PDA

View Full Version : Socialists in Congress



Brent
08-13-2006, 01:35 PM
And these are only the ones who ADMIT to being Socialists.

http://www.hourofthetime.com/soccon.htm

FUCK THE POLICE
08-13-2006, 06:33 PM
"Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02) 1408 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-5876, Fax: 202-225-5898
Thompsonms2nd@mail.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/thompson"

I hate this guy. A quintissential anti-liberal. Economically leftist, socially conservative.

Brent
08-13-2006, 07:44 PM
"Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02) 1408 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-5876, Fax: 202-225-5898
Thompsonms2nd@mail.house.gov
http://www.house.gov/thompson"

I hate this guy. A quintissential anti-liberal. Economically leftist, socially conservative.

Socially conservative?

He was rated 100% by NARAL and 93% by the ACLU.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Bennie_Thompson.htm

Legal abortion, legal gay marriage, legal drugs.
Socially conservative, I think not...

maineman
08-13-2006, 07:46 PM
Socially conservative?

Legal abortion, legal gay marriage, legal drugs.
Socially conservative, I think not...


he's on the right side of those issues, that's for sure.

Brent
08-13-2006, 08:08 PM
he's on the right side of those issues, that's for sure.

From your point of view, Yes.

From my point of view he is one of our most dangerous members of Congress.

maineman
08-13-2006, 08:35 PM
and I am so glad that your point of view does not represent the majority of Americans.

Damocles
08-13-2006, 08:40 PM
If he is truly socialist then he is definitely on the wrong side of economics. Regardless of government sanctioned gay marriage, he is definitely not on my side.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-13-2006, 08:40 PM
Socially conservative?

He was rated 100% by NARAL and 93% by the ACLU.
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Bennie_Thompson.htm

Legal abortion, legal gay marriage, legal drugs.
Socially conservative, I think not...


Well, if that's what he believes, then it's awfully odd that he preaches to his 95% Christian uber-conservative constituents that that's GOD'S WAY.

His only campaign messages are "I'm gonna bring home the bacon". I hate the man. If he got shot and died it would be a great day for the state of Mississippi. It really speaks poorly of the intelligence of the constituents of the 2nd district that they would elect the man.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-13-2006, 08:42 PM
Bennie thompson:
# Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

FUCK THE POLICE
08-13-2006, 08:45 PM
# Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)


# Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
# Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
# Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
# Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

Brent
08-13-2006, 09:06 PM
He was rated 100% by NARAL and 93% by the ACLU.

He might be conservative on a couple of issues, but that doesn't make him conservative. Most people are conservative on at least a few issues. He might be somewhat pro-family, but his 100% pro-abortion stance cancels that out, in my opinon. (However I was under the impression he was pro- gay marriage... I stand corrected)

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 02:25 AM
America needs socialists in Congress to counterbalance the fruitcake-raving-right capitalists who abuse their positions to aide their financial position that America is plagued with....

Damocles
08-14-2006, 06:08 AM
Two out of 435 do nothing to "counter" that... This is a preposterous statement, it's almost like you're a Brit or something who almost understands the US politics, but just not all of it.

:D

AnyOldIron
08-14-2006, 06:10 AM
Two out of 435 do nothing to "counter" that... This is a preposterous statement, it's almost like you're a Brit or something who almost understands the US politics, but just not all of it.

That's why I said 'US needs socialists'....

klaatu
08-14-2006, 06:58 AM
Brent .. are you calling for a new round of Mccarthyism?

Damocles
08-14-2006, 06:59 AM
Two out of 435 do nothing to "counter" that... This is a preposterous statement, it's almost like you're a Brit or something who almost understands the US politics, but just not all of it.

That's why I said 'US needs socialists'....
The Brits need more Liberal Democrats in office... to even it all out with the Socialists...

;)

klaatu
08-14-2006, 07:01 AM
So we have people in Congress who have Socialist leanings.. so what! Thats always been the case ..and as long as we have a Republic ...there will always be a cornucopia of political beliefs in Congress representing the People of the United States.

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 07:28 AM
That list is much longer if more would be honest and admit it, but thankfully Socialist is still a word that most Americans identify as extreme left and nothing mainstream.

maineman
08-14-2006, 07:33 AM
...and a word that the right loves to misuse to vilify anyone who is to the left of Attila the Hun

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 07:36 AM
I believe close to 100% of Liberals are Socialists, they're just smart enough to gradually grow government as Liberals and pretend it's something different.

It's sort of like choosing between the guy who likes to use the gas pedal more or the break pedal more when driving down Leftism Lane, at the end of the day you're still headed in the same direction, but people don't tend to notice the drive as much if it's slow enough that the scenery doesn't change too fast and the drive is more comfortable at slower speeds...

Creeping socialism with gradual government growth is the biggest threat to our economic freedom and way of life, far more than any social issue, precisely because it is so hard to counter. That's why any right-leaning people have to chip away at government whereever they can and counter it slowly too.

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 07:38 AM
...and a word that the right loves to misuse to vilify anyone who is to the left of Attila the Hun
Right and you lefties have never called any rightwing members of congress "fascists"?

maineman
08-14-2006, 07:40 AM
I have never called a member of congress a fascist.... but it would be far more accurate.... the amalgamation of corporatism and nationalism is certainly a republican dream....whereas, the state ownership of the means of production is not a democratic dream.

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 07:53 AM
I have never called a member of congress a fascist.... but it would be far more accurate.... the amalgamation of corporatism and nationalism is certainly a republican dream....whereas, the state ownership of the means of production is not a democratic dream.
If you don't like corporations tying themselves with the public sector then support privatizing Amtrak, PBS and NPR like I do.

And don't eat those words with a grain of salt...

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:09 AM
don't switch arguments.... the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:10 AM
but even though that resemblance exists, I do not call republicans in congress fascists, whereas you routinely accuse all democrats of espousing socialism which is bullshit.

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 08:14 AM
but even though that resemblance exists, I do not call republicans in congress fascists, whereas you routinely accuse all democrats of espousing socialism which is bullshit.

As you have seen from the list many of them freely call themselves Socialists, maybe you should tell them they're not, or at least get them to pretend they're not like the rest of the Dems, so that they don't damage your great party...

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:18 AM
what part of "whereas you routinely accuse ALL democrats of espousing socialism which is bullshit. did you not understand the first time I typed it?

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 08:22 AM
don't switch arguments.... the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.
Actually you will find the biggest drive for corporate welfare is in the green lefty area for getting alternative energy corps like wind/solar power companies on the public tit, but that isn't all...

I think it's time we discussed who really helps corporations and why.

Corporate Power
I think everyone can see that corporations have gotten more powerful in the last few decades, but do Democrats ever stop and correlate that government has never stopped growing during that time?
In the last 4 decades government has taken over healthcare for the poor and the elderly, food stamps, prescription drug bill, huge amounts of education spending increases, social security, environmental regulations way up, tax code far more complex, government nationalizing things like airport security.
Government and corporations together have not stopped growing in the last 4 decades.
We all know it is the Liberal, pursued primarily through Democrats, that has pushed the growth of government.

Yet why have corporations done well under them? Democrats certainly don't like corporations, they want them to lose power, yet they have not. Why?

1. Increase in Regulations - A lot of lefties believe that corporations will get hammered more with more business regulations. This is completely untrue. Because as you put more regulations on business it will never be some giant corporation with tons of lawyers to decipher regulations that will suffer. It will be the little guy, some mom and pop business owner who can't afford a lawyer to figure out some new regulations and can't figure them out himself.
Corporations will weather the storm fine, but the little guy often won't. So as the competition is reduced the corporation gets stronger.

2. More and more taxes:
Again, a lot of Democrats think they can slam corporations with more taxes and special tax rules to limit them. Wrong again, for almost the same reason. Corporations that have and can easily afford tons of accountants to deal with increasing complex tax codes will do just fine. But the little guy who can't figure out the always more difficult taxes put on him, and if he can't afford an accountant, then he's out of luck, out of business and the corporation gets stronger with less competition.


I cannot stress enough, that I genuinely believe that Democrats mean well and though I don't hate corporations, I have a soft spot in my heart for seeing small business do well and beat corporations.
Nevertheless, we must face facts and the facts are that a more complex world with more regulations and taxes mean little to a company that can afford to deal with them, but a lot to a small business owner who has enough to deal with, without being forced to hire lawyers and accountants.

3. Other regulations.
I mean imagine if you wanted to start a new car company out of your garage. Could you ever do it? You could throw some parts together and create a vehicle, lots of companies do this with offroad and lawn tractors. But with cars, you would have to hire scientists to get fuel economy that Democrats mandate, you would have to do safety ratings and crashes, other testing. You would never be able to get your idea off the ground like Ford did 100 years ago....it's just too much money, so it benefits the big guys.

Corporate Welfare:
Pop Quiz: Who was the last party to try and cut corporate welfare?
The last politicians who opposed corporate welfare or at least actually cut it were the house Republicans in the 90's... From this article in 1997:
"15 percent has been cut since the Republicans assumed power in Congress in 1994".
http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-30-97.html

Anyway, here is something to understand about corporations and Republicans. Republicans want to cut taxes for all and cut regulations for all businesses (and people), so regular businesses have a natural reason to vote Republican - simply they all want less taxes and regulations.
Yet Corporations often donate to Democrats, but why? Why would a business want to help a party that hates them, wants to tax and regulate them more, to get in?
The answer often is special favors, not to offend my friends on the left, but that is the only reason (business case) for why they should vote for them.
So while we often talk about Enron and Bush, it quietly is guys like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Robert Torricelli and Democrat governor Gray Davis who really got into trouble with special deals with businesses.
Even looking at Enron, here is a chart showing the top Enron cash recipients:
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/enron_cong_house.asp
You will note the top 2 are Democrats.

Meanwhile Clinton had very close ties with Enron too:
Enron had very tight relations with Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/08/25/time/notebook.htm
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/01/11/20020111_172454_flash2.html

I do not deny that some Republicans get in the same hot water, but on the whole the Democrat politicians come out worse.

For those Democrats on here, try not to look at this as a partisan attack, this is nothing but cold logic with numbers to back it up.
I know you guys don't like corporations as much as others, I totally give you that argument. But nevertheless they are prospering very well under the big government that you push and now you know why...

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:25 AM
As you have seen from the list many of them freely call themselves Socialists, maybe you should tell them they're not, or at least get them to pretend they're not like the rest of the Dems, so that they don't damage your great party...

none of that list, except Bernie Sanders, "freely call themselves socialists"

From that link:

"We invite you to support the campaign by adding your name to the list of signers of the Pledge for Economic Justice. In conjunction with the Campaign DSA is working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a network of more than 50 progressive members of the US House of Representatives..."

Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with. Idiot.

TheDanold
08-14-2006, 08:25 AM
what part of "whereas you routinely accuse ALL democrats of espousing socialism which is bullshit. did you not understand the first time I typed it?
Uh-huh. If you're truly not a Socialist than you need to set some CONCRETE point of where you would stop growing government.
Do you stop growing it after universal healthcare? After "free" college education?

Otherwise you are just some gradual Socialist.

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:27 AM
being a congressional progressive who works with the Democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not make those progressives "socialists"..

but for someone who uses words like a housepainter uses paint, I should not expect any better. You ARE a partisan hack, dano... and a dumb at that.

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:37 AM
Uh-huh. If you're truly not a Socialist than you need to set some CONCRETE point of where you would stop growing government.
Do you stop growing it after universal healthcare? After "free" college education?

Otherwise you are just some gradual Socialist.

"gradual socialist"???? hahahahahahahahahahaha

I do not believe in government ownership and control of the means of production. I believe in free enterprise capitalism. I do, however, believe that there are certain services that are better capable of being delivered by government than by the private sector. police. snow removal. national defense. education. basic healthcare. that does not make me a socialist any more than your loving big business and hating the little guy makes you a fascist

bob
08-14-2006, 11:15 AM
You ARE a partisan hack, dano... and a dumb at that.

arnt all partisan hacks dumb ?

maineman
08-14-2006, 11:16 AM
no...I'm a partisan hack, and I am pretty smart! ;)

Adam Weinberg
08-14-2006, 03:31 PM
This is one issue on which I feel the Republicans are perhaps marginally better.

Both the Democrats and Republicans say they oppose Corporate Welfare, but it is my observation that it depends on who is in office as to whether that ideal is upheld.

The Democrats in North Carolina are almost 100% on board with the use of targeted tax incentives and land and infrasturcture deals that support politically popular corporate relocations. Most sane Republicans I speak with, however, support the policy of lower tax rates for people in all trades and industries and special favors for no one.

This is a very important issue to me, and it has impacted the way I have voted. Clearly, few Federal Republicans have as much courage or conviction to say no to doling out to Corporations as they do on the state and local level, but if they did, they would have a better chance of getting my vote.

maineman
08-14-2006, 04:27 PM
if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region, it really is not so much corporate welfare, per se, as it is job development. I am not one to punish big business just for the sake of punishing them. If legislation can be drafted that is good for the business and good for the workforce, I am all for it.

Adam Weinberg
08-14-2006, 04:43 PM
It is corporate welfare. It is creating an uneven tax structure to the benefit of some and withholding those benefits from equal partners in what is supposed to be the same free market. It is political favoritism.

Also, add to the fact that it never ends at one simple tax-abatement, and usually transforms into a subsidy as well as back-door eminent domain land deals and infrastructural arrangements that corporate recipients will never have to pay, while the average citizen will foot the bill.

The free market is the best way to decide which businesses should succeeed and fail, and the best friend to a free market is a government which taxes the least and equitably to all citizens and companies.

Lower tax rates for everyone, or it is plain corruption. To call it an "investment" or "job creation" is an insult to the intelligence of millions of other hard-working people who deserve relief from the largess in government.

NOVA
08-14-2006, 05:58 PM
A congressional progressive who works with the Democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not make those progressives "socialists" and then
Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with.
Joe Lieberman....enough said...

In one breath..."if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region"...thats good?

But the Chrysler bailout is "welfare" even though 10's of thousands of high paying jobs were at risk.... thats bad?

From the convoluted reasoning of a partisan bubble head.

Adam Weinberg
08-14-2006, 06:05 PM
Thank you for calling for consistency.

I would say any Corporate Bailout of that kind only complicates the problems with a company and prolongs the market from correcting itself.

Look at the difficulty the airline industry is having. Government money and bankruptcy protection is mostly what keeps airlines running. The fact is that it's not currently profitable to run a widespread airline service under our particular economic and technological restraints.

That, and the fact that there is no real transportation alternative in most parts of the U.S. other than car or Greyhound bus. Took Amtrak a month or two ago. Was comfortable, but entirely too slow and overpriced. Rail service in Europe is better, and of course, it'd be great to have a bullettrain.

Cypress
08-14-2006, 06:08 PM
Thank you for calling for consistency.

I would say any Corporate Bailout of that kind only complicates the problems with a company and prolongs the market from correcting itself.

Look at the difficulty the airline industry is having. Government money and bankruptcy protection is mostly what keeps airlines running. The fact is that it's not currently profitable to run a widespread airline service under our particular economic and technological restraints.

That, and the fact that there is no real transportation alternative in most parts of the U.S. other than car or Greyhound bus. Took Amtrak a month or two ago. Was comfortable, but entirely too slow and overpriced. Rail service in Europe is better, and of course, it'd be great to have a bullettrain.

Rail service in Europe is better, and of course, it'd be great to have a bullettrain

Publically subsidized in europe and japan.

Adam Weinberg
08-14-2006, 06:14 PM
I'm aware of how they pay for it.

We have public subsidies for Amtrak too. The difference is that they actually get a good service nationwide in many countries.

You can't compare Amtrak to TGV in France. Not even the Eastern Seaboard has the same level of service, and that's Amtrak central.

maineman
08-14-2006, 06:57 PM
A congressional progressive who works with the Democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not make those progressives "socialists" and then
Working WITH someone does not make you the same as the person you work with.
Joe Lieberman....enough said...

no.... not quite enough said. Joe Lieberman was on the wrong side of THE most important issue for trhe democreatic party. Why is that so fucking hard for you to understand? It doesn't make Joe a REPUBLICAN...just like working with democratic socialists on issues of mutual importance does not turn a democrat into a SOCIALIST.... it DOES, however, make him at odds with his party in his state on their single biggest issue...which is why he lost the primary.

In one breath..."if the Tax Incentive is structured to bring good paying jobs into a region"...thats good?

But the Chrysler bailout is "welfare" even though 10's of thousands of high paying jobs were at risk.... thats bad?

show me where I EVER said that the Chrysler bailout was BAD. I'll wait

From the convoluted reasoning of a partisan bubble head

look little boy...you're a fucking lightweight. Come back and play when you grow up and learn some shit.... you're a fucking little nerd. I got lumps in my shit bigger than you

Adam Weinberg
08-14-2006, 07:01 PM
I've never said I was opposed to public transit.

What I am opposed to is creating public transit schemes when the public has no intention of broadly supporting the system, or when the system isn't going to be designed to support the community it claims to serve.

I've taken the Washington D.C. Metro and I will in the future. It's a good service and worth the price. I've taken the Toronto Transit Commission Street Car and I'm less so impressed. I can get anywhere faster on a bike. Still, it wasn't bad, and it makes sense for hydroelectric Toronto to have a street car.

There are lots of places, though, where public transport makes very little sense and is just sought after by people in government as a badge of honor.

My city has a large fleet of gas-guzzling buses that pretty much go to a few of the shopping areas in town and into downtown...and that's about it. They even have a free bus dressed up like a trolley that drives around downtown hoping to take people to lunch time locations.

Fact is that most of the units remain empty because people don't want the service and don't use it. Public transit here is instead simply transit for low-income people who have no other way of getting around, which is moreso an economic and infrastructural problem. Sidewalks, bike lanes, fewer regulations on cabs and their fares or a streamlined public transit service could handle all of those same issues at less cost to the general public.

After all, the people who pay for the services should be the people who benefit from them and the people who benefit from the services should be the people paying for it.

Now some yahoos want to make a rail system downtown. That's a real winner. For one, with the exception of a few luxury apartments, nobody lives downtown. For two, my downtown is so small, anybody with a decent pair of legs can cross it in five minutes.

You have to call people out on it when they're milking the public coffers for the sake of prestige and recognition and not practical gains. It's okay to provide a service with no expectation of profit if it is a valuable service.

But if you're just going to throw the money down the drain and say: "It's not about the money.", then you know your reps in government have lost touch with their "revenue stream".

Damocles
08-14-2006, 07:09 PM
Avoid the RTD system in the Denver Area then there, Adam... It is absolutely the worst bus system I have ever had the displeasure of using.

NOVA
08-14-2006, 07:35 PM
the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.

I love how you get pissed off when you get your ass handed to you...
Of course now you'll agrue that you didn't use the word bad and think you have something....

Or that "the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare "
doesn't means you think the bail out was welfare....and we know you think corp. welfare is 'bad'.....

You're just a tapdancin' asshole....don't even come up to lightweight...
But you do a talent for dancin'....gotta say that..

NOVA
08-14-2006, 07:57 PM
Disagreeing with one tenet of the socialist agenda doesn't mean you are not a SOCIALIST......the first step to recovery is fucking admitting it to yourself......same as an alcoholic....Liberals may not be socialists...but Democrats are 90% of the way there....

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:27 PM
the intertwining of corporations and government is a republican dream. period. bringing up PBS and ignoring the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare is disingenuous.... the fact is, the republican platform more closely resembles fascism than the democratic platform resembles socialism.

I love how you get pissed off when you get your ass handed to you...
Of course now you'll agrue that you didn't use the word bad and think you have something....

Or that "the bailout of Chrysler and the existence of corporate welfare "
doesn't means you think the bail out was welfare....and we know you think corp. welfare is 'bad'.....

You're just a tapdancin' asshole....don't even come up to lightweight...
But you do a talent for dancin'....gotta say that..

no...I am not tapdancing at all. dano was crying about PBS.... you won't hear ME crying about it.... but dano did NOT cry about Chrysler. Do you understand the point here? I said to cry about PBS, because it is government welfare of a "bleeding heart liberal" program, but not say BOO about welfare for the auto industry is disingenuous....now take a logic class and shut the fuck up in the meantime.

and I disagree with a whole bunch of stuff about socialism. First and foremost: I disagree with government owning the means of production, which is, in case you didn't know, the very definition of socialism.

Now go piss on somebody else's leg.... you really are annoying with little substance other than a sort of silly schoolboy "gotcha" mentality which always blows up in your pimply face.

NOVA
08-14-2006, 08:32 PM
Don't go away mad featherweight....just go away.....dance your way stage left.......and make a graceful exit....

maineman
08-14-2006, 08:40 PM
I ain't going anywhere. The point is....you got your faulty assumption rammed up your ass....and given the significant number of those I have placed there, it must be pretty fucking crowded.

NOVA
08-14-2006, 09:15 PM
Thats it ? Thats all you got..?

You're a socialist and too stupid to realize it....

Like a Democrat that wants lower taxes.....one disagreement with the party doesn't mean you are not a Democrat....

For a intents and purposes, you ARE a socialist, except for one point....
and with advocating gov. controlled healthcare, welfare, tax law to advance your social agenda, etc. you're not really very far from that one point...

Just admit it to yourself....be what you are, a socialist, and be proud....

maineman
08-14-2006, 09:22 PM
stop it.... you jump on here to "catch" me in a misstatement...and get it shoved back up your ass.

I am a free market capitalist.... I have absolutely no desire to see the government control the means of production. I am not a socialist by any stretch - except yours where you stretch the meaning of words past the breaking point.

I have NEVER said I was against the bailout of Chrysler, I only pointed out the hypocrisy of dano... and you share it... but add a level of stupidity that even dano cannot touch.

now go to bed

Beefy
08-14-2006, 10:19 PM
Maineman, socialism is not what you decree it is. A means of production? Socialism is the redistribution of money, not the means that creates it. Redistributing wealth, or money, is socialistic in nature.

It is a means to the end, and the END is Communism. You could describe medicare, Social Security, TANF, all as socialist programs. The means of production is not applicable. Its the means of redistribution of resources that is.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-14-2006, 10:29 PM
He was rated 100% by NARAL and 93% by the ACLU.

He might be conservative on a couple of issues, but that doesn't make him conservative. Most people are conservative on at least a few issues. He might be somewhat pro-family, but his 100% pro-abortion stance cancels that out, in my opinon. (However I was under the impression he was pro- gay marriage... I stand corrected)

LOL, I love your word "pro-family". If you believe that people shouldn't have a gun pointed to their head and forced to do things your way, then apparently you're against the family. People shouldn't be free to make their own decisions. That's not what this country was founded on.

He's black, man. Abortion is a big thing in the black community. The fact that he is black also tips him towards ACLU and other groups that put a lot of weight on any legislation that involves black people. But on most issues he's socially conservative, like most blacks.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-14-2006, 10:33 PM
The Brits need more Liberal Democrats in office... to even it all out with the Socialists...

;)

The libdems are actually left of labour economically... but if you take a look at the political compass their just about the only halfway major party in the world that fits into the libertarian square, if but just barely. Well, there are the libera (and liberal means classical liberal over in Europe)l parties in the scandanavian countries that actually hold power, but in most other countries libertarian leaning groups rarely get 20% of the vote (although they have half that amount of seats).

FUCK THE POLICE
08-14-2006, 10:34 PM
So we have people in Congress who have Socialist leanings.. so what! Thats always been the case ..and as long as we have a Republic ...there will always be a cornucopia of political beliefs in Congress representing the People of the United States.

Yeah right. There's whatever beliefs the state legislatures decide to include whenever they draw the maps.

Beefy
08-14-2006, 10:41 PM
LOL, I love your word "pro-family". If you believe that people shouldn't have a gun pointed to their head and forced to do things your way, then apparently you're against the family. People shouldn't be free to make their own decisions. That's not what this country was founded on.

He's black, man. Abortion is a big thing in the black community. The fact that he is black also tips him towards ACLU and other groups that put a lot of weight on any legislation that involves black people. But on most issues he's socially conservative, like most blacks.

Liebarman is black?!! I'm returning my glasses.

maineman
08-15-2006, 05:43 AM
Maineman, socialism is not what you decree it is. A means of production? Socialism is the redistribution of money, not the means that creates it. Redistributing wealth, or money, is socialistic in nature.

It is a means to the end, and the END is Communism. You could describe medicare, Social Security, TANF, all as socialist programs. The means of production is not applicable. Its the means of redistribution of resources that is.

I never attempted to "decree" what socialism is.... here...let's go to the dictionary..and then tell ME who's "decreeing" anything.... OK?

so·cial·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

now...go decree something else

AnyOldIron
08-15-2006, 06:13 AM
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

This is a very broad definition and very weak, but then dictionaries are attempting to encapsulate complex and abstract concepts, something notoriously difficult to do.

Socialism is essentially an economic discipline only, and is better described as any mixed economy. It is the centre area between the poles of planned economy (Communism) and market economies (Capitalism).

The notion that socialism inevitably leads to communism is false, like stating a mild religious belief automatically leads to fanaticism.

Socialism doesn't have to have collective ownership of resources, as demonstrated by Socialist nations in Europe. The primary onus of socialism is that the economy should work for all. Socialism is pragmatic rather than the dogmatism of capitalism or Communism. If an area is better served planned (ie Healthcare) it is so, if better served with markets (luxury items) it is so.

maineman
08-15-2006, 06:36 AM
when chosing which words to use in various situations, I almost always prefer to let the dictionary guide my choice rather than the opinions of stuffy englishmen ;)

AnyOldIron
08-15-2006, 06:46 AM
when chosing which words to use in various situations, I almost always prefer to let the dictionary guide my choice rather than the opinions of stuffy englishmen

You realise that dictionaries are written by people, often stuffy (?me?) Englishmen?

You realise the difficulty in dictionaries creating soundbite definitions of abstract notions?

What about my definition do you not agree with?

maineman
08-15-2006, 06:52 AM
what about my retort of Beefy do YOU disagree with?

maineman
08-15-2006, 06:52 AM
and you failed to notice the wink ;)

klaatu
08-15-2006, 06:53 AM
The Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of extreme engineering of private business; the Democrats with their over taxation and regulation of free enterprise and Republicans for their bedroom follies that amount to a near oligarchic family. Either way .. both practices amount to “what is in it for me”, back pocket politics. We know it exists, but like a spouse ignoring the infidelities of their partner, as a whole we tend to turn a blind eye towards it.
I believe there must be a well balanced relationship between the Free Enterprise and Government. Government must do what we expect, that is protect the interests of its citizenship, and the Free Enterprise must be free to do what it does, produce reliable goods and services for the consumer in exchange for monetary gain.
This amounts to the Government having the right to act as a watch dog and the free Enterprise respecting the peoples establishment by way of honoring the rules that are in place. It is not the Governments job to change the rules by way of taxation or over regulation.. whenever there is a need for a monetary fix or to exploit political gain.
And it is not a Corporate right to exploit our elected and/or appointed officials and stuff their pockets so they will vote to give unfair advantage over the citizenship.
The only way to hold this in check is by way of a divided Government, which I am convinced works best.

AnyOldIron
08-15-2006, 06:59 AM
what about my retort of Beefy do YOU disagree with?

The limited and undescriptive definition of Socialism that was presented from the dictionary.

maineman
08-15-2006, 07:05 AM
I used it to show beefy that my description of the word was not without precedence. I didn't pull the definition out of my ass and object to his characterization of my perfectly acceptable definition - from straight out of the dictionary - as being false.

AnyOldIron
08-15-2006, 07:12 AM
I used it to show beefy that my description of the word was not without precedence. I didn't pull the definition out of my ass and object to his characterization of my perfectly acceptable definition - from straight out of the dictionary - as being false.

I'd agree that the definition you gave is a common one, the soundbite type of definition that frequently found in dictionaries.

My point was just that the definition is weak and poorly describes the true notion of Socialism.

maineman
08-15-2006, 07:35 AM
and I used it to counter the typical bullshit from the right (bravo, in this case) that tends to demonize liberal democrats as "socialists".

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 08:42 AM
Socialism is alive an well in the USA and most republicans would not want to give up several socialist programs either.
Ie Schools, roads, police and fire protection, medicare, medicaid, etc....

maineman
08-15-2006, 09:44 AM
so...what you are saying is that every country on the planet that has a police force or a fire department that is run by the government and not private industry is a socialist nation? Therefore, we have been a socialist nation since the days of Ben Franklin?

uscitizen
08-15-2006, 10:10 AM
Pretty much Maineman. Our tax systems are basically used for socialized purposes.

maineman
08-15-2006, 12:59 PM
then every politician on earth who uses tax dollars to fund his military or his police force or fire departments is a socialist? then why are republicans using that word as something bad when every republican since the dawn of their party has been a socialist as well?

AnyOldIron
08-16-2006, 04:45 AM
and I used it to counter the typical bullshit from the right (bravo, in this case) that tends to demonize liberal democrats as "socialists".

American Liberal Democrats aren't socialist...

maineman
08-16-2006, 05:32 AM
I agree, which is why I object to being branded as such by assholes who just use words as paintballs.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 08:12 AM
Maine, Ignore the ignorant, they do not understand that they actually support socialism.

klaatu
08-16-2006, 08:26 AM
so...what you are saying is that every country on the planet that has a police force or a fire department that is run by the government and not private industry is a socialist nation? Therefore, we have been a socialist nation since the days of Ben Franklin?


Of course not. I believe the debate is the degrees of Socialism instituted into Society.
The bottom line; the United States Government was designed to serve and protect... therefore under that concept.. the Police and Fire Depts. fit. Its when Government is expanded with the types of services she provides, thats when the degrees of Socialism come into play and are debatable..
The more you use Government as a tool to expand services and programs into Society .. the more you are leaning towards a Socialism ...

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:37 AM
and I used it to counter the typical bullshit from the right (bravo, in this case) that tends to demonize liberal democrats as "socialists".

American Liberal Democrats aren't socialist...

Socialism is defined as the the centralized (i.e, government) controlling the means of production and distribution.

Any attempt to link the Environmental Protection Agency, or medicaid to "socialism" is just flatulence, and rhetorically incorrect.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 08:42 AM
Medicare/pill bill is socialism even by your definition cypress.
Perhaps we need the difinition cops on thissubject :)

Is medical care a product ? Is education a product ?

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 08:51 AM
Drugs, are a socialized product. their manufacutre and distribution is strictly controlled by our gummit. esp the war on drugs.....

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:53 AM
Drugs, are a socialized product. their manufacutre and distribution is strictly controlled by our gummit. esp the war on drugs.....


the dictionary is quiet clear. "Regulating" an industry is not socialism.

When the government controls and OWNS the means of production and distribution, that is socialism.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 08:54 AM
Socialism, noun: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. "

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 08:59 AM
Hmm Schools are govt owned and administrated.
So is our highway system.
Medicare/medicaid are systems produced and administered by our gummit.

Cypress
08-16-2006, 09:01 AM
Hmm Schools are govt owned and administrated.


schools have nothing to do with "production and distribution". Production and distribution are elements of commerce and industry.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 09:07 AM
How about the BLM ? they lease out rights for timber, oil , mining and grazing ?
And the highway system ?
So I guess all thouse things I have read about our schools producing substandard students is garbage ?

Cypress
08-16-2006, 09:11 AM
How about the BLM ? they lease out rights for timber, oil , mining and grazing ?
And the highway system ?
So I guess all thouse things I have read about our schools producing substandard students is garbage ?


I hope to God, that BLM is leasing land to private individuals, rather than giving it to them for free.

BLM lands are publically owned. They're owned by the citizens of the united states, who bought, paid for, and maintained them with our tax dollars.

Taxpayers are entitled to get a return on those lands, by leasing them rather than giving them away for free to private individuals.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 09:36 AM
I hope to God, that BLM is leasing land to private individuals, rather than giving it to them for free.

BLM lands are publically owned. They're owned by the citizens of the united states, who bought, paid for, and maintained them with our tax dollars.

Taxpayers are entitled to get a return on those lands, by leasing them rather than giving them away for free to private individuals.

That is besidfe the point , they are owned by the gummit with no plan to pay the individual citizens anything for the lease or sale of these properties.


Product. A thing produced, as by labor.

What about the socialized medicine in Canada, GB, etc... why is not our medicare and medicaid the same thing ?
Or is the rest of the world wrong using the term socialized medicine ?

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 09:37 AM
Everything in the former USSR was supposedly publicly owned as well.

OrnotBitwise
08-16-2006, 10:05 AM
Everything in the former USSR was supposedly publicly owned as well.
Oh no. That's a common misconception. Most land was, yes, and all industrial infrastructure, but not "everything" in any real sense.

uscitizen
08-16-2006, 10:11 AM
Oh no. That's a common misconception. Most land was, yes, and all industrial infrastructure, but not "everything" in any real sense.
I stand corrected, but also stand by my statement about govt owned land , highways, schools, etc in The USA. The local school system just recently sold some property to a private individual and they did not pay me one cent, Imagine that!

IHateGovernment
08-16-2006, 09:14 PM
Socialism is a large ideology and it is difficult to pigeonhole anyone into that category. However in general favoring significant government involvement in the control of a states economy is socialist.

maineman
08-17-2006, 05:36 AM
control without ownership is not socialism....

government regulation and oversight of privately owned businesses does not constitute socialism...

any more than Osama is a fascist.

AnyOldIron
08-17-2006, 05:50 AM
The bottom line; the United States Government was designed to serve and protect... therefore under that concept.. the Police and Fire Depts. fit. Its when Government is expanded with the types of services she provides, thats when the degrees of Socialism come into play and are debatable..
The more you use Government as a tool to expand services and programs into Society .. the more you are leaning towards a Socialism ...

Ah, but 'to protect and serve' is an ambigious term.

Serving the people could include social security, as could 'to protect'.

uscitizen
08-17-2006, 06:28 AM
I hope to God, that BLM is leasing land to private individuals, rather than giving it to them for free.

BLM lands are publically owned. They're owned by the citizens of the united states, who bought, paid for, and maintained them with our tax dollars.

Taxpayers are entitled to get a return on those lands, by leasing them rather than giving them away for free to private individuals.

Cypress they are giving away oil and gas royalties to the oil companies for free!