• 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!

Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ [W:161]

Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

No, he's a Libbo.

Sorry, but no, he is a liberal. If people have to even negative down the description of each other, they will never be able to cooperate and only through cooperation is true progress possible IMHO.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

You should, insults is all he understands.

But I don't understand it, why do people have to resort to name-calling. It does not help one bit to use insulting names towards other people because it does not help at all. Even if you disagree there is still common decency that one should practice as often as possible.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I do, but it requires some honesty to identify. Whether or not you agree with it is another matter, but I've stated my point several times.



When did I say there were only 4 racists in America? I said you found 4 racists and generalized. You found a few more in a tiny town in Ohio. There are 360 million people in the United States, your insistence on drawing conclusions from 4 individuals at a rally (note, not all racists in the world. I shouldn't have to make that distinction, but you seem to need the help) and some racists in Ohio about the entirety of a large segment of America's population is ridiculous. It's not unbelievable, the kind of irrational behavior your exhibiting is typical for one who is biased (see confirmation bias), but it doesn't excuse it. Apply some reason to yourself for a moment and temper your knee-jerk reactions.



And I never denied that. You implied that the entire right-wing follows this thinking, which is a generalization. You implied that this extreme minority somehow has a larger influence than the most powerful man in the free world, which is also ridiculous.

If all you're going to do is pull up another video where someone found some racists, don't bother responding. You can find 1,000,000 racists and that would still be less than .3% of the country.

I said the very very right side of the republican party does this. And it is not just racist, it is total intolerance of the other side. Whether it is all this birther stuff, all the socialist stuff, all the muslim stuff. It is very typical of the very right part of the republican party and because they hold a key demographic inside the republican party (together with the very very Christian section of the republican party) that main stream candidates have to go way over the the right to get primary votes from these parts of the republican party to even stand a chance to get the republican nominee. And after that they have to do a 180 degree turn to the middle to attract the voters that will make that candidate president. But due to all the comments he has had to make to placate the tea party and the Christian right, he has provided the democrats with a highlight reel that they can use against the republican candidate in the campaign.

They do not intend to, but the tea party and people like Rick Santorum are making it harder for republican presidential candidates to get elected.

Also, I agree that some of my posts have knee-jerk responses in there but please also see that what I get back in responses (not pointing the finger at specific people) also have a lot of knee-jerk responses in them. We all are guilty of that practice, especially when it comes to subjects like racism and partisan politics because we care and we have strong feelings about them.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I don't know, maybe they feel they would no longer be a special protected group with special protections, privileges and access to free stuff ?

but according to the Tax Foundation, more red states get more federal money than they pay into the system than blue states. 21 of the 33 states who get back more than the taxpayers in those states pay in are also states who voted for John McCain in 2008. And I would guess it will be the same for this year and the Romney states.

What states receive more federal tax dollars than they pay in

Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill | Tax Foundation

And lets not forget that all states try to get as much pork from the federal government as they can.

chart.jpg

23% goes to the military
24% goes to healthcare
3% goes to education
11% goes to welfare
24% goes to pensions
6% goes to pay the interest on the outstanding debt
1% goes to protection
3% goes to transportation
2% goes to general government spending
4% goes to other spending

and yes, I know that is 101% LOL but it must be down to what is behind the comma.

Every state, race and political affliction has special protected group with special protections, privileges and access to free stuff and it is not just the minorities that want to protect that.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

Thats disgusting. She strikes me as the kind of woman that would put razor blades in the candy so it's probably for the best she doesn't give out candy to those she disagrees with.

You are right, such intolerance towards little trick or treat kids is simply disgusting. And it would have been just as bad if it had been an Obama supporter had done it.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

You are right, such intolerance towards little trick or treat kids is simply disgusting. And it would have been just as bad if it had been an Obama supporter had done it.
It would have indeed....but they didn't.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

Well America hasn't been this much divided since pre Civil War 1800's..


The same "divided" country you refer to elected a black president not once but twice. To suggest that would have happened in the 1800's is right out of the Right Wing Radio playbook.

Honestly, are you really buying the steamy stuff you're shoveling here?
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

It would have indeed....but they didn't.

No, but sadly intolerance runs rampant on both sides of the political sphere.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

No, but sadly intolerance runs rampant on both sides of the political sphere.
If you really feel that way then perhaps you should have shown some intolerant democrat videos as well.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

If you really feel that way then perhaps you should have shown some intolerant democrat videos as well.

I did post one and it was one of the worst ones. It was a democrat who said they should kill all republicans.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I did post one and it was one of the worst ones. It was a democrat who said they should kill all republicans.
I just watched it and I couldn't understand a word they said except "that was pretty harsh"...so I'll just have to take your word for it.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I just watched it and I couldn't understand a word they said except "that was pretty harsh"...so I'll just have to take your word for it.

the lady asks "do you support any of the republican NOT UNDERSTANDABLE"

To which the guy says "I don't think I support any of the republicans and NOT UNDERSTANDABLE I think all of them should probably be put to death"

And then his friend says "that's a little harsh"

To which the first guy responds "no, it isn't".

At least that is what I understood.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

the lady asks "do you support any of the republican NOT UNDERSTANDABLE"

To which the guy says "I don't think I support any of the republicans and NOT UNDERSTANDABLE I think all of them should probably be put to death"

And then his friend says "that's a little harsh"

To which the first guy responds "no, it isn't".

At least that is what I understood.

The guy kinda seemed like a Gay man, imo. I'm sure you're aware of how some conservatives feel about Gays, so I would take what he said with a grain of salt.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

The guy kinda seemed like a Gay man, imo. I'm sure you're aware of how some conservatives feel about Gays, so I would take what he said with a grain of salt.

I don't think that gives him a free pass, does it?

I realize that if he is gay the RNC has royally screwed him but still...
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I don't think that gives him a free pass, does it?

I realize that if he is gay the RNC has royally screwed him but still...
Free pass, no...but it's understandable considering what some conservatives had done to Gays.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I don't think that gives him a free pass, does it?

I realize that if he is gay the RNC has royally screwed him but still...

depends on what you mean by "screwed" in this context ...
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

More pomp-ASS poppycock-

July 1975, President ford visited us on 'The Rock' Ayers Kaserne FRG. 1stBde, 3AD. ALL arms locked in the arms room, ALL keys turned into BDE, ALL arms 100% accounted for. NO ONE allowed in the barracks lest they get a shot from an upper floor. It was our first and last BDE annual picnic. :roll:

I was unaware that Marines draw their weapons each and everyday, I guess even the clerks and jerks draw theirs and keep them by their lap tops???

And FYI our nation was divided severely during Vietnam, the great anti-trust fights, the great depression, entry into WWII, the farmer's movements in the 1880's...

it is very unsettling to see some go from coded messages like 'protect the Founder's DNA' to the racial taunts and the Muslim thing as a war cry of some sort

Just like they were every other day of the week? Minus those that were pulling guard duty around a motor pool or ammo dump at that isolated place? SOP in action. President or no President.

Face it, Obama is a "very unsettling" President. And don't even pretend that even as President he doesn't use "coded messages" and "racial taunts" to get his puppets fired up. It's just another reason why he is not fit to be President.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

Just like they were every other day of the week? Minus those that were pulling guard duty around a motor pool or ammo dump at that isolated place? SOP in action. President or no President.

Face it, Obama is a "very unsettling" President. And don't even pretend that even as President he doesn't use "coded messages" and "racial taunts" to get his puppets fired up. It's just another reason why he is not fit to be President.

Obama is a very unsettling President to the unsettled citizens who I cited...

Now you cite some of the President's 'coded messages'
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I said the very very right side of the republican party does this.

Can't stop generalizing no matter what huh? I don't give a crap about the Republican party. Nothing in right-wing ideology implies racism.

And it is not just racist, it is total intolerance of the other side.

Irony?

Whether it is all this birther stuff,

Started by Hillary Clinton supporters.

all the socialist stuff,

If people stop advocating for socialism, or just admitted that it is socialist, they wouldn't have it pointed out all the time.

all the muslim stuff.

Also an extreme minority.

It is very typical of the very right part of the republican party and because they hold a key demographic inside the republican party (together with the very very Christian section of the republican party) that main stream candidates have to go way over the the right to get primary votes from these parts of the republican party to even stand a chance to get the republican nominee.And after that they have to do a 180 degree turn to the middle to attract the voters that will make that candidate president. But due to all the comments he has had to make to placate the tea party and the Christian right, he has provided the democrats with a highlight reel that they can use against the republican candidate in the campaign.

Are you just regurgitating random talking points now? When did we start talking about Republican primaries?

They do not intend to, but the tea party and people like Rick Santorum are making it harder for republican presidential candidates to get elected.

Republicans make it harder for republicans to be elected because they constantly prove the adage of both parties being the same as true, and they refuse to break this idea that parroting the Democrats is somehow the moderate position, pushing a large segment of the American right into apathy or third parties, like the libertarian party.

Also, I agree that some of my posts have knee-jerk responses in there but please also see that what I get back in responses (not pointing the finger at specific people) also have a lot of knee-jerk responses in them. We all are guilty of that practice, especially when it comes to subjects like racism and partisan politics because we care and we have strong feelings about them.

That's why I said it was typical. Don't use others failings to justify your own though, you should know better than to judge an entire group of people by the minority. Or do you believe the "very very right" necessarily implies racism?
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

Can't stop generalizing no matter what huh? I don't give a crap about the Republican party. Nothing in right-wing ideology implies racism.

I cannot point out every right wing republican by name now can I. And I am sorry, but thousand in the far right section of the republican party do have racist character trades. I am not claiming all extremely right republican voters are racists but some of them are. That is not generalizing but stating the obvious/facts.


Not ironic but a very deliberate train of thought that is also present in the far left voting block.

Started by Hillary Clinton supporters.

Yes, but grabbed on by the republicans who ran with it and ran with it and ran with it. Even after he shown his birth certificate, the birther crowd did not let it go but went on whining about it and whining about it till this day.

Wonder if the birther crowd will go after Ted Cruz as relentlessly as they did with Obama. The birther crowd kept suggesting that Obama had not been born in the US/Hawaii. Of Ted Cruz we know that he was not born in the USA, he was born in Canada to an American mother. Or are democrats going to play the same stupid games with Cruz as the republicans did with Obama when citizenship/birth issues are concerned. I sincerely hope not but some might think turnabout is fair play.

If people stop advocating for socialism, or just admitted that it is socialist, they wouldn't have it pointed out all the time.

Except that republicans claiming something is socialist and it actually being socialist is not the same thing. I am a social democrat and I do not see the democratic party or Obama as socialists. He is not socially aware enough to be in contention of becoming a social democrat and in virtually all other policies Obama is not close to social democracy so he is even further away from actual socialism.

Even I, a social democrat, cannot stomach true socialists because they are too extreme.

Also an extreme minority.

Yes, that is why the NC republican party introduced an anti-sharia law. Like there was any risk of sharia law being made legal in the US. And to show how some republicans work, they attached a bill to restrict abortions in the process.

Are you just regurgitating random talking points now? When did we start talking about Republican primaries?

No, I was just saying that in the current republican party the tea party and the religious right have taken the republican party hostage due to their importance during republican primaries.

Republicans make it harder for republicans to be elected because they constantly prove the adage of both parties being the same as true, and they refuse to break this idea that parroting the Democrats is somehow the moderate position, pushing a large segment of the American right into apathy or third parties, like the libertarian party.

Sorry, but this republican party is not the same party as the one in 1994 because they were able to cooperate with the democrats. The democratic party as not moved far from where they were in the past, it is the republicans that are afraid to work with democrats IMHO. They are totally afraid of the tea party. Even Mitch McConnell is being targeted by the tea party.

That's why I said it was typical. Don't use others failings to justify your own though, you should know better than to judge an entire group of people by the minority. Or do you believe the "very very right" necessarily implies racism?

I am not judging a whole group by the minority but with such vocally extreme positions, there are some republicans that seem to over scream the silent majority of republican voters who want nothing to do with the extremist views of some tea party members. Most republicans are totally not racist.

And sorry, but the far right is famous for being racist.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

Congratulation, you have won a free Obama phone for defending an incompetent Commander and Chief who after 4 1/2 years still hasn't earned the respect of those who serve under his incompetent command.

Please feel free to share any of my statements in this thread defending Obama. You have now misrepresented my words just as you misrepresented the Times article by saying Obama ordered a Court Marshal, which is one of the 2-issues I have commented on regarding your words. The other was your extreme displeasure that Marines had to put their weapons in the armory when Obama visits . . . . again, on one hand, and then a few posts later, your other hand talks about how if he had been in the Nam, he'd have been fragged. It's not just this thread, but almost everyone you comment in . . . it seems you like to have things all ways. And that's funny to a casual observer. Even your quote above is hilarious because I did no such thing as defend Obama in this conversation. My comments revolved around your words, which do not seem to make much sense when combined collectively. What's even more funny? I really think you do not even realize it. Now . . . feel free to find another article to cut and paste as a reply that has nothing to do with my actual words.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

I cannot point out every right wing republican by name now can I. And I am sorry, but thousand in the far right section of the republican party do have racist character trades. I am not claiming all extremely right republican voters are racists but some of them are. That is not generalizing but stating the obvious/facts.

I'm glad to see you've reformed your thinking a bit. Indeed, some of them are. There are racists in many places.

Not ironic but a very deliberate train of thought that is also present in the far left voting block.
I was referencing your rather sudden switch to "intolerance of the other side," something that you were previously engaging in through your generalization.

Yes, but grabbed on by the republicans who ran with it and ran with it and ran with it. Even after he shown his birth certificate, the birther crowd did not let it go but went on whining about it and whining about it till this day.

The only people I hear bringing it up nowadays are Obama supporters wanting to make a point about his opposition being irrational and Obama himself. I'd say this, as a political board, would have a good number of "far right" individuals, including republicans, yet I haven't seen anything about the birth certificate in quite awhile from people on this board.

Wonder if the birther crowd will go after Ted Cruz as relentlessly as they did with Obama. The birther crowd kept suggesting that Obama had not been born in the US/Hawaii.

I doubt it. I also doubt Ted Cruz and his supporters would bring it up every three minutes either.

Of Ted Cruz we know that he was not born in the USA, he was born in Canada to an American mother. Or are democrats going to play the same stupid games with Cruz as the republicans did with Obama when citizenship/birth issues are concerned. I sincerely hope not but some might think turnabout is fair play.

Well, considering Democrats started it, I wouldn't act like their above the behavior.

Except that republicans claiming something is socialist and it actually being socialist is not the same thing.

No, it's the rooting in socialist ideology that makes it socialist.

I am a social democrat and I do not see the democratic party or Obama as socialists.

I'm sure you don't.

He is not socially aware enough to be in contention of becoming a social democrat and in virtually all other policies Obama is not close to social democracy so he is even further away from actual socialism.

His rhetoric and political positioning, as a whole, of the Democrat party has a socialist bent to it. That's why they always run on taking other peoples stuff. I know they do that less then you would like, and thus you don't see it as socialist, but it is fundamentally socialist. The attitude is founded in a complete lack of respect for private property and notion that it is justifiable to vote away other's property is socialist.

Even I, a social democrat, cannot stomach true socialists because they are too extreme.

Social democrats are socialist. They just believe in achieving socialism through democracy as opposed to revolution.

Unless the Netherlands political system defines it differently.

Yes, that is why the NC republican party introduced an anti-sharia law. Like there was any risk of sharia law being made legal in the US. And to show how some republicans work, they attached a bill to restrict abortions in the process.

There were court cases in which were being ruled on the basis of sharia law. If you are implying sharia law is going to become the official law, then obviously that's ridiculous, but that wasn't the point of the legislation. The point was to ensure that America's legal protection applied to everyone. If you want to oppress your women, stay in a sharia friendly country.

No, I was just saying that in the current republican party the tea party and the religious right have taken the republican party hostage due to their importance during republican primaries.

And where did that come from? Why are you bringing this viewpoint up? What relevance is it? Do you want to bring the conversation to that instead?


Sorry, but this republican party is not the same party as the one in 1994 because they were able to cooperate with the democrats.
In 1994 the president worked with the republicans on welfare reform and spending cuts to balance the budget. Obama has made it a habit to ask for way more than what he wants then demand a little less, and if he doesn't get it, you refuse to compromise. Of course, nothing you want will come to pass. So you can either give him what he wants without getting ANYTHING you want, or he'll eviscerate you through political posturing. He's the best at this sort of thing I've ever seen.

The democratic party as not moved far from where they were in the past,

The difference between Bill Clinton's actions and Obama's actions are night and day.

it is the republicans that are afraid to work with democrats IMHO.
Well, your opinion is uninformed. It has come to the point that nobody trusts Obama because he's demonstrated that's hes a two-faced liar whose more concerned with political posturing than getting things done.

They are totally afraid of the tea party.
I don't know why, it's typical for there to be disagreements withing a party in a two-party system.

Even Mitch McConnell is being targeted by the tea party.

The biggest criticism of McConnell comes from his actions during the Bush Administration. Things like No Child Left Behind and the bailouts, not exactly popular issues with anyone.

I am not judging a whole group by the minority but with such vocally extreme positions, there are some republicans that seem to over scream the silent majority of republican voters who want nothing to do with the extremist views of some tea party members. Most republicans are totally not racist.

Well, you were, but you've changed your tune. Good for you. I wouldn't say the majority is "silent" either, most just don't make headlines. There are plenty of non-racists right wingers out there to listen to (some on this very board!)

And sorry, but the far right is famous for being racist.
A fame unearned.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

Social democrats are socialist. They just believe in achieving socialism through democracy as opposed to revolution.

Unless the Netherlands political system defines it differently.

No, you are totally wrong:

Socialism vs Social Democracy — What’s The Difference?

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production;
Social democracy about organic social solidarity with private ownership of production.

Socialism is restrictive;
Social democracy somewhat libertarian, they believe in freedom

Socialism is metaphysical (excessively abstract reasoning);
Social democracy the other empirical (demonstrable, verifiable reasoning).

Socialism is dogmatic;
Social democracy is reflective and scientific.

Socialism is very much emotional and all about feeling politically superior to others
Social democracy is much more cooperative and can work with others

Socialism is destructive, it destroys freedoms and societies
Social democracy wants to be and is mostly constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
– Socialism aims to establish equal happiness for all;

– Social democracy the other to enable each to be happy in one’s own way.

Socialism regards the State as a society that all most bow down to, the State reigns supreme and the leaders of the state have loads of perks.
Social democracy considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed no better and no more efficient than others.

Socialism proclaims the sovereignty of the State and wants to reform other societies in their own image and to take freedom away from the population.
Social democrats do not see the state as the sovereignty but as a necessary evil, there to protect freedom

Socialism wishes all monopolies to be held by the State;
Social democracy wishes the abolition of all/almost all monopolies (they believe in oversight rather than state monopolies).

Socialism wishes the governed class to become the governing class;
Social democracy wishes the disappearance of classes.

Socialism want total leveling of the salary structure of the society/aka full redistribution of wealth
Social democrats want some modest level of leveling/redistribution of wealth

Socialism wishes that there should be none but proletariats;
Social democrats wishes that there should be no more proletariats.

Socialism wishes to take everything away from everybody, no personal property of factories/farms etc.
Social democracy wishes to leave each in possession of its own.


Socialism says: Do as the government wishes;
Social democracy says: Do as you wish yourself, but respect the rights of others.

Socialism makes the citizen the subject of the State;
Social democracy makes the State the employee of the citizen, the state works for us and not the other way around

Socialism proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world (read violence, poverty, inequality)
Social democracy declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one, progress will come through working together

Socialism has confidence in social warfare, the battle of the proletariat against all others
Social democracy believes only in works of peace and by working with others not against others

Socialism aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate
Social democracy wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation possible for a good and decent society.

One desires equality; the other seeks equity.
– Socialism by lowering heads that are too high;

– Social democracy by raising heads that are too low.

Socialism sees equality under a common yoke
Social democracy will secure equity in as much complete liberty as is possible in a society

Socialism is intolerant to all except their own
Social democracy the other tolerant to others

Socialism wishes to instruct everybody;
Social democracy wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.

Socialism wishes to support everybody as an ultimate form of solidarity. They have taken solidarity to a ridiculous extreme.
Social democracy to enable everybody to support one’s self through modest solidarity.


At least that is how I have felt it and see it in Europe.
 
Re: Obama Protesters Sing 'Bye Bye Black Sheep,' in AZ

No, you are totally wrong:

Socialism vs Social Democracy — What’s The Difference?

Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production;
Social democracy about organic social solidarity with private ownership of production.

Socialism is restrictive;
Social democracy somewhat libertarian, they believe in freedom

Socialism is metaphysical (excessively abstract reasoning);
Social democracy the other empirical (demonstrable, verifiable reasoning).

Socialism is dogmatic;
Social democracy is reflective and scientific.

Socialism is very much emotional and all about feeling politically superior to others
Social democracy is much more cooperative and can work with others

Socialism is destructive, it destroys freedoms and societies
Social democracy wants to be and is mostly constructive.

Both are in pursuit of the greatest possible welfare for all.
– Socialism aims to establish equal happiness for all;

– Social democracy the other to enable each to be happy in one’s own way.

Socialism regards the State as a society that all most bow down to, the State reigns supreme and the leaders of the state have loads of perks.
Social democracy considers the State as an association like any other, generally managed no better and no more efficient than others.

Socialism proclaims the sovereignty of the State and wants to reform other societies in their own image and to take freedom away from the population.
Social democrats do not see the state as the sovereignty but as a necessary evil, there to protect freedom

Socialism wishes all monopolies to be held by the State;
Social democracy wishes the abolition of all/almost all monopolies (they believe in oversight rather than state monopolies).

Socialism wishes the governed class to become the governing class;
Social democracy wishes the disappearance of classes.

Socialism want total leveling of the salary structure of the society/aka full redistribution of wealth
Social democrats want some modest level of leveling/redistribution of wealth

Socialism wishes that there should be none but proletariats;
Social democrats wishes that there should be no more proletariats.

Socialism wishes to take everything away from everybody, no personal property of factories/farms etc.
Social democracy wishes to leave each in possession of its own.


Socialism says: Do as the government wishes;
Social democracy says: Do as you wish yourself, but respect the rights of others.

Socialism makes the citizen the subject of the State;
Social democracy makes the State the employee of the citizen, the state works for us and not the other way around

Socialism proclaims that labor pains will be necessary to the birth of a new world (read violence, poverty, inequality)
Social democracy declares that real progress will not cause suffering to any one, progress will come through working together

Socialism has confidence in social warfare, the battle of the proletariat against all others
Social democracy believes only in works of peace and by working with others not against others

Socialism aspires to command, to regulate, to legislate
Social democracy wishes to attain the minimum of command, of regulation, of legislation possible for a good and decent society.

One desires equality; the other seeks equity.
– Socialism by lowering heads that are too high;

– Social democracy by raising heads that are too low.

Socialism sees equality under a common yoke
Social democracy will secure equity in as much complete liberty as is possible in a society

Socialism is intolerant to all except their own
Social democracy the other tolerant to others

Socialism wishes to instruct everybody;
Social democracy wishes to enable everybody to instruct one’s self.

Socialism wishes to support everybody as an ultimate form of solidarity. They have taken solidarity to a ridiculous extreme.
Social democracy to enable everybody to support one’s self through modest solidarity.


At least that is how I have felt it and see it in Europe.
So you define social democrat in a strange way, as I said was a possibility.

Traditionally, social democrats are gradualist socialists.

Though, then again, the comparisons for social democrats are not unlike gradualist socialism. I would say though, if some of these points are accurate, the American left are more close to social democrats than what you call social democrats.
 
Back
Top Bottom