Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Yet another Republican comment that makes us ask, how do they define socialism?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 76135939" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>You have to look at who falsely redefined the term first...</p><p></p><p>It was largely Reagan (even prior to his tenure as president) who popularized the notion that programs like social security and subsidized medicine were "socialism"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Do you have an example of a former market economy, who's transition to socialism was because they started providing subsidized healthcare?</p><p></p><p>At this point, almost every developed capitalist nation provided taxpayer funded healthcare to some degree (even us). Yet, very few actual socialist countries still exist.</p><p></p><p>If the slope were as slippery as you claim, I would've expected Canada, the UK, and the majority of western Europe to be flying hammer & sickle flags at this point.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Castro certainly was an ally of the soviets... Fidel and Gorbachev were quite chummy.</p><p></p><p>And to pretend that Cuba was a beacon of greatness prior to Castro can be a tad misleading as well. They were a little better before him, but they certainly had their share of problems before him as they had had socialist leaders running that country prior to him, and the few that weren't socialist weren't really any less brutal than the socialists.</p><p></p><p>The fact that they were the "best in the region" is a meaningless distinction if the bar is so low for that region. It doesn't take much to be better than the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, and Haiti.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The conservative side claiming "every form of spending I don't like is socialism" is just as counter-productive as young millennials labeling market economies as "socialist" because they have free healthcare.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 76135939, member: 123415"] You have to look at who falsely redefined the term first... It was largely Reagan (even prior to his tenure as president) who popularized the notion that programs like social security and subsidized medicine were "socialism" Do you have an example of a former market economy, who's transition to socialism was because they started providing subsidized healthcare? At this point, almost every developed capitalist nation provided taxpayer funded healthcare to some degree (even us). Yet, very few actual socialist countries still exist. If the slope were as slippery as you claim, I would've expected Canada, the UK, and the majority of western Europe to be flying hammer & sickle flags at this point. Castro certainly was an ally of the soviets... Fidel and Gorbachev were quite chummy. And to pretend that Cuba was a beacon of greatness prior to Castro can be a tad misleading as well. They were a little better before him, but they certainly had their share of problems before him as they had had socialist leaders running that country prior to him, and the few that weren't socialist weren't really any less brutal than the socialists. The fact that they were the "best in the region" is a meaningless distinction if the bar is so low for that region. It doesn't take much to be better than the Dominican Republic, Trinidad, and Haiti. The conservative side claiming "every form of spending I don't like is socialism" is just as counter-productive as young millennials labeling market economies as "socialist" because they have free healthcare. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Yet another Republican comment that makes us ask, how do they define socialism?
Top
Bottom