This cant be true! Are we doomed? Four in 10 Americans Embrace Some Form of Socialism
- Thread starter speedkills27
- Start date
Precipice election.
There is but one Democratic republic with a constituition that provides for the power to belong to the people , and we are that lone shining target on the hill.
Rugged individualism and self driven motivation to achieve human exceptionalism are hanging in the balance.
And in case you thought that calling them communists was a bridge to far.... This right out of the manifesto , they are not even trying to hide anymore.
There is but one Democratic republic with a constituition that provides for the power to belong to the people , and we are that lone shining target on the hill.
Rugged individualism and self driven motivation to achieve human exceptionalism are hanging in the balance.
And in case you thought that calling them communists was a bridge to far.... This right out of the manifesto , they are not even trying to hide anymore.
The only thing a communist is good for is soiling the ground with their foul blood.
I don't suffer communists.
I don't suffer communists.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
It wasn't in your direction and our conversation ended when you took the liberty to adjust my point.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
WTF is with this thread, I can barely follow it.
"No, you are!"
"What?"
"Huh?"
"I KNOW YOU ARE"
"Your face is."
Did I miss a bunch of deleted posts or you all so entrenched you make no sense?
"No, you are!"
"What?"
"Huh?"
"I KNOW YOU ARE"
"Your face is."
Did I miss a bunch of deleted posts or you all so entrenched you make no sense?
spat
.950 JDJ
Socialism without the threat of violence behind it is just voluntary charity.
We are all OK with voluntary charity.
Bigfoot
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Last edited:
Any political system that has laws, has a threat of violence behind it, according to this logic.
spat
.950 JDJ
Yep, all political systems do.
But capitalism can be an economic system only (which doesn't require that threat). Socialism cannot be *just* an economic system, it *requires* government mandates that *must* be enforced by threat of violence.
So, before passing any law you have to ask, is this worth killing people to enforce. If the answer is no, then it shouldn't be enacted.
Capitalism doesn't require the threat of violence to force people to participate. That makes it better.
Really? Ever hear about laws that deal with insider trading?
Pure capitalism without social safety nets failed pretty much everywhere including this country.
Last edited:
spat
.950 JDJ
We have lots of laws that regulate capitalism here. All are enforced under threat of violence.
There has never been a pure socialist state, they are all (including us) various degrees of socialism supported by a foundation of capitalism.
There have been pure capitalist states, but they are small and rare throughout history with the exception of the world system which is pure capitalism (between nations, not individuals).
Socialist systems can persist indefinitely as long as the underlying capitalist system is robust. However the trend over time is for the socialism to grow and the capitalism to shrink until the whole system becomes too top heavy and collapses.
The goal should be to eliminate as much socialism as possible from your economy, that will have the best long term benefit for *everyone*. However government prefers to do the opposite to increase its power.
@thewheels
.308 Win
The government has no business being in that business. There's nothing extreme about that. The fact that Americans have been lied to, manipulated, dumbed down and indoctrinated to accept creeping socialism should indicate that socialism can't sell itself and stand on its own.
Social net programs are nothing more than a ruse to give the government more power and money, redistribute wealth and promote class envy/warfare.
If the founders had intended for the country and government to function like this it's news to me.
We in America are nearly surrounded by Socialism and socialist type programs.
Social Security. Un-employmentn insurance. Many facets of healthcare. Welfare. Wic. Food stamps. Many parts of the farm bill. Public education.
The list is long. The problem with polls like this is is the questions are always skewed to get the results that are wanted.
Social Security. Un-employmentn insurance. Many facets of healthcare. Welfare. Wic. Food stamps. Many parts of the farm bill. Public education.
The list is long. The problem with polls like this is is the questions are always skewed to get the results that are wanted.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Seriously?
See if you spot the differences:
A) You murder your neighbor and steal his lawnmower. Men with guns show up.
B) Your neighbor has no lawnmower so the government makes you buy him one. You don't. Men with guns show up.
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
I don't condone socialism, wife says I'm anti-social. Damn personality defects.
Arguing against any social safety net is an extreme position. Labeling anything less absolute as socialism is an extreme view. It's you who is indoctrinated and brainwashed, not the majority of the public, who would at least support a social security program.
There are tons of laws that don't have socialist charitable connotation and are not related to what is common definition of crime. Laws against insider trading for example.
You are supporting your extreme position with a hyperbole and a wrong one at that.
I agree with you that this is a problem, but it's not as big of a problem as the corruption at the top, deep state, globalists, war profiteering and so on.
@thewheels
.308 Win
And there's the ad hominem, I knew it would come eventually.
Why wouldn't a portion of the lazy, stupid and irresponsible public not want the government to take care of them? They're useless idiots that fail to see that they're facilitating they're own demise through a legalized ponzi scheme that can't do anything but FAIL.
@thewheels
.308 Win
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
That's a feature, not a bug, my friend.
You (@thewheels) framed your argument as either A) or B). There are laws that don't fit either example.
Capitalism also depends on government sticking its nose in matters that are not related to what commonly viewed as a crime. "The threat of violence", your choice of words comes from Capitalism as well.
Capitalism also depends on government sticking its nose in matters that are not related to what commonly viewed as a crime. "The threat of violence", your choice of words comes from Capitalism as well.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Buying votes with the promises of free stuff.Free ( crappy )Health care, you pay the difference. Free ""crappy"" education, still wont get you a good paying job. Free "crappy" apartments, that you wouldn't want to live in . Free money! but not enough to live on .
We are forced to have a certain amount of socialism to pay for fire fighters teachers judges, DA's, road work, bridges Mail. ect. but its limited. As it should be. These liberal tards are just taking it to far. They are willing to trade their opportunities of the future for a form of slavery . Welfare is a form of slavery they tell how much you get how much to buy food with, where to live. and if you get a job you lose your slave wages, and they call it freedom.
We are forced to have a certain amount of socialism to pay for fire fighters teachers judges, DA's, road work, bridges Mail. ect. but its limited. As it should be. These liberal tards are just taking it to far. They are willing to trade their opportunities of the future for a form of slavery . Welfare is a form of slavery they tell how much you get how much to buy food with, where to live. and if you get a job you lose your slave wages, and they call it freedom.
spat
.950 JDJ
Just because there are laws on the books about something doesn't mean there *should be*.
Or are you arguing that existing gun laws are good because we already have a lot of them ?
I'm not in favor of insider trading laws for instance. Let the CEO trade on what he knows, hell, let him sell tips to his friends. Everybody else in the market should just watch closely.