Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Apr 14, 2016.
But oil production is bad. We all need to live in an oil-less world, to stop global warming.
So I'm still waiting for an official definition of what the progressives mean by "democratic socialism." From what I can tell, it basically means "free benefits for people who need them, heavily tax rich people, and give everyone a government job if they want it, rule by bureaucracy and activist judges, and if you're not a progressive thinker, you're not welcome in public discourse." I'm actually convinced that is as specific and in-depth as many of them have defined their ideology, meaning that it's not that they're NOT pushing for government takeover of private industry and property, and it's not that they're AGAINST pure socialism, it's just that they haven't really given it a lot of thought, and to the extent that they get the things they want, they want to preserve whatever benefits they get from capitalism without actually understanding how they got all those things to begin with. In other words, we're all for nationalizing stuff unless it messes up brunch plans.
Very well said
except. " free benefits for people who want them"
They think the US is behind the rest of the free world, not ahead of it.
But we are stronger than European Democratic Socialists for a reason. First, they are only free because of the US.
Second, they are not even technically citizens, but subjects. Their rights are borrowed from their statist masters, and they have no real way to preserve them.
The historical facts are that most "Democratic Socialist" nations would today be victims of Democide, or death by big government, if it wasn't for the US coming to their rescue. So I say, if they want to dial back NATO or kill it, then OK. Let's let them fend for themselves. Let's see what happens. It was easy for them to create nanny states once we took care of all the bad guys for them.
Socialists in Europe and their related wanna-bes have for a long time now called Americans backward, barbaric and so forth. And yet they had to beg us barbarians to come save them from themselves not once, not twice, but three times in the 20th century. Amazingly enough they appear to have learned nothing. So, again, I say cut 'em lose.
"Democratic Socialists" in the rest of the "free world" better pray nothing happens to this nation of barbarians. Fake rights get recalled real quick when all you have to protect them is ... well .... nothing.
Like I said above, there is only one country in this entire equation with actual citizens. The rest are subjects.
I like remembering ours is the ONLY country founded on an idea.
And I like remembering our government has lasted longer than any other nation of any size.
If we could get out of NATO and out of the UN, that would make me very happy.
Bingo. This is why I dismiss anyone who brings up Sweden or Denmark as successful socialism countries. They themselves would deny they are socialist, first of all, but beyond that, yeah it's a lot easier to make that model work when you don't have to pay for defense.
JF here is someone else besides me echoing your point:
Milton Friedman schools Phil Donahue about the virtues of Capitalism. To Donahue's credit, he allowed Friedman to speak without interruption and mocking his beliefs. Can't imagine a Bill Maher ever allowing this high level of discussion.
I've seen this video several times and it is really good. When Phil Donahue refers the "maldistribution of wealth" I about spotted.
My favorite is when he asks "that doesn't seem virtuous, does it?" It's a perfect example of the emotional response that some people have about socialism - it SOUNDS like it should be a more virtuous path, but only because the question is never asked of government as it is of capitalists and big business: "is your motivation altruistic? Or are you working out of self interest?" In the latter case, the answer is clearly "self interest." But in the former, while the answer is almost always "altruistic," it invariably proves that other concerns override that - i.e. pension/security, stability, easy of work, ideology, perception of fairness, justice, greed, power, popularity, etc..." At least capitalists' motivations are much easier to predict, and they're open and above board.
The other issue - and I wish Friedman had made this point, but maybe he doesn't see it this way - is that there is a difference between "greed" and "self-interest." No one considers it greedy to want a job that pays well enough for me to live comfortably. No one considers it greedy to demand to be paid for services rendered. And yet any inclination to capitalism is always lumped into the idea of "greed."
As if socialists wanting to seize all your property is not greedy
Sorry. I think you incorrectly cited the Bee.
This is clearly the tactic the Dems will use
Just ask Pelosi
Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
My new bill would require corporations to answer to employees and other stakeholders as well.
By Elizabeth Warren
Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders
It is scary that this socialist whack-job is a US Senator.
That has tinges of communism.
Really, that cartoon ought to have Ocasio Cortez holding the fork, but otherwise, it is spot on.
Here is the socialist queen trying to mesh in Texas
Konni Burton is not my state senator , she is District 10
but this is troubling, the extent Dems are going to to try to take Texas
"I got some jaw-dropping news today: Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren--the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate--is financially supporting my Democrat opponent. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that national Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are supporting my liberal opponent. After all, they share the same values.
But what is shocking is how this support was concealed.
Elizabeth Warren controls an entity called "PAC for a Level Playing Field”. That PAC donated thousands of dollars to the Texas Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, which was the only donation that campaign committee received and they then turned around and donated to my opponent.
On it's face it would appear my liberal opponent is receiving financial support from Texas Democrats but upon digging, you'll find that the piggy bank is actually back in Foxboro, Massachusetts with Senator Warren."
There has to be a way to find out if the Texas Senate Democratic Campaign Committee only received one donation.
I have read in the past that Beto is far out-raising Cruz *and* that Beto will not take PAC money. I wonder where all his money is coming from?
Beto has taken PAC money. Maybe he has not so far in this campaign but he sure has before
One cup of coffee con leche in Caracas
That's almost as bad as going to Starbucks