What the left believes versus what the right believes

a reply to: Gryphon66

The term socialism as you've just defined it is a bit of a limited pejorative use, wouldn't you say? Particularly among certain political factions?

I'd say more than a bit. But let's look at why that is.

The present definition of socialism, more properly democratic socialism, seems to involve this New Green Deal. According to those who are busily referring to it, this Green New Deal includes forcing homeowners and business owners to either retrofit or rebuild their homes and businesses to strict authoritarian standards. Most people cannot afford to rebuild their homes! So what happens when they can't? Does the government come in, guns blazing, and rebuild them themselves, then charge the owners for it? or maybe if the owners can't pay, they'll lose their homes/businesses?

That's just one aspect. I know I'm "reading between the lines" here, but I don't think, based on previous government actions, that I am far off.

Liz Warren has stated openly that she wants to outlaw private medical insurance, effectively putting thousands out of work. As much as I despise insurance companies, it is as much of a problem to outlaw them as it is to require them by law (as in Obamacare). The government should not be calling winners and losers economically, in either direction. That's not their venue nor their proper jurisdiction.

Robert Francis O'Rourke has openly stated that "Yes! We are coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s!" Many of these are used for hunting or other peaceful purposes. More are used as self-defense. They are no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic, and as such their confiscation would be a serious precedent to removal of all semi-automatic weaponry... and that, in a rural setting such as mine, is highly dangerous to the citizens.

All of these programs are tied to "democratic socialism." That defines the term for me by context; it is nothing more than complete government control without individual rights... like a full democracy, which has been described as two wolves and one sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

These policies are far more in line with social welfare than with classical socialism, and social welfare as an economic force has been a part of the United States since the 1930s.

The problem lies not in the definition, but in the extent. Some social programs are truly necessary. As has been stated, the United States is not a purely capitalistic country... and thank God! Pure capitalism will result in monopoly and indigence, as the very rich can manipulate the same markets they use for wealth and the very poor cannot possibly dig themselves out of the hole they are in.

We combat the monopoly issue with anti-trust laws... which have been applied far too infrequently IMO.

We combat the indigence problem with social aid... which is not nearly enough IMO. However, we have to deal with a limited resource budget as with everything in life, and the corruption that comes from offers of "free stuff" only serves to restrict the flow of aid to those who need it the most. We can do so much better in that respect by restructuring social welfare to acknowledge how badly off people can be, and simultaneously stop the majority of corruption in its tracks. The problem is that doing so is both a little more uncomfortable to the indigent (which I consider a good thing; it is supposed to be a safety net, not a safety hammock) and restricts wasted money to those who (ab)use the system for their own personal gain.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dfnj2015

Maybe I misunderestimated the right's ability to actually read what I actually wrote, "I tried to do this a little more fairly but it is impossible for me not to be a little derogatory of the right."

No, you underestimated people's ability to see through the BS. You are certainly more than a "little derogatory"... your posts are regularly dripping with pure unadulterated disdain for anyone who dares not think like you. This OP is even worse than normal... you don't even try to hide your absolute ignorance of what others think, nor your complete disgust at them for daring disagree with you.

That is not trying to do things more fairly. That is peeing on someone's leg and telling them it's raining. It will not garner anything other than resentment.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I just find it interesting that leftist say exactly what they are going to do verbatim and yet you still have people who deny their true intentions... even when presented with direct quotes and evidence.

Some people are meant to be ruled and lorded over. They won't be happy otherwise.

a reply to: Edumakated

BWAHAHAHA

Only because any internet comment or, you tube video or no name celebrity is somehow a champion/spokesperson for the left...


For example, please find me one quote from an American elected official saying they want to ban all the guns, abortion to the last day, totally open borders,exc...



There is not one issue where the conservatives Actually debate the proposals do do not deflect to a slippery slope logical fallacy

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Edumakated

BWAHAHAHA

Only because any internet comment or, you tube video or no name celebrity is somehow a champion/spokesperson for the left...


For example, please find me one quote from an American elected official saying they want to ban all the guns, abortion to the last day, totally open borders,exc...



There is not one issue where the conservatives Actually debate the proposals do do not deflect to a slippery slope logical fallacy

You are joking, right?

Banning Guns...





Joe Biden? Open Borders...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

The term socialism as you've just defined it is a bit of a limited pejorative use, wouldn't you say? Particularly among certain political factions?

I'd say more than a bit. But let's look at why that is.

The present definition of socialism, more properly democratic socialism, seems to involve this New Green Deal. According to those who are busily referring to it, this Green New Deal includes forcing homeowners and business owners to either retrofit or rebuild their homes and businesses to strict authoritarian standards. Most people cannot afford to rebuild their homes! So what happens when they can't? Does the government come in, guns blazing, and rebuild them themselves, then charge the owners for it? or maybe if the owners can't pay, they'll lose their homes/businesses?

That's just one aspect. I know I'm "reading between the lines" here, but I don't think, based on previous government actions, that I am far off.

Liz Warren has stated openly that she wants to outlaw private medical insurance, effectively putting thousands out of work. As much as I despise insurance companies, it is as much of a problem to outlaw them as it is to require them by law (as in Obamacare). The government should not be calling winners and losers economically, in either direction. That's not their venue nor their proper jurisdiction.

Robert Francis O'Rourke has openly stated that "Yes! We are coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s!" Many of these are used for hunting or other peaceful purposes. More are used as self-defense. They are no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic, and as such their confiscation would be a serious precedent to removal of all semi-automatic weaponry... and that, in a rural setting such as mine, is highly dangerous to the citizens.

All of these programs are tied to "democratic socialism." That defines the term for me by context; it is nothing more than complete government control without individual rights... like a full democracy, which has been described as two wolves and one sheep voting for what to have for dinner.

These policies are far more in line with social welfare than with classical socialism, and social welfare as an economic force has been a part of the United States since the 1930s.

The problem lies not in the definition, but in the extent. Some social programs are truly necessary. As has been stated, the United States is not a purely capitalistic country... and thank God! Pure capitalism will result in monopoly and indigence, as the very rich can manipulate the same markets they use for wealth and the very poor cannot possibly dig themselves out of the hole they are in.

We combat the monopoly issue with anti-trust laws... which have been applied far too infrequently IMO.

We combat the indigence problem with social aid... which is not nearly enough IMO. However, we have to deal with a limited resource budget as with everything in life, and the corruption that comes from offers of "free stuff" only serves to restrict the flow of aid to those who need it the most. We can do so much better in that respect by restructuring social welfare to acknowledge how badly off people can be, and simultaneously stop the majority of corruption in its tracks. The problem is that doing so is both a little more uncomfortable to the indigent (which I consider a good thing; it is supposed to be a safety net, not a safety hammock) and restricts wasted money to those who (ab)use the system for their own personal gain.

TheRedneck

You get a star for that reasonable response and stance. However, I’d venture another reason socialism being such a derogatory term. Prior to the Cold War period socialism was, in fact, the dominant paradigm through most of the western world. It was taught in schools, all the big economists followed it, it was the driving force behind much of our social policy and that of Europe. It was also the reason for the constant progress and growth of the middle class not just in the US but also in Europe during the post war period. But it was a huge threat to the oligarchs and wealthy. So they began the massive “red scare” and McCarthyism. It was sold as a defense against the Russians, but in reality it was a full on attack against socialism, communism, labor, and civilian power in general.

Not only did they enact a massive thought police system, they crushed all the worker movements and rights movements, and imprisoned, punished and persecuted anyone who professed or was accused of having any leanings to the left. The whole paradigm of an economic system that works for the people was dismantled and rebranded, and it took until today for it to even be discussed in polite conversation.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: TheRedneck

I just find it interesting that leftist say exactly what they are going to do verbatim and yet you still have people who deny their true intentions... even when presented with direct quotes and evidence.

Some people are meant to be ruled and lorded over. They won't be happy otherwise.

And you know what? I'd be totally fine with that if the didn't think the rest of us had to be ruled right along with them.

a reply to: pexx421

Guess what?

Prior to WWII, everyone thought fascism was the way to go also. I wonder why that attitude changed?

the way i see it the right are racist or allies to racist, set in their ways (make america great again, for who native americans) and overall want to maintain the white power structure. The left is the others that dont fit in that box, while not perfect they are the diverse people that make up and built the nation. blacks, immigrants, lgbt , human and animal rights activist etc

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: pexx421

Guess what?

Prior to WWII, everyone thought fascism was the way to go also. I wonder why that attitude changed?

Yeah, except that’s not true. At any rate, people seem to be flocking to fascism now.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Sanders, AOC and company do not define socialism for me or for most people (I hope).

Every govenment standard or requirement is techinically authoritarian. Requiring a license to drive a car is authoritarian. Zoning laws and building codes are authoritarian. Does the governement raid the homes of people who didn't get the proper permit to build a porch? Nah. Why would the response to these requirements be so dramatic? CA is requiring solar panels on all NEW builds, and I'm fairly sure that the Green New Deal proposals are simliar. Not that it will pass in our lifetimes.

Warren says a lot of things. I am not impressed by and large, but toward your argument that socialism is being equated with some Democratic policy proposals in common parliance, fair enough.

The actual Democratic Socialists of America are definitely a scary bunch to anyone who values Constitutional freedoms.

One man's (O'Rourke) campaign exaggerations do not policy make. He's a distant 13th or so in the polls, he's desperately trying to get air time. For that matter, Feinstein's notorious comments are not policy either. Banning Assault Weapons was American law for quite some time though, and that's not, at least in my opinion, a serious challenge to the 2nd Amendment. Justice Scalia noted in Heller as well.

Joe Biden is not a democratic socialist, and neither is Kamala Harris or Mayor Pete Buttywhatevertheheck. So democratic socialism is not synonymous with the Democratic Party ... yet.

I couldn't have stated your last three paragraphs any better myself. 100% agreement. Good show!

a reply to: pexx421

Sorry, but you're wrong. I even found Chomsky for you.

Roosevelt himself had a mixed attitude. For example, he was pretty supportive of Mussolini's fascism, in fact described Mussolini as "that admirable Italian gentleman." He later concluded that Mussolini had been misled by his association with Hitler and had been led kind of down the wrong path. But the American business community, the power systems in the United States were highly supportive of Mussolini.

In fact, even parts of the labor bureaucracy were.

They call socialism/communism the left, but that's what they are in Europe while fascism is the right. In fact, both structures are government authoritarian systems with very little difference in outcome for the average person, but they had to distinguish themselves somehow.

In the US, the dichotomy is different. Between anarchy/libertarianism on the right and authoritarianism/statism on the left, so properly both fascism and communism/socialism end up on the same side in the US.

a reply to: ketsuko

I agree with most of your post completely. However, I'd have to challenge the idea that the so-called American Left and Right are on opposite sides.

They're both authoritarian, period.

Wow, Adam Schiff is really putting the screws to Witnesses in his secret interrogation room!

Check out this excerpt from a leaked transcript.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Wow, Adam Schiff is really putting the screws to Witnesses in his secret interrogation room!

Check out this excerpt from a leaked transcript.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Washington Examiner is fake news.

Next?

It is genetic ! Wolves and Sheep ! Look at the jungle or savannah and you can tell immediately which animals are right and left . I’m not a Christian or an Atheist , yet I would choose to live in a conservative neighborhood over a liberal one any day . Why do people who are poor that become wealthy move to safe conservative neighborhoods and send their kids to private elite schools ? We have a problem in America ! Money only goes to the poor or wealthy ! The working class gives to charity and gives their blood to corporate entities . The rich do little to earn ( their money does all the heavy lifting . The poor live better in America than most minimum wage earners . People need to quit working as a group and then we will get either killed of listened to ! Fear is our problem

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lmao that is hilarious...


Every conservative OP is sourced to a fake conservative conspiracy site..


Washington examiner.. zero hedge.. exc..

a reply to: SulfurMercurySalt

A liberal neighborhood with policies that bigwig liberals have actually proposed?

Or a neighborhood set up like what conservatives pretend liberals want to do, because they would not even remotely be the same place..


I personally think pretty much the vast majority of Americans agree with liberal polices, they do not however agree with the slippery slope position conservatives pretend liberals support..



For example..


A real liberal neighborhood would have a ban on the NEW manufacturing of assault rifles that leave the millions presently in circulation perfectly legal to buy or trade..


A conservative propaganda neighborhood would have a total ban and people kicking in doors to confiscate what is left..


Not even remotely the same place...


A real liberal neighborhood would sift through any illegals caught and keep the good ones..


Conservative propaganda: they want totally open boarders including rapists!!

a reply to: dfnj2015

U.S. Politics for Dummies - The Left and Right are the Same Animal that Must be Tamed by a Conscious Sane Leader that does not want Either to Do Any More HARM to Themselves .

a reply to: pexx421

Prior to the Cold War period socialism was, in fact, the dominant paradigm through most of the western world. It was taught in schools, all the big economists followed it, it was the driving force behind much of our social policy and that of Europe. It was also the reason for the constant progress and growth of the middle class not just in the US but also in Europe during the post war period.

I disagree.

I had family who fought in WWII. None of them even knew what socialism was. They did know what communism was, and they all opposed it. Not because they were told to, but because of the stories coming out of Russia about loss of freedoms under communism.

Perhaps you are referring to Roosevelt's New Deal; that was a socialist power grab, but on nowhere near the level we see attempts to power grab today. One could argue, I suppose, that the New Deal grew the middle class, as it is true that the middle class grew after the New Deal was imposed, but that ignores the fact that we had just come out of a global depression of unprecedented magnitude. i put it to you that while certain aspects of the New Deal likely helped, the true cause of the resurgence of the middle class was capitalism. This was the height of the Industrial Revolution, and what was once considered luxuries for the wealthy... automobiles, TVs, etc... became common. No one was giving these away as some sort of a social assistance program; they were being produced and sold to a public that had disposable income from an abundance of jobs available.

TheRedneck