What's with the obsession about "socialism" in conspiracy-circles lately?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
There is no profit motive in a socialist system. The private entities are allowed to profit off of government money and that is the definition of fascism...the joining of government and corporate power.

You're entirely backwards. The definition of fascism is the government controlling the private entities and claiming their profits for the government purposes. What you are mistakenly calling "fascism" is corporatism. Socialism is fascism, true capitalism is corporatism.

In a purely socialist system, there is no such thing as a private corporate entity. That is why communism is a bad, bad thing. You have to have a mix.

There is no profit whatsoever.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Just quantitative easing in a Brave New Oligarchy, eh? Nothing to see there. Forget tax cuts for the rich, that's peanuts compared to digitalized corruption.

But... but... but... socialism!

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ScoochieMcGroogle

Because this country just had an honest to God self admitted socialist come within several million votes of contending for the office of President. That's something which was unthinkable just 20 years ago, when people in elected office simply did not run on socialist platforms because they would rightfully be strung from the street lights for doing so.

So it's right to string people up for their beliefs, huh?

I'm a socialist. You want to string me up?

Funny thing about freedom.

It's also ours to give away.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
It's entirely different and you are being completely absurd.

How is it any different at all? In both scenarios you have politicians exchanging favors directly for votes.

No. It is not a direct exchange.

They are making promises in the hopes of getting their votes on election day. Something every politician does.

Crime through a middleman is still criminal.

So you admit it is not a direct exchange. That's a start.

Now can you please show me where the law states that politicians are not legally able to make promises, empty or otherwise, in their campaign tactics?

No, but by definition, a promise to violate the law is illegal... and purchasing votes using monies not already owned by the seller is absolutely codified as illegal.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Hmm, actually "offers to make" could be called a promise. O_o

String 'em up, for not longer than 2 years, of course, per the US statute.

ETA: Damn man, I just realized this statute covers both the politician and the voter, so hell,,, we may need some rope for the socialist voters, too.

So if a politician promises to raise the pay of members of the military, those soldiers vote for that politician and that politician follows through, they have all broken the law?

a reply to: Aliensun

Socialism for our needs

Capitalism for wants

a reply to: introvert

The government has the right to levy tax if it is proportional across the board. Tax brackets are disproportionate. Furthermore, the government only has the right to levy enough tax revenue to keep itself running under the limitation in the Constitution. At present, the government has ignored those limitations, and is morbidly obese. That is a perfect medium for the propagation of socialism.

Socialism is fascism whether you have the courage to admit it or not. There are certain kinds of civilized individuals who would not be welcome in a socialist system, and Im one of them. Socialism is anti-free speech, anti-individualism. I'm rather vocal about my opinions. Conversely, the limitations on government imposed by the Bill of Rights give anyone of any ideology the right to co-exist, as long as individuals rights of others are not violated.

Your attempt to separate fascism from socialism is quite flaccid. Try harder next time.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

necrophilliacical buggering.

You're not from America are you?

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

necrophilliacical buggering.

You're not from America are you?

You know, that's the first time I've ever had that posted at me. I assure you, Captain 'Murica is absolutely from America. Born, raised, and jaded. That said, I find foreign words and terms to be a hoot at times.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

The government has the right to levy taxes if it is proportional across the board.

By your definition, taxation is socialism. Which it is.

Glad we can agree.

Furthermore, the government only has the right to levy enough tax revenue to keep itself running under the limitation in the Constitution. At present, the government has ignored those limitations, and is morbidly obese. That is a perfect medium for the propagation of socialism.

It appears the constitution is a medium for propagation of socialism.

Socialism is fascism whether you have the courage to admit it or not.

I don't need courage when history and dictionaries would disagree.

There are certain kinds of civilized individuals who would not be welcome in a socialist system, and Im one of them. Socialism is anti-free speech, anti-individualism. I'm rather vocal about my opinions. Conversely, the limitations on government imposed by the Bill of Rights give anyone of any ideology the right to co-exist, as long as individuals rights of others are not violated.

You are very vocal, but let me give you a piece of advice my grandfather once told me. "Never give your ass it's own set of vocal chords".

You're attempt to separate fascism from socialism is quite flaccid. Try harder next time.

If fascism was socialism, they would call it socialism and fascism would not have it's own definition. Or visa versa.

People such as yourself try real hard to conflate the two, but revisionist bull# is easily refuted.

I Googled "necrophilliacical buggering" and it kept sending me links to the Clinton Foundation.

Weird.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I Googled "necrophilliacical buggering" and it kept sending me links to the Clinton Foundation.

Weird.

Funny. I did the same thing and the only link provided came right back to ATS.

www.google.com...

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I Googled "necrophilliacical buggering" and it kept sending me links to the Clinton Foundation.

Weird.

Funny. I did the same thing and the only link provided came right back to ATS.

www.google.com...

Oh wonderful... way to go, Google. I really need that conceptual phrase associated with me for all eternity.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: introvert
There is no profit motive in a socialist system. The private entities are allowed to profit off of government money and that is the definition of fascism...the joining of government and corporate power.

true capitalism is corporatism.

That's totally wrong, they have differing ways of about. Both are a form of socialism at the end of the day, while corporatism is a collective no matter what way you screw it and political, while capitalism is an individual freedom, no matter what.
There should be checks and balances in corporatism..hence political, capitalism is more subject to ethics directly, while capitalism in a labour situation is a collective.

Neither are fascism per se , which seeks to control everything, and if there is a figurehead, it's a dictatorship, any interplay between politics and corporatism though, should be challenged.

a reply to: introvert

By your definition, taxation is socialism. Which it is.

Glad we can agree.

You're too polarized. Try finding some middle ground. Taxation is not socialism anymore than eating is obesity. Fair taxation sustains the government (not the people), just as eating sustains the body. Over taxation leads to a huge money hungry bureaucracy, just as over eating leads to obesity.

It appears the constitution is a medium for propagation of socialism.

How so? Just saying it doesn't make it true. If followed, Constitution (especially the Anti-Federalist supported Bill of Rights) prevents the formation of a socialist government.

I don't need courage when history and dictionaries would disagree.

Nazi Germany, the Bolshevik Revolution, Cuba, Venezuela...these are outstanding historical examples, expressing how socialism has failed. Look at the EU. Their quasi-socialist system is bankrupting them just like the US.

So you need to brush up on your history, and quit playing the semantics game.

You are very vocal, but let me give you a piece of advice my grandfather once told me. "Never give your ass it's own set of vocal chords".

This has nothing to do with the conversation. Its a defense mechanism. You refuse to see the error in your own ideology, so you're projecting your flaws on to me. No doubt your grandfather was a wise man indeed...

If fascism was socialism, they would call it socialism and fascism would not have it's own definition. Or visa versa.

Really? Can you try a little harder, please? There was a time when electricity and magnetism were thought to be two completely independent forces, until James Clerk Maxwell mathematically unified the theory of Electromagnetism. Humans are good at mislabeling principles...especially when personal interests are involved.

People such as yourself try real hard to conflate the two, but revisionist bull# is easily refuted.

Ooooh, now you're reverting to fowl language...yet another defense mechanism. Yep, more projection too. That statement describes you much more accurately. No worries though. No one is without fault.

a reply to: ScoochieMcGroogle

Best as I can figure it, the Right Wing is using socialism as a deflection against the Russia inquiry and as the old "scary monster" to help them take away social programs (because our entitled elites don't like 'entitlement' programs.)

Meh.

The "Obsession" with Socialism has been going on since the mid 19th Century.

Grampaw Karl started the sensation.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "Obsession" with Socialism has been going on since the mid 19th Century.

Grampaw Karl started the sensation.

Still upset over him stealing your girlfriend huh?

a reply to: ScoochieMcGroogle

Quite easy to understand honestly.
Interesting video related to this:

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "Obsession" with Socialism has been going on since the mid 19th Century.

Grampaw Karl started the sensation.

Still upset over him stealing your girlfriend huh?

Yeah !!

The nerve of some people eh.

originally posted by: ScoochieMcGroogle
Phony US-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc. have cost so much money, you could subsidize welfare and healthcare in the States for the next thousand years with it (including all the illegals), banks got bailed out with astronomical sums overnight - yet the pet peeve now is socialism?!

Cuz the socialisms is gay.

Rock, flag, and eagle.