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.

 

The Liberals, Democrat's, Antifa and the Democratic Socialist are the New Nazi's

page: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: introvert

This is what I understand for you, socialist.

You are perfectly free to find a like-minded group of other socialitsts. Then you can, as a group, purchase your own property and pool it and all other assets collectively for your group's common good. You can do this right now.

But that's not enough for you. You seek to do it legally to those of us who do not want either our persons or property socialized for *your* collective good.


I don't want to pay for your military, but I have to. The constitution demands it.

You are perfectly free to find like-minded groups to find and support your defense at a moments notice.

But that's not enough for you. I have to fund it. Because the constitution says so.

I gladly do that. You're welcome.

Slacker.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


The notion of private property is antithetical to socialism.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

LOL ... keep reading, you may one day understand, Grasshopper.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

According to whom or to what?

What is your authority or your source for that statement?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I'll bet you don't want the government to subsidize large corporations either.

Speaking of socialism.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheTory

According to whom or to what?

What is your authority or your source for that statement?


Find me one piece of socialist writing that advocates private property, and in doing that you'll find the exact opposite. I doubt you've read a socialist thing in your life.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

the founding fathers were not arguing for welfare benefits and food stamps just stop kidding yourself


I did not say they did argue for anything of the sort.

They wrote a document that allowed for taxes to be levied in order to provide for the common good, like a military.

That's a socialist ideal.

In a true free market, you have to hire your own army.

Can you do that? I doubt it.

You're welcome.


I'm not aware of any socialist writing stating anything like that. Marx himself was opposed to taxes on the grounds it connected the middle class to the feudal state, funded wars and the actions of the bureaucracy.

"From today, therefore, taxes are abolished! It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!". - Karl Marx


And that is why the Founding Fathers are different than the likes of Marx and why many socialists, such as myself, do not agree with those extremes.

Taxes serve a purpose and are outlined in the constitution in order to provide the necessities that both ignorant communists and free-market nuts can't seem to understand.


Marx also despised constitutions. Not to mention that socialialism is thouroughly refuted by the 14th amendment.


Yet is supported in other amendments.

Perhaps that means that the Constitution is a mix of many logical systems. One of them being socialism.

Unless taxes and providing for the common defense is a socialist idea.

In that case, I guess we will take it, right along with the intent of the Founding Fathers.
edit on 24-8-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

Like I said, they don't understand basic differences between socialism, Communism, Marxism, etc.

Good on you for continuing to argue against the gut-wrenching, mind-numbing IGNORANCE on display here.

I bet they don't even know that ol' Tom Paine was an early "Communist," LOL.


They do not even understand their own Constitution.

Hard to expect them to understand anything the slightest bit more complicated.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

In all three of them, private ownership of property is severely infringed on for the presumed common good by outside parties, usually the government, in one form or another.

You can talk about stock and publicly traded companies, but a company chooses to become a publicly traded company. They are not compelled to. Generally speaking, the investment dollars from the sale of stock are lucrative in exchange for some loss of control to a board of shareholders who purchase shares.

Again, this is *choice* and as I mention above - nothing prevents anyone who wishes to collectivize with others for the common interests of the group from doing so. What is prevented is the government from forcing all citizens to collectivize.

Forced collectivization does not always produce a common good. Can you really look at the crumbling public school systems in many places that children are trapped in against the wishes of their parents and tell me they are receiving a "public good" by being trapped in those schools by nothing more than the caprices of their zip codes? And because they are trapped in the collectivized system, there is very little to no incentive for the system to be cleaned of its corruption, too. So the children are sacrificed.

The same thing goes on in our VA and would happen in any forced collective health system.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheTory

According to whom or to what?

What is your authority or your source for that statement?


Find me one piece of socialist writing that advocates private property, and in doing that you'll find the exact opposite. I doubt you've read a socialist thing in your life.


You made the claim ... surely you can back it up?

Come on. Tell me the authority that can speak for all "socialism" everywhere all the various forms and systems and ideologies, all of the processes, evolutions and stages ... anything really that backs up your absurdly simplistic statement that "Private property is antithetical to socialism."

All you're doing is spouting a few basic libertarian truisms. Put up or bother someone else.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

the founding fathers were not arguing for welfare benefits and food stamps just stop kidding yourself


I did not say they did argue for anything of the sort.

They wrote a document that allowed for taxes to be levied in order to provide for the common good, like a military.

That's a socialist ideal.

In a true free market, you have to hire your own army.

Can you do that? I doubt it.

You're welcome.


I'm not aware of any socialist writing stating anything like that. Marx himself was opposed to taxes on the grounds it connected the middle class to the feudal state, funded wars and the actions of the bureaucracy.

"From today, therefore, taxes are abolished! It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!". - Karl Marx


And that is why the Founding Fathers are different than the likes of Marx and why many socialists, such as myself, do not agree with those extremes.

Taxes serve a purpose and are outlined in the constitution in order to provide the necessities that both ignorant communists and free-market nuts can't seem to understand.


Marx also despised constitutions. Not to mention that socialialism is thouroughly refuted by the 14th amendment.


Yet is supported in other amendments.

Perhaps that means that the Constuation is a mix of many logical systems. One of them being socialism.

Unless taxes and providing for the common defense is a socialist idea.

In that case, I guess we will take it, right along with the intent of the Founding Fathers.


Again, I'm not aware of any socialist tract or anything that mentions this. Did you think it up on your own? If so, what are you basing your conclusion on?



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Yet is supported in other amendments.


No it isn't.

Sure not in the 4th,.



mendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



www.law.cornell.edu...

Key word EFFECTS.

Sure not in the 14th.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


There it is again.

Equal protection and nor shall ANY state including the FEDERAL deprive any person of life,liberty or property.

MONEY is property.

www.law.cornell.edu...

EPIC FAIL socialists.

edit on 24-8-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

I'll bet you don't want the government to subsidize large corporations either.

Speaking of socialism.


It is my understanding that corporate charters were only given to those, in the early days, that served a purpose that benefited the common good.

Damn socialism!



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheTory

According to whom or to what?

What is your authority or your source for that statement?


Find me one piece of socialist writing that advocates private property, and in doing that you'll find the exact opposite. I doubt you've read a socialist thing in your life.


You made the claim ... surely you can back it up?

Come on. Tell me the authority that can speak for all "socialism" everywhere all the various forms and systems and ideologies, all of the processes, evolutions and stages ... anything really that backs up your absurdly simplistic statement that "Private property is antithetical to socialism."

All you're doing is spouting a few basic libertarian truisms. Put up or bother someone else.


What do you want me to do, link a little article for you? Educate yourself. If you do not believe me then don't.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

the founding fathers were not arguing for welfare benefits and food stamps just stop kidding yourself


I did not say they did argue for anything of the sort.

They wrote a document that allowed for taxes to be levied in order to provide for the common good, like a military.

That's a socialist ideal.

In a true free market, you have to hire your own army.

Can you do that? I doubt it.

You're welcome.


I'm not aware of any socialist writing stating anything like that. Marx himself was opposed to taxes on the grounds it connected the middle class to the feudal state, funded wars and the actions of the bureaucracy.

"From today, therefore, taxes are abolished! It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!". - Karl Marx


And that is why the Founding Fathers are different than the likes of Marx and why many socialists, such as myself, do not agree with those extremes.

Taxes serve a purpose and are outlined in the constitution in order to provide the necessities that both ignorant communists and free-market nuts can't seem to understand.


Marx also despised constitutions. Not to mention that socialialism is thouroughly refuted by the 14th amendment.


Yet is supported in other amendments.

Perhaps that means that the Constuation is a mix of many logical systems. One of them being socialism.

Unless taxes and providing for the common defense is a socialist idea.

In that case, I guess we will take it, right along with the intent of the Founding Fathers.


Again, I'm not aware of any socialist tract or anything that mentions this. Did you think it up on your own? If so, what are you basing your conclusion on?


The constitution.

Levying taxes to provide for the common defense or welfare of the public.

Is that a free-market ideal?

I think not.

Again, you're welcome.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Great post. Don't expect anyone to acknowledge the right wing website otherwise known as Cornell.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Those taxes MUST be uniform throughout the country.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


UNIFORM.

To pay the states bills not ours.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

First paragraph: nope.

A company chooses to allow the public to become part owners of the means of production? Maybe you better Wiki some more if you don't think that's a primary aspect of generic socialism.

As I said, you're confusing totalitarian attempts to implement some aspects of socialism. Stalin and Mao.

Socialism, it its most basic form, is not the idea that private property will be taken by the collective, but merely, that the collective will form naturally on its own.

True socialism has never been given a chance to work, in short.

Public schools are humanitarian efforts, not purely socialist. All you're really advocating for is that the children of the elite will be able to attend good schools, and the resulting slave-class will be reduced to nothing. It's an old story with you guys, Ketz. SSDD.
edit on 24-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: it's to its



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: introvert

the founding fathers were not arguing for welfare benefits and food stamps just stop kidding yourself


I did not say they did argue for anything of the sort.

They wrote a document that allowed for taxes to be levied in order to provide for the common good, like a military.

That's a socialist ideal.

In a true free market, you have to hire your own army.

Can you do that? I doubt it.

You're welcome.


I'm not aware of any socialist writing stating anything like that. Marx himself was opposed to taxes on the grounds it connected the middle class to the feudal state, funded wars and the actions of the bureaucracy.

"From today, therefore, taxes are abolished! It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!". - Karl Marx


And that is why the Founding Fathers are different than the likes of Marx and why many socialists, such as myself, do not agree with those extremes.

Taxes serve a purpose and are outlined in the constitution in order to provide the necessities that both ignorant communists and free-market nuts can't seem to understand.


Marx also despised constitutions. Not to mention that socialialism is thouroughly refuted by the 14th amendment.


Yet is supported in other amendments.

Perhaps that means that the Constuation is a mix of many logical systems. One of them being socialism.

Unless taxes and providing for the common defense is a socialist idea.

In that case, I guess we will take it, right along with the intent of the Founding Fathers.


Again, I'm not aware of any socialist tract or anything that mentions this. Did you think it up on your own? If so, what are you basing your conclusion on?


The constitution.

Levying taxes to provide for the common defense or welfare of the public.

Is that a free-market ideal?

I think not.

Again, you're welcome.


It's not a socialist ideal, which I think is your argument.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


Damn socialist Founding Fathers.




top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join