Read These Comments ABout Socialism

[angelatc]

From a British paper's blog: "Here Comes The S Word"

Skim the article, and read the comments.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/matthewprice/2008/10/here_comes_the_s_word.html

I think I am going to go throw up then have a good cry.

[tropicangela]

Comment #17 was good.

[RSLudlum]

I think I am going to go throw up then have a good cry.

Well, you know John Maynard Keynes was a member of the socialist Fabian Society and has really pulled one over on the world! :(

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I fail to see what's wrong with anything said on that page.

For all the time Ron Paul supporter's spend preaching about the need for free and open dialogue, many of you still have a hard time extending that same courtesy to the left.

Socialism is a valid philosophy. As are fascism, monarchy, libertarianism, and peanutbutterism. I doubt we'd have so many problems with our economic situation if we were at least allowed a more mature dialogue over what works best.

[Mini-Me]

I fail to see what's wrong with anything said on that page.

For all the time Ron Paul supporter's spend preaching about the need for free and open dialogue, many of you still have a hard time extending that same courtesy to the left.

Socialism is a valid philosophy. As are fascism, monarchy, libertarianism, and peanutbutterism. I doubt we'd have so many problems with our economic situation if we were at least allowed a more mature dialogue over what works best.

That's true, but it's still utterly disheartening how many people have bought into tyrannical philosophies and consider them "altruistic."

[angelatc]

I fail to see what's wrong with anything said on that page.

For all the time Ron Paul supporter's spend preaching about the need for free and open dialogue, many of you still have a hard time extending that same courtesy to the left.

Socialism is a valid philosophy. As are fascism, monarchy, libertarianism, and peanutbutterism. I doubt we'd have so many problems with our economic situation if we were at least allowed a more mature dialogue over what works best.

You seem to think that the socialists are interested in dialogue.

Perhaps it is my economic background, but you can't convince me that thinking that socialism works isn't a believing in a fallacy, not a philosophy. It works on paper, but not in real life. There's no correction mechanism, while the free market corrects it self. You can't have a ying without a yang.

I can't have a mature dialogue with a philosophy that wants to eliminate the church, while pretending it's whole basis is based on "morality."

As for the article, I just hate seeing so many people thinking that socialism really isn't so bad. It's like a horror movie, where the pod people are taking over.

[Mini-Me]

You seem to think that the socialists are interested in dialogue.

Perhaps it is my economic background, but you can't convince me that thinking that socialism works isn't a believing in a fallacy, not a philosophy. It works on paper, but not in real life. There's no correction mechanism, while the free market corrects it self. You can't have a ying without a yang.

I can't have a mature dialogue with a philosophy that wants to eliminate the church, while pretending it's whole basis is based on "morality."

As for the article, I just hate seeing so many people thinking that socialism really isn't so bad. It's like a horror movie, where the pod people are taking over.

Socialism doesn't work on paper either, since you can logically explain its failures on paper. ;)

[Deborah K]

Socialism is a valid philosophy. As are fascism, monarchy, libertarianism, and peanutbutterism. I doubt we'd have so many problems with our economic situation if we were at least allowed a more mature dialogue over what works best.

Have you watched this video? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950

[angelatc]

Socialism doesn't work on paper either, since you can logically explain its failures on paper. ;)

Thanks I needed that!

Those comments really disturbed me. Let's pull our troops out and let them pony up for their own damned defense.

LIke we should give a rat's ass what the global community thinks! We left there because they were a bunch of numb nuts. Looks like things haven't really changed.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Perhaps it is my economic background, but you can't convince me that thinking that socialism works isn't a believing in a fallacyI could say the same thing about Christianity, but I'm still willing to work with you people to take on bigger threats.

Look at the bigger picture, please.

[angelatc]

I could say the same thing about Christianity, but I'm still willing to work with you people to take on bigger threats.

Look at the bigger picture, please.


I am not a Christian, and even if I were, religion is a free will obligation. The state, and socialism, has no "opt out" clause.

What picture can you possibly be looking at? Socialism is the religion of the lazy and the greedy.

This junk about "we have to be civil in our response", etc that I've heard over the years is pure bull. We sit back and act nice, and they take more rights away. We're going to have to be just as loud and obnoxious as the socialist morons if we don't want to lose any more rights.

[sratiug]

Socialism is a valid philosophy. As are fascism, monarchy, libertarianism, and peanutbutterism. I doubt we'd have so many problems with our economic situation if we were at least allowed a more mature dialogue over what works best.

Lies. All except for libertarianism are completely un-American and call for the complete destruction of our constitution. When socialists start calling for amendments to be repealed or added and/or the constitution be scrapped completely then they could be taken seriously.

[Mini-Me]

Lies. All except for libertarianism are completely un-American and call for the complete destruction of our constitution. When socialists start calling for amendments to be repealed or added and/or the constitution be scrapped completely then they could be taken seriously.

Well, if they were pushing for voluntary socialism within the context of the free market or even socialism at the state level, it actually wouldn't be a violation of the Constitution of the United States...but I see very few socialists pushing for anything less than government-enforced socialism at the national level.

[Deborah K]

Well, if they were pushing for it at the state level, it actually wouldn't be a violation of the Constitution of the United States...but I see very few socialists pushing for anything less than socialism at the national level.


You obviously don't live in Cali. Man, it has gotten sooo bad here. :(

[Mini-Me]

You obviously don't live in Cali. Man, it has gotten sooo bad here. :(

Sorry to hear...:-/
Tyranny is tyranny, but at least at the state level you can vote with your feet if it gets bad enough...it's not much consolation, I know, but I think what you're experiencing is just a taste of what's to come all over the entire country, unfortunately. :(

[Deborah K]

Sorry to hear...:-/
Tyranny is tyranny, but at least at the state level you can vote with your feet if it gets bad enough...it's not much consolation, I know, but I think what you're experiencing is just a taste of what's to come all over the entire country, unfortunately. :(

Yep, you're right. :(:(:(

[angelatc]

You obviously don't live in Cali. Man, it has gotten sooo bad here. :(

But that was the original beauty of the union! "Vote with your feet!"

[Deborah K]

But that was the original beauty of the union! "Vote with your feet!"


By that do you mean move out of state? If so, we may have to, eventually. It will be very difficult because I love my home, my friends, my family lives here, I'm involved. It's hard to up and leave when your roots are deep.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Alright, two things for you guys.

1) How many times have you heard someone making complaints about libertarian philosophy, only to dig deeper and find the argument was based entirely on lies and fallacies misattributed to us?

Now, how hard is it to believe you're guilty of essentially the same thing? If you can't see the gaping chasm of difference between Lenin/Mao and Nader/Kucinich, then it's time to do some more reading. A lot more.

2) How many times do you have to be beaten over the head with the fact that most of the socialist base is anti-war until you get it? What I'm pushing for here is an emergency alliance, not unlike the one made between Russia and the allies in WWII. Reaching across the aisle on that one issue could open a dialogue that would lead to more moderation and hand-shaking between the two groups on others. It may even open some eyes and tip the majority from being socialist back to being libertarian.

Just think, how many times have you seen a post claiming, "Ron Paul saved me. I was a diehard socialist/neocon until..." That's precisely where I come from, in fact. If you continue to fling shit in their direction, though, you'll have no luck.

Please, someone back me up. Am I crazy for thinking that reaching out to people with open minds and careful consideration of hot issues is preferable to thought-stopping shouts of "omg socialist!" at everything that looks at us funny?


And just one last thing: welfare is sustainable, warfare is not. Which one do you choose?

[nbhadja]

Alright, two things for you guys.

1) How many times have you heard someone making complaints about libertarian philosophy, only to dig deeper and find the argument was based entirely on lies and fallacies misattributed to us?

Now, how hard is it to believe you're guilty of essentially the same thing? If you can't see the gaping chasm of difference between Lenin/Mao and Nader/Kucinich, then it's time to do some more reading. A lot more.

2) How many times do you have to be beaten over the head with the fact that most of the socialist base is anti-war until you get it? What I'm pushing for here is an emergency alliance, not unlike the one made between Russia and the allies in WWII. Reaching across the aisle on that one issue could open a dialogue that would lead to more moderation and hand-shaking between the two groups on others. It may even open some eyes and tip the majority from being socialist back to being libertarian.

Just think, how many times have you seen a post claiming, "Ron Paul saved me. I was a diehard socialist/neocon until..." That's precisely where I come from, in fact. If you continue to fling shit in their direction, though, you'll have no luck.

Please, someone back me up. Am I crazy for thinking that reaching out to people with open minds and careful consideration of hot issues is preferable to thought-stopping shouts of "omg socialist!" at everything that looks at us funny?


And just one last thing: welfare is sustainable, warfare is not. Which one do you choose?

Socialism is a proven failure. It is also morally wrong. You do not have to lie to prove that and we do not lie.

[Mini-Me]

Alright, two things for you guys.

1) How many times have you heard someone making complaints about libertarian philosophy, only to dig deeper and find the argument was based entirely on lies and fallacies misattributed to us?

Now, how hard is it to believe you're guilty of essentially the same thing? If you can't see the gaping chasm of difference between Lenin/Mao and Nader/Kucinich, then it's time to do some more reading. A lot more.
Of course they're different, and that's why I like Nader and Kucinich in certain ways, and I'm happy when our people work with theirs toward common goals. That said, I believe Nader and Kucinich are very misguided and fail to see that by giving the government the power to redistribute wealth and such, they're also giving the government the power it needs to find a foothold for expanding its power much further...until it becomes exactly like the USSR and China did under Lenin/Stalin and Mao, respectively, no matter how much it would horrify Nader and Kucinich alike. I believe they are very good people, but they trust in government way too much (and obviously, I strongly disagree with the rights-violating ideology driving their actual positions, as well). The powers they wish government to have differ greatly from the powers Stalin wished government to have, but most differ only in degree, not in principle - and because of that, giving the government the authority to make such subjective value judgments on "just how much is too much" can only result in a continued downward spiral on the slippery slope.



2) How many times do you have to be beaten over the head with the fact that most of the socialist base is anti-war until you get it? What I'm pushing for here is an emergency alliance, not unlike the one made between Russia and the allies in WWII. Reaching across the aisle on that one issue could open a dialogue that would lead to more moderation and hand-shaking between the two groups on others. It may even open some eyes and tip the majority from being socialist back to being libertarian.

Just think, how many times have you seen a post claiming, "Ron Paul saved me. I was a diehard socialist/neocon until..." That's precisely where I come from, in fact. If you continue to fling shit in their direction, though, you'll have no luck.

Please, someone back me up. Am I crazy for thinking that reaching out to people with open minds and careful consideration of hot issues is preferable to thought-stopping shouts of "omg socialist!" at everything that looks at us funny?


And just one last thing: welfare is sustainable, warfare is not. Which one do you choose?

Who is disagreeing with you on this? I'm perfectly happy forming an emergency anti-war, anti-big brother alliance. However, when it comes to economic issues, I'm not going to sit around and pretend like I don't have an opinion.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Who is disagreeing with you on this?look around.

[Mini-Me]

look around.

I'm sure there are people on this forum who obstinately want absolutely nothing to do with socialists of any kind (if anyone raised the idea in the presence of tones, his/her/their/whatever heads would probably explode), but...I haven't seen that sentiment in this particular thread. Just because the people in this thread loathe socialism doesn't necessarily mean they're unwilling to work with socialists whatsoever toward common goals. This is an inherently economic thread (or at least one that laments the servitude of socialism), so you're not going to see socialists and libertarians holding hands and singing songs together. ;) The thing is, these are the Ron Paul Forums, not the Anti-War or Anti-Big Brother forums. Sure, those are two positions Ron Paul personally holds very dear (which form part of a more comprehensive, compatible, and consistent political philosophy), and I'm happy to work with anyone else who agrees with them, but Ron Paul is not solely about those positions, and neither are most people here. More than any other politician, he's also a fierce defender of the free market. Naturally, you're going to see a lot more libertarians and old-school conservatives than liberals and socialists on the board, just because the libertarians tend to agree with Ron Paul on a whole lot more. Heck, back during the primaries, I even saw partially reformed neocons on here who only seemed to agree with Paul on economic issues, and who were seemingly pro-war! In that same vein, if you go post on the Ralph Nader boards or something like that, you'll find a lot of vehement opposition to the free market...because after all, Ralph Nader is about more than just opposition to senseless war. That doesn't mean they'd be unwilling to work with libertarians against the war, big brother, or corporate fascism (although such fascism would continue to rear its ugly head over and over so long as the government had the power of plunder). It just means that, on their own home turf, they're likely to be very pro-Nader, through and through.

[Mini-Me]

Err, okay. I think I'm done editing my post now. ;)

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

[snip]



And just one last thing: welfare is sustainable, warfare is not. Which one do you choose?

Neither, as neither is sustainable.

"We're underwater to the tune of $50 trillion, and that number is going up three to four trillion a year on autopilot."
"The figure Walker cites includes future payments that government entitlement programs would have to pay, including $32 trillion owed by Medicare. "
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/pysk.walker/index.html

That aside, welfare leads to big government which helps to lead to wars overseas.

When have socialists been opposed to war anyway? World-wide war/nation-building seems to be a natural progression of socialism. Obama will probably soon be demonstrating just how much socialists like war, when they are told it's for a good cause. :rolleyes:

"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite." - Gary Allen