Oldscratch: “Socialists believe that the “state” is a tool used by a minority of people to oppress the majority.”
Wasn’t the old USSR, a supposed socialist state, the worst example of a minority of people oppressing the majority?
Face it, we wouldn’t need prisons if people didn’t commit crimes. What are you going to do, slap them on the wrist and return them to society?
Socialized medicine sucks. Look at UK and Canada.
Socialism is the refuge of lazy people and incompetents.
Look, watery tarts distributin’ swords is no basis for a system o’ government! Supreme executive power has to come from a mandate of the people. If I went around saying I was king just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
And using whatever force necessary! 
I believe it was the French President Clemenceau who commented on his son’s joining the Socialist Party:
**
So scratch, if the people join together to give more and more of the peoples decision making, money and power to the government, they are going to be diminishing the power and control of the government? It seems to me that to diminish governmental power, we should all take back the money and decision making from the government. You seem to be contradicting yourself.
Actually you are sounding more like Libertarian, who still hasn’t told me what a hard break is.
[Groundskeeper Willie mode ON]
Ah told ye! Ah warrrned ye! But no, ye would na lissen ta me!
[Groundskeeper Willie mode OFF]
oldscratch, I’m all for solidarity but this great debates thread idea is asking for trouble. Not 'cos the whole vast majority of the Teeming Millions are a buncha rabid libertarian nutcases, but that this kind of thread ATTRACTS them quickly, it turns into an insult/screamfest, and people who are or may be genuinely curious about what we think avoid the thread like the plague.
I mean it. Go find people you can talk to face-to-face and let this thread die. You’ll save yourself much aggravation and headaches.
I meant to say “horizontal rule”, not “hard break”.
[/quote]
like this
[/quote]
it could be useful
[/quote]
for separating portions of a post
Olentzero, you foul, malodorous, left wing scumbag. I disagree because you are wrong, Wrong, WRONG! What type of of brain dead…cough, cough, cough…
There, I feel better. Actually, I am really curious about scratch’s ideas. I figure that it will take at least three pages before I start ranting about people stealing my money. Actually, this board has been very tame lately and the denizens are pretty smart and rational.
BTW, what’s up with that? No SECRETAGENT, no Newton’s Apple…who killed all the trolls?
Okay, here’s something I can disagree with you on oldscratch. You seem to have a tendency towards referring to the government as “them”, and talking about us fighting the government. The government isn’t an entity, the government is the balance of the majority. Much as I hate America, it is a democracy, and people can change the government, if you can get them to change their minds. Granted, at this point in time the companies and the richest 1% have too much control over our government. But we can change that. And from the looks of it, we are. The biggest step is to reform the hell out of campaign financing.
Besides, revolution is just plain stupid. The definition of a revolution is to go in a full circle and end up where you started. Except with less money, and more dead people.
I vote for less revolution and more evolution.
“Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka
Whoa, how did I miss this? For the sake of this argument, I’ll assume you mean that in your ideal government, religion would be outlawed.
If you outlaw a religion, that religion will only burn brighter because now they have an enemy and a scapegoat, the government.
In short, religion will always exist so long as there are humans to believe in things. If you say you want to outlaw religion, you’re basically saying you want to outlaw human-nature.
Besides, I think Atheism is just the newest religion. To paraphrase what MysterEcks said, do you have any proof that there’s nothing out there?
The thing is, religion does bring people together. And that’s one of the reasons religions are so prevalent. People use any reason to form a group. There’s never just one monkey.
oldscatch, I am truly impressed with some of the ideals you have expressed. Less Government Control and Regulation for one. How will this be accomplished within the framework of Socialism in the US? I do not hink (based on what you’ve posted in the past) that you are in fovor of anarchy, so how do Socialists in the US see this coming about?
I am completely opposed to the idea of a revolution, but I would still like to hear your idea of the ideal revolution taking place.
olentzero, scamper off into the woods, and play with the bunnies. Don’t come in here and suggest that no one is interested, just 'cause you got a mouthfull in your thread. There are those who want to hear the views, weather they agree or not.
Freak said
If you eliminate soft money and PAC’s, how will people make their voices heard. Remember that some of these evil PAC’s are groups like the Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, The NRA, MADD…All groups of individuals banding together to gain a say in government so that they can compete with the Rich and Big Business.
I never said eliminate. I said reform. Such as limiting how much an individual or a company can contribute.
they already do.
Wow! Really? You just totally blew me out of the water there Mr. Z! I guess you got me![/sarcasm]
Yeah, I know. So when I said reform, I meant that they had to be more limited.
No problem Freak. I wasn’t in attack mode, just pointing out some finer points. anything more at this point is a hijack of poor scratch’s thread. Where the heck is he. He started this and then took off.
Mr. Z.:
If campaigns are publicly financed, all these PACs can still make their voices heard by appealing directly to the public, via advertising etc., to elect the candidate(s) they approve of. They just won’t have the candidates under direct financial obligations to them.
One prototype for such a process is the new Maine Clean Election Act:
Sorry about that, I’ve been in the pit a lot lately…
Maybe we should spend less time arguing over the finer points and get back to insulting his ideals. I mean, we gotta keep him busy, right?
Well, we all know that socialism doesn’t work. But I want to hear how making the government responsible for universal healthcare and housing is going to lessen its power.
Kim said:
Well, I think if the NRA spent $250 million on TV ads to get a senator elected, he would probably be pretty beholden to them. If I am not mistaken, the reformers are pretty miffed about PAC’s and Individuals paying for political adverts. Personally, I think outlawing them is an infringement of the 1st amendment.