Easy one Right Wingers; Define Socialism and Tyranny for me please

[Anti-Party]

The big movement today is "The Left Wingers are Socialist and full of Tyranny!"

This is your chance to explain why the Left Wingers are Socialists. It's also your chance to explain why they are Tyrants.

 

[Truth Detector]

The big movement today is "The Left Wingers are Socialist and full of Tyranny!"

This is your chance to explain why the Left Wingers are Socialists. It's also your chance to explain why they are Tyrants.

I must have missed that movement; got a link to this story?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The big movement today is "The Left Wingers are Socialist and full of Tyranny!"

This is your chance to explain why the Left Wingers are Socialists. It's also your chance to explain why they are Tyrants.

I would define them more as fascists and you need look no further than Obamacare

 

[Robo]

SOCIALISM: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.(Encarta English Dictionary)

According to Abraham Lincoln America is a nation ”Of ”The People”, By ”The People” and For ”The People.” Who shall argue that America’s government is NOT a government ”Of The People?”

Who will argue that Obama-Care has NOT been instituted by ”The People” who voted for Obama and ”The People” who operate government? Who will argue that Obama-Care is NOT being instituted and controlled by ”The People” who operate government? Who wants to argue that Obama-Care is NOT being implemented according to ”Equity & Fairness rather than market principles?”

What fucking moron wants to argue that Obama-Care ISN’T fucking SOCIALISM?

What fucking idiot wants to argue that Obama-Care ISN’T a violation of the Constitution and a crime against the United States and TYRANNY of the first order?

 

[evince]

the means of production and distribution


what means of production is being controlled?

 

[maineman]

socialism is a form of government where the whole enchilada is owned by the government. Whenever government owns little pieces of the economy, that is not socialism. Having a city owned water utility or electric utility does not make that city a socialist city. Obamacare is clearly NOT socialism because it is not government OWNERSHIP of the whole enchilada... in fact, the government owns hardly any of it. The insurance companies still control the flow of money through our healthcare system, not the government.

And anyone can have their individual opinions as to what degree any law comports with their individual interpretation of the constitution. In fact, the constitution lays out how a bill becomes a law... and ACA did that... and the constitution provides the opportunity to take questions of constitutionality all the way to the highest court in the land where nine learned jurists have been tasked by that constitution to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. ACA has passed that hurdle as well. Sorry.

 

[Robo]

the means of production and distribution


what means of production is being controlled?

The production of Obama-Care, just for openers that’s been "produced" and ”controlled” by the government of ”The People” by ”The People” and for ”The People”

 

[Robo]

socialism is a form of government where the whole enchilada is owned by the government. Whenever government owns little pieces of the economy, that is not socialism.

Who’s arguing that ”The Government” is socialist? I’m arguing that Obama-Care is a socialist program and unconstitutional. Where does the definition of socialism say that governments have to be socialist governments to institute socialist programs?

Having a city owned water utility or electric utility does not make that city a socialist city. Obamacare is clearly NOT socialism because it is not government OWNERSHIP of the whole enchilada... in fact, the government owns hardly any of it. The insurance companies still control the flow of money through our healthcare system, not the government.

Horseshit! Government ”Of The People, by The People” and for The People” own every tidbit of Obama-Care. They instituted It and, they control it,


And anyone can have their individual opinions as to what degree any law comports with their individual interpretation of the constitution. In fact, the constitution lays out how a bill becomes a law... and ACA did that... and the constitution provides the opportunity to take questions of constitutionality all the way to the highest court in the land where nine learned jurists have been tasked by that constitution to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. ACA has passed that hurdle as well. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

 

[maineman]

Who’s arguing that ”The Government” is socialist? I’m arguing that Obama-Care is a socialist program and unconstitutional. Where does the definition of socialism say that governments have to be socialist governments to institute socialist programs?



Horseshit! Government ”Of The People, by The People” and for The People” own every tidbit of Obama-Care. They instituted It and, they control it,


And anyone can have their individual opinions as to what degree any law comports with their individual interpretation of the constitution. In fact, the constitution lays out how a bill becomes a law... and ACA did that... and the constitution provides the opportunity to take questions of constitutionality all the way to the highest court in the land where nine learned jurists have been tasked by that constitution to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. ACA has passed that hurdle as well. Sorry.

are city water companies socialist organizations? What about parks and recreation departments? are they socialist programs as well?

and if you think that the Obamacare is owned by the people, why are insurance company executives all dancing in the street?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

tyranny is that which is legal for the government to do, but illegal for the citizenry.

 

[Truth Detector]

socialism is a form of government where the whole enchilada is owned by the government. Whenever government owns little pieces of the economy, that is not socialism. Having a city owned water utility or electric utility does not make that city a socialist city. Obamacare is clearly NOT socialism because it is not government OWNERSHIP of the whole enchilada... in fact, the government owns hardly any of it. The insurance companies still control the flow of money through our healthcare system, not the government.

And anyone can have their individual opinions as to what degree any law comports with their individual interpretation of the constitution. In fact, the constitution lays out how a bill becomes a law... and ACA did that... and the constitution provides the opportunity to take questions of constitutionality all the way to the highest court in the land where nine learned jurists have been tasked by that constitution to determine whether laws are constitutional or not. ACA has passed that hurdle as well. Sorry.

Once again you would be wrong; but at least you are consistent. Here is what the dictionary says, pay close attention to number 3:
so·cial·ism

/ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/Show Spelled [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]Show IPA
noun
1. atheory or system ofsocialorganization thatadvocates thevesting ofthe ownershipand control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxisttheory) thestage followingcapitalismin the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfectimplementation of collectivist principles.

 

[Truth Detector]

are city water companiessocialist organizations? What about parks and recreation departments? are theysocialist programs as well?

According to the definition; the answer would be yes. In many cases, as is the case with Los Angeles, they are also an inefficient and expensive way to deliver utilities.

and if you think that the Obamacare is owned by thepeople, why are insurance company executives all dancing in the street?

How is Obamacare owned by the people? Help me with this one. Who made this claim? Or is this another of your fabricated strawman claims?

 

[Truth Detector]

I must have missed that movement; got a link to this story?

I will presume based on a lack of response from the thread author that there was no story or link, anti-thinker is once again making up his own inane version of reality. No shocker here...move along people; nothing to debate here.

 

[maineman]

According to the definition; the answer would be yes. In many cases, as is the case with Los Angeles, they are also an inefficient and expensive way to deliver utilities.
How is Obamacare owned by the people? Help me with this one. Who made this claim? Or is this another of your fabricated strawman claims?

two quick points in response:

1. NO. according to the definition, socialism is NOT a piecemeal approach. Little bits of functions in our economy that are accomplished by entities owned by the general public do not change us from a capitalist society to a socialist one

2. read post #8.

 

[maineman]

Once again you would be wrong; but at least you are consistent. Here is what the dictionary says, pay close attention to number 3:
so·cial·ism

/ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/Show Spelled [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]Show IPA
noun
1. atheory or system ofsocialorganization thatadvocates thevesting ofthe ownershipand control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxisttheory) thestage followingcapitalismin the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfectimplementation of collectivist principles.

Actually, the first definition is the one most widely used when defining socialism. And since few avowed capitalists are believers in Marxist theory, the third definition is really irrelevant. Thankfully, many more rational socialist philosophers have helped develop the first definition which is what is commonly held as the operative one. In fact, Marx's thoughts about socialism were not very complimentary. He did not see it as a transitional step to communism at all, but an unsatisfactory derailing well short of communism. Marx held that communism would come when a motivated vanguard of the proletariat - in industrial western Europe -would rise up and overthrow capitalism and move quite rapidly from there to pure communism with only a brief transition of the dictatorship of the proletariat to clear and illuminate the path.

Obamacare is not socialism. Neither is a government owned military, or police force, or fire departments, or electrical grids or trash collection. They are merely government owned bits of an otherwise overwhelmingly capitalist economy.

 

[Dantès]

I would define them more as fascists and you need look no further than Obamacare

How punctilious of you. Aren't you going to include your nearly now obligatory statement about how smart you are before defining Socialists as fascists?

 

[Dantès]

The production of Obama-Care, just for openers that’s been "produced" and ”controlled” by the government of ”The People” by ”The People” and for ”The People”

Compelling, please elaborate. How is it that Obamacare is a product that is being " 'produced' by the government?"

 

[maineman]

The production of Obama-Care, just for openers that’s been "produced" and ”controlled” by the government of ”The People” by ”The People” and for ”The People”

so what? so is the US Army. that doesn't make us a socialist government because certain aspects of our society are government controlled. The vast majority of our economy is capitalist and controlled by market forces and not the government.

 

[maineman]

How punctilious of you. Aren't you going to include your nearly now obligatory statement about how smart you are before defining Socialists as fascists?

he is clueless as to what those words mean... they are just epithets to him.

 

[Robo]

two quick points in response:

1. NO. according to the definition, socialism is NOT a piecemeal approach.

Where in what definition does it say that?

2. Little bits of functions in our economy that are accomplished by entities owned by the general public do not change us from a capitalist society to a socialist one

But that never was the challenge to begin with. The OP challenged “right-wingers” to expose left-wingers as being socialist and tyrants. Who created Obama-Care? Is tyranny violating the Constitution?

The points have been made. You’ve nary a leg to stand on. Obama-Care is socialism. Obama is a “leftist.” Obama-Care violates the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. Constitution violations are tyranny. Obama the leftist is a socialist tyrant!!!!!