Socialism

[zipman]

Zipman.....this is a bit over your head, maybe if you read it slowly and use the dictionary...?

Definitions



~~~

Now I could tell you the source of that, but I won't. Is Epistemology too big a word for you?

Before you jump off a cliff, scan your own mind and come up with a meaning for the term, definition...or do you even have one?

Amicus Veritas

I realize you think that using multisyllabic words helps establish some faux sense of intellectual superiority but you are mistaken. In fact, it seems that you are the one is badly in need of better reading comprehension, or perhaps just a better memory for what you have said.

My post was in reference to the following quote of yours, which was ridiculous at best and certainly brings in to question the so called degrees you have or at least the stature of the institutions that handed them out.

;37378757]

The problem many have with 'defintions' is that they consider them, 'subjective' and changeable depending upon the social environment; they are not. A study of the history of words, or language, indicates that definitions are absolute throughout all societies at all times and through time, thanks to the Greeks, Western Civilization has arrived at a time when the etymology of words and concepts has become an exact science. Of course, that is for the learned, not the masses.

Amicus Veritas

How in the world could anyone with even the slightest understanding of language, words and meanings even type that? It displays a level of ignorance that is simply astounding. The meaning (and therefore the definition of words) changes over time. It is based on language, culture and a variety of other factors, most notably context.

I found a good example for you:
"Silly meant blessed or happy in the 11th century and went through pious, innocent, harmless, pitiable and feeble minded before ending up as foolish or stupid."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/12709

All I can do is be thankful that none of your degrees were in English or I would tell you to demand your money back.

 

[JenAltArmy]

I'm sorry but calling someone a socialist is a negative

there are no positive spins or having a socialist government

I realize you think that using multisyllabic words helps establish some faux sense of intellectual superiority but you are mistaken. In fact, it seems that you are the one is badly in need of better reading comprehension, or perhaps just a better memory for what you have said.

My post was in reference to the following quote of yours, which was ridiculous at best and certainly brings in to question the so called degrees you have or at least the stature of the institutions that handed them out.



How in the world could anyone with even the slightest understanding of language, words and meanings even type that? It displays a level of ignorance that is simply astounding. The meaning (and therefore the definition of words) changes over time. It is based on language, culture and a variety of other factors, most notably context.

I found a good example for you:
"Silly meant blessed or happy in the 11th century and went through pious, innocent, harmless, pitiable and feeble minded before ending up as foolish or stupid."

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/12709

All I can do is be thankful that none of your degrees were in English or I would tell you to demand your money back.

 

[Peregrinator]

Anarchy is not acceptable because it is not possible...

...when two or more individuals are involved - and there is no situation in life when that is not the case - some sort of government of their collective actions naturally will evolve.

And, again...

The prime purpose of government - and the FORCE it naturally entails - is to guarantee and protect the God-given individual liberty of all men.



I have nothing anyone can take away from me, Sonny; I own nothing but some duds to clothe me. And I've never even imagined the Libertarian political philosophy for my own.

I do not drive, I do not get mail delivery...but, yes: I did go to grade school and high school, but the DoE hadn't even been born yet. I athletic scholarshipped in college.

I've never collected a penny of federal $$ or aid; I've paid into SS and the Ms and all the rest for almost 40 years. I have no savings, no retirement fund, no health insurance, and the money I make to get by on would honestly embarrass 99.5% of the population - working or not.

I trust God in my desire to never collect a cent of SS, nor to ever suffer the spirit-stifling statist bureaucracy of Medicare. And if He won't make sure I stay as far away from a nursing home as He now grants me to be away from government, I believe Mr.'s Smith & Wesson can be counted on as a last resort.

So what's anyone going to take away from me, Sonny? My life? Christ already has that.

My individual liberty? To live my life exactly how I want without violating the individual liberty of anyone else...regardless of what government demands or anyone else has to say?

Who's going to take that away from me, Sonny, when I will never surrender it?

Interesting post, Eyer.

 

[cjh]

How in the world could anyone with even the slightest understanding of language, words and meanings even type that? It displays a level of ignorance that is simply astounding. The meaning (and therefore the definition of words) changes over time. It is based on language, culture and a variety of other factors, most notably context.

don we now our gay apparel...

http://www.google.com/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=safari&q=gay%20leather#i=9

 

[JenAltArmy]

don we now our gay apparel...

http://www.google.com/m/search?site=images&source=mog&hl=en&gl=us&client=safari&q=gay%20leather#i=9

take off the gay clothes, and read my summary.


Socialism is morally wrong

 

[richard_daily]

Interesting post, Eyer.

That's one way of putting it.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

And here I thought that you came back to answer my thrice-asked question of how many Insurance companies Obama's socialist government was taking over...

How silly of me.

Don't goad Lusty, Rich. He'll just get frisky and mention my name six or seven times in another verbose non-answer and tell me to calm down because he's my mirror or my roosted chicken or some shit like that.

 

[KingOrfeo]

do socialists write in semen ink?

Socialists like to share their virility
But it brings social costs in fertility
For, "To each by her need!"
Is their true, solemn creed
But the sharing wears out the ability!

 

[JenAltArmy]

Makes me think of a song by disturbed, “Down with the system”

Socialists like to share their virility
But it brings social costs in fertility
For, "To each by her need!"
Is their true, solemn creed
But the sharing wears out the ability!

Makes me think of a song by disturbed, “Down with the system”

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/Tinsley_Socialist.jpg

 

[JenAltArmy]

so do you feel that under socialism, that we would never have people like Steve Jobs. right?

http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/Tinsley_Socialist.jpg

 

[badbabysitter]

so do you feel that under socialism, that we would never have people like Steve Jobs. right?

your counter arguement is that socialist democracies can't produce billioniares?

ever heard of Conrad Black?

 

[Byron In Exile]

Ask him, but he talks the talk of a tax-protester.

'E says 'e pays 'em.

 

[phrodeau]

Anarchy is not acceptable because it is not possible...

...when two or more individuals are involved - and there is no situation in life when that is not the case - some sort of government of their collective actions naturally will evolve.

And, again...

The prime purpose of government - and the FORCE it naturally entails - is to guarantee and protect the God-given individual liberty of all men.



I have nothing anyone can take away from me, Sonny; I own nothing but some duds to clothe me. And I've never even imagined the Libertarian political philosophy for my own.

I do not drive, I do not get mail delivery...but, yes: I did go to grade school and high school, but the DoE hadn't even been born yet. I athletic scholarshipped in college.

I've never collected a penny of federal $$ or aid; I've paid into SS and the Ms and all the rest for almost 40 years. I have no savings, no retirement fund, no health insurance, and the money I make to get by on would honestly embarrass 99.5% of the population - working or not.

I trust God in my desire to never collect a cent of SS, nor to ever suffer the spirit-stifling statist bureaucracy of Medicare. And if He won't make sure I stay as far away from a nursing home as He now grants me to be away from government, I believe Mr.'s Smith & Wesson can be counted on as a last resort.

So what's anyone going to take away from me, Sonny? My life? Christ already has that.

My individual liberty? To live my life exactly how I want without violating the individual liberty of anyone else...regardless of what government demands or anyone else has to say?

Who's going to take that away from me, Sonny, when I will never surrender it?

Do you cash your tax refund checks?

 

[eyer]

Do you cash your tax refund checks?

How in the world is that any of your concern?

 

[unregistered]

 

[phrodeau]

A refund indicates the government took more than it was entitled to, and returns it without interest.

If eyer is earning so little and takes all the credits he's eligible for, he'll probably get back more than he paid in.

I used "refund" because he seems to have trouble with harder words.

 

[Peregrinator]

your counter arguement is that socialist democracies can't produce billioniares?

ever heard of Conrad Black?

Isn't Soros often called a socialist also?

 

[KingOrfeo]

so do you feel that under socialism, that we would never have people like Steve Jobs. right?

I dunno; Europe does.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm tired of you Socialists begging us to define Socialism, and when we post verbatim the actual definition you say that's not Socialism.

I've defined it many times, and defined it correctly.

And, please tell me how David Horowitz is mistaken, and where the WND article is false.

I'll wait.

See, here's how you work:

Perg - "Obama's not a Socialist. Prove to me he is."

Us - "He's a socialist because of a.), b.), and c.)"

Perg - "But, he didn't really mean to do a.), b.) was reported in a publication that disagrees with my world view, and c.) isn't socialism because I don't feel like it's Socialism. QED."

Generally, when something like that scenario plays out around here, a.) is not socialist to anyone without the Host-to-a-Vampire attitude, b.) is the same only more so, and c.) is something having to do with the Obama who lives in your head and no other.

 

[richard_daily]

Generally, when something like that scenario plays out around here, a.) is not socialist to anyone without the Host-to-a-Vampire attitude, b.) is the same only more so, and c.) is something having to do with the Obama who lives in your head and no other.

I love how he states: "us; a, b and c"... but fails to mention what a, b, and c actually are....

I think he's almost into lovelynice territory; "you KNOW what I'm talking about, I proved it already!".

 

[Peregrinator]

I love how he states: "us; a, b and c"... but fails to mention what a, b, and c actually are....

I think he's almost into lovelynice territory; "you KNOW what I'm talking about, I proved it already!".

My favorite bit is how he claims that I make any of those arguments. This, when his very first post in the thread was "stfu."

 

[Byron In Exile]

How in the world is that any of your concern?

(^ "Yes.")

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I'm tired of you Socialists

Now we're all Socialists when not but a month ago since the day you first signed up your conservative insult buzzword du jour was either "liberal" or "Democrat."

Fuck, you poor parrots train so well. I hope the pellet feed is tasty, at least.

Do you cash your tax refund checks?

How in the world is that any of your concern?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lm2JI7sGwYI/TJV_pNZu_6I/AAAAAAAALKs/PQq9HOQX8wA/s1600/socialism.jpg

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Our convo has gotten so wordy now that I have trouble keeping all the points straight.

a. Okay. I disagree that those are sins, and I know of no business whose mission is to provide pollution.
b. Minutia is where the theory meets the saddle. I thought you said an enemy of the state was "Anyone who tried to fight or decieve it," which is what

spying on us is, by definition. So we...just continue to send them a shitload of money and weapons and love them and hug them?
c. Sure, it might be a symptom. I disagree; the state has just propped up several failing businesses, and has over the decades done all manner of stuff,

including military action, to support businesses. I'm not sure whether this happens more often under Reps or Dems, but it's blatant on the watch of either

party.
d. Okay...so any interruption of the free flow of energy is enemy action? Really? Then why aren't we busting our collective asses to develop a source of

renewable energy that will let us stop these petty squabbles and major military actions in energy-rich areas of the planet?
e. Um...you always suggest the lawsuit as a remedy...but by the time it's settled, the damage is done. You can't argue that the beach where the Exxon-Valdes

crashed is clean, or anything like it. The people who made their living there are 1) out of work and 2) not compensated. That's your ideal?
f. "Indeed, I am fear-mongering? My focus on guns and ammunition has always been towards that day when it all breaks down and social justice forces us to

brute force to protect our families from the looters when they finally collapse their government." Nah, no fear at all in that question/statement.

Seriously?
g. I won't because I'm interested in other people's ideas of those definitions. I don't want the thread to devolve into "Argue with Perg's definitions." An

ecosystem can be objectively assessed. Spotted Owls nesting in Wal-Mart signs is not a sign of a healthy ecosystem. Just one example.

I disagree with the notion that economics is the most rational basis on which to assess a political system. That's why you see that difference. Money is

not my highest value. Is there no acceptable government intervention at all in your view?

I like that notion. I think we disagree on how and where it gets applied.

That's why I rarely engage in it.

Then you believe in a completely lawless economy? That IS the black market, just with fewer consequences.

I disagree; I think it's perfectly possible to have a few regulations, like child labor laws, and still have a perfectly robust business environment.

See? You always make that jump. If you don't believe in "SOME" targeted regulation, then you want ANARCHY!

Straight to Black and White.

Discussion over.

"Some" implies "All."

Therefore we are justified, by your own form of argumentation in calling you a Socialist because you advocate "some..."
__________________
There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀ and while you may be able to advocate for ∃ you won't be allowed to define it and in this manner its limit will be ∀ for ∑f(∪∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will never tend to ∅ by definition so it is easy to see that it is, indeed, an ∀ or ∅ when it comes to government. (Now, the ∑f(∩∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will tend to ∅ but that is politically unattainable for the obvious reason that the more ∃ is defined, the smaller the ∩∃ becomes.)
A_J, the Stupid