Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All taxation is a spread of the wealth. By your definition, spreading the wealth to military personnel or contractors is socialism. It's really just a silly rhetoric game you're playing that has no meat. Everybody spreads wealth - it's just a matter of whether one supports spreading it to military operations or educational / health-providing operations or a mixture.
Well if you really look at the military it really is the biggest Socialistic game going on!
Can you imagine your Employer telling you that they will educate you, train you for your job, provide free meals, healthcare, clothing and housing for not only you but your family as well? On top of that getting a pension for life as well as healthcare after you retire?
Oh wait! Isn't that "Communism"?
I always find it funny that when it's for the Military it's "justified" but when it's comes to somebody who is either homeless or poor and provide them with the same benefits it becomes "Communism"!
What's the difference?
Well if you really look at the military it really is the biggest Socialistic game going on!
Can you imagine your Employer telling you that they will educate you, train you for your job, provide free meals, healthcare, clothing and housing for not only you but your family as well? On top of that getting a pension for life as well as healthcare after you retire?
I forget who Jon Stewart was talking to, but it was someone claiming government can't provide good health care while also claiming that the military have amongst the best (government-run) health care in the world. He finally had to concede when Stewart boxed him into that corner.
I'm, personally, happy to give military folks whatever they need and want for the work they voluntarily do, but they are taken care of quite well - housing and everything while still receiving a normal paycheck. Lots of spending money.
^ Bluefly and I have no problems providing for those who have served our nation! Thing is why can't we provide others in our nation who are in need of just basic things like healthcare?
Communism/Marxism have and can mean a lot of different things. Without wanting to get into detailed arguments, Marxist believe in the technological dialect, or that technological developments direct society to change. So, feudalism developed into capitalism which was more efficient, and capitalism will develop into communism, which would be more efficient again.
Now, there are less deterministic Marxists, who look to a revolutions of the working classes, and world system Marxists, and more social constructivist. But my question really is, why do American's call their politicians Marxists/Communists? I'm not sure if:
its just political rhetoric
They are being silly
They are totally ignorant and genuinely think that their leaders are communists
i know of no US politician who has said anything remotely 'communistic', American politics is a fight between the right, and the far right, so why the rubbish?
Sometimes the truth hurts. If people do not want to be called "marxists", they should not espouse marxist ideology. If you do not want to be called a "Steeler's fan", pick another team.
Political correctness was designed by Stalin to limit the ability of dissent to be expressed by villianizing certain terms and phrases. The pinnacle of political correctness is expressed in "1984", in which the language is simplified to the extent that not only can a political position be identified, no dissent can be effectively expressed.
Liberals are very much interested in limiting language, as it achieves thier fascist goals (gee, that is another bad word). If the shoe fits, wear it.
All taxation is a spread of the wealth. By your definition, spreading the wealth to military personnel or contractors is socialism. It's really just a silly rhetoric game you're playing that has no meat. Everybody spreads wealth - it's just a matter of whether one supports spreading it to military operations or educational / health-providing operations or a mixture.
I'm against all taxation although I'm realistic enough to be more against some taxation and wealth spreading than others. For the military MiamiRob beat me to it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob
Well if you really look at the military it really is the biggest Socialistic game going on!
Can you imagine your Employer telling you that they will educate you, train you for your job, provide free meals, healthcare, clothing and housing for not only you but your family as well? On top of that getting a pension for life as well as healthcare after you retire?
Oh wait! Isn't that "Communism"?
Spot on.
Quote:
I always find it funny that when it's for the Military it's "justified" but when it's comes to somebody who is either homeless or poor and provide them with the same benefits it becomes "Communism"!
What's the difference?
What you fail to realize is that it's VERY expensive. People have to pay for it all. The US spends more money on the military than all other nations combined. It's only possible by the work of the rest of the nation, if everybody would get the same treatment as the military the country would go bankrupt... Oh wait it's already going bankrupt with not everybody getting the same privileges.
The North Korean army is also well-fed and well taken care for... at the expense of the rest of North Korea.
Seems some Americans have this negative knee jerk reaction to all things socialist, so after reading many posts on many forums about disgruntled Americans and Americas socialist policies i started to think of a country i could suggest that these anti socialists could move to so they could lead happy,productive and stress free lives with out these supposed evil socialist programs that seem to be thwarting their every effort at a carefree life
Looks to me like America is as good as it gets and some socialist policies are just an inevitable part of living in the collective called a country/society
I forget who Jon Stewart was talking to, but it was someone claiming government can't provide good health care while also claiming that the military have amongst the best (government-run) health care in the world. He finally had to concede when Stewart boxed him into that corner.
I'm, personally, happy to give military folks whatever they need and want for the work they voluntarily do, but they are taken care of quite well - housing and everything while still receiving a normal paycheck. Lots of spending money.
I wander if the military is SO good and socialized why are liberal so much against it!!! I don't see too many liberals taking advantage of the military's great socialized programs.I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT!!
Seems some Americans have this negative knee jerk reaction to all things socialist, so after reading many posts on many forums about disgruntled Americans and Americas socialist policies i started to think of a country i could suggest that these anti socialists could move to so they could lead happy,productive and stress free lives with out these supposed evil socialist programs that seem to be thwarting their every effort at a carefree life
Looks to me like America is as good as it gets and some socialist policies are just an inevitable part of living in the collective called a country/society
There have been a few threads lately asking where in todays world is there a right wing utopia. The only places still around today are somalia and other middle eastern countries. They are the epitome of the no taxes, next to no government, very religious anti-socialism they crave.
You mistakenly posted the same definition of a democracy and a republic. The first is, as you say, direct participation. The second is participation through representative.
It's not just the size of our population / states that makes us representative. The U.S. founders were very wary of direct participation by the masses and very purposely set up a representative system, most specifically a federal constitutional republic. Modern lingo has clouded this distinction, with "democracy" coming to mean in a coloquial sense any government that represents the will of its people.
But, in the end, the framers were very clear that they were setting up a republic (has nothing to do with modern Republicanism), not a democracy. Thus, we pledge allegiance to the republic.
It wasn't a mistake, republic is the roman term for what we'd call 'direct democracy' and democracy is the Greek term. The terms have identical meaning, but it is an early form of 'political spin' to use the term republic. Odd that it seems now democracy had a bad name, so they wanted to avoid it.
I don't know much about 'coloquil' usage, but in political science America is considered a democracy. I'd suggest that you see Dahl, Robert for a good explanation of what a democracy is. He's the big man in democracy theory, if there is such a thing!
In which case you do live in a democracy - as much as one might suffix it with 'representative' or 'liberal'.
Wow, more ignorance on parade. Is it Thanksgiving Day?
We live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. Democracy is where people vote directly on legislation. We have Representatives do it. Sheesh, and I don't mean Kabobs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
