safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 31, 2011 12:02:31 GMT -5
Because it's tiresome to repeat endlessly to those who choose not to understand I'll simply quote from my post #4 from yesterday: Government control on one end, individual responsibility on the other. One cannot be free if one is controlled by the government or anyone else. Of course freedom is overrated when one is in need [Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.]. The problem here is that it's difficult to have a discussion when one side refuses to acknowledge the argument of the other and diverts and distorts the other's argument.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jul 31, 2011 12:10:41 GMT -5
IMO, "socialist" is just another mis and overused buzzword.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 31, 2011 12:24:01 GMT -5
i maintain that the word "socialist" used in a political context is a pejorative. it is rarely used accurately, and virtually always intended as an insult. agree or disagree? Personally, the term "socialist" translates roughly to: "arrogant hypocritical tyrants who gets the government to steal your money at gun point in order to support the causes that he or she is too lazy to support themselves." So, take a wild guess. I am reminded of the hack piece by the hack Zakira (or however you spell his name) about the polarization of America which he blamed solely on conservatves and the tea party. The reality is that it's socialists who are to blame since they keep stealing our money to give to others. They could simply fund such causes themselves yet in their arrogance decide that they know better than the rest of us and that gives them the right to determine how wealth should be distributed. These people think that the Tea Party who demands less taxes, less spending, and less interference in our lives is somehow controversial when in reality this is simply common sense: live your life as you see fit and I will do the same. Contribute to the true common good in terms of defense (i.e. not going on nation building exercises) and a Constitutionaly permissable social net that is mostly on the state level and is clearly something that we are bequeathing as a gift, not as a way of life that you are entitled to simply for existing. Beyond that, yeah leave us be. Feel free to be more charitable on your own with your wealth rather than other's. Socialist sneer at that idea and we see that reflected in the imperious nature of Obama who declares that the rich must pay their fair share even though the wealthy already pay a great deal while many Americans in the lower brackets pay nothing (and indeed get money back) while still enjoying the benefits of being an America citizen. A bit long but in a nutsell, to me a "socialist" is an insult because it embodies arrogance, tyranny, a smug yet undeserved superiority, and a skinflint.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jul 31, 2011 13:47:27 GMT -5
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 31, 2011 13:52:59 GMT -5
Really? So our rights really aren't "inalienable" then, as American citizens. Rather, like with everything else, you have to pay for them?
Rampant capitalism is just as bad as rampant socialism.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 31, 2011 13:56:56 GMT -5
So is the military, then, considering where the wages of a soldier comes from. Keep in mind, many of the working poor ... who DO actually work ... cannot afford adequate health care, so the argument that soldiers are "working" doesn't hold any water.
|
|
cereb
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 23, 2011 0:33:47 GMT -5
Posts: 3,904
|
Post by cereb on Jul 31, 2011 13:57:58 GMT -5
"Really? So our rights really aren't "inalienable" then, as American citizens. Rather, like with everything else, you have to pay for them?"
Let them babble long enough, and this is what it usually comes down to.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Jul 31, 2011 14:02:07 GMT -5
Yeah, and if they babble even longer, they'll eventually start a thread all about how Americans should literally buy their citizenship within one year of their 18th birthday or be thrown in jail or deported. Just wait ...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 31, 2011 14:09:11 GMT -5
Really? So our rights really aren't "inalienable" then, as American citizens. Rather, like with everything else, you have to pay for them? Rampant capitalism is just as bad as rampant socialism. ...this offshoot of the discussion seems to argue that it's constitutional (and an inalienable right) to not have to pay for things... is that the argument? if not, would you clarify?
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 31, 2011 15:13:20 GMT -5
Really? So our rights really aren't "inalienable" then, as American citizens. Rather, like with everything else, you have to pay for them? Rampant capitalism is just as bad as rampant socialism. Wow, completely missing the point and no doubt intentionally so. As the lefties like to say when they seek to justify stealing more wealth: the government needs money to run. Well if everyone enjoys those rights, we need a sensible system to protect them and thus all should pay for it rather some some be allowed to leech them. Our rights are inalienable in that there is no power on this earth that has the moral legitmacy to say we are not entitled to them. HOWEVER, there are powers on this earth that can and will supress them if they are able.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 31, 2011 15:16:12 GMT -5
So is the military, then, considering where the wages of a soldier comes from. Keep in mind, many of the working poor ... who DO actually work ... cannot afford adequate health care, so the argument that soldiers are "working" doesn't hold any water. The military is not wealth distribution- we are buying a Constitutional permissable good- protection from enemies both internal and abroad. Obamacare is no such thing- it's taking wealth from one person to give to another in the form of healthcare. Worse, Obamacare screws over everyone's healthcare and violates the Constitution. But, please try again. The attempts of the left to justify their heinous ideas amuse me and only reinforce my own convictions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:00:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2011 16:34:41 GMT -5
IMO, "socialist" is just another mis and overused buzzword.
Of course that's possible.
It's also possible that it hasn't been used enough. Maybe if it's used every time someone refers to the democratic party people will start to connect the two & then realize that they are either the same or their aims are very similar. I'm one of these people so I will still keep saying it.
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jul 31, 2011 16:40:29 GMT -5
Didn't the American Socialist Party disband, stating they were no longer needed because the Democratic Party had embraced their views?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 31, 2011 16:54:53 GMT -5
IMO, "socialist" is just another mis and overused buzzword. Of course that's possible. It's also possible that it hasn't been used enough. Maybe if it's used every time someone refers to the democratic party people will start to connect the two & then realize that they are either the same or their aims are very similar. I'm one of these people so I will still keep saying it. Catapult the propaganda.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 31, 2011 17:48:44 GMT -5
Socialism has an actual dictionary definition. ... There are also many forms of government besides capitalism and socialism. .... "forms of government"?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:00:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2011 17:59:47 GMT -5
Catapult the propaganda.
Everybody believes what they believe. To some it's propaganda.
To others it's THE TRUTH.
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 31, 2011 20:50:20 GMT -5
Actually, I'd suggest that a fair percentage of people intentionally listen-to/watch networks which generally opine contrary to their own ideology.
For example, note how many posters here who might be called liberal post quoted things from Fox? Same is true about posters who might be called conservative posting things quoted from the NY Times.
No, I think that people cross ideological lines in accessing the media. Not everybody by any stretch, but many.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:00:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2011 21:24:54 GMT -5
I'll be the first to admit I don't know the nuances but I can never be convinced that taking from one to give to another is a good form of government.
I find it ironic that if a guy holds me up & takes my money he could go to jail
If the government does it I just lose my money (unless I refuse to hand the money over & then I go to jail). I've never been robbed but I've had to pay taxes every year. Seems to me that I'd be better off protecting myself with a gun & putting the government in jail. At least it would be a hell of a lot cheaper.
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 31, 2011 21:36:30 GMT -5
\\\\\\\\ is "socialist" a pejorative?//////// Socialist is a pejorative in the same sense that Democrat is a pejorative. In fact, they are the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 31, 2011 21:43:43 GMT -5
is "socialist" a pejorative?Socialist is a pejorative in the same sense that Democrat is a pejorative. In fact, they are the same thing. ...and/or maybe it was pejorative to use the word, pejorative? setting up a certain tone for the thread in the first place? ...why not just say "insult" and satisfy the common man?
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Jul 31, 2011 21:46:01 GMT -5
Commoner!!!!!
|
|
safeharbor37
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 23:18:19 GMT -5
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by safeharbor37 on Jul 31, 2011 21:55:08 GMT -5
There is a practical distinction between pejorative and insult. Pejorative has to do with the intent of the speaker whereas insult has to do with the recipient of the comment. The person insulted by being called a "socialist" would suggest that "socialist" was something to be ashamed of, whereas the question as phrased suggests that the person who calls another "socialist" intends to insult. So the question is really what is the intent of the use of the word "socialist," not whether the word "socialist" is an insult suggesting that "socialist" is an undesirable thing.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 31, 2011 22:00:14 GMT -5
There is a practical distinction between pejorative and insult. Pejorative has to do with the intent of the speaker whereas insult has to do with the recipient of the comment. The person insulted by being called a "socialist" would suggest that "socialist" was something to be ashamed of, whereas the question as phrased suggests that the person who calls another "socialist" intends to insult. So the question is really what is the intent of the use of the word "socialist," not whether the word "socialist" is an insult, "socialist" being an undesirable thing. ...while I understand this, I still have to point to the thread's consensus (such as it is) that the recipient's take on the message trumps the messenger's...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 31, 2011 22:00:38 GMT -5
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 31, 2011 23:32:08 GMT -5
Is the word "socialist" a pejorative? The problem, as I see it, is that most immediately think of communism when they hear the word. Nothing could be further from the truth. I lived in a communist country, where everybody suffers. Now I live in what you would consider a socialist country, where nobody suffers. We pool our resources to create vast safety nets...everybody pays in, everybody benefits. The notion that it removes incentive to work is absurd. If that's what you call being a socialist, I'm proud to be one.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2011 0:09:34 GMT -5
I'll be the first to admit I don't know the nuances but I can never be convinced that taking from one to give to another is a good form of government. I find it ironic that if a guy holds me up & takes my money he could go to jail If the government does it I just lose my money (unless I refuse to hand the money over & then I go to jail). I've never been robbed but I've had to pay taxes every year. Seems to me that I'd be better off protecting myself with a gun & putting the government in jail. At least it would be a hell of a lot cheaper. good luck with that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2011 0:12:04 GMT -5
\\\\\\\\ is "socialist" a pejorative?//////// Socialist is a pejorative in the same sense that Democrat is a pejorative. In fact, they are the same thing. no they aren't. Democrats aren't even what Eurpeans call "Democratic socialists". they are what most people in Europe would consider the opponents of Democratic Socialism. i think your perspective is skewing your perceptions, safe. there is only one Socialist in congress.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2011 0:14:47 GMT -5
There is a practical distinction between pejorative and insult. Pejorative has to do with the intent of the speaker whereas insult has to do with the recipient of the comment. not really. a pejorative is a remark expressing contempt or disapproval. it is inherently abusive, not accidentally so. if the recipient is too dense to get that it is an insult, that doesn't mean it was not intended to be one. it was.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2011 0:16:47 GMT -5
So is the military, then, considering where the wages of a soldier comes from. Keep in mind, many of the working poor ... who DO actually work ... cannot afford adequate health care, so the argument that soldiers are "working" doesn't hold any water. The military is not wealth distribution- we are buying a Constitutional permissable good- protection from enemies both internal and abroad. so does the cost of promoting the general welfare.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 1, 2011 0:19:01 GMT -5
"Really? So our rights really aren't "inalienable" then, as American citizens. Rather, like with everything else, you have to pay for them?" Let them babble long enough, and this is what it usually comes down to. true enough. or as John Jay once put it, in simpler times: "the people who own the country ought to run it"
|
|