This is the final nail in the coffin for the socialist argument. It does not work, and reality proves it; military cut-backs and moving to Private military. Wow.

Also, BUZZYWINGS has YET TO DEFINE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. They refuse to define it, because the definitions we are using are correct. Either this person does not know what socialism means, and cannot find the definition the 'FEEL' it means; or they know what it means, and DO NOT WANT people to KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

Bernie and Jill, ridiculous, they want to give CORRUPT CONGRESS virtually unlimited spending power. That is the socialist agenda, inflate the money supply and heavily tax EVERYONE; the only way to build their socialist utopia is upon the ASHES OF THE OLD REPUBLIC. MILLIONS WILL DIE, socialism is a clear and present danger.

NOTE: The military gets their gear from PRIVATE COMPANIES through government contracts. That IS NOT SOCIALISM, that is FASCISM.

Suggestion: Learn about the subject, before 'teaching' me on the subject.

Oh look at that,

Socialist Roads are so great, that:

Toll road privatization is becoming increasingly prevalent in the United States.

www.uspirg.org...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: introvert
Exactly. They are goods paid for by the collective wealth of the nation.

Socialism...you're welcome.

No, you are deluded. You are mistaken. You are trying to take reality hostage and change the argument.

You are wrong.

I've done nothing of the sort. By definition, those things are socialist in nature. To deny that, according to the definition, is delusional...or biased.

Perhaps you are unprepared to admit that the very things you may love, are socialist.

"Socialist in nature"... moving the goalpost I see.

Military is not a private service. It is a federal and state responsibility.

Law enforcement is not a private service. It is a federal, state and local responsibility.

a reply to: introvert

Why are roads built?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

It's a propaganda tactic,

Liberals equate social programs to socialism. That is false equivalence, but they will pander to the feeble minded, especially if no one calls them out. They are good in the fact that they do not rest, they are so deluded by ideology they will not stop until their socialist agenda is complete.

I should also note, that Black's law dictionary does not define socialism; the layman's definition for socialism is under the legal definition for communism. Just something to note.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Military is not a private service. It is a federal and state responsibility. Law enforcement is not a private service. It is a federal, state and local responsibility.

Exactly. A government service provided by the collective wealth of the people.

Socialism.

a reply to: GodEmperor

I seem to recall, how liberals scream and cry about how evil the police are in killing minorities. I seem to recall, how liberals scream and cry about how the military murders with impunity innocent men, women, and children all around the globe. If these are the examples of socialism, and liberals are vehemently opposed to socialist organizations such as police and military; wouldn't it be logical to also oppose socialism in all other aspects?

False narrative. What you describe is not part of any liberal or socialist ideology.

On the military - Nations are moving to PRIVATE military contractors, because socialism is SO GREAT!!! Hahaha! This is the final nail in the coffin for the socialist argument. It does not work, and reality proves it; military cut-backs and moving to Private military. Wow.

Yes, that is true. Corrupt politicians funneling money and contracts in the interest of crony capitalism.

the only way to build their socialist utopia is upon the ASHES OF THE OLD REPUBLIC. MILLIONS WILL DIE, socialism is a clear and present danger

Next time you see a soldier or a police man, make sure you tell them that.

NOTE: The military gets their gear from PRIVATE COMPANIES through government contracts. That IS NOT SOCIALISM, that is FASCISM.

No, that's crony capitalism.

Suggestion: Learn about the subject, before 'teaching' me on the subject.

You cannot teach those that lack the capacity to learn.

a reply to: introvert

Do you just post things without actually knowing or even bothering to do just a tiny bit of research?

Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)[2] composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the U.S. government

en.wikipedia.org...

Everything you have said is false. The only thing you have any accuracy on is 'crony capitalism', which is a synonym of fascism.

a reply to: introvert

You cannot teach those that lack the capacity to learn.

As you have so wonderfully demonstrated.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Do you just post things without actually knowing or even bothering to do just a tiny bit of research?

From your link:

By 1977, the organization was defunct.

So again, what you describe is not part of any liberal or socialist ideology. Modern Leftists do not oppose police or the military. They oppose the abuse of it's powers.

The only thing you have any accuracy on is 'crony capitalism', which is a synonym of fascism.

Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum

en.wikipedia.org...

Well. That's interesting, is it not? No wonder they are trying to privatize the military and other areas. The crony-capitalists (aka fascists) oppose the socialized forces, and even socialized roads. So they build toll roads.

a reply to: introvert

Oh really?

Is that why socialists riot at Trump rallies, cause property damage, and get arrested?

Because they are non-violent. HAH.

What have socialists called for if Trump is elected?

Oh that's right. Violence.

Of course, socialist leaders calling for riots if Trump elected is clearly 'non-violent'. Maybe you should call up socialist leaders like Tef Poe, and tell them socialism is not violent. LOL.

a reply to: GodEmperor

You are confusing social justice leaders and groups with socialism. Some may be socialists, but it is not part of their base philosophy.

Tef Poe is an advocate in the "Hands Up" movement. He pushes for social justice.

Don't confuse social justice with socialism.

a reply to: introvert

Oh right.

So, according to you:

The military and police are socialist.

The military and police kill people, ie use of force with violence.

Therefore, socialism is violent.

You just got schooled.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: introvert

Oh right.

So, according to you:

The military and police are socialist.

The military and police kill people, ie use of force with violence.

Therefore, socialism is violent.

You just got schooled.

It's their job to be violent, if need be. Socialism is just what paid for it.

Schooled? Ya, I probably paid for you to go to school too.