Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

He qualifies that with the term "democratic." It's subtle, yet powerful. Because Stalin and Mao betrayed Socialism so greviously, such qualifications must be made. Indeed, calling Stalin or Mao socialists berns my ears. It's kind of like calling Trump a Conservative. :sick:

No, "democratic" isn't a qualifier, it's just another archetype.

 

The problem is, even if your socialism is "democratic", what do you do with the 49% who didn't want it? Who prefer liberty, and resist it?

 

Ultimately it comes down to thought-crime, suspension of rights, and gulags.

 

In the end, when you substitute force for choice, that's how it always winds up.

Posted (edited)

No, "democratic" isn't a qualifier, it's just another archetype.

 

The problem is, even if your socialism is "democratic", what do you do with the 49% who didn't want it? Who prefer liberty, and resist it?

 

Ultimately it comes down to thought-crime, suspension of rights, and gulags.

 

In the end, when you substitute force for choice, that's how it always winds up.

If you think that the candidate who voted against the original Patriot Act, and every renewal, and has made ending NSA surveillance of US citizens part of his stump speech, will bring about some Orwellian dystopia, then you may want to rethink your archetypes. Edited by Franz Kafka
Posted

I followed your link, but I found no evidence of a man thinking that jobs are a 3 letter word. Color me disappointed. :thumbdown:

 

 

It was a reference to Biden. No way Barry lets Bernie run for his third term. If Hillary keeps tanking, even Barry knows America won't elect an avowed socialist as president of the US...and team Biden/Warren will fill the vacuum left by Hillary.

 

Posted

 

 

It was a reference to Biden. No way Barry lets Bernie run for his third term. If Hillary keeps tanking, even Barry knows America won't elect an avowed socialist as president of the US...and team Biden/Warren will fill the vacuum left by Hillary.

 

 

Oh. I kind of ignore Joe Biden in my political calculus. Obama's in a tough spot if his VP, former SoS, and a senator who campaigned for him are running against each other. I doubt Obama will choose sides, but I'd expect to hear more of "I'm friends with Joe," but not much more than that. Trump and Obama have a history, though, so if there's any speaking out from the White House, it will probably be to trash-talk Trump.

Posted

No, "democratic" isn't a qualifier, it's just another archetype.

 

The problem is, even if your socialism is "democratic", what do you do with the 49% who didn't want it? Who prefer liberty, and resist it?

 

Ultimately it comes down to thought-crime, suspension of rights, and gulags.

 

In the end, when you substitute force for choice, that's how it always winds up.

CKTb844.jpg

Posted

If you think that the candidate who voted against the original Patriot Act, and every renewal, and has made ending NSA surveillance of US citizens part of his stump speech, will bring about some Orwellian dystopia, then you may want to rethink your archetypes.

 

You're confusing "social democrat" with "democratic socialism."

Posted

If you think that the candidate who voted against the original Patriot Act, and every renewal, and has made ending NSA surveillance of US citizens part of his stump speech, will bring about some Orwellian dystopia, then you may want to rethink your archetypes.

I'm not interested in the man, I can't be, because of the archetype he associates with.
Posted

I'm not interested in the man, I can't be, because of the archetype he associates with.

Playing hard to get only makes Bernie want you more, you irresistible s.o.b.

Posted

He's very entertaining and I like his sincerity, but I will never, ever vote for a socialist.

As a libertarian (small l), I could not agree more.

Posted

The finished product is what I didn't like: Stalinist, Maoism. The basis, Socialism, I don't have a problem with. You made a tasty turn of phrase though, with the sausages, and that didn't go unappreciated. :beer:

 

So it only took 42 pages for the stock response, "Socialism is great, except everywhere that really, really tried it."

 

Congratulations, idiot.

 

And no, socialism's yoke on mankind doesn't have to be in the form of Orwellian thought police, although inevitably it becomes part of the landscape as that's the only way the state gets to keep control. No, socialism's greatest evil is the anathema to mankind's free will and enterprise, which is filling every nook & cranny with a bureaucratic apparatchik who will sign off on every step that you take (before they start watching every move you make). This is the parallel to my debate with Greggy. It's not the fear of some organization in Washington, it's the fear of the deputized army of millions of local desk jockeys controlling every aspect of my life.

 

That is socialism, not some progressive pining for IKEA.

Posted

 

So it only took 42 pages for the stock response, "Socialism is great, except everywhere that really, really tried it."

 

Congratulations, idiot.

 

And no, socialism's yoke on mankind doesn't have to be in the form of Orwellian thought police, although inevitably it becomes part of the landscape as that's the only way the state gets to keep control. No, socialism's greatest evil is the anathema to mankind's free will and enterprise, which is filling every nook & cranny with a bureaucratic apparatchik who will sign off on every step that you take (before they start watching every move you make). This is the parallel to my debate with Greggy. It's not the fear of some organization in Washington, it's the fear of the deputized army of millions of local desk jockeys controlling every aspect of my life.

 

That is socialism, not some progressive pining for IKEA.

You are definitely confusing Socialism with Communism.

×
×
  • Create New...