Today’s new term for “socialism” is “social justice (health care, Clinton)
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.
Social justice is about equal opportunity, not everyone having equal stuff. A system that opposes social justice would be feudalism. Do you want to go back to the days of barons, lords, vassals, and whatnot?
Any kind of social engineering by government (such as requiring banks to make loans to people with no ability to pay them back) will lead to trouble, and is not good policy. Government cannot guarantee "equal opportunity" any more than it can guarantee "equal outcome." Opportunity is largely created by the individual through individual effort.
The concept of government created "equal opportunity" leads to other forms of discrimination that are just as bad as racial discrimination. As an example are laws that force a business to hire someone less qualified for a position than someone more qualified, because they are required to maintain a "racial balance" in their business, based on local demographics. Meanwhile, that business's competitor may end up with the more qualified person because the competitor was within the targeted balance ratio. None of this kind of government interference is fair, nor has it any place in a free republic.
I have no reason to believe that you're even slightly confused about my comment, especially since the OP put specific words in quotation marks in the thread title. Given that, it would be pretty stupid to placate your feigned interest and pander to your echo-chamber. Let someone whose partisan political perspectives aren't so ridiculously obvious from their previous postings ask clarifying questions, if they are confused, instead of engaging in childish games to try to waste my time and attention.
Social justice is about equal opportunity, not everyone having equal stuff.
If that is so, can you explain why de Blasio and Obama took charter schools and a school voucher program away from students who didn't have an equal opportunity to go to good schools?
Our government is comprised of elected officials. Barons and lords were not elected.
Nice try.
As was Obama who is behaving as he was elected TWICE to by the majority of the nation so what's the big deal here with the losers whining at every turn.
Field a better candidate and you'll have your turn to undo the damage you suggest he's done all by himself.
Supposing you find a better candidate (none I've seen would be fit to run a kindergarten much less a country), and supposing you actually get one of those nuts elected, my bet would be that not only would they NOT dismantle anything done by Obama but they would take it two steps further, as has been the general practice over decades of experience.
You folks have been shouting the very same insults across the playground for a hundred years or more to no avail. When are you going to learn it's your fubar'ed system of paid lobbyists, billionaire political contributors and PAC's that have gotten you where you are today. It should be obvious to even the most retarded as to why you have devolved to only a two party system in reality.
Your leader is 'bought and paid for' before he even sits in the big chair and it matters little what color his socks are, red or blue. ~ THATS the problem with your sham of a democracy. Fix that and get it correct and you'll revert to what your forefathers had actually envisioned for a Democratic Republic.
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.