Socialism...

A simple question that requires no one to bare their ass or display stupidity (or any unnecessary stupiditiy).

Do you think that Socialism is a natural thing like Marx? Do you think it is a false argument? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you think mankind would benefit from central government planning?

Our Founding Fathers must not have thought socialism was the way to go or they would have adopted that way of governing in the beginning. The United States has made it through 236 years without that way of life, my guess.....we will be around another couple of hundred years without it. Margaret Thatcher summed it up pretty well......“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ”

1. It is natural for some; those who want to mindlessly be taken care of and those who want to control others above all else.
2. It is false in as much as the first group above is never satisfied, there simply is not enough of other people's money to do that. But it works quiet well for the second group above, just look at the current Resident.
3. No, it is not a good thing.
4. No, mankind does not benefit from central government, nor central religion, nor any other form of "groupthink".
Just my opinions of course.

A simple question that requires no one to bare their ass or display stupidity (or any unnecessary stupiditiy).

Do you think that Socialism is a natural thing like Marx? Do you think it is a false argument? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you think mankind would benefit from central government planning? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

could not resist this

Dipshittery is a natural thing too...

Pretty good Cpt but Whatzup was better with the ass bob.

A simple question that requires no one to bare their ass or display stupidity (or any unnecessary stupiditiy).

Do you think that Socialism is a natural thing like Marx? Do you think it is a false argument? Do you think it is a good thing? Do you think mankind would benefit from central government planning? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I would have thought that a pravada reader would know the "company line" answer to this.

On a different note.
It turns out you were right. I was reading The Secret Police and the Revolution: The Fall of the German Democratic Republic . By Edward N. Peterson. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. 286 pages and your time in the American military did count towards your MFS (Stasi) retirement. What a drag for you when East Germany ceased to exist. But all’s well that ends well or should I say, Aller gut, der gut beendet? You got to betray someone else, you get a lifetime subscription to pravada, and I’ve been to Dresden, Germany 5-6 times on business. For you, other than living near cog in the middle of no where, being spared the rope is a pretty good deal.

Maybe one day you will be able to at least like America and not blame her for every mistake you have made in your life, every premature ejaculation, and every pre and post-operative transvestite you have mistaken for a girl.

Actually, democracy always ends in tyranny. That's why our Founders tried so hard to avoid it. Lasted a little while, but ended in 1913, when democracy finally took over.

A simple question that requires no one to bare their ass or display stupidity (or any unnecessary stupiditiy). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Originally Posted by tttalinky

Sometimes the best of intentions quickly go awry. In this case, JD's request for civility made it all of the way to the 1st follow-up post. So much for JD's request that responders refrain from "bare their ass or display stupidity (or any unnecessary stupiditiy)."

There are actually many different kinds and degrees of socialism.

You really need to define which type you are referring to.

. . . Personally, I think a more fundamental world problem is extremism, not socialism or even tyranny as the old geezer keeps yammering on about.

When you have a majority of the population that is too stupid to think for themselves you get Socialism. They really bad thing is some of those people become our leaders: Pelosi, Biden, Shelia Jackson Lee, the Jackson boy, the guy that thinks Guam would capsize, , et.al.

First, pfc-onestone and the others here of the teawipe reactionary right really don't need graphic assistance to show ass.

Second, I'm not sure that cranking up the ol' time machine and going back 100 years is much of a solution regardless of how comforting and self-satisfying pining away for the "good old days" is on a personal level. Time has marched on - get over it and live when you live.

Actually, "toughing it out" is something that, sadly, is in short supply. Maybe huge corporations and 2% of the population who have piles of money and the means to make more will find in their gut the fortitude to analyze and seek to understand the difference between making money and continuing to do so through productive work and the tax break welfare currently in place to allow them to keep and grow that money. I guess you find socialism where you look for it, eh?

The real debate has always about when fair play crosses the line into "real" socialism. Is it socialism to toss a pitcher out of a game and fine or suspend him for a beanball? He just did it because he could so what's the big deal? You know, if the batter was good enough he could have hit that pitch out of the park, right? There are hundreds of other sports rules examples that could be used, but I think you get the idea. Suffice it to say that those violations are publically out in the open and easily noticed by the average person without a lot of study and effort. Not so much when it comes to lobbying, accounting and legal shennagins corporations and wealthy individuals enact on a daily basis.

What is so silly about all of this, as well as most of the threads and postings about "the takers," is that most of the "takers" were givers when they were in the work force and still are if they are working. They don't get their SS and Medicare taxes back when they figure their taxes. Yes, some can get all of their FWH back but how many days in Afganistan would not allowing them to do so get us?

1. It is natural for some; those who want to mindlessly be taken care of and those who want to control others above all else.
2. It is false in as much as the first group above is never satisfied, there simply is not enough of other people's money to do that. But it works quiet well for the second group above, just look at the current Resident.
3. No, it is not a good thing.
4. No, mankind does not benefit from central government, nor central religion, nor any other form of "groupthink".
Just my opinions of course. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Combining money (taxes) for a so called Common Defense is Socialism , especially when some folks who are taxed do not want their money spent that way. It is no different than taxing a person who does not want to see his tax money go to say a poor person unemployment relief.

There are actually many different kinds and degrees of socialism.

You really need to define which type you are referring to.

. . . Personally, I think a more fundamental world problem is extremism, not socialism or even tyranny as the old geezer keeps yammering on about.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

I just wish the wingers would get a clue about the definition of socialism. The constant right-wing rhetoric about President Obama being a socialist is absurd under any reasonable interpretation of socialism, at least historically.