Originally posted by randye: . As a youngster in college I had very different political ideas. Maybe further left than you could possibly begin to imagine. (Anti-War, Anti-Establishment, SDS, UATWMF, etc, etc.), Been there. Done that.
You know, from someone who changed so much, details of reasons would probably go along way and be good to get gears turning in minds. I know I'd read it.
You know, from someone who changed so much, details of reasons would probably go along way and be good to get gears turning in minds. I know I'd read it.
I try not to discuss many details of my personal life or past history, especially on the *internet*.
My friend Evan Sayet came to his "epiphany" many years later that I did, but his reasons parallel mine in many ways. I have posted these before, but a lot of his words sum up some of my own experiences and reasons, particularly the basic premise of "Liberal indiscriminate thought". My "awakening" was obviously long before 9-11 and it took a bit longer than Evan's, but the basic principles are similar.
Evan Sayet was a writer and producer for Bill Maher, (Politically Incorrect), and for Jon Stewart, (The Daily Show) as well as others.
"How Modern Liberals Think"
"Kindergarden of Eden"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-07-2015).]
Bernies 'socialism' is not the old 'communism'. Whether you believe it or not we absolutely depend on many socialist programs in this country. I do and so do you. That's not to say that socialism is the answer to everything. We need a mix. S
One noticed that Randy won't distinguish between Social Democracy and Socialism. Probably because both start with an "S"
A market economy with a strong regulatory role for government and social programs just isn't what Socialism is. Or Marxism, for that matter.
One noticed that Randy won't distinguish between Social Democracy and Socialism. Probably because both start with an "S"
A market economy with a strong regulatory role forcontrolled by government and social programs just isn't what Socialism is. Or Marxism, for that matter.
RIGHT! Much like Cuba's "strong regulatory role" over it's "market economy" Perfect!
quote
Originally posted by randye:
Ah yes! The same old saw: "Socialism didn't work all those times before because it wasn't done right. THIS TIME, (or under *this name*), it will be different."
You're singing the SAME OLD SONG to the same old tune. The eventual end product has always been the same. The few supporting the many until it all collapses. Greece is just the latest example of a long list, but not to worry, THIS TIME, we will call it "Social _______" and it will work fine.
Always makes me chuckle when they call themselves "Progressives" now. Trying to do the same dumb thing over and over and calling it something else hoping it will somehow work this time.
"That's it Sparky!, We just didn't NAME IT properly!"
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-07-2015).]
You're singing the SAME OLD SONG to the same old tune. The eventual end product has always been the same.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I could get into the Greek issue but I've written so much about it in the respective threads that I don't feel like doing it again here.
Originally posted by yellowstone: One noticed that Randy won't distinguish between Social Democracy and Socialism. Probably because both start with an "S"
A market economy with a strong regulatory role for government and social programs just isn't what Socialism is. Or Marxism, for that matter.
Think of it as socialism injected into a system slowly, then more and more until nothing but it is left.
Think of it as socialism injected into a system slowly, then more and more until nothing but it is left.
Novelist Upton Sinclair ran for election as California Governor in 1934 as a Democrat. He received 879,000 votes, his most successful run for office, though he was overwhelmingly defeated. Sinclair's platform, known as the End Poverty in California movement (EPIC), failed to gain any widespread support after 1934.
"The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label. I certainly proved it in the case of EPIC [End Poverty in California]. Running on the Socialist ticket I got 60,000 votes, and running on the slogan to 'End Poverty in California' I got 879,000. I think we simply have to recognize the fact that our enemies have succeeded in spreading the big lie. There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them."
A letter from Upton Sinclair to Norman Thomas, 25th September, 1951
You think you do, but you don't know me. You never were "a lot like me".
You say you "evolved".
I matured. I became a rational adult. As a youngster in college I had very different political ideas. Maybe further left than you could possibly begin to imagine. (Anti-War, Anti-Establishment, SDS, UATWMF, etc, etc.), Been there. Done that. Then I grew up.
Socialism is very much different in Bernies case. Its's not even the same word. I absolutely have been just like you only I started at the other end. I swung just as far as you did. My thinking was 'I was so far off before and we've gone so far to the right that I will need to go all the way left to compensate'. I really didn't spend much time there because the flaws were just as obvious over there as where I had come from. I've swung way back to 'slightly left of center' That's pretty much a liberal tag here and I accept that. I judge people too and I'm sure unfairly sometimes. I'm a victim of how I perceive things. Time has an effect on my perceptions though. Maybe some day I'll swing to the left or right but I doubt it. I don't have that many years left
Socialism is very much different in Bernies case. Its's not even the same word. ...
The changing of defined words bothers me greatly as of late. I have brought that up here on several occasions. I believe if it is a new definition of "Socialism", then it is an entirely different word.
Much like the erasure of history in the recent weeks past, redefining words to fit a narrative hurts my brain.
"I am now calling chocolate, vanilla!"
"You can't do that."
"My word. I saved it on my new G-Phone 64. It is now recognized as a Twitter emoji. Neener, neener, neener!"
The very SAME thing that has essentially been said over and over again, and yet it *always* eventually fails.
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (15 September 1963 - 1988) Republic of Bolivia (26 September 1969 - 21 August 1971) Burkina Faso (4 August 1984 - 15 October 1987) Union of Burma (4 January 1948 - 2 March 1962) Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (2 March 1962 - 23 September 1988) Republic of Cape Verde (8 July 1975 - 22 March 1991) State of Comoros (3 August 1975 - 13 May 1978) Republic of Ghana (6 March 1957 - 24 February 1966), (31 December 1981 - 7 January 2001) People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea (2 October 1958 – 3 April 1984) Republic of Guinea-Bissau (24 September 1973 - 17 February 2000) Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2 March 1977 - 2011) Democratic Republic of Madagascar (21 December 1975 - 19 August 1992) Republic of Mali (20 July 1960 - 19 November 1968) Republic of Nicaragua (18 July 1979 - 25 April 1990) Republic of Panama (11 October 1968 - 31 July 1981) Republic of Peru (3 October 1968 - 30 August 1975) Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe (12 July 1975 - 3 April 1991) Republic of Senegal (6 September 1960 - 1 April 2000) Republic of Seychelles (5 June 1977 - 26 July 1992) Democratic Republic of Sudan (25 May 1969 – 10 October 1985) Republic of Suriname (25 February 1980 - 25 January 1988) Republic of Tanganyika (9 December 1962 - 26 April 1964) Yemen Arab Republic (27 September 1962 - 22 May 1990) Republic of Zambia (24 October 1964 - 2 November 1991) People's Republic of Zanzibar and Pemba (12 January - 26 April 1964) Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Republic 9 June 1948 11 July 1960 Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Socialist Republic 11 July 1960 29 March 1990 Yugoslavia Democratic Federal Yugoslavia 29 November 1943 29 November 1945 Albania Democratic Government of Albania 29 November 1944 11 January 1946 People's Republic of Kampuchea Cambodia Democratic Kampuchea 17 April 1975 10 January 1989
North Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea 9 September 1948 Afghanistan Democratic Republic of Afghanistan 27 April 1978 30 November 1987 North Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam 2 September 1945 30 April 1975 Yugoslavia Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 29 November 1943 7 April 1963 East Germany German Democratic Republic 7 October 1949 3 October 1990 Hungary Hungarian People's Republic 20 August 1949 23 October 1989 Mongolia Mongolian People's Republic 24 November 1924 12 February 1992 Ethiopia People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 22 February 1987 27 May 1991 Country declared Marxist–Leninist in 1974, South Yemen People's Democratic Republic of Yemen 30 November 1967 22 May 1990 Albania People's Republic of Albania 11 January 1946 28 December 1976 Angola People's Republic of Angola 11 November 1975 27 August Benin People's Republic of Benin 30 November 1975 1 March 1990 Legally a socialist state Bulgaria People's Republic of Bulgaria 15 September 1946 7 December 1990 People's Republic of Kampuchea Cambodia People's Republic of Kampuchea 10 January 1979 Mozambique People's Republic of Mozambique 25 June 1975 1 December 1990 Congo-Brazzaville People's Republic of the Congo 3 January 1970 15 March 1992 Albania People's Socialist Republic of Albania 28 December 1976 22 March 1992 Poland Polish People's Republic 28 June 1945 19 July 1989 Ethiopia Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia 28 June 1974 22 February 1987 Country declared Marxist–Leninist in 1974 Afghanistan Republic of Afghanistan 30 November 1987 28 April 1992 Romania Romanian People's Republic 30 December 1947 21 August 1965 Yugoslavia Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 7 April 1963 27 April 1992 Romania Socialist Republic of Romania 21 August 1965 21 December 1989 Somalia Somali Democratic Republic 21 October 1969 26 January Soviet Union Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 30 December 1922 26 December 1991
It's ALWAYS "much different" every time.
WHY does the left have such a difficult time with HISTORY?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-07-2015).]
Bernie calls himself a socialist democrat right? I misrepresented him as a socialist. I'm not the first one to make that mistake. The word socialist by itself is the same or similar to communist right? I hear social security called a socialist benefit all the time but I paid into it my entire working career so I don't think of it as socialism. I think that there is a place for socialism in our society just as there is for capitalism. I wouldn't want to live with just a pure version of either one.
The very SAME thing that has essentially been said over and over again, and yet it *always* eventually fails.
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (15 September 1963 - 1988) snip
WHY does the left have such a difficult time with HISTORY?
The problem with your argument here is that, firstly, you still equate Socialist regimes (or the dictatorships that call themselves "people's" republics) with market economy based social democracies. Secondly, you disregard the fact that many, if not most, of the countries in your list failed because of corruption, nepotism, ineptitude, tyranny, and/or civil war and similar countries that didn't declare themselves "Socialist" failed just the same and for the same reasons (especially in Africa).
Having said that, you know (or should, because I don't tire to tell you) that I'm no friend of Socialism i.e. common/state ownership of the means of production, central economic planning and revolutionary political Socialism. Social Democracy, being based on democracy and a market economy, is just not that and it's also not a "slippery slope". I agree with you that it's a constant struggle to keep a political and economic system on the "straight and narrow" and it may go to extremes one way or another at times but the strength of such a system and society lies in how it can right itself. If it can't, collapse and a fresh start is usually what happens (accompanied by violence or not). And that's independent of what ideology the system was based on in the first place...
I'm not hearing anything new. The same "the wealthy must pay their fair share" so he can give everyone free health care, free college tuition, retirement, etc. I'm curious what a "fair share" would be. 30%? 50% 90%?
He says a lot of great things, but there's no substance on how he'll make them work. Obama promised "Affordable Health Care™" but the plan he implemented has been anything but affordable and has made things worse. I want to know how Bernie's going to fix "income inequality" and what that will look like when it's fixed. Will everyone make the same amount? How will that equality be achieved? I genuinely want to know.
I don't know how he would accomplish it either but at least he is addressing the issue. No one else seems to even want to admit that there is a problem. I too would like to hear him flesh out his how to do it.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-08-2015).]
Originally posted by yellowstone: ... many, if not most, of the countries in your list failed because of corruption, nepotism, ineptitude, tyranny, and/or civil war and similar countries that didn't declare themselves "Socialist" failed just the same and for the same reasons (especially in Africa).
What we really have to ask is if a system that relies on honesty can be made to work - that is, if all you need are honest people, or if man is an inherently flawed creature and you need a system that takes that into account. Two examples from history...
I don't know how he would accomplish it either but at lest he is addressing the issue. No one else seems to even want to admit that there is a problem. I too would like to hear him flesh out his how to do it.
He's addressing the issue just like Obama addressed every issue - he talked about it and promised a fix. Without some idea of how, it's all pie in the sky. Republicans will also have to show how they plan to achieve the goals they say they'll deliver.
I could run for president and say everyone should have a good paying job, secure retirement, free schools that compete with the best in the world, safe neighborhoods, etc. Would you vote for me? Or would you expect me to tell you how I plan to do all that?
What we really have to ask is if a system that relies on honesty can be made to work - that is, if all you need are honest people, or if man is an inherently flawed creature and you need a system that takes that into account. Two examples from history...
I agree that you need a sufficiently honest people. I guess that's what did the Greeks in: a high level of social expenditures that people were happy to accept while at the same time making it a national sport to evade taxes and having a terribly corrupt economy and public administration. You can't have both at the same time...
BTW, great vid by Bill Whittle. I agree with him 100% up to 6:48. He makes the right analysis of human nature but I don't agree with his conclusion.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 08-07-2015).]
I wish we had a crayon font so I could make this as simple as possible for those of you who STILL think socialism is a good thing. Since we don't, try keeping this in your noggins -
I wish we had a crayon font so I could make this as simple as possible for those of you who STILL think socialism is a good thing. Since we don't, try keeping this in your noggins -
I'm not disputing that (see my previous posts). As far as I understand him, dratts doesn't either. So what's your point?
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 08-08-2015).]
One more time. Socialist, socialist democrat! They are not the same. I don't have an argument with your socialist post but it doesn't pertain to socialist democrat. Bernie is not the socialist that you would like to paint him as. He's a mixture of socialism an capitalism and that is exactly what we have in this country and have had for a long time.
Wealth redistribution = You can't keep what is yours, and we are going to decide
That doesn't kill entrepreneurship and competitive drive?
Please explain how.
Humans are by nature competitive. Capitalism is competitive. Competition means there are losers. Not everyone gets a medal. Capitalism also provides many levels to compete in, so there are lots of winners, because there are lots of prizes.
Please do not equate Socialism with Social Security. They are absolutely not the same.
All I know is that I pay Federal taxes, some of which is given to the State as a "block grant" (probably with strings attached - "follow this policy or you lose money"), and I also pay State taxes, some of which is given to the Town as a "block grant" (also, probably with strings attached). This isn't quite the "free market" economy....
Of course, as a nation of Laws, we were unique and set apart. As John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
It seems that our Constitutional Republic was set up to rely on the basic restraint that faith in a higher power would impose on Human nature. OTOH, Socialism seeks "save us from ourselves," by sublimating basic Human nature by force.
I know which one that I'd like to live under, but I know which way that we are heading, as people would prefer not to restrain themselves....
So some decades from now when “Social Democracy” has failed and that term is harshly regarded, you can always invent a new term for the same damn philosophy and spin that one too.
And of course by that time existing generations won't be around to remember the last iteration or two.
Continuous rebirth.
Nice concept.
Religious even.
In the mean time, back in the real world nothing, and I mean NOTHING, has raised more people out of poverty than pure, naked capitalism. Much like mother nature herself, it ain't always pretty but it works.
I agree that you need a sufficiently honest people. I guess that's what did the Greeks in: a high level of social expenditures that people were happy to accept while at the same time making it a national sport to evade taxes and having a terribly corrupt economy and public administration. You can't have both at the same time...
BTW, great vid by Bill Whittle. I agree with him 100% up to 6:48. He makes the right analysis of human nature but I don't agree with his conclusion.
I can see that, and some of the Founding Fathers agreed.
quote
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, October 11, 1798.)
Don't go off on a religion tangent. The point is small, limited government as originally envisioned in the Constitution only works with a populace primarily of people of good character. That's what allows the government to essentially leave people alone and concentrate only on the big national issues. However, take away character or virtue and now you need more police and courts and prisons and laws to force people to behave and punish those who don't. I could see the argument that our society has grown corrupt beyond the Constitution's ability to address. It's not just the corruption of government, but corruption of the people. A government of the people and by the people can only be as virtuous as the people.
quote
“Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” (John Adams, 1775.)
I think the most important part of our government is the separation of powers that serves to limit abuses by corruption in any one branch. (of course, if all are corrupt, it's a lost cause).
One more time. Socialist, socialist democrat! They are not the same. I don't have an argument with your socialist post but it doesn't pertain to socialist democrat. Bernie is not the socialist that you would like to paint him as. He's a mixture of socialism an capitalism and that is exactly what we have in this country and have had for a long time.
Can you explain or point me to a resource that can explain the difference between Socialist and Socialist Democrat? As far as I can tell all Socialist Democrat means is a Socialist who was democratically elected. The actual Socialist ideals are no different. Single Payer health care as you've mentioned would get rid of the insurance companies and have the government take over administration. That's nationalizing health care, a core Socialist idea. I don't see how saying a Socialist and a Socialist Democrat both doing the same thing are different.
I'm not trying to change your mind. Maybe I'm just not "evolved" enough to get it, but I would really like to understand how he's different. I may still disagree, but I would have a clearer understanding of his position.
People of low moral character used to be ostracized by society. Due to Conservative tolerance, the intolerant Liberals have integrated formerly immoral character into the fabric of our society. Reduced prison sentences, gay rights, dumbing down the education system, no prayer in schools and the misinterpretation of separation of Church and State have all contributed. Two paycheck families, absentee fathers also contribute.
Can you explain or point me to a resource that can explain the difference between Socialist and Socialist Democrat? As far as I can tell all Socialist Democrat means is a Socialist who was democratically elected. The actual Socialist ideals are no different. Single Payer health care as you've mentioned would get rid of the insurance companies and have the government take over administration. That's nationalizing health care, a core Socialist idea. I don't see how saying a Socialist and a Socialist Democrat both doing the same thing are different.
I'm not trying to change your mind. Maybe I'm just not "evolved" enough to get it, but I would really like to understand how he's different. I may still disagree, but I would have a clearer understanding of his position.
The way I understand it socialism is like communism with or without a dictatorship. Bernies socialist democracy is a mix of the best of socialism and the best of capitalism. That's what I do with politics. I try to pick the best of the conservatives and the best of the liberals. I don't agree with either side in totality but they both have good ideas.
The way I understand it socialism is like communism with or without a dictatorship. Bernies socialist democracy is a mix of the best of socialism and the best of capitalism. That's what I do with politics. I try to pick the best of the conservatives and the best of the liberals. I don't agree with either side in totality but they both have good ideas.
That doesn't really help, but thank you for the reply. Can you tell me a conservative you agree with? What's a good idea they've had?
I actually voted for an ulta conservative Barry Goldwater and I still think that he was an honest politician. I agreed with a lot of his ideas. I am a total fiscal conservative. I want the government to get the biggest bang for the buck out of my tax money. I'm a social liberal. If I'm not harming anyone else or the environment I want the government to tread lightly with their laws restricting me. That's pretty much me in a nutshell and I've posted it before. Fiscal conservative, social liberal, that's me. A conservative that I agree with? There is no conservative that I agree with completely and the same thing goes for liberals. A conservative idea I agree with is that we need to stop going deeper and deeper into debt. We can't solve all of societies problems by throwing money at them. Some we can and some we can't.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 08-08-2015).]
I actually voted for an ulta conservative Barry Goldwater and I still think that he was an honest politician. I agreed with a lot of his ideas. I am a total fiscal conservative. I want the government to get the biggest bang for the buck out of my tax money. I'm a social liberal. If I'm not harming anyone else or the environment I want the government to tread lightly with their laws restricting me. That's pretty much me in a nutshell and I've posted it before. Fiscal conservative, social liberal, that's me. A conservative that I agree with? There is no conservative that I agree with completely and the same thing goes for liberals. A conservative idea I agree with is that we need to stop going deeper and deeper into debt. We can't solve all of societies problems by throwing money at them. Some we can and some we can't.
Thanks. Fiscal conservative and social liberal fits the Libertarian view pretty well. Goldwater? Just haven't found any in the last 50 years you like?
I think you're going to find Bernie is not going to fit with your fiscal conservative ideals. Most of his platform is based on government spending more money as well as raising taxes at least on the wealthy (however you define "the wealthy"). That's not exactly "fiscally conservative." He does have a few ideas I like, though, and even some that have also been proposed by the evil and untrustworthy Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.
Income and Wealth Inequality - no actions listed so it's hard to say what fixing this will take.
Creating Decent Paying Jobs *Introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure, creating and maintaining at least 13 million good-paying jobs while making our country more productive, efficient and safe. - More government spending.
*Opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, the TPP, and other free-trade agreements. These deals kill American jobs by shifting work overseas to nations which fail to provide worker protections and pay extremely low wages.
*Introduced the Employ Young Americans Now Act with Rep. John Conyers. It would provide $5.5 billion in immediate funding to employ one million young Americans between the ages of 16 and 24, and would provide job training to hundreds of thousands of others. - More government spending
A Living Wage Proposed a national $15 per hour minimum wage. More private sector spending Introduced a budget amendment to raise the minimum wage. More government spending (it's not the private sector budget he's amending) Introduced the “Workplace Democracy Act” to strengthen the role of unions and the voices of working people on the job. As mayor of Burlington, was a strong collaborator with unions.
Real Family Values Cosponsored Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s FAMILY Act, which would guarantee every employee twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. This program would be funded through an insurance program, the way Social Security is today. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. More government spending Introduced legislation requiring employers to provide at least 10 days of paid vacation per year, as is done in almost every other developed country in the world. More government spending by either government or private sector Cosponsored Sen. Patty Murray’s Healthy Families Act, which would guarantee seven days of paid sick leave per year for American workers.More government spending by either government or private sector
Climate Change & Environment Introduced the gold standard for climate change legislation with Sen. Barbara Boxer to tax carbon and methane emissions. - higher taxes Led the opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. Secured $3.2 billion in the economic stimulus package for grants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in a program that has funded upgrades for more than 86,000 buildings and installed more than 9,500 solar energy systems. More government spending
Reforming Wall Street
Introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” which would break up the big banks and would prohibit any too-big-to-fail institutions from accessing the Federal Reserve’s discount facilities or using insured deposits for risky activities. I like and agree with this. Led the fight in 1999 against repealing the Glass-Steagall provisions which prevented banks (especially “too big to fail” ones) from gambling with customers’ money; is a co-sponsor of the Elizabeth Warren/John McCain bill to reinstate those provisions. Has proposed a financial transaction tax which will reduce risky and unproductive high-speed trading and other forms of Wall Street speculation; proceeds would be used to provide debt-free public college education. -Raises taxes to support more government spending Is co-sponsoring Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s bill to end Wall Street’s practice of paying big bonuses to bank executives who take senior-level government jobs. Introduced a tax on Wall Street speculation to make public colleges and universities tuition-free Same thing mentioned above - redundant Supports capping credit card interest rates at 15 percent. Sponsored an amendment calling for an audit the Federal Reserve. The audit found that far more had been spent in the Wall Street bailout than previously disclosed, and that considerable funds had been spent to bail out foreign corporations. I like and agree with this. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul S.264 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2015 to audit the Fed. Warned about the risks of deregulation eight years before the fiscal crisis of 2008. Has proposed limiting the ability of bankers to get rich from taxpayer bailouts of their institutions Vague and meaningless. If he has a specifc action he wants to limit or prohibit, say so.
There is nothing wrong with socialism only something wrong with the people that implement it and in affect something wrong with those who benefit from it.
A conservative idea I agree with is that we need to stop going deeper and deeper into debt.
Great. The generality that we need to stop going deeper into debt is pretty much universally agreed upon. It's just not a partisan issue. You're skirting the question.
Now tell us HOW that is to be accomplished.
Cut spending on overblown and unsustainable programs and entitlements?
or
Higher taxes on citizens and businesses that have greater means and incomes?
THAT is where the real political ideological difference lies.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-08-2015).]
The very SAME thing that has essentially been said over and over again, and yet it *always* eventually fails.
People's Democratic Republic of Algeria (15 September 1963 - 1988) Republic of Bolivia (26 September 1969 - 21 August 1971) Burkina Faso (4 August 1984 - 15 October 1987) Union of Burma (4 January 1948 - 2 March 1962) Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (2 March 1962 - 23 September 1988) Republic of Cape Verde (8 July 1975 - 22 March 1991) State of Comoros (3 August 1975 - 13 May 1978) Republic of Ghana (6 March 1957 - 24 February 1966), (31 December 1981 - 7 January 2001) People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea (2 October 1958 – 3 April 1984) Republic of Guinea-Bissau (24 September 1973 - 17 February 2000) Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2 March 1977 - 2011) Democratic Republic of Madagascar (21 December 1975 - 19 August 1992) Republic of Mali (20 July 1960 - 19 November 1968) Republic of Nicaragua (18 July 1979 - 25 April 1990) Republic of Panama (11 October 1968 - 31 July 1981) Republic of Peru (3 October 1968 - 30 August 1975) Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe (12 July 1975 - 3 April 1991) Republic of Senegal (6 September 1960 - 1 April 2000) Republic of Seychelles (5 June 1977 - 26 July 1992) Democratic Republic of Sudan (25 May 1969 – 10 October 1985) Republic of Suriname (25 February 1980 - 25 January 1988) Republic of Tanganyika (9 December 1962 - 26 April 1964) Yemen Arab Republic (27 September 1962 - 22 May 1990) Republic of Zambia (24 October 1964 - 2 November 1991) People's Republic of Zanzibar and Pemba (12 January - 26 April 1964) Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Republic 9 June 1948 11 July 1960 Czechoslovakia Czechoslovak Socialist Republic 11 July 1960 29 March 1990 Yugoslavia Democratic Federal Yugoslavia 29 November 1943 29 November 1945 Albania Democratic Government of Albania 29 November 1944 11 January 1946 People's Republic of Kampuchea Cambodia Democratic Kampuchea 17 April 1975 10 January 1989
North Korea Democratic People's Republic of Korea 9 September 1948 Afghanistan Democratic Republic of Afghanistan 27 April 1978 30 November 1987 North Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam 2 September 1945 30 April 1975 Yugoslavia Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia 29 November 1943 7 April 1963 East Germany German Democratic Republic 7 October 1949 3 October 1990 Hungary Hungarian People's Republic 20 August 1949 23 October 1989 Mongolia Mongolian People's Republic 24 November 1924 12 February 1992 Ethiopia People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 22 February 1987 27 May 1991 Country declared Marxist–Leninist in 1974, South Yemen People's Democratic Republic of Yemen 30 November 1967 22 May 1990 Albania People's Republic of Albania 11 January 1946 28 December 1976 Angola People's Republic of Angola 11 November 1975 27 August Benin People's Republic of Benin 30 November 1975 1 March 1990 Legally a socialist state Bulgaria People's Republic of Bulgaria 15 September 1946 7 December 1990 People's Republic of Kampuchea Cambodia People's Republic of Kampuchea 10 January 1979 Mozambique People's Republic of Mozambique 25 June 1975 1 December 1990 Congo-Brazzaville People's Republic of the Congo 3 January 1970 15 March 1992 Albania People's Socialist Republic of Albania 28 December 1976 22 March 1992 Poland Polish People's Republic 28 June 1945 19 July 1989 Ethiopia Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia 28 June 1974 22 February 1987 Country declared Marxist–Leninist in 1974 Afghanistan Republic of Afghanistan 30 November 1987 28 April 1992 Romania Romanian People's Republic 30 December 1947 21 August 1965 Yugoslavia Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 7 April 1963 27 April 1992 Romania Socialist Republic of Romania 21 August 1965 21 December 1989 Somalia Somali Democratic Republic 21 October 1969 26 January Soviet Union Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 30 December 1922 26 December 1991
It's ALWAYS "much different" every time.
WHY does the left have such a difficult time with HISTORY?
I think most people agree debt is bad. There are two ways to reduce the debt, raise taxes and cut spending. There is no magic formula. There aren't enough "rich" to balance the budget with current levels of spending even if you took everything they had. Either the average Joe is looking at massive tax hikes or there must be drastic cuts in spending. It will take both tax hikes and spending cuts to have a chance of getting the debt under control, but nobody wants to pay more taxes or lose their government gravy.
Inflation is one of the most insidious ways people have been taxed. Prices go up, but your income goes up, too. Ok, so your income is higher but with the same purchasing power since prices are high, except now you're in a higher tax bracket and paying more income tax.
The $15 minimum wage? Eventually prices will adjust so a $15 job is essentially paying in purchasing power what the $8 job did before, except you're now paying taxes on $30k a year instead of $16k a year, and you're no longer eligible for government assistance. Your income nearly doubled - and you'll end up worse off.
Inflation is also a major driver of wealth inequality for this and other reasons.
People of low moral character used to be ostracized by society. Due to Conservative tolerance, the intolerant Liberals have integrated formerly immoral character into the fabric of our society. Reduced prison sentences, gay rights, dumbing down the education system, no prayer in schools and the misinterpretation of separation of Church and State have all contributed. Two paycheck families, absentee fathers also contribute.
quote
Originally posted by yellowstone:
How does the above cause low moral character in people? And what is the misinterpretation of separation of church and state, in your opinion?
I believe homosexuality is immoral and perverted. No need to discuss or try to persuade me to change my mind. It is an abomination before God.
Read the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say there can be no mention of God or religious ideals by government.
I believe homosexuality is immoral and perverted. No need to discuss or try to persuade me to change my mind. It is an abomination before God.
An interesting point regarding the topic we're discussing in this thread.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:It doesn't say there can be no mention of God or religious ideals by government.
Which God should be mentioned? Yours? Or one of the other dozens that someone believes in who lives here? If all get equal "airtime" with prayers in schools, for example, there won't be any time for education that's actually useful. If you meant only yours: another interesting point regarding the topic we're discussing in this thread.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 08-09-2015).]
