Plain, You need to tell KIT that, not me.
On Mar 7, 6:11 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice to see that you would not call a country socialsit, even if > members of the cabinet and even the President were members of the > Socialst Party. > --- > call a spade a spade > > On Mar 7, 5:24 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > KIT, > > > Just keeping you honest lad, practically a full time job when > > conservatives are involved. :-) > > > Nice to see that you would not call a country socialsit, even if > > members of the cabinet and even the President were members of the > > Socialst Party. Oh, unless it served your political agenda to do so. > > > On Mar 7, 2:22 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, studio took issue with this statement by > > > me: > > > > *"It is very, "black and white". There is no socialistic program that > > > has worked in this Nation, period." * > > > > Stu-Stu-Studio went on to pontificate: > > > > *"Does that include the military? > > > Do you get your mail delivered regularly? > > > Belong to any groups? > > > Ever had to call for an ambulance, firemen, police? > > > Ever take a loan out? > > > Ever go to school? > > > Belong to a political party? > > > Ever drove on a road? > > > Ever used the Internet?" > > > > "You can spin your wheels all you want, but the fact is; these are are all > > > social programs in one way or another. > > > > But let me add... > > > > Social Security > > > Medicare > > > MedicAide > > > * > > > *You're living in a fantasy land of flawed ideology." > > > > * > > > > ** > > > ** > > > *=========================* > > > ** > > > Let's review: > > > > First, let's take a look at what the definition of "Socialism" really is: > > > > "Date: 1837. From Latin socialis for "friend" or "companion" or > > > "associate". Any of various economic and political theories advocating > > > collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of > > > production and distribution of goods; usually there is no private > > > property; > > > in Marxist theory this is also considered just a transitional stage > > > between > > > capitalism and communism and it is distinguished by unequal distribution > > > of > > > goods and pay according to work done." > > > > The above definition is by Mr. John Spargo, from his work titled: > > > "Socialism, A Summary And Interpretation Of Socialist Principles" > > > (McMillan > > > & Co. 1913). Below is the Wiki definition, which is quite similar. > > > > "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or > > > governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and > > > distribution of goods. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional > > > between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution > > > of goods and pay according to work done" > > > > ============ > > > > So. How does the definition of "Socialism" apply to Stu's posts? Well, > > > let's take a look. > > > > Take a loan out?? Join a political party? Drive on a road? Mail > > > delivery? The internet?? Obviously, Stu doesn't understand the concept > > > of, nor the definition of "Socialism". This isn't surprising, most > > > liberal/progressives don't know what they speak of when they start > > > attempting to define and describe political ideologies. > > > > With regard to the military, I will grant you that Stu is correct in a > > > small sense. The United States military does in fact practice a sense of > > > skewed socialsim. > > > > By example, soldiers, sailors and airmen are subsidized, by giving them a > > > housing allowance. By example, here in Tampa, all of the airmen from > > > McDill Air Force Base get a housing allowance from the Air Force. As a > > > result, local landlords are able to jack up the prices to otherwise > > > untenable levels. Only the non-military folks are affected. Here is but > > > one > > > example where socialism in our society is a dismal failure. > > > > In this and other ways, people who join the United States Armed Forces are > > > taken care of. They are fed, provided for by cheap or free transportation > > > and accommodations, and given discounts on groceries and other goods. All > > > this, thanks to collectivized production with taxpayer dollars. > > > If you're dropping off the bottom rung of the social ladder in America, > > > the > > > safety net of the military is there to catch you, and provide an > > > attractive > > > alternative to the hell of split shifts of minimum wage work. Just a few > > > caveats: you have to be willing to kill others and die for your country. > > > So, in general, the military practices not only a hybrid kind of > > > socialism, > > > that views a relative increase in economic well-being as a means to an end > > > (ensuring a supply of cannon fodder, for example), rather than an end in > > > itself. > > > > To suggest that Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security are working well, > > > is > > > laughable, and a typical Moonbat response. I had thought Stu was a > > > little > > > more perceptive than that. We'll address these government boondoggles in > > > a > > > future post, but I wanted to get something up to address Stu's post, > > > before > > > Holly wet his pants in anticipation. > > > > *===============* > > > ** > > > Stu apparently disagrees with these statements that I wrote: > > > > *"There is no socialistic form of government, that has been successful, > > > anywhere, period".* > > > ** > > > *"Show me any socialist Nation-State, or communist Nation-State that > > > is working successfully. Show me one successful socialistic program in > > > this Nation that is working well. Just one, pick any one that you think > > > you > > > can defend."* > > > ** > > > As Stu went on to say:* > > > * > > > > *"Sure there is, the world is full of them by your own measures, you > > > complain about them all the time."* > > > ** > > > ====== > > > > In another post, contained within this thread, I am assuming that Stu > > > references these Nation-States, as being huge successes with their > > > socialistic programs: > > > > ** > > > *Stu said:* > > > > *"Well much like any labels you try to use, it doesn't much matter. Chile > > > (although it's a Republic...I know you love the sound of that)...Frei > > > Ruiz-Tagle was succeeded in 2000 by *Socialist* Ricardo Lagos, who won the > > > presidency in an unprecedented runoff election against Joaquín Lavín of > > > the > > > rightist Alliance for Chile. In January 2006, Chileans elected their first > > > female president, Michelle Bachelet Jeria, of the *Socialist* Party."* > > > > Stu?? Uhm.....Are you suggesting that Chile has just now become > > > "socialist"?? Remember Salvador Allende, followed by the Dictator > > > Pinochet? How'd that work out? Are you here to suggest that Chile has > > > been > > > this model of socialist ingenuity, and that their economy is something > > > that > > > we should aspire to? That any other third world, or fourth world > > > Nation-State should attempt to emulate Chile's economy or political > > > structure? Both are dismal failures!! > > > > The new Chilean Socialist-led government's economy minister is a > > > conservative, MIT-trained economist. Its finance minister is a > > > Harvard-trained former International Monetary Fund bureaucrat. So the > > > heavy > > > dose of "free market" orthodoxy in its economic program is hardly > > > surprising. The Lagos administration has worked to accelerate Chile's > > > integration into the world capitalist economy, seeking a NAFTA-like "free > > > trade" agreement with the United States. It has pledged to step up the > > > privatization of state assets. The government's plans for the state copper > > > company, which accounts for nearly 20% of Chile's export earnings, include > > > joint ventures with multinational corporations and investment by private > > > mutual funds. Meanwhile, one of Lagos's key economic advisors has called > > > for > > > the privatization of the state oil company. The government has also made > > > it > > > a top priority to balance the budget, whose 1999 deficit was equal to 1.5% > > > of Chile's gross domestic product (GDP), in order to keep inflation and > > > interest rates down - in other words, to make Chile a profitable place to > > > invest. > > > > I'll address the rest of your missive(s) in an additional post, maybe > > > tonight, or maybe tomorrow, but as stated, I wanted to get something > > > written > > > before Holly has a hissy fit...- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
