Socialism, Sodomy and Surrender

[RickSp]

Quote by: Gorgo Never been tried to any great extent, not dead, and the only socialists I know are over 50. However, the Democratic Party has nothing to do with socialism. Or Democracy for that matter.

The Christians say the same thing. Christianity has never been tried either. Excuse my scepticism.

[fedfem]

Quote by: RickSp The Christians say the same thing. Christianity has never been tried either. Excuse my scepticism.

Funny thing is the other day I went to find a definition of "socialism" for a debate here and was astounded to find so many different definitions. I don't feel socialism is communism and do not see socialism as a governmental model either. Both sides have redefined "socialism" it seems. Then again--redefining things seems to be the fad today.

I support socialism in the anthropological sense is probably the safest way to go today.lol


edited typo

[Gorgo]

Quote by: RickSp Christianity has never been tried either.

I understand. Again, the socialists that I know define socialism as a system where the people own (or run) and benefit from the means of production. Soviet Russia was just another form of industrialism where a few ran and benefited from the whole show. This is not democratic socialism.

There are lots of different ideas on how it would work, including a market socialism.

[Whodoe!]

The Democrats and Republicans are like those TV wrestlers who make a stage show of terrible fights. At the end of the day, they are best buddies and sharing a ride to work.

The thesis about sodomy, socialism and surrender being the traits of the Democrats is akin to Doritos charging Cheetos with leaving too much powdery residue on fingers. I do agree that Democrats (generally) seem terribly sad ALL THE TIME.

[Chris the Chees]

With all due respect Logjam, buddy... your 'thesis' is daft.

Surrender --- The dems did not start the war, in fact the seperated them selves from it, so by pulling out of iraq, always a stated intention they are not surrendering, they are just enacting a promise.

Sodomy --- well I think we need not attempt to debate your obsolite views on homosexuality, it is a closed issue.

Socialism --- You and I have been over this issue time and time again. Your views of socialism are totally unrepresentative of reality.

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of redistributing wealth, nonviolent solutions are always superior to war and I, of course, feel there is nothing wrong with including sodomy in the motto. So, yeah, you're pretty close. If I were to pass it through a neocon filter it would come out looking like yours.

WTF! Nothing is wrong with redistributing wealth!!!! Are you NUTS!!!

You are saying that I should give my money to someone else just because they'd like some more money? While I do agree that this concept is the foundation of Liberal thought it's also the reason that Liberals have stopped calling themselves liberal.

Americans don't want to support a redistribution of wealth. Unless they are on the "getting" end. Americans who earn money want to save it, invest it, or put it to work. They do not want to give it away to others who haven't earned it.

We have been pouring money to the "poor" since the 60's and we still have about the same percentage of poor (14). Dumping money on a poor person's lap doesn't help them to become prosperous, rather it allows them to achieve a life on the doll. Not a very good one, but a life nevertheless.

This country was founded on the concept that individuals can build wealth and keep it!

[Logjam]

Quote by: Chris the Chees With all due respect Logjam, buddy... your 'thesis' is daft. Surrender --- The dems did not start the war, in fact the seperated them selves from it, so by pulling out of iraq, always a stated intention they are not surrendering, they are just enacting a promise.

Chris, quitting the fight, pulling out our troops is surrendering. Call it what you will, if we pull out without victory we are either surrendering or giving up to defeat. The difference between the two is moot. The results of either move is identical. Which is victory for the terrorists, distruction of freedom and Iraq and the establishment of a terrorists state in the region.

We need to WIN in Iraq. At this point why we are there is irrevelant.

Victory is our only credible tactic.

Neither you, nor I want to see an embolded terrorist state, embolded by victory and dedicated to the distruction of American and our allies.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Chris the Chees With all due respect Logjam, buddy... your 'thesis' is daft. Socialism --- You and I have been over this issue time and time again. Your views of socialism are totally unrepresentative of reality.

No it isn't. You are a liberal, you support the redistribution of wealth. You also support the government providing for its people.

All the government should do is to set up a system that allows for freedom, self protection and the condition where men can invest money and make more of it.

If the system provides a method to tax our money and then give it to others who the government thinks deserve it, that's socialism. Socialism is a governmental system that provides sustenance and employment to it's people. It NEVER works.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Logjam Chris, quitting the fight, pulling out our troops is surrendering. Call it what you will, if we pull out without victory we are either surrendering or giving up to defeat. The difference between the two is moot. The results of either move is identical. Which is victory for the terrorists, distruction of freedom and Iraq and the establishment of a terrorists state in the region. We need to WIN in Iraq. At this point why we are there is irrevelant. Victory is our only credible tactic. Neither you, nor I want to see an embolded terrorist state, embolded by victory and dedicated to the distruction of American and our allies.

That was exactly the argument that left us with 58,000 dead in Vietnam and we still lost. Guess you really like repeating mistakes from history

Bush created a training ground for terrorists when he invaded Iraq, a moronic blunder that will no doubt result in American deaths for years to come. His own CIA say that it will likely be "worse than what the Russians created in Afghanistan." He has no plan, no"exist strategy" just more blather like yours about "victory," which, by the way has never been a tactic.

And the one thing uniting an insurgency that should by all rights be fighting each other, is the hatred of a foreign invader. Wake up and smell the cordite.

While neither the collectively braindead Republicans and Democrats halluciante about victory at least the Libertarian Party has proposed a workable Exit Strategy . It is about time someone did.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp The Christians say the same thing. Christianity has never been tried either. Excuse my scepticism.

Hmmm, consider Mother Teresia. She was a pretty good Christian. I suppose we could name a few more if pressed.

I'll argue that Christianity has been tried often, but in varying degrees and with differing degrees of success. It's hard to do, "turn the other cheek", etc.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Chris the Chees With all due respect Logjam, buddy... your 'thesis' is daft. Surrender --- The dems did not start the war, in fact the seperated them selves from it, so by pulling out of iraq, always a stated intention they are not surrendering, they are just enacting a promise. Sodomy --- well I think we need not attempt to debate your obsolite views on homosexuality, it is a closed issue. Socialism --- You and I have been over this issue time and time again. Your views of socialism are totally unrepresentative of reality.

I can see your point, and it's predictable. What you fail to understand is that the lions share of Republicans believe that the Demo party is the party of Socialism, Sodomy and Surrender.

For the Demos to have any success again, they've got to convince the conservatives that the redistribution of wealth/universal health care does not lead us on the road to socialism, and that supporting homosexual "rights" is not supporting sodomy and that pulling out of Iraq without first winning the peace is not surrender.

I don't think that you guys can do it, and that's the reason that Hillary will be defeated.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Logjam Hmmm, consider Mother Teresia. She was a pretty good Christian. I suppose we could name a few more if pressed. I'll argue that Christianity has been tried often, but in varying degrees and with differing degrees of success. It's hard to do, "turn the other cheek", etc.

True Christianity is socialism at its finest. Love thy enemy, turn the other cheek, give up your wealth to be distributed, if someone asks for something, give, etc..


edited typo...

[Logjam]

Quote by: fedfem Well, I am not a liberal nor a democrat so can't speak for either but disagree with your rhetoric. Many of your assertations could be attached to many republicans as well. Jeff Gannon for one, Log Cabin Republicans, etc.... Conservatives are more into separatism than Liberals are--but both parties are big tents. I am not into generalizing. Your attack was not a thesis by any means.

My statement was not meant to be an "attack" at all. It was simply a statement of how many conservatives view the Left. It's the Lefties who are screaming attack and calling for arms.

You just can't stand the message, which I still believe it true.

[fedfem]

Quote by: Logjam My statement was not meant to be an "attack" at all. It was simply a statement of how many conservatives view the Left. It's the Lefties who are screaming attack and calling for arms. You just can't stand the message, which I still believe it true.

Well the message is silly. If you think it is true then you are a nut.

[Prometheus]

Logjam:

If you want to attack a specific stance of the dems, that argue that stance, but don't just attack the party in general. That is never productive, because you stop discussing ideas and start bickering about artificial loyalties to a party line.

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam WTF! Nothing is wrong with redistributing wealth!!!! Are you NUTS!!!

To clarify, I was referring merely to our progressive income tax, which I heartily support, at least at this point. That is redistributing wealth. People just don't like to put it that way.

[Logjam]

Quote by: fedfem Well the message is silly. If you think it is true then you are a nut.

Ha, ha; oh, I'm cracking up here!

If you don't think that the Right believes that the Lefties are socialistic, want to surrender in Iraq, and support sodomy then you are the nut, not me.

You see, what I wrote is spot on.

You must agree that the left is more socialistic then is the right. Many of the members of the left want to get out of Iraq immediately; which is surrendering, and sodomy is accepted by those on the left much more than it is by those on the right.

You see; what I wrote, while indeed a generalization is true.

I challenge you to deal with the thesis of my statement. You cannot say unequivically that the right is more socialistic than is the left, or that it wants to surrender in Iraq or that it supports behavior that many believe is sodomy as much as does the left.

Your reaction means to me that I've struck a nerve. You can't deal with the question because you know I'm right. You can't stand to deal with the reality of how the right views the left. NOr can you refute it.

It's also the reason that you guys keep losing elections.

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron To clarify, I was referring merely to our progressive income tax, which I heartily support, at least at this point. That is redistributing wealth. People just don't like to put it that way.

No, funds collected by taxing (through extortion; ie fear of prison) are not always "redistributing wealth". The building of roads, the military, the fire departments and paying cops is not a redistribution of wealth. They are playing for needed services.

The redistribution of wealth is when the government takes money from those who have it and then gives it in the form of charity to those who don't have it. That's wrong. Charity is not the responsibility of the government. It's the responsibility of individuals. People should give to charity out of a personal decision to do so.

If the left was to come out and clearly say that they support the redistribution of wealth (which the left and Hillary Clinton do) they couldn't be elected dog catcher. So the left has to lie about their true feelings on the subject.

Again, that's why the lose elections.

You see, the left's problem is if it comes clean; if they say what they really believe they would cease to exist; at least in this country. The masses of the folks are beginning to figure that out, and vote conservative.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Prometheus Logjam: If you want to attack a specific stance of the dems, that argue that stance, but don't just attack the party in general. That is never productive, because you stop discussing ideas and start bickering about artificial loyalties to a party line.

Hey Prometheus I'm NOT ATTACKING ANYBODY. Jeeze! I'm just codifying what the right thinks of the left.

Now, you tell me why I'm wrong! You can't, because I'm right!!!

I say again: In relationship to the right, the left suppports socialism, encourages sodomy and wants to surrender in Iraq.

Saying that is not an attack!!! It's a simple statement of the facts. Now, it is a generalization, it has to be because it's so abbreviated, but saying that the left supports Socialism, sodomy and surrender is based on fact. All Republicans/conservates recognize this as do a growing number of Americans. Which is why, of course, that the left keeps losing elections.

[Jack]

For the Demos to have any success again, they've got to convince the conservatives that the redistribution of wealth/universal health care does not lead us on the road to socialism, and that supporting homosexual "rights" is not supporting sodomy and that pulling out of Iraq without first winning the peace is not surrender.

Perhaps at the end of Bush's 8 years, Americans will be ready to try the other party again because of what's happened with the economy and other domestic policies. Our country has a history of not staying aligned to one party very long. If the Republicans wind up controlling the Supreme Court, there won't be a single part of government they won't be responsible for. Any problems, any controversy that arises, they'll have to own. That's a risky position to be in. Americans are already showing less support for Bush. If they want change, their only option is to support the other party. We'll know even more when we see who the most likely candidates are for the next election and what they offer.