Obama Socialism Posters

Off Topic
81

[quote]Therizza wrote:
FuriousFists wrote:

I have come to expect the state to cater to medical needs in return for a chunk of my income. I couldnt imagine being injured or having an illness and having to cough up a large amount of money for treatment

Well, here in the USA, that’s how we roll differently than you guys. Self-determination and all that. What the fuck do you think the role of the government is, a big soup kitchen to give handouts?[/quote]

The shift and trend today is socialistic…social justice and class warfare.

People want to see the rich get poor.

People don’t want to see companies make a profit when they themselves are struggling.

People want the rich to pay for their benefits. Being rich = Evil.

People who vote for these tax paid services usually don’t pay into the system.

This country is full of self guilt whiney, pathetic estrogenic losers who want “Theirs” given to them by the Government while being taken from those who have more than they do. Quite the opposite from the 50’s mantra and self reliant based trend of “Make better for yourself through your own hard work”. My grandparent, parents, and myself, would be ashamed to seek a handout or look to any other entity besides OURSELVES to make our lives better. Now welfare and social services it’s just a shameless normal thing to do for a lot of people.

It is said that each country deserves the government they have. We have allowed failure to be embraced instead of shunned. We have allowed gender to outwiegh qualifications, race to outweigh intelligence, and now we have a bunch of losers wanting to make life “Fair”…like a 5 year old.

82

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Funny, but its the opposite end of the political spectrum from the Joker. The Joker is an Anarchist…about as anti-government as you can get.[/quote]

Actually the MO is very similar…advancement through chaos and crisis.

83

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Therizza wrote:
FuriousFists wrote:

I have come to expect the state to cater to medical needs in return for a chunk of my income. I couldnt imagine being injured or having an illness and having to cough up a large amount of money for treatment

Well, here in the USA, that’s how we roll differently than you guys. Self-determination and all that. What the fuck do you think the role of the government is, a big soup kitchen to give handouts?

The shift and trend today is socialistic…social justice and class warfare.

People want to see the rich get poor.

People don’t want to see companies make a profit when they themselves are struggling.

People want the rich to pay for their benefits. Being rich = Evil.

People who vote for these tax paid services usually don’t pay into the system.

This country is full of self guilt whiney, pathetic estrogenic losers who want “Theirs” given to them by the Government while being taken from those who have more than they do. Quite the opposite from the 50’s mantra and self reliant based trend of “Make better for yourself through your own hard work”. My grandparent, parents, and myself, would be ashamed to seek a handout or look to any other entity besides OURSELVES to make our lives better. Now welfare and social services it’s just a shameless normal thing to do for a lot of people.

It is said that each country deserves the government they have. We have allowed failure to be embraced instead of shunned. We have allowed gender to outwiegh qualifications, race to outweigh intelligence, and now we have a bunch of losers wanting to make life “Fair”…like a 5 year old.

[/quote]

um, no.

the whole structure of the enconomy is fucked right now, the rich arent just rich but its such a dispropotionate number of wealth to the rest of the people that if money is going to come from somewhere it might as well be taxed from people who already have a shit ton of it and can still make ends meet afterwards. they’re temporary measures to a permanent solution. i dont see how trying to make the gap between poor and rich smaller is the same as socialism.

i agree with you on the welfare though, i’m far from rich and i’d much rather pull myself up by my own bootstraps than to just take a handout. mainly because if your game plan is “im going to live off the government forever” thats such a meager life. you can never go on vacation, you can never do anything special for your family or for yourself, its dispicable to live that way. and sadly i see A LOT of people, especially young people who just plan to live off of government handouts and i think its appalling.

however, creating programs to give people a chance to actually make a living for themselves even if these programs come about by taxing the poor can only benefit all of society in the long run. the more people who have jobs and are thus able to not only teach their kids better values as hardwork shapes character and also shows by example that you need to work, it also provides an opportunity to strengthen weak school systems which is probably the single greatest factor holding people back in this country. you cant get a job if you cant read. if you can’t do math past multiplication.

i don’t think Obama is going to magically cure everything but i think he’s the only one who actually gives a shit about taking some kind of initiative.

84

Penile Enlargement!!!

LOL!!!

Sorry, needed to inject a little GAL back into this topic.

85

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont see how trying to make the gap between poor and rich smaller is the same as socialism.

[/quote]

Lofty idea, but the way it is done is taking from those who have to give to those who do not, and restricting bonuses and pay in industries are Socialistic tactics. Obama has taken over 2 major car companies, Banks, and want’s to take over the entire Healthcare industry as well. Cap and Trade is a means to control our economy. Our economy should be Gov hands off free market.

Definition of Socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

86

so families who make a combined income of 150k are too rich… OK

87

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Therizza wrote:
FuriousFists wrote:

I have come to expect the state to cater to medical needs in return for a chunk of my income. I couldnt imagine being injured or having an illness and having to cough up a large amount of money for treatment

Well, here in the USA, that’s how we roll differently than you guys. Self-determination and all that. What the fuck do you think the role of the government is, a big soup kitchen to give handouts?

The shift and trend today is socialistic…social justice and class warfare.

People want to see the rich get poor.

People don’t want to see companies make a profit when they themselves are struggling.

People want the rich to pay for their benefits. Being rich = Evil.

People who vote for these tax paid services usually don’t pay into the system.

This country is full of self guilt whiney, pathetic estrogenic losers who want “Theirs” given to them by the Government while being taken from those who have more than they do. Quite the opposite from the 50’s mantra and self reliant based trend of “Make better for yourself through your own hard work”. My grandparent, parents, and myself, would be ashamed to seek a handout or look to any other entity besides OURSELVES to make our lives better. Now welfare and social services it’s just a shameless normal thing to do for a lot of people.

It is said that each country deserves the government they have. We have allowed failure to be embraced instead of shunned. We have allowed gender to outwiegh qualifications, race to outweigh intelligence, and now we have a bunch of losers wanting to make life “Fair”…like a 5 year old.

um, no.

the whole structure of the enconomy is fucked right now, the rich arent just rich but its such a dispropotionate number of wealth to the rest of the people that if money is going to come from somewhere it might as well be taxed from people who already have a shit ton of it and can still make ends meet afterwards. they’re temporary measures to a permanent solution. i dont see how trying to make the gap between poor and rich smaller is the same as socialism.

i agree with you on the welfare though, i’m far from rich and i’d much rather pull myself up by my own bootstraps than to just take a handout. mainly because if your game plan is “im going to live off the government forever” thats such a meager life. you can never go on vacation, you can never do anything special for your family or for yourself, its dispicable to live that way. and sadly i see A LOT of people, especially young people who just plan to live off of government handouts and i think its appalling.

however, creating programs to give people a chance to actually make a living for themselves even if these programs come about by taxing the poor can only benefit all of society in the long run. the more people who have jobs and are thus able to not only teach their kids better values as hardwork shapes character and also shows by example that you need to work, it also provides an opportunity to strengthen weak school systems which is probably the single greatest factor holding people back in this country. you cant get a job if you cant read. if you can’t do math past multiplication.

i don’t think Obama is going to magically cure everything but i think he’s the only one who actually gives a shit about taking some kind of initiative.

[/quote]

I agree with Rock. I think people who support continuous welfare programs and thus help people get addicted to government handouts are enablers. It is completely fucked up to get someone and their children hooked on gov’t. It’s so sad that children are born into that and the gov’t programs used to encourage children being born into it.

There is nothing more socialist than taking one person’s property and giving it to someone else. If I choose not to do whatever it takes to get a college degree and make the most money that I can, and instead decided to live of the gov’t tit do I have a right to your property? Is it morally or socially acceptable for me to use the threat of death or loss of liberty to take things from you? If an individual does it we call it theft or robbery; if the gov’t does it for someone then we call it taxes for the less fortunate and making “fortunate” (as if they are fortunate not b/c of self-discipline and hard work but b/c of random luck) pay their fair share. Bullocks!

Life isn’t fair. It never will be. Trying to “level” the playing field is horseshit. Where would it stop? At political boarders? Geologic boarders? It that’s how you feel then feel free to starting living that life (as suggested above). But do not try to force from me things that I’ve worked hard for b/c you want that. Here’s another Jefferson quote, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have away.”

88

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
If you want proven facts about that read Noam Chomsky.
[/quote]

Did you just use proven facts, and noam chomsky in the same sentance?

89

[quote]tom63 wrote:
The Bush fascist thing is a huge stretch, the Nazis, which he was often called, were actually left wingers, socialists.[/quote]

Wrong.

Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist

* Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and political support from industrialists and conservatives.

* The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist principle.

* Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.

* In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to "socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all) socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private property and have labor unions.

* Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.

* After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.

* The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in private hands.

* The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality (either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans), collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations, in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl Marx.

* During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing" Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst Röhm were ruthlessly purged and even killed.
90

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
artw wrote:

The first problem would be weather private companies will even be able to stay in business. Making them unable to compete is the same effect as outlawing them. Yeah, you can choose whatever coverage you want, but the government plan might be the only one around.[/quote]
Why would private companies, if they were not outlawed, not be able to compete? Are you saying the government plan will so good, so efficient and so cheap that no one would buy private insurance any more? Would that be a bad thing?

Never heard this before, if this is true then people have a valid reason to oppose this bill. However, I was under the impression that the bill had yet to be written up. I’ll have to look that up later.

It’s possible that the public option may work so well that it would eventually be expanded into single payer after a few years but, even if that were the case, private insurance would still find a way to exist.

91

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
If you want proven facts about that read Noam Chomsky.

Did you just use proven facts, and noam chomsky in the same sentance?[/quote]

Yes. I have never read a book that proves it points like that.

92

[quote]artw wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
artw wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
artw wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
artw wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
artw wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
artw wrote:
Therizza wrote:
jasmincar wrote:
artw wrote:

You are gonna get flamed man. These people just dont understand. It is not a rationnal thing. Rightwing is notoriously not rationnal.

Says the foreigner…

Yeah, no shit. Lol…fucking foreigners. Hard-line right wingers may not be known for their rationalism, but who on either far end of the spectrum is? I don’t give a fuck if I get flamed. It’s just a fucking Internet forum. I’ve been flamed on here for all sorts of shit. Maybe I won’t get flamed. Shit, who am I kidding? I’m probably gonna get roasted. Fuck it.

I am sorry but communist russia was by far the most rationnal regime. You may think whatever you want about them but remember this: they didnt believe in god. And the other side of the sea there was Reagan who was saying that you couldnt trust them because they didnt believe in god.

Are you for real? Do you know how the justice system worked in the USSR? You’re accused of crimes against the state, arrested with no legal recourse whatsoever, you’re found guilty based on who knows what sort of trumped up evidence, they take you out in the hallway and put a bullet in your head. Oh yeah, and no one else knows about it because there’s no such thing as freedom of the press, freedom of information act or anything else along those lines. You want to know how communism works? Look up the 100 Flowers Campaign or Mao’s Cultural Revolution and then get back to me about being “rational”. At least in America we have the freedom to believe in whatever kind of God we want as well as the freedom to believe in no God. Not so in the USSR. Holy shit you’re so fucking ignorant. You like communism, huh? Move to North Korea or China and see how much you like it then.

yeah so what. They were corrupted. It wasnt a real communist country . I am talking about political theoritical stuff. We are talking about abstract concept here and having a system where there is no religion is part of the concept. In the book by karl marx nowhere it is written about trumped evidence. So why dont you calm down a little bit. Jesus Christ calling people ignorant doesnt do any good

I bet you are screaming at your computer and freaking out like those guys on fox

Actually, I’m quite calm right now. I understand you’re talking about an abstraction, but theory and reality are two entirely different things.
I live in reality, not abstraction so let’s stay with real shit here.

Sure. I wouldnt go live in China or North Korea, but the point is that communism is the most rationnal regime. Damn this information comes from a fucking objective school textbook. I dont know if you got objective ones in USA.

Like the reality of Obama’s perceived “socialist” leanings being a lightning rod for his critics due to a perceived connection between ALL forms of socialism and communism. And please don’t lecture me about perception vs. reality. This ain’t my first rodeo.

I dont get what you are saying. Do you mean that because some people thinks obama is a socialist he really is? This is bad mental health and paranoia.
If he was really a socialist he couldnt have runned from presidency. Do you know that there is a socialist party in USA? Why can’t you vote for them? Why is there only 2 party?

It is funny that we dont hear about them. When the watergate scandal came up to light the CIA was already raiding and doing various pression on the socialist party office for a long time. No one talks about that. Just food for tought

Actually, I believe there were eleven candidates for President on the ballot, give or take 1 or 2 depending on what state you’re in. If the Socialist Party has enough registered members, they can get onto the ballot just like any other political party. I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. You can write in anyone you want. In fact, I’ve heard that Homer Simpson always gets a few hundred votes. But what would you know about the inside of an American voting booth?

I’ll give you that. But the fact that you have to raise millions to get into the race doesnt help. I might be wrong but people told me there was only 2 squares: democrats or republicans

What I’m saying is that regardless of whether Obama actually is a socialist or not, I think it is a bit of a copout to try to label him as one in a negative way by implying overtly or otherwise that socialism is inherently wrong or evil or contrary to what America stands for. Not everything about socialism is bad, especially when you move away from Marx’s theories about it (given that he saw socialism as a stepping stone to communism, a CLEARLY flawed, evil political system). Since not everything about socialism is bad, I think it shows a certain lack of knowledge about what socialism really is when people label Obama as a socialist in a purely negative light. I think in many cases people are trying to criticize him for being something when they don’t really have a clear grasp of what that something is. Is that clear enough for you?

The problem is that he is clearly not a socialist. He is at the center. In USA everything is massively distorted toward right wing (dont deny that) so some people call him a ‘‘socialist’’.
No I wouldnt say he is at the center. He is leaning to the right but clearly not enough for some people. If he was slightly at the left do you really think he would have passed through the system?

I dont think communim as a system is flawed. People are flawed. I dont see why it is evil too.

Well, when a Democrat wins the Presidency in an electoral landslide, with the largest voter turnout ever, and there’s a Democrat-controlled House and Senate it’s a little hard to validly claim that the US is massively distorted toward the right-wing.

And part of how any system is, in regards to its theoretical soundness, is how it is implemented. Communism as a theory may be fine (not in my opinion), but the way it is implemented requires massive oppression and subjugation of the people. It has never been implemented any other way. Because its implementation is a crucial part of its soundness, based on how it is implemented and actually used, it is EXTREMELY flawed.

democrats are right-winger, but less right wing than republicans. And yes the US is massively distorted toward the right-wing. Notoriously by the media. If you want proven facts about that read Noam Chomsky.It is what I did and now I know at which extent the media has this sort of right-wing information filter (which I already sorta known, but now I have proven fact with reference and all).

textbooks are not completely objective, but the main point is still there. Look at all political chart, you know the little rose with arrows in a square, I dont know how the say it in english. Anyway in any of them rationnalism is pointed to the left. You can take by example Nazism or fascism.It was all about emotions, glory and anti-intellectualism. Nazism and fascism is at the far right in the spectrum. Nazi burned book.Also I heard Palin did that too in Alaska. and I say the video about with the preacher. rationnalism is a left thing. You can’t deny that

Jesus Christ, you’re gonna get your lessons about the “right wing media” from Noam Chomsky? I like some of Chomsky’s writings and all, but that guy is pretty far left. Not the most credible source for “objectivity”. Are the claims of “left-wing media bias” overblown? Sure, but in much the same way that claims about “rw media bias” are. I don’t know which way the media leans anymore, generally, but whichever way it leans has no bearing on where the country itself leans. Most political orientation surveys in this country place about 70-75% of the people squarely in the middle, with equal amounts of the rest on either side of them. What people’s ideas about what the “center” represents is another thing, but if the center is somehow skewed toward the right-wingers, there sure were a shitload of right-wingers who voted for a left-of-center President.

As far as your chart goes, come on man. Just because some stupid fucking chart points left for rationalism and right for fascism doesn’t make it so. Shit fascism and Nazism are so far out there that there is no spectrum that holds them. In fact, the whole political spectrum thing is bullshit. I’m a Libertarian. Where would you place me? I’m all over the place on your “spectrum”, depending on the issue. I’m against abortion, so I’m a right-winger, right? Oh, but wait! I also support gay marriage, so now I’m a left-winger! See my point?[/quote]

Nope. Charts are a pretty accurate representation of reality. It is made by people who really know about politics and studied it. Not by any internet forum guy. Dont try to mic things up.

The point is: Left wing is more rationnal than right-wing.

Of course the media makes people lean on one side.It is so obvious that Us media are right-wing I cant believe you believe what you say. Media are private compagnies owned by guys who are mostly at the far right.
Do you live in reality?

I made a little google research. Note that most of US candidates are right-wing
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usstates?al=on&ak=on&az=on&ar=on&ca=on&co=on&ct=on&de=on&fl=on&ga=on&hi=on&id=on&il=on&in=on&ia=on&ks=on&ky=on&la=on&me=on&md=on&ma=on&mi=on&mn=on&ms=on&mo=on&mt=on&ne=on&nv=on&nh=on&nj=on&nm=on&ny=on&nc=on&nd=on&oh=on&ok=on&or=on&pa=on&ri=on&sc=on&sd=on&tn=on&tx=on&ut=on&vt=on&va=on&wa=on&wv=on&wi=on&wy=on

791×901 109 KB

the most interesting:

note that the socialist and communist are at the top, the top of the reason arrow

maybe this is gonna straigten up your vision. This comes from google. Do you really think people who made this are biaised?

93

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
tom63 wrote:
The Bush fascist thing is a huge stretch, the Nazis, which he was often called, were actually left wingers, socialists.

Wrong.

Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist

* Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and political support from industrialists and conservatives.

* The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist principle.

* Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies. This can be seen as contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.

* In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to "socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all) socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private property and have labor unions.

* Hitler received strong support from conservatives for the "Enabling Act." This legislation was opposed by social democrats.

* After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co.

* The profits of large corporations soared under the Nazis. With the exception of Jewish property which was seized and sold, capitalist enterprises were not expropriated or nationalised but remained in private hands.

* The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality (either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans), collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations, in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl Marx.

* During the party's ascendency in the 1930s, so called "left wing" Nazis such as Gregor Strasser and Ernst R�¶hm were ruthlessly purged and even killed.

[/quote]

Thanks for those points – some interesting tidbits about Nazi history.

I have a theory on this whole concept of the “political spectrum” and the far right and far left, which I find useful in explaining the confusion often associated with extremist political regimes. Essentially, I think that the spectrum is often thought of as a line, whereby the majority of people seek out the mid-point as the political “center.” I tend to think of it more as a circle, so that at some point of political extremism, right and left actually converge on each other.

Incidentally, I also think that most of our time in the body politic is spent discussing “progress” when we are really just traveling in various directions around that circle. But that’s really a whole other topic

94

Wrong.

Reasons Nazism is not considered socialist

  • Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and political support from industrialists and conservatives.

[/quote]
Conservative in respect to what?

Do you mean communist class collectivism? Yeah, because German race collectivism was soooo different. Besides, at that point you are comparing Nazism and communism, not socialism.

In which case communists trying to benefit only the workers werenâ??t communists. They were attempting to benefit everyone in their group same as any socialist party.

Yes, itâ??s yoursâ?¦. But you have to do exactly what the furer wants you to with itâ?¦ You are actually going on campaign promises.

Conservative in respect to what again?

No way, a dictator attempted to do away with political rivals.

I think you need to look up corporatism.

Communists didnâ??t believe in equality between classes. They felt workers deserved more than other classes. Once again, they arenâ??t socialist?

Once again the relative use of left and right is incredibly misleading.

I think most of what you are noting is true, however, I think you are missing a big piece. In the Nazi economic scheme, corporations became the government.

It is semantics to be whether it is a government board or a â??trade guildâ?? calling the shots. Fascism was a form of socialism that preserved corporate power structure by including them as part of the state.

Companies were used as the middle men for socialism.

You are talking about there being animosity between communist/socialist parties because they were so different. I have a different possibility. They hated each other because they were fighting over the same political base. â??first brown then redâ??.

Example: Mike Hukabe hates libertarians. This doesnâ??t however make him liberal. He hates them because they take republican votes.

Lets not forget Hitler (and Mussolini) was originally a devote socialist and socialist party member. I mean socialist is even in the title of his party.

Both communists and Nazis had alike goals and ideals, they just decided on different means they respectively considered best to get there.

Fascism is an inherently left ideology with a socialist economic base.

Though I have to admit that Hitlerâ??s fascism is rather hard to nail down in a given ideology. Pretty much he was crazy and did what he felt like a lot of the time. I think that makes it more difficult to give a specific method to his decisions, but it was an all powerful all encompassing government. Period. You can anecdotally relate relative left vs. right of the day campaign speeches and struggles, but there isnâ??t anything conservative (in todayâ??s meaning) about Nazism. The emergence of fascism split the socialist political base. The rest is back biting within the ideology.

95

[quote]anonfactor wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
John S. wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
artw wrote:

The first problem would be weather private companies will even be able to stay in business. Making them unable to compete is the same effect as outlawing them. Yeah, you can choose whatever coverage you want, but the government plan might be the only one around.
Why would private companies, if they were not outlawed, not be able to compete? Are you saying the government plan will so good, so efficient and so cheap that no one would buy private insurance any more? Would that be a bad thing?

Second, unless it�¢??s been changed, there is a clause in the bill that would eventually literally outlaw private coverage. It says you can keep what you have and what you currently have only. It bans enrolling in private coverage. So you can�¢??t ever change carriers, or sign up your kids. If you change jobs or anything, you end up on the public plan, and once you are on the public plan, you no longer have a choice.
Never heard this before, if this is true then people have a valid reason to oppose this bill. However, I was under the impression that the bill had yet to be written up. I’ll have to look that up later.

But I guess you are saying it isn�¢??t socialism unless they directly move to a single payer system all at once.

It’s possible that the public option may work so well that it would eventually be expanded into single payer after a few years but, even if that were the case, private insurance would still find a way to exist.

[/quote]

Not because it’s cheaper, but because you are already paying for it. Most people I know don’t like to pay twice for something.

Essentially, you have the choice between a red and green sucker. You can have either, but Iâ??m taking your money to pay for the red one either way.

Government care doesnâ??t have to be better or cheaper to put private companies out of business.

96

I’m surprised to see so many attempts to defend systems that have failed all over the world in this thread. Do they no longer teach history in public schools any more or something? It seems like they definitely don’t teach economics…

Just a couple of quick points:

Private insurance companies will not be able to compete with the government because the government does not need to make a profit to survive. It’s very simple. Every politician that tells you that private insurance will still be an option once government gets involved in the health care business thinks you are to stupid to realize this. It’s a massive power grab, they know once they control your health care it will be much easier to stay in power, and in essence control you.

Health care is not a right. If you claim it is a right, you are stating that you have the right to the services of someone else, which you do not. You did not make the monetary and time sacrifice to learn those skills and you have no claim on someone elses abilities, unless they choose to offer them to you. In this free country, the government cannot hold a gun to a doctors head and make them treat you… Health care is a service you acquire in exchange for money, be it money from your insurance company, you savings, or some other source, or from the charity of the provider.

If you cannot afford insurance and have not saved enough to take care of yourself, tough. A hospital isn’t going to turn you away and let you die, but you are irresponsible, since it is no ones responsibility but your own to take care of you and your family. Get a 2nd job, cancel your cable TV and cell phone, do what it takes to handle your responsibilities. Stop being a leach on society and take responsibility for your own life. If you can’t afford things you think you deserve, work harder, don’t try and take them from people who earned them.

Socialism and communism don’t work. If you argue this point, you are ignorant of history. I recommend a library card and some history books to solve this lapse in your education.

The gap between the wealthy and poor can be fixed very easily. All the poor have to do, is stop the behavior that makes them poor. In this free country, you can work more than 1 job. You can educate yourself for free with a library card or internet access. You can start a business, work hard, and become very successful with no start up money and no experience. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon or a brain scientist to clean offices or mow lawns. If you work your ass off, seek out and create opportunity, and make good decisions, you can and will succeed. If you work 35 hours a week and spend your minimum wage paycheck on lotto tickets and cigarettes what do you expect.

It doesn’t take being smart, privileged, lucky, genetically gifted, or any other non-controllable feature to successful. It just takes hard work. The different between those who succeed, and those who bitch, moan, and seek handouts is nothing more than a mindset. There will always be people who blame others for their lack of success, and think success is a matter of luck and not hard work. Those people will continue to fail and mire in it, while others may start poor, be poor at times do to difficult circumstances, but will ultimately succeed because instead of bitching, they work hard and start succeeding.

97

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont see how trying to make the gap between poor and rich smaller is the same as socialism.

Lofty idea, but the way it is done is taking from those who have to give to those who do not, and restricting bonuses and pay in industries are Socialistic tactics. Obama has taken over 2 major car companies, Banks, and want’s to take over the entire Healthcare industry as well. Cap and Trade is a means to control our economy. Our economy should be Gov hands off free market.

Definition of Socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [/quote]

you know things like the post office, police, and fire dept are all ‘socialist’ ideas too, right? i guess you guys who were around for the whole Red scare thing are just mentally scarred for life about the word.

98


nazism = nationalism … literally.

nazism is socialist though. thats how its referred to in countless textbooks and even in nazi propaganda pamphlets.

the poster says “the workers have awakened - choose the national-SOCIALISTS” aka the Nazis.

â??Socialism is possible only in a state which is free inside and outside. Down with political bourgeois sentiment: for real nationalism! Down with Marxism: FOR TRUE SOCIALISM! Up with the stamp of the first German state!" that is from a Goebbels pro-nazi propaganda pamphlet

so considering that the Nazis themselves were pushing for socialism i think its safe to say that Nazis were indeed socialists.

oh snap, the kid from Community College just schooled you!!!

99

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont see how trying to make the gap between poor and rich smaller is the same as socialism.

Lofty idea, but the way it is done is taking from those who have to give to those who do not, and restricting bonuses and pay in industries are Socialistic tactics. Obama has taken over 2 major car companies, Banks, and want’s to take over the entire Healthcare industry as well. Cap and Trade is a means to control our economy. Our economy should be Gov hands off free market.

Definition of Socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

you know things like the post office, police, and fire dept are all ‘socialist’ ideas too, right? i guess you guys who were around for the whole Red scare thing are just mentally scarred for life about the word.

[/quote]

Yes it’s been around, but enough. USPS is a service and is paid for and funded through stamps and some taxes. Local Government Police/Fire is community financed, and not a Federal item, but it is used to protect us, not to oppress us and force us into anything…

100

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
LiveFromThe781 wrote:
i dont see how trying to make the gap between poor and rich smaller is the same as socialism.

Lofty idea, but the way it is done is taking from those who have to give to those who do not, and restricting bonuses and pay in industries are Socialistic tactics. Obama has taken over 2 major car companies, Banks, and want’s to take over the entire Healthcare industry as well. Cap and Trade is a means to control our economy. Our economy should be Gov hands off free market.

Definition of Socialism:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

you know things like the post office, police, and fire dept are all ‘socialist’ ideas too, right? i guess you guys who were around for the whole Red scare thing are just mentally scarred for life about the word.

[/quote]

Yea, so is the RMV (or DMV) and if that’s not a nightmare I don’t know what is…