BAHH, i was hoping this would get fixed

Dancamp wrote:

I have no problem with socialism as I have no problem with capitalism.

What's wrong is he extrem in both systems. As long as the system is chosen by people that live by it.

Whether you like socialism or not does matter to you and vote against it. It's not for others to decide for you.

So the issue isn't whether there is any doubt that "tax the rich more; they can afford it" is Marxism; the question is whether somebody else drags you into socialism or not?

But that's exactly what is happening. And others are deciding it for us.

Whatever happened to constitutional limitations on government? Government decides it for you. Where, for example, can you find in any constitutional documents where the President has the power to control what gets sold at weekend bake sales in schools? Anybody vote for that?

What documented powers specifically give government authority to "redistribute the wealth" to guarantee similar economic outcomes for all, rather than simply "the pursuit of happiness"?

Do you find that anywhere in the documents left by the Founders? Or do their writings suggest they intended quite the opposite? I suggest that if Obama had lived in the time of the Founders and tried his current philosophies in their time, there would have very quickly been a second revolution against that kind of assumption of power. The man has more Czars running things than the Russians had in the entire history of the Russian Empire - all unelected, all unanswerable to any voter or member of Congress. Where do you find authorization in US governance documents for that? Who voted for unelected, unaccountable Czars, rather than the normal process, such as when judges face Congressional scrutiny before joining the bench?

If Marxism, socialism, "redistribute the wealth", whatever you want to call it really is to be chosen by the people of the US, why not simply put forward constitutional amendments to empower government to directly do those things - rather than through the back door and using activist judges? The simple reason is those who want this kind of governance know they wouldn't have a prayer if it were put to a vote. It isn't even supposition, you merely have to look at their writings.

So far, it is a strategy that is working well for both parties - governments in both the US and Canada have strayed far from their constitutional documents, and the population in general doesn't seem to care enough to say much about it, on either side of the fence. The problem with that is once government overreach becomes unbearable, it is usually a case of "What's the problem; we've been doing this for decades". People cheering Obama on right now are going to be horrified when they eventually get a president just as radically to the right as he is to the left who carries out HIS agenda and then says "What's the problem; Barry did the same thing and nobody thought he didn't have the power. Now it's my turn."

Quote :

And it might be that communism is what could be good for a country for a certain time and change when the situation calls for it.

If you can point to a country where the "good" of communism exists without being kept in place by force, at the point of a gun, I'd be willing to listen. If you can find a Communist country that has any significant inward immigration, people moving to that system by choice, I'll be particularly impressed.

Otherwise, claims that communism could be good for a country is simply a theory that flies in the face of history.

Quote :

I won't try to convince you of what can come out good with socialism because you can't understand tht some people like to share more than others.

You can't understand that "some people like to share" is not the same as holding a gun to somebody's head while somebody goes through your wallet, forcing you to "share" more than others do. If I decide I want to give $2000 to the Nature Trust, do I get to come over to your place and threaten you with unpleasantness if you don't "share" the same amount with the Nature Trust as I do? Better yet, if I don't make enough money to be able to afford to give $2000 to the Nature Trust, but I see you make way more than I do and I figure you can afford it, is it "sharing" if I come over to your place and threaten you with unpleasant results if you don't "share" $2000 with the Nature Trust?

See the difference between sharing and coercion now?

That's not "sharing", and I hope you can understand the difference. That's helping yourself to somebody else's labour - in the government's case, by coercion and threats of violence. You want everyone to "share" more? Then put in a flat tax on everybody that will give the government oodles of money, and let them "share" after that however they like. You just want other people to be forced to "share" more? That's Marxism.

And you also don't seem to understand that a constitution is a set of rules intended to govern how people live together in a civil society. You don't just get to ignore those rules so you can force others to "share". Oh, you can do it - but sooner or later another guy will be in government, and you aren't going to like it when he decides those rules must not apply to him either, and takes you some place you really don't want to go.

Quote :

There are many countries that have a socialism system and live well with it.

That's fine - if that's what they chose for their model of governance. The American constitution and system of government did not choose socialism. Given that the US is the overwhelming first choice of destination for refugees and immigrants, it seems that most of the world's dispossessed wanting to better their lot see a much brighter future under the capitalism model of the US rather than the socialist utopias. I'll even go so far as to say that the lineup to immigrate to communist countries isn't even one person deep.

Saying "Hey, socialism works pretty good somewhere else", while trying to slip it through the back door in the US doesn't fly. You think that's what America needs? Then put forward a constitutional amendment to do it up front and in the open. It isn't like there haven't been any number of successful amendments over the years.

Quote :

Extremists that can't see what's good in the opposition and don't have trust in democracy they pretend to defend are dangerous for the peace.

Opposition to unconstitutional government, usurping of power - by any political party - is not "extremism". Although, terming those who do as "extremists" sounds remarkably like that demonizing others process you were complaining of earlier, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say that claiming they are "dangerous for the peace" is remarkably like an attempt to demonize people? How many people have been attacked and injured at all those terrible, dangerous, Tea Party rallies?

Some things are never, even a little bit right. Opposing things that are essentially wrong is not "extreme"; it's simply moral. When adults in government won't observe the rules of governance they're supposed to recognize and govern under, what is the point in trying to teach children that they should follow the rules in living in society as well?

Quote :

Personnaly I don't think that all the rich people are wrong doing. I do beleive that some rich people use their wealth as a tool of power to bypass democratic institutions. They corrupt the system in subtle ways so they are able to manipulate it.

Yep. George Soros comes to mind of course. But on the other hand, for every rich person like that, there are far, far more who are not only beneficial to society in the jobs they create and what they add to the economy, but also in what they do in giving back to society. They outnumber the unlawful ones, but we don't talk about them much, of course.

But wrong is not the sole province of the rich. How many union leaders use their members dues to bypass democratic institutions? Why don't they get the same attention as "the rich"?

How many of "the poor" are little more than parasites on the taxpayers who pay their way through life, more than capable of supporting themselves without a lifetime of government handouts to guarantee them a better economic outcome than they've earned? You can argue one welfare bum can't do the same damage as a George Soros, and that is true. But what happens when you have millions of welfare bums for every George Soros? Do we pretend their cumulative effect on society doesn't count, we can only look at the effect they have as a single person?

People talk in outrage about the people who profited from market derivatives during the housing bubble - legally, in most cases. Why don't those same complainers ever mention the fact the FBI found that just over 80% of mortgage holders who defaulted had committed mortgage fraud in one form or another in getting their mortgage: claiming more income than they made, nor reporting debt, other mortgages, etc? Mortgage fraud increased 28% in 2008 alone. That had nothing to do with how the housing bubble ultimately went down? So little wrong there that it barely ever gets mentioned? They aren't really criminals? I don't think so.

Do we ignore politicians - of any party - that ignore the constitutional restrictions on what they can and can't do, and simply let them do as they will until the next vote, setting a precedent of accepted unconstitutionality for the next politician, and the next politician after that, ad infinitum?

In the end, we get the government we deserve, and the path we're presently headed down has a nice socialist touch to it - we're all going to suffer equally if it doesn't change.

trav72 wrote:

I said Kindly.

It's the STFU that really counts... kindly or not.

Reminds me of a story I heard as a cop, no idea if it was true or not.

Old lady calls the cops, says she can see her neighbor having sex with his wife in their back yard. Cops go over, look out her kitchen window, tell the old lady they can't see anything. So the old lady grabs a chair, drags it over by the window, and says "Yes, but if you just stand on top of this chair..."

Don't be an old lady. If you think you'll see something in these Off Topic threads that might annoy you, don't go out of your way to look...