Challenge to those accusing the Dems of "socialism"

[Dorian Gray]

I don't think mhaze liked that part, so he neglected to include it.

He's good at cherry-picking. After that his arguments seem to lose a lot of ground.

Had he pursued the link which his own chosen quote had provided he would have also uncovered this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrats

"Social democracy is a political ideology of the centre-left on the classic political spectrum. The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.[1] "
​

I think, as you say, that it is only fair to take mhaze at his word and accept this as his personal definition of socialism.

Now he can explain what's wrong with the idea.

Now, now, don't be all kneejerk about this. It's Wikipedia, which is editable, so those words could very well be mhaze's.

 

[Dorian Gray]

It's also dishonest for the OP to pretend that a definition of socialism hasn't been offered in previous threads ... one that, like the definition you provided, fits Obama to a T ... or should I say S. Or given the blur in these definitions ... perhaps even C.

It's also dishonest for you to pretend that any particular person doesn't fall under that definition. You must be from the "keep the government out of our Medicare" camp.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Linking to a description of social democracy is not a definition of socialism, just like linking to the GOP homepage isn´t a definition of fascism.

And ending every allegedly serious post with a smilies is infantile.

I read that smilie as "I have reached world class levels of douchebaggery." Thus, a BAC post that doesn't end with a smilie is inherently dishonest.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hence the dishonesty rampant around here.

I agree, your lies do not help contribute to honest discussion. No one ever wanted to make a jail sentences part of health care reform. Democrats are not socialists, and it is because they don't think like socialists, despite what you really desire to believe.

 

[keale]

Hence the dishonesty rampant around here. But for the efforts of people who wanted no socialized medicine, we'd have had full-blown, single-payer, nationalized medicine.

I know some of you put on blinders so you can pretend, for fraudulent purposes, that this wasn't the goal, but it most certainly would have been but for the efforts of people to stop it.

Hence my previous statement that let's not pretend.

If some of you wish to persist that somehow Obama or Democrats wouldn't go way further than they did, had people not stopped them, go ahead. But you're wrong, and you know it.

Now I did find it enheartening during the election that Obama did state, IIRC, that a socialized, single-payer system was not his goal. But I suspect that's because he remembered, unlike many here, who are about to be reminded in two days, what happened in 1994. Again, people, threats of voters, which stopped this. Not some belief inherent to Democrats.

My point, ignored by those who don't like it, is that the OP's thesis, that the Democrats may not be socialist, is due to the political realities in the US, not to their desires. If they're not socialist in practice, it's no thanks to themselves.

I admit the far right has done a great job of creating a socialist boogeyman even though its apparent that many of those using that word either have little understanding of the term or are straight up hypocrites.

Having said that if you are saying that they are socialists then by extension you must admit that many on the other end are also socialists.

 

[Elind]

This health care reform is a perfect example -- they demanded socialized, single-payer health care, with jailing for people who didn't want to deal with it.

That is actually a lie.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Jesus never talked about socialism. Therefore it is evil.

Glenn Beck

Jesus never talked about Glenn Beck. Therefore he is evil.

Dorian Gray

 

[Dorian Gray]

Jesus never talked about socialism. Therefore it is evil.

Glenn Beck

Jesus never talked about Glenn Beck. Therefore he is evil.

Dorian Gray

 

[elbe]

Jesus never talked about Glenn Beck. Therefore he is evil.

Dorian Gray

Jesus or Glenn?

 

[mhaze]

It's also dishonest for the OP to pretend that a definition of socialism hasn't been offered in previous threads ... one that, like the definition you provided, fits Obama to a T ... ....

Transparent dishonesty, laughable stupidity, unparalleled ignorance...Indexed by Google.

 

[tyr_13]

Transparent dishonesty, laughable stupidity, unparalleled ignorance...Indexed by Google.

So what definition of socialism are you using? If it was the one cited earlier that's just stupid as it uses the word 'socialism' in the definition...

 

[mhaze]

I read that smilie as "I have reached world class levels of douchebaggery." .....

Yes, we know you have. But thanks for admitting it so modestly.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, we know you have. But thanks for admitting it so modestly.

Wow, that was so clever. I think you deserve a Pulitzer for this thoughtful and witty post. Whole nations should bow down to your cleverness.

 

[DavidJames]

Wow, that was so clever. I think you deserve a Pulitzer for this thoughtful and witty post. Whole nations should bow down to your cleverness.

Have you missed his posts including the "libtard" witticism? Mark Twain or Will Rogers would be proud.

 

[mhaze]

Have you missed his posts including the "libtard" witticism? Mark Twain or Will Rogers would be proud.

There is ONLY one reason to respond even one more post in a thread such as this one, for which the answers were already previously provided, and in which the OP is a complete lie.You see, libtards are like slinkies. They're not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.

 

[keale]

There is ONLY one reason to respond even one more post in a thread such as this one, for which the answers were already previously provided, and in which the OP is a complete lie.You see, libtards are like slinkies. They're not really good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.

Now that was classy

I suspect you need to go down to those levels when you are confronted with the fact that your as socialist as those you are accusing.

 

[SezMe]

If some of you wish to persist that somehow Obama or Democrats wouldn't go way further than they did, had people not stopped them, go ahead. But you're wrong, and you know it.

So if somebody disagrees with you they are lying. Keep up the class act, Berrina.

 

[Francesca R]

this is, however a skeptic forum, and when people use an overbroad generalization of socialism to vilify it then claim popular, sound policy is evil because it's "socialist" then I would expect people to call the people out on their weak logic.

Doesn't look like that's being done at all. More like some emotional recoil of "The policy is not socialist", which is not correct (and not what I would call a sceptical approach).

And therefor you claim democrats are evil for being socialist?

False, and the observation that you asked that indicates a non-rational revulsion to the term socialism that you appear to have willingly adopted in response to the machinations of critics of such policies.

This is a notion that permeates any and every thread that remotely touches on US politics, the idea that anything that socialist is a synonym for evil. even if you don't feel that way, there is no other way to interpret your posts in this thread as defending this notion.

Nonsense. Perhaps if you were less partisan you'd see the logic better. More indication that rational enquiry has little to do with this thread or your posts in it.

The OP is an attempt to get the people making such claims to define exactly which policies they equate with evil socialism so the policies can be discussed instread of simply regurgitating the same claims while refusing to hold any actual discussion.

The OP mentions nothing about "evil".

It is also wrong in the extreme.

False. Universal, mandatory health cover--for example--is quite definitely socialist (or socialised to avoid the grammatical ugliness) health provision. If you disagree you shoot your OP position in the foot because you reveal that you don't know what it means, don't want an honest discussion of it, and merely have some mission to paint policies you like as "not socialist". Thus, you hand critics of such policies their victory. Way to go.

I am simply extremely fed up with the people who label anything they do not like "socialism", while at the same time being absolutely ignorant about what that term actually means. I´m aware that trying to actually get a straight answer out of the usual suspects is like trying to nail a pudding to a wall, but where would this forum be if we didn´t regularly try the impossible?

See above. I provided a straight answer in post 42, which you appear to want to reject because it apparently does not serve your purpose.

 

[daenku32]

The problem with the Democrats is that they are not socialists. The blind anti-red hatred of the cold war has turned the opposition to the party of the rich elites (GOP) into one that ignores the workers. Democratic Party needs to embrace the workers, rather than deny the workers' demands as fringe. The nation's median income is $45,000/year. Vast majority of Americans are therefore part of the workers, not the rich capitalists, who compose of only a small minority.

 

[SezMe]

Nonsense. Perhaps if you were less partisan you'd see the logic better. More indication that rational enquiry has little to do with this thread or your posts in it.

My bold. That is precisely the problem here. You are being entirely rational in your analysis and expecting those being analyzed as having behaved in a similar manner. They do not. In order to move forward, you must incorporate irrational behavior in your rational analysis.