I'm against socialism, apparently I'm an idiot. Ask me nothing.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Interesting point...and I'll try to expand. The liberal/socialism idea of everyone having what they need and more, being able to be who they want to be and be accepted, and to have complete freedom isn't a bad thing. I think anyone would agree with that idea or goal for every person.

However...when the reality of that gives completely control to a government that already wants to enslave you...when that means stealing from others...when that means taking rights from some to give special rights to others...that whole utopia kinda falls apart and becomes a dictatorship where everyone is a slave...or livestock.

You have a right to speak your mind. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

As for politics, I think its just all man made wordplay. When you look pass the rhetoric, all systems are essentially a resource based economy. Party systems and politicians try to pass their morals, ethics, and values as voting platforms when all these various ideologies (whether right wing, left wing, capitalist, marxist, etc) have done their fair share of atrocities equally.

So in short a socialist country isn't any more evil than a capitalist one and vice versa. When you look at the way the American government has evolved over the years there's no denying that capitalism has it's fair share of problems. Look at all the weapons being developed by the military, at the expense of billions of tax dollars, just to bomb and kill innocent civillians across the globe for their own resources.

How is our government any different than Hitler's Nazi Germany? The reality is there isn't much difference. The media tries to portray Americans as the good guys in all of the worlds' affairs. We think our sh!t doesn't stink when it probably reeks the most.

If we dig a little deeper you could argue that money is the root to all of our problems in the first place. It's possible we were enslaved by ancient royal bloodlines to work for these man fabricated currencies. Everything in nature is naturally occurring and free to begin with but we've been conditioned to accept that we can't exist in a society without money.

So we all work as slaves that attracts more wealth and privilege to a select few while the common folk delude themselves with entertainment, drinking, and thinking status and money makes them happy when the reality is people report higher incidences of depression in a heavily consumer-based, marketing world that detaches one from any spiritual ethos.

The problems caused by money can never be solved by money and politicians excaerbate these problems with their greed and exploitation.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh dear, you understand dictionaries are written by people.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh dear, you understand dictionaries are written by people.

I do, but we have to start somewhere. Unless we want to end up with a socialist dictionary, a capitalist dictionary, an angry Hispanic dictionary, an amusing libertarian dictionary. . . . .

a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe we should just have one dictionary?

Government approved, of course.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe we should just have one dictionary?

Government approved, of course.

Even then it'd be scary. Obama's government?

Hillary's government?

Trumps government?

I've got a suggestion. Maybe we should make our OWN dictionary and then stuff it down the government's throat. Obama, Hillary and Trump included! But personally...I think Trump has some good and realistic ideas.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Just make up your own language. People do it all the time. Certain words or phrases may take off. And how is it any different then the already existing languages? I'm sure hear-say and classifying everything is the creation to most dialects.

Those actions are rather uncalled for. The more disagreements there are, the more people are bring in ad hominem attacks-being the political season and all but it's hitting a peak in being rude. Seriously it won't change the other persons thoughts that one does not agree with by calling them names, though I doubt that is the full intent. Also, Isn't it against T&C's to PM people as such?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I mean, maybe you really are that unaware - but certainly you've seen and had access to plenty of sources that prove that what you are saying is nonsense? Right?

It's a valiant effort Buzzy, but I suggest you give it up. I learned a long time ago on here that when the Republicans condemn something, the followers follow.(Although they'll claim they're not Republicans) It goes in cycles, illegal immigration (but only Mexicans), then Muslims, and now socialism (which they can't seem to grasp has a different meaning when you attach an adjective to it). In a couple of days Cruz, or Trump or Fox will call out something else and we'll see a slew of threads authored to guarantee maximum flags and stars

a reply to: mymymy

Could you point to the recent article on Fox that discusses socialism?

I don't frequent that site, but if that is your assertion, I'm sure it should be easy to pull it up.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
I've got a suggestion. Maybe we should make our OWN dictionary and then stuff it down the government's throat. Obama, Hillary and Trump included! But personally...I think Trump has some good and realistic ideas.

Yeah because electing a rich greedy businessman is better then electing rich greedy lawyer. Personally I'm tired of the upper class dictatorship. The best part of trickle down economics is when the rich pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

What is lost on some of you is the fact the Dictionary meaning of any word, in Webster 's or any published dictionary for any purpose, was properly vetted as a business rule of putting the Dictionary in print. I find you all doing that are not proving your point at all. Why are showing your intent to obfuscate by your own protest on that long ago defined word "Socialism"? Throw in the historical comments from those we all can agree called themselves Soviet Socialist as has been provided here and most learned this in High School History, as this should have exposed you to the fact you are totally ignoring reality. Then to continue to push your narrative as if we should ignore the accepted definition. I can only imagine what you think "freedom" means.

a reply to: GodEmperor

Did I mention JUST Fox? No, I didn't.


But

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

Oh dear, you understand dictionaries are written by people.

Only the definitions you disagree with are written by people.

It's Bible any other time.

I hope those who are still paying attention to this thread have noticed how the socialists are attempting to completely change the language so they can manipulate what you think about socialism.

They acknowledge that it means whatever they want it to mean, and flaunt the fact. There is no objectivity at all, therefore making it impossible to have a rational discussion.

And these people want us to believe that their way is the logical, reasoned way.

All they do is deceive.

a reply to: NthOther

And only the definitions you agree with are Bible. If Webster's definition of Socialism is OK for you, then surely their definition of Social Democracy is right?

Social Democracy

: a country that uses both capitalist and socialist practices

I'll wait for you to tell me why that's either wrong or not acceptable

a reply to: mymymy

So is it "social democracy" or "democratic socialism"?

a reply to: NthOther

Really? That's all I can say is Really?

You post saying "All they do is deceive" and then reply with that?

: a country that uses both capitalist and socialist practices

That is exactly what Bernie Sanders stands for and you know it. All the links Buzzy left and everybody else I KNOW you went and read his website looking to find anything, anything, to prove everyone wrong about him and couldn't find it, so now you post this?

Let me guess, a breakfast of bacon and eggs is entirely different than eggs and bacon, right? SMDH

a reply to: mymymy

That article is from February.

Try again.

a reply to: mymymy

Ahhh I get it now.

According to the definition.

It's the transition from free society capitalism, to totalitarian socialism. It's the transition period, if we are to look at both definitions.

a political movement that uses principles of democracy to change a capitalist country to a socialist one