I like how at 3:30 Matt says that he doesn't know if the observed problems with socialist regimes are intrinsic to socialism or not, and goes on to say that because he doesn't know, no one should make the claim that socialism itself is bad.
Just find one of the dozens of videos where Matt is talking with people who defend creationism because they don't understand evolution to see if his principles are consistent.
What's that Matt? You don't know so you assume no one does? Good show.
You were calling him consistent and complimenting the show, correct?
It's strange, because you seem to have a sarcastic tone toward Matt, but then the statements that you make are the opposite of statements that would be stated sarcastically.
Here's the thing. Matt is correctly very aware of the "argument from ignorance" ie, "I don't know enough, therefore x"
When it comes to creationism, he often finds that people just don't know what he knows about the evidence for evolution.
Now when it comes to what US folk call "socialism" he ADMITS that he is no scholar in the field, but then goes on to say that it IS NOT "socialism" itself which is the problem. Thing is, there are more knowledgeable people who disagree
@blackacidlizzard Who are these knowledgeable people that disagree? Can these knowledgeable people say that it has never been applied successfully in small groups? There is no need to mention the argument from ignorance, unless you do something like put words in his mouth, You already falsely stated that he said nobody should say something when he only sauid that he was hesitant to say it himself.
I'm not talking about small groups. Obviously socialism does work in small groups, they are called "families" (also, small scale societies, such as many communes in Europe and the US that I am aware of)
He SAID he was hesitant to say a certain thing, then he went on to say it (that "socialism" is not a problem in and of itself. Again, there are many who have given reasons why it is, but Matt is not well versed in the arguments- but he still states a position here)
@blackacidlizzard "I'm not talking about small groups. Obviously socialism does work in small groups, they are called "families""
He SAID he was hesitant to say a certain thing, then he went on to say it (that "socialism" is not a problem in and of itself. Again, there are many who have given reasons why it is
Funny, you are not talking about small groups, but you even wrote ""socialism" is not a problem in and of itself." Who is inconsistent? In an of itself means at any scale.
@blackacidlizzard ...continued... This would be like me saying, " I don't want to say that I know where your car keys are." And you saying that I am inconsistent because you know where your car keys are, and then just throwing in the words "argument from ignorance" for a little bit of non-sequitur bonus fun time.
I CAN make that assesment. And I can tell you this. Leninism and all of the crap that follows are nothing but a hideous PERVERSION of Marx idea's. Lenin (a right wing populist actually!) came up with the idea of a 'strong leader' which is the OPPOSITE of what Marx wanted.
Marx wanted to end the tyranny of the wealthy over labour. He wanted to democratize labour and place labour in the hand of the employees themselves. No more boss in charge, but the workers collectively and democratically.
Fact is actually... if you TRULY believe in liberty, you would be a Marxist actually. Of the PRE-Lenin-type specifically. You'd want not only politics to be democratic but also labour. That'd remove the fact that a billionaire brat heir has more power then you because he has more money. Truly equalize things.
A TRUE advocate of liberty wants democratic, free labour, the way Marx envisioned.
In fact me, I'd DEFINITLY, actually knowing the history behind things and how things currently work, say Capitalism (Which I never endorsed) is a slave system, where you give your freedom up to your boss. Just people have been fed propaganda that it's some essential part of freedom and trade, which are all lies of course, but they believe it, believe there's no alternative. Because the moneyed right-wing media wants you to believe that.
Yeah, because tyranny by majority is totally freedom, as is the inability to invest the product of your own labor or to make trades with consenting parties.
I live in Republic of Korea. There's still McCarthysm in our country since we are still in cold war (North Korea) It is crazy When i say something critical to our government or president, there're still bunch of people labeling me red communist bastard in interenet. It is pretty easy to use enemy for their good right?
I think that when you americans talk about socialism what you actually mean is social democrasy. This is mainly because everything in america with an aspect of socialism in it, is called socialism.
However, socialism includes things like plan economy, which is far beyond what most american socialists seem to argue for.
I LMAO when people say Obama is a socialist, is just ridiculous. he looks like Bush to a hard-core socialist lol.
Fidel Castro is a communist, Hugo Chavez is a socialist, in the rest of world, is hard to find a frontline political figure that reassembles any of those ideologies.
In the US politics/media there is not single one of them, most "left-leaning" politicians I have seen are of on a barely warm social democracy or renewed socialism that has almost nothing to do with the original one.
If you say that, you have no idea what what socialism is. Google Norway, Sweden, Denmark. We pay 40%-50% taxes, and we dont even count ourself as socialists.
@eboyd32 it's not strange that so few people know what socialism is, because there are about 40 different definitions. at least according to Dictionary of Socialism by Rappaport. At its core, socialism is evil and anti-individual. It's not compatible with capitalism, which is the only system that actually protects individual property. I don't think that politics is what matters, we should instead look at the moral foundation that an ideology rests upon. with socialism, it's collectivism
@VanessaTexasGal on the contrary, mutualism, which is a form of socialism first theorized by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, is very individualistic. it is a market based system that centers around personal ownership but condemns private property, that is property used by its owners to exploit those that use it. the only commonality between all forms of socialism is the idea of "workers' control over the means of production"...
...the reason so few people know what socialism is has to do with the fact that so few people are willing to actually put the effort in to study and find out what it is. socialists of all stripes simply want more democracy in the workplace. that means more worker cooperatives and other forms of worker owned businesses (in my case i want this only if it is achieved without any coercion), workers having more say in the businesses they work for, etc. is this so evil?
@eboyd32 if it's somehow done without any coercion, I don't really see a problem with it, but that sounds a bit more like a form of capitalism (people making a deal in the free market that they will start/run a business together). If it's done with the concent of the business owner I wouldn't ban it. The key for me is to make sure private property stays protected.
@eboyd32 but the main concern for me when it comes to politics has always been to find out what moral system an ideology rests upon. Real capitalism rests upon individualism, which is all about protecting individual rights, while keeping taxes no higher than necessary for that purpose. Socialism (the kind proposed by marx at least), is based on the flawed idea that workers in a free market are exploited.
@VanessaTexasGal Marx is no more an authority on socialism than Ayn Rand is on capitalism. he wrote theories that gained popularity and became, unfortunately, the be-all end-all of socialist theory because of it. just to give you some background, Proudhon, the man i speak of, has writings that predate Marx/Engels' first works by 20+ years. in fact, many socialist factors existed before Marx. Marxists had most of them thrown out of the First International leading to their rapid..
...decline in popularity. there is actually a heated debate between what are considered collectivist anarchists (those who followed the ideas of Mikhail Bakunin), anarchist communists (followers of Pyotr Kropotkin), mutualists/individualist anarchists, all against Marxist style Communism. Marxism isn't even "evil" in theory (though it is highly flawed as the anarchists pointed out), but when people like Lenin got a hold of it the idea became distorted.
@VanessaTexasGal btw, there are quite a few anarchists, especially from here in the US, who are both staunch individualists and anti-capitalists (though many capitalists try to claim them as their own). you may be interested in the works of Lysander Spooner, for example.
@eboyd32 thanks for the tip. I also considered spooner a capitalist in some ways, since he was against the initiation of force, but I changed my mind on that when I started seeing capitalism as being incompatible with anarchism (never bought the idea of "anarcho capitalism"). I think I'll look into Proudhon though. I'm not too familiar with his work, and I didn't know he was pre marx.
@VanessaTexasGal yeah, in fact, you can go back to Thomas Hodgskin who had similar ideas to Proudhon albeit a decade or so earlier, he just didn't write about it as prolifically (and it also helped Proudhon that he was the first person to proclaim himself an anarchist in writing). also, for an ideology that kind of blurs the line between socialism and capitalism (many people consider it a synthesis between the two) you can check out "distributism".
DID HE SAY WE MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF ATHEIST BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER ATHIEST HAVE DONE BUT DONT MOST ATHEIST WELL OUTSPOKEN ATHIEST DO THE SAME WITH CHRISTIANS AND OTHER RELIGIONS, BUT I GUESS IM DOIN THAT VERY THING IN THIS COMMENT, FOR FUCK SAKE PLEASE DONT BITE MY BALLS I CAN IMAGINE THE COOKS COMMENTING ON THIS
I hope you go and deregulate the pharma industries too, and then die from the "free market" you created. It will find a balance, sure, but at what price, and who wants to be on the loosing side?
Are you supposing that the pharmaceutical industries would be willing to invest billions of dollars developing treatments for diseases if there wasn't profit involved? Why would they do that? The only way to ensure satisfactory medical care is to allow it to be profitable.
You more than implied that a "free market" (those are your scare quotes, not mine) pharma would result in an unreasonable level of mistreatment, and death. My reply that the free market, and profit incentive, is what keeps people alive.
There can be a profit incentive without there being a deregulated free market. There has never been a free market capitalist society. Why dabble in absolutes when government control is so obviously necessary in certain areas.
@1RadicalOne Ever thought that maybe you don't know anything about socio-economic theory? It's fairly obvious to most that you have no idea of what you speak.
I will make one correction to my earlier statement - while communism has always failed, socialism has not. Indeed, many of the most successful countries in the world are socialist or close to it.
That is rather like nit-picking. It is because of the problems in communism - mostly in the government aspects of it - that it did not last long enough for full implementation.
Some of the fist US colonies were socialistic, and they failed. There was not brutal dictatorship, no brutal atrocities. And they simply did come across the incentive problem. They were constantly suffering from e.g. hunger. And the USA, as well as those specific colonies (when they did abandon socialism) did suffer no more of this. No country with "de jure" (not de facto) property rights, ever experienced famine.
Tracy: "Every time I have what I consider to be a good idea, about a way to improve government, or national status, eventually I come to find out that's a socialist idea."
Yup. Because it sounds like you're engaging in social engineering, which is terrible. The world doesn't need any government stepping in "improving" things. It needs a hands off approach, which will *ALWAYS* find a balance.
Socialism in practice is a ponzi scheme. Laissez faire capitalism in practice is monopolism. The best nations to live in balance the two: Sweden, Canada, etc.
@BRYAN351 Fuck the libertarian lies about the constitution. You morons would have us stuck in 18th century thinking. You'd destroy the lives of all Americans for some non-existent All Holy Founding Father idealogy. Libertarians are actually Teabaggers, and Republiklansmen who know that their idealogy is corrupt. The architects of our government wanted a large, powerful federal government. You so-called small gov. libertarians are just too stupid to see the harm your ideas would bring.
Me I'm a European, and I'm a Socialist. Which is perfectly respectable.
It does however means that between me and America there's not much love lost and that I don't hold America in very high regard as a consequence of this.
Which means that whenever someone trots out 'American principles' I always roll my eyes. Screw those really. America can do what it wants (with itself!), but I don't admire it at all.
Shavarnarak, those "American principles" that you roll your eyes too are what turned a bunch of British colonies into the most prosperous, creative, powerful, and coolest country in history.
Sadly, America is in decline now, due largely to widespread socialist attitudes in our society and government. Too many Americans now prefer to vote for politicians who promise to steal wealth for them from other Americans, instead of being self-sufficient and producing their own wealth.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
To the female host who wants to read Marx to find out if she's a socialist or not, I can save you the trouble, dear. You are one, if you automatically think that every problem in life needs to be solved by government, instead of letting free people solve their own problems.
Remember, government produces nothing, so they can only give the people something if they first steal it from the people.
I live in a socialized country (sweden) and I am enjoying benefits I would never even hope to get if this werent a socialist country.
In sweden, if you dont want to end up on the street then the goverment will help you not to for example aswell as get you to get a job.
There are plenty of valid reasons to want this kind of system and many objections are often false.. like your idea that I have no freedom, I pay taxes just like you.
Unfortunately the swedes are voting for a more conservative government now, in hope that it will benefit the economy or lead to more jobs w/e. But it doesn't it leads to social inequalities and segregation...
well yeah, there are lots of benefits to having your government wipe your ass for you. I'm sure it feels great : ) BTW, what kind of toilet paper do they let you use? And I love that you said "I pay taxes" as your justification for why you have freedom! priceless. Maybe your gov will double them next year so you can have even MORE freedom, lol. Why couldn't they? Nobody in your castrated bunch could stop them, you GAVE them the power.
DSD, you can buy into all the new labels for socialism if you want, such as "social security", "welfare", "safety net", "food stamps", "public education" etc., but they are all examples of SOCIALISM.
If you don't realize that, then YOU are the one who needs to go and get an education. For starters, try looking up the fucking word.
DSD, government FORCES you to pay taxes, which fund their socialist programs. If you refuse to pay, they arrest you and SEIZE your assets. Sounds like theft to me.
Socialism not only doesn't solve every problem in life, it doesn't solve ANY problems in life. All it does is institutionalize problems.
Nearly all problems can be better dealt with by the private sector. History and current events prove this.
The united states pays the lowest taxes in the industrialized world, private companies only do things for profit not for the people.
If you think privatization of every thing is good, just look at the early 20 century, the people rose up to get higher wages, social security, ect...
We live in a plutocratic oligarchy manipulated by big corporations, they are trying to privatize every thing by making the public programs look bad by manipulating them.
DSD, you're correct in that big corporations and a powerful elite have the govt. in their hip pockets, but you must remember, that same elite WANTS a socialist America, because it furthers their agenda of enslaving us through higher taxes and bigger government.
A TRUE free market does not have a tiny few dominating government and entire industries.
In a TRUE free market, all jobs are paid EXACTLY what the market says they are worth. Unions are nothing but extortion rackets.
DSD, despite your indoctrination, "profit" is not a dirty word. In fact, the desire for profit is the one thing that has produced the most benefits for humanity at large.
Do we have inexpensive yet excellent computers, TV's, cell phones, food, airfare, etc., because those companies wanted to be mother Theresa's, or because they wanted to make some money?
Sure, fortunes were made in all those industries, but as long as it was honest and legal, who cares?? Look at what we have available to us!
Private corporations can still work in a socialistic society , but the people should regulate them so they will not take control and manipulate the government, today if the oligarchy of corporations don't get what they want, people start losing there jobs by the millions, the CEO of those companies don't care , there billionaires, if we still had privatization of every single thing, you would be working for 2 dollars an hour and children would still be working .
DSD, you're correct in that big corporations and a powerful elite have the govt. in their hip pockets, but you must remember, that same elite WANTS a socialist America, because it furthers their agenda of enslaving us through higher taxes and bigger government.
A TRUE free market does not have a tiny few dominating government and entire industries.
In a TRUE free market, all jobs are paid EXACTLY what the market says they are worth. Unions are nothing but extortion rackets.
Without it the society would die! If you are a part of a society you have to contribute to it! If you cant, then you fail.
Socialism acctually removes a lot of the gaps between people. There are no really poor and no really rich ones. Here in sweden we got national healthcare that is mostly payed by taxes.
peronkop, you sound like a brainwashed sheep. I have no problem with a tax, as long as the tax is not a direct tax on my labor. Unfortunately, most taxes in America fail that test.
For the first 137 years of America's existence, there were NO property taxes, no sales taxes, and no income taxes. None. Notta. Zip. How did we survive without taxes??? And, that was the period when America grew to become the greatest country in history.
peronkop, the root cause of most of the problems you listed is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.
High crime? 50% of people in American prisons are there for non-violent drug offenses, or in other words, victim-less "crimes".
Regarding violent crimes, the vast majority are related to the highly profitable black market that drug prohibition has caused, just as alcohol prohibition caused terrible Al Capone style gang violence in the 1920's/30's.
Expensive healthcare? Again, too much government meddling. A true free market competitive system would lower costs & raise quality, as it does in EVERY other industry.
Instead, we've had national socialist healthcare for decades, even before "Obama-care", with Medicare and Medicaid. And, private health insurance companies aren't allowed to sell/compete outside their state.
Constant war? War is a very profitable racket for the crooks who've stolen our govt. American citizens don't want war.
peronkop (part 3): Deluded religious population? Whether they're deluded or not is a matter of opinion, but faith is a worldwide phenomenon. Most humans want to believe in something.
As long as it doesn't negatively affect me, then it's a non-issue to me. By the way, I believe in "God", but not in all the other bullshit that organized religions push.
America doesn't have "extreme poverty". That's a myth. "Poor" people here live better than probably 90% of the people on Earth.
@BRYAN351 "Poor" people here live better than probably 90% of the people on Earth."
No. You are completely mistaken. Of all first world countries, the USA has by far the worst and most common severe poverty. Socialism cures poverty. You should probably look up some facts before asserting a known falsehood.
haha, the fact that this comment has a -8 rating is a perfect. The atheists on this board are the very thing that they think they hate: sheep. They're almost ALL very defensive of bad liberal ideologies like socialism. It shows that most of them are "platform" thinkers. I mean, HOW DARE YOU disrespect this host... She can't say anything wrong! She's one of us, and she's on the same side of ALL issues as we are!
It is beyond sad. His diction was immaculate, and it's his frickin second language. And he managed to come across as infinitely more intelligent than most of the other callers as well.
I live in California. Our past Governor (Gray Davis) ... among other people ... mismanaged the State's privatized electricity contracts, which resulted in our bankruptcy. Now, there is a state run electricity company called Pacific Gas & Electricity Co.
That's socialist ... and it's not a bad thing! I tire of all of these middle-aged, McCarthy Era, pseudo-political scientists commenting on the 'evils of socialism.' If you are such a person, say nothing and save yourself from your ambivalence.
McCarthy succesfully introduced an irrational phobia of everything socialist into the American psyche, making Americans as a people more vulnerable to exploitation by the rich. (Who'll mismanage their companies, fire their employees and give themselves a few millions in bonusses.)
Its almost impossible to imagine that the damage that McCarthy and descendents (such as the John Birch Society) did to the level of political discourse could ever be repaired.
Well it ain't going to be the youth vote. They seem to gravitate towards things libertarianism. Which is basically being a total tool for the rich, disguised as being a cool rebellious advocate of liberty. (Which is what they think they are.)
I think what will eventually shake the US out of its current state is the fact that Europe not only will outpace it but already HAS outpaced it. The EU economy is already quite a bit bigger then the US economy.
@Shavarnarak Actually those millions in bonuses were paid for in TAX DOLLARS. So the thing you claim socialism prevents (exploitation by the rich) actually happens on a MUCH larger scale when socialist policies are instituted. Maybe rethink your position?
Also, during the massive amount of "anti-socialist" propaganda the US government budget was increasing in unprecedented levels. So either the propagandists had an ulterior motive, or the propaganda didn't work and you're wrong again.
Obama is a socialist, but it's not his fault to be honest, the President, U.S. Military, and Corporations in America have too much power in our country.
I just wanted to point out that Hitler didn't actually kill anyone. He was responsible for laying out the overall social and philosophical principles that lead others to kill but he wasn't the one that physically preformed the killings nor was he the one who ordered the Final Solution. Those demonic 'honors' belong to the true leader of the Nazi's, the Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler. The man responsible for the holocaust, Dr. Mengele, the SS, the Gestapo, Hitlers daily meth injections, etc.
Yes, let's just kill everyone instead of finding a very simple solution to population control. Always trying to justify inhumane ways through logic because you're too lazy to find a reasonabe solution that would come from a couple of hours of Critical thinking to find a solution.
A clever man can simply take a look at the world today and conclude that things aren't suppose to be this way and that someone is making it that way. I think the saddest part is that we're not smart enough to compromise and make peace in order to ensure the future of our own species.
The community of atheist consist of: Republican atheist, Democrat atheist, conservative atheist, liberal atheist, moderate atheist, radical atheist, good atheist, and bad atheist. Now just replace the word atheist with Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, men or women.
Republican atheist=filthy rich??? Now youre applying a label takenflame! Any label applied out of ignorance is objectionable; I do wish that one was true though.:)
Thats the misconception theists purposefully make, trying to turn atheist into an organised group.
Atheism isnt a belief or disbelief really.
If there was no religion you would still be considered an atheist despite not having a god to disbelieve.
Its simply hard to word it any other way, living with believers of gods, then to say we are a godless people. We do not believe gods exist. I think the key is we dont have a particular god we dont believe in, simply the idea of gods in general.
Good point. It's sad republicans forgot what they stood for. The founding fathers. republicans, were all about freedom, the Constitution, small government and much power in the hands of people. They didn't like democrats as they felt democracy is about bureaucracy and cutting people off their government, especially Washington was adamant on this issue.
If I lived in USA I'd be a republican Ron Paul supporter, one of the few true republicans.
Communists, Socialist, Democratic, any country that wants to compete in tomorrows world need to implement GOOD free higher learning. The US is pricing it's children out of college and/or stunting their early productive adult years with massive debt, and we will pay for it dearly in the future if we don't wake up, fast.
For the most part Americans confuse Socialism with Communism.
Tracie has said she has had to reject ideas that make a lot of sense because they are considered socialistic.
The rest of the Western world has embraced socialism, and their societies are a lot better off for it.
Governments who take care of their citizens assume that task from religious organizations. The more a country embaraces socialism the less religious it's people become.
@hal2017 That's funny because Americans tend to confuse communism with some sort of almost comically exagerated fascist dictatorship/ Totalitarianism regime. I think Americans are just ignorant to a lot of the use words they use, at least the ones they pick to represent themselves in their news media :cough: Bill O'riley/ the cast of fox news. Who Needless to say are some of the most frustratingly stupid people on television anywhere in the world.
I have this sneaky suspicion, that if asked most of those that use the "socialist" lable as some sort of cuss word, will not even be able to give a definition or its characterists, beyong "Russians! Evil!" & for the more literate occasional "Mao!".
I'm not generalizing this to all, but a big part perhaps.
I agree that it's silly to call atheists either "socialists" or "communists." I know a lot of atheists, and their political beliefs cover the spectrum from anarchist on the right to, yes, communist on the left. Most tend to be center left. Anyway, I don't see the idea of socialism to be such an awful thing, used in moderation. Went to a public school? Socialism. Drive on public roads? Socialism. Ever call the police for anything? Socialism. A little bit of socialism is a good thing.
I like how at 3:30 Matt says that he doesn't know if the observed problems with socialist regimes are intrinsic to socialism or not, and goes on to say that because he doesn't know, no one should make the claim that socialism itself is bad.
Just find one of the dozens of videos where Matt is talking with people who defend creationism because they don't understand evolution to see if his principles are consistent.
What's that Matt? You don't know so you assume no one does? Good show.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard "You don't know so you assume no one does?"
Who, Matt? Where did you get that?
You were calling him consistent and complimenting the show, correct?
It's strange, because you seem to have a sarcastic tone toward Matt, but then the statements that you make are the opposite of statements that would be stated sarcastically.
trueleroix 2 months ago
Here's the thing. Matt is correctly very aware of the "argument from ignorance" ie, "I don't know enough, therefore x"
When it comes to creationism, he often finds that people just don't know what he knows about the evidence for evolution.
Now when it comes to what US folk call "socialism" he ADMITS that he is no scholar in the field, but then goes on to say that it IS NOT "socialism" itself which is the problem. Thing is, there are more knowledgeable people who disagree
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard Who are these knowledgeable people that disagree? Can these knowledgeable people say that it has never been applied successfully in small groups? There is no need to mention the argument from ignorance, unless you do something like put words in his mouth, You already falsely stated that he said nobody should say something when he only sauid that he was hesitant to say it himself.
trueleroix 2 months ago
@trueleroix
I'm not talking about small groups. Obviously socialism does work in small groups, they are called "families" (also, small scale societies, such as many communes in Europe and the US that I am aware of)
He SAID he was hesitant to say a certain thing, then he went on to say it (that "socialism" is not a problem in and of itself. Again, there are many who have given reasons why it is, but Matt is not well versed in the arguments- but he still states a position here)
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackacidlizzard "I'm not talking about small groups. Obviously socialism does work in small groups, they are called "families""
He SAID he was hesitant to say a certain thing, then he went on to say it (that "socialism" is not a problem in and of itself. Again, there are many who have given reasons why it is
Funny, you are not talking about small groups, but you even wrote ""socialism" is not a problem in and of itself." Who is inconsistent? In an of itself means at any scale.
trueleroix 2 months ago
@blackacidlizzard ...continued... This would be like me saying, " I don't want to say that I know where your car keys are." And you saying that I am inconsistent because you know where your car keys are, and then just throwing in the words "argument from ignorance" for a little bit of non-sequitur bonus fun time.
trueleroix 2 months ago
I guess I'm a socialist. =)
somewhatd 2 months ago
I CAN make that assesment. And I can tell you this. Leninism and all of the crap that follows are nothing but a hideous PERVERSION of Marx idea's. Lenin (a right wing populist actually!) came up with the idea of a 'strong leader' which is the OPPOSITE of what Marx wanted.
Marx wanted to end the tyranny of the wealthy over labour. He wanted to democratize labour and place labour in the hand of the employees themselves. No more boss in charge, but the workers collectively and democratically.
TheSkunkCat 3 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
Fact is actually... if you TRULY believe in liberty, you would be a Marxist actually. Of the PRE-Lenin-type specifically. You'd want not only politics to be democratic but also labour. That'd remove the fact that a billionaire brat heir has more power then you because he has more money. Truly equalize things.
A TRUE advocate of liberty wants democratic, free labour, the way Marx envisioned.
TheSkunkCat 3 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
In fact me, I'd DEFINITLY, actually knowing the history behind things and how things currently work, say Capitalism (Which I never endorsed) is a slave system, where you give your freedom up to your boss. Just people have been fed propaganda that it's some essential part of freedom and trade, which are all lies of course, but they believe it, believe there's no alternative. Because the moneyed right-wing media wants you to believe that.
TheSkunkCat 3 months ago
@TheSkunkCat
Yeah, because tyranny by majority is totally freedom, as is the inability to invest the product of your own labor or to make trades with consenting parties.
Dumbass.
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
"Thanks for calling in trolls." - Matt
Lol. (I know it's his name, but it does sound like he is talking about trolls).
Xebioz 4 months ago
I live in Republic of Korea. There's still McCarthysm in our country since we are still in cold war (North Korea) It is crazy When i say something critical to our government or president, there're still bunch of people labeling me red communist bastard in interenet. It is pretty easy to use enemy for their good right?
Oceansky0616 5 months ago
Comment removed
Oceansky0616 5 months ago
Have Tracied answered that question yet?
gulbirk 5 months ago
I am surprised Matt says he cant know what caused it.
Because any historian or state scientist can. Its because of the following
Nr1: Totaitariniasm. Free speach compleatly gone.
Nr2: Mass media against them + the rest of the world against them.
Nr3: Actions that were disliked by normal people (such as what stalin did, murdering innocent people).
Nr4: Using 30% of the state budget on the military, thus crushing the economy.
gulbirk 5 months ago
I think that when you americans talk about socialism what you actually mean is social democrasy. This is mainly because everything in america with an aspect of socialism in it, is called socialism.
However, socialism includes things like plan economy, which is far beyond what most american socialists seem to argue for.
gulbirk 5 months ago
They let that Trolls guy go on and on and on and on...
KokotTheMonkey 6 months ago
I LMAO when people say Obama is a socialist, is just ridiculous. he looks like Bush to a hard-core socialist lol.
Fidel Castro is a communist, Hugo Chavez is a socialist, in the rest of world, is hard to find a frontline political figure that reassembles any of those ideologies.
In the US politics/media there is not single one of them, most "left-leaning" politicians I have seen are of on a barely warm social democracy or renewed socialism that has almost nothing to do with the original one.
elvigia666 7 months ago
"people would say that Obama is a socialist""
If you say that, you have no idea what what socialism is. Google Norway, Sweden, Denmark. We pay 40%-50% taxes, and we dont even count ourself as socialists.
gulbirk 10 months ago
Shit, even im a socialist, and I hate socialism!
lashlashlashlashlash 10 months ago
jesus is a comunist
linkforever92 10 months ago
@linkforever92 Hmm, so there are actually some arguments that make him look better then I thought, interesting.
gulbirk 10 months ago
it's sad so few people understand what socialism and communism are.
socialism = workers' control over the means of production
communism is a form of socialism in which people are granted access to resources according to their needs.
simple as that.
eboyd32 1 year ago 7
@eboyd32 it's not strange that so few people know what socialism is, because there are about 40 different definitions. at least according to Dictionary of Socialism by Rappaport. At its core, socialism is evil and anti-individual. It's not compatible with capitalism, which is the only system that actually protects individual property. I don't think that politics is what matters, we should instead look at the moral foundation that an ideology rests upon. with socialism, it's collectivism
VanessaTexasGal 1 month ago
@VanessaTexasGal on the contrary, mutualism, which is a form of socialism first theorized by Pierre Joseph Proudhon, is very individualistic. it is a market based system that centers around personal ownership but condemns private property, that is property used by its owners to exploit those that use it. the only commonality between all forms of socialism is the idea of "workers' control over the means of production"...
eboyd32 1 month ago
...the reason so few people know what socialism is has to do with the fact that so few people are willing to actually put the effort in to study and find out what it is. socialists of all stripes simply want more democracy in the workplace. that means more worker cooperatives and other forms of worker owned businesses (in my case i want this only if it is achieved without any coercion), workers having more say in the businesses they work for, etc. is this so evil?
eboyd32 1 month ago
@eboyd32 if it's somehow done without any coercion, I don't really see a problem with it, but that sounds a bit more like a form of capitalism (people making a deal in the free market that they will start/run a business together). If it's done with the concent of the business owner I wouldn't ban it. The key for me is to make sure private property stays protected.
VanessaTexasGal 1 month ago
@eboyd32 but the main concern for me when it comes to politics has always been to find out what moral system an ideology rests upon. Real capitalism rests upon individualism, which is all about protecting individual rights, while keeping taxes no higher than necessary for that purpose. Socialism (the kind proposed by marx at least), is based on the flawed idea that workers in a free market are exploited.
VanessaTexasGal 1 month ago
@VanessaTexasGal Marx is no more an authority on socialism than Ayn Rand is on capitalism. he wrote theories that gained popularity and became, unfortunately, the be-all end-all of socialist theory because of it. just to give you some background, Proudhon, the man i speak of, has writings that predate Marx/Engels' first works by 20+ years. in fact, many socialist factors existed before Marx. Marxists had most of them thrown out of the First International leading to their rapid..
eboyd32 1 month ago
...decline in popularity. there is actually a heated debate between what are considered collectivist anarchists (those who followed the ideas of Mikhail Bakunin), anarchist communists (followers of Pyotr Kropotkin), mutualists/individualist anarchists, all against Marxist style Communism. Marxism isn't even "evil" in theory (though it is highly flawed as the anarchists pointed out), but when people like Lenin got a hold of it the idea became distorted.
eboyd32 1 month ago
@VanessaTexasGal btw, there are quite a few anarchists, especially from here in the US, who are both staunch individualists and anti-capitalists (though many capitalists try to claim them as their own). you may be interested in the works of Lysander Spooner, for example.
eboyd32 1 month ago
@eboyd32 thanks for the tip. I also considered spooner a capitalist in some ways, since he was against the initiation of force, but I changed my mind on that when I started seeing capitalism as being incompatible with anarchism (never bought the idea of "anarcho capitalism"). I think I'll look into Proudhon though. I'm not too familiar with his work, and I didn't know he was pre marx.
VanessaTexasGal 1 month ago
@VanessaTexasGal yeah, in fact, you can go back to Thomas Hodgskin who had similar ideas to Proudhon albeit a decade or so earlier, he just didn't write about it as prolifically (and it also helped Proudhon that he was the first person to proclaim himself an anarchist in writing). also, for an ideology that kind of blurs the line between socialism and capitalism (many people consider it a synthesis between the two) you can check out "distributism".
eboyd32 1 month ago
DID HE SAY WE MAKE ACCUSATIONS OF ATHEIST BECAUSE OF WHAT OTHER ATHIEST HAVE DONE BUT DONT MOST ATHEIST WELL OUTSPOKEN ATHIEST DO THE SAME WITH CHRISTIANS AND OTHER RELIGIONS, BUT I GUESS IM DOIN THAT VERY THING IN THIS COMMENT, FOR FUCK SAKE PLEASE DONT BITE MY BALLS I CAN IMAGINE THE COOKS COMMENTING ON THIS
TaxDayRecords 1 year ago
Socialism FTW
danrienstra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i prefer to be godless than reasonless :)
MrNemitri 1 year ago
i prefer to be godless than reasonles :)
MrNemitri 1 year ago
@hossrex
I hope you go and deregulate the pharma industries too, and then die from the "free market" you created. It will find a balance, sure, but at what price, and who wants to be on the loosing side?
Adveloq 1 year ago
@Adveloq
Are you supposing that the pharmaceutical industries would be willing to invest billions of dollars developing treatments for diseases if there wasn't profit involved? Why would they do that? The only way to ensure satisfactory medical care is to allow it to be profitable.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
I said nothing like that at all. Please learn to read.
Adveloq 1 year ago
@Adveloq
You more than implied that a "free market" (those are your scare quotes, not mine) pharma would result in an unreasonable level of mistreatment, and death. My reply that the free market, and profit incentive, is what keeps people alive.
That's an entirely fair response.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex
There can be a profit incentive without there being a deregulated free market. There has never been a free market capitalist society. Why dabble in absolutes when government control is so obviously necessary in certain areas.
Adveloq 1 year ago
@Adveloq
Now who's making assumptions, and putting words into peoples mouths.
hossrex 1 year ago
FINALLY. i hate it when people say socialist in a deragatory sense
TheLoconate 1 year ago
The reason socialism and communism have always failed is because they always ended up in dictatorships.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne Ever thought that maybe you don't know anything about socio-economic theory? It's fairly obvious to most that you have no idea of what you speak.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
Why is it you say that?
I will make one correction to my earlier statement - while communism has always failed, socialism has not. Indeed, many of the most successful countries in the world are socialist or close to it.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne Socialism has never ended in a dictatorship.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
Not as far as I know, no. Which is why I made my correction in my previous comment.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne okie doke.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
@1RadicalOne PS communism was never achieved, thus it couldnt fail :)
Rabican030 1 year ago 3
That is rather like nit-picking. It is because of the problems in communism - mostly in the government aspects of it - that it did not last long enough for full implementation.
1RadicalOne 1 year ago
@Rabican030
Some of the fist US colonies were socialistic, and they failed. There was not brutal dictatorship, no brutal atrocities. And they simply did come across the incentive problem. They were constantly suffering from e.g. hunger. And the USA, as well as those specific colonies (when they did abandon socialism) did suffer no more of this. No country with "de jure" (not de facto) property rights, ever experienced famine.
serialkiller1990 3 months ago
Tracy: "Every time I have what I consider to be a good idea, about a way to improve government, or national status, eventually I come to find out that's a socialist idea."
Yup. Because it sounds like you're engaging in social engineering, which is terrible. The world doesn't need any government stepping in "improving" things. It needs a hands off approach, which will *ALWAYS* find a balance.
hossrex 1 year ago
@hossrex - no we need the born to rule crowd to tell us how we live. Right hossrex?
radoa1 1 year ago
@radoa1
"Born to rule crowd"? Who do you think runs the socialist programs?
hossrex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hossrex - what socialist programs????????
radoa1 1 year ago
@radoa1 what socialist programs?
radoa1 1 year ago
Socialism in practice is a ponzi scheme. Laissez faire capitalism in practice is monopolism. The best nations to live in balance the two: Sweden, Canada, etc.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago 2
Ramsho, I understand your viewpoint, but you don't have to pollute capitalism with socialism to reduce monopolism.
You can do it by demanding honest politicians who obey the Constitution, and staying educated and involved enough to keep getting what you demand.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
@BRYAN351 Fuck the libertarian lies about the constitution. You morons would have us stuck in 18th century thinking. You'd destroy the lives of all Americans for some non-existent All Holy Founding Father idealogy. Libertarians are actually Teabaggers, and Republiklansmen who know that their idealogy is corrupt. The architects of our government wanted a large, powerful federal government. You so-called small gov. libertarians are just too stupid to see the harm your ideas would bring.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
Me I'm a European, and I'm a Socialist. Which is perfectly respectable.
It does however means that between me and America there's not much love lost and that I don't hold America in very high regard as a consequence of this.
Which means that whenever someone trots out 'American principles' I always roll my eyes. Screw those really. America can do what it wants (with itself!), but I don't admire it at all.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
Shavarnarak, those "American principles" that you roll your eyes too are what turned a bunch of British colonies into the most prosperous, creative, powerful, and coolest country in history.
Sadly, America is in decline now, due largely to widespread socialist attitudes in our society and government. Too many Americans now prefer to vote for politicians who promise to steal wealth for them from other Americans, instead of being self-sufficient and producing their own wealth.
SOCIALISM = THEFT
BRYAN351 2 years ago
Comment removed
Emilioasecas 2 years ago
The prosperous creativeness, power and coolness are from foreigners. (Europeans, Africans...inmigrants in few words)
The "American Principles" are from everywhere but form North America.
I totally agree with Ramshobraja.Ballance is the best.
Emilioasecas 2 years ago
And capitalism is theft to... I guess we'll have to invent a new more honnest system...
Acrimonator 2 years ago
Matt should read the Communist Manifesto, I'm sure he'd agree with a good deal of stuff in there.
OneStonedBastard 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
To the female host who wants to read Marx to find out if she's a socialist or not, I can save you the trouble, dear. You are one, if you automatically think that every problem in life needs to be solved by government, instead of letting free people solve their own problems.
Remember, government produces nothing, so they can only give the people something if they first steal it from the people.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
You are retarded
I live in a socialized country (sweden) and I am enjoying benefits I would never even hope to get if this werent a socialist country.
In sweden, if you dont want to end up on the street then the goverment will help you not to for example aswell as get you to get a job.
There are plenty of valid reasons to want this kind of system and many objections are often false.. like your idea that I have no freedom, I pay taxes just like you.
KarinMikazuki 2 years ago 2
Unfortunately the swedes are voting for a more conservative government now, in hope that it will benefit the economy or lead to more jobs w/e. But it doesn't it leads to social inequalities and segregation...
MightyGoldenBoy 2 years ago
Karin, I'm retarded? No, you are a young, naive, brainwashed SHEEP. There are 2 kinds of people who desire a socialist world:
1) Government bureaucrats.
2) LOSERS who don't want to produce their own living.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". ~ Benjamin Franklin
BRYAN351 2 years ago
I see that you didnt read a word that I wrote so im not gonna bother, cya later
KarinMikazuki 2 years ago
well yeah, there are lots of benefits to having your government wipe your ass for you. I'm sure it feels great : ) BTW, what kind of toilet paper do they let you use? And I love that you said "I pay taxes" as your justification for why you have freedom! priceless. Maybe your gov will double them next year so you can have even MORE freedom, lol. Why couldn't they? Nobody in your castrated bunch could stop them, you GAVE them the power.
instereovideos 2 years ago
wow if you think that is socialism please go get an education.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
DSD, you can buy into all the new labels for socialism if you want, such as "social security", "welfare", "safety net", "food stamps", "public education" etc., but they are all examples of SOCIALISM.
If you don't realize that, then YOU are the one who needs to go and get an education. For starters, try looking up the fucking word.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
They don't steal it from the people, and also socialism does not solve every problem in life, who has ever said that it did?
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
DSD, government FORCES you to pay taxes, which fund their socialist programs. If you refuse to pay, they arrest you and SEIZE your assets. Sounds like theft to me.
Socialism not only doesn't solve every problem in life, it doesn't solve ANY problems in life. All it does is institutionalize problems.
Nearly all problems can be better dealt with by the private sector. History and current events prove this.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
The united states pays the lowest taxes in the industrialized world, private companies only do things for profit not for the people.
If you think privatization of every thing is good, just look at the early 20 century, the people rose up to get higher wages, social security, ect...
We live in a plutocratic oligarchy manipulated by big corporations, they are trying to privatize every thing by making the public programs look bad by manipulating them.
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DSD, you're correct in that big corporations and a powerful elite have the govt. in their hip pockets, but you must remember, that same elite WANTS a socialist America, because it furthers their agenda of enslaving us through higher taxes and bigger government.
A TRUE free market does not have a tiny few dominating government and entire industries.
In a TRUE free market, all jobs are paid EXACTLY what the market says they are worth. Unions are nothing but extortion rackets.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
DSD, despite your indoctrination, "profit" is not a dirty word. In fact, the desire for profit is the one thing that has produced the most benefits for humanity at large.
Do we have inexpensive yet excellent computers, TV's, cell phones, food, airfare, etc., because those companies wanted to be mother Theresa's, or because they wanted to make some money?
Sure, fortunes were made in all those industries, but as long as it was honest and legal, who cares?? Look at what we have available to us!
BRYAN351 2 years ago 2
@BRYAN351
Hey Bryan, are there any examples of a TRUE Free Market in history, ever?
Diosibundo 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Diosibundo - "Hey Bryan, are there any examples of a TRUE Free Market in history, ever?"
I see no response from Brian. I think the term is - CHECKMATE!
radoa1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BRYAN351
Who is DSD? And what's his "indoctrination? Maybe he's a Scientologist.
Anyway, hey Brian, are there any examples of a TRUE Free Market in history, ever?
Diosibundo 2 years ago
Private corporations can still work in a socialistic society , but the people should regulate them so they will not take control and manipulate the government, today if the oligarchy of corporations don't get what they want, people start losing there jobs by the millions, the CEO of those companies don't care , there billionaires, if we still had privatization of every single thing, you would be working for 2 dollars an hour and children would still be working .
DSD1v57BG32 2 years ago
DSD, you're correct in that big corporations and a powerful elite have the govt. in their hip pockets, but you must remember, that same elite WANTS a socialist America, because it furthers their agenda of enslaving us through higher taxes and bigger government.
A TRUE free market does not have a tiny few dominating government and entire industries.
In a TRUE free market, all jobs are paid EXACTLY what the market says they are worth. Unions are nothing but extortion rackets.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
Its your responsibility to pay taxes!
Without it the society would die! If you are a part of a society you have to contribute to it! If you cant, then you fail.
Socialism acctually removes a lot of the gaps between people. There are no really poor and no really rich ones. Here in sweden we got national healthcare that is mostly payed by taxes.
peronkop 2 years ago
peronkop, you sound like a brainwashed sheep. I have no problem with a tax, as long as the tax is not a direct tax on my labor. Unfortunately, most taxes in America fail that test.
For the first 137 years of America's existence, there were NO property taxes, no sales taxes, and no income taxes. None. Notta. Zip. How did we survive without taxes??? And, that was the period when America grew to become the greatest country in history.
Ponder that one, my socialist friend.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
America has a huge influence indeed but I still wouldnt say that america is a great nation. I find america quiet hipocritical.
High crime-rate, expencive healthcare, constant war, deluted religious population, extreme poverty in some regions.
peronkop 2 years ago
peronkop, the root cause of most of the problems you listed is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.
High crime? 50% of people in American prisons are there for non-violent drug offenses, or in other words, victim-less "crimes".
Regarding violent crimes, the vast majority are related to the highly profitable black market that drug prohibition has caused, just as alcohol prohibition caused terrible Al Capone style gang violence in the 1920's/30's.
continued....
BRYAN351 2 years ago
Expensive healthcare? Again, too much government meddling. A true free market competitive system would lower costs & raise quality, as it does in EVERY other industry.
Instead, we've had national socialist healthcare for decades, even before "Obama-care", with Medicare and Medicaid. And, private health insurance companies aren't allowed to sell/compete outside their state.
Constant war? War is a very profitable racket for the crooks who've stolen our govt. American citizens don't want war.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
peronkop (part 3): Deluded religious population? Whether they're deluded or not is a matter of opinion, but faith is a worldwide phenomenon. Most humans want to believe in something.
As long as it doesn't negatively affect me, then it's a non-issue to me. By the way, I believe in "God", but not in all the other bullshit that organized religions push.
America doesn't have "extreme poverty". That's a myth. "Poor" people here live better than probably 90% of the people on Earth.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
@BRYAN351 "Poor" people here live better than probably 90% of the people on Earth."
No. You are completely mistaken. Of all first world countries, the USA has by far the worst and most common severe poverty. Socialism cures poverty. You should probably look up some facts before asserting a known falsehood.
jymbo1969 1 year ago
haha, the fact that this comment has a -8 rating is a perfect. The atheists on this board are the very thing that they think they hate: sheep. They're almost ALL very defensive of bad liberal ideologies like socialism. It shows that most of them are "platform" thinkers. I mean, HOW DARE YOU disrespect this host... She can't say anything wrong! She's one of us, and she's on the same side of ALL issues as we are!
instereovideos 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok baldy, you won't make a blanket statement about socialism, then I will.
SOCIALISM = THEFT
Choose liberty.
BRYAN351 2 years ago
How sad is it that the Danish caller was more lucid and articulate with his English than most of the American bibletards who call in?
ancalites 2 years ago 8
It is beyond sad. His diction was immaculate, and it's his frickin second language. And he managed to come across as infinitely more intelligent than most of the other callers as well.
jared10ant 2 years ago 3
I live in California. Our past Governor (Gray Davis) ... among other people ... mismanaged the State's privatized electricity contracts, which resulted in our bankruptcy. Now, there is a state run electricity company called Pacific Gas & Electricity Co.
That's socialist ... and it's not a bad thing! I tire of all of these middle-aged, McCarthy Era, pseudo-political scientists commenting on the 'evils of socialism.' If you are such a person, say nothing and save yourself from your ambivalence.
BArcherC 2 years ago 25
America is still under the curse of McCarthy.
McCarthy succesfully introduced an irrational phobia of everything socialist into the American psyche, making Americans as a people more vulnerable to exploitation by the rich. (Who'll mismanage their companies, fire their employees and give themselves a few millions in bonusses.)
Shavarnarak 2 years ago 36
Its almost impossible to imagine that the damage that McCarthy and descendents (such as the John Birch Society) did to the level of political discourse could ever be repaired.
myfutureme 2 years ago
Well it ain't going to be the youth vote. They seem to gravitate towards things libertarianism. Which is basically being a total tool for the rich, disguised as being a cool rebellious advocate of liberty. (Which is what they think they are.)
I think what will eventually shake the US out of its current state is the fact that Europe not only will outpace it but already HAS outpaced it. The EU economy is already quite a bit bigger then the US economy.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
@Shavarnarak Actually those millions in bonuses were paid for in TAX DOLLARS. So the thing you claim socialism prevents (exploitation by the rich) actually happens on a MUCH larger scale when socialist policies are instituted. Maybe rethink your position?
Also, during the massive amount of "anti-socialist" propaganda the US government budget was increasing in unprecedented levels. So either the propagandists had an ulterior motive, or the propaganda didn't work and you're wrong again.
andrewh817 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama is a socialist, but it's not his fault to be honest, the President, U.S. Military, and Corporations in America have too much power in our country.
Darkgravx12 3 years ago
If hitler didnt kill those people and stalin didnt kill those people... then the world population today would be over 7.9 billion...
just an intersting thing i thought...
pweidmann 3 years ago
Thats assuming that those people from wwII would still be alive today. I mean wwII ended 65 years ago.
shuffenhauser 3 years ago
Or here is a crazy thought, maybe it is assuming they would have had children...
Littlebiger 3 years ago 3
I just wanted to point out that Hitler didn't actually kill anyone. He was responsible for laying out the overall social and philosophical principles that lead others to kill but he wasn't the one that physically preformed the killings nor was he the one who ordered the Final Solution. Those demonic 'honors' belong to the true leader of the Nazi's, the Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler. The man responsible for the holocaust, Dr. Mengele, the SS, the Gestapo, Hitlers daily meth injections, etc.
imnoromeo 3 years ago
Yes, let's just kill everyone instead of finding a very simple solution to population control. Always trying to justify inhumane ways through logic because you're too lazy to find a reasonabe solution that would come from a couple of hours of Critical thinking to find a solution.
Darkgravx12 3 years ago
A clever man can simply take a look at the world today and conclude that things aren't suppose to be this way and that someone is making it that way. I think the saddest part is that we're not smart enough to compromise and make peace in order to ensure the future of our own species.
Darkgravx12 3 years ago
the girl has to report herself to the government!!
lianghaochen 3 years ago
Which girl are you talking about?
kyokumajr 3 years ago
i think he means Tracy Harris.
i wonder though, when did having an opinion become a crime in america?
bla34112 3 years ago 4
Since it became a Xian Nation?
kyokumajr 3 years ago 13
@kyokumajr A white female nation run by old white man to be exact
sharkjack 8 months ago
The community of atheist consist of: Republican atheist, Democrat atheist, conservative atheist, liberal atheist, moderate atheist, radical atheist, good atheist, and bad atheist. Now just replace the word atheist with Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, men or women.
I am a conservative, republican, atheist!
DustyMay1944 3 years ago
a republican atheist... I don't know very many of those, do know a few but not very many lol
I think there would be republican atheists if the Republicans weren't controlled by the fundies
CarpeOmne 3 years ago 2
The majority of republican atheists, are the filthy rich ones.
takenflame 3 years ago
Republican atheist=filthy rich??? Now youre applying a label takenflame! Any label applied out of ignorance is objectionable; I do wish that one was true though.:)
DustyMay1944 3 years ago
Thats the misconception theists purposefully make, trying to turn atheist into an organised group.
Atheism isnt a belief or disbelief really.
If there was no religion you would still be considered an atheist despite not having a god to disbelieve.
Its simply hard to word it any other way, living with believers of gods, then to say we are a godless people. We do not believe gods exist. I think the key is we dont have a particular god we dont believe in, simply the idea of gods in general.
waltermh111 3 years ago
Good point. It's sad republicans forgot what they stood for. The founding fathers. republicans, were all about freedom, the Constitution, small government and much power in the hands of people. They didn't like democrats as they felt democracy is about bureaucracy and cutting people off their government, especially Washington was adamant on this issue.
If I lived in USA I'd be a republican Ron Paul supporter, one of the few true republicans.
AmerginMacEccit 3 years ago
Communists, Socialist, Democratic, any country that wants to compete in tomorrows world need to implement GOOD free higher learning. The US is pricing it's children out of college and/or stunting their early productive adult years with massive debt, and we will pay for it dearly in the future if we don't wake up, fast.
kuzuboshii 3 years ago 2
Wow a caller from Denmark!
That must have been expensive.
Shad0wack 3 years ago 6
For the most part Americans confuse Socialism with Communism.
Tracie has said she has had to reject ideas that make a lot of sense because they are considered socialistic.
The rest of the Western world has embraced socialism, and their societies are a lot better off for it.
Governments who take care of their citizens assume that task from religious organizations. The more a country embaraces socialism the less religious it's people become.
Religion is a crutch!
hal2017 3 years ago 14
"Governments who take care of their citizens assume that task from religious organizations."
I don't quite agree with that statement, but I can't think of a counterargument now. No wait... IT PROMOTES SOCIALISM! heh Good enough ;)
kyokumajr 3 years ago
@hal2017
"The rest of the Western world has embraced socialism, and their societies are a lot better off for it."
what do you say now?
radoa1 1 year ago
@hal2017 That's funny because Americans tend to confuse communism with some sort of almost comically exagerated fascist dictatorship/ Totalitarianism regime. I think Americans are just ignorant to a lot of the use words they use, at least the ones they pick to represent themselves in their news media :cough: Bill O'riley/ the cast of fox news. Who Needless to say are some of the most frustratingly stupid people on television anywhere in the world.
sacredgeometry 1 year ago
@hal2017
You know that makes sense and all but Socialism is bad so sorry I must crucify you.
JamesCizuz 8 months ago
I have this sneaky suspicion, that if asked most of those that use the "socialist" lable as some sort of cuss word, will not even be able to give a definition or its characterists, beyong "Russians! Evil!" & for the more literate occasional "Mao!".
I'm not generalizing this to all, but a big part perhaps.
kyokumajr 3 years ago
I agree that it's silly to call atheists either "socialists" or "communists." I know a lot of atheists, and their political beliefs cover the spectrum from anarchist on the right to, yes, communist on the left. Most tend to be center left. Anyway, I don't see the idea of socialism to be such an awful thing, used in moderation. Went to a public school? Socialism. Drive on public roads? Socialism. Ever call the police for anything? Socialism. A little bit of socialism is a good thing.
ChuckyJesus666 3 years ago 2