Socialists on American Campus

Snarly, I dropped back down and read what I said to you. Yeah, you're right. I respondedto your post with some pretty intense language. You didn't deserve that. And I'm man enough to own up for it.

I was responding to a shitload of very intense comments and jsut got fed up with the socialist scum on this site. I took your comment in that light and overreacted.

I tip my hat to you, where'd you bag your commies?

Just south of the Mexican border 1987

and out come the apologists.

let me 'splain that to you, Lucy.

I said "brazenly" because most progressives who, like you, make excuses for socialism and claim that it's NOT "all bad" hide behind the title "progressive" in order to disguise their socialist beliefs. No, you're not socialists, not at all. Sure, you believe what they believe, but you'd call it something else, put lipstick on the pig, and expect everyone else to be dumb enough to believe that a socialist government that is called "progressive", and policies that are socialist but are packaged as "social justice", are not actually socialist.

This guy dispensed with the pretense and was OPENLY calling for socialism, which is BRAZEN

1. Marked by flagrant and insolent audacity. See Synonyms at shameless. (yes, it's a synonim for shameless, and that's right)
2. Having a loud, usually harsh, resonant sound

tr.v. bra·zened, bra·zen·ing, bra·zens
To face or undergo with bold self-assurance

to boldly, loudly, flagrantly and insolently call for the overthrow of the US government and constitution, which is what these FIST socialists do, is being brazen, 100%.

they are just the brazen wing of the progressive nutters.

Curtis, thank you, you have made my day.

Where did you get apologist? How am I apologizing for anything? I assume you are implying that I am excusing the USSR, but again my post does not apologize for anything. A re read of my post should enlighten you curt, or maybe a more careful read in the first place would have been enough.

To the Lucy reference, you are truly a comedic genius. I applaud your creativity and zest.

Before getting to your defense of your word choice, I want to address more of your name calling. How did conclude I was Socialist or Progressive? Again, you must call on your reading skills (hopefully) acquired in K-3 and undergo a re read. Read my profile. Please find anywhere where I claim any of these, or any other "pig with lipstick" synonomous positions.

Now I will analyze the two definitions you provide, though a lack of citation brings credibility into question, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not pulling them out of your ass.

Your first definition hinges on the definition of 'insolent', which can be summarized as arrogant or insulting behavior or attitudes. You expand on that definition, "to boldly, loudly, flagrantly and insolently call for the overthrow of the US government and constitution, which is what these FIST socialists do, is being brazen, 100%". Re watch your own post, where did he call for an "overthrow of the US government and constitution", he said "we believe in democracy.. we are trying to bring about socialism" You are interpreting him completely wrong by jumping to the worst possible conclusion. There are many democracies with socialist parties, for example the French. To conclude that he, or all socialists, liberals, and progressives, is ridiculous. Unless of course you have some evidence that has evaded everyone else, for example if this is your video and he said that before you began filming.

Even if you were interpreting him correctly (if he agreed with your interpretation) an "overthrown of the US government and constitution" is not what liberals, progressives, or some socialists want. To label the views of a huge amount of people by one person is an extremely hasty generalization.

Your second definition of brazen, as essentially something that is loud, works much better. Yes, speaking through a megaphone is loud, with this definition you have analyzed the video correctly.

Your last statement "they are just the brazen wing of the progressive nutters.", if you meant 'he', I would say maybe. If you think his views are nutty, that is fine. But again, to generalize would be inaccurate.

Again, before labeling me with your Mccarthyist name calling, please take some time to actually read my post. I am glad you are able to conclude all of these things (apologist, liberal, progressive, socialist) from my post, but even I do not have the powerful psychic insight you have into my mind. I did not debate you on the meaning or implications of socialism, I only questioned your word choice and generalizations. You should post without littering your story with bias and dysphemism if you want people (other than those harmonious with your own biases) to take your posts seriously.

Note the citations, sorry for wiki-cites, I was short on time.
(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/insolence)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Senate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

There has never been a purely Socialist nation EVER. For you to assume that what YOU define as Socialism IS what Socialism is, means you have no understanding of etymology. Words do not have definite meanings, they are all Subjective. So let's not pretend like there is one irrefutable definition for "Socialism."

the point is that this posting flushed out people like you, naive, ignorant idealogues who actually think that 1) what Marx wrote was true, although time has shown it to be false, 2) that despite the fact that socialism has ALWAYS deteriorated into totalitarianism whereever it is implemented, "next time we'll get it right" and it'll be utopian.

And finally, you live in a country with the best, longest living democratic constitution and yet you would actually support socialists who would tear down that constitution and replace it with yet another socialist state that would inevitably turn into a totalitarian hell-hole.

Not too mention he is using our air too!

I wouldnt' expect someone who is admitted "indecisive" to be able to figure this out and take a stand.

If you don't get the point, you're not paying attention.

You're a coward, socal! No comment, just a negative vote.

And it's clear that you can't defend your own liberal bent that defends socialists like the one that is an admitted, card carrying socialist who wants to tear down the american government.

Congrats, you've outed yourself

Have you moved with Rush to Costa Rica yet, now he has made his millions off morons like you listening to his fascists crap everyday! Figure the coward wants to move out of the country since the people have figured it out! It won't belong till we change everything.

Of course capitalism has failed, it's fucking dying of cancer, it's eating itself. Who has rebounded from the the first part of the W dive that we are in. The only progress I have seen is in the stock market, and thats a gambling casino! Good luck you capitalist out there cause your going down, just like the rest of us slaves that haven't benefited at all from your extreme wealth. Winner take all capitalism works for a few but the scam is up and the people see through the fake vail you put up for us too see.

Well, of course the "capitalists" have been writing everything off.

They are socialists when it comes to everybody paying their way through write-offs. And then government contracts - are one or two hand-shakes away from many businesses.

What they've really been doing is living like robots, making sure every move is carefully accounted.

If it weren't for graft and buying off the government, they could make some kind of defense - but since we have corporate control of the government by individuals and business interests, against the intent of the Constitution, we can see that the money base will necessarily dissolve.

It's like a fire in the money pile - you have to have constraint of financial rape. These entities are drunk on it - and incapable of self-control and enlightened steerage.

They are incapable of governing, of correct dictate.

Perhaps if economy were correctly defined - so that monied interests and business could know what money and economy is. But the last word they had was greed is good and might makes right.

A healthy economy requires a robust distribution of wealth to support a robust production. Everybody has to have dollars for money to be valuable. Everybody producing = everybody has money - money gains value for both rich and poor.
Few people with money means few people producing. The value of money reduces - for all.

Money's only value is what people produce. If people aren't producing the value of the money reduces - and can disappear. Money could collapse.

If they really wanted to be greedy, they should make sure everybody else has money.

The cancer destroying our entire nation, and capitalism, is called SOCIALISM, desguised as progressive policies.

You are so full of shit, kenny. The roots of the economic collapse were in progressive policies that ENCOURAGED banks to change their risk assessments to help minorities and others who could not normally own a home get a mortgage, even if they could not afford to pay it back.

You should know that, but it's just convenient for you socialist loving fools to try to divert attention--pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Hahaha, oh boy, I didn't expect you to believe a Republican lie that stupid curtis.

Let's follow your narrative here. These poor banks were -forced- to hand out these subprime loans which they then artificially made attractive with AIG which allowed them to sell them to the stock market via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Oh those poor banks who made hand over fist printing paper for money, I wonder why they didn't say anything? They only spend millions of dollars every year lobbying congress, why didn't anyone hear them?

Poor George Bush, in power for eight years with a congress that would do whatever he wanted and he couldn't stop it. Those damned progressives!

Do I need to keep going or have you figured out how stupid this is yet?

Let's look at your response, Saladin.

1) The progressives DID regulate the loaning process and put in incentives and rules to try to encourage loans to unqualified borrowes.
2) "Progressives" does NOT mean just Democrats. McCain is a "progressive" republican, and so was Bush. If you'd take the time to listen to a few conservative programs you'll hear how they have been roasting Bush and McCain for years for their policies that were NOT conservative. The old tired assumption that conservatives LOVED Bush is too oversimplistic. They did NOT approve of many of this policies.
3) I'm NOT apologizing for the banks. The incentives created the environment that then unleashed the subprime mess. There was SHITLOADS of greed. No apologies there.
Those banks should have been allowed to crash. "Too big to fail" my ASS.
The bankers are BANKING on the fact that they will be bailed out. The problem will repeat itself ad infinitum until that ends.
4) Bush and the Republicans that promoted this insane problem got their come uppance when independents and not a few conservatives abandoned them in the elections. You'll not get an argument from me about that.
5) BUT let's also be honest: as far back as 2004 there were SOME Republicans who saw a problem in Fanny and Freddie and tried to warn us. Even those progressive repbulicans--Bush and McCain--heard the Clarion call and testified that the problem was coming. Bush went on TV.

But some Democrats--espeically the Congressional Black Caucus--backed Mr Raynes and supported the status quo.

The problem is NOT one simply of "democrats and republicans". And it's NOT a problem of "free market capitalism". The system has been heavily regulated for MANY years, and why is it so hard for you to grasp the notion that MANY of the problems were CAUSED by PISS POOR regulation?!

I'm a conservative. I didn't vote for Bush. NOT ONCE. Bush was NOT a conservative.

You are so delusional curtis, Rush really has you f**ked up in the brain, got your ticket yet to the Costa Rico heaven Rush has made for you. Cause we are sick and tired of your kind in this country always bitching and wanting more fascism. GO GO Rush is waiting for you.

I can't do this with civility, this one I have to rant about.

"1) The progressives DID regulate the loaning process and put in incentives and rules to try to encourage loans to unqualified borrowes. "

Blaming black people is a classic Republican tactic, I get it, but that's feed for the pigs and I thought you were smarter than that. Encouragement ISN'T FORCE. No one FORCED them to do this. THEY FUCKING KNEW, end of god damn story. That's it, there is nothing more to discuss. No incentive can make someone commit legal fraud to make an extra buck, they thought up the scheme and they're responsible.

"2) "Progressives" does NOT mean just Democrats. McCain is a "progressive" republican, and so was Bush. If you'd take the time to listen to a few conservative programs you'll hear how they have been roasting Bush and McCain for years for their policies that were NOT conservative. The old tired assumption that conservatives LOVED Bush is too oversimplistic. They did NOT approve of many of this policies. "

Oh REALLY? You mean the guy who Republicans consistently said was only outmatched by Lincoln and Washington? They didn't line up behind him? Are you fucking sure? Cuz I got a whole lotta O'Reilly and Limbaugh clips to show ya if you don't think they fucking loved this guy.

They're all the same -people-. They do not CHANGE. These old right-wing lies have been going on since Nixon and they really got good at with Reagan.

"3) I'm NOT apologizing for the banks. The incentives created the environment that then unleashed the subprime mess. There was SHITLOADS of greed. No apologies there."

Your whole fucking argument is an apology! You've just literally stated above "The roots of the economic collapse were in progressive policies that ENCOURAGED banks to change their risk assessments to help minorities."

This whole thing is a fucking desperate attempt to try and defend "the free market" from the regulation to get rid of these crooks that it so desperately needs.

NO ONE DID THIS BUT BANKERS, SO WHY THE FUCK IS YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT COMING FROM GOVERNMENT?

And then you have the audacity to say that you're -not- an apologist? You can't see the contradiction there?

"4) Bush and the Republicans that promoted this insane problem got their come uppance when independents and not a few conservatives abandoned them in the elections. You'll not get an argument from me about that."

No, none of the independent right-wing folks repudiated ANY of his policies! They're all going FURTHER right, they don't think he did ENOUGH. They want MORE wars, MORE torture, LESS regulation, the whole fucking right-wing show feels this ways.

Anyone that abandoned the right-wing boat is now one of your dreaded "progressives," asking for such nation destroying entitlements as regulations that send these crooks to jail.

"5) BUT let's also be honest: as far back as 2004 there were SOME Republicans who saw a problem in Fanny and Freddie and tried to warn us. Even those progressive repbulicans--Bush and McCain--heard the Clarion call and testified that the problem was coming. Bush went on TV.

But some Democrats--espeically the Congressional Black Caucus--backed Mr Raynes and supported the status quo."

No one did jack shit on either side, end of story. I have no love for the Democrats there, I don't have any for them all in fact. They ALL supported the status quo and most of them likely knew in private what was coming.

"The problem is NOT one simply of "democrats and republicans". And it's NOT a problem of "free market capitalism". The system has been heavily regulated for MANY years, and why is it so hard for you to grasp the notion that MANY of the problems were CAUSED by PISS POOR regulation?!"

That'd because THERE IS NO REGULATION. The SEC does jack SHIT, which is why the Bernie Madoff's of the world can run free.

Since the Reagan years, y'all have BEEN IN CONTROL. THERE IS NO REGULATION. Fucking Glass-Stiegel got axed! That was a 70 year old law!

No regulation ANYWHERE -forced- banks to hand out these subprime loans which they then artificially made desirable with front companies like AIG who then fooled the stock market into buying them and fucked over the whole economy to make a little extra money.

That's what happened, that's it. And as desperately as you try, there is no regulation in that story that caused this, just a big bunch of CROOKS allowed to operate freely because "free market" guys like yourself don't have a fucking CLUE how these people really operate.

"I'm a conservative. I didn't vote for Bush. NOT ONCE. Bush was NOT a conservative."

Yeah, you probably voted independence or constitution instead right? The guy's not right-wing ENOUGH for you.

"Incentives," "Encourage." Wait, in a previous post, I thought you said it was mandated? So they were ENCOURAGED and ENTICED...and not forced? So then I will have to assume that the Banks share the lion's burden of the responsibility. Wouldn't you, since they FREELY chose to issue risky sub-prime mortgages and then securitize them, and sell them off so the debt would not fall on themselves. This was a win-win-win for the Banks, and they KNEW that it would cause economic turmoil. You wonder why people want regulation?!

You blew him up big time saladin, now if he only knew how too comprehend what's been just handed him he would be a changed punk.

The Funny thing is Costa Rica has Socialized medicine
and another thing that's ironic we also have Socialized medicine
it's called medicare.

You think what has been done to the Health Care system with this Bill is SOCIALIST? Seriously?!

snarly you on the right track there. The class warfare we are experiencing is real and getting worse. Capitalism at this time is in stage 4 of cancer, it's eating itself before our very eyes. This is exactly what has been predicted and the only way out of it is socialism. OOOOHHHH what a scary name! Give Denmark, Germany, Holland, Switzerland and etc, etc a GOOD LOOK at what Socialism can do for the people who work for a living and have been exploited. Do some research, you will see that system is not a winner take all capitalistic scam, Socialism works well for the people.

the class warfare your promoting is straight out of the socialist handbook and wouldn't exist if you'd stop telling lies about capitalism. anyone who has an ounce of brains and a willingness to work can enjoy success in a capitalist society.

while only the bootlicking party hacks can enjoy "suck-cess" under socialism.

you apprently learned nothing from your alleged tour in Nam. Sad that you returned to the US and took up Charlie's cause.

Traitor

then get an education and take some goddamn responsibility for your own fucking future, snarly. jesus christ, so you make a barely livable wage. So what? So you think you'll get rich under socialism?

Take a look at what socialism has done adn tell me where the people ever got richer!

you can get an education here, find a career, start a business, and be as successful as you are willing to work for.

whiners never make it under any system

I've got an education, and I take responsibility for my life and my family. It's amazing how you think that a college education can just be handed out to whoever wants it, smacks a little of socialism there curt. I never said I'd get rich off socialism, in fact, never even expressed a desire to be rich, yet you feel that that is what I want handed to me. Looked at the cost of college lately, curt? damn near gotta be rich in the first place to afford it. And do you really think that capitalism would really work if everybody started thier own buisness? Who's gonna work for you? Stop stepping all over the working class citizens and give us the respect that we deserve. without us, every buisness in this system would collapse, but we don't fucking matter. Typical.

snarly, college education is FAR more costly now than it was a few years ago.

Guess who provides the majority of the education? THE GOVERNMENT. State Governments educate the VAST MAJORITY of our students.

IF they can't keep their costs down, what makes you think they will do differently if there was a socialist system in which TAXES paid all the costs?

Has our government curbed ANY of its spending out of respect for YOU, the working class?

Most of the reason the working class can't get ahead is because of TAXES! Even if YOU are not paying high income taxes, the businesses around you--including the one that pays you--are subject to the second highest tax rate in the world! Our corporate taxes average around 45% taxes. In Ireland, their rate is about 15%.

Those taxes are passed on to all the customers. OR, to employees (who are paid less, or laid off and replaced with robots)

I'm a worker just like you, brother. I'm not a rich business owner. I'm not making a killing. In fact, I earn less than many damn city bus drivers--did you know that the top paid bus driver in Baltimore earns about $160,000?

And you wonder why our businesses are being taxed to death?

Maybe you're right. I snapped at you pretty hard, I apologize. What I heard sounded like more of the whiny class warfare gobbledygook that pisses me off.

You sound like a reasonable person, I'm sure if you and I were having this argument over a beer we'd still both get heated but we'd also recognize that neither of us is the enemy to the other.

Keep working hard and I'll do the same. Just watch out for all these damn socialist bastards who will make things worse than they already are.

OOOOHHHH I'm so scared by your fascist words and all your crazy talk. You will see all the people coming to the democratic socialist door. They have had it with your fascists rush ideas and the Repugnants you cow tow too. GOOD Luck in Costa Rico chicken shit.

You're fucking so ignorant curtis, you have no idea.

The cost of schooling is up because fucking anti-tax conservatives like you SLASH ALL THE FUCKING PUBLIC SPENDING AND THEN DEMAND TAX BREAKS.

Guess who foots the bill jackass? ME and all my colleagues and out professors. The majority of our school's funding now comes from CORPORATE LOANS thanks to stupid pricks like you.

I wouldn't be so angry except this is something which affects me on a daily basis, and you just don't have the slightest idea how dumb you are.

Hey, kenny, you need to learn to read. I didn't say I was going to Costa Rica, you've been smoking too much dope

dickead, are you paying attention to what you're saying?

You are saying that college is expensive because WE won't pay for it in taxes.

Why the fuck should I pay increased taxes so YOU cna have a free education? I didn't get a free education, no one in my goddamn family got one, we borrowed, went to school, and paid back our loans. Quit being a pussy and get to work.

Meanwhile, you're full of SHIT. Here are the reasons for increases in college tuition, and SURPRISE administration is top of the list. Typical government bureaucracy. It just grows and grows because dickheads like YOU just want to shift the cost onto responsibile people like me.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/01/15/the-surprising-causes-of-tho...

A new report provides some surprising answers that will, unfortunately, probably only frustrate and anger them even more. At public colleges, tuition has generally been driven up by rising spending on administrators, student support services, and the need to make up for reductions in government subsidies, according to a report issued by the Delta Cost Project, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C.

* The main reason tuition has been rising faster than college costs is that colleges had to make up for reductions in the per-student subsidy state taxpayers sent colleges. In 2006, the last year for which Wellman had data, state taxpayers sent $7,078 per student to the big public research universities. That's $1,270 less (after accounting for inflation) than they sent in 2002.
* Public universities have been reining in overall spending per student in recent years. Flagship public universities' spending per student has risen from about $12,400 in 1995 to $13,800 in 2006 after accounting for inflation. But since 2002, spending at public colleges has generally not exceeded inflation.
* Increases in spending were driven mostly by higher administration, maintenance, and student services costs. Public universities spent almost $4,000 per student per year on administration, support, and maintenance in 2006, up more than 13 percent, in real terms over 1995. And they spent another $1,200 a year on services such as counseling, which was up 23 percent. Meanwhile, they spent about $8,700 a year on classroom instruction for each student, up about 9 percent.

In addition, public schools tend to serve many low-income students and minority students who need more remedial classes and extra counseling services than better-prepared students who attend elite private universities, says F. King Alexander, president of California State University—Long Beach

(don't you love that your tuition is going up because affirmative action forces in unqualified minorities that then require extra support --which YOU pay for--so YOU are subsidizing the unqualified minorities and bitching about policies YOU support! if you liberal students want so many social engineering programs, YOU pay for them)

But as more and more states facing budget crises consider further subsidy cuts and tuition hikes for public schools, parents and students are increasingly objecting to price increases for any reason. "Enough is enough," says James Boyle, president of the College Parents of America. A tsunami of applications at lower cost schools such as the California State University campuses shows that students and parents are voting with their feet. "The changing market for higher ed will cause colleges to hold down their expenses and state legislators to increase their subsidies," Boyle predicts.

Hey, I sympathize with increases in tuition, but it IS "socialism" to run around expectiving everyone else to pay for YOUR school and YOUR future career.

Maybe if you jackass students would think a little more, you'd stop getting degrees in worthless areas like bachelors in English and Psychology without thought of what career you can have with that degree.

Why should I pay for you to get a degree in English and you have NO way of paying that back later? Be pragmatic and get a degree in something that EARNS a living.

That was awesome, you nailed him!

Rush said he was going if the Democrats passed healthcare reform I just assumed you would go too since your an avid Rush ditto head.

here, here

It's not wrong, it's absolutely right, and your voting up, down or sideways doesn't change the fact that I'm right.

Excellent rebuttal, you've really proved your point.

You're right because you're right, well I'll make sure to keep that in mind whenever I post something from now on.

medicare and medicaid were the proverbial foot in the door initiated by socialists parading as "progressives", the same FDR who greatly admired Mussolini and who was in turn admired by Hitler.

It is the same program that decades later has convinced people like you and other brainless twits that we should continue to expand government, all while you also scream bloody murder about how government is treading on your rights.

be consistent: either admit you want a socialist totalitarian government and rights be damned, or get it through your thick skull that the more powerful the state, the less significant is the individual.

FDR admired Mussolini who's ass did you pull that from
what evidence is there to support that it seems you get all your history
from Glenn Beck it also seems you think any amount of Government is to much
Government.

It's curtis he is in his neo-con world.

FDR and Churchill both are quoted as admiring Moussilini, and FDR wrote in his personal letters that he admired Moussilini. I am not a fan of Curtisreed, but I do like to clarify things.

On another note, just because a nation like Cuba, the USSR and China have/had socialized medicine, in no way implies that the only way to have socialized medicine would be to have a totalitarian government. One does not include the other. That is an absurd and retarded insinuation on Curtis' part.

YOU wouldn't know what socialism was even if it sat on your fat face and farted. If you think we have gotten any closer to socialism since Obama's been in office you need to get off the heavy drugs. Really shut up, and read something besides Glenn Becks book!

Well put.

first of all no one said any thing about free food
and another thing there no public option in the health bill
also the stimulus was one third tax cut's a socialist he's not even a
liberal.

Public shools are free that means we should end public shools.

Bingo! Nailed it. Two thumbs up!

macfan, wake up dammit and listen to the goddamn video.

the asshole DID say that FOOD was one of the "rights" that everyone should have--what does that mean? That the government needs to provide FOOD for everyone.

As if it already doesn't provide welfare WIC and other services for those who are unwilling to work for a living.

But don't make comments without first listening to what I posted.

how DARE you label yourself a "mac fan", as in a FAN of Macintosh computers, which was created by a capitalist in a capitalist society and has employed many hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions), essentially "redistributing" wealth to all of those employees, and yet this kind of ingenuity NEVER results from ANY socialist society.

What technological or cultural innovations came out of the soviet union? north korea? cuba? (oh, I'm wrong. The cubans invented the amphibious '57 Chevy, that was innovative)

genius, by all accounts, public schools are a failure. we spend far more per capita than any other society and get less from it.

private schools, such as catholic schools, spend LESS per capita with much better results.

you would know this if it weren't for your shitty public school education.

typical kenny, lap it up without thinking.

public schools are a failure. and the liberals (AKA socialists) are fighting tooth and nail to prevent even moderate improvements such as school choice because they don't want people to be able to leave a failing school and attend a successful one.

And who does that impact the most? The POOR and especially MINORITIES.

But of course, that just helps Liberals (socialists) keep the minorities in a cycle of poverty, which benefits them, becuase they (YOU) thrive on promoting resentment, envy, and the subsequent class warfare.

Hey curtis keep licking RUSH'S boots and get ready to move to Costa Rica with him, when we pass healthcare.

While the USSR was NOT Socialist (you are ignorant to think this) they also were the first nation to put a man into space and the first nation to put an orbiting satellite into space. Are you sure you really know what you are talking about?

You know Curtis my Techer is a conservative
yeah your right i do have shitty education.

GREAT !! then you agree to cut food stamps, section 8 housing and subsidized school lunch programs!!!!!!!!! Me too!!! Let the schlubs STARVE!!

Public schools are not free and yes they should be relegated to local control.

Hey atleast you admit it. from now on i want you to label yourself a socialist/communist.

Communism has nothing to do with Socialism, geez I wish you guys would read a book or something. I know what the hell a commie is, I faced off against the commies for three years in Germany. Da!

Historically socialism has been the precursor to communism.

You can try and prove that, if you will!

Socialism defined by Webster's Dictionary as "an economic system aiming at public or government ownership of means, of production, etc." Socialism is an economic system run publicly via the government, where the government dictates economic policies and there is no private ownership. The people through the government own and operate the economic system.

Karl Marx viewed Socialism as the economic system "precursor to Communism" where the government teaches and implements the economic principles that lead a society into Communism. Winston Churchill described Socialism "as inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police."

And whats your point? You like the winner take all thing that capitalism has become. You know screw the commons and the good of all the people. If you want a fire department pay for it yourself like in the 19th century if you didn't pay for the fire department yourself they would let your house burn down. Got get me some more of that selfish capitalism!

Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme.

there you go, at least you've got the brazen brass balls to admit you are a socialist.

and I rest my point.

to all the libs running around here saying "we're not really socialists", I send a hearty FUCK YOU, you sure as hell are, you just don't have the balls to admit that you are.

And since the American constitution and the entire system was NOT built upon socialism, but instead upon individual liberty and a system of meritocracy, you are ANTI-AMERICAN.

Chew on that and stop screaming about how these are distraction tactics by O'Reilly and Beck. It's the truth and you just can't bear to admit that you do NOT share American values.

Go live in Cuba or North Korea and then come back and we'll see how you're singing.

"Fuck capitalism! It's got us were we are today"

So right! You have capitalism to thank for the fact that you can speak your empty mind without being hanged or shot. You have capitalism to thank for the fact that personal computers exist so you can type in your assinine and mindless comments for the general consumption of other brainless dickheads. You have capitalism to thank for the fact that you're fat and lazy and even the poor in this country can afford to be fat and lazy.

"The standard of living in the United States is one of the top 20 in the world by the standards economists use as measures of standards of living. Per capita income is high but also less evenly distributed than in most other developed countries; as a result, the United States fares particularly well in measures of average material well being that do not place weight on equality aspects."

Here is the truth: we have one of the highest standards of living, but our system only guarantees equality opportunity, AND NOT EQUAL OUTCOME. Because outcome is determined by one's ability to think, innovate, create, and work.

Socialism guarantees misery spread equally--with the exception of an elite political class that decides what everyone else is allowed to eat, drink, think, and enjoy.

mission accomplished! "what's the point" cried mr indecisive, and THIS was the point.

I flushed the socialists out in the open. It just kills me that there are so many liberals who believe everything socialists/communists believe but won't admit it because they KNOW that socialism is bullshit and tyrranical, but they want to continue to pretend that although everything they want to see happen IS EXACTLY what socialism promotes, it's somehow NOT socialism because they CALL IT a different name!

Here's an interesting execise: google "difference between communism and socialism". Watch the experts struggle to differentiate them.

Try another: "difference between fascism and socialism". There ARE differences, but they are incredibly minute when you get down to it.

Next, look into not just the THEORETICAL differences, but the PRACTICAL differences--how they were actually implemented.

This is why progressives often fall back on the theoritical dispute that "the soviet union was not really socialism", or "China was not really communism", and then they try to explain how it wasn't implemented right, but NEXT time they'll get it right, and it will be GREAT! You'll LOVE it, just trusssst us.

But the difference between free market democracy and socialism? NIGHT AND DAY

kenny 'faced off with the commies for 3 years in germany" and came home a socialist.

kenny, you mean the Deutsche Demokratische Republik or DDR (German Democratic Republic — GDR)? They called themselves democratic, but were they?

so now you admit you're a socialist, but can you tell me, if you implemented socialism, how would that be different from the DDR?

I challenge you: explain your vision for the utopian socialist state you want.

the point is, he proved his point. you were wrong. socialism is not now nor has it ever been nor will it ever be a utopia, no matter how much you want it to be.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill

Yeah, and wear a red star wherever you go that says "socialist".

DENMARK! The happiest country in the world, Democratic Socialist. What more proof do you need. Capitalism is in stage 4 cancer enjoy it while you can!

Curtis just admit it you HATE AMERICA!

We are sick and tired of you Fascists hating Americans curtis go move to another fascist country while we fix the mess your kind has made of AMERICA.

Curtis move too another country you fascist!

Oh man kenny, you just sealed your own coffin.

You just stated that the DDR CLAIMED Democracy but was NOT actually Democratic. Yet you INSIST that because Lenin, Stalin and Hitler CALLED themselves Socialists, then THAT IS what Socialism is. I have been saving some of your rebuttals in my emails so that I might return to them and debate some points, but I find you are a complete and total retard. You have not laid out a SINGLE argument against any Socialist point...you have only thrown bombs and insisted that if we like Socialism so much we should go to North Korea? They are NOT a Socialist Nation. Lasseiz Faire Capitalism produced the era of the Robber Barons and the almost total Monopoly of ALL industry in the US. It was only because of REGULATION that everyone was given opportunity.

You are a serf who lauds his master.

Really? I have capitalism to thank for my freedom of speech? And I have capitalism to thank for the fact that we have personal computers?

Wow, someone is bass ackwards. The freedom of speech was decided upon the founding of this nation, not our economic policy. Now we gained our independence because, among other things, England was taxing the hell out of the colonies for little or no reason other than to line their own pockets, but that does not mean that our freedom of speech is due to capitalism. Our free speech is due to intelligent men who debated and agreed upon when rights every human should have.

Also, computers would have come along without the advantage of capitalism. The basic hardware was designed long before there was profit to be made because the people who were designing the machines wanted to advance the science of computers. As far as the software needed to operate the machines, perhaps we would have been better off if Bill Gates hadn't broken into the market. He was the embodiment of capitalism after all, since he stole the idea and most of the technical work from one of his professors. Maybe we'd have a really popular operating system that worked without the constant threat of viruses or crashes if Gates hadn't ripped it off of someone else. Also, the internet is not something we have because of capitalism. The internet was originally designed for communication between military computers, and/or college professor's computers. Sure, you buy access to it today, but it was not because of capitalism that it exists.

Moving onto the truth about capitalism and socialism.

In a purely capitalist economy, one's outcome is not always or even often determined by one's ability to think, innovate, create, and work. It is more often than not determined by; who you know, how effectively manipulative you are, and how much money you have to propel yourself from the beginning. If capitalism worked for people on the basis for what you laid down we'd have; the Tucker Automotive Industry, the Blinking Windshield Wiper rather then the intermittent, no Enron energy scandal, and incredibly advanced alternative energy sciences.

I am also curious about the highest standards of living. Does that mean that every person on average in the United States has a higher standard of living then people of other modern nations on average, or does that mean that our rich have a higher standard of living than the rich of other nations?

In a purely socialism system nobody is on top. Politicians, civilians, soldiers, they all get the same. What you are describing was not a purely socialistic system but an attempt at socialism that degraded into a dictatorship.

Truth told, there has never been a successful purely capitalistic or socialized economy in the world. And is not because neither would work because they are fundamentally flawed, it is because neither would work because of the human element involved. The mostly socialist economy of the Soviet Union failed not because it didn't work, but because the leaders of the nation got into a pissing contest with the United States to see who could colonize space first and ended up going bankrupt. The mostly capitalistic economy of the United States has come within a hairs breath of death because social regulations on banks and businesses had been decommissioned, and those banks and businesses went to town like sharks feeding on a corpse.

We need socialism to an extent in this nation. We need a military that is not privately owned, we need a public police force, we need public education, we need libraries, we need roads that are maintained by the government, and we need regulations on businesses to prevent them from screwing the public like a blow up doll.

Bring it on! I doubt a fascist loving fool like you could even bring it!

Capitalism is about the market it dose not effect freedom of speech
and not all poor people are poor because they are lazy and today The middle class is falling apart i don't want to get of Capitalism but we do not have Capitalism we have an extreme version of it where Corporations can do what ever they want we need regulation like FCC and FDA which are involved in the free market which makes them Socialist programs we need a balance.

Are you from America? I do not understand anything you wrote.

Sorry I Did not see all those mistakes i made i kind of in a rush when i am thinking about
some thing.

that's just a stupid colloquialism that doesn't mean anything

exactly what I said. The damn programs you just mentioned were originated, planned and implemented at a time and by people in the late 20's and early 30s by people who saw a glorious new age coming, the age of socialism.

They idealized the Soviet Union and ignored its warts. The idealized the Fascists, who were National Socialists--look it up--and even FDR had a little romance with a certain italian by the name of Mussolini, greatly admiring him and vice versa.

Hitler saw FDRs proposals and lauded them for so closely resembling those of the beloved Third Reich. Health care, public schools, public works, a New Deal, all of that started in the age of Fascism and was seen as a great thing. FDR had a "come to God" moment when the war started, but the progressives never did admit that there was anything innately wrong with their programs.

And do you thnk the people in America foresaw the evils that would come from those programs? Do you think they realized what the new society would be?

A few supreme court judges challenged the constitutionality of the New Deal repeatedly, but FDR, "The American Dictator" (look it up), the only president to be elected 4 times, had accumulated unbelievable power.

So he threatened to change the number of supreme court justices from 9 to 15, and stack it with "progressives" (IE: socialists, or quasi-fascists). The justices caved and gave him what he wanted in order to preserve the traditional 9 member court (look up "the switch in time that saved nine")

But there WERE warnings that the entitlements programs would forever alter the American public and create a sub-class of dependent people, a voting block that would forever be asking for more. There were warnings that the Social Security Number would be abused and used to track individuals, and the Progressives said: "No it won't, we'll forbid it." Do I need to tell you WHO was proven right?

The American public got used to the federal government providing an ever expanding list of services that it was never intended to support. A Federal Bank--created by progressives, and against the advice of Jefferson who warned that "a Federal Bank poses a greater risk to Democracy than a standing army." Even progressives today worry about the Fed, but YOU GUYS created the goddamn thing.

Social Security was intended to serve ONLY as a form of insurance in case the unexpected happened, to keep people from being homeless and starving. Now the people DEPEND upon it. They are taxed so heavily they cannot possibly SAVE what they used to.

Sure, the cost of medicine has increased, but that's because our expectations for services has increased, and the quality and technical difficulty of the services has increased.

So Medicare, which was only intended to make sure the elderly were able to receive emergency medical care, has expanded without end and is now bankrupting the nation.

The solution according to progressives? Expand the programs 10x and we can't afford it. But never mind that little detail.

And so now you have young people who have grown up with government provided public schools, grants, loans, who see Social Security and Medicare and are told by the socialists that they have a RIGHT to those things and more--now they are saying "yeah, I want a FREE education (why should I be burdoned with paying back my school loan?), FREE healthcare (let someone else pay for the fact that I drink too much, smoke pot, engage in casual unprotected sex, eat shitty food and engage in dangerous activities)..."

These young people are NOT the same tough, rugged, independent individuals who kicked the asses of the Nazis.

No, now it's a generation of snot-nosed brats addicted to subsidies and video games, brains that are permanently dazed by frequent pot usage and no sense of responsibility.

THAT's what I'm talking about.