• 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!

Rep. Allen West Says Up To 81 House Members Are Communists

If anyone here is seeing in extremes it is the people that won't admit that a mixed economy is a socialist idea. You won't accept anything as socialism but the classical use of the word which is NOT the only form of socialism that exists.

And you either don't understand a mixed economy or you don't understand the founders as there is no way they qualify.

Why do you never actually address anything any one wrote? Mixed economy is something every one in congress supports, all the way back through our history. There may have been a handful of people over the course of our history who have been in congress and favored a complete laissez-faire economies, but it is exceedingly rare. Furthermore, a mixed economy is not socialism.

The fact that you do not understand a mixed economy, socialism or this countries history and founding fathers is your own problem.
 
Warning! Kook alert! Kook alert! Remain calm. This person's perspective is a bit warped, in this case.


Yeah. We are getting to the cliff hanger near the end of this episode in our history. Will Little Nell be saved?

Despite the ad homs, you have not refuted anything. Considering you think every one is a socialist who is to the left of you, the problem might be your warped perspective.
 
Why do you never actually address anything any one wrote? Mixed economy is something every one in congress supports, all the way back through our history. There may have been a handful of people over the course of our history who have been in congress and favored a complete laissez-faire economies, but it is exceedingly rare. Furthermore, a mixed economy is not socialism.

The fact that you do not understand a mixed economy, socialism or this countries history and founding fathers is your own problem.

So you deny that a mixed economy is putting socialist ideas in a capitalist society so that resources and services are more available to all? So you deny they are for sharing resources and you ignore many of them are for naturalizing industries such as healthcare, education, and housing?

And like I said the founders were not for a mixed economy . If you think they were, show some evidence. I see nothing here.
 
Last edited:
If anyone here is seeing in extremes it is the people that won't admit that a mixed economy is a socialist idea. You won't accept anything as socialism but the classical use of the word which is NOT the only form of socialism that exists.

And you either don't understand a mixed economy or you don't understand the founders as there is no way they qualify.

This is just a silly semantic game. If all mixed economies are socialist, then nearly all world economies are or have been socialist, therefore socialism can't be the evil scourge littering the earth with bodies that you claim. You can't have it all ways. You can't have an extremely liberal definition of "socialism" and still retain the connotation of political extremism -- at least not for long.
 
This is just a silly semantic game. If all mixed economies are socialist, then nearly all world economies are or have been socialist, therefore socialism can't be the evil scourge littering the earth with bodies that you claim. You can't have it all ways. You can't have an extremely liberal definition of "socialism" and still retain the connotation of political extremism -- at least not for long.

A mixed economy is not completely socialist or capitalist. The idea is to strengthen the weaknesses of the capitalists system that some people believe is there.

And where did I say it leaves bodies littering the earth?
 
Last edited:
A mixed economy is not completely socialist or capitalist. The idea is to strengthen the weaknesses of the capitalists system that some people believe is there.

And where did I say it leaves bodies littering the earth?

Mixed economies aren't evil.
 
Mixed economies aren't evil.

They fail and they rob liberty and rights of individuals for personal benefits.

I again didn't say anything about it being evil.
 
Last edited:
They fail and they rob liberty and rights of individuals for personal benefits.

I again didn't say anything about it being evil.

People do that, Henrin. Capitalists and communists can both kick you in the head. In practice, mixed economies are the best economies -- the only practical economies, and the only economies that don't depend on an idealistic and naive view of human nature.
 
People do that, Henrin. Capitalists and communists can both kick you in the head.

Law is to protect you from people kicking you in the head. In fact, that is the entire point behind it. Capitalism has nothing to do with it.

In practice, mixed economies are the best economies -- the only practical economies, and the only economies that don't depend on an idealistic and naive view of human nature.

In theory they are the best economies according to you. In practice, they depend on making things rights that rob liberty and violate the rights of people. In time the pressures it creates breaks the country and causes growing wealth disparity.
 
Last edited:
Despite the ad homs, you have not refuted anything. Considering you think every one is a socialist who is to the left of you, the problem might be your warped perspective.
Not everyone is a socialist but nearly all on the left flirt with socialism. Do the exercise yourself. Look at the points the progressives in congress put on the website link you provided. The go look for the corresponding point on the socialists site you provided me. The goals are the same. There are differences in stridency and transparency. The Progressives pretty up their anti-capitalist, anti- free market, pro-massive government agenda a bit better that the socialists.

My perspective is just fine. You say you are very liberal and I believe you. I suspect that makes you my enemy in the areas of liberty and freedom. I am not impressed that you do not plan to take everything from me today. You will take as much as you can. Then a bit more tomorrow. But only if those of us who prefer liberty to the light chains of slavery you offer, refuse you, defeat you and send you packing.
 
Law is to protect you from people kicking you in the head. In fact, that is the entire point behind it. Capitalism has nothing to do with it.



In theory they are the best economies according to you. In practice, they depend on making things rights that rob liberty and violate the rights of people. In time the pressures it creates breaks the country and causes growing wealth disparity.

Not much point in continuing this discussion. Pure capitalism does not and cannot exist in the real world, nor is it free of abuses in practice.
 
Not much point in continuing this discussion. Pure capitalism does not and cannot exist in the real world, nor is it free of abuses in practice.

Anarcho-capitalism? Is that what you talking about? Anyone that doesn't notice that you need a police and military are idiots. They are not part of a mixed economy either. If you look at my profile you will see I'm not an Anarcho-capitalist.

And what system is free from abusers? My point is that your system is built on abuse, not that it just happens.
 
Last edited:
Alan west spouted that his town hall meeting after he was asked that jokingly by someone in the audience..and he answered it seriously.
Hes going to have a hard campaign the fla teaparty has issues with him...so hes trying to woo them back with far right wackiness...
 
I wasn't making any argument for or against capitalism, just asking a question of those who have a simplistic, inaccurate fantasy built around some fairy tale they read at Free Republic or heard on a talk show, that's all. If you can't explain your own ideology, that's fine, it doesn't bother me.

I like a good commie thread.....

The essence of capitalism is not just making mo' money. It is the freedom to do what you want, and to succeed or fail at what you want to do as the result of your skills, work, filling a need, etc.

It is a choice by the individual. To do what he or she wants. Not as directed by the State. Further more, while politics certainly plays its part, advancement is largely determined by merit. Unlike Socialism, where there is no advancement.
 
Not much point in continuing this discussion. Pure capitalism does not and cannot exist in the real world, nor is it free of abuses in practice.

Btw, when I told you that Marx only deals with redirect tactics and make it point to say that many of the people that believe in his ideas practice it I would avoid using redirect tactics in the exact same thread if I were you. Doing so just proves my point.
 
Anarcho-capitalism? Is that what you talking about? Anyone that doesn't notice that you need a police and military are idiots. They are not part of a mixed economy either. If you look at my profile you will see I'm not an Anarcho-capitalist.

And what system is free from abusers? My point is that your system is built on abuse, not that it just happens.

Why don't police and military count? Why is forced taxation and social planning acceptable only for areas you define but not others? You'll probably cite the constitution, but I have decades of legal precedent to stand up to any argument based on strict constructionism.

On the one hand, you're proposing a mixed economy (by your definition, a community police force is certainly a socialist organization) but arguing that mixed economies are based on abuse. But that's a point that's almost not worth making, because your ideas are anathema to most Americans, so they will continue to safely exist only in your mind.
 
Btw, when I told you that Marx only deals with redirect tactics and make it point to say that many of the people that believe in his ideas practice it I would avoid using redirect tactics in the exact same thread if I were you. Doing so just proves my point.

Yes, that post clearly aligns me with Karl Marx and Pol Pot and the Chairman Mao.
 
Why don't police and military count? Why is forced taxation and social planning acceptable only for areas you define but not others? You'll probably cite the constitution, but I have decades of legal precedent to stand up to any argument based on strict constructionism.

On the one hand, you're proposing a mixed economy (by your definition, a community police force is certainly a socialist organization) but arguing that mixed economies are based on abuse. But that's a point that's almost not worth making, because your ideas are anathema to most Americans, so they will continue to safely exist only in your mind.
You seem like a smart guy. Why are you placing yourself on the wrong side of history? Why do you put yourself on the side that leads to unnecessary poverty, misery, torture, murder and totalitarianism? Are you unfamiliar with the fruits of socialism as it has been frequently been practiced? Are you such a foe of that which is called capitalism although it just means that you get to decide for you while I decide for me?

I do not understand why the smart ones go awry. The dullards will do as they will.
 
Not much point in continuing this discussion. Pure capitalism does not and cannot exist in the real world, nor is it free of abuses in practice.

Define pure capitalism.
 
I like a good commie thread.....

The essence of capitalism is not just making mo' money. It is the freedom to do what you want, and to succeed or fail at what you want to do as the result of your skills, work, filling a need, etc.

It is a choice by the individual. To do what he or she wants. Not as directed by the State. Further more, while politics certainly plays its part, advancement is largely determined by merit. Unlike Socialism, where there is no advancement.

And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.
 
You seem like a smart guy. Why are you placing yourself on the wrong side of history? Why do you put yourself on the side that leads to unnecessary poverty, misery, torture, murder and totalitarianism? Are you unfamiliar with the fruits of socialism as it has been frequently been practiced? Are you such a foe of that which is called capitalism although it just means that you get to decide for you while I decide for me?

I do not understand why the smart ones go awry. The dullards will do as they will.

I believe in capitalism, actually. But I believe that capitalism should serve humanity, not the other way around.
 
And this is where the misunderstanding arises. You see, modern, mainstream liberalism agrees with you. Most liberals favor equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Really? So y'all have changed your stripes? No more takin' from me to give to someone else as you-know-who wrote ("From each...to each...)? Really. Naw. Your just funnin' me.

But we also understand that fostering such opportunity requires political will and that sometimes in the real world cooperation works better than competition.
Yeah. Here is the rub. This is a bit like the use of the word "but" in a sentence. Just disregard anything that comes before it. "I ma for equal opportunity not equal outcomes but I am going to use all the instruments of governmental power to force you to give me that equal opportunity. And I get to define what that means!"

Gotcha.
 
I believe in capitalism, actually. But I believe that capitalism should serve humanity, not the other way around.

I think Capitalism inherently does serve humanity.
 
I believe in capitalism, actually. But I believe that capitalism should serve humanity, not the other way around.
Hmmm. Quandary. If capitalism is a code word for me choosing what is in my best interest and you choosing what is in your best interest than how can anything else be part of that equation? Unless you mean, as I suspect that you do, that you will decide if there is just way too much free-decidin' goin' on out theah! You can fix that by taking away a portion of my ability to choose for me. You will choose on my behalf. That is what you really mean, isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom