Ya you are right. I dont want my fellow Americans to be tricked into communist policies by liars who will do whatever it takes to bring a revolution on and destroy the capitalist system. So I do think it is important that people know history and know how badly these socialist policies have failed under Hitler, Stalin, Mao.

I really do hate semantics though. Just seems like communists and socialists want to disown anyone who can not achieve the system they want(Cause people who believe what they believe and have failed so many times)

When they get the system they want, you see Castro, Hitler, Mao and Stalin and the death totals. The end, just read history. Socialism has failed. The debate is over.

Could you just outline for me what you believe "communist" policies to be?

Much as I enjoy the idea of Obama as a stealth Stalinist, I think you are probably going to have to stop calling Hitler a socialist because it's intended to be inflammatory, which is in essence trolling. You think you're being clever by doing it and you also think that if you make out that being banned would seem a matter of political differences, I won't do it.

The thing is, I will. I don't care what your politics are. You are trying to upset other posters and that's not allowed. Last warning.

How is it against the rules to say Hitler is a socialist? It is not to be inflammatory. He enacted a lot of socialist policies that would make leftists today happy. It is to make the point that socialism has failed terribly under multiple "Leaders"

So is it against the rules for you to make inflammatory posts about imperialistic America and put all of those deaths on posters in this thread? Or is my mentioning Hitler being a socialist more inflammatory than putting deaths on peoples head in this thread, like you just did with healthcare and me?

This is not inflammatory?

But this is?

You are making it personal and making up new rules on the fly that you are breaking on this page.

Just like I said. Anything can be classified as trolling, just like anything can be classified as hate speech, if someone corrupt/dumb/insane enough is in power.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/billfla.../#37e48cfa47a6

would you ban forbes for being inflammatory or trolling for saying obama or hitler are socialists or like socialism?

"The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another "comrade" while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a "classless, casteless" Germany (white represents Aryanism)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...zi-party-nsdap

"To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education."

"In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood." Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end."

Seems clear he ran on a national socialist platform?

VMF, what are you trying to prove here?

Nothing. monkey is just trying to make up a new rule to threaten bans on me. I am not allowed to post inflammatory stuff.. Even though people constantly post Trump actions at me in an attempt to be "inflammatory". Just trying to silence me in a new creative way. Also the fact that politics is almost always inflammatory.

Take your complaints here, FFS.

No, I would rather just post about politics in the way I want to just like everyone in here who voted Clinton are allowed to. Think monkey should be able to control his tilt about hearing things that hurt his head and just act like a moderator.

Okay, so post about politics.

You don't like Obamacare. Fine. How would you improve it? Try avoiding the use of labels like "capitalism" and "socialism" and just talk about the positive and negative effects of Obamacare versus your ideal.

RIP VMF

Dude, I don't understand healthcare. I am fine dropping it. It just happens to be important to me in politics that my fellow Americans realize the downfalls of socialism in history.

I am with you man, whatever works in healthcare, go for it. Everyone get together and make it the best they can.

You posted this yesterday...

Clearly you don't like Obamacare, so you must have some improvement ideas.

Lol dude, just because it is failing for me personally, does not mean I understand it in an intelligent way to discuss it. I have my ideas of what is possibly happening and what could maybe make better.

My guess is it would have failed before and it is still failing now. That you either need to jam one way or the other. Full free market or full on universal health care. Maybe something in between is possible with a free market and some sort of government refund. But I mean these are pure guesses. I have 0 education on health care. I can barely handle my own.

Literally cannot work with regard to health care.

(Unless you're okay with babies dying in the streets, emergency rooms refusing service, etc.)

Not sure if emergency rooms are even legally able to refuse service? I am not fine with that though, so ya I don't know as i told you.

Seems like the system is collapsing, maybe it is working and will continue to work, maybe it was working and now it won't. I told you I basically barely understand my own. It is such a hassle and I had my doctor dropped and had medication that was paid for, is not covered for some reason. They make you fill out so many forms and go through so many calls and nothing is clear to me.

I think a lot of doctors just dropped the government health care for whatever reason. So maybe less people accepting it, price goes up. Other ripple effects. I don't know. More competition is always good for prices. More supply...

It's really very clear. It means that Hitler exercised direct, social control over the economy.

Caring about semantics and debating them are two separate things. I'm not telling you what you should mean by the word "socialist", I'm just telling you what I mean by it, while showing that many others will likely mean by it the same thing as I (eg, the common, dictionary definition I pasted).

You are telling me what I should mean by it, though.

You have said multiple times that my understanding is problematic because it empties the phrase of meaning or utility, but that's patently false. The phrase does have meaning, even if the meaning is broader than you prefer.

I have argued for a spectromatic understanding of the term; you insist on an absolute. Curiously, you were fine with a spectromatic understanding of "capitalism" earlier, so I'm not sure how consistent you are really being without identifying the poles.

I do believe that my understanding of the term is more useful, as your understanding can be captured with a simple, obvious, and elucidate modifier ("worker-") without any loss, whereas your understanding is forcibly narrow and renders many others' use of the term questionable at best (while mine accounts for others' use with consistency). These are reasons why I do maintain my own use, but by all means, continue using it your own way and everybody who has read this conversation, hopefully, will understand what each of us means as we carry on.

They're not. That's my point. Under "full free market", they would be able to.


Good.

So given that your previous statement of "full free market or full on universal health care", I can assume you're for UHC now?

ya i lean to UHC, if i had to cast a vote on that specific policy, i would research it much more though, past examples of it being used.

i would just be concerned about government being too corrupt, evil and filled with lobbyists to successfully pull off anything that significant for the people.

i do think its possible that close to full free market with some charity and government help in some cases could be ideal. just based on how efficient governments are at doing anything

im more of a middle the road, almost anything can work type of guy(mostly everything wil fail) if all of these things go right.... just tough to do.

I expect that proponents of various forms of socialism would generally gain much more ground against the nay-sayers by arguing that not all socialism's are the same, rather than taking the true scotsman tack.

So when you say "we need more social control to prevent private insurance companies from deciding who lives and who dies", and someone says "that's socialism though", you can say "it's the good kind, not the bad one!" and show how/why.

When you demand that there is only one "socialism", you play exactly into the rhetorical trap of your adversaries.

lobbyists are corrupt, so let's cut out the middleman gov't and give our money and lives directly to them!