All socialists stand and be accounted for

[_Eric]

So STFU.

+1

Seriously.

And how dare you sully the name of such an epic book like Animal Farm with your illiterate interpretation of it.

[_krose]

- First Lady vacations? Seriously? What a stupid thing to even mention.

$200 million dollars, and this for a communist woman who has lived her entire life up until now begrudging people who lived as she now lives.

Oooh, I think I saw that in the National Enquirer, but are you sure it wasn't $200 Billion? And "communist"? Ha, that's nothing. I hear she keeps little white children in cages in the White House basement, fattening them up for her monthly ritual Voodoo dinners.


It is telling that this is the only point to which you chose to respond. I'm sure you will continue with your usual tactic of repeating the same nonsense about taxes, welfare and immigration, as if no one had ever called you on them.

[_Bond James Bond]

I knock most of the criticisms of Michelle Obama down to racism (underwritten by sexist fears about strong (physically as well as professionally) women of course).

[_Kevin Graham]

I always understood socialism to mean the government taking earnings from one worker's paycheck and giving that money to those that the elected government officials viewed as more in need of the funds. I don't see anything unfair about that definition.

It is an incorrect definition. If that were the definition, then America is very much a Socialist nation.

I'm just asking who is a proponent of this

Everyone apparently. The United States has been engaged in taxing the people and using that money for social programs, since its beginning. So you can't talk about how great America is and then criticize what it has been doing to become great. The massive social spending initiative after WWII, coupled with increased taxes on the wealthy, lead to the greatest period of economic prosperity this country has ever seen. That lasted decades and we got rid of our national debt... until Reagan that is. It has been all downhill from there.

and all I seem to be getting from my survey is hostility from those who don't like the question.

That isn't where the hostility comes from. It is the fact that no matter how we answer, you and your ilk will constantly accuse us of lying about our answer. President Obama, for example, has stated quite emphatically that he is a big fan of market principles and capitalism. Yet you call him anti-American and a Marxist! The leader of the Socialist movement in the USA has stood up and denounced Obama as a potential Socialist. But never mind what these people say, because the idiots on the RIght have to have their boogyman and they're not going to let facts get in the way.

What is false about that definition? Most socialists would admit that this is what they believe.

But as I said, it is clearly what most Americans believe as well. Just because some socialists believe this is justified, doesn't mean that is a fundamental tenet of Socialism. What you don't understand is that socialism doesn't exist, nor can it exist, in this country. You'd have to get rid of the Constitution and private property. Since Obama is a constitutional scholar and is a fan of private property, there is no basis for these scare tactics about his "socialist" agenda.

This should be mandatory reading for anyone trying to pontificate about the meaning of socialism:

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index ... _socialism

Socialism is when the working class controls the means of production. Capitalism differs in that the means of production are controlled by an elite class. In socialism everyone works and everyone is provided for. There is no class division, which is in stark contrast to Capitalism. And the "freeer" the free market really is (meaning the least regulated) the wider the gap will become between the wealthy and poorer classes. This is what a century of Capitalism has shown us. The middle-class is falling into the poorer class because we all know that those with money have more advantages to accrue more wealth than those who don't already have it. People like Romney make millions every year by doing precisely nothing. Their money makes money for them. The elite which comprises a small 5% of society, controls a larger portion of the wealth than it did ten years ago, and even more than it did twenty and thirty years ago. At this rate 50% of the country will be in poverty in twenty years and the top 1% will control 95% of all wealth.

This is what the Right wants because the wealthy drive their philosophy, literally telling them how to think and how to rationalize such immoral thinking. They don't give a damn about the poor. They don't give a damn about equality or civil rights. And when the majority of the country is in poverty, they'll just blame the poor for being lazy or what not, while claiming the wealthy are those who "achieved" as if they did so based on their own hard work. As if they relied strictly on themselves, and nothing more. I mean they actually believe this crap!

I am not a Socialist. I don't think there is a place for pure socialism anywhere today really. I think there is value in free market principles and I think the best system lies somewhere in between. A heavily regulated market is a necessity, and I believe the Social Democracies in Europe provide great examples for us to look towards. The problem is that Americans are so arrogant and stubborn, that they generally think we can learn nothing from other nations.

[_Bond James Bond]

I always understood socialism to mean the government taking earnings from one worker's paycheck and giving that money to those that the elected government officials viewed as more in need of the funds. I don't see anything unfair about that definition.

By this definition then the army and defense contractors are the biggest socialists of all.

[_ajax18]

They don't give a damn about the poor.

I don't think left cares about the poor either. I think they make promises to the poor that they never intend to keep as a means of winning elections and gaining power. How much money could have been given to the poor if Michelle Obama took 8 vacations over the last three years than 16? Each one of those vacations cost at least $450k and that's only the expenses that they were willing to reveal. Just like Mormonism, they're not even willing to be finacially transparent. She's no advocate for the poor anymore than the men in Salt Lake living on CEO level stipends. If she cared, she wouldn't spend the way she does. Right now all I see them being capable of is being generous with other peoples money. I'm not sure I see any leadership quality in that.

You'd have to get rid of the Constitution and private property.

I'd argue that has already been done to an extent. Income tax wasn't constitutional in the beginning. Nor was this country based on a large all powerful federal government.

I think there is value in free market principles and I think the best system lies somewhere in between.

agreed, but what I see coming from the Democrats is crony capitalism. Do you not see any problems with a system that allows a bureaucret to decide who gets what? Do you think people are even capable of being objective and fair about it? I don't.

A heavily regulated market is a necessity, and I believe the Social Democracies in Europe provide great examples for us to look towards.

Based on the performance of their current economy now?

The problem is that Americans are so arrogant and stubborn, that they generally think we can learn nothing from other nations.

The truth is that I don't trust governments or religion for that matter. I know this is off topic to an extent but based on your knowledge of Church history do you think some of the people who gave up their land in Mormonisms failed attempt at living the law of consecration over a two year period had a right to be upset and even fearful of giving up the farm to a bishop to distribute it as he saw fit? Or would you have been among the bishops pushing to excommunicate those who wouldn't give up their farms.

[_Quasimodo]

You don't seem very far behind me.

I'm self employed. My time is my own to work or waste. The only person that can lay me off is me.

[_ajax18]

You don't seem very far behind me.

I'm self employed. My time is my own to work or waste. The only person that can lay me off is me.

I wish it could be that way for everyone.

[_Bond James Bond]

I don't think left cares about the poor either. I think they make promises to the poor that they never intend to keep as a means of winning elections and gaining power. How much money could have been given to the poor if Michelle Obama took 8 vacations over the last three years than 16?

How much help could be given to the poor if we hadn't went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Vietnam...and aid to right wing dictators in South America...and etc and military bases in Germany and Japan on and so forth)?

[_Quasimodo]

I wish it could be that way for everyone.

I thought you were a capitalist? You can do it too. Just find something to sell (product or skill) that people want to buy and then find those people. This is the age of the internet. You don't even need to open up an office or store front if you choose the right product to sell.

I'm an illustrator. My office is in my home. I only need to commute from my bedroom down the hall (don't even have to get a shower if I feel like being scruffy). My business became much easier once I was able to use the internet to promote, display and deliver my drawings.