TOTALLY GEEKED!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
totallygeeked -> totallygeeked general -> 5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies
Post Info TOPIC: 5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies
Permalink  
 

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." -- Winston Churchill

There are a lot of arguments about whether communism, socialism, and liberalism are the same thing. What shouldn't be arguable is that they're all closely related branches of the same tree. If you don't want to live in a house made out of Aleppo Pine, you probably won't like a Coulter Pine or Eastern White Pine house either. However, since socialism has failed so often, socialists of every stripe bend over backwards to disassociate themselves from the many other disasters created by their ideology. Still, a pine by any other name is still a pine.

Socialism is particularly dangerous because it's so perfectly suited for the modern era. It's the ultimate "miracle" product: it's "nice," it's "fair," it'll make you feel good about yourself, it'll "help" people who "deserve it" by taking things away from people who "have so much" they'll barely miss it. It sounds wonderful, doesn't it? But, like most products with sleazy salesmen and hidden track records, the promises socialism makes are all a mirage. Since our schools do a terrible job of teaching history and economics these days, it's our job to explain how socialism slowly, insidiously eats away at the core of a society

1) It kills economic growth: Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. That's what John F. Kennedy was driving at when he said, "A rising tide (in the economy) lifts all boats." Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle. The more people in need there are, the more the successful must be penalized to pay for them. The more the successful are penalized, the fewer successful people there are. This causes wealth to concentrate in fewer hands, the economy slows down, and even more people need help. It goes on and on until you get a slow economy that can't produce enough tax revenue to sustain itself. That's exactly what killed the Soviet Union, it's killing Greece right now and sadly, the United States and most of Western Europe is on exactly the same path.

 

2) It stifles free speech: Why is there ridiculous government propaganda in nations like North Korea? Why are most schools, papers, and colleges run by liberals in the United States? Why do liberals often try to disrupt conservative speakers on college campuses? Why are there such extreme speech codes in Canada that it practically makes some conservative arguments illegal? Why does speaking out against the government risk imprisonment in China and the old Soviet Union? Because socialism requires protection, propaganda, intimidation, and darkness to survive. Socialism can't survive honest, informed debate about its merits among people who are free to choose or reject it because it would not survive the conversation. As Reagan said, "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

3) It leads to an increasingly tyrannical government: Freedom and socialism go together like oil and water. The more socialism you have, the less freedom you will have because socialism can't survive if people are free to choose whether they want socialism or not. People who are free to say what they want will criticize socialism's many failures. Areas that aren't tightly controlled will move towards the free exchange of ideas and goods, not socialism. So, socialism requires a massive bureaucracy that almost inevitably grows. As government grows, it inevitably becomes more centralized, more distant from  the people and ultimately more menacing.

4) It creates strife and division: Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people's lives, the people who don't wish to be controlled need to be vilified. If you believe in confiscating the wealth of successful people who won't give it up willingly, then others must be convinced they're terrible human beings who deserve to be punished. "Victim" classes must be created for the socialists to defend because if everyone is responsible for himself, what need is there for the socialist? Eventually, those who depend on government for their livelihood and those that the government smears and loots to pay them off come to hate each other.

5) Socialists believe the ends justify the means: Like the pigs in Orwell's Animal Farm, socialists believe that, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." For a socialist, the overriding concern is always promoting socialism; so process, rules and regulation mean different things for different people. Fidel Castro may have been the leader of a Communist revolution against the evil "rich people" in Cuba, but he’s worth 900 million dollars today. A law broken by a Democrat and a Republican may be treated very differently by the papers, the courts, and even the Department of Justice under Eric Holder. As Margaret Thatcher explained,

"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag."

One of the reasons so many socialist nations are wracked with violent protests and revolutions is because when the rule of law is abandoned, only outlaws have any hope of receiving justice.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Capitalism is a system based solely on exploitation whether it be the exploitation of the natural environment or of one another and as such it is ultimately unsustainable and creates an oppressed society under the cultural (or political) tyranny of the elite few and thus has created many of the ills of our society; socialism to the contrary works to eliminate this exploitation.
Socialism takes the ownership, responsibility, and benefits of resources and the means of productions out of the hands of the elite few and puts them under the collective hands of the people. Contrary to popular belief, this actually increases the quality of goods produced, etc. After all, are you going to work harder to produce a better product or service to make someone else rich or for your own company of which you have a vested interest? With socialism the workers themselves own the companies, resources, and means of productions so they have a very real connection and vested interest in the well being of said companies, etc.
Socialism creates community values. Socialism reinforces the idea that "we are all in this together" instead of each man fending for himself at any cost. This tends to have positive social benefits while equally distributing the work load.
Socialism creates an egalitarian society.
Socialism allows workers to reap the full benefits of their own efforts and ends the institutionalized robbery of the very workers who are producing the wealth in the first place.
Socialism, when done right, raises the standard of living for the entire nation as a whole.
Socialism would free workers from wage slavery.
Socialism would raise the level of education and health services and make them available for all citizens thereby raising the over all quality of life for the entire nation.
Under socialism need would drive production not profit which means those services and goods which were most needed but which yield little profit in the past would now be available including life saving medicines, new technologies, and better food sources.
Socialism would end the monopolies and tyrannies of mega-corporations.
Socialism would end poverty.
Socialism would result in healthier citizens by increasing the access to healthy food, better nutrition, and healthy lifestyle not available or encouraged under a capitalist regime.
Socialism creates a sustainable society that can build and flourish both for the current generation as well as those to come, unlike capitalism which is designed to ultimately fail.

__________________
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tell that to Argentina, Greece, Europe. Yep.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

I'm not a Socialist, I just thought I would point out that its not all bad.
Personally I think some socialist "style" initiatives work. In a perfect world perhaps you could have a mix of both?


__________________
Tinydancer


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 6573
Date:
Permalink  
 

Socialism will never work because there are too many people who never work

__________________

“Until I discovered cooking, I was never really interested in anything.”
― Julia Child ―


 

 

 
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Socialism doesn't destroy societies.  Idiots in charge do.

1. Canada doesn't have a stifled economy.

2. Canada's free speech laws are no more rigid than American free speech laws.

3. True - our government did eventually try to become more tyrannical.  Mostly that was because Harper was a power-hungry idiot.  First election we got, the other party won by a landslide.  Bye Bye Harper!

4.  Has nothing to do with socialism - or at least not in Canada.  The US doesn't have it and there appears to be a high level of strife and division - especially in this current election (I don't think we can blame Obama for Trump's divisive rhetoric)

5. What?  That makes no sense.  You can use Greece and Argentina as examples, but I don't think we can blame Socialism as much as we can blame incompetence in government and a complete mismanagement of funds and resources.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:

Socialism doesn't destroy societies.  Idiots in charge do.

1. Canada doesn't have a stifled economy.

2. Canada's free speech laws are no more rigid than American free speech laws.

3. True - our government did eventually try to become more tyrannical.  Mostly that was because Harper was a power-hungry idiot.  First election we got, the other party won by a landslide.  Bye Bye Harper!

4.  Has nothing to do with socialism - or at least not in Canada.  The US doesn't have it and there appears to be a high level of strife and division - especially in this current election (I don't think we can blame Obama for Trump's divisive rhetoric)

5. What?  That makes no sense.  You can use Greece and Argentina as examples, but I don't think we can blame Socialism as much as we can blame incompetence in government and a complete mismanagement of funds and resources.

 Absolutely we can.  Obama divided the country. Trumps rhetoric is in direct response to Obama's abysmal failure as a president and as a man.



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
Tignanello wrote:

Socialism doesn't destroy societies.  Idiots in charge do.

1. Canada doesn't have a stifled economy.

2. Canada's free speech laws are no more rigid than American free speech laws.

3. True - our government did eventually try to become more tyrannical.  Mostly that was because Harper was a power-hungry idiot.  First election we got, the other party won by a landslide.  Bye Bye Harper!

4.  Has nothing to do with socialism - or at least not in Canada.  The US doesn't have it and there appears to be a high level of strife and division - especially in this current election (I don't think we can blame Obama for Trump's divisive rhetoric)

5. What?  That makes no sense.  You can use Greece and Argentina as examples, but I don't think we can blame Socialism as much as we can blame incompetence in government and a complete mismanagement of funds and resources.

 Absolutely we can.  Obama divided the country. Trumps rhetoric is in direct response to Obama's abysmal failure as a president and as a man.

 True - there is always a way!  



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Isn't reform section 5 from the Public Order Act 1986 still in effect? Which basically says it's illegal to insult someone?


__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Tell that to Argentina, Greece, Europe. Yep.

 That is a result of absolute corruption.



__________________
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Venezuela? Great Britain?

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
flan327


Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
Tignanello wrote:

Socialism doesn't destroy societies.  Idiots in charge do.

1. Canada doesn't have a stifled economy.

2. Canada's free speech laws are no more rigid than American free speech laws.

3. True - our government did eventually try to become more tyrannical.  Mostly that was because Harper was a power-hungry idiot.  First election we got, the other party won by a landslide.  Bye Bye Harper!

4.  Has nothing to do with socialism - or at least not in Canada.  The US doesn't have it and there appears to be a high level of strife and division - especially in this current election (I don't think we can blame Obama for Trump's divisive rhetoric)

5. What?  That makes no sense.  You can use Greece and Argentina as examples, but I don't think we can blame Socialism as much as we can blame incompetence in government and a complete mismanagement of funds and resources.

 Absolutely we can.  Obama divided the country. Trumps rhetoric is in direct response to Obama's abysmal failure as a president and as a man.

 And Bush united us?

flan

p.s. THANK YOU, Tig.



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Five factors are responsible for the failure of global corporate capitalism. First, global corporations are too big. We're living in the age of corporate dinosaurs. (The largest multinational is JP Morgan Chase with assets of $2 Trillion, 240,000 employees, and offices in 100 countries.) The original dinosaurs perished because their huge bodies possessed tiny brains. Modern dinosaurs are failing because their massive bureaucracies possess miniscule hearts.

Since the Reagan era global corporations have followed the path of least resistance to profit; they've swallowed up their competitors and created monopolies, which have produced humongous bureaucracies. In the short-term, scale helps corporations grow profitable, but in the long-term it makes them inflexible and difficult to manage. Gigantism creates a culture where workers are encouraged to take enormous risks in order to create greater profits; it's based upon the notion that the corporation is "too big to fail."

Second, global corporations disdain civil society. They've created a culture of organizational narcissism, where workers pledge allegiance to the enterprise. Corporate employees live in a bubble, where they log obscene hours and then vacation with their co-workers. Multinationals develop their own code of ethics and worldview separate from that of any national state. Corporate executives don't care about the success or failure of any particular country, only the growth and profitability of their global corporation. (Many large corporations pay no U.S. income tax; in 2009 Exxon Mobil actually got a $156 M rebate.)

Third, global corporations are modern outlaws, living outside the law. There is no invisible hand that regulates multinationals. In 1759 Philosopher Adam Smith argued that while wealthy individuals and corporations were motivated by self interest, an "invisible hand" was operating in the background ensuring that capitalist activities ultimately benefited society. In modern times this concept became the basis for the pronouncements of the Chicago School of Economics that markets were inherently self regulating. However, the last five years have demonstrated that there is no "invisible hand" -- unregulated markets have spelled disaster for the average person. The "recovery" of 2009-10 ensured that "too big to fail" institutions would survive and the rich would continue to be rich. Meanwhile millions of good jobs were either eliminated or replaced by low-wage jobs with poor or no benefits.

Fourth, global corporations are ruining our natural capital. Four of the top 10 multinational corporations are energy companies, with Exxon Mobil leading the list. But there are many indications that our oil reserves are gone. Meanwhile, other forms of natural capital have been depleted -- arable land, water, minerals, forests, fish, and so forth. Multinational corporations have treated the environment as a free resource. When the timberlands of North America began to be depleted, lumber corporations moved to South America and then Asia. Now, the "easy pickings" are gone. Global corporations have ravished the world and citizens of every nation live with the consequences: dirty air, foul water, and pollution of every sort.

Fifth, global corporations have angered the world community. The world GDP is $63 Trillion but multinational corporations garner a disproportionate share -- with banks accounting for an estimated $4 trillion (bank assets are $100 trillion). Global black markets make $2 trillion -- illegal drugs account for at least $300 billion. In many parts of the world, a worker is not able to earn a living wage, have a bank account or drive a car, but can always obtain drugs, sex, and weapons. And while the world may not be one big village in terms of lifestyle, it shares an image of "the good life" that's proffered in movies, TV, and the Internet. That's what teenagers in Afghanistan have in common with teenagers in England; they've been fed the same image of success in the global community and they know it's inaccessible. They are angry and, ultimately, their anger has the same target -- multinational corporations (and the governments that support them).

We live in interesting times. The good news is we're witnessing the failure of global corporate capitalism. The bad news is we don't know what will replace it.

__________________
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Incentives matter. Socialism takes that away.

Bush united us after 9-11. Since that time, the media has divided us. I blame the media for strife and division as much as I blame O. Social media hasn't helped either. It's too easy to pop off insults quickly without thinking first. And the written word is more powerful than verbal word because its staying power.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sherman Antitrust Act?

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Isn't reform section 5 from the Public Order Act 1986 still in effect? Which basically says it's illegal to insult someone?

 "basically" doesn't count.  And no, it's not illegal to insult someone.  Canadians are too polite to insult people anyways



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Isn't reform section 5 from the Public Order Act 1986 still in effect? Which basically says it's illegal to insult someone?

 "basically" doesn't count.  And no, it's not illegal to insult someone.  Canadians are too polite to insult people anyways

LOL!  That's funny!  Cause that's not hat I see here (with the exception of you Tig...biggrin) 



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Isn't reform section 5 from the Public Order Act 1986 still in effect? Which basically says it's illegal to insult someone?

 "basically" doesn't count.  And no, it's not illegal to insult someone.  Canadians are too polite to insult people anyways

LOL!  That's funny!  Cause that's not hat I see here (with the exception of you Tig...biggrin) 

 Well, we do have the things we say in our "inside voice" . ..  but hey.  Gotta Represent, yo!



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
flan327


Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Incentives matter. Socialism takes that away.

Bush united us after 9-11. Since that time, the media has divided us. I blame the media for strife and division as much as I blame O. Social media hasn't helped either. It's too easy to pop off insults quickly without thinking first. And the written word is more powerful than verbal word because its staying power.

 I might agree that 9-11 united us, but Bush had nothing to do with it.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tell that to Ann Coulter.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Finland

Finland has one of the world’s best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is 100 percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely.

__________________
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Canada

Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings.

__________________
flan327


Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Oh, I'd really rather not talk to her...ever...

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Sweden

Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union.

__________________
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
FNW wrote:

Incentives matter. Socialism takes that away.

Bush united us after 9-11. Since that time, the media has divided us. I blame the media for strife and division as much as I blame O. Social media hasn't helped either. It's too easy to pop off insults quickly without thinking first. And the written word is more powerful than verbal word because its staying power.

 I might agree that 9-11 united us, but Bush had nothing to do with it.

flan

 I was glad Bush was in office rather than his opponent during that time.  I don't like what transpired in the years to follow under his administration, but not all can be blamed on Bush.   



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

apple wrote:

Sweden

Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union.

 I believe Finland and Switzerland also fall into this category (although I'm not really up on my Swiss policies)



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.



__________________
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:
flan327 wrote:
FNW wrote:

Incentives matter. Socialism takes that away.

Bush united us after 9-11. Since that time, the media has divided us. I blame the media for strife and division as much as I blame O. Social media hasn't helped either. It's too easy to pop off insults quickly without thinking first. And the written word is more powerful than verbal word because its staying power.

 I might agree that 9-11 united us, but Bush had nothing to do with it.

flan

 I was glad Bush was in office rather than his opponent during that time.  I don't like what transpired in the years to follow under his administration, but not all can be blamed on Bush.   

 Can you IMAGINE!?!?!?!?!  Obama would have been blowing the masterminds begging their forgiveness for "making them do this"...



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
flan327


Itty bitty's Grammy

Status: Offline
Posts: 28124
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
FNW wrote:
flan327 wrote:
FNW wrote:

Incentives matter. Socialism takes that away.

Bush united us after 9-11. Since that time, the media has divided us. I blame the media for strife and division as much as I blame O. Social media hasn't helped either. It's too easy to pop off insults quickly without thinking first. And the written word is more powerful than verbal word because its staying power.

 I might agree that 9-11 united us, but Bush had nothing to do with it.

flan

 I was glad Bush was in office rather than his opponent during that time.  I don't like what transpired in the years to follow under his administration, but not all can be blamed on Bush.   

 Can you IMAGINE!?!?!?!?!  Obama would have been blowing the masterminds begging their forgiveness for "making them do this"...

 La La Land, indeed.

flan



__________________

You are my sun, my moon, and all of my stars.
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

flan327 wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
FNW wrote:
flan327 wrote:
FNW wrote:

Incentives matter. Socialism takes that away.

Bush united us after 9-11. Since that time, the media has divided us. I blame the media for strife and division as much as I blame O. Social media hasn't helped either. It's too easy to pop off insults quickly without thinking first. And the written word is more powerful than verbal word because its staying power.

 I might agree that 9-11 united us, but Bush had nothing to do with it.

flan

 I was glad Bush was in office rather than his opponent during that time.  I don't like what transpired in the years to follow under his administration, but not all can be blamed on Bush.   

 Can you IMAGINE!?!?!?!?!  Obama would have been blowing the masterminds begging their forgiveness for "making them do this"...

 La La Land, indeed.

flan

He blamed murder on an innocent man and had him arrested.   You can't get much lower than that...



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Norway's high standard of living is the result of exploitation of their natural resources. (Something I think the U.S. needs to tap into but the tree huggers have opposed.) Norway is also one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. And is has one of the highest costs of living anywhere. There is concern about Norway's economical sustainability in a "post-petroleum" era. As for Norway's welfare system, I'll bet there aren't many illegal immigrants flocking to "fleece" their benefits.

__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

 Not to mention harassment and verbal abuse.  Let's not forget - in both countries there is free speech but there can also be consequences for what you say.  You're not censored, but that doesn't mean that you can verbally abuse someone or slander them.  Applies to both countries.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
apple


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1944
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

Promoting hatred against and identifiable group could lead to criminal charges, THIS is exactly what Coulter was told by the University of Ottawa's provost, Francois Houle.

She immediately promoted hatred against a few students with racial slurs. She was denied access to speak at the University after civilized protests were made, I'm fine with that.



__________________
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

Promoting hatred against and identifiable group could lead to criminal charges, THIS is exactly what Coulter was told by the University of Ottawa's provost, Francois Houle.

She immediately promoted hatred against a few students with racial slurs. She was denied access to speak at the University after civilized protests were made, I'm fine with that.

 I'm pretty sure that the US has laws for hate crimes as well.  Those aren't just for violence and murder.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

Promoting hatred against and identifiable group could lead to criminal charges, THIS is exactly what Coulter was told by the University of Ottawa's provost, Francois Houle.

She immediately promoted hatred against a few students with racial slurs. She was denied access to speak at the University after civilized protests were made, I'm fine with that.

So, you really DON'T have free speech... That's what I thought...



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

Promoting hatred against and identifiable group could lead to criminal charges, THIS is exactly what Coulter was told by the University of Ottawa's provost, Francois Houle.

She immediately promoted hatred against a few students with racial slurs. She was denied access to speak at the University after civilized protests were made, I'm fine with that.

 I'm pretty sure that the US has laws for hate crimes as well.  Those aren't just for violence and murder.

Nope.  You would be wrong.  I can say pretty much whatever I want to say.  So can everyone else... 



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

Promoting hatred against and identifiable group could lead to criminal charges, THIS is exactly what Coulter was told by the University of Ottawa's provost, Francois Houle.

She immediately promoted hatred against a few students with racial slurs. She was denied access to speak at the University after civilized protests were made, I'm fine with that.

 I'm pretty sure that the US has laws for hate crimes as well.  Those aren't just for violence and murder.

Nope.  You would be wrong.  I can say pretty much whatever I want to say.  So can everyone else... 

 As can I.  But that doesn't mean there aren't social and legal implications.



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [88]

There really are very VERY few legal implications here...



-- Edited by Ohfour on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 02:25:01 PM

__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:

Norway's high standard of living is the result of exploitation of their natural resources. (Something I think the U.S. needs to tap into but the tree huggers have opposed.) Norway is also one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. And is has one of the highest costs of living anywhere. There is concern about Norway's economical sustainability in a "post-petroleum" era. As for Norway's welfare system, I'll bet there aren't many illegal immigrants flocking to "fleece" their benefits.

 So you're saying that Norway's policies are smarter than the US?



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

Ohfour wrote:

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [88]

There really are very VERY few legal implications here...



-- Edited by Ohfour on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 02:25:01 PM

 And yet, people are prosecuted in the states for verbal hate crimes against gay men . . . (and no, I can't be bothered to search for a link )



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
Ohfour


Hooker

Status: Offline
Posts: 12666
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
Ohfour wrote:

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans. The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8-1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence. The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public." [88]

There really are very VERY few legal implications here...



-- Edited by Ohfour on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 02:25:01 PM

 And yet, people are prosecuted in the states for verbal hate crimes against gay men . . . (and no, I can't be bothered to search for a link )

Hmmm...never heard that...you would have to show me proof.  If the Westboro Church can't be prosecuted (their hatred is mostly towards gay men (their website is: godhatesfa*s.com) then no one really could... 



__________________

America guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome...
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Norway's high standard of living is the result of exploitation of their natural resources. (Something I think the U.S. needs to tap into but the tree huggers have opposed.) Norway is also one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. And is has one of the highest costs of living anywhere. There is concern about Norway's economical sustainability in a "post-petroleum" era. As for Norway's welfare system, I'll bet there aren't many illegal immigrants flocking to "fleece" their benefits.

 So you're saying that Norway's policies are smarter than the US?

 I'm saying their borders are stronger, their immigration policies are stronger,  and they don't have an emperor letting everyone in.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Norway's high standard of living is the result of exploitation of their natural resources. (Something I think the U.S. needs to tap into but the tree huggers have opposed.) Norway is also one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. And is has one of the highest costs of living anywhere. There is concern about Norway's economical sustainability in a "post-petroleum" era. As for Norway's welfare system, I'll bet there aren't many illegal immigrants flocking to "fleece" their benefits.

 So you're saying that Norway's policies are smarter than the US?

 I'm saying their borders are stronger, their immigration policies are stronger,  and they don't have an emperor letting everyone in.

 Right.  Smarter.  

edited because i keep forgetting to type WORDS before I hit submit.  confuse



-- Edited by Tignanello on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 02:43:27 PM

__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

Promoting hatred against and identifiable group could lead to criminal charges, THIS is exactly what Coulter was told by the University of Ottawa's provost, Francois Houle.

She immediately promoted hatred against a few students with racial slurs. She was denied access to speak at the University after civilized protests were made, I'm fine with that.

 I'm pretty sure that the US has laws for hate crimes as well.  Those aren't just for violence and murder.

 Hate "crimes" is not hate speech.  Hate speech is permitted in the U.S., as long as it's not likely to incite IMMINENT violence.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Norway's high standard of living is the result of exploitation of their natural resources. (Something I think the U.S. needs to tap into but the tree huggers have opposed.) Norway is also one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. And is has one of the highest costs of living anywhere. There is concern about Norway's economical sustainability in a "post-petroleum" era. As for Norway's welfare system, I'll bet there aren't many illegal immigrants flocking to "fleece" their benefits.

 So you're saying that Norway's policies are smarter than the US?

 I'm saying their borders are stronger, their immigration policies are stronger,  and they don't have an emperor letting everyone in.

 Right.  Smarter.  

edited because i keep forgetting to type WORDS before I hit submit.  confuse



-- Edited by Tignanello on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 02:43:27 PM

 This thread is about socialism, not border control.   I'll be the first to admit U.S. border control is failing miserably.  BUILD A WALL!



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
FNW


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 18704
Date:
Permalink  
 

Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
apple wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Tell that to Ann Coulter.

 Why?  She's entitled to her opinion just like anyone else.  Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I have to slam her.

 Exactly. That would be lowering yourself to her level, IMO.

 And yet, she violated Canada's "free speech" laws and faced criminal charges.

 We have the same laws regarding libel and slander that you do.

We're talking about free speech, not libel and slander which is false statements made against another.    Opinions are defenses to defamation cases.  Opinions in Canada, evidently, are illegal.



__________________

#it's5o'clocksomewhere
Tignanello


My dog name is, Sasha!

Status: Offline
Posts: 5883
Date:
Permalink  
 

FNW wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:
Tignanello wrote:
FNW wrote:

Norway's high standard of living is the result of exploitation of their natural resources. (Something I think the U.S. needs to tap into but the tree huggers have opposed.) Norway is also one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world. And is has one of the highest costs of living anywhere. There is concern about Norway's economical sustainability in a "post-petroleum" era. As for Norway's welfare system, I'll bet there aren't many illegal immigrants flocking to "fleece" their benefits.

 So you're saying that Norway's policies are smarter than the US?

 I'm saying their borders are stronger, their immigration policies are stronger,  and they don't have an emperor letting everyone in.

 Right.  Smarter.  

edited because i keep forgetting to type WORDS before I hit submit.  confuse



-- Edited by Tignanello on Thursday 2nd of June 2016 02:43:27 PM

 This thread is about socialism, not border control.   I'll be the first to admit U.S. border control is failing miserably.  BUILD A WALL!

 Wait - aren't you the one who brought up borders on this thread?  



__________________

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not today, Satan.  Not today.
1 2 3  >  Last»  | Page of 3  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
totallygeeked -> totallygeeked general -> 5 Ways Socialism Destroys Societies


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard