The Gov won't save our nation? The Gov is going to bail out FLorida

Bill had to throw some bones to the left after DEMOLISHING them on slavery and wokeness

 

There are not any governments that do not have roads and/or a military, education etc.

Since there are not, the direct implication of your words is that every government is Socialist. Of course you know such a claim is silly. I have observed you long enough that you will not own up to this direct implication, rather you will obfuscate nonstop, because that is what you do.

This is not about "binary thinking", rather it is about simple deductive reasoning. Therein lies your latest iteration of obfuscation.

 

It's INCAPABLE of doing that. That's what you don't seem to understand.

The government is only capable to channel money. That's it.

And in doing so, they effect a net negative value of the funding they provide.

 

No. Anything that ends in the suffix "ism" implies that what comes before is the most important thing. In "capitalism", "capital gains" is the most important thing. In "communism", the community is the most important.

Socialism simply means that society is the most important part. Whether that is achieved by controlling the means of production or not, is another debate. There are many forms of socialism. But, of all the relevant ones, Marxist Socialism is the ONLY one that includes complete controls of the means of production. In other types, like ours (Democratic Socialism), it only means controlling the means of production that are not profitable for private industries to control.

Which is Democratic Socialism. Just like ours. You are confused by one and only ONE type of socialism: Marxist Socialism. Which is not even the first type. Just one more in a long list.

The government goes to your home, picks up a check you wrote, puts it on an airplane and sends it all the way across the country to the producer of a product you want, for just 60 cents.

The government provides education needed to produce. It provides the judicial system producers need to operate. It provides the highways companies need to transport their products. It provides for protection along the route. It makes sure your workers are healthy so they can produce it.... and so on....

 

So? If that is true you will have proven two things: one, that ALL government provide some form of socialist service. And two, that the libertarian "dream" of everybody only receiving the services they pay for to a private entity, is a fantastic myth.

If you say so... As for myself, I don't tend to think in terms of absolutes like "never" or "all". Only people who think binary do that. But I couldn't care less. My point is that the above services ARE socialist services.

 

Ask the armed forces, the Postal Service, teachers, judges,... People who use public roads. Tell them that road they are driving on, the same ones that bring products to the supermarket down the road... tell them the government is "incapable" of building them.

It's pathetic when somebody sits there and just... denies reality... just because it doesn't fit their pre-canned political agenda

 

Denmark is not Democratic Socialist, they are a Social Democracy, where the 'social' refers to the taxpayer funded social services.

Socialist is socialist, in democratic socialism it was achieved via democratic elections, but more typically they get there via violent takeover, like was the case in USSR, Cuba and Cambodia.

That's fine. Such services are needed for a well functioning society. The debate in US has always been whether or not certain services like health care should be included or not.

No, they are social services, not socialist.

"In socialism, there is an emphasis on equality and equal distribution of wealth, whereas, in social democracy, there is emphasis on social welfare programs."

 

What I have illustrated is that contrary to your assertion, what you listed is NOT what determines "Socialism". There is a collective element to EVERY government, but this does not equate to Socialism.

Socialist services? Did you just invent a new word so as not to as clearly contradict your original statement? Do you mean social services? That still is not the proper word, but it is a definite move in the right direction. I would not have bothered to correct your error if this was the phrase that you had initially used.

"ONLY people who think binary do that"? LOL. Apparently you are one of them. I can only assume that the reality that this is a textbook binary statement must have completely went over your head.

 

That's hilarious!

But I'm not going to bother because I'm not talking about nations. I'm talking about what socialism IS. ALL the policies I mentioned are socialist policies.

If you have something to comment about what I DID say, go ahead.

 

LOL, Bill Maher, todays leftist hero, and tomorrows leftist ZERO

Bill Maher Made Honest Comments and the Left Went Crazy – PJ Media
Bill Maher Slams The Left: 'My Politics Hasn't Changed. They've Changed.' – OutKick
Bill Maher: I Haven't Changed. The Left Has. - YouTube
BILL MAHER: The Left Is Made Up Of People Who Have 'Gone Mental' (VIDEO) (americanlookout.com)
Bill Maher Riles Up the Angry, Left for Telling the Truth (independentsentinel.com)

I guess ol Billies rating are slipping, time to throw peanuts at the left

 

This why we shouldn't be pissing away all our RAINY DAY MONEY on other countries where we get nothing in return..

Four Ways to Understand the $54 Billion in U.S. Spending on Ukraine - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Democrats just love to spend what they don't have.. Anyone keeping a tally of what this moron has pissed away in less than two years?

 

It may not mean what you "Perceive" but there are far more people that define it in a realistic and correct way
The Need for Socialist Policies | Socialist Alternative

Sound familiar, comrade?

 

I brought up Denmark, which is a Social Democracy, and you responded by saying it was Democratic Socialism.

If we are talking about different things then so be it.

I provided the definitions for Socialism, Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy and explained the differences between them, but we can agree to disagree,

 

Who gets to decide when enough is enough?

 

That's the ideal outcome. In certain endeavors, it's the only practical way to go about it, e.g., defense, a system of justice, policing, responding to natural disasters, etc., but applied in general terms, it is a disaster.

Very similar to how you must have some regulation as well as checks and balances within a capitalist economic system. It's never black and white.

 

Capital gains? How about just capital.

Perhaps it would make a great deal of sense just to get rid of all words that end is -ism. They are all meaningless anyway.

 

So lets pay able-bodied people to ass-sit, create the fattest, sickest population ever and defend the practice by pointing out disaster relief and the public library.

Who could ever challenge such a well thought out argument?

 

I"ve expressed criticism of it, though I support the $10k relief for those who didn't receive the economic lift from their education which was promised that said education would result in. If Biden's policy isn't that, I won't support it, because that is what I would support.

 

Do you also support providing relief to someone who tries to start a business and it turns out to be unsuccessful?

 

Relief is funded by the Government.

Whoever funds dictates terms, and so subcontractors are just agents for the government.

Hell, my health care is a Private HMO, primary care is a private clinic, all funded by Medicare, but republicans call it socialism anyway.

So, no, I'm filing your argument ins the 'distinction without an actual difference' file..

either that, your y'all get together figure out what the hell you think socialism is, and isn't, and ALL OF YOU agree on it, and then.........

Quit calling liberals and democrats socialist.

Deal?

I didnt think so.

Specious argument, see above.

 

THe right call dems 'socialist' because of their fondness for government run , or government sponsored programs.

I'm using the term AS REPUBLICANS USE IT.

If you have a complaint on how I'm using the term, take it up with republicans.

Or, y'all get together and make up your ****ing minds, and if social programs are not socialism, then......

Quit calling dems and libs socialists and/or communists.

 

raise taxes 15% and give anyone that does not outsource jobs overseas a 15 tax break

 

As a recipient of SS since birth I appreciate that it was there helping my mother support a family of three children. Yet I still believe the government screwed up with SS. But it's based on contribution funding it, so in that sense it wasn't meant to be a free handout. It was an investment made by workers managed by the government, who has managed it into near bankruptcy. I can't help thinking that if it was privatized it more likely would have faired better. Would that mean some people, who haven't contributed to the fund, would be left out? Perhaps, but as it's going now I don't see my great grandchildren benefiting from it. Is that the type of Socialism you really want?

 

How does that answer my question?

 

Funny