4588686 Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 (edited) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PByKiTuPnhM :cry3: :cry3: :cry3: I'm not sure that you know what the word 'demonize' means. How did that demonize anybody? Edited January 26, 2013 by Hasan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I'm not sure that you know what the word 'demonize' means. How did that demonize anybody? Its call shaping the argument, are you really that naive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 Its call shaping the argument, are you really that naive? I guess that I am. Break it down for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I guess that I am. Break it down for me take a guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 You can contend that but it is not historically substantiated. America had a much stronger socialist movement before FDR than after. FDR saved capitalism corporatism in America. FDR formed cartels and used aggression. He was a thief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The only thing I've seen him compromise is the US Constituion. Compromise the Constitution? Nah. More like disregard it entirely. I share zero common ground with thim, so what difference does it make which label is applied to him? My thoughts exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm not sure that you know what the word 'demonize' means. How did that demonize anybody? my faith is IE: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 How do you define socialism? Government involvement in the economy? Government using taxes to ensure a social safety net? Sorry for the delay in response, been a little busy. In the most general simplist of terms, yes Government involvement in the the economy to the point of "social ownership" so using taxes To ensure a social safety net IS socialism. The Government controls the production/ administration/ control of the retirement accounts which and individual does not have the option to opt out of. Thus Social Security IS a socialist program. Public Education is Socialist in nature although not completely socialist as there is still a slight counter balance to it with Home school, parochial, and charter schools. Minor Government involvement which is kept to just regulation is still under the Capatalist system. I maintain that a mixing of Capatalism and Socialism is probably the best option for Natioonal economies although the Individual Nation's laws must support such a system. I believe the Republic form of Government in the United States as set up under the Constituion is inherently antithesis to Socialism under it's current construction. If American's want socialist themes within it's economy then the proper amendments must be made first. There are many things which I personally believe have been allowed to happen in the past because it was necessary, but the changes were not made for ease of process. Now we have ignored basic tenants for so long that most people do not even understand the basics of how our framework is even supposed to work. Anyway...sorry I started to rant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 I share zero common ground with thim, so what difference does it make which label is applied to him? Interesting. So you don't think that liberal democracy is a viable or legitimate political arrangement? Somehow I suspect that you two have some common ground. FDR formed cartels and used aggression. He was a thief. I'm sorry. I forgot that when right-libertarians discuss capitalism they are speaking strictly of an idealized model which has no bearing at all to the historical phenomena which has been understood to be capitalism since Manchester began industrializing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PadrePioOfPietrelcino Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 Interesting. So you don't think that liberal democracy is a viable or legitimate political arrangement? Somehow I suspect that you two have some common ground. Are you claiming Barrack Obama does not believe in liberal democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted January 27, 2013 Author Share Posted January 27, 2013 Are you saying that what I described is not a redistribution of wealth? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 I'm sorry. I forgot that when right-libertarians discuss capitalism they are speaking strictly of an idealized model which has no bearing at all to the historical phenomena which has been understood to be capitalism since Manchester began industrializing. The term is always used as a synonym for "free markets". Even when talking about our currently non-free markets. Thus, liberty is blamed for the failings of public/private partnership. As with the Great Depression. As with the dotcom bubble, the most recent housing bubble, and the future booms and busts. Join me, and oppose the banking cartels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now