Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

A forum created specifically for polls.
Post Reply
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

The U.S. is clearly developed into a semi-socialistic country. Welfare, Social Security, Public Education, government controls over personal property and personal behavior are all examples of socialism by our government already. With socialist like Hillary or Barrack (universal health care, income redistribution, strict controls of business, etc.) and Nancy Pelosi controlling the Congress, should the U.S. fully commit to becoming a socialized government and economy like much of Europe. This would be a fundamental change in the theoretical structure of our government where the government is supposed to work for the people. A socialized government focuses on the good of the people as a whole and does not place as great as importance on the rights on an individual. China is a more extreme example of a government having a great deal of control of its citizens’ lives. Please say why you do or don’t favor the U.S. becoming a socialist country.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

Here is a start in the direction of China we can look foward to in the near future.



I know Obama has already hollered that it ain't so but you just hide and watch.







Friday, February 20, 2009

Transportation secretary eyes taxing miles driven



Joan Lowy / Associated Press



WASHINGTON -- Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn -- an idea that has angered drivers in some states where it has been proposed.



Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation's transportation system moving, LaHood said in an interview with The Associated Press.



"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.

Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.



The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.

Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.



"What I see this administration doing is this -- thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.

LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.



The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gas tax revenues and the amount of money promised to states for their projects. The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation's highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.

Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don't use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers.



"One of the things I think everyone agrees with around reauthorization of the highway bill is that the highway trust fund is an antiquated system for funding our highways," LaHood said. "It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there's no question about that. But the big question now is, We're into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs ... with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $8 billion by Congress last year?"

A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.



The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.



Rob Atkinson, president of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the agency that is developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.

Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that's downloaded, he said.

The devices also could be programmed to charge higher rates to vehicles that are heavier, like trucks that put more stress on roadways, Atkinson said.





Find this article at:

Transportation secretary eyes taxing miles driven | detnews.com | The Detroit News
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by spot »

You start a poll and then you try to bias the voters by posting propaganda into your own poll thread?

Shame on you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Bruv
Posts: 12181
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:05 pm

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Bruv »

Luv the sig....Fake-ologist
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

spot;1141171 wrote: You start a poll and then you try to bias the voters by posting propaganda into your own poll thread?



Shame on you.


Oh my, did it change your vote????????:driving:

I bet not



Who said one can't post their thoughts on their polls.

Do we need a moderator or what?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Daniyal
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:56 pm

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Daniyal »

BTS;1141151 wrote: The U.S. is clearly developed into a semi-socialistic country. Welfare, Social Security, Public Education, government controls over personal property and personal behavior are all examples of socialism by our government already. With socialist like Hillary or Barrack (universal health care, income redistribution, strict controls of business, etc.) and Nancy Pelosi controlling the Congress, should the U.S. fully commit to becoming a socialized government and economy like much of Europe. This would be a fundamental change in the theoretical structure of our government where the government is supposed to work for the people. A socialized government focuses on the good of the people as a whole and does not place as great as importance on the rights on an individual. China is a more extreme example of a government having a great deal of control of its citizens’ lives. Please say why you do or don’t favor the U.S. becoming a socialist country.




Hummmmmmmm Sound Like Your Talking Out Both Side Of Your Mouth Here . Funny How People Like Yourself Always Say My Country / Government , When Your Country / Government Is **********Everyone Every Change They Get . And You Never Do Anything About It Other Then Cry . The Things That Has Happen Didn't Happen Last Night Nor Yesterday You Know .. Guess That The Price Of Freedom And So-called Democracy Right . Pointing The Finger At Barrack Etc Etc LOLOLOLOL Not Going Change No Matter How Much You Try . Where The Flag Waveing Now . When Barrack Time Up In The White House They're Going To Say He Mess Your Country Up . When They Know Dam Well He Didn't . LOLOLOLOLOL.. You Would Think ALL Of Them Who Work For The People Would Would Get Their **** Together And Fix This Thing , And Stop The Finger Pointing . One Thing Forsure Whatever Barrack Does Its Never Going Be Enough . Bottom Line Here

That's My Take .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.



When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down





To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .



It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble



When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
Daniyal
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:56 pm

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Daniyal »

Jester;1142367 wrote: I vote no, the US should never become a socialist country- which is what we currently have- The democtrats cross the line, in my opinion, of the difference between a representative country and a country that controls its people by social programs, and mybe thats my beef with all this. I dont get the feeling the dems want to truly be benevolent, they want a controlled base of voters to keep them in power so they can social engineer the way they want things.

I doubt the dems have done one thing yet that a majority of americans agree with.




Thankyou for proveing my point .
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.



When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down





To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .



It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble



When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

Jester;1142372 wrote: What point was that?


PPPSSSSTTTTTTTTTT

Jester.........

__________________

Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With DOUBLE TALK.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

You know I am all for a debate on this issue but I am not for it being crammed down our throats in a DO or DIE emegency bill in the dark of nite.............



I'll bet that over 60% of Americans if given a chance to vote on this would vote NO.........

IMO



And danny boy............. I would reply to you but I don't know whet in the hell you just said??????
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Daniyal
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:56 pm

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Daniyal »

BTS;1142441 wrote: You know I am all for a debate on this issue but I am not for it being crammed down our throats in a DO or DIE emegency bill in the dark of nite.............



I'll bet that over 60% of Americans if given a chance to vote on this would vote NO.........

IMO



And danny boy............. I would reply to you but I don't know whet in the hell you just said??????




First I Got You Boy Swing. I Know You God The Point !
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.



When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down





To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .



It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble



When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

Daniyal;1142479 wrote: First I Got You Boy Swing. I Know You God The Point !


oh is that what is swinging..?:lips:

I thought it was a lil smokie link....;)

I think I would zip my zipper if I was you.



And yes I did get your point....

You want us to hush our mouths and let the ones who got us here lead us out..........

Right?

Isn't that your point?

Put the foxes that have been suckin all our eggs in charge of the hen house.

That's what your point is isn't?



You know and I both know if this was caused (housing/economic crisis) was caused by the conservatives we would be having ALL kinds of hearings on the hill. But no they keep adding tax dogers that are going to bring on all this change..........



quote danny boy:

"First I Got You Boy Swing"

No it is going to take more than exposing yourself to me to hush me up........Boy
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
Daniyal
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 2:56 pm

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Daniyal »

BTS;1142488 wrote: oh is that what is swinging..?:lips:

I thought it was a lil smokie link....;)

I think I would zip my zipper if I was you.



And yes I did get your point....

You want us to hush our mouths and let the ones who got us here lead us out..........

Right?

Isn't that your point?

Put the foxes that have been suckin all our eggs in charge of the hen house.

That's what your point is isn't?



You know and I both know if this was caused (housing/economic crisis) was caused by the conservatives we would be having ALL kinds of hearings on the hill. But no they keep adding tax dogers that are going to bring on all this change..........



quote danny boy:

"First I Got You Boy Swing"

No it is going to take more than exposing yourself to me to hush me up........Boy




:wah::wah::wah: Though you didn't what hell I was talking about :wah::wah::wah:
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Drag You Down To Their Level Then Beat You With Experience.



When An Elder Passes On To Higher Life , Its Like One Of The Library Have Shut Down





To Desire Security Is A Sign Of Insecurity .



It's Not The Things One Knows That Get Him Or Her In Trouble , Its The Things One Knows That Just Isn't So That Get Them In Trouble



When you can control a man's thinking you don't have to worry about his action ...:driving:
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Accountable »

Give me freedom, baby! Freedom to succeed; freedom to fail on my own terms. Just guard the border from enemy attack and enforce the very few laws necessary to keep honest people honest, and stay outa my way. :yh_flag
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by gmc »

BTS;1141151 wrote: The U.S. is clearly developed into a semi-socialistic country. Welfare, Social Security, Public Education, government controls over personal property and personal behavior are all examples of socialism by our government already. With socialist like Hillary or Barrack (universal health care, income redistribution, strict controls of business, etc.) and Nancy Pelosi controlling the Congress, should the U.S. fully commit to becoming a socialized government and economy like much of Europe. This would be a fundamental change in the theoretical structure of our government where the government is supposed to work for the people. A socialized government focuses on the good of the people as a whole and does not place as great as importance on the rights on an individual. China is a more extreme example of a government having a great deal of control of its citizens’ lives. Please say why you do or don’t favor the U.S. becoming a socialist country.


Obviously I won't be voting. But if you'll forgive a foreigner sticking in his two pence worth. There is no way america could ever become a socialist country. You haven't a clue what socialism actually is or how to talk about it without resorting to insults. What you have had over the last decade or so is corporate socialism-also known as fascism and you don't seem able to see it for what it is despite the catastrophic effect it is having on your economy.

You really need to have the discussion about it though and decide what kind of country you all want to live in without getting hung up on the labels. you need to get back to the liberal values of freedom, liberty and justice that so inspired your founding fathers. That's what liberal means you know, it is the same linguistic root as liberty. How did it get so perverted in the states?

I shall now hide from the abuse this post will no doubt attract:sneaky:
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by gmc »

Jester;1142885 wrote: I'm always confused when you start this Label discussion so i'll side step it but agree that we need to get back to freedom and liberty. But freedom and Liberty is not socialized medicine, handouts, burdensome taxation, etc. We're becoming a nation full of socialism. It's this take care of me attitude that is pervasive in our people now, it's based on the fact that the people now believe ether that the government owes them a living outright or they shouldn't have to worry otherwise so if they fail the government will just bail them out. That's the model of socialism that destroys creativity and robs people of thier greatest teacher;

the consequences of failure.

Two things bug me about the socialized programs pending: 1. It's gonna cost us big time. 2. I have to pay for it. This huge spending bill is gonna need to be financed and payed and that's going to increase my Taxes and the money's going to unions, government projects, and social welfare programs. Not roads, bridges powerplants etc. The moneys not going to stimulate anything. This is the socialist answer? Let's just spend what we don't have.

I feel so strongly about this that if in 4 years the failure of this type of government isn't obvious enough to the people to make the right kind of change it will be high time for an armed constitutional change of government. that's what it will come to.

I get your liberalism-liberty connection, but the words have come to mean something else here in America. Liberalism in America is a mental illness.


I'm always confused when you start this Label discussion so i'll side step it but agree that we need to get back to freedom and liberty.


I know. Can't resist it though.It annoys me when americans talk about socialism in america when you really don't have any socialist politicians and it seems calling one that stops you listening to anything they might have to say.

We won't get anywhere talking about it though as despite our common language our backgrounds are actually so very different there is a wide gulf in understanding. I grew up on a housing scheme in a small industrial town, working class politics has a very different connotation to me than it does to you. Most of my adult relatives grew up living and breathing socialism and fascist politics had a direct impact on their lives. All my surviving male relatives bar one had actually fought in the war and were very much of the mind that things were going to be better. In the UK it was the overwhelming support of the troops when their votes were finally counted that brought in the welfare state in this country. It's not something that was imposed on us as many americans seem to want to believe. The debate still goes on and polarises opinion as much as it ever did but there are certain socialist policies that no government would dare do away with.

Socialism as such (you know public ownership of everything etc. etc.) is dead here but it has had a dramatic influence o the way we view things and it is just not a big bogeyman like it is in the states.

It's this take care of me attitude that is pervasive in our people now, it's based on the fact that the people now believe ether that the government owes them a living outright or they shouldn't have to worry otherwise so if they fail the government will just bail them out. That's the model of socialism that destroys creativity and robs people of thier greatest teacher;

the consequences of failure.


I'd actually agree with you there. Old time socialists-or you could say good socialists have no time for freeloaders and those who take advantage of the system. We have a benefit system that actively penalises people who want to work.

What you have in the states is corporate socialism (and to a large extent here as well except in our case a nominally socialist political party is the culprit) where things are done for the benefit of the big corporations and the banks.

They're getting the state handouts to keep failed businesses afloat. We've got a lot wrong here as well and a government that can't admit it's mistakes and is just repeating the same old tried ideas.

But my apologies I'm not really in a position to comment on american internal politics -I find it as alien as you probably do ours- and shouldn't really have stuck my opinion in.

posted by jester

I get your liberalism-liberty connection, but the words have come to mean something else here in America. Liberalism in America is a mental illness.


Interesting comment. Why do you think that has come about?
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by gmc »

Posted by jester

I don’t recall ever thinking that the welfare state has been ‘imposed’ on you, I assumed the majority had voted it in, and I do see that the majority of the European and UK folks do defend their social welfare system and they like it.


Not you, but some of your countrymen seem unable to grasp we might actually want things like universal healthcare.

posted by jester

Oh I don’t mean socialism as in the far leaning communist type fascist socialism- I mean socialistic principles within a democracy- Like universal healthcare, and the cradle to grave mentality that the government owes each person a minimum level of basic care-


I mean socialistic principles within a democracy- Like universal healthcare,


I would class universal healthcare as a socialist ideal.

and the cradle to grave mentality that the government owes each person a minimum level of basic care-


That I would say that is not socialism, cradle to grave medical care fair enough, free access to education-goes in line with equal opportunity. However the mentality that the state owes you a living is not socialist although that it has gone that way to some extent is down to government policies. That free loaders should get away with it was never the intention.

I think as a society we should be cognizant of and readily willing to help those less fortunate, but not be required to do so by taxes. It isn’t my responsibility to care for what my neighbor lacks, it’s his responsibility to care for his own needs, just the same as it is for me to care for my needs.


Bear in mind most socialist ideas grew up from the self help and social reform movements in europe during the industrial revolution where there was tremendous inequality in opportunity and very real oppression. Being dependent on charity to help the poor is perceived as being degrading-having a desire to help others through the like of co-operative societies and the early healthcare plans taking it to the point where you elect a government to do these things is a logical extension. At least it is to us. It's a common heritage and attitude I share with a european but not with an american.

posted by jester

I think after getting the semantics out of the way we agree quite a lot. Our system does not penalize the one who refuses to work, that’s one of the problems, our system does not hold them accountable and it rewards laziness, and slothfulness.


I suspect we probably do agree about a lot of things-(except religion perhaps) we also have a situation where more people work for the government both local and national than in industry-that wasn't socialism or left wing political parties that was right wing politicians like maggie thatcher that thought we could survive as a service economy and systematically destroyed our industrial infrastructure

posted by jester

We have a federal government that keeps its business in state law and not in what’s truly federal.




That is a uniquely American perspective. You really need a uniquely American solution to your problems.

What we have is certainly driven by special interest, and political groups on both sides of the isle that make deals that serve themselves and not America as a whole.




That has nothing to do with socialism though perhaps socialist ideas have a part to play in changing things. We just don't polarise things to the same extent. All the money being thrown at the failed banks and the failed car manufacturers is not going to help ordinary people. We should let the banks fail, all we're doing here is prolonging the agony. The line that really pisses me off is the one that bankers and the like need to be paid their high salaries to help sort out the mess they made else they would go elsewhere. Like where to?

posted by jester

Another thing is that socialism cant last forever it’s not self sustaining, its self consuming.


It's just one of a number of political philosophies floating around-use the bits that work.

On the other hand will the last monetarist turn out the lights on his way out the door:D
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Kindle »

accountable;1142663 wrote: give me freedom, baby! Freedom to succeed; freedom to fail on my own terms. Just guard the border from enemy attack and enforce the very few laws necessary to keep honest people honest, and stay outa my way. :yh_flag


amen




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by gmc »

Accountable;1142663 wrote: Give me freedom, baby! Freedom to succeed; freedom to fail on my own terms. Just guard the border from enemy attack and enforce the very few laws necessary to keep honest people honest, and stay outa my way. :yh_flag


Yeah that's it, the liberals' battle cry.:sneaky: Give me liberty or give me death.
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Accountable »

gmc;1145161 wrote: Yeah that's it, the liberals' battle cry.:sneaky: Give me liberty or give me death.
Too bad the word's been stolen & bastardized over here.
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Nomad »

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?



You are an extremist. A paranoid radical with biased views and blinders on.

You seem incapable of compromise thus negating any valid points you might have. Your world is black and white and your immaturity is transparent by your refusal to acknowledge the present direction Obama is taking us in.

The majority of Americans say theyve had enough of right wing ideology. It didnt work. Its over. Bitch and whine till you puke but the nation is moving in a new direction.

Suck it up just like the rest of us sucked up the last 8 years of devastating failure.
I AM AWESOME MAN
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by BTS »

gmc;1145161 wrote: Yeah that's it, the liberals' battle cry.:sneaky: Give me liberty or give me death.




You have your definition and I have mine of what a lib is.

I find it ironic how the same online dictionary defines liberal and conservative... Reminds me of how the liberal news force reports what appears to be a fact to them!!! (Note that they even insinuate that a lib is a better tipper of sorts and they even get god in the definition)



Definitions of liberal on the Web:


broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...

having political or social views favoring reform and progress

tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

Now look at the BLUNT condescending definition of concervative.

Also if there is a conservative party shouldn't there be a liberal party in the above definition too?



(I like their first definition:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl)



Definitions of conservative on the Web:


resistant to change

having social or political views favoring conservatism

cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek

a member of a Conservative Party

bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"

"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
Accountable
Posts: 24818
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Accountable »

Accountable;1145413 wrote: Too bad the word's been stolen & bastardized over here.


Nomad;1145861 wrote: Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?



You are an extremist. A paranoid radical with biased views and blinders on.

You seem incapable of compromise thus negating any valid points you might have. Your world is black and white and your immaturity is transparent by your refusal to acknowledge the present direction Obama is taking us in.

The majority of Americans say theyve had enough of right wing ideology. It didnt work. Its over. Bitch and whine till you puke but the nation is moving in a new direction.

Suck it up just like the rest of us sucked up the last 8 years of devastating failure.
Me?
User avatar
Nomad
Posts: 25864
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:36 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by Nomad »

Accountable;1146469 wrote: Me?




No of course not. Have I ever spoken to you like that ? Silly acc.
I AM AWESOME MAN
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Should the U.S. become a fully Socialist Country?

Post by gmc »

BTS;1146263 wrote: You have your definition and I have mine of what a lib is.

I find it ironic how the same online dictionary defines liberal and conservative... Reminds me of how the liberal news force reports what appears to be a fact to them!!! (Note that they even insinuate that a lib is a better tipper of sorts and they even get god in the definition)



Definitions of liberal on the Web:


broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant ...

having political or social views favoring reform and progress

tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition

a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"

a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets

free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

Now look at the BLUNT condescending definition of concervative.

Also if there is a conservative party shouldn't there be a liberal party in the above definition too?



(I like their first definition:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl)



Definitions of conservative on the Web:


resistant to change

having social or political views favoring conservatism

cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"

a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas

button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek

a member of a Conservative Party

bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"




No it's not ironic maybe you should look up that word as well. Maybe on planet bts liberal and conservative have different meanings but everyone else speaks English where the definitions are as above. You must find everyday life very confusing if you make up the meaning of words as you go along. Judging from the misspelling you have been looking up an american english dictionary, even your fellow americans think your definitions-whatever they are- are wrong. perhaps you should look up socialist, and social democrat while you are at it. I can only conclude that the american education system is sadly lacking when it comes to teaching it's pupils about the ideals that inspired your founding fathers or where those ideals came from.

Also if there is a conservative party shouldn't there be a liberal party in the above definition too?


In the UK there is a both a conservative party and a liberal party. have been for decades. Judging from the spelling you are looking up an american bsed dictionary. The liberal party hasn't held power since before ww2. Currently we have a political party in power that used to be socialist-nowadays they are just a bunch of incompetent tosspots and we're all very depressed about it. Liberal and conservative still mean pretty much as above.

You should also look up words like newspeak-a word that has entered the english language in recent decades but apparently not in the american version.

Newspeak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

came across this link you might find thought provoking-or not. To be provoked to think you need an open mind in the first place.

American Newspeak
Post Reply

Return to “Polls, Polls, and more Polls”