• 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!

14 Year Old Facing Murder Charges after Confessing to Killing 5 Relatives

What you described (above) as "nationalism" is, in reality, patriotism, a form of patriotism.
A patriot is the one who "believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet."

And the less willing that the person is to 'take up arms' and oppose the actions of their own government when those actions are contrary to what the children in civilized nations are taught civilized nations support, the more they are pushed towards the "nationalist" end of the spectrum rather than the "patriot" end of the spectrum.

Nationalists never admit to any imperfections, AND...(and this is key to the definition) they believe that not only are there never any imperfections, but also that other countries and their people are vastly inferior, and unacceptable.

Yep.

That's not the same as thinking your country is the best, because one can think their country is the best while still having respect for other countries. Nationalism does not allow for such an idea, because nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

Indeed, the "real true nationalist" would have absolutely no difficulty in seeing their own nation - which they say stands for freedom, respect for human rights, respect for human dignity, equality of all people regardless of race, colour, creed, or any other criterion - invading another nation and reducing the population of that nation to slaves who have absolutely no rights whatsoever on the basis of "My country - right or wrong!".

You described healthy patriotism, which is perfectly just and honorable.

With minor quibbles, I agree. Unfortunately it appears that the amount of "healthy patriotism" in the US is declining and it is being replaced with Jingoism.
 
Oh but there is an orwellian plan.
Just read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism" and you'll have the needed epiphany on that.
Trust me, there's no way you can come away from reading that book without coming to the conclusion that the Right is purposely destroying and manipulating the meaning of words in a way which is eerily reminiscent of NewSpeak and Doublethink.

Indeed, this is what "The American Conservative" had to say about the book

"Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reductio ad absurdum. ... In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. ... In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. ... Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. ... Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism ... Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. ... Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue."
[SOURCE]​

and this is what Curtis Yarvin had to say about the book

"One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't."
[SOURCE]​

You might also want to read Charles P Pierce's "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free" - Anchor; 1 edition (May 4 2010) [ISBN-10: 0767926153 / ISBN-13: 978-0767926157] for a slightly fuller analysis of Mr. Goldberg's "brilliant" analysis.
 
Huh? Have to assume these are urban areas. I presume the same might be true in other societies, or in our own in years gone by. But your point is that more defense spending would prevent the violence in those counties?

no.... getting rid of the war on drugs would be a better start
 
How do nuclear weapons or aircraft carriers prevent me from being shot by a robber who has easy access to guns?

They don't.

However what they do do is prevent the godless, left-wing, socialist, liberal, pinko, commie hordes from Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, the Austrian Empire, Azerbaijan, Baden, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Bavaria, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin (Dahomey), Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Brunswick and Lüneburg, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso (Upper Volta), Burma, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Central American Federation, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, East Germany (German Democratic Republic), Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Federal Government of Germany (1848-49), Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Hanover, Hanseatic Republics, Hawaii, Hesse, Holy See, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kingdom of Serbia/Yugoslavia, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lew Chew (Loochoo), Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nassau, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North German Confederation, North German Union, Norway, Oldenburg, Oman, Orange Free State, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papal States, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Piedmont-Sardinia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Genoa, Republic of Korea (South Korea), Republic of the Congo, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Schaumburg-Lippe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Texas, Thailand, The Bahamas, The Cayman Islands, The Congo Free State, The Duchy of Parma, The Gambia, The Grand Duchy of Tuscany, The Netherlands, The Solomon Islands, The United Arab Emirates, The United Kingdom, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Two Sicilies, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe invading the United States of America and enslaving all Americans as a part of their godless, socialist, commie, plot to rule the universe, fluoridate the water, inject diseases into all the children, and use Sherry Law to force all the cheerleaders to wear Burke Hats while making same-sex interracial marriages compulsorary.

We spend more money on defense than the next several nations combined, yet have higher homicide rates than any of them.

Why are you complaining? Haven't you noticed that no one has actually invaded the United States of America for over 175 years? Doesn't that mean that that defence money has been well spent?

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
and if you factor out FIVE COUNTIES, all run by Democrats, we rank about 135th in the world in terms of murders

Doesn't that mean that the obvious solution is to ban "Democrats" (I don't know if making "being a 'Democrat'" a capital offence is really needed because they can always be sent off to those concentration camps that they were secretly building in the deserts and that should suffice).

PS - Would you please be so kind as to provide a link to the source of your rather startling claim?

PPS - Do you know how seriously claims along the lines of "X" absolutely proves "Y" PROVIDED that we ignore all of the contrary data." are treated by educated people?
 
Last edited:
Doesn't that mean that the obvious solution is to ban "Democrats" (I don't know if making "being a 'Democrat'" a capital offence is really needed because they can always be sent off to those concentration camps that they were secretly building in the deserts and that should suffice).

PS - Would you please be so kind as to provide a link to the source of your rather startling claim?

PPS - Do you know how seriously claims along the lines of "X" absolutely proves "Y" PROVIDED that we ignore all of the contrary data." are treated by educated people?

When stuff has been stated dozens of times here, and someone again demands someone find it for them, I normally see that as dilatory. There are some basic facts that you should know if you want to argue gun issues
 
When stuff has been stated dozens of times here, and someone again demands someone find it for them, I normally see that as dilatory.

In other words, you cannot back up your "and if you factor out FIVE COUNTIES, all run by Democrats, we rank about 135th in the world in terms of murders" but rather prefer to rely on the "If you cannot find my exact source for my statement and prove that it is a lie, then that proves that it is true." position that many like to adopt.

There are some basic facts that you should know if you want to argue gun issues

Did you know that 5% of 3,142 is 157 and IS NOT 5? I will make no further comment about what "basic facts" should be known and by whom.

PS - I do realize that the digit "5" can be found in the number "157" but that does NOT make 5 = 157 no matter what the expert who supplied you with your information says.
 
Sorry but with all due respect, YOUR definition of "nationalism" is not the generally accepted one, it is something you've crafted for your own use and it is somewhat unique.

What you described (above) as "nationalism" is, in reality, patriotism, a form of patriotism.
A patriot is the one who "believes, however imperfect our country may be, it is the best on the planet."

Nationalists never admit to any imperfections, AND...(and this is key to the definition) they believe that not only are there never any imperfections, but also that other countries and their people are vastly inferior, and unacceptable.
That's not the same as thinking your country is the best, because one can think their country is the best while still having respect for other countries. Nationalism does not allow for such an idea, because nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

It has nothing to do with racism other than the fact that, down through history, the MOST nationalistic countries seem to also have serious racial or ethnic issues, particularly where hostility toward other foreign races and cultures are concerned.
Few things incense real actual nationalists more than the very thought of "outsiders" taking up residence in their country.
Is it a negative when Democrats recognize this issue as a core part of nationalism? I don't think so, because if it is, then owning a dictionary is problematic.

So you see, I am attempting to explain to you that you might have your terms switched around somewhat.
You described healthy patriotism, which is perfectly just and honorable.

You know what..... I researched it exhaustively. I stand corrected. However well intentioned I was in my post, I was wrong, and you my friend are correct. Thankyou for pointing that out in a civil way. I will heretofore label my self a patriot. You didn't belittle or berate me while pointing out my error. I appreciate that.:peace
 
You know what..... I researched it exhaustively. I stand corrected. However well intentioned I was in my post, I was wrong, and you my friend are correct. Thankyou for pointing that out in a civil way. I will heretofore label my self a patriot. You didn't belittle or berate me while pointing out my error. I appreciate that.:peace

I don't WANT to belittle anyone, unless they're acting like a jerk.

The only reason I am even aware of the difference between patriotism and nationalism is because "nationalism" was a term my German Jewish refugee father used quite often.

"Their sense of wounded pride turned into a lethal form of exaggerated nationalism."

That was something he told me once as a kid and I never forgot it because I did not understand the word "lethal" yet.
I think I might have been six or seven years old.

"Lethal?"

"Yes my son, lethal, which means deadly. It was lethal for the Jewish people. Herr Hitler killed six million of us."

I also remember my oldest brother trying to explain nationalism to me. He said that the closest synonym was "jingoism".
Later I heard the term "hatriotism" which was a Yippie favorite and which was used to beat many dead horses, of course.

My father's great uncle Ludwig fought for the German Army in WW1, so that made the sting of "exaggerated German nationalism" even more severe.

LudwigHaas1912SM.jpg
 
I admit that

The first big problem with American education is that the children are taught that "The American Way" is the ONLY way. That means that absolutely no attention has to be paid to any potential solution to any problem if that potential solution has been tried anyplace else but the United States of America. The second big problem with American education is that the children are taught that 'myths' are, in fact, 'realities'. That means that, since the 'myths' portray America as 'perfect' (or so close thereto as to make no difference) no attention has to be paid to ACTUAL realities.​

is overstating the case, but it does sort of sum up some of the roots of the problems America currently faces.



I have no issue with teaching children what the various political doctrines are, but I do have issues with teaching them falsely.

I have a REAL issue with teaching which is "political indoctrination" in the guise of teaching what "political doctrines" are.

Teaching

The Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal.​

without coupling that with,

And what they meant by that was that everyone - UNLESS you were NOT male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy - was equal to everyone who WAS male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy was equal to everyone else who WAS ALSO male, white, educated, and reasonably wealthy AND that it was those "equal" people who had the natural right to run the country. HOWEVER, we have progressed from that point and what we mean by "All men are equal" today means something completely different than it did to the Founding Fathers.​

creates a different outcome than it does if you do couple those two together.

Oh you can rest easy my friend. The left is teaching the evil of our country, and are tearing down monuments everywhere. If you watched the democrat debate, you would love O'Rourke. He was shouting to the rooftops how racist and bigoted our country was and IS. "Mayor Pete", not to be out done, went on to say "We can't treat everybody equal and think it make everything OK", and spoke of some type of 25% quota for something or other, I'm paraphrasing. The debate stage was all about, medicare for all, free college, forgiveness of college loans, confiscation of certain types of rifles, yada yada yada. Free everything. This election will be a turning point of our great country if one of these socialists gain power.
 
I don't WANT to belittle anyone, unless they're acting like a jerk.

The only reason I am even aware of the difference between patriotism and nationalism is because "nationalism" was a term my German Jewish refugee father used quite often.

"Their sense of wounded pride turned into a lethal form of exaggerated nationalism."

That was something he told me once as a kid and I never forgot it because I did not understand the word "lethal" yet.
I think I might have been six or seven years old.

"Lethal?"

"Yes my son, lethal, which means deadly. It was lethal for the Jewish people. Herr Hitler killed six million of us."

I also remember my oldest brother trying to explain nationalism to me. He said that the closest synonym was "jingoism".
Later I heard the term "hatriotism" which was a Yippie favorite and which was used to beat many dead horses, of course.

My father's great uncle Ludwig fought for the German Army in WW1, so that made the sting of "exaggerated German nationalism" even more severe.

View attachment 67263689

And you enlightened me. That's some pretty heavy stuff. My grandfather was first generation American, and spoke very little about his home, although I guess he was pretty young. I know he loved this country a lot. I fear that the farther in the rearview the world wars, civil war and war for our independence gets, the more each generation feels our freedom is free. I know I'm in the minority, but the number 1 issue in my mind is national security.
 
Oh you can rest easy my friend. The left is teaching the evil of our country, and are tearing down monuments everywhere.

I support education regarding the WHOLE of the ACTUAL cause of whatever it is ANY monument relates to. "Tearing down monuments" is as much "educating" people as shooting dissenters or other "enemies of the state" is.

If you watched the democrat debate, you would love O'Rourke. He was shouting to the rooftops how racist and bigoted our country was and IS.

Indeed, and some on "The (American) Right" responded very (well, you pick the word here) with


which, of course, shouldn't be in the least bit confused with "racist and bigoted" - right?


"Mayor Pete", not to be out done, went on to say "We can't treat everybody equal and think it make everything OK",...

When taken in the context of "everyone, regardless of need or qualification or skill or talent has to be treated exactly the same as someone who has a need, qualification, skill, or talent that it higher" he happens to be 100% correct. People who think otherwise are about as in tune to reality as those who think that (as an [extremely silly] example) "10% of the US equestrian marksmanship team should be composed of blind paraplegics because 10% of the US population is composed of blind paraplegics.".

When taken in the context of "we simply don't have enough money to provide everything for everyone" he also happens to be 100% correct. People who think otherwise are like those who believe that 60% of the budget should be spent on education, 60% of the budget should be spent on healthcare, 60% of the budget should be spent on eliminating homelessness, 60% of the budget should be spent on environmental protection, 60% of the budget should be spend on economic expansion, 60% of the budget should be spent on crime prevention, and the remaining 40% of the budget should be spent on everything else.

...and spoke of some type of 25% quota for something or other, I'm paraphrasing.

I don't think "paraphrasing" is the term that you are looking for with regard to the statement " We're a community, we're about 25% African American, about 45% non-white.". I think that the correct term is "making it all up".

The debate stage was all about, medicare for all, free college, forgiveness of college loans, confiscation of certain types of rifles, yada yada yada. Free everything.[/quote]

Did you know that there is a difference between "free" and "no direct, personal, up front, charge".

I realize that

"medicare for all" is such an appallingly abhorrent left-wing, socialist, pinko, commie thing that no civilized nation has ever attempted to ram it down the throats of its people​

oops - that's possibly less than 1,000% true, but it is what "Claque Trump" keeps on (in essence) saying while pointing to the horrendously high infant mortality rate, the incredibly short life expectancy at birth, the disastrously short years of expected healthy life, and the incredibly huge numbers of elderly forced into bankruptcy due to their medical bills in such backward, "Third World", dictatorial and undemocratic, countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and each of the members of the EU.

This election will be a turning point of our great country if one of these socialists gain power.

Quite right. By the way, what is YOUR definition of "socialist"? Is it "Someone who is less reactionary than I am."?
 
I support education regarding the WHOLE of the ACTUAL cause of whatever it is ANY monument relates to. "Tearing down monuments" is as much "educating" people as shooting dissenters or other "enemies of the state" is.



Indeed, and some on "The (American) Right" responded very (well, you pick the word here) with


which, of course, shouldn't be in the least bit confused with "racist and bigoted" - right?




When taken in the context of "everyone, regardless of need or qualification or skill or talent has to be treated exactly the same as someone who has a need, qualification, skill, or talent that it higher" he happens to be 100% correct. People who think otherwise are about as in tune to reality as those who think that (as an [extremely silly] example) "10% of the US equestrian marksmanship team should be composed of blind paraplegics because 10% of the US population is composed of blind paraplegics.".

When taken in the context of "we simply don't have enough money to provide everything for everyone" he also happens to be 100% correct. People who think otherwise are like those who believe that 60% of the budget should be spent on education, 60% of the budget should be spent on healthcare, 60% of the budget should be spent on eliminating homelessness, 60% of the budget should be spent on environmental protection, 60% of the budget should be spend on economic expansion, 60% of the budget should be spent on crime prevention, and the remaining 40% of the budget should be spent on everything else.



I don't think "paraphrasing" is the term that you are looking for with regard to the statement " We're a community, we're about 25% African American, about 45% non-white.". I think that the correct term is "making it all up".

The debate stage was all about, medicare for all, free college, forgiveness of college loans, confiscation of certain types of rifles, yada yada yada. Free everything.

Did you know that there is a difference between "free" and "no direct, personal, up front, charge".

I realize that

"medicare for all" is such an appallingly abhorrent left-wing, socialist, pinko, commie thing that no civilized nation has ever attempted to ram it down the throats of its people​

oops - that's possibly less than 1,000% true, but it is what "Claque Trump" keeps on (in essence) saying while pointing to the horrendously high infant mortality rate, the incredibly short life expectancy at birth, the disastrously short years of expected healthy life, and the incredibly huge numbers of elderly forced into bankruptcy due to their medical bills in such backward, "Third World", dictatorial and undemocratic, countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and each of the members of the EU.



Quite right. By the way, what is YOUR definition of "socialist"? Is it "Someone who is less reactionary than I am."?[/QUOTE]

Socialist :a person who advocates or practices socialism.

What is an example of socialism?
The former Soviet Union is an example of a socialist system. Cuba is an example of a socialist nation. Its economy is state run and it lacks a stock exchange. ... The country of North Korea is a socialist state, lacking a stock exchange, supporting many social programs, and the economy is state-run.
 
You'll have to excuse me for only dealing with the part of you post that I could figure out the meaning of.

I asked

By the way, what is YOUR definition of "socialist"? Is it "Someone who is less reactionary than I am."?​

and you replied:
Socialist :a person who advocates or practices socialism.

That is what is known as a "circular definition". Another example of a "circular definition" would be "A 'Christian' is someone who advocates or practices 'Christianity'.".

You then continued with

What is an example of socialism?

The former Soviet Union is an example of a socialist system. Cuba is an example of a socialist nation. Its economy is state run and it lacks a stock exchange. ... The country of North Korea is a socialist state, lacking a stock exchange, supporting many social programs, and the economy is state-run.

You might want to consider that a better description of the former Soviet Union would be "Stalinist" rather than "Socialist" as the vast majority of "socialists" do NOT support either dictators or police states.

Cuba, forced into isolation by the actions of the government of the United States of America, is an unusual case and, because of the US government's attempts to bankrupt Cuba and force all of its people to chose between starvation or supporting a VERY "command economy" didn't really have much choice as to which way it organized its economy. BTW, I don't think that the US government's attempts to force the Cubans to give the Mafia back its member's property were particularly admirable.

There is no such country as "North Korea" (both the government of the ROK and the DPRK are 100% in agreement on that point [in fact, they are both also in agreement that "There is only ONE Korea."]). The DPRK is, quite frankly a kleptocratic oligarchy (and a dictatorial one at that).

You do know that the economy of every country (yes, even the United States of America) is "state run" to some extent, don't you? You do know that things like "tariffs", "duties", "price support", "investment incentives", and the like are merely the ways that governments that want to punish other countries who are more able then they to compete economically (because those other countries are paying "subsidies" and controlling their internal economy) disguise the fact that they are paying subsidies and controlling their own internal economy.

Of the (roughly) 190 countries in the world, do you know how many of them are "lacking a stock exchange"? Did you know that the PRC has a stock exchange? Does the fact that the PRC has a stock exchange mean that it IS NOT a "socialist" country? Does the fact that that Turkmenistan (GDP/capita ~US$9,510) does not have a stock exchange mean that it IS a "socialist" country?

Did you know that countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, the ROK, and the United States of America all are "supporting many social programs"? Does the fact that countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, the ROK, and the United States of America all are "supporting many social programs" mean that they are "socialist" countries?

So, I ask you again,

What is YOUR definition of "socialist"?​

To help you in getting started thinking about how to answer that question WITHOUT any mindless repetition of cant, slogans, labels, or false information that has been given to you to deliberately misinform you, you might want to start with "What socialism really is—and what it isn't" which will, at least, let you know that there is no monolithic

!!Sssss!Ooooo!C!Iiiii!Aaaaa!Lllll!Iiiii!Sssss!Mmmmm!!

as opposed to

**F*R*E*E*D*O*M**
**A*N*D**
**C*A*P*I*T*A*L*I*S*M**
 
You'll have to excuse me for only dealing with the part of you post that I could figure out the meaning of.

I asked

By the way, what is YOUR definition of "socialist"? Is it "Someone who is less reactionary than I am."?​

and you replied:


That is what is known as a "circular definition". Another example of a "circular definition" would be "A 'Christian' is someone who advocates or practices 'Christianity'.".

You then continued with



You might want to consider that a better description of the former Soviet Union would be "Stalinist" rather than "Socialist" as the vast majority of "socialists" do NOT support either dictators or police states.

Cuba, forced into isolation by the actions of the government of the United States of America, is an unusual case and, because of the US government's attempts to bankrupt Cuba and force all of its people to chose between starvation or supporting a VERY "command economy" didn't really have much choice as to which way it organized its economy. BTW, I don't think that the US government's attempts to force the Cubans to give the Mafia back its member's property were particularly admirable.

There is no such country as "North Korea" (both the government of the ROK and the DPRK are 100% in agreement on that point [in fact, they are both also in agreement that "There is only ONE Korea."]). The DPRK is, quite frankly a kleptocratic oligarchy (and a dictatorial one at that).

You do know that the economy of every country (yes, even the United States of America) is "state run" to some extent, don't you? You do know that things like "tariffs", "duties", "price support", "investment incentives", and the like are merely the ways that governments that want to punish other countries who are more able then they to compete economically (because those other countries are paying "subsidies" and controlling their internal economy) disguise the fact that they are paying subsidies and controlling their own internal economy.

Of the (roughly) 190 countries in the world, do you know how many of them are "lacking a stock exchange"? Did you know that the PRC has a stock exchange? Does the fact that the PRC has a stock exchange mean that it IS NOT a "socialist" country? Does the fact that that Turkmenistan (GDP/capita ~US$9,510) does not have a stock exchange mean that it IS a "socialist" country?

Did you know that countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, the ROK, and the United States of America all are "supporting many social programs"? Does the fact that countries like Canada, Mexico, Australia, the UK, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Japan, the ROK, and the United States of America all are "supporting many social programs" mean that they are "socialist" countries?

So, I ask you again,

What is YOUR definition of "socialist"?​

To help you in getting started thinking about how to answer that question WITHOUT any mindless repetition of cant, slogans, labels, or false information that has been given to you to deliberately misinform you, you might want to start with "What socialism really is—and what it isn't" which will, at least, let you know that there is no monolithic

!!Sssss!Ooooo!C!Iiiii!Aaaaa!Lllll!Iiiii!Sssss!Mmmmm!!

as opposed to

**F*R*E*E*D*O*M**
**A*N*D**
**C*A*P*I*T*A*L*I*S*M**

I'll excuse you, if you'll excuse my TBI. I try the best I can, as my thought process can be kind of disjointed leading to weird sounding posts, sorry. This forum helps as does some puzzle books the Dr. gave me with that.
Ok, back to the topic(s). I agree with the dictionary definition of socialist. The question with many definitions is "socialism". Right now, we spend roughly 900+ billion state and federal social programs, not including SS and medicare which is like a trillion. I don't feel that we need more social programs. Period. Socialism, to me, is concerned more about the collective, and capitalism is concerned more with the individual.
 
I'll excuse you, if you'll excuse my TBI. I try the best I can, as my thought process can be kind of disjointed leading to weird sounding posts, sorry.

TBI and PTSD both get "passes" as long as I remember that they are factors (which is pretty hard to do if I don't have any information that the poster has them).

This forum helps as does some puzzle books the Dr. gave me with that.

With both TBI and PTSD, communicating (which is one of the functions that both tend to mess up) practice and "mental games" both have a track record of helping. The other thing (without drugs or high priced professional help) that has a definite positive impact on recovery is a strong belief that you WILL recover.

Ok, back to the topic(s). I agree with the dictionary definition of socialist. The question with many definitions is "socialism".

The people who think that there is ONLY ONE type of "socialism" are (in my experience) the same type of people who think that there is ONLY ONE type of "democratic society" or that there is ONLY ONE way of governing a "free society". In fact they are often (in my experience) the SAME people who think that the statement "'Socialism' is THE SAME THING AS 'a dictatorial communist state with its total control over every aspect of everyone's life'." makes sense.

(W)e spend roughly 900+ billion state and federal social programs, not including SS and medicare which is like a trillion. I don't feel that we need more social programs. Period.

Which, as it is your opinion, I agree you are completely free to hold. I don't happen to agree with it (and I might even disagree with you on which of the existing "social programs" are actually needed. Of course that disagreement might be rooted in differing definitions of "social programs" since I look at ANY program that pays money to individuals/groups for ANYTHING that is not a DIRECT SUPPLY of services to the government as a "social program".

Socialism, to me, is concerned more about the collective, and capitalism is concerned more with the individual.

I can see how someone could come to that conclusion IF they thought that socialism was an economic program and capitalism was a political program. They aren't. It is quite possible to have a socialist political program in a capitalist economy and it is equally possible not to have a socialist political program in a capitalist economy. It is also quite as possible to have a socialist economic program in a kleptocracy as it is not to.
 
TBI and PTSD both get "passes" as long as I remember that they are factors (which is pretty hard to do if I don't have any information that the poster has them).



With both TBI and PTSD, communicating (which is one of the functions that both tend to mess up) practice and "mental games" both have a track record of helping. The other thing (without drugs or high priced professional help) that has a definite positive impact on recovery is a strong belief that you WILL recover.



The people who think that there is ONLY ONE type of "socialism" are (in my experience) the same type of people who think that there is ONLY ONE type of "democratic society" or that there is ONLY ONE way of governing a "free society". In fact they are often (in my experience) the SAME people who think that the statement "'Socialism' is THE SAME THING AS 'a dictatorial communist state with its total control over every aspect of everyone's life'." makes sense.



Which, as it is your opinion, I agree you are completely free to hold. I don't happen to agree with it (and I might even disagree with you on which of the existing "social programs" are actually needed. Of course that disagreement might be rooted in differing definitions of "social programs" since I look at ANY program that pays money to individuals/groups for ANYTHING that is not a DIRECT SUPPLY of services to the government as a "social program".



I can see how someone could come to that conclusion IF they thought that socialism was an economic program and capitalism was a political program. They aren't. It is quite possible to have a socialist political program in a capitalist economy and it is equally possible not to have a socialist political program in a capitalist economy. It is also quite as possible to have a socialist economic program in a kleptocracy as it is not to.

Funny you should speak of PTSD. Another malady of the FD left me with. Yep, I come with plenty baggage. I have always been a servant of the people, so to speak. My happiest days were spent in the marines and the fire dept. Until recently, I haven't pondered so deeply about these things. As far as I know, the US is a constitutional republic with democratic principles. I'll give you an idea of the way I think. It may give you insight to where I'm coming from. I worked in a ship yard for a while when after I was discharged, and was laid off a couple times. I could've collected unemployment (which most shipyard employees did when laid off). I felt that as an able bodied male, if I could work some other job to make ends meet, that is what I should do. So I took a job as a brick layers helper, with a non-union outfit, that worked me like a dog for less pay than what I could've gotten on unemployment. My buddies said I was crazy (stupid when out of earshot). But I felt it would be hypocritical to collect unemployment if I didn't need to. I feel that if everybody that didn't really need these programs got off of them, there would be plenty for a "safety net". Thanks for your understanding BTW
 
Funny you should speak of PTSD. Another malady of the FD left me with. Yep, I come with plenty baggage. I have always been a servant of the people, so to speak. My happiest days were spent in the marines and the fire dept.

In case no one has mentioned it to you lately "Your service is very much appreciated."

Until recently, I haven't pondered so deeply about these things.

Which put you in with a whole lot of people UNTIL you started to think about them, then it put you in with a much smaller number of people.

As far as I know, the US is a constitutional republic with democratic principles.

I know that I'm being picky, but "constitutional republic" is redundant since you cannot have a "republic" WITHOUT a "constitution".

I'll give you an idea of the way I think. It may give you insight to where I'm coming from. I worked in a ship yard for a while when after I was discharged, and was laid off a couple times. I could've collected unemployment (which most shipyard employees did when laid off). I felt that as an able bodied male, if I could work some other job to make ends meet, that is what I should do. So I took a job as a brick layers helper, with a non-union outfit, that worked me like a dog for less pay than what I could've gotten on unemployment. My buddies said I was crazy (stupid when out of earshot). But I felt it would be hypocritical to collect unemployment if I didn't need to. I feel that if everybody that didn't really need these programs got off of them, there would be plenty for a "safety net". Thanks for your understanding BTW

I can see where you are coming from but you should also remember that "Unemployment Insurance" is just that - insurance. You pay the premiums and you are entitled to the benefits. No one is going to give you ANY insurance benefits that you haven't paid the premiums for.

I will agree with you that "sitting on your butt and not looking for work until your unemployment benefits run out" is NOT what unemployment insurance was intended for. It was intended to carry you over until you could find work that was equally remunerative (or to carry "seasonal" workers over between the times that work is available for them). Collecting UI benefits while ACTIVELY searching for decent quality work is NOT "leeching on the system" because that is exactly what UI is intended for, and that is why people pay into it.

If you HAD drawn UI AND found work that paid better while not exploiting you, would you have been worse off or better off? After all, the crap job would still have been there when your UI ran out. (Crap jobs have such a high turnover that they are almost always available, and they are almost always available because they are crap jobs that people don't want to do.)
 
In case no one has mentioned it to you lately "Your service is very much appreciated."



Which put you in with a whole lot of people UNTIL you started to think about them, then it put you in with a much smaller number of people.



I know that I'm being picky, but "constitutional republic" is redundant since you cannot have a "republic" WITHOUT a "constitution".



I can see where you are coming from but you should also remember that "Unemployment Insurance" is just that - insurance. You pay the premiums and you are entitled to the benefits. No one is going to give you ANY insurance benefits that you haven't paid the premiums for.

I will agree with you that "sitting on your butt and not looking for work until your unemployment benefits run out" is NOT what unemployment insurance was intended for. It was intended to carry you over until you could find work that was equally remunerative (or to carry "seasonal" workers over between the times that work is available for them). Collecting UI benefits while ACTIVELY searching for decent quality work is NOT "leeching on the system" because that is exactly what UI is intended for, and that is why people pay into it.

If you HAD drawn UI AND found work that paid better while not exploiting you, would you have been worse off or better off? After all, the crap job would still have been there when your UI ran out. (Crap jobs have such a high turnover that they are almost always available, and they are almost always available because they are crap jobs that people don't want to do.)

First of all, thankyou, serving was my pleasure.

Secondly, the 2 major parties here have the electorate polarized. Although I am a republican, I chose the lesser of 2 evils (I think). The problem is, there is no party that lines up with the positions I support on every issue. As a matter of fact, I part ways on many issues, with both parties. Here's the million dollar question: Do you believe it is possible to have a successful political system, without political parties? I mean, it's not unusual here, to vote for one party candidate at the federal level, and the other at the local level. :peace
 
First of all, thankyou, serving was my pleasure.

Secondly, the 2 major parties here have the electorate polarized. Although I am a republican, I chose the lesser of 2 evils (I think). The problem is, there is no party that lines up with the positions I support on every issue. As a matter of fact, I part ways on many issues, with both parties. Here's the million dollar question: Do you believe it is possible to have a successful political system, without political parties? I mean, it's not unusual here, to vote for one party candidate at the federal level, and the other at the local level. :peace

Given that human nature is what it is, I do NOT believe that it is actually possible to have a political system that does not include "political parties" (if the area being governed has more than a few thousand people in it).

However some countries actually have more than one political party (the US has only "The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party" and "The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party") and actually have political parties that actually have platforms that actually differ and which they actually attempt to put into practice.

The US might want to try doing something like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom