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: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Right, because you know you posted a simplistic truism you lifted from some Ron Paul fan's website.

Typical.

I will give you a little hint though, if someday you care to reduce the obvious ignorance ... socialism is heterogenous. It is not "one thing" ... and it is not the same in all branches of theory. There are, as I've already tried to show you, many different base theories, many different implementation schemas, etc.

But you're not really looking for a discussion --- you want to make pompous comments and pat yourself on the back.

If you're looking for actual support for your "position" try some Von Mises. At least then you might field a viable argument.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

He is purposely misquoting the constitution.

The founding fathers addressed this quote multiple times in the Federalist papers and Thomas Jefferson wrote it about in a quote I linked earlier on in this discussion.

The person you are responding too quickly pretended that he wasn't talking about it again only to bring it up again later on in thread pretending he didn't see what I had linked.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
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...


So the socialism must be uniform?

OK. I agree.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheTory

Right, because you know you posted a simplistic truism you lifted from some Ron Paul fan's website.

Typical.

I will give you a little hint though, if someday you care to reduce the obvious ignorance ... socialism is heterogenous. It is not "one thing" ... and it is not the same in all branches of theory. There are, as I've already tried to show you, many different base theories, many different implementation schemas, etc.

But you're not really looking for a discussion --- you want to make pompous comments and pat yourself on the back.

If you're looking for actual support for your "position" try some Von Mises. At least then you might field a viable argument.


Ron Paul? I quoted it from Marxism.org.

I refuse to educate you. I know you're wrong and that is satisfying enough for me.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You guys are trying to pretend that socialism was written into the constitution that's literally the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my entire lifetime.

Socialism requires taxation.

Do you not see the problem here?

Of course it doesn't matter to you. What does the script say again?
edit on 24-8-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:49 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: 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.


By definition, it is.

It is not a free-market principle or a capitalist principle.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:50 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: 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.


By definition, it is.

It is not a free-market principle or a capitalist principle.


It's a principle of feudalism. Next you're going to tell me feudalism was socialist.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66

You guys are trying to pretend that socialism was written into the constitution that's literally the most ridiculous thing I have ever read in my entire lifetime.

Socialism requires taxation.

Do you not see the problem here?

Of course it doesn't matter to you. What does the script say again?


What is your defintion of socialism?

I'll be glad to discuss it with you if you will do so honestly, and drop the pallid attempts at snark: you're not very good at it.

Define socialism: go.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


wooooooowwwwwwww amazing



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


No.

The constitution mandates a national defense. Tells the government to do it. It does not tell the government to have a social safety net.

Only in your mental, modern interpretation of things does general welfare mean "social safety net" that takes care of people from cradle to grave.

Not only that but most of the things like a military are a good we all benefit from. We can argue that the current uses of the military are of dubious benefit, but a strong national defense promotes the general welfare of the people in that they have secure borders (or should) in which to carry out their personal activities of life unmolested by the mayhem of invasion, foreign and domestic.

A social safety net is not a good everyone can enjoy. It is merely the strict redistribution of goods from some to others in programs that only some will ever benefit from and given the lack of success in lifting people out of poverty, it could be argued they are of dubious benefit even to those they purport to help.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults



Socialism requires taxation.

Do you not see the problem here?


Ya. taxation is written in to the constitution.

That's what we have been saying.





posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Gryphon66




a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


wooooooowwwwwwww amazing


You can pull up Wikipedia. Stunning.

Now, what does that mean to you? Also, you mentioned taxation ... but that seems to be missing from the snippet you copy/pasted.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
We've allowed to script writers to totally derail the topic here.

Great job agents.

Mission accomplished.
edit on 24-8-2017 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
What happens to all funds that are received via the "social safety net"?

Are they sent to Zurich to numbered accounts?

Or ... does 100% of the public monies so used go almost immediately back into the local marketplace? Insuring that those good capitalist shopkeepers make plenty of profits so they can keep paying their taxes.

We have always had a mixed economy, and the Founders most certainly did mean a liberal defintion of the phrase "general welfare."

Thomas Jefferson said it clearly:



"But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



The constitution mandates a national defense.


True. you're welcome.



Tells the government to do it. It does not tell the government to have a social safety net.


I've said nothing about a social safety net. Why are you trying to argue against something I've said nothing about?



Only in your mental, modern interpretation of things does general welfare mean "social safety net" that takes care of people from cradle to grave.


It appears you are mental, as I said nothing about that.

Forgive me if I cannot go further,

You folks are are #ing idiots.

Literally, you are arguing against arguments no one has made,
edit on 24-8-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
We've allowed to script writers to totally derail the topic here.

Great job agents.

Mission accomplished.


Oh, don't try to segue off the stage just yet ... at least TRY to justify your claim about socialism and taxation.

I mean, you sent all the way to Wikipedia ... you've got the basics of the idea ... now, mansplain it to us.

G'head.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
We've allowed to script writers to totally derail the topic here.

Great job agents.

Mission accomplished.


Sorry about that.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Arguments no one has made.

Statements that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Claims that they have Zero basis for.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Oh don't worry, the original thread topic is about the Nazi's actually mirrored the Democrat's rhetoric and policy almost identically.

I was expecting purposeful derailment.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

The only thing you've shown is that you can't back up your ludicrously vague statements

You can "tut tut" all you like. You have nothing to back up your childish claims.

Off with you.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join