[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Strict government control over everything (like the USSR) is totalitarian socialism. Just because the USSR has socialist in its name doesn’t mean it’s a good reprentation of socialism; [/quote]
Care to name a country that you would consider being a “good representation of socialism” ?
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
I’m not trying to come at you ZEB, I like to keep things civil, but you don’t understand what true socialism really is. Based on what I’ve seen you say, you see socialism as presented though Glenn Beck’s eyes, rather than what it truely means.[/quote]
Here is a clue for you. I’ve been a conservative republican long before Glenn Beck was ever a radio/TV star. I was a Reagan republican and well understand what a free market President looks and sounds like and Obama is NOT it. He’s a big government, free spending lefty. Does he have socialist leanings? Absolutely. Would he try to go further down that road if he could get away with it? Most definitely. Is National health care one more step toward socialism. Yes, without question. I don’t have to study Marx to know that Obama is a socialist. Maybe he’s not enough of a socialist to please you or some others, but that’s only because he could not get away with it in the US.
Also, when you compare Obama’s spending to GW Bush’s 8 years keep in mind that Obama has only been President for 20 months and has out spent GW in his 8 years.
Like what? And where has socialism ever worked well?
Americans know what socialism is and reject it. We like the feeling of going out on our own creating jobs, innovating and building, without a big socialist government telling us what to do. Nothing is ever better when you introduce a big government with consolidated power. America became the power that she is with a strong republic - socialism is NOT the answer but it could be a big problem if we don’t vote Obama out in 2 years.
So what do you hate most about Beck? You never did come up with any lies that he told. Is it the fact that he mentions God? Family values? Tells people to fight the good fight and have meaning in their lives? Talks about working hard and not relying on big government for help?
Yeah that guy is bad he has to be stopped.
LOL
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
They haven’t, so if you can stop bickering with the boys feel free to address these[/quote]
Actually I did. And so did ZEB. Back on page 2.[/quote]
Actually you only addressed 1 of the 3 points made (automatic citizenship) and even that one you dismissed the entire list of nations that contradict his statement by relegating the argument to developed nations.
Also what is your rebuttal on the whole “only pres to not swear in with the bible” quote? Another mis-spoke blunder by your boy?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[/quote]
I’m not going to go sorting through hours of radio shows trying to find whatever it is that you are whining about. I’ll go out of my mind listening to that much talk radio. Beck himself said something last week that sums up how I feel about what he is saying. He said he has a batting average with what he says, some of it he gets wrong but a lot of it he is right.
If he gets something wrong like citizenship at birth that is a minor issue compared to the important things he teaches us. For example people make fun of Beck for educating people about progressives but it was Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who stated their her ideology was early twentieth century progressive. Hillary figured she could prey upon peoples ignorance of progressivism all Beck is doing is pulling back the curtain so people can see what they are dealing with. Somehow this makes him a douche, which is bullshit.
There is nothing on Becks show that makes me want to drool. Not even the occasions when my favorite Pinoy blesses us with an appearance. [/quote]
Nice, you come out the gate all hard ass like “go back to the nursery and weak sauce” and THIS is your reply! Hours of radio shows?? I gave you the exact date, besides I thought his teachings were noble musings that shined the light of liberty on your brain stem. You shouldn’t mind re-listening to ONE episode.
No what you wrote doesn’t make him a douche, I actually commend him for the concept of trying to teach history. His antics, his double speak, his general demeanor are what I think makes him a douche to me. I could say the same for Maddow too.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[/quote]
I’m not going to go sorting through hours of radio shows trying to find whatever it is that you are whining about. I’ll go out of my mind listening to that much talk radio. Beck himself said something last week that sums up how I feel about what he is saying. He said he has a batting average with what he says, some of it he gets wrong but a lot of it he is right.
If he gets something wrong like citizenship at birth that is a minor issue compared to the important things he teaches us. For example people make fun of Beck for educating people about progressives but it was Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton who stated their her ideology was early twentieth century progressive. Hillary figured she could prey upon peoples ignorance of progressivism all Beck is doing is pulling back the curtain so people can see what they are dealing with. Somehow this makes him a douche, which is bullshit.
There is nothing on Becks show that makes me want to drool. Not even the occasions when my favorite Pinoy blesses us with an appearance. [/quote]
Nice, you come out the gate all hard ass like “go back to the nursery and weak sauce” and THIS is your reply! Hours of radio shows?? I gave you the exact date, besides I thought his teachings were noble musings that shined the light of liberty on your brain stem. You shouldn’t mind re-listening to ONE episode.
No what you wrote doesn’t make him a douche, I actually commend him for the concept of trying to teach history. His antics, his double speak, his general demeanor are what I think makes him a douche to me. I could say the same for Maddow too.
[/quote]
You must be on drugs if you think I am going to waste my time sifting through hours of his radio show to prove something you wrote is accurate. If you can’t be bothered to do the research to back up what YOU are posting that is on YOU.
Whether or not he got the bit on citizenship wrong I’m not particularly bothered either way. I’ve never heard him say it. So if he did say it, it obviously isn’t something that he has felt it necessary to reiterate. Because it is minor bullshit.
Let’s see you disprove something significant. ie GE owns MSNBC who broadcast that stupid Jon Stewart skit. Lets see you prove GE doesn’t own MSNBC. Let’s see you prove that GE doesn’t stand to make billions of dollars off of wind turbines that produce energy at more than twice the cost of any other method.
Or how about you proving that Obama wasn’t an attorney for acorn and that they didn’t bring a lawsuit to force lenders to give loans to high risk borrowers, which subsequently resulted in the collapse of our financial system.
Or tell us something that he got wrong about SEIU, George Soros, Bill Ayers. You are weak. You are not giving us anything of real substance.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[/quote]
You must be on drugs if you think I am going to waste my time sifting through hours of his radio show to prove something you wrote is accurate. If you can’t be bothered to do the research to back up what YOU are posting that is on YOU.
Whether or not he got the bit on citizenship wrong I’m not particularly bothered either way. I’ve never heard him say it. So if he did say it, it obviously isn’t something that he has felt it necessary to reiterate. Because it is minor bullshit.
Let’s see you disprove something significant. ie GE owns MSNBC who broadcast that stupid Jon Stewart skit. Lets see you prove GE doesn’t own MSNBC. Let’s see you prove that GE doesn’t stand to make billions of dollars off of wind turbines that produce energy at more than twice the cost of any other method.
Or how about you proving that Obama wasn’t an attorney for acorn and that they didn’t bring a lawsuit to force lenders to give loans to high risk borrowers, which subsequently resulted in the collapse of our financial system.
Or tell us something that he got wrong about SEIU, George Soros, Bill Ayers. You are weak. You are not giving us anything of real substance. [/quote]
Yeah sorry for actually addressing the theme of the thread and not ducking it by creating a new set of “real” questions there sifu. One derivative of sifu is teacher, you should study more. You completely red herring my points and create your own set of what I now have to prove, meanwhile you refuse to rebutt any of the points. At least ZEB took the time to do that.
Why would I try to disprove something that I have no argument with? You are a dipshit. Why don’t YOU try to prove that Beck doesn’t stand to make tons of money with his Goldline pitch scam? Why don’t you try to really prove a point instead of the weakest fucking argument for our financial collapse I have EVER heard on the internet—Obama didn’t sue someone therefore our system collapsed. Jeebus you are ignorant.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[/quote]
You must be on drugs if you think I am going to waste my time sifting through hours of his radio show to prove something you wrote is accurate. If you can’t be bothered to do the research to back up what YOU are posting that is on YOU.
Whether or not he got the bit on citizenship wrong I’m not particularly bothered either way. I’ve never heard him say it. So if he did say it, it obviously isn’t something that he has felt it necessary to reiterate. Because it is minor bullshit.
Let’s see you disprove something significant. ie GE owns MSNBC who broadcast that stupid Jon Stewart skit. Lets see you prove GE doesn’t own MSNBC. Let’s see you prove that GE doesn’t stand to make billions of dollars off of wind turbines that produce energy at more than twice the cost of any other method.
Or how about you proving that Obama wasn’t an attorney for acorn and that they didn’t bring a lawsuit to force lenders to give loans to high risk borrowers, which subsequently resulted in the collapse of our financial system.
Or tell us something that he got wrong about SEIU, George Soros, Bill Ayers. You are weak. You are not giving us anything of real substance. [/quote]
Yeah sorry for actually addressing the theme of the thread and not ducking it by creating a new set of “real” questions there sifu. One derivative of sifu is teacher, you should study more. You completely red herring my points and create your own set of what I now have to prove, meanwhile you refuse to rebutt any of the points. At least ZEB took the time to do that.
Why would I try to disprove something that I have no argument with? You are a dipshit. Why don’t YOU try to prove that Beck doesn’t stand to make tons of money with his Goldline pitch scam? Why don’t you try to really prove a point instead of the weakest fucking argument for our financial collapse I have EVER heard on the internet—Obama didn’t sue someone therefore our system collapsed. Jeebus you are ignorant.[/quote]
I accept your apology. It takes a man to admit he is wrong. Another thing you are wrong about is I haven’t created a new set of issues, watch the cartoon that started this thread. You are the one who took us off on a tangent about citizenship.
He probably does make money off of his goldline add. I cringe at the commercialism whenever I see it, but I realize that he and FOX have to pay bills like anyone else. But I can believe that he thinks gold is a good investment, because right now it is a safe place to put your money. Personally I think that Platinum is an even safer bet because it is an industrial metal that is used as a catalyst in a number of processes. If the economy turns around the demand for Platinum will go up.
Giving loans to low income loan applicants is exactly what caused the financial collapse. Obama worked for acorn as an attorney suing to get low income loans. So he played a big part in creating this mess. Because lenders were underwriting bad loans because they didn’t want to get sued. I remember when I first saw a flyer at my local supermarket advertising those loans. I couldn’t believe that someone would be advertising low interest loans in that part or any other part of Detroit. I remember when I had a job running collections in Detroit. That is not a place to loan money because those people will abuse credit badly.
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
Full disclosure; I’m down with socialism, I’m a big leftie. I don’t like Glenn Beck and for the most part don’t watch his show outside of the rare occasion because, as he is an influencial figure, I’d like to understand what he has to say that people are drawn to. I’m not hear to argue that the man is some big liar, because I don’t watch him often, but what I will say is that I’ve seen enough to know that the overall theme of his show is deceptive. As a socialist, I couldn’t disagree with another person more than Milton Friedman, but Friedman was a sensible man that presented his views in a rational, civil way. While I might have disagreed with Friedman, I still have respect for the man because of the way he presented his views.
I don’t think Beck is dangerous because I disagree with his views, I think he is dangerous because he directs peoples’ anger in the wrong direction. He plays on peoples’ emotions and as I understand it, would like us to believe that illegal immigrants, gays, socialists, dogs-on-health care, etc. are all out to get us and that people must defend themselves from these outside threats. He encourages a black and white, “either your with us or your against us,” mentality that is not productive to solving our problems. This entire nation is in some serious trouble, demonizing one group or another is not the way to get ourselves out of trouble.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
1-Massive government spending. Expanding our national debt to over 13 trillion! That’s more than big spending GW Bush did in eight years time.
[/quote]
During Bush’s tenure we saw our national debt double from about 5 trillion to just under 10 trillion. Obama’s still got 2 trillion to go before he catches up to Bush; and Obama’s deficit went from like 400 billion to a little over 1 trillion largely because of a worldwide economic collapse, not because Obama turned our government in to socialism. If you want my opinion, Bush and Obama both fucked up big time on the budget, but considering the circumstances Obama is not massively worse than Bush.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
2-Extending government aid to those who do not work for it.
[/quote]
This is an example of one of my biggest problems with Beck’s theme. The claim that social welfare programs are backrupting the country is absurd; and, while the claim of moral hazard (giving people stuff makes them lazy) has some legitimacy, isn’t applied to all parties.
Food stamps cost the government around $50-60 billion in 2009 and we give hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to the defense indsutry every year to develop weapons and other technology. Why is that not seen as a form of welfare? There are many large companies that wouldn’t survive for ten minutes without getting money from our government. Until around the late 1980’s the entire cost of developing computer technology was paid for by the American taxpayer, so would it be fair to say that telecommunications companies received welfare too? Is spending tens of billions of dollars subsidizing corn over the last decade not welfare? How about tax breaks for multi-billion dollar oil companies? In 2009, ExxonMobil made $19.42 billion in profit all while paying ZERO corporate income tax for the year; I would argue the moral hazard from giving government aid to ExxonMobil in 2009 is far greater than the moral hazard from all the government aid that poor people got in 2009.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
4-Massive take overs and loans to business so that control can be consolodated.
[/quote]
What does this even mean? How was control control consolidated? Name me a business that was taken over; as far as I’m aware through all the bailouts, only businesses that even had demands put on them was the auto industry.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
5-National health care-the biggest government program (and consequently take over) in the history of the our country. By the way 67% of the people did NOT WANT this program, but socialist Obama pushed it through a democratic house and senate anyway
[/quote]
This is entirely misleading. How is handing out a fine to people that don’t buy private companies’ health insurance a government takeover? I’d argue that what we got was more of a private, corporate takeover.
And people didn’t like the health care bill because the public option was gutted. They didn’t want the reform that passed, they actually wanted MORE government control in the bill than what they got.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
6-Increasing taxes on everyone beginning January 1st. But we knew this was coming when he slapped Joe the Plumber on the back and told him to share the wealth.
[/quote]
Bush is at fault for that. Obama has literally done nothing with regard to tax policy. All he is doing is following through with Bush’s policy, yet he still gets the blame?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
7-His disdain for business of every size large and small is unprecedented.
[/quote]
How and when? Wall Street is largely to blame for a worldwide economic collapse, so he calls them some bad names in his speeches while handing them 800 billion dollars and caving to almost all of their demands on financial reform, and this should be seen as contempt?
I’m not trying to come at you ZEB, I like to keep things civil, but you don’t understand what true socialism really is. Based on what I’ve seen you say, you see socialism as presented though Glenn Beck’s eyes, rather than what it truely means.
Strict government control over everything (like the USSR) is totalitarian socialism. Just because the USSR has socialist in its name doesn’t mean it’s a good reprentation of socialism; just as the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea isn’t exactly a good reprentation of anything democratic. Equating the USSR with all things socialist is like equating China today with all things capitalist. This capitalism comparison is obviously absurd because while China has capitalist elements, but it is still a totalitarian state. Socialism is a dirty word to many people in this country because they misunderstand what true socialism stands for.
Even though I call myself a socialist, I’m not under the impression that if we take down the capitalism sign and put up a socialist one that the country will instantly become paradise. The world isn’t black and white; things can barely ever be as direct as “you are either with us or your against us.” I’d like to see more socialist policies, but more importantly I’d like to see people understand socialism for what it really is rather accept the Beck-like assumption that socialism = evil terrible things.[/quote]
You would really have to watch Beck’s shows to get a good handle on what it is about. Something important that I don’t think you understand is it is like a variety show. Unlike what his critics try to make out it isn’t just one long rant where is trying to whip up emotions. He gives a historical context that accurately describes how our country has been changing and moving away from it’s original design and in a bad direction.
The country my family came has been ruined by socialism. I’ve seen firsthand what socialism does. Whereas America is founded upon the principle of Independence, Socialism seeks to make the individual ever more dependent upon the state. So Americans have good reason to be concerned about progressively creeping towards socialism.
I have never heard him talk about dogs on health care and I can’t remember him saying much about gays either. Illegal immigration is an important issue. The people of this country want there to be a controlled migration into this country, which is their right.
The USSR wasn’t true socialism argument is wrong. That kind of oppressive authoritarianism is a very likely outcome of socialism. Socialism has been a failure where ever it has been tried. The Israelis Kibbutz system is basically a commune, it is the closest to true communism anyone has ever done and those are failing.
There are some examples of “grass-root” - type companies, basically co-ops that manage to survive in a free market economy,although very few of them (like the Mondragon corporation mentioned on this forum before) are successful.
They typically share some common traits such as being run by close-knit ethnic communities or otherwise like-minded individuals who agree to cooperate with each other even if at times it is not in their best personal interests, for the sake of “common good”.
And that is perfectly fine.
The problem arises when this or some other collective type of enterprise becomes the only type the state allows, which is typically what socialists want, they don’t want any of the “capitalistic pigs” to be around lol.
This to me speaks volumes about levels of freedom in capitalist vs. socialist societies - under free market capitalism you can run your enterprise any way you want - commune, co-op, whatever.
Under state socialism - not so much.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Also what is your rebuttal on the whole “only pres to not swear in with the bible” quote? Another mis-spoke blunder by your boy?[/quote]
Please stop, you’re making yourself look bad. We ask for lies and you give us a blunder or two? Did Obama lie when he said that there were 57 states? Or, was it a simple blunder? There is no human being alive who speaks as much as Beck, or Obama who will not make the occasional blunder.
Now keep digging and try to come up with some outright lies. Go on all the “hate Beck” web sites, they make stuff up that he said and then shoot it down. Why don’t you pick apart his analysis of Van Jones? That was an important issue. If he told a lie regarding something significant such as that I would really have to stop watching him. I don’t believe you’ll find any significant out and out lies.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
And what is the unfunded liability of medicare and social security? Can you honestly tell me they aren’t frightening fucking figures?
[/quote]
Medicare is looking like it’s going to be big trouble down the road. I’m no expert on the subject so I’m not going to comment on how to fix it, but I’ve read enough about it to understand that in its current form it will be an extremely large financial burden. I agree with you on this one.
On the other hand, Social Security is arguably one of the most successful government programs we’ve ever had. Not only has it kept millions of elderly people out of poverty, it has done so in an extremely efficient manner. The administrative costs of Social Security are under 1%, meaning over 99% of the money collected gets paid back out. The yelling about Social Security bankrupting the country is simply propaganda designed to get people on board with privatizing the program, largely put forth by the upper-class business elite.
"For 2010 through 2024, trust fund income, including interest income, is more than is needed to cover costs, so trust fund assets will continue to grow. Beginning in 2025, trust fund assets will diminish until they become exhausted in 2037. Tax revenues are projected to be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 78 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2037, declining to 75 percent of scheduled benefits in 2084.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
Because like it or not a country needs a strong defense industry. It is a necessity.
[/quote]
Having a strong defense is not the same thing as maintaining a giant standing army. I recognize that very real threats to our national security do exist, but not the type of threats that require 700 billion dollars each year. I happen to know a great deal on this subject (father was Navy 23 years, has worked for defense contractors ever since) and a significant amount of the military budget goes either toward R&D in telecom and bombs, or toward maintain the 700+ bases we have around the world. We could maintain our national security with 1/5th of the money that the pentagon gets every year. The other 4/5ths can and should be seen as corporate welfare for GE, Boeing, Haliburton, etc.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
While some form of welfare is required the level the US currently has is messed up. There are people who have lived for 20+ years on food stamps. That is messed up and certainly not a necessity. Welfare should be a temporary measure; not a way of life.
[/quote]
You should be out protesting against Wal-Mart then. I’m not sure on today’s numbers, but as of 2006 over 40% of Wal-Mart’s employees, in this country, got some form of governtment aid. Wal-Mart has actually handed out welfare applications to their employees. Would you agree that it’s wrong for one of the most profitable companies on the planet to behave this way?
We can’t just look at welfare recipients and call them lazy assholes, we really need to address the causes of poverty first before we play the blame game. If it was a small portion of the population I’d accept that personal responsibility could be the issue; when tens of millions of people are on food stamps, that is evidence of a systemic problem rather than tens of millions of cases of people being lazy.
I agree that welfare is a tricky game to play. Handing people cash for having children, being unemployed, etc. is essentially subsidizing poverty. There is no better way to encourage something than to hand people cash for doing it. I’m for welfare being greatly expanded, but also radically redesigned; the system we have now just blows. Something as simple as requiring community service for unemployement would go a long way.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Care to name a country that you would consider being a “good representation of socialism” ?
[/quote]
No one can because there hasn’t been a modern nation-state that practiced socialism as a socialist would describe it; that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible though. A few centuries ago someone could have made the claim that no capitalist country could succeed since none existed at that time.
The only successful models of socialism I’m aware of would be smaller egalitarian societies, like some of the Native-Americans that lived thoughout this country before we arrived took the place over. They were primitive so I’m sure there was violence among opposing tribes, but the individual tribes were very community oriented. The hunters caught food for everyone and the children we all taken care of by the community; they made sure no person in the tribe was left in poverty.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Whereas America is founded upon the principle of Independence, Socialism seeks to make the individual ever more dependent upon the state.
[/quote]
This is misleading. The Founding Fathers we’re all wealthy men that purposely designed the constitution to protect their wealth; they purposely designed our government to be strong so that it could protect them from the mass of the people. Is that not depending on the state?
Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that they were revolutionary thinkers in their time. As great as they were though, let’s be real with ourselves, they valued their land more than they valued democracy.
[quote]James Madison (caps are mine)
“The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time… when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and UNLESS WISELY PROVIDED AGAINST, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, IF ELECTIONS WERE OPEN TO ALL CLASSES OF PEOPLE, THE PROPERTY OF THE LANDED PROPRIETORS WOULD BE INSECURE. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to SECURE THE PERMANENT INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to PROTECT THE MINORITY OF THE OPLUENT AGAINST THE MAJORITY.”
[/quote]
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Care to name a country that you would consider being a “good representation of socialism” ?
[/quote]
No one can because there hasn’t been a modern nation-state that practiced socialism as a socialist would describe it; that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible though. A few centuries ago someone could have made the claim that no capitalist country could succeed since none existed at that time.
[/quote]
Yeah, the difference would be that there were a few attempts at actually implementing state socialism that didn’t work out too well to say the least.
Now, how would you describe your ideal socialist state?
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Now, how would you describe your ideal socialist state?
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[/quote]
A decentralized society where people are free from unjustified authority. In theory, I’d like to see a world where bureaucratic control of a country (aka the government) was no longer necessary; a world where people aren’t coerced in to becoming cogs in some giant economic machine. I’d like to see a world where people could decide for themselves how to live their lives.
A thousand years ago societies around the world were largely controlled by the church. Today societies around the world are largely controlled by big abstract entities called corporations. Market-driven ideology has become religious dogma. I happen to think that there are more imporant things in life than GDP, like human well-being.
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Now, how would you describe your ideal socialist state?
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[/quote]
A decentralized society where people are free from unjustified authority. In theory, I’d like to see a world where bureaucratic control of a country (aka the government) was no longer necessary; a world where people aren’t coerced in to becoming cogs in some giant economic machine. I’d like to see a world where people could decide for themselves how to live their lives.
[/quote]
First of all, there are people who deperately want to be a cog in a giant machine.
Second, what is to stop me from building a business the very second this “socialism” is implemented?
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Care to name a country that you would consider being a “good representation of socialism” ?
[/quote]
No one can because there hasn’t been a modern nation-state that practiced socialism as a socialist would describe it; that doesn’t mean that it isn’t possible though. A few centuries ago someone could have made the claim that no capitalist country could succeed since none existed at that time.
The only successful models of socialism I’m aware of would be smaller egalitarian societies, like some of the Native-Americans that lived thoughout this country before we arrived took the place over. They were primitive so I’m sure there was violence among opposing tribes, but the individual tribes were very community oriented. The hunters caught food for everyone and the children we all taken care of by the community; they made sure no person in the tribe was left in poverty.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Whereas America is founded upon the principle of Independence, Socialism seeks to make the individual ever more dependent upon the state.
[/quote]
This is misleading. The Founding Fathers we’re all wealthy men that purposely designed the constitution to protect their wealth; they purposely designed our government to be strong so that it could protect them from the mass of the people. Is that not depending on the state?
Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that they were revolutionary thinkers in their time. As great as they were though, let’s be real with ourselves, they valued their land more than they valued democracy.
[quote]James Madison (caps are mine)
“The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time… when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and UNLESS WISELY PROVIDED AGAINST, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, IF ELECTIONS WERE OPEN TO ALL CLASSES OF PEOPLE, THE PROPERTY OF THE LANDED PROPRIETORS WOULD BE INSECURE. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to SECURE THE PERMANENT INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to PROTECT THE MINORITY OF THE OPLUENT AGAINST THE MAJORITY.”
[/quote][/quote]
I would not say that they were all wealthy, though I would assume they all would have owned land. I would say that from an economic perspective they were up near the top of the food chain. Which I believe is not necessarily a bad thing for the following reason. When they were writing the constitution it was the elites of the society writing the rules that the government had to abide by when dealing with them the people at the top of the food chain.
That I think is the enduring strength of the US constitution. Because it was written by those at the top of the food chain they weren’t going to give the government anymore of their power than it needed to function and it wasn’t filled with a bunch of unneeded bullshit. When it became more inclusive the rights were the same rights that the top of the food chain wanted.
If we tried to write a new constitution today there would be so many more competing interests that stupid things would get added in. There would be huge corporations trying to get their piece of the action. Then there would be the ideological idiot politician who would be saying what about the little man so then a bunch of things would be added in for the little man.
This is what happened with the EU constitution. It awards ridiculous rights that are so ill conceived they are problematic for society and causing a pushback, where people are sick of the problems that are caused by human rights laws.
So that is why I feel that we really need to protect the constitution. There is just no way we could trust the bastards in Washington to produce something as good and there is too much stupid ideology that has developed since then that it wold be difficult to keep it all out.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Am I the only one who notices that idiots will ridicule, criticize or belittle Beck and expect everyone to blindly go along with their ignorance, yet they are unable to refute point by point the vast amount of information that Beck provides us with on a daily basis.
…
[/quote]
I am no fan of Beck’s style or religious agenda but no one seems to refute the dirt he digs up on the ruling class. Because beck is a bit kooky does not mean the the progressive agenda is good for America.
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Now, how would you describe your ideal socialist state?
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[/quote]
A decentralized society where people are free from unjustified authority. In theory, I’d like to see a world where bureaucratic control of a country (aka the government) was no longer necessary; a world where people aren’t coerced in to becoming cogs in some giant economic machine. I’d like to see a world where people could decide for themselves how to live their lives.
A thousand years ago societies around the world were largely controlled by the church. Today societies around the world are largely controlled by big abstract entities called corporations. Market-driven ideology has become religious dogma. I happen to think that there are more imporant things in life than GDP, like human well-being.[/quote]
these are all theoretical ramblings. like “uhhh I want piece on earth” or “human well being should be more important than GDP” or “no unjustified authority exists” etc.
please answer concrete questions.
I’m copy-pasting my questions from the previous post for your convenience 
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]Chomskyian wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Now, how would you describe your ideal socialist state?
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[/quote]
A decentralized society where people are free from unjustified authority. In theory, I’d like to see a world where bureaucratic control of a country (aka the government) was no longer necessary; a world where people aren’t coerced in to becoming cogs in some giant economic machine. I’d like to see a world where people could decide for themselves how to live their lives.
A thousand years ago societies around the world were largely controlled by the church. Today societies around the world are largely controlled by big abstract entities called corporations. Market-driven ideology has become religious dogma. I happen to think that there are more imporant things in life than GDP, like human well-being.[/quote]
these are all theoretical ramblings. like “uhhh I want piece on earth” or “human well being should be more important than GDP” or “no unjustified authority exists” etc.
please answer concrete questions.
I’m copy-pasting my questions from the previous post for your convenience
For example: how will new businesses be started? Who will determine salary figures for the workforce? How will the prices of goods be determined?
[/quote]
Socialims will be like paradise, with streams of milk and honey, so obviously no shortages would exist.
Untill of course the EPA, FDA and two dozend other institutions will regulate the shit out of them.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
Also what is your rebuttal on the whole “only pres to not swear in with the bible” quote? Another mis-spoke blunder by your boy?[/quote]
Please stop, you’re making yourself look bad. We ask for lies and you give us a blunder or two? Did Obama lie when he said that there were 57 states? Or, was it a simple blunder? There is no human being alive who speaks as much as Beck, or Obama who will not make the occasional blunder.
Now keep digging and try to come up with some outright lies. Go on all the “hate Beck” web sites, they make stuff up that he said and then shoot it down. Why don’t you pick apart his analysis of Van Jones? That was an important issue. If he told a lie regarding something significant such as that I would really have to stop watching him. I don’t believe you’ll find any significant out and out lies.[/quote]
Maybe ZEB but but does the impact of that blunder by Obama (or anyone that would have said that) have the same impact as Beck’s blunder? The impact of course being MANY uninformed people now thinking Obama is going against the grain, possibly a Muslim, basically fueling the fire for their rants against him?
Have you seen that video of those dimwits at Sarah Palin’s book signing who when asked by the reporter to specifically support the claims they were making (he’s a socialist, he’s taking away our freedoms, etc.) not a single one could. They just kept spouting conservative talking points with no basis in fact for their views. Ignorance plain and simple and for many they take anything someone like Beck says at face value and before you say anything there are plenty of Democrats that do the same thing. My point is stupid is as stupid does.
I’ll keep digging but first you have two more points I brought up in that larger post that you have yet to refute. Please don’t be like Sifu and dodge answering them and create some new set of rules as to what the discussion has been about till now.
Why would I get into the Van Jones thing? Eva Paterson did a much better job than I could as someone that actually has worked with him.