The Ugly Face of Socialism

[BabyChristian22]

Obviously you're in full process of believing the lie that the US is becoming a socialist state.

I see just about every American Democrat defending Socialism and saying that it's a good thing to do. And the Democrats (defenders of Socialism) are in control of the United States. Just look at this thread. Every Democrat who has posted in it has come out defending Socialism as if their life depended on it or as if I had said something bad about their mother.

 

[S.ilvio]

But the Popes have already said that it isn't good--in fact, Socialism is bad--it leads to lack of freedom (and encouages lack of responsibility).

Explain Denmark...

 

[BabyChristian22]

Explain Denmark...

Even if Denmark is a model example of Socialism it would be the rare exception to the rule and because of being only mildly Socialist. But as a general rule, we should run in the other direction if any man promises to give us a Socialist utopia here on earth. If everyone would have had that attitude about Socialism no one would have been fooled by Jim Jones' promise of a Socialist utopia.

 

[Antigone]

I see just about every American Democrat defending Socialism and saying that it's a good thing to do.

Really? All I see is people reminding you - correctly, as it turns out - that the US isn't on the verge of becoming socialist.

And I'm not an American.

And the Democrats (defenders of Socialism) are in control of the United States.

I know Americans tend to muddle up political terms such as 'democrat' and 'republican' and 'liberal', but to see every single member of the Democratic party reduced to 'defenders of socialism'? Well, that's a bit crass.

Just look at this thread. Every Democrat who has posted in it has come out defending Socialism as if their life depended on it or as if I had said something bad about their mother.

It couldn't possibly be that you are wrong, could it? Because all I see is people - not all of whom self-identify as Democrats - telling you you are wrong.

Even if Denmark is a model example of Socialism it would be the rare exception to the rule and because of being only mildly Socialist.

So Denmark is only mildly socialist but the US is on the verge of becoming the reincarnation of the USSR?

I see.

But as a general rule, we should run in the other direction if any man promises to give us a Socialist utopia here on earth. If everyone would have had that attitude about Socialism no one would have been fooled by Jim Jones' promise of a Socialist utopia.

And you've yet to post any evidence that shows a direct link between Jim Jones' self-professed socialism and the fact that his brain functioned about as well as a hairdryer in a bubble bath.

 

[AMDG]

I know Americans tend to muddle up political terms such as 'democrat' and 'republican' and 'liberal', but to see every single member of the Democratic party reduced to 'defenders of socialism'? Well, that's a bit crass.

I don't know, the Democrat party doesn't seem to be the Democrat party of JFK. JFK said "a rising tide lifts all boats" and he seemed almost like a classical liberal (something this country seemed to embrace at first--you know, small government and states having responsibilities and rights while the Feds only had 18 things it *must* do--and the 18 are spelled spelled out) but alas there aren't any more classical liberals (according to the definitions I have read.) The Democrats of today seem more progressive than Democrat. (Of course, that is the definition that Hillary Clinton espouses.) And "Progressives" seem to embrace Socialism--at least that seems to be what is taught in the colleges, which are in the majority, leftist.

 

[Antigone]

I don't know, the Democrat party doesn't seem to be the Democrat party of JFK. JFK said "a rising tide lifts all boats" and he seemed almost like a classical liberal (something this country seemed to embrace at first--you know, small government and states having responsibilities and rights while the Feds only had 18 things it *must* do--and the 18 are spelled spelled out) but alas there aren't any more classical liberals (according to the definitions I have read.) The Democrats of today seem more progressive than Democrat. (Of course, that is the definition that Hillary Clinton espouses.) And "Progressives" seem to embrace Socialism--at least that seems to be what is taught in the colleges, which are in the majority, leftist.

Democrat = Greek (from the words 'demos', people, and 'cratos', power.

Republican = one who supports the existence of a republic, i.e. a state with a democratically elected head of state.

Liberal = one who supports limited government, rule of law and, among others, personal freedom.

Progressive = someone who encourages progress.

 

[AMDG]

But there are different forms of liberalism. Classical liberalism is indeed small and limited government, rule of law and personal freedom and responsibilty. But the new liberals of today are social liberals and they want big government, and the "nanny state" where the government has programs to take care of a person "from the cradel to the grave" (where hard working Americans pay for the people who *refuse* to work.) They also tell citizens what they can do, what they can eat, how much they can make, etc. Oh, and these social liberals don't care if the people cannot afford a program--they want it anyway (and if they don't get it or if the state finally has to "cut back" on spending, they riot.)

Think these new "social liberals" could never ever be described as classical liberals--nor would they want to be. (Like I said, I don't think "classical liberals" are left anymore--they may have become Conservatives or even Libertarians.) The new social liberals like to call themselves "progressives" (ala Hillary Clinton) not realizing that the the "liberal" name was originally "progressive", but when the people realized that they were faring so badly under progressive politicians, the name was just changed to "liberal" (guess they figured that the people weren't smart enough to figure out that "a progressive politicain by any other name was still a progressive politician".)

It seems that there are different definitions when it comes to politics.

 

[S.ilvio]

Even if Denmark is a model example of Socialism it would be the rare exception to the rule and because of being only mildly Socialist. But as a general rule, we should run in the other direction if any man promises to give us a Socialist utopia here on earth. If everyone would have had that attitude about Socialism no one would have been fooled by Jim Jones' promise of a Socialist utopia.

OK then. Explain Sweden...

 

[dbcsf]

I agree. JFK was practically a republican by today's standards.

 

[BabyChristian22]

OK then. Explain Sweden...

First explain why the majority of Socialist governments are dictatorships.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

I don't know, the Democrat party doesn't seem to be the Democrat party of JFK. JFK said "a rising tide lifts all boats" and he seemed almost like a classical liberal (something this country seemed to embrace at first--you know, small government and states having responsibilities and rights while the Feds only had 18 things it *must* do--and the 18 are spelled spelled out) but alas there aren't any more classical liberals (according to the definitions I have read.) The Democrats of today seem more progressive than Democrat. (Of course, that is the definition that Hillary Clinton espouses.)

And you think the Republican party is the Republican party of Eisenhower? Or even the party of Nixon? Obviously the parties change over time.

JFK was a rather embarrassing example to have as the country's "first Catholic president". He was a mediocre president, and a rather lousy husband.

Though not as bad as having Newt Gingrich as our "second Catholic president" would be...

And "Progressives" seem to embrace Socialism--at least that seems to be what is taught in the colleges, which are in the majority, leftist.

Do you have proof that colleges in the United States teach "Socialism"?

 

[MikeK]

I agree. JFK was practically a republican by today's standards.

No, his reported extramarital affairs were of the heterosexual variety.

 

[MikeK]

OK then. Explain Sweden...

I think you're going to be waiting a while...

 

[AMDG]

Do you have proof that colleges in the United States teach "Socialism"?

You mean U.S. colleges are not mostly liberal bastions that teach collectivism and that big government should have programs to take care of mostly *everyone* from cradle to grave?

Proof? Well, didn't Obama get elected in 2008 by mostly the youth vote? And with his innaugaration in Janurary 2009 didn't Newsweek magazine run a cover in February 2009 that stated "We Are All Socialists Now"?

 

[MikeK]

Proof? Well, didn't Obama get elected in 2008 by mostly the youth vote? And with his innaugaration in Janurary 2009 didn't Newsweek magazine run a cover in February 2009 that stated "We Are All Socialists Now"?

Young people trended towards not voting for the octogenarian and his idiot running mate, then a magazine suffering from declining relevance ran a trolly headline.


...yeah, that sounds like proof all right.

 

[Defensor Fidei]

You mean U.S. colleges are not mostly liberal bastions that teach collectivism and that big government should have programs to take care of mostly *everyone* from cradle to grave?

Nope, they aren't. I don't see any proof of this.

I do certainly believe all people should be taken care of from cradle to grave; are you one of those who believe people should only be taken care of in the womb, and that they lose their value as human beings once they hit the cradle?

Proof? Well, didn't Obama get elected in 2008 by mostly the youth vote? And with his innaugaration in Janurary 2009 didn't Newsweek magazine run a cover in February 2009 that stated "We Are All Socialists Now"?

No, the youth don't have the power to decide anything. Young people are less likely to register, less likely to vote, and smaller demographically than older generations, especially Boomers. The last time a Democrat counted on the youth vote as his base resulted in the lopsided electoral map of 1972.

Obama got elected by winning over middle-aged suburban moderates, most of whom had voted Republican for decades under the GOP's extremist slide.

And Obama is not a 'Socialist'. Not even close. He was much closer to the centre than his Republican rivals in 2008, and that's why he won so decisively, even in traditionally Republican moderate suburbs.

 

[AMDG]

And Obama is not a 'Socialist'. Not even close.

Can't help it if the February 2009 Newsweek magazine feature the cover article "We Are All Socialists Now". Go look if you don't think it's true.

Oh, and it *was* the youth that gave Obama his "over-the-top" support. Know this because it seems to be a big worry that the youth will not be turning out in droves for him (like they did in 2008).

 

[Defensor Fidei]

Can't help it if the February 2009 Newsweek magazine feature the cover article "We Are All Socialists Now". Go look if you don't think it's true.

It doesn't really matter to me whether it's true or not. I'm not interested in magazine covers from 2009.

Oh, and it *was* the youth that gave Obama his "over-the-top" support. Know this because it seems to be a big worry that the youth will not be turning out in droves for him (like they did in 2008).

Obama would have won with or without the sweep of the youth vote he got in 2008. The youth may surely have padded his 7.27 pt margin of victory, but Obama won every demographic under 65 in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada. He even carried every age group in swing states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa. All but one of these states were carried by Bush at least once. In traditional 'blue states' like New York, Massachusetts, Oregon, Illinois, etc., Obama swept every age demographic.

By the way, John Kerry also decisively won the 18-29 demographic in states that voted for Bush in 2004 but switched to Obama in 2008, like North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa. If it were up to the youth, Kerry would have been elected president in 2004 by an even larger margin than Obama won in 2008. It was the defection of the older generations from the GOP to the Democrats that pushed Obama over the top.

So you can't blame the youth for getting Obama elected.

 

[Aeyamar]

By the way, John Kerry also decisively won the 18-29 demographic in states that voted for Bush in 2004 but switched to Obama in 2008, like North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa. If it were up to the youth, Kerry would have been elected president in 2004 by an even larger margin than Obama won in 2008. It was the defection of the older generations from the GOP to the Democrats that pushed Obama over the top.

So you can't blame the youth for getting Obama elected.

If it had been up to the youth, I don't think Bush would have even been elected the first time around.

 

[Fantine]

Occupy Wall Street will get youth fired up about the election. True. they are disappointed at the gridlock, and finding it difficult to acknowledge that one leader, no matter how charismatic, can't win a tug of war with scores of recalcitrant tea guzzlers pulling on the other end...

Young people, there's a solution: vote for the inspiring leader, and make sure he/she gets enough support in Congress to implement at least the most important aspects of his program.

And young people, no matter what, I don't think we're ever going to get that much better than the status quo....but we are not creeping towards socialism--we are creeping towards Dickensian London, or pre-revolution 18th century France--and you can help us stop it.