How Long Before Obama Turns the US into a Socialist Shit Hole?

[Leather N Lace]

Anyone who isn't in the financial situation they'd like to be only has themselves to blame.......

That is just garbage. Not all poor people put themselves there.

Yes, there are those who take advantage of any handouts -- that's why we need to have much stronger restrictions on those who do need welfare. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out.

 

[Peter Parka]

Am I?


Collective ownership sure sounds to me like everyone would have the same income, or own the same stuff, as everyone else. If not that, then how would you define socialism?

EDIT: Regardless of the answer to your question, I don't want socialism. Whatever you define it as, it's still based on redistribution of wealth. I really really really hope that socialism doesn't go any further in the US. I'll fight it every step of the way.

I can assure you that collective farms arn't around over here, you seem to be just looking at the origins of socialism 100 odd years ago, not how it has developed since.

Oh, a point I forgot to address earlier about you would prefer it was by charity, it was till about 100 years ago and poverty was terrible, that has been tried and failed.

 

[Minor Axis]

No I only read a couple pages--reminded me of what you might see posted by Koresh followers about him. But that's the problem with liberals in the first place (in general) -- they rationalize the problems in their lives as someone else's fault and believe that some politician or government "plan" is going to save them. Its like they are still attached to mommy by the umbilical cord except in this case mommy is Obama and the umbilical cord is the slew of government "benefits" he's promised them.

Your problem is that you are a black and white kinda guy. Liberals and unions are always wrong while management, CEOs and free enterprise run by greedy bastards are always right. The extremes of any philosophical position left or right is human nature. You're in here always slamming the liberal side and always blindly supporting the conservative side. It is the downfall of any argument you make in these forums or anywhere for that matter. I'm more than willing to admit there are bad liberals, unions, management and CEOs out there. You'd never be able to do that.

 

[SgtSpike]

That is just garbage. Not all poor people put themselves there.

Yes, there are those who take advantage of any handouts -- that's why we need to have much stronger restrictions on those who do need welfare. Welfare is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out.

I agree that not all poor people put themselves there,sometimes they just have tough luck, but ALL poor people can dig themselves out. Unless they are disabled or old or something, and I'd say the government should help out those people, because they really don't have a choice, but just about anyone else has just as much opportunity as I do to go out and better themselves and get a job.

Besides, most people don't save any money as a backup in case something goes wrong anymore, because the government has become their backup! If we took the government away, then maybe people would be more responsible with their spending and saving. People need to take responsibility for making sure they aren't screwed over if they lose their job for a while.

I wouldn't mind heavier restrictions on welfare, and that's definitely a good place to start.

 

[SgtSpike]

I can assure you that collective farms arn't around over here, you seem to be just looking at the origins of socialism 100 odd years ago, not how it has developed since.

Oh, a point I forgot to address earlier about you would prefer it was by charity, it was till about 100 years ago and poverty was terrible, that has been tried and failed.

Then how come it's a modern definition straight off a modern website?

Your country is not a socialist country. Socialism is all about collective ownership and redistribution of wealth. You may have redistribution of wealth (or may not, I have no idea), but you just said that you didn't have collective ownership, and that is a big part of socialism, so how can you say your country is socialist? Me thinks you're bending the definitions of the word in question...

 

[SgtSpike]

Your problem is that you are a black and white kinda guy. Liberals and unions are always wrong while management, CEOs and free enterprise run by greedy bastards are always right. The extremes of any philosophical position left or right is human nature. You're in here always slamming the liberal side and always blindly supporting the conservative side. It is the downfall of any argument you make in these forums or anywhere for that matter. I'm more than willing to admit there are bad liberals, unions, management and CEOs out there. You'd never be able to do that.

My problem is, I enjoy freedom. If a CEO makes millions because he started up an incredible company (or was hired because of his great skills), then that's great! He earned it! I don't like liberals OR unions because they both tend to limit freedom. They tend to say, "No, he doesn't deserve millions! I deserve a pay raise!" Why? Why does the CEO not deserve to get paid millions? Anyone can become a CEO and possibly make millions. Anyone. It's up to them.

So yes, just about every time, I will side with conservatives, because they advocate freedom, and I like it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Then how come it's a modern definition straight off a modern website?

Your country is not a socialist country. Socialism is all about collective ownership and redistribution of wealth. You may have redistribution of wealth (or may not, I have no idea), but you just said that you didn't have collective ownership, and that is a big part of socialism, so how can you say your country is socialist? Me thinks you're bending the definitions of the word in question...

Ok then and Obaba is Socialist according to you, come whining when he introduces collective farms will you and I promise to be sympathetic.

 

[SgtSpike]

Ok then and Obaba is Socialist according to you, come whining when he introduces collective farms will you and I promise to be sympathetic.

Haha, good point. I should clarify then, that I believe Obama is bringing America closer to socialism, and I don't like it. I still like to call him a socialist just to make my point clear, but then I guess that's sort of a misnomer.

At any rate, I'd still like to hear your definition of socialism, and how the government works in your country that is like socialism

 

[Minor Axis]

Haha, good point. I should clarify then, that I believe Obama is bringing America closer to socialism, and I don't like it. I still like to call him a socialist just to make my point clear, but then I guess that's sort of a misnomer.

At any rate, I'd still like to hear your definition of socialism, and how the government works in your country that is like socialism

While a Republican Administration are taking leaps and bounds in what might be called a Socialist direction, the Republican party and every lug in the country who does not like Obama wants to call him a Socialist. It would be amusing if it weren't so hypocritical.

 

[Peter Parka]

Haha, good point. I should clarify then, that I believe Obama is bringing America closer to socialism, and I don't like it. I still like to call him a socialist just to make my point clear, but then I guess that's sort of a misnomer.

At any rate, I'd still like to hear your definition of socialism, and how the government works in your country that is like socialism

Socialism to me is looking after those less fortunate than you. This happens (over here) by welfare benifts and national health service ect. There are many different levels this comes too. Welfare is available but it's very intrusive and hard to get here at times, mainly because of scare mongers exagerating the level of people taking the piss with it. Of course there are people taking the piss but it isn't nearly as bad as the tabloids would like to think and the benifits paid are much less than what keeps being reported too. I think it's very positive and right that in a first world country, even the poorest shouldn't live in poverty. As for health care, I see that as a basic duty by the state that everyone gets a decent standard of that. Its barbaric to think that people should needlessly die or suffer simply because they haven't got much money, how is that fair?

 

[SgtSpike]

While a Republican Administration are taking leaps and bounds in what might be called a Socialist direction, the Republican party and every lug in the country who does not like Obama wants to call him a Socialist. It would be amusing if it weren't so hypocritical.

Lol, I never said I agreed with the economic or social decisions of the current cabinet.

And let me remind you that the dems are in control of the decisions right now. They have control of everything but the white house.

 

[SgtSpike]

Socialism to me is looking after those less fortunate than you. This happens (over here) by welfare benifts and national health service ect. There are many different levels this comes too. Welfare is available but it's very intrusive and hard to get here at times, mainly because of scare mongers exagerating the level of people taking the piss with it. Of course there are people taking the piss but it isn't nearly as bad as the tabloids would like to think and the benifits paid are much less than what keeps being reported too. I think it's very positive and right that in a first world country, even the poorest shouldn't live in poverty. As for health care, I see that as a basic duty by the state that everyone gets a decent standard of that. Its barbaric to think that people should needlessly die or suffer simply because they haven't got much money, how is that fair?

Thanks for sharing. I think at this point we'll just have to agree to disagree on what's best.

I sure hope that this great country doesn't move towards socialism (even the kind you are talking about). I don't like it one bit. Just my opinion, but I don't like it.

 

[Peter Parka]

Yeah, guess we should agree to disagree. Would like to say though in general that you keep it polite and non insulting when discussing, for a Republican, Bible bashing nutjob!:jk

 

[SgtSpike]

Yeah, guess we should agree to disagree. Would like to say though in general that you keep it polite and non insulting when discussing, for a Republican, Bible bashing nutjob!:jk

Lol, thanks.

EDIT: How come there's no sticking-tongue-out smilies on this forum anyway?

 

[Obdurate]

Liberatarian Socialism is the way to go. It still boggles my mind that there are (a lot of) people who don't want it. But whatever. Obama would be a State Socialist if he's a Socialist at all and that just wouldn't work.

And SgtSpike, I don't agree that Conservatives advocate freedom. I also don't think Liberals or any party that you can vote for does. Maybe our society is more free than some, but it's still a far cry from actual freedom.

 

[SgtSpike]

Liberatarian Socialism is the way to go. It still boggles my mind that there are (a lot of) people who don't want it. But whatever. Obama would be a State Socialist if he's a Socialist at all and that just wouldn't work.

And SgtSpike, I don't agree that Conservatives advocate freedom. I also don't think Liberals or any party that you can vote for does. Maybe our society is more free than some, but it's still a far cry from actual freedom.

Ok, I'd agree with you there - neither of the parties advocate complete freedom from anything. But, the Reps are more for financial freedom than the Dems are, you can't argue with me there.