Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[regular.joe]

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

You still have not define socialism. While you are free to do so, giving your opinion is not a definition. So I ask you to please define the word socialism.

Sent from an undisclosed location.

Unlike liberals, I shy away from redefining words, to suit my POV atm.

Socialism has already been well defined:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1] and a political philosophy advocating such a system. "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]

A socialist economic system would consist of a system of production and distribution organized to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit[5] driven by the accumulation of capital. Accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time in place of financial calculation.[6][7] Distribution would be based on the principle to each according to his contribution.

As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership. Democratic socialism seeks to establish socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within the context of a democratic political system.

All socialism definitions have this in common - your freedoms become less - sometimes MUCH less. The control by the state becomes more - sometimes MUCH more.

When you equate Warren Buffet with his secretary, you're equating Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, to his receptionist.

I submit to you that their accomplishments and benefit to us, is not the same.

As for the tax law - liberals and politicians under the undue influence of lobbyists, wrote it. Conservative politicians have almost always been in the minority, simply because they don't pander to the groups with the $$$, (unions (AFL-CIO), large corporations (GE), large political blocks (Israel), who will ensure their re-election.

As Representative Charlie Wilson once said:

"I'm Israel's guy on the Hill. I'm elected because I get support from a bunch of Jews in Upstate New York."

Which would be JUST FINE, except Charlie was a Rep. from Texas, which had "2 Jews in my district."

So Charlie wasn't representing his district 99% of the time. $$$Money$$$ was the reason why.

And I believe we should stop that pollution from $$$ into our politics, with a great deal of political reform.

BTW, nothing against the Jews. Just don't like the way $$$ can control politicians. What they've done is the smart play given our corrupt system of politics, and every other special interest group is doing EXACTLY the same thing. The Jews didn't make our problem, at all. We did.