| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Oligarchy; Small Groups of Multi Millionaires Funding Super Pacs | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 25 2012, 11:04 PM (1,873 Views) | |
| Brewster | Feb 27 2012, 01:31 AM Post #61 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Poor Chris, every time he posts, he demonstrates his ignorance about yet another word. "Socialism" is not a four letter word, Chris. And it has a definite meaning - centralized government control of industry. It make no claims to control individuals, or limit their freedom. And there's nobody on this forum advocating even going THAT far. It must be at least a little embarassing by now, isn't it Chris? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 27 2012, 01:40 AM Post #62 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Contemporary social democracy" Just another branch of socialism. I often refer to it as socialism lite. Evolutionary socialism might be better. Social Democracy Much more at the link. To me social democracy, as socialism lite, is socialism that has realized it cannot sustain itself other than as a parasite of capitalism which it tried to manage politically, with the unintended consequence of crony capitalism. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 27 2012, 01:46 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
More insults from the master of insults. ""Socialism" is not a four letter word, Chris." If you bothered to actually read what I post, rather than ignore it, that is what I have said many times. "And it has a definite meaning - centralized government control of industry." What I've said again. If you bothered to actually read what I post, rather than ignore it... "It make no claims to control individuals, or limit their freedom." Nor have I made that claim. If you bothered to actually read what I post, rather than ignore it... "And there's nobody on this forum advocating even going THAT far." Of course no one advocates THAT, your special pleaded straw man. What you and rivers and others here advocate is social democracy, socialism lite. If you bothered to actually read what I post, rather than ignore it... "It must be at least a little embarassing by now, isn't it Chris?" Is it, brewster? Or is your arguing from ignorance embarrassing? If you bothered to actually read what I post, rather than ignore it then you might not argue from ignorance. But go ahead and keep it up, brewster, hoist your own petard some more. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Feb 27 2012, 01:47 AM Post #64 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You can choose to make up your own definitions, but they are incorrect as far as I'm concerned. I'll decide what I believe, not you or anyone else. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 27 2012, 01:49 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"You can choose to make up your own definitions, but they are incorrect as far as I'm concerned. I'll decide what I believe, not you or anyone else." You're still arguing prescriptive definitions when what I am doing is giving descriptions names. Don't get hung up on the word, aguign about words all the time, arguing about arguing, look at the descriptions, and try to respond to that--or don't. And, rivers, no one's trying to tell you what to believe, believe, and stand up for it. Edited by Chris, Feb 27 2012, 02:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Stoney | Feb 27 2012, 08:28 AM Post #66 |
Sr. Member
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can see where you'd say that we have different skills and backgrounds and ability and walk different paths and equate that to opportunity. I can see where you'd say that we have an obligation to provide the tools, the direction for success. But we all see success as something different. Some will sacrifice time with family and friends, relaxing on a beach or fishing with a child to pursue financial or power goals. Success to me is a modest living with the ability to explore this great land but its more important to spend time with family and friends to to be in the 1%. I don't think that makes me unsuccessful. At the same time I know that my goals took me in another direction than friends or school mates that view success differently. That doesn't give me the right to take the fruits of their work anymore that its their right to take mine. So there's at least two problems with seeking equality. One, we don't have the same goals and equality of outcomes would suit almost no one. Two, if you try to make one person equal to another then you must take something from one person to give to another. That's immoral in the general sense of the word. If I see the plight of someone else as needy and give to that need that is charity. Charity and theft are not the same. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 27 2012, 08:45 AM Post #67 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Equality of outcomes only makes sense in terms of abstractions like average Joe, and those perennials of class warfare the rich, the poor, the middle. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Feb 27 2012, 08:49 AM Post #68 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Socialism and even communism appeal to a populace when they feel they are not getting a fair shake. When the wealthy begin using their wealth to gain unfair advantage for themselves, much like the gilded age. The best medicine for preventing the push for socialism is a just society. Not laizes faire capitalism whereby the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and suffer the abuses similar to serfdom.
Edited by tomdrobin, Feb 27 2012, 08:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Chris | Feb 27 2012, 08:57 AM Post #69 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Socialism, communism are totalitarian, not populist movements. "When the wealthy begin using their wealth to gain unfair advantage for themselves..." Gained only possibly from corrupt government. "much like the gilded age" Debunked myth. "The best medicine for preventing the push for socialism is a just society." We agree...probably not, for to me that means take all the ill-gained, illegal power of government and return it to the people. "Not laizes faire capitalism whereby the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and suffer the abuses similar to serfdom." That's not capitalism you're describing, tom, that's mercantilism of feudal times, a forerunner to corporatism, Mussolini's name for socialism, what we now call crony capitalism. |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | Feb 28 2012, 12:40 AM Post #70 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://academicamerican.com/recongildedage/topics/gildedage2.html Do you think it's just coincidence that the peak of marxist and socialist sentiments occurred during the era of the gilded age and the robber baron age? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:14 PM Jul 11
