When Democrats became Socialist.

Bob the Unbeliever · Apr 24, 2019

Enoch07 said:
Ok non-sensical response..

It was directly targeting your Straw Man anti-socialism rant.

Enoch07 said:
Do you think the U.S is a unregulated capitalist country?.

Isn't that the Ultimate Wet Dream of all libertarian/conservatives?

Enoch07 said:
I certainly am not promoting that we should be unregulated. So I'm not sure why you even brought it up other than to try and strawman me..

Irony.

Enoch07 said:
You seem to think that we since we don't want socialism in our country that we shouldn't have any social programs? That is ridiculous. The great thing about classic liberal capitalism is that you can have the prosperity that capitalism brings, and the security of some social programs, without all the starvation,oppression, and eventual collapse a socialist/communist (cough Venezuala) government brings.

Oh. My. Talk about straw man! Communism isn't socialism. Neither is Venezuela.

Classic "liberal capitalism"? What on EARTH is THAT?

As for "prosperity" that capitalism brings? IN WHAT FANTASY UNIVERSE?

ALL of the Progressive Improvements in the US? Came not from capitalism-- never from there-- but from socialism/union efforts.

40 hour work week? Capitalists opposed it-- as they could not exploit their workers.

Overtime pay? Capitalists opposed it-- as they could not exploit their workers.

Slavery? Capitalists were in favor-- unpaid workers: the capitalist DREAM.

Child Labor? Capitalists were in favor! you pay less wages for kids, because they are little.

Paid vacation? Capitalists are against that too-- pay someone to take time off? HORRORS!

How about safety in the work place? CAPITALISTS ARE STILL AGAINST IT: after all, if a worker gets injured at work? You fire him, and get someone who ISN'T a gimp...

ALL progressive changes in labor relations were from Union/Socialists. And capitalists opposed every single one.

Twilight Hue · Apr 24, 2019

Bob the Unbeliever said:
None of that-- NONE of what you just wrote about? Is actually socialism.

Oooops!

Actually it is the Hallmarks of a socialist shift in policy.

Enoch07 · Apr 24, 2019

Bob the Unbeliever said:
It was directly targeting your Straw Man anti-socialism rant.

Not my fault socialism sucks.

Bob the Unbeliever said:
Isn't that the Ultimate Wet Dream of all libertarian/conservatives?

You need to leave your echo chamber ever once an awhile and learn for yourself what Libertarians and Conservatives want, instead of what your socialist professor has taught you.

Bob the Unbeliever said:
Oh. My. Talk about straw man! Communism isn't socialism. Neither is Venezuela.

But it almost always turns into communism. History has more than enough examples to prove this.

Bob the Unbeliever said:
Classic "liberal capitalism"? What on EARTH is THAT?

It's the U.S. and its served us well.

Bob the Unbeliever said:
As for "prosperity" that capitalism brings? IN WHAT FANTASY UNIVERSE?

The prosperity U.S citizens experience everyday. People in the U.S that live in poverty still have a higher qualoty of life than a lot of other countries poverty stricken.

Bob the Unbeliever said:
ALL of the Progressive Improvements in the US? Came not from capitalism-- never from there-- but from socialism/union efforts.

Now who's living in a dream world. In reality it came from both. A capitalist economy working with some social programs. That is prosperity. You offer only tyranny and oppression with socialism.

Woberts · Apr 24, 2019

Enoch07 said:
You offer only tyranny and oppression with socialism.

This is the result of the greatest propaganda campaign in modern history. Bourgeois poisoning the minds of youth, who then grow up thinking this. Funny how people don't say this about libertarianism, which has objectively bad results. Unlike socialism. Quite a mystery.

Enoch07 · Apr 24, 2019

Woberts said:
This is the result of the greatest propaganda campaign in modern history. Bourgeois poisoning the minds of youth, who then grow up thinking this. Funny how people don't say this about libertarianism, which has objectively bad results. Unlike socialism. Quite a mystery.

No it's the result of opening a world history book. No conspiracy there, just facts.

Woberts · Apr 24, 2019

Enoch07 said:
No it's the result of opening a world history book. No conspiracy there, just facts.

Who writes the books?

Twilight Hue · Apr 24, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
Then you support socialism.

That's not socialism. Socialism is government collecting and spending tax dollars. You are still free to speak your mind and to buy whatever is for sale that you can afford.

It is if you're not paying taxes. The poster that started this thread started one a few days ago lamenting about how many of the uberwealthy American corporations and individuals pay no taxes. Everything that government provides is free to them, just not you and me, assuming that we pay taxes. Mine don't go to American treasuries any longer, but I still pay taxes to another government, and receive services for them - a very satisfactory arrangement.

No I don't support socialism as a political philosophy.

I just support the ideas,
not the the method that is being implemented on people by the liberal use of governmental force. Aka compulsory policy. That's the difference. There's social programs , and then there's socialism outright of which the Democrats are engaged with right now as they continue the leftward trend towards more extremist measures.

Enoch07 · Apr 24, 2019

Woberts said:
Who writes the books?

The winner writes the books.

Let that sink in.

Woberts · Apr 24, 2019

Enoch07 said:
The winner writes the books.

Let that sink in.

Does the good guy always win?

sayak83 · Apr 24, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
I'm specifically addressing the increased control over people's lives. What they can say , what they can do, what they can choose, what they can buy.

This also includes the proactive push to regulate businesses in day to day operations that go far beyond the clear parameters of safety and security.

Bloated intrusive big government over lives and business.

That kind of socialism.

I don't see that kind of socialism growing among Democrats at all. What is increasing is the kind you approved of.

Twilight Hue · Apr 24, 2019

sayak83 said:
I don't see that kind of socialism growing among Democrats at all. What is increasing is the kind you approved of.

No. Because the Socialist Democrats use compulsory measures to force people to comply with their views. Obamacare was a great example of that in light of the severe mandate and the millions of people that could not keep their insurance plans or their doctors. I'm not going to debate Obama care because there's enough threads on it already. I'm just using it as an example here.

sayak83 · Apr 24, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
No. Because the Socialist Democrats use compulsory measures to force people to comply with their views. Obamacare was a great example of that in light of the severe mandate and the millions of people that could not keep their insurance plans or their doctors. I'm not going to debate Obama care because there's enough threads on it already. I'm just using it as an example here.

But all European countries and Canada have universal healthcare. You object to that?

Twilight Hue · Apr 24, 2019

sayak83 said:
But all European countries and Canada have universal healthcare. You object to that?

In regards to Canada, it is now better than it was before although still far from being perfect...
A Victory for Freedom: The Canadian Supreme Court's Ruling on Private Health Care
But the program originally had socialist restrictions that prohibited Canadians from purchasing privatized Healthcare in Canada.

You see it's not the issue itself, that is Healthcare, it's the habit of making something compulsory, or prohibitive, or conditional that prevents or impedes people from making their own choices and decisions. That's the danger of socialism and it's noticeable.

Bob the Unbeliever · Apr 25, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
You see it's not the issue itself, that is Healthcare, it's the habit of making something compulsory, or prohibitive, or conditional that prevents or impedes people from making their own choices and decisions. That's the danger of socialism and it's noticeable.

Silly person: You are describing the CONservitives FAVORITE thing: Fascism. Where everyone is forced to do what the government dictates. Except for the Wealthy Class, of course.

Or worse-- anarchy-- where nobody is forced to do anything by government because there isn't any-- everything is possible, and?

Mass Chaos is the result.

But then there is the worst of them all: Capitalism, where only the WEALTHY are not forced to do ANYTHING. They are the ones forcing everyone else.

No "rich" person ever got there, just on his own-- they all used compulsion to take the life of their underpaid workers. They stole from their competitors, using compulsion of frivolous lawsuits to keep their stolen Ideas.

The richer you are? The more you get to use compulsory practices on anyone NOT rich.

That's the Goal of Capitalism, right? Where only the Richest of the Rich are free, and everyone else is a wage slave?

Why...yes...yes it is...

sayak83 · Apr 25, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
In regards to Canada, it is now better than it was before although still far from being perfect...
A Victory for Freedom: The Canadian Supreme Court's Ruling on Private Health Care
But the program originally had socialist restrictions that prohibited Canadians from purchasing privatized Healthcare in Canada.

You see it's not the issue itself, that is Healthcare, it's the habit of making something compulsory, or prohibitive, or conditional that prevents or impedes people from making their own choices and decisions. That's the danger of socialism and it's noticeable.

See, if somebody is critically ill, the hospitals are legally bound to take him/her and treat him/her. Given this fact, shouldn't all people have a health insurance to cover the cost of emergency care necessarily (with concessional rates for poorer people)?

Twilight Hue · Apr 25, 2019

Bob the Unbeliever said:
Silly person: You are describing the CONservitives FAVORITE thing: Fascism. Where everyone is forced to do what the government dictates. Except for the Wealthy Class, of course.

Or worse-- anarchy-- where nobody is forced to do anything by government because there isn't any-- everything is possible, and?

Mass Chaos is the result.

But then there is the worst of them all: Capitalism, where only the WEALTHY are not forced to do ANYTHING. They are the ones forcing everyone else.

No "rich" person ever got there, just on his own-- they all used compulsion to take the life of their underpaid workers. They stole from their competitors, using compulsion of frivolous lawsuits to keep their stolen Ideas.

The richer you are? The more you get to use compulsory practices on anyone NOT rich.

That's the Goal of Capitalism, right? Where only the Richest of the Rich are free, and everyone else is a wage slave?

Why...yes...yes it is...

Okay then tell me this.

Why don't socialist Democrats go with incentive-based policy as opposed to compulsory policy every single time they want to cram something down people's and businesses throats that clearly interfere with freedoms allowing people to make choices and decisions on their own?

No it's not fascism, it's socialism. Also known as the modern-day Democrat.

Twilight Hue · Apr 25, 2019

sayak83 said:
See, if somebody is critically ill, the hospitals are legally bound to take him/her and treat him/her. Given this fact, shouldn't all people have a health insurance to cover the cost of emergency care necessarily (with concessional rates for poorer people)?

That's why there's Medicaid and Medicare programs. Obviously they were not perfect but all it needed was a little bit of tweaking. The answer was not the move where one conducts a takeover of Healthcare by putting people in a perpetual debt and forcing people to buy a service through the implementation of mandates and threatening prison time although to be fair the latter was struck down.

It was not a healthcare move , but rather a grab at power and control and the ability to direct private individuals and businesses through the use of governmental power .

Bob the Unbeliever · Apr 25, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
Okay then tell me this.

Why don't socialist Democrats go with incentive-based policy as opposed to compulsory policy every single time they want to cram something down people's and businesses throats that clearly interfere with freedoms allowing people to make choices and decisions on their own?

No it's not fascism, it's socialism. Also known as the modern-day Democrat.

You have an example of the above? No?

Well, then....

But more to the point-- "incentive-based policy" DOES NOT WORK-- because of pure GREED that is Capitalism, they would cheerfully pay the fines, as that is cheaper than actually doing the Moral or the Right thing.

Proof is the 1000's of corporations who lobby against Climate Change-- their pure GREED would rather destroy the planet, in order to get 0.001% more profit in the short run.

sayak83 · Apr 25, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
That's why there's Medicaid and Medicare programs. Obviously they were not perfect but all it needed was a little bit of tweaking. The answer was not the move where one conducts a takeover of Healthcare by putting people in a perpetual debt and forcing people to buy a service through the implementation of mandates and threatening prison time although to be fair the latter was struck down.

It was not a healthcare move , but rather a grab at power and control and the ability to direct private individuals and businesses through the use of governmental power .

Medicare or Medicaid does not cover everyone. There must be at least emergency health insurance for everybody precisely because they will inevitably be treated when they suffer a health emergency.
Why does everyone get Medicare anyways after a certain age and everyone has to pay tax for that. If somebody does not want old age health coverage, why would he be forced to pay for it? ...by Ur idea.

Bethsheba Ashe · Apr 27, 2019

Enoch07 said:
But it almost always turns into communism. History has more than enough examples to prove this.

No it doesn't. All of Europe has governments that are substantially socialist in the way they are run. i.e. Free healthcare at the point of delivery, national pensions, etc. None of these countries have become communist.

When Democrats became Socialist.

Well-Known Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

It's all a sick freaking joke.

The Perfumed Seneschal

It's all a sick freaking joke.

The Perfumed Seneschal

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

It's all a sick freaking joke.

The Perfumed Seneschal

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Member