Tea Party leader desirous of Property requirement for voting

[Arakhor]

In American-common use, Socialism means partial government control of the economy.

It's just as well you weren't talking about 19th Century Prussian statesmen then, rendering limited, biased labels utterly useless? Oh, snap!

 

[Ajidica]

It's just as well you weren't talking about 19th Century Prussian statesmen then, rendering limited, biased labels utterly useless? Oh, snap!

Bismark, the Socialists best friend when arguing against the modern right!
(I'm sure the Iron Chancellor is revolving with increasing velocity right now!)

 

[Dachs]

Forget Bismarck, you can go much further back for extra lulz

 

[ParkCungHee]

Lulzier

 

[Cutlass]

I've already explained this to you, words have different meanings in different places and contexts. Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

Not to mention the hypocricy of saying marriage's definition can be changed to suit the needs of society, but the definition of socialism is monolythic. Sorry but I don't buy it. In American-common use, Socialism means partial government control of the economy. I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

Only amongst people who rabidly hate truth, justice, and the American way.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

No, Marxism is quite right in it's connection between the Middle Class and the Bourgeoise. It's just that most people misuse the term "Middle Class."

 

[uppi]

I am trying to decide what is more ignorant: Calling Bismarck a socialist or Marx a disgruntled worker.

But both of these reveal an astonishing ignorance of history.

 

[Dachs]

Lulzier

But they're the same lulz...

 

[Arakhor]

I noticed that.

 

[GamezRule]

Marx grew up a member of the Bourgeoise IIRC.

 

[ParkCungHee]

But they're the same lulz...

Yes, but I've seen Grad Students claim that Sans-Coulletes were socialist...

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, but I've seen Grad Students claim that Sans-Coulletes were socialist...

They could be viewed as precursors to the Utopian Socialist movement, right?
They advocated for strict laws regulating pricing and that everyone should be given the ability to work.

 

[civver_764]

Marx grew up a member of the Bourgeoise IIRC.

Engels moreso.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Only amongst people who rabidly hate truth, justice, and the American way.

Can you please stop with the one-liners and actually explain what was wrong with my post?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you stop raping the meaning of words. If you quit murdering the English language.

Why do you hate freedom of speech? You want Cutlass to conform to some elitist standard you determine when posting? You know who also tells you what to do and how to behave? The Big Bad Government. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Why do you hate freedom of speech? You want Cutlass to conform to some elitist standard you determine when posting? You know who also tells you what to do and how to behave? The Big Bad Government. Why do you hate freedom?

Did I SAY he had too? Or that he didn't have freedom of speech? Nope.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But you admit to raping the meaning of words and murdering the English language?

 

[GhostWriter16]

But you admit to raping the meaning of words and murdering the English language?

Yep!

Just kidding, obviously not

 

[Cutlass]

Can you please stop with the one-liners and actually explain what was wrong with my post?

Originally Posted by Domination300
I've already explained this to you, words have different meanings in different places and contexts. Otherwise Marxism fails because it advocates overthrowing the Middle Class (Bourgeoise originally meant middle class.)

Not to mention the hypocricy of saying marriage's definition can be changed to suit the needs of society, but the definition of socialism is monolythic. Sorry but I don't buy it. In American-common use, Socialism means partial government control of the economy. I don't care what a disgrunted worker named Marx who had no idea what he was talking about said the definition was anymore than you care what God said the definition of marriage was.

See that part? That is wrong. In absolute terms. In US common English language usage socialism does not mean partial government control of the economy. No ifs, ands, or buts, it does not mean that.

Now it has been used that way by a minority of political extremists. But most of them know with absolute certainty that they are lying through their teeth when they say so.

They say it because they believe that the end justifies the means. They say it because they believe that an evil action in a good cause is not an evil action.

And they say it because they can get impressionable and ignorant children to parrot them and possibly even come to believe them.

In essence, they are morally the same as the people who protect priests that rape children because they think protecting the Church is more important than seeing justice done to scum.

Except that it is evil. And more to the point, it is an evil action in an evil cause. That part they don't get.

Now a very small minority of people may actually believe that socialism is any government action on the economy. But that is an extremely small fringe group. Certainly not common usage of the English language.

So when you say it, you are not using American English in the common usage, you are parroting fringe political rhetoric. And that is why no one will ever take you seriously as long as you continue to do it. The best reaction that you personally, Domination3000, could possibly hope for, is that people will say "That idiot child is at it again."

Trust me when I say that the opinions of you, and the way people talk about you behind your back, go down from there.

But that's just one issue on which you take extremist political rhetoric and think that most people see things the same as you. Sure, many people are against gay marriage. The percents are declining, but they are still high. But that is a different thing from saying that there is some traditional view of marriage that excludes gays, and is inviolable. The reality is that traditional marriage is primarily an economic institution. And once you accept that fact, most of the arguments against allowing gay marriage evaporate like mist. Your side is trying to redefine the meaning of marriage, not ours.

Controlling the terms of a debate, and controlling the rhetoric of a debate are strong tactics for controlling the outcome of a debate. In the US political scene, conservatives are simply better at that than liberals are. Which is why they use it so much. But you don't have the skill to do so. And so you just make people annoyed at you.

And unwilling to give you an answer that extends beyond one liner snark.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But that's just one issue on which you take extremist political rhetoric and think that most people see things the same as you. Sure, many people are against gay marriage. The percents are declining, but they are still high. But that is a different thing from saying that there is some traditional view of marriage that excludes gays, and is inviolable. The reality is that traditional marriage is primarily an economic institution. And once you accept that fact, most of the arguments against allowing gay marriage evaporate like mist. Your side is trying to redefine the meaning of marriage, not ours.

Odd since I support gay couples having the same tax benefits...

Now a very small minority of people may actually believe that socialism is any government action on the economy. But that is an extremely small fringe group. Certainly not common usage of the English language.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&ei=tYD-TKeDFYK0lQeqnojzCA&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQkAE

First definition: A political theory advocating state ownership of industry. So there!