Socialism Is the Only Way

[CDNBear]

CDNBear

Not very direct in you answer but enough to point to the direction. What are you and Avro, Siamese twins?

Actually, we're pretty much diametrically apposed thinkers, I admire the works of Che, he hates him, I hate AlBore, he loves him.

I think the one and only thing we can agree on is 'stupid is as stupid does' and empty arguements supported by emotional rhetoric and vacant Op/Ed pieces.

When it comes to a list of fascists and despots, you can add Pinochet along with Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini. That should add to rounding out the nefarious gang list and elucidating what I mean by subterfuge. Throw in amy more of such scum balls and I will add them to the nefarious list which would serve to accentuate my point. Franco, maybe, or do you have a better scum ball in the ready.

They're all scumbags...I've yet to see a politician in the last 100 years that wasn't in someway 'scum of the earth' out to increase his net worth as apposd to the people.

Socialism has just had its more then fair share of truly exception 'scumbags'.

Perhaps you also are looking for cozy spot to lie down with the brutes in your afterlife..

Don

Ya that's it, you got me pegged in three posts...good one Don, Avro and I have been at it for over a year and he's still not sure if I'm a neocon troll or a pinko commie.

One day it might "Don" on ya, that not everyone uses emotion and Op/Ed's to build the foundation of their ideology, nor do they attempt to pigeon hole someone, just to make it easier for them to dismiss differing opinions.

 

[CDNBear]

Avro

You said:

"Here's a challenge, try making sense next time."

How clear do you want it. I said you had "strange bed fellows." Do you want me to paint a picture for you to show that you have something in common them-- bashing socialism.

Don

Are you that obtuse that if anyone should defile the sanctity of Socialism, hereto they must be in bed with the most disgusting of the flip side?

 

[Avro]

Avro

You said:

"Here's a challenge, try making sense next time."

How clear do you want it. I said you had "strange bed fellows." Do you want me to paint a picture for you to show that you have something in common them-- bashing socialism.

Don

...and my bedfellows are?

Don't paint me into a corner because I am neither a con or a lefty but I think they both have good ideas.

 

[smdfaru]

Avro

You said:

"...and my bedfellows are?"

You have a very short attention span. I don't have the time to keep refreshing your memory, "....you probably have an affinity towards it," referring to the bedfellows mentioned in my comment to Avro.

You said:

"Don't paint me into a corner because I am neither a con or a lefty but I think they both have good ideas."

It is not my desire to, nor do I need to, paint you into a corner--you did it to yourself.
The subject of the thread is socialism. You attacked socialism and you drag up a butcher, Pinochet, to back up your argument. Need more be said?

Don

 

[CDNBear]

Need more be said?

Don

Ya, something resembling an arguement, as apposed to the personisation of whatever it is you think you are doing here.

That would be a good start.

Then you could go on to such things as trying to prove that Socialism is somehow the best of all forums of Gov't.

Seeing as the history of Socialism is dark, to say the least, this shall be no easy task, which is likely the reasoning behind your present course of action.

We have enough of you vacuous, emotional, Op/Ed supporters of the end of the free world here, perhaps you could muster something refreshing and supply a supported arguement.

 

[smdfaru]

CDNBear

You said:

"Are you that obtuse that if anyone should defile the sanctity of Socialism, hereto they must be in bed with the most disgusting of the flip side?"

What is the sanctity of Socialism? For that matter, I never suggested that I was a socialist, only that socialism never existed in the country or countries that you referred to.

You hoist your anti-marxist flag just as Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini and Pinochet did. If you haven't counted, that is six flags. Which flags or flags qualify the most.

Don

 

[darkbeaver]

I hate Op/Ed peices foisted as supporting documention...Try something like this.

Stats...

link

As we lost some industry, the bulk of which was lower paying manual labour intensive, we gained an increase in skilled trade manufacturing jobs, coming with an increased mean wage.

A simple fact.

That growing economy grew out of the workers pockets , it did not come from non existant manufacturing jobs requiring skilled trades. The growth in the GDP is was not translated into increased real income for the working class.

 

[darkbeaver]

Ya, something resembling an arguement, as apposed to the personisation of whatever it is you think you are doing here.

That would be a good start.

Then you could go on to such things as trying to prove that Socialism is somehow the best of all forums of Gov't.

Seeing as the history of Socialism is dark, to say the least, this shall be no easy task, which is likely the reasoning behind your present course of action.

We have enough of you vacuous, emotional, Op/Ed supporters of the end of the free world here, perhaps you could muster something refreshing and supply a supported arguement.

What you know of socialism or history ammounts to a thin colouring book issued by the Canadian armed farces.

 

[smdfaru]

CDNBear

"We have enough of you vacuous, emotional, Op/Ed supporters of the end of the free world here, perhaps you could muster something refreshing and supply a supported arguement."

My main thrust was that you and Avon had something in common with--who? Despots and fascists who were bashers of socialism. If I need to posit proof of the crimes against the working class that they committed, then it is a stark indication of the lack of historical knowledge you and Avon have.

Don

 

[darkbeaver]

CDNBear

"We have enough of you vacuous, emotional, Op/Ed supporters of the end of the free world here, perhaps you could muster something refreshing and supply a supported arguement."

My main thrust was that you and Avon had something in common with--who? Despots and fascists who were bashers of socialism. If I need to posit proof of the crimes against the working class that they committed, then it is a stark indication of the lack of historical knowledge you and Avon have.

Don

It's a crying shame Don the young minds ruined by uneducation and the brainwashing of our capitalist system to the point where they would kiss the likes of Pinochet. The same type would sell there grannys.

 

[Kreskin]

Are you guys Anarcho-syndicalists?

 

[smdfaru]

Kreskin

You said:

"Are you guys Anarcho-syndicalists?"

You drop a term like a lead balloon.

Don

 

[smdfaru]

It's a crying shame Don the young minds ruined by uneducation and the brainwashing of our capitalist system to the point where they would kiss the likes of Pinochet. The same type would sell there grannys.

Right on. Not even a capitalist would be bold enough utter such words. But why should they, when underlings do it for nothing.

Don

 

[Kreskin]

Kreskin

You said:

"Are you guys Anarcho-syndicalists?"

You drop a term like a lead balloon.

Don

I'm a Proletariat Aristo-capitalist Parliamentarian.

 

[darkbeaver]

Didn't PACP have an album out in the eightys?

 

[TAM255]

No way

Socialism lead to totalitarian, and since we are almost already there... :roll:

I don't have the same definition for socialism. For me, it's making the class equal by offering the same service to everybody. The abolition of the class. I'm not a socialist, smarter people can get better service and they want to and anybody can be rich if they wish.

The goal of the public healthcare system was not socializing, at least not for me. The reason of why I support the public system is because healthcare should not be a business. It's all fine for me if the richer get better service because anyway, it's inevitable.

It is immoral to make money with healthcare. And it is more than immoral to tax people and don't offer them a minimum of care in return.

 

[Zzarchov]

Socialism, as you mean it darkbeaver, always leads to corruption; its a flawed system. It may look good on paper, so does a benevolent dictatorship (which looks even better).

But neither one has a hope in hell of suceeding.

 

[TAM255]

Socialism, as you mean it darkbeaver, always leads to corruption; its a flawed system.

Yes, only liberalism might beat corruption. Otherwise, it will be like in Québec province. The best example is what is happening at the moment, the internet is more popular than the tv and still, the government want to keep the tv channels. These channel are mercantile and and can go as far as supporting the implementation of photo-radar to keep a good income to the state. It's a major problem when a liberal democracy is not in place in a capitalism/socialist economy. If they keep it that way, they are going to raise the tax to 80% and offering service nobody want.

And then, the friends of the tv channels and the lobby will try their best to hurt the internet. Example : Caps for downloading that pretend to stop piracy while the idea is to keep their market. They don't want people to watch tv on the internet, using phone on the internet, renting movie in the internet. That's why they are attacking the internet. And they use piracy or other things like paedophile-pornography to implement filter and caps.

Another major problem is the population that get older. My father worked 4 days a week. Why should I work 6 day a week to pay his retreat?

 

[Kreskin]

Socialism lead to totalitarian, and since we are almost already there... :roll:

I don't have the same definition for socialism. For me, it's making the class equal by offering the same service to everybody. The abolition of the class. I'm not a socialist, smarter people can get better service and they want to and anybody can be rich if they wish.

The goal of the public healthcare system was not socializing, at least not for me. The reason of why I support the public system is because healthcare should not be a business. It's all fine for me if the richer get better service because anyway, it's inevitable.

It is immoral to make money with healthcare. And it is more than immoral to tax people and don't offer them a minimum of care in return.

Welcome to the board!

The primary objective of the Canada Health Act is to ensure Canadians receive medical care without financial barriers. However, some medical services are already privatized and delivered to those who pay for it out of their pockets. To me, as long as everyone gets access to basic care, treatments and surgical services, it shouldn't matter how entrepreneurial some get within the system.

 

[TAM255]

Welcome to the board!

The primary objective of the Canada Health Act is to ensure Canadians receive medical care without financial barriers. However, some medical services are already privatized and delivered to those who pay for it out of their pockets. To me, as long as everyone gets access to basic care, treatments and surgical services, it shouldn't matter how entrepreneurial some get within the system.

Thank you.

Yes, like the dentist. And I have saw myself what can happened when medical service is a business. Now, it was only for teeth, I don't want to imagine what kind of things could happened in surgery. Especially because of the evolution of the high-technologies.