[tomder55]

I thought you could recognize obvious sarcasm . guess not . Why is All Out Crazy practicing capitalism when she is a self described democratic socialist ? Seems to me that she is the one confused..... or a hypocrite. I'm guessing it is the later

[jlisenbe]

58 bucks for a sweatshirt she buys for probably fifteen dollars. Capitalism to be sure. Exploitation as well?

[Athos]

I thought you could recognize obvious sarcasm . guess not . Why is All Out Crazy practicing capitalism when she is a self described democratic socialist ? Seems to me that she is the one confused..... or a hypocrite. I'm guessing it is the later

Sorry, tomder - lame excuse. You flubbed it.

If you would spend a little effort on research as you do for your pet projects, you would discover "democratic socialism" is not the socialism you think of. Your AOC post is such an instructive comment in how you confuse socialism with excessive capitalism. It couldn't be any clearer.

It's a bit like calling the Nazis socialists because the word Socialism was in their name. Nobody was further from socialism than Hitler's gang. But this revisionism works for the far right since truth is not their forte. Any nonsense or bizarre conspiracy theory will do as long as it serves their purpose.

[tomder55]

the title national socialists was not a mistake . Hitler leaned heavily on Marxist thought . In Mein Kampf he wrote that the only thing that differentiated Nazi and Communists was race . Without race ,National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". The distinction was that Marxism was international while National Socialism had strong grounding in the state. He told Otto Wagener his compadre that the socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, His task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", The individualist being the entrepreneurial class .

They would not be killed because the Nazis could use them . He did not set up the state as the ownership of the economy . He would use the capitalists for his own purposes .The state would control them. The economy would be centrally controlled but not owned by the state .

[talaniman]

So part of the labelling is a reference to the dictator/leader that applies it. A marketing ploy to brand the individual and rally the troops. SPIN to push an agenda.

[paraclete]

Of course, propaganda is powerful as you witnessed for the last four years, this time it took a different form but Trump relied heavily on propaganda. Socialism has a bad name in some places because of the communist excesses but there is nothing wrong with a social consensus despite what JL says

58 bucks for a sweatshirt she buys for probably fifteen dollars. Capitalism to be sure. Exploitation as well?

No, enterpreneurship but very much out of character. Fashion always has a high markup

[talaniman]

Sort of like the dufus charity, the dufus university, and the dufus ties.

[paraclete]

or dufus hats

[jlisenbe]

Socialism has a bad name in some places because of the communist excesses but there is nothing wrong with a social consensus

You do understand that socialism is not the same as a social consensus? And to make it clear yet again, I am opposed to mandatory, government enforced charities where money is taken from one American and given to another, and most especially when it is voted in by people who only pretend to care for the poor until, of course, it comes time for THEIR taxes to be raised, at which time it becomes apparent that they really don't care very much. Love based on someone else's money is not love. It's tyranny.

[Athos]

the title national socialists was not a mistake . Hitler leaned heavily on Marxist thought . In Mein Kampf he wrote that the only thing that differentiated Nazi and Communists was race . Without race ,National Socialism "would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on its own ground". The distinction was that Marxism was international while National Socialism had strong grounding in the state. He told Otto Wagener his compadre that the socialism of the future would lie in "the community of the volk", not in internationalism, His task was to "convert the German volk to socialism without simply killing off the old individualists", The individualist being the entrepreneurial class .

They would not be killed because the Nazis could use them . He did not set up the state as the ownership of the economy . He would use the capitalists for his own purposes .The state would control them. The economy would be centrally controlled but not owned by the state .

Tomder, this is so ridiculous, it's impossible to know where to start. By the time the party name was gaining adherents, it stayed with "socialist" in its name. But Hitler hated socialists and communists. Hitler's ideology, which was very confused, was based on nothing but race. Socialism is based on class. The two couldn't be further apart.

For oddball reasons, the modern-day right has seized on the NAZI name to claim Hitler was a socialist. I can expect that of illiterates, but not you, tom. The name of the party preceded Hitler by several years. You really should know better.

[paraclete]

You do understand that socialism is not the same as a social consensus? And to make it clear yet again, I am opposed to mandatory, government enforced charities where money is taken from one American and given to another, and most especially when it is voted in by people who only pretend to care for the poor until, of course, it comes time for THEIR taxes to be raised, at which time it becomes apparent that they really don't care very much. Love based on someone else's money is not love. It's tyranny.

You really must curb your wish to correct everyone you cannot have socialism without a social consensus. Yes you do live in a tyranny, a tyranny of taxation and for 250 years you have railed against taxation whatever the reason it is imposed. It is the spirit of your nation to be so opposed. Taxation is what fuels the economy and transfers wealth and the charity you so vermently oppose serves a common good. If people were left without means there would be anarchy

[jlisenbe]

Taxation is what fuels the economy and transfers wealth and the charity you so vermently oppose serves a common good.

It is hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than, "Taxation is what fuels the economy." If that was true, then the Obama economy would have been dynamic. It was far from it. Reagan and Trump both spurred substantial economic growth by CUTTING taxes and allowing the private sector to lead the way.

As to wealth transfer, armed robberies serve the same purpose, and they are about as voluntary as taxation as well. I assume you do not favor those. Wealth transfer is just legalized theft. You take money from a person who earned it legally and honestly, and then give it to a person who had three babies out of wedlock. It's insanity. The best wealth transfer occurs when someone gets a job or two, works hard and smart, and accumulates his/her own wealth. It's what my parents did. They came out of the depths of the Great Depression, did things right, didn't expect the government to give them a "wealth transfer", and finished up with some economic success.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well, but I object to you bragging about how you support a corrupt government (which is all of them) taking money from other people to give to the poor. That's the difference between us. I view charity as a private obligation on me to help the poor. You seem to view charity as an obligation of government to take money from others to help the poor and thus spare you the bother. I think that's unfortunate.

[paraclete]

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well

what would you like a march past or a medal. What I say to you buddy, is up your nose with a rubber hose, you know nothing about me and have no right to make assumptions

[jlisenbe]

up your nose with a rubber hose, you know nothing about me and have no right to make assumptions

Nah. Comments like those tell me a great deal about you. But besides that, there is just a fundamental difference between us. You want to force others to take care of the poor, and I know that's true because you have said so. It is not an assumption. I consider charity to be an obligation on me, you, and everyone else.

[talaniman]

It is hard to imagine a more nonsensical statement than, "Taxation is what fuels the economy." If that was true, then the Obama economy would have been dynamic. It was far from it. Reagan and Trump both spurred substantial economic growth by CUTTING taxes and allowing the private sector to lead the way.

As to wealth transfer, armed robberies serve the same purpose, and they are about as voluntary as taxation as well. I assume you do not favor those. Wealth transfer is just legalized theft. You take money from a person who earned it legally and honestly, and then give it to a person who had three babies out of wedlock. It's insanity. The best wealth transfer occurs when someone gets a job or two, works hard and smart, and accumulates his/her own wealth. It's what my parents did. They came out of the depths of the Great Depression, did things right, didn't expect the government to give them a "wealth transfer", and finished up with some economic success.

As to charity, I guess unlike you I participate a great deal in charity and encourage others to do so as well, but I object to you bragging about how you support a corrupt government (which is all of them) taking money from other people to give to the poor. That's the difference between us. I view charity as a private obligation on me to help the poor. You seem to view charity as an obligation of government to take money from others to help the poor and thus spare you the bother. I think that's unfortunate.

Your masterplan probably works well for you in your rural small town setting, but may need some tweaking and adjustments to accommodate the huge sprawling big city settings of urban centers with greater populations that a more industrialized, and diverse population, and working on the clock of continuous operations.

I don't decry your experience or circumstance at all, nor the choices you make/made, but would hope you could do the same. It's unfortunate if you cannot.

[jlisenbe]

I don't decry your experience or circumstance at all, nor the choices you make/made, but would hope you could do the same. It's unfortunate if you cannot.

Not real sure what you're talking about.

[talaniman]

Have you figured it out yet?

[paraclete]

Nah. Comments like those tell me a great deal about you. But besides that, there is just a fundamental difference between us. You want to force others to take care of the poor, and I know that's true because you have said so. It is not an assumption. I consider charity to be an obligation on me, you, and everyone else.

There you go making assumptions again. I have never said that anyone should be under compulsion to look after the poor or anyone else for that matter. You cannot have the common good without the ability to contribute and politicians are elected to implement policies. Also you cannot say charity is an obligations and then lament the practicalities that public charity is insufficient. I was not impressed when my government implemented the form of health care we have but many decades later I see the practicality of it. I was not impressed when my government implemented the bottomless pit of the NDIS but I do see the practicality of it. I am not impressed when I see the money my government spends on the support of immigrants but otherwise they would starve waiting for charity and that also goes for the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployable, the indigenous, the sick, the aged. What I'm saying is it is practical to address these issues at government level because the individual is overwhelmed by the size of the problem

[jlisenbe]

As I said, I didn't make an assumption. Here you are. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...28#post3861628

It is, to me, an issue of liberty. It is also an issue of not giving support to men and women who are sound of mind and body. They need to get off their duffs and support themselves, and we do them no favors by enabling something other than self dependence.

[Athos]

I am not impressed when I see the money my government spends on the support of immigrants but otherwise they would starve waiting for charity and that also goes for the unemployed, the destitute, the homeless, the unemployable, the indigenous, the sick, the aged. What I'm saying is it is practical to address these issues at government level because the individual is overwhelmed by the size of the problem

Private charity is a feint by those who want to pay less in taxes. They know charity is not nearly enough. All the suffering and sickness described above is secondary to the love of money, their true motivation and shamelessly promoted on these pages.