I'm against socialism, apparently I'm an idiot. Ask me nothing.

a reply to: Fishy
When Bernie's bread lines come to fruition is when reality will come to you. Thanks for posting and welcome to ats. 😄

I wouldent know i dont use twitter, you keep on repating the same crap, dosent it get sad after a while, youve been proven wrong again, thanks for the insult i wear them like a badge of honor.

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: [post=20723649]dukeofjive696969[/

My iphone is weird when i use ats, again to have a tantrum that would mean i was wrong, which i am not, you bring zero to the table, then insult me lol.

At least like i told you earlier you get stars for trying real hard.

edit on 14-5-2016 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think you missed the point.

Yeah, I'm going to be a smart-ass about socialism. I don't agree with it.

And you obviously disagree with me.

But I'd never tell you to stop posting, or expressing your opinion. What kind of disagreement could we have if I kept telling you to shut up and not talk about it?

Db sorry you had to endure the hate mail. Yesterday's thread was like a train wreck in slo-mo . People were telling me to leave the minute I started actually analyzing specific things.
Imagine if Paul revere was told he sounded like a fool and didn't know what he was talking about----it might go something like this----the redcoats are coming the redcoats are coming---awww dude put down yer lantern they ain't coming its just your imagination what's wrong with redcoats anyway I like being taxed for my tea and stamps

a reply to: Fishy

Well thanks for registering and replying.

As far as socialism goes, I take it to mean, "controlling the means of production".

We have a very corrupt capitalist economic system right now in the US. Giving more control and authority to an already corrupt system would lead to a corrupt socialist system.

I'm not that big into authoritarian rule, personally.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I'm all for disagreeing.

I'm quite a disagreeable person!



But silencing (or trying to) the opposition is disingenuous. And illustrates that you don't have a cogent argument against the opposing side in the debate.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Who is suggestion controlling the means of production?

Sanders and his followers sure aren't =/

Not sure where you're coming from?

I do think we need to get the guys in political office.. Out of there, though. For any system, even the current system. New congressman, senators, and judges who haven't gotten comfy with corporations and other governments, who are fresh and have ideas on how to improve America, not their own life.

a reply to: deadlyhope

The definition of socialism is government controlling the means of production.

As for getting rid of the 535 bloated parasites infesting congress? Agreed!

a reply to: DBCowboy

In every completely Socialist system in history, the ruling class is exempt from it's own policies. Why do you think they lived in mansions and palaces while the majority lived off bread lines?

When you think about it, it boils down to nothing more then crony capitalism with a select few controlling a monopoly on the means of production while enforcing communism on the populace.

There is a reason why Socialism is right below Fascism in the Oppressive Authority index.

a reply to: Konduit

In every completely Socialist system in history, the ruling class is exempt from it's own policies. Why do you think they lived in mansions and palaces while the majority lived off bread lines? When you think about it, it boils down to nothing more then crony capitalism with a select few controlling a monopoly on the means of production while enforcing communism on the populace. There is a reason why Socialism is right below Fascism in the Oppressive Authority index.

Pretty graph

That's all it is, a pretty graph, now go back and read the OP and first few pages

Opinions are great

When based on fact and not google images

Now impress me

Show me the facts and the research you did, or can't you ? Deny ignorance

Cody

Gosh you ATS yanks spend so much time rambling on about labels.

If I had to have face to face dinner chatter with you , I think I'd stick two forks in my ears as preferable to this very boring and self limiting way of existing.

a reply to: Konduit
You're looking at it from a purely privileged point of view though. Canada (and most of the civilized world) has a system that covers even the dirt poor. In a privatized setting you end up with a system where the wealthy are prioritized. Privatization is great - but only if you can afford it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Rant over, but I hope I was able to convey my feelings without harming anyone's safe space.

Funny that you needed to rant about the fact that people disagree with you

:-)

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: DBCowboy

Rant over, but I hope I was able to convey my feelings without harming anyone's safe space.

Funny that you needed to rant about the fact that people disagree with you

:-)

Everyone disagrees with me at some point. It's when you try to silence the disagreement that is disturbing.

Or are you okay with that?

a reply to: DBCowboy

db I love to debate. Any debate gets shut down when people are being told to just go away, that they are stupid , insane, etc etc

a reply to: DBCowboy

Okay, but why is this a topic?

No one running for president wants socialism.

No one on ATS wants socialism that I know of.....

Some people want more implementation of social programs and government funding.. But we have that.

You drive on roads, you go to parks I bet, you might even use electricity or the cities water.

What exactly are you arguing? Who exactly are you arguing against? Socialists hardly exist on this site.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: deadlyhope
The definition of socialism is government controlling the means of production.

Just a detail, but - not really. Controlling all means of production is more a communist thing. But indeed, most socialists DO believe that products or services that are used and needed by all should be produced and controlled by the people (i.c. the State). E.g. gas, electricity, water, sewerage, roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, insurance etc.

Of course, one of the "problems" you have in a State controlled production environment is lack of competition. Actually, monopolism is not a big issue - but lazyness is. If a company is certain it WILL "sell" its product / service, the capitalists believe there isn't a big stimulus for product / service improvement.

Socialists (rightfully IMO) on the other hand observe that the quality of many appliances ibuild in a capitalistic system s abhorrent. Of course: the capitalistic drive is not to sell something that is of perfect quality - the drive is to sell something made cheap for a lot of money. So, 'just good enough' will do.

However, assuming that we "need" competition to innovate en provide efficiency this may require the State to stimulate innovation and efficiency using other methods. In the old Eastern European "socialist" states they used medals, honours, prizes etc. and up to a certain point that works (similar to that dreadful habit of Americans to put up signs that show the name and face of the "employee of the month"). But it works on a micro level, not a macro level.

Stefan Denaerde wrote about a possible model (as taught by the Iargans): the state simply sets up at least 2 competing organisations to provide the service or product. The buyers will choose the best product or service, and then the provider will be publicly acknowledged as "the best". The State will then require the "competitor" to reveal the ways it produced that better quality, so their "competition" can learn from it and adapt the new technology. Then a new round starts.

However, the Iargans don't use money. It's all about honour, acknowledgement, and bettering the circumstances for the planet and the species. We're a far cry for their society, but the model seems to be quite natural - even for a capitalist.

Anyway. Just pointing out a flaw in your reasoning.

BTW: you should be free to say - within the bounds of manners and decorum - whatever you like here, and you should NOT receive hatemail because you do. Any REAL socialist would find it impossible to sent out such mails, simply because they violate our core principles: dignity, solidarity and equality.

Cheers.

a reply to: Konduit

In every completely Socialist system in history, the ruling class is exempt from it's own policies. Why do you think they lived in mansions and palaces while the majority lived off bread lines?

Yes I would say that is correct. The people in power usually have more of everything. Look who are some of the biggest proponents of socialism in the US today.... Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Al Gore(because Agenda 21 is socialistic and totalitarian with pretty sounding words) etc ad nauseum.... they all have money galore they made off capitalism.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DBCowboy

Okay, but why is this a topic?

No one running for president wants socialism.

No one on ATS wants socialism that I know of.....

Some people want more implementation of social programs and government funding.. But we have that.

You drive on roads, you go to parks I bet, you might even use electricity or the cities water.

What exactly are you arguing? Who exactly are you arguing against? Socialists hardly exist on this site.

I disagree.

Bernie is a socialist, wants socialism. And many here also want socialism.

I thought that was fairly obvious.