These days you need to have "that talk" with your children.

This is the socialist mindset

I think it is more like this ;D

Keep dreaming

I was just joking about what is the socialist mindset. I didn’t mean to imply it is something I believe is correct.

20k66k.jpg (click to show)
upvote!

Upvote!
Some socialists are more equal than others.

Could easily say the same about Capitalism, or religion; replacing "politician" with "internet provider", "gas provider", "pope", or "ayatollah".

You are exactly right!
No arguments from me on your point!
I concede that unequivocally 100%!
Now if you could just get into your mind the reprehensible history of socialists systems you would see there is no merit in even attempting that type of philosophy in America.

I have noticed the flaws in socialism. One thing, politicians can step it up to the dangerous communism. That's why I don't support socialism directly.

2idrq.gif (click to show)
That's awesome that you recognize the "good intentions" of redistribution can turn into full blown communism.
Now if you could just understand the benefits of capitalism, which comes with disparity in wealth and resources, far out weigh the possible benefits of "democratic socialism" that "intends" to do away with those disparities (among the public sector anyway.)

Capitalism does have its benefits, but some of those benefits depend on putting faith in the rich, such as depending on the rich to share some of their money to the lower classes. Trickle-down economics has been a ideal economic solution for a while, but has never worked in practice.

I don't "have faith in the rich." I don't have to trust them to do anything than what they normally do.
I understand that they play a role in a healthy economy because poor people don't start businesses, invest money, or pay the majority of taxes. (The top one percent of earners Bernie and others are always talking about pay the majority of taxes.)

"Trickle-down doesn't work," what does that mean? To your liking? Who gets to determine that, the liberal socialist leaning politicians who play on the greed of their constituents to get elected?

Hegel would put your concepts on the slaughter block of history.

Of course that is what Hegel would do - as would all opponents of liberty.

And you also are wrong:

From our bylaws, the Consitution: Article IV, Section 4: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

From our Charter, the Declaration: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

Thomas Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" and "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Alexander Hamilton: "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.

John Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

George Washington: "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." and "Unhappy it is though to reflect, that a Brother's Sword has been sheathed in a Brother's breast, and that, the once happy and peaceful plains of America are either to be drenched with Blood, or Inhabited by Slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous Man hesitate in his choice?"

Liberal Democracy = freedom

Democratic Republic = liberty

Constitutional Republicanism = bunch of overfed dumbasses riding around in pick-ups with gun racks and inventing new forms of political thought they'll never fully understand themselves so that they have an excuse to feed their cattle on public rangeland at below-market prices.

The question isn't what men who lived 240+ years ago really thought, it's what they would think of the people who talk freedom but attempt to restrict the franchise and deny Americans' liberties in the name of some vague idea of patriotism that has more to do with their own selfish prejudices than a document that few of them have ever bothered to read. If Jefferson were alive today I have little doubt he would be as bothered by modern conservatism as he was by King George III and the British parliament's denial of colonists' votes.

Nothing says freedom like taking away guns.

[{pssst, there's a few more lines in the Constitution, some other Ammendments even, I swear. In fact, rumor has it, that lil' document is about the rights of something called people - American people (what yous call 'Muricans) - and not just the Go***MNED divine sacred inalienable rights of oppressed guns}]

I know, I know, lefto collegiate MSM lies, but they do say:

1. The Injuns ain't attacking our muskets headfirst anymore.

2. The Nehgrus aren't running away from the plantation on account of this Emmancipation Proclamation whatchamacallit which gave them this Liberty Right thingy.

3. The British ARE coming. To see the Christmas tree in Rockefeller Center, NYC.

How does this have nothing to do with the subject at hand? I mean seriously! You talk about the Constitution as if freedom is only found in it and then turn around and say that it has nothing to do with the discussion! I'm done with you type of people!

If you take notice, I have not nor will I ever reply to jack_henoff again. I learned long ago that there is NO reasoning with this person.
He labels people "fascists" and "Russian sympathizers" and seems to support every talking point of the Left but disavows being a liberal/Democrat/leftist.
He doesn't affirm any of the positions of liberty.
I don't know what he thinks he is, maybe he is just a troll. I could respect that, but I don't feed the trolls. I just ignore him no matter what type of vile and bile he spews. Just ignore him because that will get under his skin. There are many others just like jack.

You tell me how it does.

And no, I did not say that.

If you need permission from a piece of paper to pretend you're free, then you ain't.

I'm just getting started. It appears that many Democrats think that religion is the problem (1st amendment) and rapists do not deserve due process (amendment 5, and I will admit that many Republicans do too with terrorists). That's just with the bill of rights. In article 1, section 8, the powers of Congress are fully defined, and they do not include enforcing workplace diversity or cap-in-trade. The Constitution has become so irrelevant to liberals that when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked, regarding Obamacare, where in the document Congress is granted the power to force people to buy health insurance, she asked incredulously, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” I don't beleive the Constitution is perfect, but I do beleive that only the people should decide when you can bend it's rules, and if the american people really think that you can bend the rules of this document so far that it loses meaning all in the name of "freedom" and "liberty," then there should be no problem getting 3/4 of Congress to pass it.

This is how much the left really respected the constitution before that "monster" Trump came along (and now all of a sudden they are for the constitution again)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqUUvEHjng

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

I know that you probably are going to say I'm stereotyping, but after basically calling me a redneck because I think that gun control violates the second amendment, I wouldn't be talking.

Copy/paste, always impressive, especially when non pertinent to the subject at hand.
Always a delight also to see the lemmings turn on the tardo switch while Dictator Don & Rebubots chuck the Constitution up our asses for safekeeping.

https://goo.gl/images/7r4566

Only on election day...

Majority does not rule - they cannot override the God-given constitutional protected rights of We, the People. "A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void" - Chief Justice John Mashall.

If your local government passed a law requiring you to prostitute yourself, would you comply? Would it be lawful? Would you resist with force?

Before the 13th amendment slaves could be forced into prostitution and that was seen as legal under the constitution.

It really shouldn't have been. Under the Constitution, we have the freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you ask me, I can't think of a single thing that means liberty more than the enslavement of people and forced prostitution.

Um, WOT?

NEWS FLASH: It's 2017. The Nehgrus ain't about to be reinslaved again, even if you think their freedom impedes on your liberty.

Huh? What's that? It appears that nobody has replied to my comment. Huh.

Hint: sarcasm exists

As I explained to you on that other thread?

There are Presidents who are directly elected and serves as both state and government. Try Mexico and most other central and south American countries (all mostly third world hotbeds of political corruption).

Here is a civics lesson for you, snowflake. In the US we elect our congressman, who make our laws and keep checks on the President. We indirectly elect our President (our chief of both state and government). A national popular vote just electing the President (like you want) would truly be wrong for the country. Heck, even the popular vote in Presidential elections doesn't always reflect the will of the majority of the voters. In this last Presidential election, the popular vote winner (despite your insistence that Hillary winning 48% of the vote is a majority) won less than a majority of the vote (below 50%) and the winner of the electoral college didn't even win a plurality of the vote. A majority didn't vote for either Hillary nor Donald Trump. We are a federal republic of individual states and the electoral college was designed to give each state an individual voice in electing the highest chief of state and government.

If you look at other developed countries, they largely operate the same way. The Prime Minister of the UK is not directly elected by the voters either. The winner of the post of Prime Minister is the leader of the party which wins the most seats in the lower House of Commons in a direct election. As a result, the Prime Minister isn't always the winner of the nationwide popular vote either as a party can win the most seats in the House of Commons without winning the nationwide popular vote as they are elected much like our House of Representatives. The chosen PM also has to have the approval of the non-elected monarch with whom he shares power with. The Queen on the other hand is the non-elected, ceremonial head of state and as a member of no political party in the UK serves as a symbol of unity. The PM forms and heads the national government. This is also seems to be working out pretty well for them (unlike the US who has a national leader who serves as both head of state and government and is a member of a political party). The UK is certainly a lot less politically divided.than the US is for sure.

This isn't just the UK. Even in places like France and Ireland, who does elect their President by popular vote, the President still only serves a mostly ceremonial role as chief of state while an indirectly elected Prime Minister (much like the UK) serves as the head of the national government (and is not always of the same party as the President).

Basically, we shouldn't let young people think for themselves.. right? What a free nation this is.

Perhaps you misunderstood my reference and argument.
My reference was to the United Federation of Planets from Star Trek, which is based on the notion of a socialist "utopia." To it is a good argument that a socialist "utopia" as envisioned only works in science fiction/fantasy.

My argument is that allowing children to think for themselves (caveat: only after presenting them with all the facts) will prevent them from accepting that there is any merit in attempting to sustain a socialist system.

The only reason young people today think there is any merit in socialism is because they have not been presented with all the facts regarding socialist systems, and because it has become "hip" and "trendy" since the last election cycle in the US. For some they still want to put the modifier "democratic" in front of socialist like that actually changes anything.

I think that our constitutional, representative republic can be better but I definitely don't want a "democracy" where the majority of people who are leftist, liberals, or lean towards socialism get to impose their opinions and desires on the rest of us. Hence the electoral college: New York and LA don't get to decide the way the rest of the country is governed.

Perhaps you and the OP should WATCH the show before erroneously criticizing someone who actually did.

[{"BUT ALEX JONES SAID IT WAS COMMIE SHOW!}]

Because in space, no one can hear you scream even when you have egg on your face.

Jus' sayin'

Maybe. I may have taken the image of Captain Picard out of context. However, I don't think the United Federation of Planets is a socialist utopia. I find it more like the United States as the members of Starfleet go out exploring as to promote democracy and peace to other races throughout the galaxy.

I wouldn't say I'm a steadfast socialist, nor would I say there is some hip and trendiness in socialism from our last election (if anything, there are more dank memes about the Soviet National Anthem than socialist hipsters). If anything, the reason behind Capitalism being rejected among our modern day political cycles would be the advantages capitalism has over poor people. As a result, we have to conform to something in between capitalism and a system that shares wealth; that being socialism.

If anything, America would be better as a democracy because, A) Foreign policy is supposed to promote Democracy, and B) if the liberals are the majority, then it'd better represent the people. New York and Los Angeles have more people per square mile than a rural area in Kansas would.

No, you did not.
The United Federation of Planets
sounds like
The United Federated States of America for a reason.

That repressed conservos have to analyze something like that out of a Sci Fi show because it treats even alien races as equals just shows how desperate they are to bleat their retardeX, I mean, regressive agenda.
It's a Sci Fi show, for cryin out loud.

What episode was that?

My MSM lies app kept CGIing in some "Prime Directive" claptrap from the 1st episode to the last movie.

Keep on lickin Commie balls, trailer trash tardo

Well the only people licking commie balls are you libtarded Demo-rats. I don't lick anybody's balls like you do, but since you want to go there by bringing up "commie" Putin I will just play along for a bit

http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-steers-clear-of-communist-ceremony-steeped-in-russian-history-2017-11

Hey, the Putin f*ggot is still at it.

Lick that smeg away, because inbreeding needs protein too.