Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Did Obama campaign for socialists? A Democratic socialist is not the same as the "socialist" that you joined. YOU joined the communist party, aka Democratic Socialist Party. That is a communist party. I joined the Socialist Workers Party. I have never denied this. In fact, I have described it before as a communist party. It was founded by Leon Trotsky. A democratic socialist wants socialism by reform rather than through revolution. They attempt to work within the system to change it through the passage of laws favorable to their goals. They also seek to change the way people think about these issues through the educational system. Their goals are very similar, and in some cases the very same, as the revolutionary socialists. Communists are generally revolutionary socialists. Quote: An American democratic socialist is a democrate first and a socialist second. Totally different concepts in the same sentence from you. You easy misdirect and easily mis-inform. That is not honesty. That is manipulation. Are you talking about Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator? I'm not even sure what sentence you are talking about here. Could you please copy and paste it so I know what you mean? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Did Obama campaign for socialists? A Democratic socialist is not the same as the "socialist" that you joined. YOU joined the communist party, aka Democratic Socialist Party. That is a communist party. An American democratic socialist is a democrate first and a socialist second. Totally different concepts in the same sentence from you. You easy misdirect and easily mis-inform. That is not honesty. That is manipulation. Did Obama campaign for a socialist Senator? What did your research tell you? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Is he the first candidate of the Democratic party for the Presidency to have done so? I am sure that he is not. There are other social democrates, and I believe the last one was referenced in 1950s but don't ask me who it was. You are sure that he is not, but you cannot name any presidential candidate of the Democratic party who has campaigned for a socialist before. You are talking about members of the Democratic party, perhaps, such as FDR and LBJ. They were liberals in their day, but they weren't socialists. There is a big difference. John Kennedy was a conservative Democrat and by no stretch of imagination was he a socialist. All three of those men encouraged and favored free enterprise, private property and the capitalist system. Have you ever heard of Henry Wallace? He was a vice-president for a while under FDR, but FDR fired him. Later he ran for president but lost to Truman. Wallace got all of 2.4 of the popular vote. About him the wikipedia says: "Even more damage was done to Wallace's campaign when several prominent journalists, including H.L. Mencken and Dorothy Thompson, publicly charged that Wallace and the Progressives were under the covert control of Communists. Wallace's subsequent refusal to publicly disavow any Communist support cost him the backing of many anti-Communist liberals and socialists, such as Norman Thomas." Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Is Obama the most liberal Senator in the Senate? Most liberal Senator....interesting phrasing. Your source also noted that Kerry was the "most liberal senator" in 2004....And I am of the opinion that phrasing is just attached to ANY democrate who runs against the republican for the highest office of the land. Obama was considered to be the most liberal Senator by the National Journal. It has nothing to do with the Republicans any more it has to do with Democrats. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ Quote: Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008 Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator. In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist. If you go by the way Obama voted, who do you believe is the most liberal Senator? Even if you don't think he is the most liberal Senator at a given moment, it is still a fact that he is certainly a very liberal one. And that is something which the American people should consider before November. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 If these things are true, and the American people know it and vote for Obama to be president, that is up to them. All I am saying is that they need to know it before they vote. But your values are not as honest as mine or Tom. You phrase things such that we are condemned for answering it if we feel they are better cannidates than what you would have us choose. A good example would be "have you stopped beating your wife today?" You want to know- where are you wrong?...I want to know- where are you right? Where have I ever condemned you or anyone else for feeling that Obama is a better candidate? I have said over and over again that if Obama wins, I will accept him as my president and will never disrespect him. In all of my life, I have never uttered a single word in disrespect toward an American president, and I never would. Please post here any evidence that I have not been honest about these issues. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolaa Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: carolaa You can go to snopes and find out that all of these allegations are false. Does snopes show that the following are untrue-- Obama is the most liberal Senator. He is the farthest to the Left of any candidate for President' date=' bar none. Obama campaigned for two socialists-- one in the US and one in Africa. He thinks and talks like a socialist, and there is good evidence that he is one. [/quote'] I only was referring to the email you referenced. I don't have much interest in the socialist issues, so I have not looked them up. In my opinion, it is entirely possible that Obama has socialist ideals (I've always thought Hillary Clinton does too), but I see him moving to the center on several issues, and I really don't see him as being any kind of extreme president. He is in the corporations' pockets just like McCain is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Where have I ever condemned you or anyone else for feeling that Obama is a better candidate? Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 .... I see him moving to the center on several issues.... Yes, he did move more to center just before the convention. Most candidates do that. His move to the center made a lot of his supporters, such as Moveon.org., pretty upset at him. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Where have I ever condemned you or anyone else for feeling that Obama is a better candidate? Didn't comdemn you...Just noted some processes in your facts that were not as solid as you had intimated that they were. "Some processes in [my] facts"? Please copy and paste or quote what exactly you are talking about. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 Whoa there....You claim that he is a socialist, as if that were something bad.[/quote'] I am saying he is a socialist and that I don't want a socialist leader and don't want the US to go in that direction any more than it already has. Is it bad? In my thinking, it is bad, yes. I think it is bad for the United States, certainly, and up to now, Americans have also considered it bad for the US. We have only had one socialist Senator, and that was the one Obama campaigned for. I believe Bernie Sanders died, so we don't have a single socialist in the Senate. I don't think we have any in Congress, either. There was a socialist campaign for president in 1972, and that ticket did very poorly. Every year they do not do well in the US. So it is pretty obvious that up until now, Americans have thought that socialism and socialists are bad for America. However, that is analysis of history and of American politics. There is nothing there that contradicts what I said earlier. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 ...Your definition of socialist is communist, but that is not the same definition among the western/democratic cultures.... This is not true. I never said that all socialists are communist. In fact, I specifically described Obama as a reformist socialist. Here is what I actually said: Quote: There are many socialist philosophies but it basically boils down to state ownership of the means of production; a centralized government; redistribution of wealth through heavy, progressive tax; a managed economy; it generally opposes capitalism and free enterprise and attempts to concentrate property under the control of the state, etc. Some socialists, such as Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky, advocated violent revolution; whereas others, such as Eugene Debs, are reformists. Obama is a reformist socialist, which want to make the change to socialism through through changes in laws and regulations, education. Study the following: Quote: Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved. Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. If you do a search of the socialist parties in the United States, you will find that virtually all of them are of the revolutionary type and not the reformist type. That is just the way American socialists generally think. However, as the above shows, I never equated all socialists with communists. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 ,..You associated him with Bill Ayers, a terrorist. [actually if we were truthful here, a former terrorist and now a respected member of the educational community.] ... Did Bill Ayers say he was sorry that he bombed the US? Isn't it true that in fact Bill Ayers has said that he is not only not sorry, but that he wishes he had bombed the US more than he did? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Socialism can be seen in Venezuela...I for one don't want that for America. However, I also don't want more policies like we've had in the last few years which have gotten us into the mess we are currently in. On the other hand...this could be the beginning of the end...and Jesus coming may be around the corner...which is a good thing. I have not made up my mind on who to vote for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 My meaning in saying Obama is very liberal is that it needs to be understood by the American people. Do I think a very liberal voting record is "bad" for America? Yes, I do. I believe that millions of other Americans also believe it is. We will see how many think the same, on election day. So it is obvious that I think a liberal voting record is a bad thing. But how is that disrespecting Obama? Is it disrespecting Bush for you to say you think his political decisions are bad for America? I do not think so, and I doubt he would think so, either. It is not disrespecting a leader simply because you disagree with their policies. Do you seriously think that because I tell the truth as I see it here, that I am "culpable if Obama" is assassinated? Because I say Obama is a socialist or very liberal? Or if I question Obama's connections with Ayers? You have said that Palin is a danger to the US. Would you consider yourself as being culpable if she were assassinated? (I would never dream of saying this to you, because I don't think this way, but I am asking you if you would be willing to consider your words in the same light as you want me to consider mine.) I have always said that I would accept him as my president and never disrespect him, and I never would. That doesn't mean I would agree with him on policy, but I would do so without calling him names or disliking him personally. I have too much respect for the American people and for the office of the president to do that. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Quote: I am saying he is a socialist and that I don't want a socialist leader and don't want the US to go in that direction any more than it already has. Is it bad? In my thinking, it is bad, yes. I think it is bad for the United States, certainly, and up to now, Americans have also considered it bad for the US. We have only had one socialist Senator, and that was the one Obama campaigned for. I believe Bernie Sanders died, so we don't have a single socialist in the Senate. Well, just to let you know- Bernard "Bernie" Sanders Born: Sept. 8, 1941, New York, N.Y. Residence: Burlington, Vt. Education: James Madison High School in Brooklyn, Brooklyn College, University of Chicago, B.A. 1964 Elected offices: • Mayor of Burlington, 1981-1989 • U.S. House of Representatives, 1991-2007 • U.S. Senate, 2007-present. He's still alive.....and working.... You say that he is a socialist.... He says-Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party he appears as an independent on the ballot. The question is-Is your definition of "socialist" the same as Bernie's? I don't think so. Quote: So it is pretty obvious that up until now, Americans have thought that socialism and socialists are bad for America. Neither do 3rd party candidates, which btw, are what most socialist run under. Bernie claimed that he was a "democratic socialist". That is a pretty vague term...Concidering- Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy'. And "social democracy" is- Modern social democrats often advocate a democratic welfare state, which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism.[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist economic system, or in the Marxist sense, which aims to replace it with a worker-controlled economic system. Unlike Marxists, who seek to challenge the capitalist system more fundamentally, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the injustices and inefficiencies of capitalism. Some consider social democracy to be a moderate form of socialism, though others reject that designation. Defining characteristics of modern social democracy in practice is the mixed economic system or social market model and extensive welfare programs. You associate socialism with communism. What you do not want to acknowledge is that capitalizm has problems in that it does keep some thru circumstance impoverished...mainly women with children. Sure, women can improve thier lot in life, but at a cost to thier children. And they are trapped...there are other circumstances but that is the more frequent occurance. People who advocate the taxing of moneys for the betterment of women with children, complain about 'welfare' moms. I frankly don't see a problem with taxing of industry to benefit people to get tuition assistance for education. I would like to see better college funds from the goverment for worthy students...This is a type of socialism that is very good for our economy...and one that is needed. And you think this is bad... And this is well within the Democratic party goals. Again, your definition of socialism is NOT the same as Bernies.... Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Socialism can be seen in Venezuela...I for one don't want that for America. However, I also don't want more policies like we've had in the last few years which have gotten us into the mess we are currently in. On the other hand...this could be the beginning of the end...and Jesus coming may be around the corner...which is a good thing. I have not made up my mind on who to vote for. Agree completely. Thanks very much. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Quote: I am saying he is a socialist and that I don't want a socialist leader and don't want the US to go in that direction any more than it already has. Is it bad? In my thinking, it is bad, yes. I think it is bad for the United States, certainly, and up to now, Americans have also considered it bad for the US. We have only had one socialist Senator, and that was the one Obama campaigned for. I believe Bernie Sanders died, so we don't have a single socialist in the Senate. You say that he is a socialist.... He says-Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party he appears as an independent on the ballot. The question is-Is your definition of "socialist" the same as Bernie's? I don't think so. How does my definition of socialism conflict with Bernie's? Where is his definition? None from him is given above. A democratic socialist is the same as a reformist socialist if that is what you have in mind. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Quote: JOHN3:17-- So it is pretty obvious that up until now, Americans have thought that socialism and socialists are bad for America. Neither do 3rd party candidates, which btw, are what most socialist run under. Bernie claimed that he was a "democratic socialist". That is a pretty vague term...Concidering- Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy'. The point is that they all want some form of government ownership of large portions of the economy or management of the economy rather than the economy being driven by the market and by free enterprise or capitalism. And whichever way you slice it, socialists have never done very well at all in elections. That's the bottom line. It's why I say Americans have generally not seen "socialism" or "socialists" as a good thing for America. I am glad you noted that socialists such as Bernie Sanders have run as democrats. This is no doubt the case with Obama. He is in office as a Democrat but he is as much as socialist as Bernie Sanders. They've voted very much the same. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Is this the same Sanders that makes that fried chicken taste so good? How about a universal fried chicken plan? A bird in every pot. Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 Quote: Do you seriously think that because I tell the truth as I see it here, that I am "culpable if Obama" is assassinated? Because I say Obama is a socialist or very liberal? Or if I question Obama's connections with Ayers? Yes, I do. You use words that are inflamatory. "Liberal", "Liberal voting record", "socialist" and you equate socialism with communism from your experience. The way you present your facts are inflammatory or can be seen as inflammatory to someone who is less educated. The news reports this last week have shown that McCain has to tell the crowd that Obama is a decent American after one lady says that she doesn't trust Obama because he's an Arab. Another man gets in McCain's face with his shaking finger [of course, the man and McCain are several feet away from each other] and tells McCain that the socialists are starting to run the country and McCain had better go out and represent this man. These inflammatory words are out of place in the Christian culture...or at least should be. Quote: You have said that Palin is a danger to the US. Would you consider yourself as being culpable if she were assassinated? After every article that has been put up, I have said that "this woman is scary". I have not said that she is a danger to the US...And I don't know of ANY female PUBLIC figure that has been assassinated. I therefore conclude that she is safe from being shot at... Quote: (I would never dream of saying this to you, because I don't think this way, but I am asking you if you would be willing to consider your words in the same light as you want me to consider mine.) I have...but you have been consistent in what you have said in that you have given dis-information and been using phrases that can be considered inflammatory to some less educated individual's way of thinking....I don't want someone coming in here and thinking "Gee, John317 really puts out some really rational stuff, and that Obama guy sure is some nut job. He needs to be knocked off. I wonder if I can get away with that?" . I don't want that to happen... Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Shane Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 I don't think "liberal" or "socialist" are inflammatory any more than "conservative" or "capitalist" are. Myself, I really do like liberal portions of mashed potatoes with sweet corn and just a tad of butter on top. Mmmmmmmm, mmmmmmmmmmm, this political talk is making me hungry. Where is that Sanders guy with the fried chicken? Quote Pastoral Family Counselor... Find me at www.PostumCafe.com Author of Peculiar Christianity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil D Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 The point is that they all want some form of government ownership of large portions of the economy or management of the economy rather than the economy being driven by the market and by free enterprise or capitalism. Quote Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.  George Bernard Shaw  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements, tendencies, and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation. The term is sometimes used synonymously with 'social democracy'. And "social democracy" is- Modern social democrats often advocate a democratic welfare state, which incorporates elements of both socialism and capitalism.[2] This differs from traditional socialism, which aims to end the predominance of the capitalist economic system, or in the Marxist sense, which aims to replace it with a worker-controlled economic system. Unlike Marxists, who seek to challenge the capitalist system more fundamentally, social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of programs that work to counteract or remove the injustices and inefficiencies of capitalism. Some consider social democracy to be a moderate form of socialism, though others reject that designation. Defining characteristics of modern social democracy in practice is the mixed economic system or social market model and extensive welfare programs. All Economics 101. Nothing here that contradicts anything I've been saying all along. My point is simply that Obama is very liberal, indeed the most liberal Senator, and that he is a socialist. I believe that Obama's socialist views are related to the fact that he spent 20 years in a church where Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology is taught. It's hard to imagine his choosing that church and remaining in it all those years if he disagreed with the fundamental views being expressed. http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html Quote: You associate socialism with communism. Not necessarily. I have never said that the connection between them is necessary. In fact, I've said clearly that Obama is a reformist socialist. That is the same as a democratic socialist. Socialism in Australia, Canada, England, as well as modern Germany, France and Italy takes the reformist form of socialism. Again, however, most of socialist parties in the US are of the revolutionary type, having more in common with Trotsky, Lenin, and even Mao's views. All you have to do is do a search of the various American socialist organizations and this becomes evident. For instance, I did not see any socialist organizations in Denver that were not of the revolutionary type. This does not mean that there are no reformist types of socialist groups in the US. It just simply means that as parties, they do not draw a lot of interest here. Quote: What you do not want to acknowledge is that capitalizm has problems in that it does keep some thru circumstance impoverished...mainly women with children. When have I ever given any impression that capitalism does not have problems? Do you think that I was in the Socialist Workers Party, a communist organization, without realizing the problems of capitalism? Please post here anything I said that has indicated I see no problems with capitalism. Quote: Sure, women can improve thier lot in life, but at a cost to thier children. And they are trapped...there are other circumstances but that is the more frequent occurance. People who advocate the taxing of moneys for the betterment of women with children, complain about 'welfare' moms. I frankly don't see a problem with taxing of industry to benefit people to get tuition assistance for education. I would like to see better college funds from the goverment for worthy students...This is a type of socialism that is very good for our economy...and one that is needed. And you think this is bad... And this is well within the Democratic party goals. You are confusing social welfare programs for state socialism. Socialism has to do with state ownership of the means of production and a managed economy. The US has had various kinds of social programs for a long time, but those are not the same as having a socialist economy or socialist structure. They are influenced by some socialist goals but if you use certain aspects of socialist plans, that does not make the entire state a socialist one. For instance, there is a big difference between a democratic welfare state and state socialism. What you are describing is part of a welfare state, but it requires much more than giving money away to mothers or students in order to build a socialist state. Quote: Again, your definition of socialism is NOT the same as Bernies.... Where is Bernie definition of socialism? I have not seen it yet. Nothing in the above contradicts anything I have said up to this point. Please notice that when you speak of Bernie, you are talking about a self-declared "socialist." That is hardly a definition of "socialism." What is Bernie's definition of socialism? Do you have one? I'd like to see what it is. I am sure it is not any different than the ones I have read and studied. I am taking my definitions of socialism out of all the standard texts on economics and Marxism, besides the wikipedia. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: John317 The point is that they all want some form of government ownership of large portions of the economy or management of the economy rather than the economy being driven by the market and by free enterprise or capitalism. This may come as a shock to you, but not everything that is government ownership or managed is a form of socialism. And not everything that is anti-free market/capitalism is socialism. No, no shock at all. Again, Econ 101, Neil. There is such a thing as a mixed economy, and welfare states, etc., and these are what we have. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted October 12, 2008 Author Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2008 ....I know that there are a lot of lesser educated people who like to make like they know something by using those terms, but most of the time, it is NOT the case. The American economy is not divided into capitalism and socialism markets. And usually, when someone outside the discipline starts tossing those terms around, they don't know what they are talking about. Not everyone knows what Bernoulli principle is outside some physic majors, aeronautical engineers, medical doctors and respiratory therapist. Same holds true for economics and history buffs. Show me what I have said that tells you that I do not know what I am talking about. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.