Could the USA ever be "Socialist"?

Nov 2013
10,535
10,004
NY
#83
Things are always changing. The trick is to set yourself up to succeed regardless of the direction change takes us.
And THAT is exactly the thinking of the masses that allowed Hitler to rule the way he did for 12 years.

One would think humankind has learned form that, and especially the US, who was once fighting against that behavior.

It only shows though, the danger and risk we're running, with abt 40% of the US population currently thinking just like you, that for your own personal well-being, no matter what regime, anyone else can be sacrificed, with you keeping your mouth shut.
 
Apr 2018
9,295
2,269
oregon
#84
Americans have always been revolting you are a revolting people
And THAT is exactly the thinking of the masses that allowed Hitler to rule the way he did for 12 years.

One would think humankind has learned form that, and especially the US, who was once fighting against that behavior.

It only shows though, the danger and risk we're running, with abt 40% of the US population currently thinking just like you, that for your own personal well-being, no matter what regime, anyone else can be sacrificed, with you keeping your mouth shut.
Wow, I try to prepare for a successful future and you compare that to being a nazi sympathizer. You people jump the shark daily. That's why rational people give you no credence.
 
Jan 2012
3,570
1,651
Vacaville, CA
#85
Socialism is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 provides for the government to own post offices. That function could have been provided by private entities, the equivalent of today’s FedEx or UPS, but the founding fathers decided that government ownership (socialism) was a better route.

Given that the much of the post office function has been replaced by the internet, one could extrapolate that original constitutional intent to suggest that the national government should establish an internet provider service.
 
Nov 2013
10,535
10,004
NY
#86
Wow, I try to prepare for a successful future and you compare that to being a nazi sympathizer. You people jump the shark daily. That's why rational people give you no credence.
Your inability to read and comrpehend is not my fault.

I did not compare you or call you a nazi sympathizer at ALL.. i pointed out that your thinking is dangerous, as it reflects what many NON-sympathizers of Hitler DID back then.. to protect themselves, and to ensure their OWN success at the time, despite what they thought about his actions.. as long as they themselves were not affected / in danger.
 
Sep 2018
653
185
cleveland ohio
#87
Wow, I try to prepare for a successful future and you compare that to being a nazi sympathizer. You people jump the shark daily. That's why rational people give you no credence.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy.[2][3] The argument is that a policy leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.
Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action.[4]
An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a reductio ad Hitlerum when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.[5]

 
Apr 2018
9,295
2,269
oregon
#89
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy.[2][3] The argument is that a policy leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.
Another instance of reductio ad Hitlerum is asking a question of the form "You know who else...?" with the deliberate intent of impugning a certain idea or action by implying Hitler held that idea or performed such action.[4]
An invocation of Hitler or Nazism is not a reductio ad Hitlerum when it illuminates the argument instead of causing distraction from it.[5]

Sorry, I don't read your cut&paste nonsense.
 
Apr 2018
9,295
2,269
oregon
#90
Socialism is embedded in the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, Section 8 provides for the government to own post offices. That function could have been provided by private entities, the equivalent of today’s FedEx or UPS, but the founding fathers decided that government ownership (socialism) was a better route.

Given that the much of the post office function has been replaced by the internet, one could extrapolate that original constitutional intent to suggest that the national government should establish an internet provider service.
The nature of government in general is socialist. We only argue over the degree of such (except the anarchists).