Comments on: Don’t allow Socialists to define the terms

By: Passingby

Passingby — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:54:25 +0000

Laz, and FYI, what it is called doesn’t always represent what it actually is. China called itself a “republic”, I hope you don’t agree with its own definition of “republic”.

By: Laz

Laz — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:57:13 +0000

John Doe,
FYI, the Nazi Party was in fact called the National SOCIALIST German Worker’s Party.

By: Rob Waterson

Rob Waterson — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:04:35 +0000

Typical brilliance from the kind of commenter who is afraid to use his real name.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:02:41 +0000

im commenting on the picture, Hitler was a fascist not a socialist the two political parties are different you dumb ass

By: GALLUP: Americans think gov’t doing too much « from the foothills

GALLUP: Americans think gov’t doing too much « from the foothills — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:03:34 +0000

[...] to give to them. Who the hell are these people? Obviously, they are a combination of elitist benefactor socialists and their dependent loser socialists. While their motivations may be different, both groups [...]

By: johnrj08

johnrj08 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:13:45 +0000

There is nothing in the Constitution about the federal government building an interstate highway system. There is also nothing in the Constitution about subsidizing state and local police, fire departments and school systems. Any operation that is instituted, owned and operated by the central government is a “socialist” program. Among many others, this includes Medicare, Medicaid, social security, the Veteran’s Administration, the CDC, NTSB, FDA, FTC, NASA, EPA, FBI, CIA, HUD, FEMA, FDIC, SEC, and, of course, the Supreme Court.

Taxing the top 5% of this country who possess 50% of the country’s wealth is NOT socialism because the rich get a return on their investment. What you call “collectivism” lies at the core of American values, which entails having compassion for and caring about those who are in need. How about the inscription on the Statue of Liberty? Anything that a central government does is a transfer of wealth. The graduated income tax is a transfer of wealth.

The self-absorption and greed of the 1980′s was replaced in 2000 by corporate malfeasance and fraud which was accompanied by obscene profits for the rich and stagnant wages for the poor. To say that the “general welfare” should be applied equally to a person earning 5-figures per month and those who are barely earning 5-figures per year simply lacks any morality or public conscience.

By: Rob Waterson

Rob Waterson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:07:37 +0000

John,

I am not arguing against the federal govt, nor have I ever, I simply contend that the federal gov’t should bear a strong resemblance to what is spelled out on the US Constitution. You know, Federalism.

With all due respect, it is you who is seriously confused about socialism/collectivism.

Paying taxes for common infrastructure does not qualify. Transferring wealth from some people to other people does.

So,

1) building highways: not socialism.
2) law enforcement: not socialism
3) taking money from productive people to pay for the health care of the less productive: socialism.

Can you see the difference? It is true “General Welfare”, meaning that it is something for all of us, versus the very specific welfare of people who are using the government to seize *someone else’s* property.

Glad I could help clarify that for you.

By: johnrj08

johnrj08 — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:41:57 +0000

All western democracies has some socialist policies. The United States has had them since the Revolutionary War. States left to their own devices would be unable to provide highways, bridges, school systems, aid in the wake of natural disasters, sufficient law enforcement, and protection of a banking system. Take away the federal government and some states would be grotesquely rich while others would be impoverished and anarchic. Some might even still have slavery and no women’s suffrage. Your grandparents would never be able to retire, but they probably wouldn’t live very long anyway without any kind of decent medical insurance or social security. And, speaking of the Revolutionary War, there wouldn’t have been one because there wouldn’t have been any treasury to finance an army, or treaties with foreign powers to negotiate assistance. Only the ignorant squeal about socialism because they don’t really know what it is, or how they depend on “socialist” programs for their survival every single day. Today, it is simply being used as one of many scare tactics by people who have an irrational hatred of this particular president.

By: Does the government own you? « The War on Socialism

Does the government own you? « The War on Socialism — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:28:25 +0000

[...] for a deeper explanation of what I mean by that please see an earlier post titled Don’t Allow The Socialists To Define The Terms. Obviously there are some statists on the Right as well but they are not real conservatives and [...]

By: California Democrat loves Castro and Guevara « The War on Socialism

California Democrat loves Castro and Guevara « The War on Socialism — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:49:01 +0000

[...] August 28, 2009 by Rob Most elected Democrats in American have to dance a very difficult dance. On the one hand they openly espouse concepts right out of Marx’s Communist Manifesto but at the same time they will always react like Dracula hit with holy water if you label them as a socialist or a marxist. Somehow they manage to succeed fairly well by immediately going on a condescending offensive against those who accurately label them as the collectivists that they are. I blogged about that in a previous post titled Don’t Allow Socialists to Define the Terms. [...]