NationStates Jolt Archive

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and


praises the achievements of Europe's social-democratic parties in health care, housing, education and reduction of child poverty.

"The government should make sure people who work 40 hours a week do not live in poverty," he says, adding for good measure: "I disagree with Bush and other right-wing extremists about this."


Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

This is probably the only thing that makes me mildly proud to live in Vermont.

Vermont is awesome...that guy is awesome.

He's only socialist by the standards of the USA. If he were a European politican he'd be centrist at best.

He's only socialist by the standards of the USA. If he were a European politican he'd be centrist at best.We take what we can get around here.

He isn't really a socialist, but the fact that he can call himself a socialist and not lose in a landslide is a positive indication about the current political climate.

It's cheered me up a little bit, yes. I'd never have thought it possible.

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

I hope he's voted out and never elected again when he's up for election again. Socialism destroys the "separation of repsonsibilities" (I can't remember where I heard that) in society.

Is that hilarious enough for you? :rolleyes:

As said he is about the least socilistic socialist I can imagine, living in Europe, but compared with other american politicians I guess he is a step in the right direction.

I hope he's voted out and never elected again when he's up for election again.
Judging by Sanders' record, I wouldn't hold your breath.

Judging by Sanders' record, I wouldn't hold your breath.

One can always hope.

Sounds like a guy with a bit of common sense. Well done Vermont!

The government's job is to preserve and protect its citizen's personal, political, and economic freedoms, nothing more. Come the war, he's on my shit list.

The government's job is to preserve and protect its citizen's personal, political, and economic freedoms, nothing more.

In your extremist view, which (fortunately) is not shared by everyone. The US happens to be a country in which people can vote for whomever they want, and people are allowed to express diversity of opinions, remember?

I hope he's voted out and never elected again when he's up for election again.

Those darn Reds! We shoulda nuked Moscow when we had the chance! Wolverines!

Those darn Reds! We shoulda nuked Moscow when we had the chance! Wolverines!

Now, now. We want as little death as possible.

It doesn't bode well for America if this guy is elected. With both the left and right seeking to expand the state the US will have the worst of both worlds. It won't be good for people who still believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :(

Now, now. We want as little death as possible.

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

It doesn't bode well for America if this guy is elected. With both the left and right seeking to expand the state the US will have the worst of both worlds. It won't be good for people who still believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :(

He HAS been elected. And are you saying he somehow stands for death, tyranny and the imposition of unhappiness?

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

Well, that can be taken two different ways.

The first: It's a good thing that the United States is joining the other democracies. The sign itself is good.

The second: The indication is good (or strong, or clear) that the US is joining the other democracies.

I can agree with the second, but not the first.

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

"Joining" anything is generally a ticket to mediocrity...

Fergi America;12184009']"Joining" anything is generally a ticket to mediocrity...

Agh! A semantics attack! I am crippled by your literal-mindedness!

I think this hardly a display of pro-Socialist feelings as much as it is a showing of anti-Republican. If you went up on the Democratic Party, said you were a anarchist whose main claim to fame was swimming naked with the dolphins at Sea World, you would win 'only' with 75 percent of the vote.

As it is, I am pretty afraid to be consider having America join the other European powers. Mainly because America is made out of immigrants, and has a much more grandiose approach to the world. As it stands Europe mainly is too content with itself and as you saw last year, a lot of its immigrants are none to happy with the politicians.

Hell, if this means when I grow up and have to pay half my money in taxes for social welfare I never recieve, that'll suck. If in the mean time the minimum wage is raised to 10 dollars, that'll pwn. I guess there is a down and up to everything, it just seems there is no up to having a European styled America.

He's more of a social democrat than an actual socialist, IMO.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

Thats nice. I sure hope we get those hillarious reactions as well such as "you're letting people live of social welfare?!" and "40% of my wages go back too the goverment?"

Thats nice. I sure hope we get those hillarious reactions as well such as "you're letting people live of social welfare?!" and "40% of my wages go back too the goverment?"

It'll be even funnier when the people trying to defend him forget proper English... Such as off and off, go and goes, or even too and to to name a few...

America [...] has a much more grandiose approach to the world. As it stands Europe mainly is too content with itself

Clarify, por favor?

Congratulations, you've tried to pull it off for well over a century, and you chaps finally succeeded in getting one seat in the US Senate. It's so threatening that I think I'm going to go do my homework and carry on with my life.

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

Umm.....

We are a big player in the western world, and have been. We've been a REPUBLIC for a long time.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

The xenophobes and right-wingers will jump all over him. He's doomed.

The government's job is to preserve and protect its citizen's personal, political, and economic freedoms, nothing more. Come the war, he's on my shit list.
I think you'll find a number of people ready to stomp you should you actually come after him--you know, as opposed to being a loudmouthed internet blowhard of the type you seem to be.

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

Either that, or the rest of the world could join us in becoming a proper democracy.

After all, the US makes up about half of what is traditionally defined as western.

Either that, or the rest of the world could join us in becoming a proper democracy.


Two near-identical parties? Rock on! That really is Democracy! It's like it's impossible to disagree with anyone else! As an apathetic conservative, that appeals to me.

Two identical parties?

Fixed.

Well, does this mean the Senate now consists of 1 Socialist, 49 Democrats, and 50 Republicans, putting the Republicans in the majority in the Senate?

Well, does this mean the Senate now consists of 1 Socialist, 49 Democrats, and 50 Republicans, putting the Republicans in the majority in the Senate?

In your extremist view,

I started to laugh at the absolute absurdity of this statement. Then I saw who posted it.

For your information, my leftie Euro friend, his "view" was also the view of the Founding Fathers of the United States, and a view which this country, and yours, would do well to (re-)adopt.

which (fortunately) is not shared by everyone.

Yes, God forbid that anyone should actually believe in limited government and personal and economic freedom.

The US happens to be a country in which people can vote for whomever they want, and people are allowed to express diversity of opinions, remember?

Exactly what N-A was doing. Can they do the same thing in your country?

Wow, is the US senate locked 50-50 nowadays? This should be funny.

Yes, God forbid that anyone should actually believe in limited government and personal and economic freedom.

After all the views I have seen you express on this board, I am very sceptical that you believe in either freedom, or limited government.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D
That is liquid wrawk. If we could copy his brain and put it into a brainworm and distribute it across the united states government. Yes, I am exremely liberal.

I started to laugh at the absolute absurdity of this statement.

I see that any attempt to get someone to reflect on a sense of perspective is too difficult for you to grasp.


which this country, and yours, would do well to (re-)adopt.


No, thank you. We much prefer our countries as they are. You can keep your bizarre system.


Exactly what N-A was doing.

Aww, and you didn't understand that was exactly the point I was making?


Can they do the same thing in your country?

Please tell me that was a rhetorical question. I do get tired of mocking the ignorant.

I see that any attempt to get someone to reflect on a sense of perspective is too difficult for you to grasp.

Well, you're the one dismissing persons as extremists and at the same time telling them to consider other views. It's seems rather oxymoronic and contradictory to me.

No, thank you. We much prefer our countries as they are. You can keep your bizarre system.

I would rather be bizarre than dysfunctional

Aww, and you didn't understand that was exactly the point I was making?

Again, how were we to know, because you contradicted yourself?

Please tell me that was a rhetorical question. I do get tired of mocking the ignorant.

Then don't.

Again, how were we to know, because you contradicted yourself?


Nope. Pay attention. He said "Come the war, he's on my shit list". Hence my point that defending freedom of speech while wanting to fight against freedom of speech is contradictory.


Then don't.

It entertains me.

Well, you're the one dismissing persons as extremists and at the same time telling them to consider other views. It's seems rather oxymoronic and contradictory to me.


Calling people closed-minded and telling them to be more open-minded?
Madness!

According to Mr. Sanders, only "extreme right-wingers" believe that the rich shouldn't be punished for their success and that the lazy shouldn't be given the money earned by hard workers. It's a miracle he got elected, and not the good kind, either. He seeks to destroy America's most fundamental freedom, that grievance which led us to declare war on Great Britain. Taxation is slavery, and socialists like Mr. Sanders want to put us in chains. I, for one, say "no" to his subterfuge.

Nope. Pay attention. He said "Come the war, he's on my shit list". Hence my point that defending freedom of speech while wanting to fight against freedom of speech is contradictory.

Okay, I see that statement in his post. And I do see that at the top of page 3 someone quoted it. Where is it in your quote? No where to be found. So, you weren't responding to that statement.

Novus-America's post number is #13
Yours is #14
And the other post quoting him is the Nazz with #31

It entertains me.

More contradictions? You just said you get tired of it, implying that you are tired of it.

And if mockery is your form of entertainment, you need to reexamine your sense of humor.

Some Americans look to European countries such as France, Germany and its Scandinavian neighbors and suggest that we adopt some of their economic policies. I agree ... we should look at Europe for the lessons it can teach us.

Government spending exceeds 50% of the GDP in France and Sweeden and more than 45% in Germany and Italy, compaired with the US Federal, State and Local spending of just under 35%. Government spending encourages people to rely on handouts rather than individual initiative, and the higher taxes that finance the handouts reduce incentives to work, save and invest. The European results shouldn't suprise anyone after looking at this. US per-capita output in 2003 was $39,700, almost 40% higher than the average of $28,700 for European nations.

Over the last decade the US economy has grown twice as fast as the European economies. In 2006, the European unemployment average was 8% while US the average was 4.7%. What's more, the percentage of unemployment lasting 12 months was 12.7%, while in Europe the corresponding figure was 42.6%. Since 1970, 57 million new jobs were created in the US and just over 4 million were created in Europe.

Mitchell (See sources below) cites a comparitive study by 'Timbro' showing European countries rank with the poorest American states in terms of living standards, roughly equal to Arkansaa and Montana while only slightly ahead of West Virginia and Mississippi. *In terms of income levels, productivity, employment levels and R&D investment ... it would take Europe about 2 decades to catch up with the US, assuming the US didn't grow any further.

We don't have to rely on these statistics to make us not want to be like Europeans; just watch where the foot traffic and money flows. Some 400,000 European science and technology graduates live in the US. European migration to our country rose by 16% during the 1990's. **In 1980 the direct investment in the US was at $127 billion; today it is morethan $1.7 trillion. In 1980 there was $900 billion of foreign portfolio investment -government and private securities- in the US. Today, there is more than $4.6 trillion, much of it coming from Europeans who find our economica nd investment climate more attractive.

Sources:
"Fiscal Policy Lessons from Europe" -Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation-
'Timbro' -Sweedish think tank-
*'Eurochambers' -The Association of European Chambers of Commerce and Industry-
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity
**The Bereau of Economic Analysis

I think Europeans and lots of Americans forget that things in America are much more different than things in Europe and the UK. Problems you have over there, we lack. Problems we have over here, you lack. All in all I'm a Libertarian so of course I'm all for small government. Giving half of everything I own worked hard to aquire to someone who lacks work ethic isn't going to entice this person to get modivated, grab some initiative and get a job. It encourages slothful behavior.

Besides you all cheer for a man who represents the only state in America with the least amount of gun laws. They have two that I know of: "No guns on School grounds" and "Juvenile Possession Law" (bars possession of handguns by juveniles) I thought all you Socialist, Commies, Fascist and Liberals hated guns in far more excess.

So please, mind your own business and worry about your own governments ... and I'll continue to encourage, vote, write and petition for a government that does the same here.

Calling people closed-minded and telling them to be more open-minded?
Madness!

Yeah, really. :rolleyes:

Look at the tone of his statement. What you inferred is most likely not what he was implying and certainly not what he was overtly saying.

Taxation is slavery

Sanders is right about you, at least.

By the way, I'm so pleased the right-wingers are flocking into here. Do have a seat, make yourself comfortable. :D

Yeah, really. :rolleyes:

Look at the tone of his statement. What you inferred is most likely not what he was implying and certainly not what he was overtly saying.

It's what you said that I find funny.

It's what you said that I find funny.

How is this funny?

Well, you're the one dismissing persons as extremists and at the same time telling them to consider other views. It's seems rather oxymoronic and contradictory to me.

Either pay N-A (or whoever you're speaking with) the courtesy of truly considering and show how you disagree and explain why you think he's wrong. Or don't pretend to care about thinking things through and considering opposing views.

Either pay him the courtesy of truly considering and show how you disagree and explain why you think he's wrong. Or don't pretend to care about thinking things through and considering opposing views.

Him? I was talking to YOU, chum.

Him? I was talking to YOU, chum.

And I'm explaining the reasoning behind my statement.

EDIT: Sorry, "him" is whomever you're speaking with and "you" is hypothetical. Sorry for the confusion.

Where is it in your quote? No where to be found. So, you weren't responding to that statement.

So sorry that the obvious eludes you. :rolleyes:


More contradictions? You just said you get tired of it, implying that you are tired of it.

Sarcasm, sarcasm... *sigh* Actually, by now I really am starting to get tired of you. I can't make out whether you're genuinely incapable of understanding anything not spelled out explicitly in words of one syllable, or whether you're just being dishonest and pretending.


And if mockery is your form of entertainment, you need to reexamine your sense of humor.

Mockery of those who deserve mocking.

I've wasted too many months trying to reason with people whose minds are too limited to be capable of reason. It gets frustrating, and it's downright pointless. Much more fun just to ridicule them.

Socialism sucks.

And I'm explaining the reasoning behind my statement.

EDIT: Sorry, "him" is whomever you're speaking with and "you" is hypothetical. Sorry for the confusion.

Ugh, this is madness. I sarcastically replied to your suggestion that telling an extremist to consider other viewpoints was contradictory. Ok?

So sorry that the obvious eludes you. :rolleyes:

You chose to quote part of his post, but you left the second part, the part you claimed to be responding to, unquoted. What sense does tht make? The whole thing is already quoted when you click on "quote" so you had to delete the part you claim to have responded to. That makes no sense and is quite less than obvious.

Sarcasm, sarcasm... *sigh* Actually, by now I really am starting to get tired of you. I can't make out whether you're genuinely incapable of understanding anything not spelled out explicitly in words of one syllable, or whether you're just being dishonest and pretending.

Why don't you address the issue instead of mocking people? If I misunderstood your sarcasm, tell me. I can't read tone.

Mockery of those who deserve mocking.

I've wasted too many months trying to reason with people whose minds are too limited to be capable of reason. It gets frustrating, and it's downright pointless. Much more fun just to ridicule them.

That is simply disgusting. It's called perseverence. Eventually, someone will finally understand. But they're going to pay you no heed if all you do is mock them.

Why do you think I keep coming back to this stupid forum? Certainly not because I enjoy being mocked and ridiculed. It's the hope that if I keep trying God will bless my efforts and I will reach someone in someway.

Wow, is the US senate locked 50-50 nowadays? This should be funny.

No. The situation is 49 democrats, 49 republicans, and two independents, both caucusing with the democrats.

Oh, and the democratic socialist from Vermont is replacing the old independent from Vermont (who left the republican party in 2001) and was a member of the house for quite some time. He has had the tacit endorsement of the democratic party for the last few election cycles.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D


Thanks for the flamebait..It has been far too long since a Far-Left Neo Nut Flamebaited people who he disagreed with...Thanks for filling the void.:rolleyes:



That guy is not a Socialist and he is only 1 person and just incase YOU didn't KNOW, it takes more than ONE person to turn a Country socialist..Of course it doesn't matter very few here want that anyway.:rolleyes:


*Sits backs and waits for some Far-Left Neo Nut to flame me* I know you won't dissapoint.:)

As a former hard-core conservative from the US, I can quite safely say that many Conservatives already believe that over 50% of the Senate is Socialist... and that count INCLUDES Republicans.

Sanders is actually likely to be RESPECTED for being "honest" in comparison to the others.

Such is certainly not what I believe now... but, having listened to my fair share of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage, and having frequented FreeRepublic.com ... I know how SOME of them think. ;)

No. The situation is 49 democrats, 49 republicans, and two independents, both caucusing with the democrats.

Oh, and the democratic socialist from Vermont is replacing the old independent from Vermont (who left the republican party in 2001) and was a member of the house for quite some time. He has had the tacit endorsement of the democratic party for the last few election cycles.

Yeah, the Dems didn't even run a candidate in their primary for the Senate this time, and they didn't challenge him when he was in the House either (though they easily picked up his seat when Sanders moved up).

Thanks for the flamebait..It has been far too long since a Far-Left Neo Nut Flamebaited people who he disagreed with...Thanks for filling the void.:rolleyes:



That guy is not a Socialist and he is only 1 person and just incase YOU didn't KNOW, it takes more than ONE person to turn a Country socialist..Of course it doesn't matter very few here want that anyway.:rolleyes:


*Sits backs and waits for some Far-Left Neo Nut to flame me* I know you won't dissapoint.:)

You use too many emoticons.

You use too many emoticons.



And you use too few words.

You use too many emoticons.
Three is too many?

What is the acceptable limit? :confused::confused::confused:
(oops...)

It’s good that he got elected, but he’s wrong about America. Most Americans couldn’t give a shit about the poor, not realizing that they are in fact poor.

And you use too few words.
Oh, come on. I popped your "all the lefties are out to get me" bubble, and this is the best you can come up with?

Oh, come on. I popped your "all the lefties are out to get me" bubble, and this is the best you can come up with?


Your funny. What is more funny is that I never said anything like that. Nice job putting words in my mouth...Blech.

It’s good that he got elected, but he’s wrong about America. Most Americans couldn’t give a shit about the poor, not realizing that they are in fact poor.

Like I said, you gotta start somewhere. ;)

*Sits backs and waits for some Far-Left Neo Nut to flame me* I know you won't dissapoint.:)

Just relax. Nobody's out to get you. This is a forum for civilised discussion, after all. We're all cool.

Just relax. Nobody's out to get you. This is a forum for civilised discussion, after all. We're all cool.


You are new here right? LOL, Noobs.:D

You are new here right? LOL, Noobs.:D

Actually, I joined with this account a month before you did, and I had an older account about two years ago.

Your funny. What is more funny is that I never said anything like that. Nice job putting words in my mouth...Blech.

AND


Just relax. Nobody's out to get you. This is a forum for civilised discussion, after all. We're all cool.


Now... c'mon... let's all try to be a bunch of Fonzie's here...

And let's think about this. What's Fonzie like?

And let's think about this. What's Fonzie like?

He's well cool.

He's well cool.
:D

That's right. And that's we're all going to be.

We're gonna be cool. :D

The government's job is to preserve and protect its citizen's personal, political, and economic freedoms, nothing more. Come the war, he's on my shit list.

Exactly, it is nice to see someone else understand that.

Anyway though this is no surprise. I have thought a large portion of both houses far too socialist for the good of America.

The xenophobes and right-wingers will jump all over him. He's doomed.

When exactly did xenophobia come into play here?

He isn't really a socialist, but the fact that he can call himself a socialist and not lose in a landslide is a positive indication about the current political climate.
Absolutely right. (:D Despite our last debate - I might of argued against Communism but I wouldn't say that the US doesn't need socialism... and it's not particularly easy for a socialist to get elected in this political atmosphere)

I can't believe good hard-workign Americans would elect a socialist, of all things. First this and soon everyone will receive a welfare check out of my pocket. Good thing there is another election in two years so we can get these bleeding-hearts out of the government.

Thanks for the flamebait..It has been far too long since a Far-Left Neo Nut Flamebaited people who he disagreed with...Thanks for filling the void.:rolleyes:

Flamebait? Where's the flamebait in my OP?

Still, nice to see another one of you. Pull up a chair. :)


just incase YOU didn't KNOW, it takes more than ONE person to turn a Country socialist...

No? Seriously? Damn. Here was me thinking that when there was a vote in the Senate, one voice automatically outnumbered 49. Wow. I've really learnt something thanks to you.

When exactly did xenophobia come into play here?

It doesn't.

But a lot of persons think that it's common knowledge anyone who is against socialization hates the poor. And if they hate the poor the must hate all other "undesriables" and foreigners obviously must fall under that category.

It’s good that he got elected, but he’s wrong about America. Most Americans couldn’t give a shit about the poor, not realizing that they are in fact poor.

Last time I checked most Americans were classified in the middle class range...And, last time I checked, most of Europe had a pretty big unemployement rate...

I have no problem with Marxists, as individuals. They go can about their lives living out their beliefs however they see fit, I don't care, and even if I did, I have no right to stop them. In fact, I'd come to their defense if someone was infringing on their right to live their way. On the same thought, though, I'd go after them if they tried instigating class war, thus infringing on someone else's right to live as they please.

However, when they try to take control of my government and then force, through legislation and taxation, everyone else to live by their values, they will find no greater enemy than me. The same can be said of right-wing fundies.

It doesn't.

But a lot of persons think that it's common knowledge anyone who is against socialization hates the poor. And if they hate the poor the must hate all other "undesriables" and foreigners obviously must fall under that category.

Thats a pretty big leap to a conclusion.

Thats a pretty big leap to a conclusion.

Not really. Does it make sense? No. Is it logical? No. But nearly everyone does it every day.

Hmmm this sounds like good news to me. Finally we have a Socialist in the senate (by American Political Standards). Its definitely not going to affect the country politically too much but it projects a strong message that some of the people of America are really fed up with the abysmall performance of both Political parties. I would really like to see in the future some socialist reforms throughout the country as well.

BTW: This is my first post not only on NS forums but it's also my first post for any forums. I guess that could put me in the class of SUPER NOOB. Anyways does anyone know how to quote another post?

I have no problem with Marxists, as individuals. They go can about their lives living out their beliefs however they see fit, I don't care, and even if I did, I have no right to stop them. In fact, I'd come to their defense if someone was infringing on their right to live their way. On the same thought, though, I'd go after them if they tried instigating class war, thus infringing on someone else's right to live as they please.

However, when they try to take control of my government and then force, through legislation and taxation, everyone else to live by their values, they will find no greater enemy than me. The same can be said of right-wing fundies.

Ooooh. Tough guy. Scary. :rolleyes:

It doesn't bode well for America if this guy is elected. With both the left and right seeking to expand the state the US will have the worst of both worlds. It won't be good for people who still believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :(

Considering its the neo-cons who are destroying the US economy and have fundamentaly eroded your freedoms and changed the relationship of the state with the people in the name of anti-terrorism, that comment is bizarre.

There is a worrying thread of anti-democracy from the US right through this.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

First off,this is Vermont.Nothing impressive when Vermont elects a self-described socialist.This is like Idaho or Kansas electing a Republican.There are already a lot of socialists in Congress,mainly Democrats from CA,Mass,DC,New York.(Congress is WAY Left of the American public.If you asked most Americans if they want fewer government programs and less taxes,the polls are over 80 percent)Bernie was already a Representative anyway,so its not going to make much of a difference.Also youve got to realize this isnt really an example of a third-party candidate beating both a Democrat and a Republican.There was no Democrat in the race,and just a token Republican.Furthermore,Sanders did not defeat a incumbent,merely won a open seat belonging to a nobody independent who retired.Nothing to see here,move along.

Flamebait? Where's the flamebait in my OP?

Still, nice to see another one of you. Pull up a chair. :)


I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least.

That. You really shouldn't encourage people to attack you.



No? Seriously? Damn. Here was me thinking that when there was a vote in the Senate, one voice automatically outnumbered 49. Wow. I've really learnt something thanks to you.


Just making sure, you kinda got ahead of yourself for a second.

Actually, I joined with this account a month before you did, and I had an older account about two years ago.



So? I joined NS in 2003. This is just an account I made because my other one got deleted because I didn't log in for months.

Considering its the neo-cons who are destroying the US economy and have fundamentaly eroded your freedoms and changed the relationship of the state with the people in the name of anti-terrorism, that comment is bizarre.

There is a worrying thread of anti-democracy from the US right through this.

"neocons"=all-encomposing bad guys,imaginary bogeyman,used as straw men by the left.

So? I joined NS in 2003. This is just an account I made because my other one got deleted because I didn't log in for months.

Well done.

"neocons"=all-encomposing bad guys,imaginary bogeyman,used as straw men by the left.

When all else fails blame the neo-con.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

cool beans. lets hope this opens the floodgates for more socialist politicians in america to spearhead a drive toward more socialised policy :)

maybe, at least, "socialist" will become less of a dirty word in the states if one of their own elected number is one...



can only hope

The government's job is to preserve and protect its citizen's personal, political, and economic freedoms, nothing more. Come the war, he's on my shit list.

So you think its fine that people who work 40 hours a week should be in poverty

Thats the governments 'minimum' job. But a goverment providing food, housing and the esseintalls for its poorest and neediest there is nothing wrong with.

It doesn't bode well for America if this guy is elected. With both the left and right seeking to expand the state the US will have the worst of both worlds. It won't be good for people who still believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :(

What the _________(insert appropriate word here)!

Socialism is love of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness. If he doesn't get elected it will do as you fear.

cool beans. lets hope this opens the floodgates for more socialist politicians in america to spearhead a drive toward more socialised policy :)

maybe, at least, "socialist" will become less of a dirty word in the states if one of their own elected number is one...



America's economy is doing fine with Capitialism and we have no reason to change. All our problems can be fixed and we don't need socialism to do it.

After all the views I have seen you express on this board, I am very sceptical that you believe in either freedom, or limited government.

Try reading the NS Player Information thread.

I believe in the American federal system as it was at the time of the Founding, except without slavery. I also believe in legal immigration with assimilation (as did my own grandparents). I believe in the mottoes on US currency: "Liberty," "In God We Trust", and in particular "E Pluribus Unum" -- not "Ex Uno Plures", as modern PC stupidity advocates. I believe in protecting the American language, borders and culture.

In short, I believe in freedom within the scope of the traditional American system. And you know who that excludes ;)

It doesn't bode well for America if this guy is elected. With both the left and right seeking to expand the state the US will have the worst of both worlds. It won't be good for people who still believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. :(

Well the Right doesnt want to expand the government(I sure as hell dont)but sadly,the Republicans arent really rightwing...

America's economy is doing fine with Capitialism and we have no reason to change. All our problems can be fixed and we don't need socialism to do it.

hm. no.
the economy may be healthy, but the people aren't. and while right-wingers and capitalists only pupport to care about the economy, in some narrow-minded, uncompassionate view that a good economy automatically means happy/good people, socialism tends to actually care about people. capitalism does not. capitalism and consumerism lead to unhappy people. end of story. oh, apart from the rich ones at the "top" of course...

America's economy is doing fine with Capitialism and we have no reason to change. All our problems can be fixed and we don't need socialism to do it.

Problem is socialism is already entrenched here in the ivory towers of our country,even as it collapses all around the world.They had a taste of power,and they wont give it up without a fight.

hm. no.
the economy may be healthy, but the people aren't. and while right-wingers and capitalists only pupport to care about the economy, in some narrow-minded, uncompassionate view that a good economy automatically means happy/good people, socialism tends to actually care about people. capitalism does not. capitalism and consumerism lead to unhappy people. end of story. oh, apart from the rich ones at the "top" of course...

Maybe they believe that because a healthy economy does mean better for all.America didnt become the paragon of wealth and power that it is because of socialism.No need to abandon ship now

Problem is socialism is already entrenched here in the ivory towers of our country,even as it collapses all around the world.They had a taste of power,and they wont give it up without a fight.

What with Ortega and Chavez "collapsing" into power, things are looking bad for socialism.

Maybe they believe that because a healthy economy does mean better for all.
then they are wrong.

America didnt become the paragon of wealth and power that it is because of socialism.No need to abandon ship now



wealth & power =/= happy, fulfilled people.
continually rising levels of depression, suicide, divorce, violent crimes and other social problems lay testament to this.

What with Ortega and Chavez "collapsing" into power, things are looking bad for socialism.

even the tory party, the party of the UK traditionally conservative and alligned with the US republican party, has recently declared itself "the party of the working classes", largely because the traditionally socialist labour party has gone too far right (following the american model) for the public to stand.

the liberal democrats in this country continue to gain votes year on year while promising to raise taxes and increase public spending once in office.


socialism is definitely dead in this country.

and in france, too, where the government has pledged housing to be a right for all citizens.

and in germany where i heard there was a large public backlash against the right-wing policies of the last chancellor (can't be more specific than that as i'm not clued up at all on german politics)



and the amazing thing is how poor and backward 50 years of socialised economics has made europe.

wealth & power =/= happy, fulfilled people.continually rising levels of depression, suicide, divorce, violent crimes and other social problems lay testament to this.

Hmmm...

Interesting how, as socialism has begun to slip into the thinking of the American public, those things have increased.

I won't say socialism is the cause, but it's as symptom of the same cause for the things you mentioned.

America's economy is doing fine with Capitialism and we have no reason to change. All our problems can be fixed and we don't need socialism to do it.

Then why have they been getting worse?

What with Ortega and Chavez "collapsing" into power, things are looking bad for socialism.

Chavez was not "elected".Neither was Ortega.Also youve got Calderon winning in Mexico.Cuba is about to go under,China is socialist only in name now.You cant get much more Lockean than todays China.India moves toward the Right,so does Canada.Iraq will become a more capitalist country with the US controlling it,North Korea remains in existence only insofar as US ignores it,and that seems to be changing.

I won't say socialism is the cause, but it's as symptom of the same cause for the things you mentioned.

It's a symptom in the same way as taking an aspirin is a symptom of a headache. In fact, you could call it a "treatment" or at a stretch, a "cure".

even the tory party, the party of the UK traditionally conservative and alligned with the US republican party, has recently declared itself "the party of the working classes", largely because the traditionally socialist labour party has gone too far right (following the american model) for the public to stand.

the liberal democrats in this country continue to gain votes year on year while promising to raise taxes and increase public spending once in office.


socialism is definitely dead in this country.

and in france, too, where the government has pledged housing to be a right for all citizens.

and in germany where i heard there was a large public backlash against the right-wing policies of the last chancellor (can't be more specific than that as i'm not clued up at all on german politics)



and the amazing thing is how poor and backward 50 years of socialised economics has made europe.

Europe isnt exactly a shining city on a hill,amigo.If you want to see a people in decline,France,Britain,and Germany definetley are good examples.

So you think its fine that people who work 40 hours a week should be in poverty

Thats the governments 'minimum' job. But a goverment providing food, housing and the esseintalls for its poorest and neediest there is nothing wrong with.

The problem is that it implies that the government has the right to interfere with the lives of its citizens by what society defines as good and just. However, as history as proven, society's opinions of what is good is constantly changing, thus rendering it useless as a stable foundation for government, much less one that is free and just. The end result of such a foundation would be, at best, an unstable tyranny of the majority plunging towards strife most likely ended by the emergence of an authoritarian government.

Hmmm...

Interesting how, as socialism has begun to slip into the thinking of the American public, those things have increased.

I won't say socialism is the cause, but it's as symptom of the same cause for the things you mentioned.

well, i'd say its a cure.

and the cause is a system designed to benefit corporations and businesses, and to make profit, over considerations of the wellbeing and happiness of the people.

It's a symptom in the same way as taking an aspirin is a symptom of a headache. In fact, you could call it a "treatment" or at a stretch, a "cure".

Hah! It will cure nothing.

All it will do is make a world of lazy people. "I'm guaranteed food, housing, education, etc! Why should I work?" and society will collapse.

cool beans. lets hope this opens the floodgates for more socialist politicians in america to spearhead a drive toward more socialised policy :)

maybe, at least, "socialist" will become less of a dirty word in the states if one of their own elected number is one...



can only hope

The US was actually a quite socialist nation at one point,when we elected types like Theodore Roosevelt.From about 1880 to 1940,socialism was on the rise in America.It has been in decline since the 1970s.

Hah! It will cure nothing.

All it will do is make a world of lazy people. "I'm guaranteed food, housing, education, etc! Why should I work?" and society will collapse.

Uh,duh.Look at 20s Russia,or seventies China.Can you say "genocide"?

The problem is that it implies that the government has the right to interfere with the lives of its citizens by what society defines as good and just. However, as history as proven, society's opinions of what is good is constantly changing, thus rendering it useless as a stable foundation for government, much less one that is free and just. The end result of such a foundation would be, at best, an unstable tyranny of the majority plunging towards strife most likely ended by the emergence of an authoritarian government.

this is why social authoritarianism is bad.

economic authoritarian attitudes and policies can be more objective. however the morality behind them is still subjective (exactly what we're arguing right now, heh)

The problem is that it implies that the government has the right to interfere with the lives of its citizens by what society defines as good and just. However, as history as proven, society's opinions of what is good is constantly changing, thus rendering it useless as a stable foundation for government, much less one that is free and just. The end result of such a foundation would be, at best, an unstable tyranny of the majority plunging towards strife most likely ended by the emergence of an authoritarian government.

*standing ovation*

well, i'd say its a cure.

and the cause is a system designed to benefit corporations and businesses, and to make profit, over considerations of the wellbeing and happiness of the people.

You are speaking to the perversion of the system, not to the system itself. The system itself allows you to earn something and do work to support yourself, which is the way things are supposed to be. But, we recognize that there are persons unable and unwilling to do that. So, those with means help (not do everything for) those unalbe and the unwilling become willing or they starve.

With socialism, you have no motivation and you create a mass of leeches sucking off of everyone else who will soon no longer be able to support the system.

And there have to be rich persons (not that rich persons have to behave the way many of them do). If the were none, there would be no one to employ the poor.

Uh,duh.Look at 20s Russia,or seventies China.Can you say "genocide"?

You're preaching to the choir. (That saying has never made sense to me.)

this is why social authoritarianism is bad.

economic authoritarian attitudes and policies can be more objective. however the morality behind them is still subjective (exactly what we're arguing right now, heh)

Nope.Do you know why fascist governments rose to power?They were in response to liberal excess.Hitler ran on just such a platform.If "fascism" seems to be on the rise in this country,realize that its not the Rights fault..

All it will do is make a world of lazy people. "I'm guaranteed food, housing, education, etc! Why should I work?" and society will collapse.

Well, I'm convinced. Hey, guys, let's become capitalists.

You're preaching to the choir. (That saying has never made sense to me.)

A bet you this forum is about 80% commies,I suspect if you to a poll thats about what it would come to.

A bet you this forum is about 80% commies,I suspect if you to a poll thats about what it would come to.

I don't bet, but I understand what you're saying.

(Yes, I'm being an ass)

Chavez was not "elected".Neither was Ortega.Also youve got Calderon winning in Mexico.Cuba is about to go under,China is socialist only in name now.You cant get much more Lockean than todays China.India moves toward the Right,so does Canada.Iraq will become a more capitalist country with the US controlling it,North Korea remains in existence only insofar as US ignores it,and that seems to be changing.

your indoctrination has been so complete it resembles a lobotomy....do you have the slightest inkling of what socialism is?...

Chavez was fairly elected as was Ortega......China isn't socialist?.....Canada moves to the right, funny the conservatives win 30% of the vote and the socialist parties split the other 70% my that's some shift to the right......

this is typical of many rants from right wing types in the US and I hesitate to label them as right wing as that suggests they actually know what they're talking about, and when it comes to socialism many here clearly do not.....

your indoctrination has been so complete it resembles a lobotomy....do you have the slightest inkling of what socialism is?...

Chavez was fairly elected as was Ortega......China isn't socialist?.....Canada moves to the right, funny the conservatives win 30% of the vote and the socialist parties split the other 70% my that's some shift to the right......

this is typical of many rants from right wing types in the US and I hesitate to label them as right wing as that suggests they actually know what they're talking about, and when it comes to socialism many here clearly do not.....

No, we just look past the emotional screams of "WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO HELP PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!" and look at the consequenses.

Scripture does not prescribe any economic system overtly, so I would not rebel if the US became socialist. But I would be very unhappy and put my all into changing back to capitalism.

No, we just look past the emotional screams of "WHY DON'T YOU WANT TO HELP PEOPLE!?!?!?!?!" and look at the consequenses.

Scripture does not prescribe any economic system overtly, so I would not rebel if the US became socialist. But I would be very unhappy and put my all into changing back to capitalism.

making my point for me, you don't know what socialism is.....to you it's the bogyman because that's what the extreme right wants you to believe, fear of the unknown......where do you get the idea that socialism doesn't include capitalism?

A bet you this forum is about 80% commies,I suspect if you to a poll thats about what it would come to.

I have to disagree with that.

Communism, as an ideology, died along with the fall of the Soviet Union. Communism advocates outright revolution and war throughout the world to achieve the end Marx wrote about in his book. As such, Communism is easily identifiable and can be then combated.

Socialism, on the other hand, is thriving in the world, much to my personal chagrin. Socialism says that Marx's ideals should be brought about peacefully, through legislation and taxation. In this respect, Socialism is much more deadly than its cousin, as it is willing to adapt to a country's political and legal system and slowly work over time.

Most of the people here are socialists, not communists.

You are speaking to the perversion of the system, not to the system itself. The system itself allows you to earn something and do work to support yourself, which is the way things are supposed to be. But, we recognize that there are persons unable and unwilling to do that. So, those with means help (not do everything for) those unalbe and the unwilling become willing or they starve.

With socialism, you have no motivation and you create a mass of leeches sucking off of everyone else who will soon no longer be able to support the system.

And there have to be rich persons (not that rich persons have to behave the way many of them do). If the were none, there would be no one to employ the poor.

there's so many things i could say, but its 2am here and i need sleep :(

however in essence i agree with you that people supporting themselves is a good idea. and i don't honestly believe many socialists would deny that, or suggest that taking that away could possibly be a good idea.
providing a basic minimum quality of life, as seems to be the quintessential thrust behind much socialist thinking, will not detriment people being active to better themselves and gain a better life and place in society for themselves.
we have a minimum wage in this country. having this basic level of income does not mean, for the vast majority of people, they are content to get the lowest form of employment they can to eek out an easy life. most people work hard to earn more than that minimum gaurenteed income. and the same is true for welfare: most people don't simply leech off the state. a very few do, but they are targeted and stopped by the law.
that's how mild socialism works in practice in this country.


however, if by socialism you are referring to communism then i would agree that at the moment people would have no motivation to work under a communist system. but, that said, that can change as human nature changes over time. once people's primary motivation was to get food enough to eat and live. now our motivation is to gain wealth and things. in the future, i believe, our motivation will be to gain happiness, and this cannot be achieved through material aquisition. people are starting to realise this, and things are starting to change very, very slowly...


and now, to sleep!

I have to disagree with that.

Communism, as an ideology, died along with the fall of the Soviet Union. Communism advocates outright revolution and war throughout the world to achieve the end Marx wrote about in his book. As such, Communism is easily identifiable and can be then combated.

Socialism, on the other hand, is thriving in the world, much to my personal chagrin. Socialism says that Marx's ideals should be brought about peacefully, through legislation and taxation. In this respect, Socialism is much more deadly than its cousin, as it is willing to adapt to a country's political and legal system and slowly work over time.

Most of the people here are socialists, not communists.

you make sound as if Socialists have an evil master plan...."lets take over the world by treating everyone with respect, making sure that they all have Medicare, education, food on the table and a roof over their head....what a brilliantly evil plan"

making my point for me, you don't know what socialism is.....to you it's the bogyman because that's what the extreme right wants you to believe, fear of the unknown......where do you get the idea that socialism doesn't include capitalism?

Sorry, sloppy diction.

The only things I think should be supported by the government are the 3 branches of the government, the police (maybe the fire-fighters in there, too), the military (including intelligence), and the diplomats. That's it. There may need to be some offices for some stuff, but other than that, nothing else.

Socialism for all practical purposes does not include capitalism. Yes, the people can earn money, but the whole ideaology of how the economy should work is different.

. . . as human nature changes. . .

Human nature does not, has not, will not, and cannot change. Human beings are just as self-centered and greedy now as they were ages ago.

however in essence i agree with you that people supporting themselves is a good idea. and i don't honestly believe many socialists would deny that, or suggest that taking that away could possibly be a good idea.

Not in words, no. Many socialists actions suggest otherwise.

providing a basic minimum quality of life, as seems to be the quintessential thrust behind much socialist thinking, will not detriment people being active to better themselves and gain a better life and place in society for themselves.

You overestimate humanity. If everything is provided you, why seek to better yourself? In capitalism, you have to seek to better yourself or else you die. (Which is not to say that we should let them die: that's why there are charities.)

we have a minimum wage in this country. having this basic level of income does not mean, for the vast majority of people, they are content to get the lowest form of employment they can to eek out an easy life. most people work hard to earn more than that minimum gaurenteed income. and the same is true for welfare: most people don't simply leech off the state. a very few do, but they are targeted and stopped by the law.

True, under these circumstances.

that's how mild socialism works in practice in this country.

Yes. So why should we tempt fate and go further with it?

however, if by socialism you are referring to communism then i would agree that at the moment people would have no motivation to work under a communist system.

Socialism, I fear, will nearly always become communism. The more it sees, the more it can control.

but, that said, that can change as human nature changes over time. once people's primary motivation was to get food enough to eat and live. now our motivation is to gain wealth and things. in the future, i believe, our motivation will be to gain happiness, and this cannot be achieved through material aquisition. people are starting to realise this, and things are starting to change very, very slowly...

I really think you are misguided in this right here.

and now, to sleep!

Good night.

Human nature does not, has not, will not, and cannot change. Human beings are just as self-centered and greedy now as they were ages ago.

fine, hobbesian. i'll stick to rousseau, you stick to locke and we'll agree to disagree. i believe it will change now we have reached a point in society for the first time in history when all one's primary needs are more than adequately fulfilled.

you make sound as if Socialists have an evil master plan...."lets take over the world by treating everyone with respect, making sure that they all have Medicare, education, food on the table and a roof over their head....what a brilliantly evil plan"

Explain to me why I should be forced through laws and taxes to provide for those who are unable to provide for themselves, by pure, cold, logic and not with any emotional appeal whatsoever.

Socialism has the same objective as Communism, it just has a different way of doing it.

Last time I checked most Americans were classified in the middle class range...And, last time I checked, most of Europe had a pretty big unemployement rate...
Ah, the middle. Ever compared the "middle class" to the "upper class." It's quite a gap. The middle class should be referred to as the Upper-Lower Class.

Europe only has higher unemployment rates because an entire section of the American population is so far gone that it doesn’t even bother to find work. Europe may have fewer working, but who has fewer living in the streets?

Ah, the middle. Ever compared the "middle class" to the "upper class." It's quite a gap. The middle class should be referred to as the Upper-Lower Class.

What's wrong with an income gap? In the US, the middle class lives very comfortably. Most everyone has their own car, big tvs with lots of channels, video games, and enough food to eat themselves to death.

The average middle class american lives like a king, when you look at the big picture. So what if a few people make a lot more money than the middle class, if the middle class makes more than enough to live comfortably already?

Grr, this income gap bollocks is maddening, it is pure envy, nothing else.

Ah, the middle. Ever compared the "middle class" to the "upper class." It's quite a gap. The middle class should be referred to as the Upper-Lower Class.

There have to be rich persons. Otherwise, there would be no one to employ the poor persons.

Otherwise, there would be no one to employ the poor persons.

How do you come to that conclusion?

There have to be rich persons. Otherwise, there would be no one to employ the poor persons.ORLY?

Grr, this income gap bollocks is maddening, it is pure envy, nothing else.

Marx said that all conflict in history was between the haves and the have-nots. Socialists would be traitors to their own cause if they didn't bring it up.

There have to be rich persons. Otherwise, there would be no one to employ the poor persons.

I guess you've never heard of self-employment, huh?

How do you come to that conclusion?

How can the poor employ anyone? You must be employed by someone who has/is making more money than you. Because they have to be supporting themselves first, you second. So they have to have more money then you to employ you.

What's wrong with an income gap? In the US, the middle class lives very comfortably. Most everyone has their own car, big tvs with lots of channels, video games, and enough food to eat themselves to death.

The average middle class american lives like a king, when you look at the big picture. So what if a few people make a lot more money than the middle class, if the middle class makes more than enough to live comfortably already?

Grr, this income gap bollocks is maddening, it is pure envy, nothing else.

I'm middle class and live comfortably,I have a large home, I have a big car, huge tv with lots of channels, video games and enough food to eat myself to death.....and we have many people who make much more than the middle class, there no limits on wealth......and yet we're socialist, we have an excellent democracy and freedoms....

we have fewer people living on the street, everyone has medical care, everyone has an education, and we have fewer people in our prisons a less violet society......what is the downside to looking out for the poorest members of our society

How can the poor employ anyone? You must be employed by someone who has/is making more money than you.

Three problems.

1. You're assuming private ownership of the means of production.
2. "More money than you" =/= "rich"
3. No, actually, you don't. There are all kinds of alternatives; the collective pooling of capital, for instance.

Because they have to be supporting themselves first, you second.

Yes... and the person can support both me and herself with the revenue from the company. All she needs is starting capital, and she can borrow that.

Three problems.

1. You're assuming private ownership of the means of production.
2. "More money than you" =/= "rich"
3. No, actually, you don't. There are all kinds of alternatives; the collective pooling of capital, for instance.



Yes... and the person can support both me and herself with the revenue from the company. All she needs is starting capital, and she can borrow that.

Wonderful theories, really. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way in practice.

EDIT: I was using rich to mean richer, because that's how the masses use it anyway.

How can the poor employ anyone? You must be employed by someone who has/is making more money than you. Because they have to be supporting themselves first, you second. So they have to have more money then you to employ you.

You've only come to that conclusion because of how capitalism tends to operate, namely that wages are far lower then the actual value of labor. There is no real economic 'law' or theory that states that one must be wealthy in order to be an employer. Co-ops, for example, pooling of large amounts of small capital (I'm commiting a cardinal sin by conflating cash and K, oh well), or microlending from banks (that can also be run as nonprofits) would all be ways of establishing a business without an income disparity.

What's wrong with an income gap? In the US, the middle class lives very comfortably. Most everyone has their own car, big tvs with lots of channels, video games, and enough food to eat themselves to death.

The average middle class american lives like a king, when you look at the big picture. So what if a few people make a lot more money than the middle class, if the middle class makes more than enough to live comfortably already?

Grr, this income gap bollocks is maddening, it is pure envy, nothing else.There is evidence to shows that the lower the income gap(ie more money in more hands), the higher the economic growth rate is.

You've only come to that conclusion because of how capitalism tends to operate, namely that wages are far lower then the actual value of labor. There is no real economic 'law' or theory that states that one must be wealthy in order to be an employer. Co-ops, for example, pooling of large amounts of small capital (I'm commiting a cardinal sin by conflating cash and K, oh well), or microlending from banks (that can also be run as nonprofits) would all be ways of establishing a business without an income disparity.

No, not really. All those things are out there, yes, but they are very difficult for the "common man" to do, much more difficult than you would think. My uncle tried to go through that microlending (or something similar) and it wasn't worth it.

And as for the wages being lower than the value of labor, I see more wages being higher than the value of the labor given.

Call me an ignorant American, but what exactly is socialism? What does it entail? I hear about it all the time, and odds are I disapprove of it based off of what I hear, but I've never heard anyone give a straight answer as to what it is.

So, what, exactly, is its point and purpose?

There is evidence to shows that the lower the income gap(ie more money in more hands), the higher the economic growth rate is.

Umm, yes because the economy is better, so businesses are making more money, so they can afford to pay the employees more.

Grr, this income gap bollocks is maddening, it is pure envy, nothing else.
Not really.
There have to be rich persons. Otherwise, there would be no one to employ the poor persons.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be rich; I’m just saying they shouldn’t be as rich as they are at the expense of so many.

Call me an ignorant American, but what exactly is socialism? What does it entail? I hear about it all the time, and odds are I disapprove of it based off of what I hear, but I've never heard anyone give a straight answer as to what it is.

So, what, exactly, is its point and purpose?

Socialism is when the working class controls the means of production.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be rich; I’m just saying they shouldn’t be as rich as they are at the expense of so many.

The conduct of persons does not determine which system to use. It merely determines how we respond to those persons.

Call me an ignorant American, but what exactly is socialism? What does it entail? I hear about it all the time, and odds are I disapprove of it based off of what I hear, but I've never heard anyone give a straight answer as to what it is.

So, what, exactly, is its point and purpose?

In short: it is redistribution of wealth, through government, for the purpose of creating a more equal society.

Me, I believe in diversity and meritocracy. IE: If you're smart and work hard you will likely have a good life and many benifits, if you are stupid and lazy, you will likely have a lousy life and many benifits. And I don't want the government to come in and take my hard-earned money just so they can make some stupid, lazy person's life better.

Socialism is when the working class controls the means of production.

No, that's marxism, A.K.A. communism. A thouroughly failed ideology, I might add. Socialism is simply redistribution of wealth, ownership of resources stays in the same hands, the products of those resources are simply redistributed.

Socialism is when the working class controls the means of production.

And that's it? Wow, simple and to the point.

Well then, I am indeed against it. The market is far better off controlling the means of production than the working class as this creates a far more efficient output. (Which is one reason why the US consumes roughly half of all petroleum produced in the world, but controls 60% of the world trade. That's efficient, let me tell you.)

No, not really. All those things are out there, yes, but they are very difficult for the "common man" to do, much more difficult than you would think. My uncle tried to go through that microlending (or something similar) and it wasn't worth it.

I didn't say that it was easy. What I said was that you don't necessarily have to be insanely wealthy in order to be an employer. It isn't even remotely a prerequesite, it just happens to be how our current economic system makes things work. Those who supplied the working capital in the first place were rewarded with very large profits which in turn built larger capital permitting more investment, etc. Marx goes into this in length (and I mean length), say what you will, I know you right-wingers detest the ground upon which he writes, but it is worth it to at least read his work.

And as for the wages being lower than the value of labor, I see more wages being higher than the value of the labor given.
Hogwash, not even neo-classicalist economists would make that statement. At best you'd be arguing that because of how wages work in a perfectly competative market the marginal revenue product of the last worker (that is, the value of the labor) is exactly equal to the wages. It doesn't tend to work that way, for a variety of reasons (namely one HAS to work, in the end, and workers never have perfect knowledge).

Look at it this way - if I work at, say, Acme supermarkets (which I do) for a wage of 5.15 an hour (which I don't.) If I provide value to the company of about 4.15 an hour, they make a net loss of one dollar, every thing else being ignored. That suggests that capital (again, I'm conflating, forgive me) would be concentrated in my hand, the workers' hands, and would leave that of the person who provides the capital (capitalists), my employer. The neo-classicalist stance would leave everything net, with capital getting a rate of return and I getting a 'fair' wage. Capital would increase, but not overly dramatically and only relative to a 'safe' investment etc. What actually happens is the rich get fantastically richer (semantics aside, this is what happens, I don't wish to get into a fight over slogans, I'm trying to discribe what happens) while the worker tends to make stable, but smaller, amount of money. This extra profit has to come from somewhere, and in our little world the only place that it can come from is my little pocket, that is I'm being paid less then what my labor is worth. More as if I'm producing 10.50$ an hour for my company but only being paid 5.15$. The difference is profit for the company, and is distributed elsewhere.

A thouroughly failed ideology, I might add.

I can't say I disagree.

Call me an ignorant American, but what exactly is socialism? What does it entail? I hear about it all the time, and odds are I disapprove of it based off of what I hear, but I've never heard anyone give a straight answer as to what it is.

So, what, exactly, is its point and purpose?

socialism-free market economy combined with social programs that ensure a minimum standard of living for societies weakest members...a country's success should be judged by the standard of life of it's weakest members not it's strongest....

No, that's marxism, A.K.A. communism. A thouroughly failed ideology, I might add. Socialism is simply redistribution of wealth, ownership of resources stays in the same hands, the products of those resources are simply redistributed.

Aaaah, I see.

So, say I make $100,000 a year doing whatever. The government would then take away a large portion of said amount to support those who can't/won't support themselves? Doesn't sound fair to me at all.

Aaaah, I see.

So, say I make $100,000 a year doing whatever. The government would then take away a large portion of said amount to support those who can't/won't support themselves? Doesn't sound fair to me at all.

No one ever said life was going to be fair.

Death and taxes, boy. Death and taxes.

Aaaah, I see.

So, say I make $100,000 a year doing whatever. The government would then take away a large portion of said amount to support those who can't/won't support themselves? Doesn't sound fair to me at all.
The government doesnt have to be socialist to take away a large portion of your income. Look at the US and Canada.

No, that's marxism, A.K.A. communism. A thouroughly failed ideology, I might add. Socialism is simply redistribution of wealth, ownership of resources stays in the same hands, the products of those resources are simply redistributed.

redistribution of wealth? really when is that going to happen, I'd like to know when some of this redistributed wealth is coming my way(why is there no lmao smilie).....where do you people come up with these ideas........

you don't necessarily have to be insanely wealthy in order to be an employer.

Rich =/= insanely wealthy

It isn't even remotely a prerequesite, it just happens to be how our current economic system makes things work. Those who supplied the working capital in the first place were rewarded with very large profits which in turn built larger capital permitting more investment, etc.

My grandfather is an employer and he's anything but rich. He employs my cousin and uncle. Harldy enough to put a dent in the economy.

My father is self-employeed. He can't employee anyone else.

Those are what most of the "common man" businesses are like.

Hogwash, not even neo-classicalist economists would make that statement. At best you'd be arguing that because of how wages work in a perfectly competative market the marginal revenue product of the last worker (that is, the value of the labor) is exactly equal to the wages. It doesn't tend to work that way, for a variety of reasons (namely one HAS to work, in the end, and workers never have perfect knowledge).

99% of wage workers I have dealt with and worked with are just putting in time and aren't really doing anything worth the $5.50 or whatever an hour they're making.

Look at it this way - if I work at, say, Acme supermarkets (which I do) for a wage of 5.15 an hour (which I don't.) If I provide value to the company of about 4.15 an hour, they make a net loss of one dollar, every thing else being ignored. That suggests that capital (again, I'm conflating, forgive me) would be concentrated in my hand, the workers' hands, and would leave that of the person who provides the capital (capitalists), my employer. The neo-classicalist stance would leave everything net, with capital getting a rate of return and I getting a 'fair' wage. Capital would increase, but not overly dramatically and only relative to a 'safe' investment etc. What actually happens is the rich get fantastically richer (semantics aside, this is what happens, I don't wish to get into a fight over slogans, I'm trying to discribe what happens) while the worker tends to make stable, but smaller, amount of money. This extra profit has to come from somewhere, and in our little world the only place that it can come from is my little pocket, that is I'm being paid less then what my labor is worth. More as if I'm producing 10.50$ an hour for my company but only being paid 5.15$. The difference is profit for the company, and is distributed elsewhere.

Honestly, I didn't read any of this. I'm getting tired and my brain is shutting down.

I was speaking of the fact that most wage workers aren't worth what they are paid: not in value of human life, but in value (how well) and amount of work done.

The government doesnt have to be socialist to take away a large portion of your income. Look at the US and Canada.

That's not exactly a fair comparison, but I'll not go there.

Let's compare tax rates, though. In the US, it averages around... shoot, I forget, let's just say 20-something percent, that's pretty close. In the socialist countries of the world, it's considerably higher, about double that in the US, and even higher for some people in said countries.

Here, anyway, I could walk away from the tax table with over $70,000 of my hard-earned $100,000, whereas in, say, France, I'd be lucky to get half of that.

socialism-free market economy combined with social programs that ensure a minimum standard of living for societies weakest members...a country's success should be judged by the standard of life of it's weakest members not it's strongest....

Nah, I'd rather go by the median quality of life. Gives a better picture, it does. It gives an idea of the center, and what the quality is underneath the median and above the median.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

And how does he define someone as an extremist?

While I'm not anti capitalist, I do believe that all Americans should have access to healthcare. Whether fully paid for by the governemnt or only a portion, healthcare must bemade available to all citizens. Another thing I believe in, idk if this is a socialist belief, is equal education nationwide, I think that somehow education in the cities must become equivelant to those in wealthy suburbs. next I believe that there should be redistribution of wealth, not to make eveyone equal, but lessen the gap. I learnd the other day that the Ex-CEO of Home Deopt is getting $210 million dollars, TO NOT WORK. There's no way 1 person needs $210 million in his/her lifetime let alone 1 year. Many CEO's, top executives, and athelets are getting paid too much money. I believe that they earned it, they should keep alot of it, but not all of it. There are people across America that work their butts off, and what to show for it? nothing, thats what. Its the government's responibility to provide for its people, 1 idea would be to have people who make over $1 million a year fork over a certain percetage of their income to the government who would then inturn give it to the hard working, lower class of America. That would alos be a good thing for the economy, more money for the lower class to spend on clothes, food, heck, even cars. Lastly I believe that parents who have children who are going to college should be goven a tax cut, especially the lower class, who cannot afford to send their children to many expensive colleges, there simply are'nt enough scolarships for these people. The Governmnet needs to either give these people tax cuts, or help pay for the tuition. That's my veiw on this, now start ripping it apart as you please.

In your extremist view, which (fortunately) is not shared by everyone. The US happens to be a country in which people can vote for whomever they want, and people are allowed to express diversity of opinions, remember?

True but why labeled what he said an extremist view when in reality, that is what our government is supposed to do?

At any rate, him getting voted in is a good sign that the US is finally joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a proper democracy.

Oh brother :rolleyes:

I think this hardly a display of pro-Socialist feelings as much as it is a showing of anti-Republican.

Then why did they not elect a democrat? *mind ponders*

Marx said that all conflict in history was between the haves and the have-nots. Socialists would be traitors to their own cause if they didn't bring it up.


And Marx was guilty of mass oversimplification when he came to that conclusion.

There are plenty of times when 'haves' went at other 'haves' and 'have nots' went at other 'have nots.'

And Marx was guilty of mass oversimplification when he came to that conclusion.

And Marx never came to that conclusion at all, really.

Class conflict is not the same thing as "haves versus have-nots."

Well, does this mean the Senate now consists of 1 Socialist, 49 Democrats, and 50 Republicans, putting the Republicans in the majority in the Senate?

One socialist, an independent dem, 50 democrats and 48 republicans actually :D

Two near-identical parties? Rock on! That really is Democracy! It's like it's impossible to disagree with anyone else! As an apathetic conservative, that appeals to me.

It really is democracy, for the simple reason that the people have, over time, chosen to support two centrist parties.

redistribution of wealth? really when is that going to happen, I'd like to know when some of this redistributed wealth is coming my way(why is there no lmao smilie).....where do you people come up with these ideas........

The public school you most likely went to. Where do you think the money for that came from? Out of someone else's pockets. Social security. Welfare. Public health care. All of these things are redistributions of wealth, the people who benefit are not neccesarily the people who paid for them, and the people who pay for them do not neccesarily benefit.

France is considering providing free housing to it's teeming masses of homeless, the wealth required for this housing has to come out of someone's pockets, and it's probably not the people benefitting unless they're handing out refridgerator boxes.

All of these things have to be paid for by somebody, and that somebody is the taxpayer.

Re-dis-tribution. That's what it is, buddy. Of course, some socialists would like it to be taken farther, where everyone has an equal income, but some will just settle for extremely expensive goods and services.

Well, it's at least one small step for world socialism.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and



Full article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6173577.stm).

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

I pray to God that we dont start one of those european style full government benifit things. It goes against everything America was founded on. It is the people's job to get along, and the government should only be there to keep the order. Its not the job of the government to make sure that every high school drop out has a house and health care. Not to say that government healthcare should be thrown out the window, it shouldnt, without it about 5 million people would be utterly screwed. But i'm not about to give my tax money to some idiot who broke his leg and cant go back to his minimum wage factory job so he sits on the couch drinking bud lite and watching wrestling.

Just relax. Nobody's out to get you. This is a forum for civilised discussion, after all. We're all cool.

Man, you really are new :D

One socialist, an independent dem, 50 democrats and 48 republicans actually :D


actually 2 independent dems 48 declared dems and 48 republicans. No american would willingly vote for a socialist. As a whole, i think Americans are too dumb to know what socialism is and wouldnt consider a vote for anything outside of democrats or republicans.

The conduct of persons does not determine which system to use. It merely determines how we respond to those persons.
What now?

Flamebait? Where's the flamebait in my OP?

The line about hoping that right-wingers will come in. That's actually flamebaiting as you are inviting them to come in here and pounce and praying that they do. You are trying to provoke an angry response and that by definition, is flamebaiting. Thank you.

While I'm not anti capitalist, I do believe that all Americans should have access to healthcare. Whether fully paid for by the governemnt or only a portion, healthcare must bemade available to all citizens. Another thing I believe in, idk if this is a socialist belief, is equal education nationwide, I think that somehow education in the cities must become equivelant to those in wealthy suburbs. next I believe that there should be redistribution of wealth, not to make eveyone equal, but lessen the gap. I learnd the other day that the Ex-CEO of Home Deopt is getting $210 million dollars, TO NOT WORK. There's no way 1 person needs $210 million in his/her lifetime let alone 1 year. Many CEO's, top executives, and athelets are getting paid too much money. I believe that they earned it, they should keep alot of it, but not all of it. There are people across America that work their butts off, and what to show for it? nothing, thats what. Its the government's responibility to provide for its people, 1 idea would be to have people who make over $1 million a year fork over a certain percetage of their income to the government who would then inturn give it to the hard working, lower class of America. That would alos be a good thing for the economy, more money for the lower class to spend on clothes, food, heck, even cars. Lastly I believe that parents who have children who are going to college should be goven a tax cut, especially the lower class, who cannot afford to send their children to many expensive colleges, there simply are'nt enough scolarships for these people. The Governmnet needs to either give these people tax cuts, or help pay for the tuition. That's my veiw on this, now start ripping it apart as you please.

that my friend, is not socialism, its full blown communism. Any time you get the government to redistribute the hard earned money of its citizens, youve got problems. There are some serious freedoms being voilated there. And those people in the top 1% of earners pay proportionally more than anybody else, that certainly not fair. Its not exactly easy to be an executive at a company, the schooling those guys go through, the pressure of running an entire company is huge. its not that the home depot guy deserved 210 mill, its just thats what the company has set aside for him. He's entitled to it for how many years of service. Its stock options and what not and just business, the company has to protect its best interests, and that means giving the guy 210 million, its gotta get done. Now you need to look at the fact that this guy is going to pay tax on that money. Thats alotta money. Which will go to the federal state and local governments to fund roads and healthcare and the military and scientific research and everything else. Not to mention how much money he can now invest in the stock market.

Ideologically your argument is sound. It would be great for the income gap to be decreased, but you have to realize that its not the government's job to do that. Its the people's. If you want to be rich, go to school, get a job, work your ass off. Dont say, "oh uncle sam please bail me out."

actually 2 independent dems 48 declared dems and 48 republicans. No american would willingly vote for a socialist. As a whole, i think Americans are too dumb to know what socialism is and wouldnt consider a vote for anything outside of democrats or republicans.

that only adds up to 98, read my earlier post, and you'll see why socialism can help some people, equal education, might help some people add better.

actually 2 independent dems 48 declared dems and 48 republicans.

And two empty spaces?

that my friend, is not socialism, its full blown communism.

Trust me, us full-blown communists wouldn't stop there.

What the _________(insert appropriate word here)!

Socialism is love of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness. If he doesn't get elected it will do as you fear.

News flash, he's already been elected and I still have love of life,liberty, and pursuit of happiness without a socialist in power. Frankly, I do not care if we have socialists in power or not.

that my friend, is not socialism, its full blown communism. Any time you get the government to redistribute the hard earned money of its citizens, youve got problems. There are some serious freedoms being voilated there.

its not communism, because government is not in charge of business. And its not like everyone would be getting the same amount of money, the people who earn lots of money will definatley have much more than those who didnt, its just a way to help out the lower class. Im not saying if you make x amount of money, u owe all of it to the porr people, I'm just saying there are plenty of people who work hard and have nothing to show for it, so why not take it from the people who sure as hell dont need all that money.

Hah! It will cure nothing.

All it will do is make a world of lazy people. "I'm guaranteed food, housing, education, etc! Why should I work?" and society will collapse.

Hear Hear

your indoctrination has been so complete it resembles a lobotomy....do you have the slightest inkling of what socialism is?...

Most of us do! What is this indoctrination you speak of?

Chavez was fairly elected as was Ortega......

Proof that Chavez was fairly elected? I do believe that Ortega was but not Chavez.

this is typical of many rants from right wing types in the US and I hesitate to label them as right wing as that suggests they actually know what they're talking about, and when it comes to socialism many here clearly do not.....

You might be surprised. Besides, the left loves to bash things they do not agree with and attack those that dare disagree with them.

Nah, I'd rather go by the median quality of life. Gives a better picture, it does. It gives an idea of the center, and what the quality is underneath the median and above the median.

if a socialist country has fewer poor than the USA they then would also have a higher median...this why the USA is not rated as the best country to live trailing a number of socialist countries in the rankings.... the past 20 years the best rated countries to live for quality of life have been socialist

a quote from Wikipedia-The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gap of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow.[8] In recent times, some prominent economists including Alan Greenspan have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.

as well the US economy is quite artificial it relies on client states suppling a never ending supply of inexpensive resources...this is changing, many third world countries are becoming very aware of the value of their resources and demanding more for them....oil being a prime example

Grr, this income gap bollocks is maddening, it is pure envy, nothing else.Still living with mommy and daddy? Ever had to sweat out a paycheck, hoping to god the rent check doesn't clear before the next one is deposited? Ever had to work multiple jobs just so you'd have enough to starve on? Fuck your income gap bollocks.

You might be surprised. Besides, the left loves to bash things they do not agree with and attack those that dare disagree with them.

Everyone loves to bash things, some more subtly than others. Some may do it by writing stories, and others may do it by directly calling everyone who believes in something or another is an idiot. I prefer writing.

Most of us do! What is this indoctrination you speak of?

Proof that Chavez was fairly elected? I do believe that Ortega was but not Chavez.


indoctrination, where it's repeated over and over about the evils of socialism and how it'll take away your freedom and your SUV.....a generalization of course but a quick look through this thread shows how much ignorance exists regarding socialism in the US....many if not most have no idea what it's like to live in a socialist state...

Chavez won re-election in a landslide 61% of the vote(yes it was legitimate)...why is it so difficult for Americans to comprehend that many countries willingly vote for socialist governments...is this also the result of your indoctrination...

actually 2 independent dems 48 declared dems and 48 republicans. No american would willingly vote for a socialist. As a whole, i think Americans are too dumb to know what socialism is and wouldnt consider a vote for anything outside of democrats or republicans.

Your senate total comes to 98. :rolleyes:

indoctrination, where it's repeated over and over about the evils of socialism and how it'll take away your freedom and your SUV.....a generalization of course but a quick look through this thread shows how much ignorance exists regarding socialism in the US....many if not most have no idea what it's like to live in a socialist state...

I also see some who arguing against it who do know what socialism is. As to indoctrination, sounds like you yourself have been indoctrinated by someone :D

Chavez won re-election in a landslide 61% of the vote(yes it was legitimate)...why is it so difficult for Americans to comprehend that many countries willingly vote for socialist governments...is this also the result of your indoctrination...

And your proof that his re-election was legitament? I asked you this and you have not shown proof. This is the 2nd time I am asking you. And I will ignore your comment about me being indoctrinated.

indoctrination, where it's repeated over and over about the evils of socialism and how it'll take away your freedom and your SUV.....a generalization of course but a quick look through this thread shows how much ignorance exists regarding socialism in the US....many if not most have no idea what it's like to live in a socialist state...

Chavez won re-election in a landslide 61% of the vote(yes it was legitimate)...why is it so difficult for Americans to comprehend that many countries willingly vote for socialist governments...is this also the result of your indoctrination...You should see the kind of press Chavez gets in the US. You could be paying a modicum of attention and think he's the second coming of Satan the way they make him sound.

I pray to God that we dont start one of those european style full government benifit things. It goes against everything America was founded on. It is the people's job to get along, and the government should only be there to keep the order. Its not the job of the government to make sure that every high school drop out has a house and health care. Not to say that government healthcare should be thrown out the window, it shouldnt, without it about 5 million people would be utterly screwed. But i'm not about to give my tax money to some idiot who broke his leg and cant go back to his minimum wage factory job so he sits on the couch drinking bud lite and watching wrestling.

so what has this idiot done to deserve not being able to feed his family, pay his bills, what have this idiots kids done to deserve this? A minimum wage worker breaks his leg, can't work and he is to be punished even more? What is wrong with your brain that you would wish someone who is already on the bottom of society to suffer more.

I also see some who arguing against it who do know what socialism is. As to indoctrination, sounds like you yourself have been indoctrinated by someone :D



And your proof that his re-election was legitament? I asked you this and you have not shown proof. This is the 2nd time I am asking you. And I will ignore your comment about me being indoctrinated.

There were inspectors. Do you trust them? (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1690.html)

You should see the kind of press Chavez gets in the US. You could be paying a modicum of attention and think he's the second coming of Satan the way they make him sound.

I don't understand it, the poor in his country see him as the only leader who has given them any hope to aspire to a better life. I understand why the US media and power brokers don't like him, he wants to change the status quo of the third world. For the people of the third world to enjoy the same quality of life as the industrial world, and that would mean a reduction the quality of life in the industrialized world....as prices for third world resources and products would rise in price. Chavez is a threat to corporate profits.

There were inspectors. Do you trust them? (http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1690.html)

Yes I do trust them. However, I was not asking you to provide the proof. It is up to Socialist Pyrates to provide such proof.

Yes I do trust them. However, I was not asking you to provide the proof. It is up to Socialist Pyrates to provide such proof.

What the hell difference does it make? The google works the same for all of us, right? Hell, you could have found it yourself in the time it took me to get the damn thing posted, thanks to jolt's beautiful servers.

What the hell difference does it make? The google works the same for all of us, right? Hell, you could have found it yourself in the time it took me to get the damn thing posted, thanks to jolt's beautiful servers.

You know the rules of debating on here. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement that something is indeed factual. :D

And yes. I am truly beginning to hate these jolt servers myself.

You know the rules of debating on here. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement that something is indeed factual. :D

And yes. I am truly beginning to hate these jolt servers myself.

So it's more important that you "score" a point than that you actually learn something? What kind of fucked-up values system is that?

Well, does this mean the Senate now consists of 1 Socialist, 49 Democrats, and 50 Republicans, putting the Republicans in the majority in the Senate?

yup
99 - 1

Yes I do trust them. However, I was not asking you to provide the proof. It is up to Socialist Pyrates to provide such proof.

how childish that's absolutely petty....you're just pissed because I'm right...

just to be as petty as you (but not quite) here's half a link you look up the other half, of course you already know the answer so why should you http://www.democracy

So it's more important that you "score" a point than that you actually learn something? What kind of fucked-up values system is that?

:rolleyes:

Nowhere did I imply that I am out to "score" a point then learn something. I learn something everyday of my life. I am always interested in learning something. Never stated otherwise. For you to imply that I don't is rather condescending and something that I do not expect from you. We have sparred often enough that I do respect you.

What the hell difference does it make? The google works the same for all of us, right? Hell, you could have found it yourself in the time it took me to get the damn thing posted, thanks to jolt's beautiful servers.
he's childish....when you do post a link then it becomes..."oh that's a Nazi website or Commie website or KKK or Wikipedia website anything to make it irrelevant....the most childish of behaviour, if someone makes a claim I verify it myself but again my source is likely different than theirs so what use is it......

how childish that's absolutely petty....you're just pissed because I'm right...

Did I say you were wrong? No I did not. I just asked for proof to see if you would actually do it.

just to be as petty as you (but not quite) here's half a link you look up the other half, of course you already know the answer so why should you http://www.democracy

Talk about childish behavior :rolleyes: Two wrongs do not make a right SP.

he's childish....when you do post a link then it becomes..."oh that's a Nazi website or Commie website or KKK or Wikipedia website anything to make it irrelevant....the most childish of behaviour, if someone makes a claim I verify it myself but again my source is likely different than theirs so what use is it......

Unlike others here, I do not invalidate most links if they are of a different persuasion than I am.

so what has this idiot done to deserve not being able to feed his family, pay his bills, what have this idiots kids done to deserve this? A minimum wage worker breaks his leg, can't work and he is to be punished even more? What is wrong with your brain that you would wish someone who is already on the bottom of society to suffer more.

That's not an argument for Socialism; it's a sob story that tries to guilt the other party into shutting up. Learn proper grammar, spelling, and then reform what you said using sound logic.

That's not an argument for Socialism; it's a sob story that tries to guilt the other party into shutting up. Learn proper grammar, spelling, and then reform what you said using sound logic.

That's because it was not an argument for socialism
it was an argument for common human decency and you somehow have the two confused.

Still living with mommy and daddy? Ever had to sweat out a paycheck, hoping to god the rent check doesn't clear before the next one is deposited? Ever had to work multiple jobs just so you'd have enough to starve on? Fuck your income gap bollocks.

Are you kidding me?

For your information, I worked two jobs through most of college, it came out to about 60 hours of work a week, plus about 40 hours spent studying and going to classes. I did this for five years and for the most part it sucked, though I never really worried about my rent check clearing because I was careful with my finances and always knew exactly how much I had in the bank. Now that hard work is paying off and I have a decent job. I'll never be rich, but I have a secure job that keeps me plenty comfortable.

After my hard work, why should I spend my money so that someone who doesn't want to work as hard as me can have a better standard of living? People need to take control of their own lives, anyone can do it if they're smart enough. If you can't do that, fine, we still need people to pick up the trash and flip burgers, just don't expect me to feel sorry for you and foot your bill, I don't owe you a penny more than the $3.29 I paid for my hamburger.

How about you, mr "non-socialists are all a bunch of rich kids living with mommy" do you have a job? If you are working two jobs and still struggling to come up with rent, I would reccomend re-evaluating your finances, a computer and internet service would be one of the first things I would lose unless you need it for school or work. If you are somewhat well off, and are so concerned about the poor, you should consider charity work or possibly donations, but don't lecture me about what to do with the money I worked my ass off to earn. I strive to be good and just to my fellow man, but I am not my brother's keeper.

Life on Earth consists of countless billions of creatures fighting each other tooth and nail for survival. It's a competitive damn world and everything needs a survival strategy. If you can't make it, tough titties. No one said life was going to be fair or easy.

Are you kidding me?

For your information, I worked two jobs through most of college, it came out to about 60 hours of work a week, plus about 40 hours spent studying and going to classes. I did this for five years and for the most part it sucked, though I never really worried about my rent check clearing because I was careful with my finances and always knew exactly how much I had in the bank. Now that hard work is paying off and I have a decent job. I'll never be rich, but I have a secure job that keeps me plenty comfortable.

After my hard work, why should I spend my money so that someone who doesn't want to work as hard as me can have a better standard of living? People need to take control of their own lives, anyone can do it if they're smart enough. If you can't do that, fine, we still need people to pick up the trash and flip burgers, just don't expect me to feel sorry for you and foot your bill, I don't owe you a penny more than the $3.29 I paid for my hamburger.

How about you, mr "non-socialists are all a bunch of rich kids living with mommy" do you have a job? If you are working two jobs and still struggling to come up with rent, I would reccomend re-evaluating your finances, a computer and internet service would be one of the first things I would lose unless you need it for school or work. If you are somewhat well off, and are so concerned about the poor, you should consider charity work or possibly donations, but don't lecture me about what to do with the money I worked my ass off to earn. I strive to be good and just to my fellow man, but I am not my brother's keeper.

Life on Earth consists of countless billions of creatures fighting each other tooth and nail for survival. It's a competitive damn world and everything needs a survival strategy. If you can't make it, tough titties. No one said life was going to be fair or easy.


When they started reforming schools in the UK, those that had had fagging
systems where the elder boys not only got to order younger boys about
but could also beat them if they felt like it; a suprising thing was found,
the younger boys who had suffered through the experience damn well
did not want to miss their turn at being the masters.

Can't imagine why that thought came to me.

That's not an argument for Socialism; it's a sob story that tries to guilt the other party into shutting up. Learn proper grammar, spelling, and then reform what you said using sound logic.

for a wannabe intellectual ya sur don reed wel....work on your comprehension sport, I responded to idiotic post in a manner that it's poster might understand, guess that passed you by as well...

and I give a flying F*** what you think about how I choose to write...

When they started reforming schools in the UK, those that had had fagging
systems where the elder boys not only got to order younger boys about
but could also beat them if they felt like it; a suprising thing was found,
the younger boys who had suffered through the experience damn well
did not want to miss their turn at being the masters.

Can't imagine why that thought came to me.

See, here is where the lapse in logic comes in. You associate my not wanting to provide for a stranger's lifestyle with on older kid beating a younger kid up.

No one took anything from me when I was in college. I didn't ask for help from anyone, I took care of myself because that was how I was raised, a man takes care of himself. Now that I am in a better position, I have no obligation to lower my standard of living to raise someone else's. I'm not taking anything from anyone, and I never have, and I have never allowed anyone other than the government to take anything from me. The only reason I let the government take a big chunk of my paycheck is that they have a lot of guns and cold dark cells for people who don't pay taxes.

After all, socialism has to be enforced, and violence and imprisonment is how it's done.

Are you kidding me?

For your information, I worked two jobs through most of college, it came out to about 60 hours of work a week, plus about 40 hours spent studying and going to classes. I did this for five years and for the most part it sucked, though I never really worried about my rent check clearing because I was careful with my finances and always knew exactly how much I had in the bank. Now that hard work is paying off and I have a decent job. I'll never be rich, but I have a secure job that keeps me plenty comfortable.

After my hard work, why should I spend my money so that someone who doesn't want to work as hard as me can have a better standard of living? People need to take control of their own lives, anyone can do it if they're smart enough. If you can't do that, fine, we still need people to pick up the trash and flip burgers, just don't expect me to feel sorry for you and foot your bill, I don't owe you a penny more than the $3.29 I paid for my hamburger.

How about you, mr "non-socialists are all a bunch of rich kids living with mommy" do you have a job? If you are working two jobs and still struggling to come up with rent, I would reccomend re-evaluating your finances, a computer and internet service would be one of the first things I would lose unless you need it for school or work. If you are somewhat well off, and are so concerned about the poor, you should consider charity work or possibly donations, but don't lecture me about what to do with the money I worked my ass off to earn. I strive to be good and just to my fellow man, but I am not my brother's keeper.

Life on Earth consists of countless billions of creatures fighting each other tooth and nail for survival. It's a competitive damn world and everything needs a survival strategy. If you can't make it, tough titties. No one said life was going to be fair or easy.

Do I have a job? Indeed I do--and if you're not full of shit, we're about in similar straits right now. I'll never be rich--probably never make it out of the lower end of the middle class thanks to student loans--but I have two degrees and I did it while raising a daughter after a divorce and working multiple jobs more than once.

And you know what else? I never lost my sense of empathy, my sense that the world ought not make people have to choose between eating and spending time with their kids if that's possible. I guess I'm just a bit more caring of a human being than you are, and you know something? I'm happier for it, and I'll wager a mint that I'm more content in my life than you are in yours, because my priorities aren't fucked up.

After all, socialism has to be enforced, and violence and imprisonment is how it's done.
Bullshit. Now you're just proving that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

See, here is where the lapse in logic comes in. You associate my not wanting to provide for a stranger's lifestyle with on older kid beating a younger kid up.

No one took anything from me when I was in college. I didn't ask for help from anyone, I took care of myself because that was how I was raised, a man takes care of himself. Now that I am in a better position, I have no obligation to lower my standard of living to raise someone else's. I'm not taking anything from anyone, and I never have, and I have never allowed anyone other than the government to take anything from me. The only reason I let the government take a big chunk of my paycheck is that they have a lot of guns and cold dark cells for people who don't pay taxes.

After all, socialism has to be enforced, and violence and imprisonment is how it's done.

Equating the government of the US of A with socialism strikes as less a lapse in logic than a holiday from reality.

Hey, at least I don't walk around thinking I'm morally superior to other people. Except maybe thieves and murderers and rapists. It's pretty hard to not feel morally superior to them.

But I do have empathy, believe it or not, I just treat people the way I would want to be treated. I don't want something for nothing, I just want to be treated just and fair and it helps to be as civil as possible. If it makes you happy to help the less fortunate, that's great, help them all you want and gods bless you for it, just don't expect me to welcome the government forcing me to do the same at gunpoint.

See, here is where the lapse in logic comes in. You associate my not wanting to provide for a stranger's lifestyle with on older kid beating a younger kid up.

No one took anything from me when I was in college. I didn't ask for help from anyone, I took care of myself because that was how I was raised, a man takes care of himself. Now that I am in a better position, I have no obligation to lower my standard of living to raise someone else's. I'm not taking anything from anyone, and I never have, and I have never allowed anyone other than the government to take anything from me. The only reason I let the government take a big chunk of my paycheck is that they have a lot of guns and cold dark cells for people who don't pay taxes.


I worked my way through school...had two jobs after...other than taxes no one has ever taken anything from me...society can't function without taxes, no taxes no schools, no roads, no bridges, no airports, no nothing...no one likes taxes not even socialists but there is cost to living in any society

After all, socialism has to be enforced, and violence and imprisonment is how it's done.

violence? please tell me what country is that?....don't pay your taxes in your capitalist paradise and tell me what happens, maybe they'll let you have a laptop in your cell...

Hey, at least I don't walk around thinking I'm morally superior to other people. Except maybe thieves and murderers and rapists. It's pretty hard to not feel morally superior to them.

But I do have empathy, believe it or not, I just treat people the way I would want to be treated. I don't want something for nothing, I just want to be treated just and fair and it helps to be as civil as possible. If it makes you happy to help the less fortunate, that's great, help them all you want and gods bless you for it, just don't expect me to welcome the government forcing me to do the same at gunpoint.

Hear Hear

Bullshit. Now you're just proving that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. :rolleyes:

What? Do you just expect me to willingly hand over my money to the government to redistribute without some form of coersion? It's right there on the books, if you don't pay taxes you will eventually go to jail, if you resist you will be forced by people with guns.

But hey, If this form of government has voluntary taxation, I'm all for it, I'll just opt out and that will be that.

Wow I am really surprised. This guy is definently a Socialist (by American Political standards). I really hope some more guys like him can come to power so they can implement more socialist reforms for the people. In my oppinion the parties abysmal performance for the past 6-7 years is a reason why this guy probably got elected. Like the article states though he had an easy election but for him to say that he is a socialist is HUGE because the political atmoshpere in America usually doesn't tollerate any of that kind of stuff.

BTW: I'm a Super Noob because I don't know how to quote replies. Does anyone know how?

What? Do you just expect me to willingly hand over my money to the government to redistribute without some form of coersion? It's right there on the books, if you don't pay taxes you will eventually go to jail, if you resist you will be forced by people with guns.

But hey, If this form of government has voluntary taxation, I'm all for it, I'll just opt out and that will be that.

So you firmly believe that government should not collect taxes from you.

You probably use roads, may have had some form of a public funded education at some
point in your life and are thankful for police and fire services but heck if other people are stupid enough
to pay for them that's their look out.

You want to be a man who relies on no one and who no one else relies on
and you believe this with such passion you bow to the demand because
you don't want to do jail time.

You are a man of conviction without doubt.
We are all humbled before you.

What? Do you just expect me to willingly hand over my money to the government to redistribute without some form of coersion? It's right there on the books, if you don't pay taxes you will eventually go to jail, if you resist you will be forced by people with guns.

But hey, If this form of government has voluntary taxation, I'm all for it, I'll just opt out and that will be that.

if you opt out of paying taxes will you also opt out of using government roads? hospitals? schools? hey, wanna cross that river, sorry that's a government funded bridge you'll have to swim for it...maybe you should be living in a mountain shack or a beach house on a South seas island...no taxes, no services

No, I'll willingly pay some taxes, particularly when they are spent to benefit me, but it's enough of a burden paying for roads and schools and a ridiculous war on the other side of the world, trust me, I am starting to get my tax crap together for my yearly shafting and it is getting close to the point where I say "Fuck this shit" and hole up in a bunker in Kansas with an AK-47 and a couple crates of MREs.

My whole point is, all of this socialism stuff sounds nice, but someone has to pay for it, and I am not willing to pay for it, plain and simple

No, I'll willingly pay some taxes, particularly when they are spent to benefit me, but it's enough of a burden paying for roads and schools and a ridiculous war on the other side of the world, trust me, I am starting to get my tax crap together for my yearly shafting and it is getting close to the point where I say "Fuck this shit" and hole up in a bunker in Kansas with an AK-47 and a couple crates of MREs.

My whole point is, all of this socialism stuff sounds nice, but someone has to pay for it, and I am not willing to pay for it, plain and simple

in my city there was a news article about a single mom with 2 kids (father had run out on them) she held two jobs and still didn't make enough cash to pay rent so they lived in homeless shelters...how could you not help someone in that position?.....in your country how many trillions of dollars are wasted on the military? the military in any country are effectively unemployed, they are a drain on the economy contributing nothing to the wealth of the nation....couldn't some of that cash be redirected to the poor? do children do anything too deserve being poor?

the military in any country are effectively unemployed, they are a drain on the economy contributing nothing to the wealth of the nation
You’re wrong there. The military-industrial complex makes quite a profit from the military.

You’re wrong there. The military-industrial complex makes quite a profit from the military.

it's an illusion, its like taking money from your right pocket and putting in your left pocket and thinking you've found some new cash...... giving taxpayers money to the military industrial complex is no different than giving money to the poor, only with the Military Industrial you're giving it to billionaires....so why not give it to poor who need it, they'll spend it and keep the economy going just as well...

it's an illusion, its like taking money from your right pocket and putting in your left pocket and thinking you've found some new cash...... giving taxpayers money to the military industrial complex is no different than giving money to the poor, only with the Military Industrial you're giving it to billionaires....so why not give it to poor who need it, they'll spend it and keep the economy going just as well...
Because the billionaires (actually most are multi-millionares, but meh) are in charge, not the poor. Sucks, but that's the way it is.

Vermont is awesome...that guy is awesome.He was in the house previously. And his party is very powerful in Vermont. But it's a Vermont based party.

You are speaking to the perversion of the system, not to the system itself. The system itself allows you to earn something and do work to support yourself, which is the way things are supposed to be. But, we recognize that there are persons unable and unwilling to do that. So, those with means help (not do everything for) those unalbe and the unwilling become willing or they starve.

With socialism, you have no motivation and you create a mass of leeches sucking off of everyone else who will soon no longer be able to support the system.

And there have to be rich persons (not that rich persons have to behave the way many of them do). If the were none, there would be no one to employ the poor.

I have to ask; are you saying that, if the US went to a socialist system, you literally would quit your job and go on the dole because you would suddenly feel "unmotivated?? That's exceedingly stoopid.

As a former hard-core conservative from the US, I can quite safely say that many Conservatives already believe that over 50% of the Senate is Socialist... and that count INCLUDES Republicans.
Actually seeing how all of congress panders to lobbyists, I'd have to say Fascist is more likely.


I say "Fuck this shit" and hole up in a bunker in Kansas with an AK-47 and a couple crates of MREs.

AK-47... A gun made by a Communist country...

Oh the irony.

Senator Bernard Sanders from Vermont calls himself a socialist and...

I'm predicting hilarious reactions from US Conservatives in this thread. Well, I'm hoping for them, at least. :D

OMG! Senator Sanders, you like social democracy! Beware of the McCarthy Commission!

BTW: I'm a Super Noob because I don't know how to quote replies. Does anyone know how?

Click on "quote", bottom-right of the post you want to quote.

...how could you not help someone in that position?

Easy.

By not giving a damn.

in my city there was a news article about a single mom with 2 kids (father had run out on them) she held two jobs and still didn't make enough cash to pay rent so they lived in homeless shelters...how could you not help someone in that position?

How could I not help someone in that position?

It's easy, I don't. There are plenty of people in the world who fail to grasp the simple concept that life on earth is not easy and if you are going to survive you are going to have to use your head. It's not my fault if someone goes and ditches an education in favor of an early marriage, then has a couple of kids with a shithead husband who is about to leave her.

The simple fact is, the only requirement to having a kid is the ability to screw. Every dumbass with no sense of responsibility likes to screw, and when they have a bunch of kids they're too stupid to take care of it's not my problem. Why aren't you calling out for the father to help? It's his problem, not mine. I never screwed this lady, so why should I be responsible for raising her kids?

Lets say you and me are walking down the street and we see a homeless guy. If you take a $20 bill out of your pocket and give it to the guy that's great, it's very generous of you, I might even buy you a beer, but if you reach into my pocket and give him my $20 bill that is theft, and I will probably have you arrested.

The simple fact is, I don't give a damn. If I gave a damn I would be broke and my own kids would be in a homeless shelter. I take care of my family, but everyone else can kiss my ass. If you feel sorry for the poor and want to help, that's great, there are a lot of good charities you can donate your time and money to, but my time and money are mine to do with as I please.

What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? "But," you cry "some people are too stupid to dig themselves out of the hole they're in!" Well tough biscuits. I'm not going to fund the de-evolution of the human race.

Hey, at least I don't walk around thinking I'm morally superior to other people. Except maybe thieves and murderers and rapists. It's pretty hard to not feel morally superior to them.

But I do have empathy, believe it or not, I just treat people the way I would want to be treated. I don't want something for nothing, I just want to be treated just and fair and it helps to be as civil as possible. If it makes you happy to help the less fortunate, that's great, help them all you want and gods bless you for it, just don't expect me to welcome the government forcing me to do the same at gunpoint.

How could I not help someone in that position?

It's easy, I don't. There are plenty of people in the world who fail to grasp the simple concept that life on earth is not easy and if you are going to survive you are going to have to use your head. It's not my fault if someone goes and ditches an education in favor of an early marriage, then has a couple of kids with a shithead husband who is about to leave her.

The simple fact is, the only requirement to having a kid is the ability to screw. Every dumbass with no sense of responsibility likes to screw, and when they have a bunch of kids they're too stupid to take care of it's not my problem. Why aren't you calling out for the father to help? It's his problem, not mine. I never screwed this lady, so why should I be responsible for raising her kids?

Lets say you and me are walking down the street and we see a homeless guy. If you take a $20 bill out of your pocket and give it to the guy that's great, it's very generous of you, I might even buy you a beer, but if you reach into my pocket and give him my $20 bill that is theft, and I will probably have you arrested.

The simple fact is, I don't give a damn. If I gave a damn I would be broke and my own kids would be in a homeless shelter. I take care of my family, but everyone else can kiss my ass. If you feel sorry for the poor and want to help, that's great, there are a lot of good charities you can donate your time and money to, but my time and money are mine to do with as I please.

What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? "But," you cry "some people are too stupid to dig themselves out of the hole they're in!" Well tough biscuits. I'm not going to fund the de-evolution of the human race.
So which is it? You've contradicted yourself here.

You’re wrong there. The military-industrial complex makes quite a profit from the military.

LMAO!

So very true. And SP, they defend the wealth of the nation :rolleyes:

I have to ask; are you saying that, if the US went to a socialist system, you literally would quit your job and go on the dole because you would suddenly feel "unmotivated?? That's exceedingly stoopid.

Would I? No, it's a sin to not work six days a week when you are able.

What I'm saying is that a lot of persons (arguably most persons) once they get on welfare will never be able to get off of it because it will become an addiction for them

How could I not help someone in that position?

It's easy, I don't. There are plenty of people in the world who fail to grasp the simple concept that life on earth is not easy and if you are going to survive you are going to have to use your head. It's not my fault if someone goes and ditches an education in favor of an early marriage, then has a couple of kids with a shithead husband who is about to leave her.

The simple fact is, the only requirement to having a kid is the ability to screw. Every dumbass with no sense of responsibility likes to screw, and when they have a bunch of kids they're too stupid to take care of it's not my problem. Why aren't you calling out for the father to help? It's his problem, not mine. I never screwed this lady, so why should I be responsible for raising her kids?

Lets say you and me are walking down the street and we see a homeless guy. If you take a $20 bill out of your pocket and give it to the guy that's great, it's very generous of you, I might even buy you a beer, but if you reach into my pocket and give him my $20 bill that is theft, and I will probably have you arrested.

The simple fact is, I don't give a damn. If I gave a damn I would be broke and my own kids would be in a homeless shelter. I take care of my family, but everyone else can kiss my ass. If you feel sorry for the poor and want to help, that's great, there are a lot of good charities you can donate your time and money to, but my time and money are mine to do with as I please.

What ever happened to taking responsibility for your own actions? "But," you cry "some people are too stupid to dig themselves out of the hole they're in!" Well tough biscuits. I'm not going to fund the de-evolution of the human race.

you're an aberration, your attitude is the exact opposite of basic human nature, our success as a species is due to our empathy, to help each other, alone none of us is strong enough to survive... we are a social animal if your attitude was normal we never would have evolved past a bipedal ape and we would have gone extinct...

ZOMG NOEZ, there's a commie in teh us senate! commies r evil n shit, cos they let furriners into teh country to taek our jobs n tehy are infidel athiests who want to destroy religoin and proper american values!!! and cut down on the size of the military and give us less :mp5: so we cant shoot people!!! this is an outrage and im writing to my local congresman to get him to send swat teams fo assassiante teh commie cos it is unamerican! :upyours:



Anyway.

So whatever, we have a socialist. At least he might try to reform the awful situation of American oligarchical corporatism the way it is today, even if it isn't in the most preferrable direction.

Would I? No, it's a sin to not work six days a week when you are able.

What I'm saying is that a lot of persons (arguably most persons) once they get on welfare will never be able to get off of it because it will become an addiction for them

Call me a sinner then. I went into academia precisely so I wouldn't have to work six days a week. I did enough of that shit when I was in college.

you're an aberration, your attitude is the exact opposite of basic human nature, our success as a species is due to our empathy, to help each other, alone none of us is strong enough to survive... we are a social animal if your attitude was normal we never would have evolved past a bipedal ape and we would have gone extinct...

On the other hand, if it were the mainstream view of human nature, the world would be a far, far better -- albeit tougher -- place than it is today. The impure and weak would be purged, compassion and empathy would be old ridiculous outdated concepts, and everyone would work for what they get and be damned happy with it too. There would be no homeless or poor after about twenty years, because they'd all be dead by then. All we'd need are decontamination teams to go in and get rid of all the dirty illnesses they spread.

On the other hand, if it were the mainstream view of human nature, the world would be a far, far better -- albeit tougher -- place than it is today. The impure and weak would be purged, compassion and empathy would be old ridiculous outdated concepts, and everyone would work for what they get and be damned happy with it too. There would be no homeless or poor after about twenty years, because they'd all be dead by then. All we'd need are decontamination teams to go in and get rid of all the dirty illnesses they spread.
Careful using terms like "better" there--better for whom? in what way? There's no objective way to be able to make that argument because the system you're describing is too chaotic to know what the results would be. Personally, I'll take the other side and call it better--I don't want a world without empathy.

Careful using terms like "better" there--better for whom? in what way? There's no objective way to be able to make that argument because the system you're describing is too chaotic to know what the results would be. Personally, I'll take the other side and call it better--I don't want a world without empathy.

Your sarcasm detector seems to be malfunctioning.


Then again, that is only my own view carried to extremes. I'd prefer a world without empathy simply because empathy is so damned annoying. I can't stand empathetic people, always so weepy and caring looking, when all they're really in it for is their own pleasure, which they just happen to extract from helping others. Trying to pretend you don't enjoy it is plain hypocrisy.

Call me a sinner then. I went into academia precisely so I wouldn't have to work six days a week. I did enough of that shit when I was in college.

Well, I'd call you a sinner anyway, because we all sin.

And work is not necessarily a job. It can be cleaning the house, taking care of the lawn, paying bills, watching the kids, etc.

And that's also not to say that you must work sun-up to sun-down. The majority of your day should be for work (with the exception of the Sabbath), but there is also time for naps, recreation, reading a book for pleasure, etc.

Your sarcasm detector seems to be malfunctioning.


Then again, that is only my own view carried to extremes. I'd prefer a world without empathy simply because empathy is so damned annoying. I can't stand empathetic people, always so weepy and caring looking, when all they're really in it for is their own pleasure, which they just happen to extract from helping others. Trying to pretend you don't enjoy it is plain hypocrisy.

empathy is what makes us human, it guaranties a successful society...carried to your extreme no empathy=no hospitals, no doctors, no firemen, no police, no government, because no one would give a F*** about each other....as heartless and cold as you make yourself out to be its not reality...

empathy is what makes us human, it guaranties a successful society...carried to your extreme no empathy=no hospitals, no doctors, no firemen, no police, no government, because no one would give a F*** about each other....as heartless and cold as you make yourself out to be its not reality...

You seem to be under the impression that doctors, firemen, police, etc. work because they actually care about the people they are trying to help.


In reality, they work at these professions for one reason alone, and that is because they can gain some advantage from it -- in this case, a financial one. Some of them may also gain a sensation of pleasure from participating in the helpful work involved, but that is a secondary benefit.

Likewise, the person giving $10 to a homeless guy does so because it gives him a greater sense of self-worth or morality, rather than because he actually can put himself in the homeless guy's shoes.

And reason is what makes us human, anyway. Read up on your Plato, padawan.

Likewise, the person giving $10 to a homeless guy does so because it gives him a greater sense of self-worth or morality, rather than because he actually can put himself in the homeless guy's shoes.



The purchasing of the "warm fuzzy feeling".