• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

University Tells Student to Remove Cross Necklace

Grant said:
Do you think he is an advocate of the free market? Or is he the first post-American president?
Click to expand...

As much as any president. Our market has almost never been a free market. It's also never been socialism. Still isn't.
 
Boo Radley said:
As much as any president. Our market has almost never been a free market. It's also never been socialism. Still isn't.
Click to expand...

Rather, it has always been a bit of both.
 
Deuce said:
Rather, it has always been a bit of both.
Click to expand...

But Boo believes that Barrack Obama, that famed Venture Capitalist with the tax payer dollars, is not a Socialist. Maybe we need other more definite definitions of what socialism really is.
 
Deuce said:
Rather, it has always been a bit of both.
Click to expand...

Sort, of, yes. Regulated, with rules. The completely free market has as much trouble as the completely controlled market. Different issues, but problematic s sues all the same.
 
Grant said:
But Boo believes that Barrack Obama, that famed Venture Capitalist with the tax payer dollars, is not a Socialist. Maybe we need other more definite definitions of what socialism really is.
Click to expand...

He's not. Again, that word has a real definition.
 
Grant said:
Do you think he is an advocate of the free market? Or is he the first post-American president?
Click to expand...

No, I think he is a little bit to the left of most presidents but he comes no where near the level of socialism. And there will not be any post US any time soon. The world has a lot to learn about peace and prosperity for there to be a post-any country.
 
Our sensibilities are so exquisitely sensitive days (and the worry about litigation, frivolous or not, so real) that some individuals who are lacking in common sense are going to overreact. So long as it's not an affront to public decency or seditious in some way, I'm for "live and let live."
 
Peter King said:
No, I think he is a little bit to the left of most presidents but he comes no where near the level of socialism. And there will not be any post US any time soon. The world has a lot to learn about peace and prosperity for there to be a post-any country.
Click to expand...

Well it seems that there is a dictionary definition, as supplied by Boo, and then a mix, as defined by others. It would seem that Obama is at least part Socialist, a term Boo appears to deny. There also appears to be a stigma attached to Socialism because its seems to be made in Obama's defense that he is not a socialist.

Which leads to the questions as to whether 'stealth socialism' really does exist and as a nation is undergoing greater and greater socialism it can only be completed, ii it ever can be completed, if the process is always being denied.
 
Grant said:
Well it seems that there is a dictionary definition, as supplied by Boo, and then a mix, as defined by others. It would seem that Obama is at least part Socialist, a term Boo appears to deny. There also appears to be a stigma attached to Socialism because its seems to be made in Obama's defense that he is not a socialist.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I wonder where that stigma came from? :lol:

Grant said:
Which leads to the questions as to whether 'stealth socialism' really does exist and as a nation is undergoing greater and greater socialism it can only be completed, ii it ever can be completed, if the process is always being denied.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that if you were ever asked to debate a policy rather than attack general terms and phrases you like to banty about, the conversation wouldn't go very far.
 
poweRob said:
Yeah... I wonder where that stigma came from? :lol:
Click to expand...

Probably from those people who lived under socialist systems.

I get the feeling that if you were ever asked to debate a policy rather than attack general terms and phrases you like to banty about, the conversation wouldn't go very far.
Click to expand...
Actually socialism is a policy, is it not? Yet it seems there is some dispute about what the term actually means.

I'll drop a name here. Plato established the idea that when we engage in debate it is most important to initially define your terms in a precise manner. This is what I'm attempting to do, this being a debate board. If you don't agree then I'd be interested in your reasoning.
 
Grant said:
Did you notice that the phrase was part of a question?

I know you don't follow politics too closely but I did not invent the term 'stealth socialism'.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's previous paranoia. I can't rove something nor match it to what the word really means, so I invent something to disguise lack of actual proof.
 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, it's previous paranoia. I can't rove something nor match it to what the word really means, so I invent something to disguise lack of actual proof.
Click to expand...

If you read the posts you'll see varying definitions, demonstrating that the term can mean different things to different people.

Does this shock you?
 
Grant said:
If you read the posts you'll see varying definitions, demonstrating that the term can mean different things to different people.

Does this shock you?
Click to expand...

Does it shock me that people want to corrupt the meaning of a word to fit their agenda? No. But the still has a real and specific meaning, if it is so malleable that we can all have our own meaning for the word, the word then becomes meaningless, and no one should use it any more. But, this word has a clearly defined meaning. Any one using any other way is just plain wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Does it shock me that people want to corrupt the meaning of a word to fit their agenda? No. But the still has a real and specific meaning, if it is so malleable that we can all have our own meaning for the word, the word then becomes meaningless, and no one should use it any more. But, this word has a clearly defined meaning. Any one using any other way is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Did the USSR corrupt the meaning of the S word or did they get it right? What about the Nazis? Right or wrong? Castro?

Are you putting Websters definition ahead of all the others? It seems that Websters, at least in the part you quoted, came up short.
 
Grant said:
Did the USSR corrupt the meaning of the S word or did they get it right? What about the Nazis? Right or wrong? Castro?

Are you putting Websters definition ahead of all the others? It seems that Websters, at least in the part you quoted, came up short.
Click to expand...

They all took different forms of government that had exact definitions. Calling it socialism didn't make it socialism. You list here communism and fascism. They too have well defined characteristics. We could call them democracy, but that that wouldn't make them a democracy.
 
Boo Radley said:
They all took different forms of government that had exact definitions. Calling it socialism didn't make it socialism. You list here communism and fascism. They too have well defined characteristics. We could call them democracy, but that that wouldn't make them a democracy.
Click to expand...

You call it Communism and Fascism, they called it Socialism. So who am I to believe? I guess its a question of who has the most credibility.

But the point which should be obvious is that there are varying definitions of the word 'socialism'. When Castro shouted "Socialism or Death" he probably wasn't referring to your Websters definition.
 
Grant said:
You call it Communism and Fascism, they called it Socialism. So who am I to believe? I guess its a question of who has the most credibility.

But the point which should be obvious is that there are varying definitions of the word 'socialism'. When Castro shouted "Socialism or Death" he probably wasn't referring to your Websters definition.
Click to expand...

No, there really isn't. You mistake pro grandma for definition. And you all for the same tricks used by those who called fascism socialism. You can't accepted the propagandist at face value. One has to be able to see the difference. Otherwise, one simple becomes one if the sheep.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, there really isn't. You mistake pro grandma for definition. And you all for the same tricks used by those who called fascism socialism. You can't accepted the propagandist at face value. One has to be able to see the difference. Otherwise, one simple becomes one if the sheep.
Click to expand...

So its not possible that Hitler, Lenin, Castro or Mussolini had a different definition of Socialism than you?
 
Grant said:
So its not possible that Hitler, Lenin, Castro or Mussolini had a different definition of Socialism than you?
Click to expand...

Nope. Again, if a word is that malleable, it has no meaning.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nope. Again, if a word is that malleable, it has no meaning.
Click to expand...

Exactly! This is why it has to be determined what the word socialism means to different people so that we can better understand their point of view. Websters is useless in cases like this, as are many other political terms.
 
Grant said:
Exactly! This is why it has to be determined what the word socialism means to different people so that we can better understand their point of view. Websters is useless in cases like this, as are many other political terms.
Click to expand...

So, the word has no meaning? I'm sorry, but that makes even discussing it useless. If I can say democracy means fascism, Christianity is killing animals and smearing myself with blood and yelling praise Satan, and love means beating he hell out of the person and degrading them at every turn. In you're world, there is no meaning.

Nope, that's just stupid. You can call a turd a good bar, but it's still a turd.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, the word has no meaning?
Click to expand...

Look through my posts again and read your response. You said if the word is that malleable it has no meaning. Correct? And the word, as demonstrated, is malleable, I gave you several examples of why, in fact. Did you not see them? Do you not see that the word Socialism is malleable? Or do you believe that Castro el al had the same meaning in mind?

You're obviously full of good bars.
 
WTF does any of this socialism crap have to do with the argument? Obama could be a radical anarchist and it doesn't make any difference because he did not make the policy nor enforce it. Socialism has nothing to do with any of this as it is an economic system which does not determine anything about the religious beliefs or non-beliefs of it's people. Talk about your derailments. If you want to argue the meaning of socialism go argue it in a thread that deals with it. Don't bring it into unrelated issues because you cannot deal with the actual topic and want to distract from the real issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom