socialism

VINNY GOOMBA

polaris_x wrote:

just because a gov't can't administer the programs properly doesn't mean "socialism" doesn't work ...

Agreed. I think it could work for people who were determined to make it work. Therefore, communities COULD implement socialism as they see fit.

This is the United States. We are the most diverse, multi-cultural country in the world, and we're in our early childhood as far as our culture as a whole is concerned. Whether we DIE in our early childhood remains to be seen. What's going to keep us alive is putting the power to decide what's best for us back in our hands, and not decided at the behest of a corporate controlled conglomerate of a country! How's that for alliteration ?

We are the biggest MARKET in the world, and therefore are the most targeted by special interests? You want to beat them? Keep it gangsta. Take power away from the Federal Government and let our communities determine EXACTLY who they are.

i shit and i stink

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

i shit and i stink wrote:

and drop the kids off at the public school (No child left behind? How about Field Day-- the best day ever in elementary school? Remember when there were winners and losers? Actual competition? Failure is no longer an option anywhere, whether you're a student or a bank-- unfortunately, failure is inevitable, and because we do NOT allow failure, the entire system is doomed to fail.)

I like the non-competitive idea, it's aimed at getting more 'underachieving' (ie- dangerously inactive/ obese) children into sports. In England the government has made swimming free for all under 16s and my little brother and his friends are not doing much more sport of the back of it. He has also joined a government scheme which gets him playign badminton for free.

The problem with private sports clubs in the UK is the subs kids have to pay each week. Football costs kids about 3 quid a week, plus a little here and there out of mum's pocket for drinks and stuff. So, call it a fiver a week and that is a lot of money to some people (regardless or not of what they would otherwise spend/ waste it on).

Also, some kids start, realise they are not the best and soon give up to goa dn sit on the sofa. National schemes giving kids free sport thrive upon the fact that all kids are involved and that they are not competitive and exclusive.

Sports aren't for everyone. I don't think anyone should be forced to COMPETE in field day. Kids have phys. ed class all year round, to decide whether or not they like sports as well. If kids don't want to run on Field Day and be part of a team that competes to win, they shouldn't have to. But for the kids that do want to do it, let them. My point is, let everyone have their choice. In the end, that's my biggest beef with large, centralized government. It completely eliminates choice in EVERYTHING, and therefore creates monopoly and breeds inefficiency. It's authoritarian, the complete opposite of personal, individual liberty.

If people want the government to provide all of their services for them, that's fine by me. Do it in your own communities, not at a national level-- that way, everyone gets to have their cake, AND YES, EVEN EAT IT TOO! Man, I hate that expression.

They don't put a gun to my brother's head an make him go swimming, if he didn't want to he could go and eat frogs or play Xbox or watever it is 12 year olds do. There is choice, but if he decides to be sporty, it is free for him and for all, that is a great social scheme that is nationwide and government run at a national level.

As for school sports day, you are right, it's stupid and even cruel to make all kids participate.

VINNY GOOMBA

On another note, people who are not in favor of socialism are incredibly misunderstood in terms of how much they care about their fellow man.

Just because you don't believe the government can adequately provide for the masses doesn't mean that people shouldn't be taken care of. As a matter of fact, most of us believe that taking care of each other through the private sector IS building a better mouse trap. Charitable organizations, churches, synagogues, etc... are all examples of institutions that are put in place to serve the community, and are supported 100% by choice. Those that do a better job serving their immediate towns and cities will receive more membership and larger donations. If taxes weren't consuming enough of our income, there would be more time and effort to put into these groups that are at ground zero in trying to fix our communities, rather than some government officials who are nowhere near the situation deciding how much money gets shifted from one spot to another. I would go so far as to say that it's borderline unethical to allow government to provide an inefficient, ineffective "safety net" that allows people to take advantage of the system at the cost of those who are working hard to provide it. Our wages are our private property, and are forcefully taken from us to provide for many who refuse to do anything to earn their money-- and worse yet, fund wars, subsidize failure, etc... It gives the very FALSE idea that prosperity can be handed out, and only creates a larger pool for your hard work to translate into a policy that can cripple you, or a war that can kill you, or an agency that gives you false security about taking certain drugs, or a retirement that you will NEVER see, etc...

It's a point I keep making over and over again... There's just so many places for your money to get "lost" the farther up it goes in bureaucracy-- And if money was free, or it grew on trees, who cares? But since it doesn't, and you have to work for it, big government does not work. Not in this country. It wasn't written that way in the Constitution, and we're simply not Scandanavian just yet, as they have an identity, while our identity is an undefinable identity.

VINNY GOOMBA

i shit and i stink wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

i shit and i stink wrote:

and drop the kids off at the public school (No child left behind? How about Field Day-- the best day ever in elementary school? Remember when there were winners and losers? Actual competition? Failure is no longer an option anywhere, whether you're a student or a bank-- unfortunately, failure is inevitable, and because we do NOT allow failure, the entire system is doomed to fail.)

I like the non-competitive idea, it's aimed at getting more 'underachieving' (ie- dangerously inactive/ obese) children into sports. In England the government has made swimming free for all under 16s and my little brother and his friends are not doing much more sport of the back of it. He has also joined a government scheme which gets him playign badminton for free.

The problem with private sports clubs in the UK is the subs kids have to pay each week. Football costs kids about 3 quid a week, plus a little here and there out of mum's pocket for drinks and stuff. So, call it a fiver a week and that is a lot of money to some people (regardless or not of what they would otherwise spend/ waste it on).

Also, some kids start, realise they are not the best and soon give up to goa dn sit on the sofa. National schemes giving kids free sport thrive upon the fact that all kids are involved and that they are not competitive and exclusive.

Sports aren't for everyone. I don't think anyone should be forced to COMPETE in field day. Kids have phys. ed class all year round, to decide whether or not they like sports as well. If kids don't want to run on Field Day and be part of a team that competes to win, they shouldn't have to. But for the kids that do want to do it, let them. My point is, let everyone have their choice. In the end, that's my biggest beef with large, centralized government. It completely eliminates choice in EVERYTHING, and therefore creates monopoly and breeds inefficiency. It's authoritarian, the complete opposite of personal, individual liberty.

If people want the government to provide all of their services for them, that's fine by me. Do it in your own communities, not at a national level-- that way, everyone gets to have their cake, AND YES, EVEN EAT IT TOO! Man, I hate that expression.

They don't put a gun to my brother's head an make him go swimming, if he didn't want to he could go and eat frogs or play Xbox or watever it is 12 year olds do. There is choice, but if he decides to be sporty, it is free for him and for all, that is a great social scheme that is nationwide and government run at a national level.

As for school sports day, you are right, it's stupid and even cruel to make all kids participate.

I didn't say someone forces your brother to go swimming. I can swim for free too! In 5 minutes I can go jump in the Hudson River, and that won't cost me or anyone else anything. "Free" public pools for 16 year olds aren't costing THEM a dime, but someone somewhere is paying for it-- probably your parents, or you. That's fine, that's England-- I don't know exactly how the government works over there, and you guys have a long history and culture to back it, and maybe it works for you there. If it was what you determined for yourselves, and you're happy with it, who am I to judge? The point of this thread was to discuss why some people freak out at the prospect of "socialism" in America.

Admittedly, on top of all the reasons I've discussed already, there are also a certain percentage of MORONS here who will be scared of any word simply because Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Keith Olbermann will condemn it with their bullshit. Again, that goes back to more people doing stuff for you that you should be doing yourself: THINKING.

inmytree

Smellyman wrote:

borrowed from another forum, but I thought was pretty funny.


This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by the electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking drugs which had been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by local, state and federal departments of transportation, stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door, I deposited mail I had to be send out via the US postal service, and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house that has not burned down in my absence because the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

ha ha ha...I love it...

In case those who hate gov't didn't know, Somalia has absolutely no Gov't...and that place is a wonderful paradise...

i shit and i stink

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I didn't say someone forces your brother to go swimming. I can swim for free too! In 5 minutes I can go jump in the Hudson River, and that won't cost me or anyone else anything. "Free" public pools for 16 year olds aren't costing THEM a dime, but someone somewhere is paying for it-- probably your parents, or you. That's fine, that's England-- I don't know exactly how the government works over there, and you guys have a long history and culture to back it, and maybe it works for you there. If it was what you determined for yourselves, and you're happy with it, who am I to judge? The point of this thread was to discuss why some people freak out at the prospect of "socialism" in America.

Admittedly, on top of all the reasons I've discussed already, there are also a certain percentage of MORONS here who will be scared of any word simply because Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Keith Olbermann will condemn it with their bullshit. Again, that goes back to more people doing stuff for you that you should be doing yourself: THINKING.

Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude. Of course, we pay for initiatives like that, I know that nothing in this whole world works on good will alone. I guess that the point you are making, as I understand it, is that socialism for the masses in America is a worrying thought for people, but collective social action and proactive members of society collaborating is a big plus - that's the hockey mums, little leagues, etc, etc that you all seem so proud of. I think that there is a great deal of community spirit in America, as I see from afar, with people getting together for voting drives at election time and so on (much more so than in the UK, I think). It seems you all like social activism but not the thought of any kind of ownership of public resources above a certain level.

Everything in England was stated owned in the good / bad (delete as applicable) old days, now it has mostly been privatised but regulated by watchdogs and other things. It is probably just state ownership without state ownership, although I can't be sure...

DriftingByTheStorm

polaris_x wrote:

just because a gov't can't administer the programs properly doesn't mean "socialism" doesn't work ...

Just because you wish a lot of things to be different from the way they are doesn't mean bupkiss.

The point is we are given what they want us to have.
Just because you have some fanciful idea of how it COULD be,
that doesn't mean shit.

Just because a million people in the street think they are getting one thing,
that doesn't mean shit.

The elite in control of our system will continue to run it how THEY see fit.
I'm pretty sure that means you will NEVER be getting the brand of "socialism" that you think "could work".

Do you not see the blatantly obvious comparison to all the followers of the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union? You think they were trying to have a revolution for mass political purges, an iron fist, starvation, and massive loss of rights?
For those who DON'T get the comparison between current wishful thinking, and history, here it is:
Some of the Consequences of The Bolshevik Revolution, known in Russia as The Great October Socialist Revolution.


People need to stop living in a dream world where they think the fanciful ideas in their head have one lick to do with the political reality that surrounds them.

You DO NOT hand over MORE POWER to someone based on A PERSONAL DREAM about how it COULD BE.
MY POINT REMAINS THAT IF A GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO NOT BE TRUSTWORTHY WITH THE CURRENT (& SIMILAR) POWERS IT ALREADY HAS, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME IT WILL WIELD MORE POWER ANY BETTER!

At the stage where a government is KNOWN TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT, you start TAKING POWER BACK, not handing over more under the wishful (and frankly asinine) notion that just giving it a little more discretion will some how help that government work more effectively (or honestly)!

Some folks around here are like the wife that gets beaten everyday, but swears to herself, if she just acts better, and goes and buys him a gift, he won't beat her tomorrow.

Learn to cut your losses, folks.
Not double down!

VINNY GOOMBA

i shit and i stink wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I didn't say someone forces your brother to go swimming. I can swim for free too! In 5 minutes I can go jump in the Hudson River, and that won't cost me or anyone else anything. "Free" public pools for 16 year olds aren't costing THEM a dime, but someone somewhere is paying for it-- probably your parents, or you. That's fine, that's England-- I don't know exactly how the government works over there, and you guys have a long history and culture to back it, and maybe it works for you there. If it was what you determined for yourselves, and you're happy with it, who am I to judge? The point of this thread was to discuss why some people freak out at the prospect of "socialism" in America.

Admittedly, on top of all the reasons I've discussed already, there are also a certain percentage of MORONS here who will be scared of any word simply because Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Keith Olbermann will condemn it with their bullshit. Again, that goes back to more people doing stuff for you that you should be doing yourself: THINKING.

Sorry, I didn't intend to be rude. Of course, we pay for initiatives like that, I know that nothing in this whole world works on good will alone. I guess that the point you are making, as I understand it, is that socialism for the masses in America is a worrying thought for people, but collective social action and proactive members of society collaborating is a big plus - that's the hockey mums, little leagues, etc, etc that you all seem so proud of. I think that there is a great deal of community spirit in America, as I see from afar, with people getting together for voting drives at election time and so on (much more so than in the UK, I think). It seems you all like social activism but not the thought of any kind of ownership of public resources above a certain level.

Everything in England was stated owned in the good / bad (delete as applicable) old days, now it has mostly been privatised but regulated by watchdogs and other things. It is probably just state ownership without state ownership, although I can't be sure...

Nah man, I didn't take it as rude. It's all good.

I think you pretty much understand what I'm getting at-- this statement that you made is the one that different people will give you different answers on:

i shit and i stink wrote:

It seems you all like social activism but not the thought of any kind of ownership of public resources above a certain level.

Basically, anyone who cares about this place does like social activism-- in the end, it's really the only agent that we can all use to change things. As far as not wanting ownership of public resources above a certain level, this certainly holds true for people who believe in limited, Constitutional government here in America. There are certainly people who favor the opposite-- to me, it's as clear as day that it shouldn't be that way here in this country, but if groups of like-minded people want to organize themselves on local levels to manage their lives through government, how can I argue with that? So long as my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness isn't negatively affected, I really can't, and wouldn't want to argue with that. However, people who want more government never object to it at the federal level, where all the damage is done. This is where I become affected, and then it starts to screw ME, and other people who feel the way that I do.

I'm simply pushing for a system where everyone gets to rule, or be ruled as they choose. This is why the Constitution reserved most of the powers to the states. You can't have this autonomy without limiting the federal government's role to providing national defense, and little else.

VINNY GOOMBA

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You DO NOT hand over MORE POWER to someone based on A PERSONAL DREAM about how it COULD BE.
MY POINT REMAINS THAT IF A GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO NOT BE TRUSTWORTHY WITH THE CURRENT (& SIMILAR) POWERS IT ALREADY HAS, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME IT WILL WIELD MORE POWER ANY BETTER!

At the stage where a government is KNOWN TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT, you start TAKING POWER BACK, not handing over more under the wishful (and frankly asinine) notion that just giving it a little more discretion will some how help that government work more effectively (or honestly)!

Some folks around here are like the wife that gets beaten everyday, but swears to herself, if she just acts better, and goes and buys him a gift, he won't beat her tomorrow.

Learn to cut your losses, folks.
Not double down!

BINGO!

i shit and i stink

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

You DO NOT hand over MORE POWER to someone based on A PERSONAL DREAM about how it COULD BE.
MY POINT REMAINS THAT IF A GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO NOT BE TRUSTWORTHY WITH THE CURRENT (& SIMILAR) POWERS IT ALREADY HAS, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME IT WILL WIELD MORE POWER ANY BETTER!

At the stage where a government is KNOWN TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT, you start TAKING POWER BACK, not handing over more under the wishful (and frankly asinine) notion that just giving it a little more discretion will some how help that government work more effectively (or honestly)!

Some folks around here are like the wife that gets beaten everyday, but swears to herself, if she just acts better, and goes and buys him a gift, he won't beat her tomorrow.

Learn to cut your losses, folks.
Not double down!

BINGO!

Great point and well made, you can't chase rainbows or attempt a change based only on assumption. Personally, I think there are worthwhile parts of socialist government that could be implemented into other systems but the will to do so must be absolute and the implementation needs to not infringe upon civil liberties.

On your other point, I struggle to see any way that in a country as large as America people could possibly begin to 'take power back', where does that even begin? Things like the patriot act seem to make any form of political disagreement more and more difficult. In fact, it reads like an early form of carte blanche that the worst socialist governments in history gave themselves to keep things moving in the direction they wanted.

polaris_x

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Just because you wish a lot of things to be different from the way they are doesn't mean bupkiss.

The point is we are given what they want us to have.
Just because you have some fanciful idea of how it COULD be,
that doesn't mean shit.

Just because a million people in the street think they are getting one thing,
that doesn't mean shit.

The elite in control of our system will continue to run it how THEY see fit.
I'm pretty sure that means you will NEVER be getting the brand of "socialism" that you think "could work".

Do you not see the blatantly obvious comparison to all the followers of the Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union? You think they were trying to have a revolution for mass political purges, an iron fist, starvation, and massive loss of rights?
For those who DON'T get the comparison between current wishful thinking, and history, here it is:
Some of the Consequences of The Bolshevik Revolution, known in Russia as The Great October Socialist Revolution.


People need to stop living in a dream world where they think the fanciful ideas in their head have one lick to do with the political reality that surrounds them.

You DO NOT hand over MORE POWER to someone based on A PERSONAL DREAM about how it COULD BE.
MY POINT REMAINS THAT IF A GOVERNMENT HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO NOT BE TRUSTWORTHY WITH THE CURRENT (& SIMILAR) POWERS IT ALREADY HAS, THERE IS NO REASON TO ASSUME IT WILL WIELD MORE POWER ANY BETTER!

At the stage where a government is KNOWN TO BE, AND OBVIOUSLY CORRUPT, you start TAKING POWER BACK, not handing over more under the wishful (and frankly asinine) notion that just giving it a little more discretion will some how help that government work more effectively (or honestly)!

Some folks around here are like the wife that gets beaten everyday, but swears to herself, if she just acts better, and goes and buys him a gift, he won't beat her tomorrow.

Learn to cut your losses, folks.
Not double down!

well - that wasn't my point ... I in no way advocate giving more authority to this corrupt system ... my point is simply that "socialism" isn't the problem ... a corrupt gov't is ... focusing on socialist principles is detracting from what truly is the cause of many ills ...

Mortality

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

just because a gov't can't administer the programs properly doesn't mean "socialism" doesn't work ...

Agreed. I think it could work for people who were determined to make it work. Therefore, communities COULD implement socialism as they see fit.

Basically, you are correct. But what that essentially means is that the only place socialism can work is in a cult. Everyone in that cult has the same exact beliefs and work towards the same exact goals. Countries are too large and, in America especially, too free-thinking to have the exact same beliefs. That is why socialism can NEVER work on a large scale. Someone will ALWAYS wake up with their own motives and take advantage of the system. Its a simple theory really, I dont understand how Marx missed it and actually thought socialism would work in practice they way it does on paper.

polaris_x

Mortality wrote:

Basically, you are correct. But what that essentially means is that the only place socialism can work is in a cult. Everyone in that cult has the same exact beliefs and work towards the same exact goals. Countries are too large and, in America especially, too free-thinking to have the exact same beliefs. That is why socialism can NEVER work on a large scale. Someone will ALWAYS wake up with their own motives and take advantage of the system. Its a simple theory really, I dont understand how Marx missed it and actually thought socialism would work in practice they way it does on paper.

socialism "works" in many countries ... no system is perfect of course and there are always people who operate outside the system ... but if you look at all the countries that rank high on human developement index scorings - they are all socialist in nature ...

edit: but i will agree socialism wouldn't work in america - but size isn't the reason

Mortality

polaris_x wrote:

Mortality wrote:

Basically, you are correct. But what that essentially means is that the only place socialism can work is in a cult. Everyone in that cult has the same exact beliefs and work towards the same exact goals. Countries are too large and, in America especially, too free-thinking to have the exact same beliefs. That is why socialism can NEVER work on a large scale. Someone will ALWAYS wake up with their own motives and take advantage of the system. Its a simple theory really, I dont understand how Marx missed it and actually thought socialism would work in practice they way it does on paper.

socialism "works" in many countries ... no system is perfect of course and there are always people who operate outside the system ... but if you look at all the countries that rank high on human developement index scorings - they are all socialist in nature ...

edit: but i will agree socialism wouldn't work in america - but size isn't the reason

Socialism is only working in those countries because the people believe it is working. In reality, the people governing the socialist countries are winning and the working class is losing. They have to pay extremely high taxes and dont have all the freedoms Americans have. They are content, but their citizens arent inventing the automobile, the airplane, the computer, ELECTRICITY. Those are purely American inventions, come on, think it through.

ledvedderman

Mortality wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

Mortality wrote:

Basically, you are correct. But what that essentially means is that the only place socialism can work is in a cult. Everyone in that cult has the same exact beliefs and work towards the same exact goals. Countries are too large and, in America especially, too free-thinking to have the exact same beliefs. That is why socialism can NEVER work on a large scale. Someone will ALWAYS wake up with their own motives and take advantage of the system. Its a simple theory really, I dont understand how Marx missed it and actually thought socialism would work in practice they way it does on paper.

socialism "works" in many countries ... no system is perfect of course and there are always people who operate outside the system ... but if you look at all the countries that rank high on human developement index scorings - they are all socialist in nature ...

edit: but i will agree socialism wouldn't work in america - but size isn't the reason

Socialism is only working in those countries because the people believe it is working. In reality, the people governing the socialist countries are winning and the working class is losing. They have to pay extremely high taxes and dont have all the freedoms Americans have. They are content, but their citizens arent inventing the automobile, the airplane, the computer, ELECTRICITY. Those are purely American inventions, come on, think it through.

Anyone from Sweeden (or any other Socialist Euro) want to take time away from being shackled to your government and being too stupid to invent anything of purpose to respond to this guy...

:roll:

Mortality

ledvedderman wrote:

Anyone from Sweeden (or any other Socialist Euro) want to take time away from being shackled to your government and being too stupid to invent anything of purpose to respond to this guy...

:roll:

I dont get it, you are mad that Americans invent the gigantic breakthroughs? Should I add the telephone, landing on the moon, bar-codes, assembly lines? Is the reason merely coincidental or does maybe the constitution have something to do with it? I work with a Swed and he must have moved here for a reason. He was forced to enter the military at a young age and fled the country as soon as it was time for college.

fife

Mortality wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

Mortality wrote:

Basically, you are correct. But what that essentially means is that the only place socialism can work is in a cult. Everyone in that cult has the same exact beliefs and work towards the same exact goals. Countries are too large and, in America especially, too free-thinking to have the exact same beliefs. That is why socialism can NEVER work on a large scale. Someone will ALWAYS wake up with their own motives and take advantage of the system. Its a simple theory really, I dont understand how Marx missed it and actually thought socialism would work in practice they way it does on paper.

socialism "works" in many countries ... no system is perfect of course and there are always people who operate outside the system ... but if you look at all the countries that rank high on human developement index scorings - they are all socialist in nature ...

edit: but i will agree socialism wouldn't work in america - but size isn't the reason

Socialism is only working in those countries because the people believe it is working. In reality, the people governing the socialist countries are winning and the working class is losing. They have to pay extremely high taxes and dont have all the freedoms Americans have. They are content, but their citizens arent inventing the automobile, the airplane, the computer, ELECTRICITY. Those are purely American inventions, come on, think it through.

sorry but what freedoms do americans have that peopel in Canada not have. i can give you a freedom that we have that americans don't have. no matter how poor i am, i can go to a doctor and be seen. i have the freedom to vote any of the 4 political parties and not just 2. i have the freedom to not be spied agianst by my own government.

inmytree

Mortality wrote:

Socialism is only working in those countries because the people believe it is working. In reality, the people governing the socialist countries are winning and the working class is losing. They have to pay extremely high taxes and dont have all the freedoms Americans have. They are content, but their citizens arent inventing the automobile, the airplane, the computer, ELECTRICITY. Those are purely American inventions, come on, think it through.

yeah, I guess it's a matter of perception...kinda like how some think socialism won't work in the US...I guess the police and fire department, roads, and schools can't be classified as "socialism"...(+ the fact 40% of the population get their health care paid for through gov't programs, no socialism there... )

I really don't know how the rest of the world existed prior to America...

inmytree

Mortality wrote:

ledvedderman wrote:

Anyone from Sweeden (or any other Socialist Euro) want to take time away from being shackled to your government and being too stupid to invent anything of purpose to respond to this guy...

:roll:

I dont get it, you are mad that Americans invent the gigantic breakthroughs? Should I add the telephone, landing on the moon, bar-codes, assembly lines? Is the reason merely coincidental or does maybe the constitution have something to do with it? I work with a Swed and he must have moved here for a reason. He was forced to enter the military at a young age and fled the country as soon as it was time for college.

I guess that one single swede is a great example of the failure of socialism...I bet you can paint a house with one stroke of the brush, too...

Pepe Silvia

fife wrote:

Mortality wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

socialism "works" in many countries ... no system is perfect of course and there are always people who operate outside the system ... but if you look at all the countries that rank high on human developement index scorings - they are all socialist in nature ...

edit: but i will agree socialism wouldn't work in america - but size isn't the reason

Socialism is only working in those countries because the people believe it is working. In reality, the people governing the socialist countries are winning and the working class is losing. They have to pay extremely high taxes and dont have all the freedoms Americans have. They are content, but their citizens arent inventing the automobile, the airplane, the computer, ELECTRICITY. Those are purely American inventions, come on, think it through.

sorry but what freedoms do americans have that peopel in Canada not have. i can give you a freedom that we have that americans don't have. no matter how poor i am, i can go to a doctor and be seen. i have the freedom to vote any of the 4 political parties and not just 2. i have the freedom to not be spied agianst by my own government.

a roommate of mine was telling me they have a friend who lives in Canada and they say they have no concept of triage, like if you go to the ER with a gun shot wound you don't get priority, you wait for everyone before you to be seen....which doesn't seem like that would be true but even if it was that isn't a requisite for socialized health care, it could be done differently